1980 LP Standard

I'm in the process of building an instrument very much like my 1980 LP Standard that I gigged with for many years. I've pretty much got the specs down except for the neck material/shape.

When I google it, I find some folks say it was mahogany ... others say 3 piece maple.

Does anyone know definitively what the neck shape/profile was ... as well as the material and if it was 1 pc, 3 pc, etc?

Thanks!

Skip la

How many years did you gig with it??


The confusion is which model Standard you gigged with but failed to notice the neck wood material, construction or even remember the shape or profile after gigging with it for many years. I'm left wondering what was so remarkable, if not memorable that you want to attempt to recreate it rather than find one.


I'll try to give some answers, but would ask how you know it was a 1980 yom. Did you buy it new or used? In 1980 there were 3 Standard models. I'll give general specs to see if one jogs your memory and then you can gather more info.

1 Les Paul Standard. Basically the same as preceeding Standards back to '77. Three piece thin maple neck, 14 degree rake for large headstock with volute.

2 Heritage Standard 80. New ltd.ed. model first attempt at a factory offered 1959 Reissue. Lots of changes including neck which was three piece mahogany, 59 full rounded profile with SP1 narrow 17 degree rake, no volute.

3 Heritage Standard 80 Elite. Same as above with neck spec of one piece mahogany and ebony fingerboard.

Just basic stuff, but you can see why the confusion.

Thanks for your response, Big Al.

It was #1, a plain Std that I purchased new at Mannys NYC July 1980.

Gigged with it 15 years or so; didn't pay much attention to those things I guess back then

So that would be thin three piece maple. Same as the one I bought in 78. I still have my Heritage Standard 80, well it's here but I gave it to my son.

Big Al,

Thanks for the info, much appreciated!!

BTW, besides being an exceptional sounding/playing instrument, that LP had excellent sustain. Any ideas why? I do remember changing out the pickups it came with to Duncans JB in the bridge and PAF in the neck, but the "sustain factor" was already there prior to the pickup changes.

Also, what do you call the neck profile? Is it a slim taper similar to the current CS '63 SG Custom RI's?

I just remembered that I used 13-56 gauge strings on that guitar (had to work my way up to those).

Best,

Skip la

skip777 said:

Big Al,

Thanks for the info, much appreciated!!

BTW, besides being an exceptional sounding/playing instrument, that LP had excellent sustain. Any ideas why? I do remember changing out the pickups it came with to Duncans JB in the bridge and PAF in the neck, but the "sustain factor" was already there prior to the pickup changes.

Also, what do you call the neck profile? Is it a slim taper similar to the current CS '63 SG Custom RI's?

Best,

Skip la

Click to expand...

My '80 Standard that I used to have had a very slim D profile 3-piece maple neck if that helps.

skip777 said:

Big Al,

Thanks for the info, much appreciated!!

BTW, besides being an exceptional sounding/playing instrument, that LP had excellent sustain. Any ideas why? I do remember changing out the pickups it came with to Duncans JB in the bridge and PAF in the neck, but the "sustain factor" was already there prior to the pickup changes.

Also, what do you call the neck profile? Is it a slim taper similar to the current CS '63 SG Custom RI's?

I just remembered that I used 13-56 gauge strings on that guitar (had to work my way up to those).

Best,

Skip la

Click to expand...

Why such excessively heavy strings? What benefits do they offer?

Sustain is a result of the tight build. Stiff neck, deeply set into a rigid stble body, however those strings are sustain killers, unless you tuned down to D or C.

The profile close to 60's Slim Taper, a consistent, shallow C with little thickening at all towards heel. That thin neck wasn't made for such heavy strings.

Why are you trying to replicate a guitar you seem unable to remember? It strikes me as odd.

Ive been using 009's for 2 decades now; can't even imagine doing the 13's