What is the best gibson model for 3000 - 3500 dollars

Will you guys excuse me I would like to go play some of my Tite Bond TONE TURDS , I only play my 2014 & up guitars on my Birthday !

Think about it won't you....... please ?

I do believe the evolution of the Historic Les Paul is not Kool - aid and the guitars have improved yearly !

I went Historic Hunting maybe a week or two ago, it's fun to do around Nashville. All '17/'18 models (plus a couple used), 4 new ones at GC, 3 new at Corner Music and 2 or 3 at Carter's. They had a definite range in unplugged resonance/loudness you'd find in a batch of very similar guitars, one in particular had slightly more noticeable projection and it was a '17 I think...it was also the plainest jane with a bright brown 'board. But, I liked them all when plugged in yet wasn't head over heels as the range between them was similar to other batches of brand new guitars I've checked out over the years when the stars line up. They were all easy on the eyes. Oh, my least favorite was a used murphy aged one, think a '16...but dayum was it photogenic. Those new pickups are a bit more bright in the neck and "wooly" for lack of better terms.

I think I still liked the '07 or so R7 at another shop more than the new ones I scoped out but it's more expensive than the new guitars!

SO...I have no good advice as for me much of appreciation is aesthetic in nature. Plus, I'm not the Simon Cowell of guitar hunting, I like that they sound different as that's the whole point.I don't hear the endless note bloom of hide glue or the deadening of the truss condom or the lack of brazilian or the superb tone transfer of the inch of tenon or whatever..I hear ever so subtle variations in ADSR/Overtones/Fundamental in a batch of nice sounding late 50's style lesters.


I ended up taking a chance on a highly inferior single cut and am by some miracle in love with it, though one of these days a historic will make it's way back just on looks alone, lol. Don't be afraid to play the field.




If I was REALLY devoted to a Historic at the moment I'd try to save $$ and wait to see if some braz's (especially the gold tops look to die for) sit around long enough for clearance prices but obviously that's about double your budget.

70 - 74 Les Paul Custom. :worm

Progrocker111 said:

70 - 74 Les Paul Custom. :worm

Click to expand...

This is the correct answer :dude:

All reissue 2013 use the new standards , I bought my first reissue from the music zoo in 2013 , I was made aware all '13's use the hyde glue construction , un sheathed sans tube , aniline dye , custom bucker pick ups , inlays , tuners . These guitars are great .

I'm not a pro. But I did own a '13 R9 (used/mint), '14 R8 (new), 2004 R7 GT (used/VG+) and a '91 '59 Flametop Reissue a.k.a. 'pre-Historic' (tons of honest wear). All were great players. The difference were more noticeable in their sound. The '14 R8 was the brightest of the bunch with the R9 coming in a close second. I attributed that mostly to the CB's because after I swapped them out of the R8 things warmed up a bunch. However those newer guitars remained the brightest of the bunch which can be good or bad depending on what you like. For me to like them I could never play them with the tone knobs up on 10.

The one thing I did not like on both of those newer R's were the fretboards which I found to be over porous and for lack of a better term, "cheap looking". Also on these guitars the necks would move on me from time to time and adjustments were needed to get them back to their best playability. The two guitars I speak of below were the opposite, more set it and forget it. I'm thinking it was because those guitars are older.

The '04 R7 was able to achieve the lowest string action without buzzing and was great guitar feel and sound wise for not having the newer appointments. I would describe it's tone as more organic than the '13-'14 guitars. It also had the darkest, most slickest Rosewood I've ever seen. This guitar, like the R8, ended up having P.A.F. re-pros installed. Only the R9 kept it's original CB's.

The '91 is in my opinion was the best of the batch and the only one I ended up keeping. It has, for me, the most perfect neck profile, somewhere in between an R0 and an R9 and is a dream to play post the 12th fret. It also sounds the best by a long shot and has more of the LP sound in my head. It's very clear without any wooly tones or over brightness. Btw, it was also the heaviest weighing in at 9lbs, 3oz. It has a hand wound set of poly wire boutiques, sort of designed after early Shaw's.

Bottom line: I wouldn't shy away from an older RI LP. But I would try to play before buying.

mustachio said:

Not to be confusing, sure there are great histories made prior to 2014, but for consistency and risking a purchase sight unseen, I think post-2013 will provide you a better chance of not buying a lemon. Prior to 2013 has Franklin Tite Bond glued necks, Burstbuckers (not as good as custombuckers), low tolerance pots, tubed truss rods and bright red stained mahogany backs and necks. By themselves, any of those issues aren’t a deal breaker, but the sum total of those deficiencies may lead to a higher probability of getting an average or difficult to play Les Paul. I’ve had over 10 Custom Shop les Paul’s over the years and I’ll take the Pepsi challenge that better Les pauls on the whole are from 2013 and beyond. THAT ALL BEING SAID...I do think you might have a good experience with finding a chambered Les Paul prior to 2013. Take it with a grain of salt to make it taste better on the way down. Sorry if I offended any pre-2013 owners, but if you’ve ever played a True Historic, you’d know it’s not skunk oil I’m selling. Why do you Historic Makeovers does
so much business? They’d have no business model without those earlier LPs. Minimize your risk of not getting the best Les Paul with your hard earned money. And if you see an early Les Paul just try it first if you can.

Click to expand...

Instead of getting hung up on specs you don't understand and guitars you clearly don't why not leave the myth and misinformation stuff out of the equation. If you are only concerned with paper specs and not guitars playability or tone, fine, find the spec you deem important and go for it. But anyone who has sampled Les Paul Reissues from 94 till now can tell you they ALL have the same odds of being the guitar you would like, it is not dependent upon year of manufacture. Dodgy, inconsistent? I strongly disagree and would take your Pepsi challenge. The sum total of that whole spiel is self serving elitist chest thumping. But yeah, that bright red stain is a tone killer! Custombuckers better than Burstbuckers? That is, again, completely subjective and based more upon flavor of the month than fact.

You may be of the opinion that is so, and that is fine, opinions aren't truth or fact except in ones own view, but stating it as fact or truth is wrong no matter the opinion. AVERAGE? How so? Difficult to play, again, HOW? Just paper spec collectors, nothing more.

I am no expert!!!!

Butt I have been playing guitar for 37 years and I have
played about 20 to 25 Gibson Les Pauls.

I have never ever encountered a bad sounding LP.

Different but never bad.

Jimmy

I have to add that specs year by year are not relevant because it's all about the tone and feel .You would really be surprised at a historic from say in the 90's or a early 00's or even newer . I also have to add that necks move regardless if it's a high end custom or a regular USA production model which can be a pain if you have to send it out to a tech for work .