What is heavy or light in a Les Paul?

LILY'S color. . .

Ronny said:

Dan is the color in the pic pretty close to the "real life" color of LILY?
Nice looking wood. spin

Click to expand...

Ronny: Yes, LILY looks exactly like the picture. There is a special rich-ness in that piece of wood. I credit that to it being old red-maple ("sugar maple" we called it) from the UP in Michigan that is rift-cut with a wide irregular flame. Although it is a perfect book-match (I sawed and thicknessed it myself), the flames do not match perfectly because of what was lost in thicknessing.

Pretty typical look for alot of Les Pauls according to ones I have seen in shows, on RARE occasions live, and in Yas's book. However, it hadn't occurred to me until this thread that it might be dorky to keep posting pictures of a guitar - especially the same guitar.

I can imagine this scenario . . . "Like . . . why doesn't Dan get a life? So what he's got a Les Paul finally - like the rest of us? Besides, his ain't even that good lookin', y'know? Geez, a few months ago I don't think he knew the difference between an R9 and an R8 . . . or you sure couldn't tell from his posts."


I will stop on the dorky guitar posts, and only post tech-pics as I usually do. And when I think I have something that might help out someone else as it did me.

I am ignorant. I don't retain alot of vintage facts and stuff, (like Martin serial numbers . . . used to know them by heart when I was a kid). I don't even know how many original Humbucker-equipped Gold-tops and Sunbursts were made between 1957 and 1960. I am sure that I must have read it somewhere. Off the top of my head I am guessing that - and this is guessing - 1300 sunburst Les Pauls were made back then? I could be way off.

Think how many thousands more have been made since. I don't know a whole bunch about WHEN a Les Paul made in Nashville became desireable, and became a cut above the average prodcution stuff, etc. I am guessing around 1990? Or the late 80s? I am guessing that Phil Jones must have been involved with the early stuff that was good, along with Tom Murphy, and perhaps JT Ribbiloff?

I remember "dot-neck" re-issues being pretty cool back then, but I wasn't paying any attention to Les Pauls. I would hope that every year these historics get better. And I would certainly like to think that what the Custom Shop learns they pass on down the street to production so that the more-affordable production model Les Pauls are as great as the others. Then Gibson would have come full-circle on the Les Paul-making thing.

Are the production Les Pauls improving year by year? Significantly? See, I have a friend who wants to buy his kid his first Les Paul, but not in the Historic price-range. What is the best entry level Les Paul model?

dan

Dan

Les Paul DICK! said:

Scott... did someone put some pissy sauce in your Cap'n Crunch today????

Click to expand...

No shit!

Re: LILY'S color. . .

Dan Erlewine said:

Ronny: Yes, LILY looks exactly like the picture. There is a special rich-ness in that piece of wood. I credit that to it being old red-maple ("sugar maple" we called it) from the UP in Michigan that is rift-cut with a wide irregular flame. Although it is a perfect book-match (I sawed and thicknessed it myself), the flames do not match perfectly because of what was lost in thicknessing.

Click to expand...

Dan I did not ever consider why the flames on a bookmatched top do not always line up just right. But, I sure have wondered about it over the years. Not to mention the "other" info in just this one paragraph that I have quoted. If you and the other members stop making posts like this then the LPF will definately suffer in the long run.

Scott obviously is a bit sensitive at this time about the state of endangered wood in the world and I respect that also. Continue to show pictures of your beauty whenever you like along with ALL the members who can post pics. I know I enjoy them! :dude

Ronny

Hello 2002s,
At our house a 7.8 lb cat would be considered malnourished...maybe your referring to a kitten btw, I just weighed my '69 custom and its 9.4 ounces...
Happy Holidays,
Gary

Dan

There's nothing dorky about your pictures or your thread.

I hoped people would come here to talk guitar, Les Pauls in particular.

Despite your fame in repair circles I'd like to think your a regular guy. Your general thoughts about LP's and playing and just enjoying the instrument might be interesting.

Dont stop posting conversation. Some of us might just want to chat a bit.

Regarding your friends kid, look into a Studio.

New $1000 used $550-$750 depending on condition.

The Studio does all the LP stuff and well enough to gig with.

About a year or so ago they changed the body thickness and than changed it back. I like the ones that are normal thickness.

As with all things in life as you spend more hopfully you get more.

The Studio is a good starting point as far as I'm concerned perhaps a Standard will be better.

Either way the kid will be thrilled to death.

It is amazing but every time this question is asked, it ends up with no good answer... Some people say it means nothing and some say it is extremely important... As many times as I see it I simply can not understand how people can say it means nothing... Weight in two identical guitars with identical hardware could only come back to wood density and make up... Saying these mean nothing in the overall tone and sustain of a guitar is crazy talk... They are both critical factors and for me, it is a natural equation of less dense, more space... More space, more ability to resonate and so on... I am sure some of the pancake bodies were made of some nice wood and could therefore sound good and I also assume there are people that like the overall properties the heavier woods offer but they most certainly influence the overall tone and abilities of the guitar... Granted, the tone properties of a guitar is influenced by far more than simple weight alone... I find that wood, weight and neck are all huge factors. Rest assured however, each one matters and weight is no exception... To each his (her) own on the rest of the matter...

Of course asking if 8.7lbs is light or heavy varies with each generation of Les Paul owners.
In 1959 it would have been considered ..what? medium to heavy?
In 1976 it would have been considered very lightweight
In 2002 it's considered medium.
In 2023 perhaps super lightweight, 11 pounders are in, Norlins rule? lol

?

Hmmm, I basically think people should just sleep with their hands ABOVE the covers at night. Bringing NASA in on the whole weight thing is kinda pointless. If you need a lightweight one because of a physical thing (back problems etc), find the best sounding one in the weight you need, and if you're a he-man type, just find the best sounding one regardless of the weight...period. Now, wasn't that easy?spin

It's really funny, the people who are bitching about the weight, more than half of them I'm sure, don't even use a strap- they play sitting down, and they don't gig.
I can see lpnv59's desire for a light one- he gigs all the time and he's got major back problems. But the vast majority of players here play on the couch.

Joe Ganzler said:

- and we haven't EVEN discussed the "other half of the gear equation", that being the amp. . .Most of the amps that I hear people playing through these days tend to "homogenize" ALL guitars of a particular ilk into sounding VERY similar. VERY few amps allow the guitar/wood/pickups/other parts to "breathe", and actually perform a TRUE "A-B" comparison; this includes MANY vintage amps too, in my experience.

Click to expand...

Are '57 Tweed Twins good ones that let your guitar breathe, Joe?

?

Heavy Schmeavy!

I just bought an beautiful '01 Standard HB Premium Top. My luthier agreed I got a great guitar for the money. It plays and sounds great, though some here would argue its not the pinnacle of 'tone.' Oh well, to each their own. After reading this forum for a while I could not resist the the urge to weigh the guitar after I bought it. Came in just over 9lbs. Same curiosity got me thinking I should weigh the guitar I've been playing all my life...'79 Stratocaster Anniversary edition. (happens to be one of the 500 Pearlescents White) Now I've always heard 'how heavy' those 70s strats were....It only felt heavy to me when I first bought it. Mine weighs about 8.5. So what. Now if I could just figure out how to play one of these things..............

Oh, BTW. I think I'll go weigh my amps and cabs and post something about how the weight of them must obviously affect tone. LOL.

Peace,
JohnnyL

Joe Ganzler said:

Yeah, but not YOUR couch, Ed! All the players "in the know" give your couch a WIDE berth!!:dude :lolspin :lol2 :lol1 :dead:

Click to expand...

Everyone knows it's the COOL giuys who play on Ed's couch. Heck, the Mayor usually occupies it all evening when he's in town for the shows.

?

I see, now I'm head of the Stankmeisters. I see how you are.
Hrmph. FINE. BE that way.

A bit smelly adds character.
And can be useful when marking territory.spin

Joe it is not really any specific content of this thread I am referring to but more the ongoing question... I have seen it go by many times and each time it ends with passionate answers going equal distances in both directions... That to me means there is no answer... There are as many preferences as there are players but as to the ongoing portion of the matter, it was no accident that Gibson saw the need to lighten them back up... I am sure there are many fine playing guitars as 10 and 11 lbs but I had a real boat anchor in 76 (LP Custom) and it was not worth the gravity it took to hold it down... I hated that guitar with a passion but at the time I didn't know there were good and bad... I think it came in around 14 or 15 lbs and if some property was better as they got heavier then it would have been a dream... It was a lousy player and since, the heavier they have been, the less I have liked them... That might be in my head and it might be in the guitars but either way, I can even understand the argument to the contrary... There is no doubt however, there is an argument to the contrary so I will leave everyone else to their own ends... No conclutions or attacks on anyone or any specific ideas intended...

Ed is right also, I play alot sitting down... I play standing, sitting and I fell asleep with my Jr. at the ready twice this week alone... Has anyone else ever done that?? I think I might have a problem...

Haven't got a Jr., sorry!
I wish I had! spin

Light weight guitars resonate differently than heavy weight guitars. I've always loved the way my 8lb 4 oz '59 burst sounded. I had several other vintage LP's that were not keepers because they didn't sound as good to me. They also weren't as comfortable but it was definitely the sound that made me sell/trade them since this was before my back injury. For me, anything thats over 8 3/4 lbs has always been too F'n heavy for whatever the reason. And the lighter I've gotten them, the better they responded to the the way I pick a note. Its what works for me thats important when I buy a guitar. I don't care what works for Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix or Al Hendrix! If my 6lb to 8lb guitars sounds like cardboard in your hands......good! I don't want to sell them and you don't wanna buy them!!:lolspin :hippy