• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Les Paul Faded

Triplet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,675
I always considered the Fadeds as ugly Classics... I thought the video sounded horrid. Over processed - no depth.
 

davidbdaniels

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
2
I've heard that due to the finishing process or lack there of the wood resonates the sound better. Not sure about all that but I have a 2005 that I bought new and it sounds great. I ran it through an x-ray at a place I used to work and took pics of the image. It has 9 holes that look to be about an inch in diameter for weight relief. It weighs 8.4 pounds.
 

Attachments

  • P6180035.jpg
    P6180035.jpg
    50.6 KB · Views: 31
  • IMG_0779.jpg
    IMG_0779.jpg
    37.6 KB · Views: 50

metropolis

Active member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
390
I've played two and love them. First is a 2007-ish my friend owns, and the second a short run in 2016 that I believe was a dealer exclusive that I bought for my father. Firstly I think they look incredible with the satin finish; the 2007 being a flamey top and the 2016 a plaintop with some interesting depth. I really like the feel which I appreciate is not for everyone as you can really feel the pores, but I like it and it'll smooth out over time I'm sure. Sound wise I'd say they sound warmer with less top end but that could be psychological and I've not exactly done a scientific comparison, just played back to back with a few of my more standard LPs.
 
Last edited:

bern1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
1,275
Saw and played a friend’s 2005 about 10 years ago and totally appreciated the guitar. Was very resonant, felt and sounded great. I knew I would wind up with one.

Finally bought a 2007 I liked off reverb a couple of years ago. When I got it, it felt just like the first one I played, very light and responsive. So I think it is definitely something in the way those guitars are built. I haven’t played any others but it seems a lot of people feel this way about them.

I personally like that mat kind of finish but I can see how that might not be everybody’s cup of tea.
 

BlueGuitar!

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Messages
74
These were 9-hole weight relief until late 2007 (I believe october might be the cut-off date) when they started chambering them. The reason some of these sell for 2k+ is if it's the non-chambered variety maybe with an especially nice top.
 

Scott L

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
880
These were 9-hole weight relief until late 2007 (I believe october might be the cut-off date) when they started chambering them. The reason some of these sell for 2k+ is if it's the non-chambered variety maybe with an especially nice top.


Chambering started with late 2006s. 2007 AFAIK were all Chambered, there were a few 2008 early in the year and it seems they were a mix of Chambered and 9 Hole Weight Relief.
 

bern1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
1,275
Is there a difference in the way the guitar feels or sounds between 9 hole and chambered?
 

davidbdaniels

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
2
Is there a difference in the way the guitar feels or sounds between 9 hole and chambered?
I don't think they feel any different, except lighter. A 50s neck is a 50's neck and a 60's is a 60's. The big difference I noticed is the chambered ones are brighter like a 335. I originally thought they would have more bass but they don't. I think they both sound great depending on what sound you're after.
 

bern1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
1,275
Cool and interesting if they are brighter. Will have to pay attention. I thought it was bright when I got it and thought it was due to the Burstbuckers. I have covered Seymour Antiquities in it now. Probably a few clicks of tone or volume in it either way.
 
Top