"Painted over" Les Pauls

I don’t know... I don’t find them /that/ objectionable.

Although I'm not a fan of relicing (but admire the work done) I think some aging is not entirely bad in the case of hardware parts. I have an old Les Paul Studio and when I got it back in the day it was second hand but in great condition, except for some hanger burns in the base of the headstock. Almost immediately I swapped the black hardware for a TonePros Chrome (I don't like black hardware). At that time I didn't knew about the best materials for bridges or tailpieces, little I knew that chrome hardware don't age. After all these years that guitar has aged pretty well, some parts are showing the bare wood and the nitro is well cracked is several areas. It's a pretty well used instrument, but the chrome tonepros bridge and tailpiece never aged, always looked brand new and that started to look really weird in contrast of the guitar entire body and neck and I hated that. I hate chrome.

I never liked the Nashville bridge look, always too massive in conflict of the overall aesthetics, and I had to raise the tailpiece way too high to avoid the strings to touch it, so I decided to change it for a faber and chose the aged version for like $5 more and now it looks really good like the bridge is on par with the age and use of the guitar.

I know I could have bought the shiny nickel bridge and in 3 or 4 months all that shine would disappear, but I wanted it to look right just right away.

EDIT: And now I realize that this is a 3 year old post...

Big Al said:

Eh, it's an option for thems that like this kinda thing. Like many cosmetic treatments that I find daft, like fake aging and this paint over, I have the option to opt out and those that find it cool or desirable have the option to indulge.

I have no problems with options or factory custom runs. It wasn't done for me.

Click to expand...

[QUOTE = Xpensive Wino; 2761206]http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2017/Custom/Les-Paul-Standard-Painted-Over.aspx [/ QUOTE]