1996 Les Paul binding on neck but not on body

Digieditny · Dec 28, 2018

Hi everyone. Nice to meet you all. I'm new to the forum. I just traded my jazzmaster for a 1996 les paul. I was told it was a standard. The body is beat to hell and it was painted black really badly. Like really bad. I was told it originally had a natural finish. The neck is in good condition and it plays amazing. How can I tell it's an actual standard? Th neck had trapezoid inlays and binding. The body doesn't have binding.

metropolis · Dec 28, 2018

Under the pickups you may find hand written markings denoting the model and original colour.

Under the bridge pickup mine says std+ for Standard Plus, while under the neck pickup it says LB for Light Burst.

Digieditny · Dec 29, 2018

Thanks for the reply! Under the bridge pickup it says LPST and under the neck it says EB 14? Here are some photos https://i.imgur.com/6jlysKk.jpg https://imgur.com/a/7YUbdOg

I've been chatting on another forum and it seems like people think it's a studio that someone had binding added to the neck. That seems crazy! What are your thoughts? Cheers!

fred dons · Dec 29, 2018

are you sure there is no binding under the paint ?

grimlyflick · Dec 29, 2018

I’d be asking for my Jazzmaster back. :hee

Billy Porter · Dec 29, 2018

mmmmm……….
What looks like bonding at first glance looks like the maple cap. The heel looks like it was also painted black with the neck and back being sanded than coated with the back of the headstock left black

LPST - Les Paul Studio perhaps ?

The front of headstock with a new decal ?

Others here know more than me and should pipe up but my guess is it was an all ebony/black LP studio

Digieditny · Dec 29, 2018

No binding under the paint. Someone exposed the maple underneath to make it look like binding I guess... I measured the body thickness and it's the size of a studio.

Hah no getting back the Jazzmaster. You don't know the condition that one was in. :hee This plays beautifully though. The ugly ones do more stuff. Also applies to guitars.

Yes I also think it was a studio but I think it's a new neck but I'm not sure. The stinger in the back is super fake I think. I wrote Gibson and I'll let this thread know what their response is.

Mars Hall · Dec 29, 2018

Those mid 90's Studio are the closest thing to a Standard, than any other years. I believe only the binding separates it from being a Standard. There are several threads here, on the subject, giving more detail.

Digieditny · Dec 30, 2018

Thanks Mars. I'll definitely do a search! Thanks so much for the reply!

metropolis · Dec 30, 2018

I'm glad the mystery was solved so quickly. The lack of binding made me suspect it was a Studio but I didn't want to say without being sure. At least you're happy with the guitar. I think it looks cool and you have plenty of nice extras on there too.

zacknorton · Dec 30, 2018

Mystery Solved???

Do tell. Is it a new neck? Or maybe a refret+ binding?

metropolis · Dec 30, 2018

No, it's a Studio.

Digieditny · Dec 31, 2018

Here is Gibson's response...

The serial number is indeed consistent with a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio model in Ebony finish, which would have come without binding from the factory. I have attached information on the model for your viewing. Note the 1996 model has a Rosewood fingerboard(it is listed as Ebony on the spec sheet). Thanks, and I hope this helps!

https://imgur.com/a/kTbEGmT

So it's a studio with binding added after the fact.

The only thing now that's a mystery is the body no? It's black on top, exposed maple on the edges, and mahogany on the sides and back. Was that how it came from Gibson?

metropolis · Jan 2, 2019

Given the serial number and markings on the body match up, could it have been either a special order or a mistake to have the binding added to the neck? I'd be surprised if someone got the binding added afterwards, and especially done the Gibson way of having it go over the fret ends.

Digieditny · Jan 2, 2019

metropolis said:
Given the serial number and markings on the body match up, could it have been either a special order or a mistake to have the binding added to the neck? I'd be surprised if someone got the binding added afterwards, and especially done the Gibson way of having it go over the fret ends.

Thanks Metropolis. Wouldn't the Gibson support person have known it was a special order? I have no idea if they can or not... With that said, the binding is not perfect. Look at the pics showing the binding close to the body of the guitar. The dots aren't straight. I have no idea if that's an effect of a 20 year old guitar or if it's just a shitty binding job. I have an 81 Sheraton from Japan, and the binding on that one is pristine. That makes me think it's the latter.

metropolis · Jan 3, 2019

I don't know how closely they look at serial numbers to be honest. I have seen responses in the past where they haven't given any real information in response.

I see what you mean about that dot. The binding on my 2015 Les Paul isn't perfect either but it's more the way they finished it than having a dot completely out of position.

1996 Les Paul binding on neck but not on body

Digieditny

New member

metropolis

Active member

Digieditny

New member

fred dons

Active member

grimlyflick

Well-known member

Billy Porter

Well-known member

Digieditny

New member

Mars Hall

Active member

Digieditny

New member

metropolis

Active member

zacknorton

Active member

metropolis

Active member

Digieditny

New member

metropolis

Active member

Digieditny

New member

metropolis

Active member