60th anniversary 1959 Les Pauls - Indian Rosewood vs. Bolivian Rosewood

Patek · Apr 5, 2019

J.D. said:
Brazilian is a very significant material of an original Burst DNA. Since each guitar is different, and BRW is only one component, it's not a valid argument whether or not the masses can positively identify every single guitar by fretboard wood. I doubt most people could distinguish between a lot of different tone woods. Doesn't mean jack. The frets are seated in this wood and it makes up a significant percentage of the neck structure, so it also is a factor on neck rigidity.

As Paul Reed Smith would ask, if the fretboard was made of rubber would it matter? Would it sound different? Yes. So we've established it matters. Now it's a question of how much.

It's these small differences that distinguish the "really good" guitars from "great" guitars. Sure, it is quite possible and practical to make excellent guitars from many different materials. But if you want an accurate Les Paul the fretboard is made from Brazilian.

agree with that.

That would get you closer to a burst, if you could compare one straight out of the store in 59 (which we can’t). If you capture the feel and sound of a burst today you will need to wait at least 60 years (or more than 100 years if you factor in old growth), and it will be close to a snapshot of a burst from today.

Wood is wood but old wood is old wood.

Unless you use old growth woods now (with +60 years). But what will never be captured no matter what you do even if you get a Bartlett accurate replica with old growth, is the 60 years of bonding; the neck and the top will have been bonded together like glass for so long now that there is a certain quality to that. I know with my 53 you can actually tell that the woods on this baby have been married together in a way that makes it resonate like running your finger over a crystal wine glass making a that sweet chime. You can’t build that part, I wouldn’t think...

for this conversation, we are comparing Indian vs Bolivian, both of which are incorrect woods to recreate a burst accurately. Considering that they are both wrong, I don’t think it makes much of a difference between the 2 (to me personally, or I wouldn’t have purchased) and a great piece of either wood (dark, light, resonant, etc) will yield a good result making for a great LP.

59shredandburn · Apr 5, 2019

There are re-issues out that sound every bit as good as an original '59 regardless of fretboard or age of wood period. Way too much hype going on here.

El Gringo · Apr 5, 2019

Also lets not forget how important of a role the vintage Gibson PAF pickups played in the ingredient or DNA of the tone of a vintage Les Paul .

brandtkronholm · Apr 5, 2019

59shredandburn said:
There are re-issues out that sound every bit as good as an original '59 regardless of fretboard or age of wood period. Way too much hype going on here.

+1

Solid body electric guitars don't really "age." The originals today sounded pretty much just like they did when new.

Beano was a seven year-old Les Paul in 1966.

JPP-1 · Apr 5, 2019

Some of the most stringent tests to determine efficacy are done by the Pharma Industry and there is something called the placebo or control group. This is done because human beings have a marvelous ability to imagine an effect that is non-existent.

"There is old wood and there is new wood" Really? How is that determined? I've never seen an objective test done where the age of a piece of tone wood could be determined by listening to it. So until that time, new wood vs old wood is different sonically would be considered absolutely 100% snake oil to people who value things like science and objective data, etc. Also, with all this talk of old wood, how does anyone know how old the wood in a 50's Les Paul, Special, or Les Paul Jr. really is? Is there a test? Old growth Mahogany was highly valued in certain industries for its strength which also correlates to density yet most Bursts are relatively light weight.

The only thing that is widely accepted is that Les Paul Standards built between 1958 and 1960, were constructed using Swietenia macrophylla, Dalbergia nigra, and Acer Saccharum. While I wouldn't build a Les Paul with Alder anymore than I'd build a D28 with Mahogany, I'm sure a highly talented luthier could build a superlative sounding Les Paul using a variety of highly resonant tonally related woods. Certain pieces of woods ring out and are resonant regardless of age or species which is why some Bursts are better sounding than others as some Historics are better sounding than others, etc. Gibson is building the best sounding Les Pauls since 1960. A great one is a great Les Paul second to none.

For those hung up on the age of woods. Here's a little perspective, ask yourself why a semihollow ES335 made of laminate maple can fool some people into thinking it's a Les Paul or an SG. A Burst is a highly collectable iconic original like a rare vintage Ferrari or Rolex. That is why they sell for 50 to 100x the cost of a Historic not because of how old the mahogany is.

El Gringo · Apr 5, 2019

JPP-1 , your last paragraph was spot on and perfect and I wish I knew the answer to that question ?

59shredandburn · Apr 6, 2019

JPP-1 said:
Some of the most stringent tests to determine efficacy are done by the Pharma Industry and there is something called the placebo or control group. This is done because human beings have a marvelous ability to imagine an effect that is non-existent.

"There is old wood and there is new wood" Really? How is that determined? I've never seen an objective test done where the age of a piece of tone wood could be determined by listening to it. So until that time, new wood vs old wood is different sonically would be considered absolutely 100% snake oil to people who value things like science and objective data, etc. Also, with all this talk of old wood, how does anyone know how old the wood in a 50's Les Paul, Special, or Les Paul Jr. really is? Is there a test? Old growth Mahogany was highly valued in certain industries for its strength which also correlates to density yet most Bursts are relatively light weight.

The only thing that is widely accepted is that Les Paul Standards built between 1958 and 1960, were constructed using Swietenia macrophylla, Dalbergia nigra, and Acer Saccharum. While I wouldn't build a Les Paul with Alder anymore than I'd build a D28 with Mahogany, I'm sure a highly talented luthier could build a superlative sounding Les Paul using a variety of highly resonant tonally related woods. Certain pieces of woods ring out and are resonant regardless of age or species which is why some Bursts are better sounding than others as some Historics are better sounding than others, etc. Gibson is building the best sounding Les Pauls since 1960. A great one is a great Les Paul second to none.

For those hung up on the age of woods. Here's a little perspective, ask yourself why a semihollow ES335 made of laminate maple can fool some people into thinking it's a Les Paul or an SG. A Burst is a highly collectable iconic original like a rare vintage Ferrari or Rolex. That is why they sell for 50 to 100x the cost of a Historic not because of how old the mahogany is.

This last paragraph says it all. Its the unique rareness and mystique that get them the money they are fetching it doesn't mean its a better guitar by no means and I truly think there are a lot of posers and ass kissers out there about the topic. I've never played an original burst but I ain't gonna b.s. myself and say all those videos with the real burst sound so much better than a re-issue....no way and let's not forget the amps effect on tone.

thin sissy · Apr 6, 2019

Good points!

I'm a "scientist", and have a healthy scepsism of most things. Of course I realize that no one in the audience is going to notice if what I play is vintage or new.

When playing through a Princeton Reverb at volume 4 or more, I can personally hear things in my 50's LP's that my modern ones have less of, and it's a kind of natural phaser effect almost. Kind of like how a piano can sometimes wiggle and sizzle the notes when they sustain. In that setting it's pretty appearant, but it's not going to make a difference in a gig.

What I, and I think most, like about vintage guitars is the feel and experience of playing them. It might make you more inspired as well, but it's not magical by any means. If the experience of an old guitar is worth it for you, then the guitar is worth the cost. At this point in my life, it is worth it and I never play my modern guitars anymore (which feels kind of sad in a way). But if times get tough, I'll have great modern guitars at least.

Kind of like eating a delicious meal vs. a plain one, both will feed you but the tasty one is going to be a nicer time.

(BTW, I know that vintage guitars aren't automatically "better experiences", new guitars are often awesome) :salude

renderit · Apr 6, 2019

thin sissy said:
Good points!

I'm a "scientist", and have a healthy scepsism of most things. Of course I realize that no one in the audience is going to notice if what I play is vintage or new.

When playing through a Princeton Reverb at volume 4 or more, I can personally hear things in my 50's LP's that my modern ones have less of, and it's a kind of natural phaser effect almost. Kind of like how a piano can sometimes wiggle and sizzle the notes when they sustain. In that setting it's pretty appearant, but it's not going to make a difference in a gig.

What I, and I think most, like about vintage guitars is the feel and experience of playing them. It might make you more inspired as well, but it's not magical by any means. If the experience of an old guitar is worth it for you, then the guitar is worth the cost. At this point in my life, it is worth it and I never play my modern guitars anymore (which feels kind of sad in a way). But if times get tough, I'll have great modern guitars at least.

Kind of like eating a delicious meal vs. a plain one, both will feed you but the tasty one is going to be a nicer time.

(BTW, I know that vintage guitars aren't automatically "better experiences", new guitars are often awesome) :salude

Excellent points and I agreed with almost everything.

I think there IS a magic with certain guitars.

SOME may make you a better player AND/OR inspire you to do things you have not before.

I have several in this category.

And only 1 is vintage.

The other 3 are new.

And not Gibsons...

thin sissy · Apr 6, 2019

renderit said:
Excellent points and I agreed with almost everything.

I think there IS a magic with certain guitars.

SOME may make you a better player AND/OR inspire you to do things you have not before.

I have several in this category.

And only 1 is vintage.

The other 3 are new.

And not Gibsons...

As always, you're on point ren. Between you and me, I DO have a 55 goldtop that I happen to think IS magical, but I'd like to think I'd love it as much if it wasn't vintage...

BTW, judging by your CS LP's, we have similar tastes in guitars. So... rock on, I guess :yah

brandtkronholm · Apr 6, 2019

thin sissy said:
I'm a "scientist", and have a healthy skepticism of most things.

+1 I'm also a scientist. In fact I'm a math professor.

thin sissy said:
...I can personally hear things in my 50's LP's that my modern ones have less of...

I have a 1959 ES345 and a 1995 R9 modified with wax-n-paper caps and PAFs. I've owned a few P90 Gold Tops and early '60s SGs (1961-1962) but I just couldn't get the sound I wanted from them. I personally heard things in my 50's LP's that my modern ones have more of...

thin sissy said:
...but it's not going to make a difference in a gig.

It makes a difference to me and therefore it makes a difference in a gig. (But I know what you mean!)

thin sissy said:
What I, and I think most, like about vintage guitars is the feel and experience of playing them. It might make you more inspired as well, but it's not magical by any means.

We disagree again. It is magical. in the other thread "Bottom line - can a 59 Les Paul burst be produced today ?" https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?211415-Bottom-line-can-a-59-Les-Paul-burst-be-produced-today this is where a modern guitar may diverge from an old guitar. But then again, the magic I encounter on my 1995 R9 is not less than that which I encounter with my 1959 ES345.

thin sissy said:
(BTW, I know that vintage guitars aren't automatically "better experiences", new guitars are often awesome) :salude

Indeed, one of the remarkable (short-term) '50s Gibson experiences I've ever had was playing an early '80s Paul Reed Smith. It came from Maryland in the '80s and not Michigan in the '50s, but wow, it felt and responded just like a '50s Les Paul - even when plugged in.

I actually enjoy this old :dh discussion! :applaude

JRiggio · May 2, 2019

Attila said:
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Pau Ferro is even a rosewood (despite having an appearance similar to rosewood).

You are correct: Pau Ferro is an entirely different wood than Bolivian Rosewood

thin sissy · May 2, 2019

brandtkronholm said:
+1 I'm also a scientist. In fact I'm a math professor.

I have a 1959 ES345 and a 1995 R9 modified with wax-n-paper caps and PAFs. I've owned a few P90 Gold Tops and early '60s SGs (1961-1962) but I just couldn't get the sound I wanted from them. I personally heard things in my 50's LP's that my modern ones have more of...

It makes a difference to me and therefore it makes a difference in a gig. (But I know what you mean!)

We disagree again. It is magical. in the other thread "Bottom line - can a 59 Les Paul burst be produced today ?" https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?211415-Bottom-line-can-a-59-Les-Paul-burst-be-produced-today this is where a modern guitar may diverge from an old guitar. But then again, the magic I encounter on my 1995 R9 is not less than that which I encounter with my 1959 ES345.

Indeed, one of the remarkable (short-term) '50s Gibson experiences I've ever had was playing an early '80s Paul Reed Smith. It came from Maryland in the '80s and not Michigan in the '50s, but wow, it felt and responded just like a '50s Les Paul - even when plugged in.

I actually enjoy this old :dh discussion! :applaude

I somehow missed this post, sorry about that. I actually think we're on the same page, and I also enjoy these discussions. Thank you for your insights! (BTW I'm impressed that anyone can become a math professor, I really had to force myself through the math courses in university :yah )

Jamme61 · May 7, 2019

Which looks the best? I like darker - tone wise I don’t know

Patek · May 7, 2019

Jamme61 said:
Which looks the best? I like darker - tone wise I don’t know

tone wise it’s impossible to tell unless you removed the piece and stuck on a different fretboard. I have Indian, braz, and now this Bolivian. The latest (bolivian) is darkest

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/owpcCXu

Victor Cpt · May 24, 2019

This review is interesting. Talk about Bolivian Rosewood.
https://guitar.com/review/electric-...stom-60th-anniversary-1959-les-paul-standard/

J.D. · May 24, 2019

What's Gibson supposed to say about it?

There are a whole heck of a lot of good, even great, sounding guitars available both new and used for a fraction of the price of a Gibson historic reissue.

That is not the same as historic accuracy.

It's ironic how people here sweat over every tiny little detail but the correct SPECIES of wood is somehow unimportant. Unreal.

Virus · Feb 20, 2020

Rich R · Feb 24, 2020

Patek said:
So far on the 60ths I’ve seen in Germany the Bolivian boards are extremely dark, a lot darker than the RW option LPs

My experience, too. They are super-dark, which many prefer on a LP. Also, the denser wood will be subtly different in resonance. Someone called it "snappier", and that may be the case, I don't know. Personally, if I was buying, I would prefer the Bolivian board, mostly for the color and texture.

One caveat: most of the Bolivian models on the heavy-volume sites (CME, Sweetwater, etc) have been on the heavy side (as much as 9lbs), so if that's a concern, keep it in mind. Locating one that was on the lighter end, in one's desired color, would be a find and worth jumping on. Good hunting!

Patek · Feb 25, 2020

Virus said:
Hello the forum! I present myself for the first time even if I have been lating you for 10 years! I just want to speak about the famous Bolivian Rosewood which is none other than Pao Ferro. I have been a luthier in Switzerland for many years. We have had a lot of problems with the Dalbergia Rosewood over the past two years because of the Cités standards. But all these standards have been abandoned for finished musical instruments (late 2019) Just to tell you that the Pao ferro is more expensive to buy than the Indian rosewood but is not at all the same wood (much harder and capricious in the long run than the rosewood) I had countless problems already back then with the Fender SRV who had Pao Ferro, we never knew what it came from but the sleeves worked very badly in time (impossible to adjust) almost all the sleeves of strat SRV we ended up deforming in a very strange way. Last year many manufacturers used Pao ferro for keys and again handle defects appeared much more than normal. I am and am not the only luthier who thinks that Pao ferro is not optimal for the touch of a guitar. But where I'm really upset is when I see that Gibson offers this on custom shop that says ultra high end and perfect reproduction!!! Excuse me, but it's totally nonsense! You have 100x better time to take a twist rosewood in two parts like some 2012 (not all) I checked many of 2012 that are a single piece of rosewood... than a touch in Pao ferro which first is not at all historic correct but in addition is not good in the long run on a guitar... and I'm not even talking to you about a refrettage on Pao ferro (the key leaves small pieces at the extraction of the frets) in short get away from Pao ferro on models (pseudo historic)

suhr have been using pao ferro almost exclusively for the past 10 to 15 years in lieu of rosewood on all of their customshop models. I think you’re talking shit

60th anniversary 1959 Les Pauls - Indian Rosewood vs. Bolivian Rosewood

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

In the Zone/Backstage Pass

Active member