Another question for all you burst gurus

Highway Star said:

Well, I didn't say anything like that at all. But it is a fact that they used sandwich bodys and three piece necks etc. in the 70's. That alone makes them poorly made in comparison of a 50's Les Paul. Then I said if you love a guitar then play it. If it feels and sound good it is good. No matter if it is from the 50's 70's or from last week. It's up to the player to decide that.

Click to expand...

bern1 said:

This.
After 30 some years of playing only golden era guitars, I walked into a Guitar Center and asked to play a historic Les Paul. This was a dozen years ago maybe. I was blown away by the guitar. It didn’t feel or sound exactly like a burst, but it was a great guitar. I remember thinking to myself that if I could have bought a guitar that felt and sounded this good in the 70’s, I Amy not Beverly embarked on the vintage quest in the same way, as rewarding as it has been.

Click to expand...

Big Al said:

No you are completely wrong. Typical "facts" recited by those that cannot see beyond 1960. The knock on 70's guitars was always that they were not exactly made like a 50's. They are beautifully made and are quality guitars using quality materials and the construction techniques thought to be superior.

The "fact" is that even today, multilaminate wood solidbody instruments are they top dogs in modern design. The best bass guitars follow this template almost exclusively, like Alembic, and guitars not seeking to emulate vintage designs.

Just because a Les Paul isn't made exactly like a 59 doesn't mean it is inferior, or lesser quality. It only means it isn't a vintage type or replica. A 50' Les Paul has it's own thing going on. Tone and vibe. Best way to get that is vintage or new Gibson replicas.

Don't confuse vintage lust with quality. Sometimes you need to put away the 1959 goggles, open your eyes, ears and mind.

Click to expand...

Highway Star said:

I might be wrong but to me the 70's LP's is a consequence os cutting production costs which affects quality to various degrees. Maple necks and sanwich bodies etc.

Click to expand...

Highway Star said:

I might be wrong but to me the 70's LP's is a consequence os cutting production costs which affects quality to various degrees. Maple necks and sanwich bodies etc. Again that doesn't mean that a specific guitar sounds or feels bad.

Click to expand...

Progrocker111 said:

Actually, both changes were thought as upgrades. They then stopped pancake bodies finally in early 1977, because it actually raised the manufacturing costs and 3 piece maple necks were less prone to cracks and were very rigid.

Click to expand...

deytookerjaabs said:

The pancake body done the Norlin way is a more expensive method of production, cutting costs would be using thinner blocks on a multi ply versus the usual Norlin method. Some with thinner blocks did squeeze through they're the exception, not the norm. Most I've seen/held are 1 piece bods (the SAME cut of wood) halved horizontally then either grain matched or flipped 180 though I don't know what the logic was behind the grain orientation but there's something to it. Vertical neck lams are tough to do too, gotta have perfect center lines. Then add in all the other changes in the 70's and to me it's obvious Norlin was either throwing cash at Gibson or at the least Gibson was doing pretty well. I'll give you a 3 piece top I suppose but 2 piece was always a dealer option, they're out there!


If you want to save money on building a Les Paul you scarf the headstock, the heel, use thinner 2-3-4 piece bod, substitute woods, substitute inlay/binding materials, cheaper hardware, use poly as a grain filler, etc etc. All that Norlin stuff from the dark/dense red mahoganies to the crossbanding to the hefty hardware wasn't cheap by any stretch. Though I can understand why folks have a sound/feel preference to the 50's, it's not doing due diligence when vintage "experts" claim everything not "golden era" was a method of cost cutting, total nonsense. Had I grown up in that era, I probably would've preferred the older guitars too, but I like them broken in.


Guitars aren't like Ice Cream, you can't cut the size of a quart and not have people notice. Usually, when cutting costs, you try to keep the product on par while cutting everything from workplace lawsuits to taxes to labor on and on. Meanwhile, engineer efficient production methods. All that stuff will save far more money than the few dollars here or there on a part that's a few cents less or 1/2 inch length of wood on a neck, those conspiracy theories are ridiculous.


Anyways, I liked your 335 idea, now that's thinkin!!! If you're super picky and end up with the right ES you might not miss any other guitars.

Click to expand...

DEVILBAT said:

I own a 1960 burst...0-7442. I'll be keeping it until I lease this planet.
However,a few years back, in 2013, I felt a need a couple of years back to buy a "New" Les Paul, to play out or travel with when playing the burst out or traveling with was not a practical thing for me to do. I do gig with my burst; and I love playing it out as much as possible. But there are times when circumstance prohibits me from taking it out.

So, after trying out a bunch of the Gibson Collector's Choice, or "CC" series, I decided to purchase a new 2013 Les Paul CC #7, the John Shanks LP. Man, it is a killer guitar. Although the original Shanks burst is a '60, it is an earlier one than mine and maintains 59 specs. A perfect neck for me and a killer sound and playability, and I really like the look of it. To me, it is as real as playing a vintage Les Paul. I absolutly love mine and, for around $4500, you could find a used one. They are great guitars. Just my 2 cents...

My 2013 Shanks CC #7....great guitars.

Click to expand...