• 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!

Aged True Historic VS True Historic

jimeh77

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
119
Between aged True Historic and True Historic, does Gibson picked the best among true historic before make it aged?

I wonder if someone who owns both type could tell me.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
My suspect that they just pull one off of the rack. The aged guitars aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just aged. Rolling of the fretboard edges makes a small improvement in the feel of the neck, but otherwise its all just cosmetics.
 

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
I have owned two True Historics: a regular 1958 and a Murphy Aged 1958. Have also played several other THs (a 57 and a few CCs with TH specs).

The Murphy Aged is superior to the regular TH58 and TH57. I'd say it's on par with the TH-CCs I have played.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I have owned two True Historics: a regular 1958 and a Murphy Aged 1958. Have also played several other THs (a 57 and a few CCs with TH specs).

The Murphy Aged is superior to the regular TH58 and TH57. I'd say it's on par with the TH-CCs I have played.

That's quite a proclamation. You're the same guy that asserts the TH are better than regular Historics too if I'm not mistaken.

Therefore I'm curious at your sample size and methodology you used to come to your conclusions that X or Y guitars are superior. You are aware that unlike tires or other synthetic objects Guitars all sound different. So with that in mind, how many Murphy THs and non Murphy THs do you own or did you thoroughly audition, what criteria did you use in your analysis. Any other facts you'd like to share that supports your assertion.

See it is my understanding that the only difference between TH and Murphy Aged TH is that Murphy takes a razor to them to simulate aging. I'd hate to be an a-hole who posts erroneous infomation on the internet so if you can enlighten me how these guitars are superior I'd be much obliged.
 

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
That's quite a proclamation. You're the same guy that asserts the TH are better than regular Historics too if I'm not mistaken.

They are.

And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments.


Therefore I'm curious at your sample size and methodology you used to come to your conclusions that X or Y guitars are superior. You are aware that unlike tires or other synthetic objects Guitars all sound different. So with that in mind, how many Murphy THs and non Murphy THs do you own or did you thoroughly audition, what criteria did you use in your analysis. Any other facts you'd like to share that supports your assertion.

See it is my understanding that the only difference between TH and Murphy Aged TH is that Murphy takes a razor to them to simulate aging. I'd hate to be an a-hole who posts erroneous infomation on the internet so if you can enlighten me how these guitars are superior I'd be much obliged.

OP asked for opinions and I gave mine.

My criteria is that I have been playing guitar for about 33 years (many of those years as a professional - I am neither a hack, nor a collector - I am a musician), have owned around 80 in that time (oldest was built in 1963 and the latest in 2016), have played hundreds upon hundreds more than that, and know what a good Les Paul feels and sounds like.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I think we both read the same post. The OP appears to be asking whether Gibson evaluates all its True Historics then out of those selects the best ones? best sounding? best looking? again it's a little vague but that is what the OP asked

Your reply was yes Murphy Aged TH is superior.
I think it's reasonable to suggest that the OP or any reader could infer from your statement that the OP is correct in assumption that "Gibson picked the best" for the Murphy TH.

Maybe this is the inference you in fact want people to have. Without fact to back it up I find it a little erroneous.

While I haven't been playing guitar as long as you I've played my fair share of Historics, True Historics, Murphy Aged, Collectors Choice, a Goldtop, Several conversions and what I consider best in a Les Paul without setting forth my criteria for what is best may be the same or different than yours or any one on this forum. Therefore, in the interest of providing factual unhyperbolic insights to fellow forum members I might be hesitant to say something is superior which indicates a clear and measurable differential exists.

I also know as fact that every guitar is slightly different sonically. So one or two TH, Murphy, standard Historic, and Burst does not accurately represent every other TH, Murphy, standard Historic and Burst.


I feel fortunate to own a great TH 59 that's feels and sounds as good as any Les Paul I remember playing. With that said, I don't feel the need to disparage anyone else's guitar by saying they are inferior. It doesn't make my guitar sound any better, there's no factual basis to make such a statement and without playing a sample size of each that would make my opinion relevant to even myself, most likely erroneous. YMMV




Between aged True Historic and True Historic, does Gibson picked the best among true historic before make it aged?

I wonder if someone who owns both type could tell me.





They are.

And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments.




OP asked for opinions and I gave mine.

My criteria is that I have been playing guitar for about 33 years (many of those years as a professional - I am neither a hack, nor a collector - I am a musician), have owned around 80 in that time (oldest was built in 1963 and the latest in 2016), have played hundreds upon hundreds more than that, and know what a good Les Paul feels and sounds like.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
They are.

And now, with the release of the 2017 Les Paul CS Standards, everyone who buys a new LP is essentially going to get a True Historic. Hide glue on the maple tops/fretboard/neck joint, plus other TH appointments. .

Not according to you. You've stated that TH are better than standard historics evidently because Gibson selects the best for the TH line. The 2017 LP Standards while sharing TH specs will get no such benefit. The crap ones and the good ones will all get the TH specs. Lol. How are you going to reconcile that one.
 

clearmudd

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
499
I don't have any facts on this, it's just a wild guess. I believe they use what may have some finish flaws or imperfections to use for "aged" models, it would be be kind of silly to use a "perfect" and superior finished LP to hack up to make it aged. I know how picky some are when it comes to finishes for that kind of money, so it would seem logical to use the ones that are not finished perfect. That is my best guess.

Other than that, i don't think there is any difference in the two models.
Aged costs more because of the additional labor involved, not because it's "better".
 

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
Not according to you. You've stated that TH are better than standard historics evidently because Gibson selects the best for the TH line. The 2017 LP Standards while sharing TH specs will get no such benefit. The crap ones and the good ones will all get the TH specs. Lol. How are you going to reconcile that one.

I know what I have said (and stand by it) - don't need some dork with a chip on his shoulder to throw it back at me in some ridiculous accusatory manner. What are you, one those Blooze lawyers?
 

Tim Plains

Active member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
795
My suspect that they just pull one off of the rack. The aged guitars aren't necessarily better or worse, they're just aged. Rolling of the fretboard edges makes a small improvement in the feel of the neck, but otherwise its all just cosmetics.
I agree with this. It's probably not just one off the rack but maybe several, or they just decide the next 10 / 25 / whatever are aged.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
I know what I have said (and stand by it) - don't need some dork with a chip on his shoulder to throw it back at me in some ridiculous accusatory manner. What are you, one those Blooze lawyers?

Great, you've made rather large grandiose proclamations regarding guitars repeatedly without a scintilla of fact to back it up. Someone could walk into a guitar store and think a banjo with pig ears sowed on sounds better than a burst. Saying it doesn't make it so. And unless you believe all True Historics are identical and all standard historics are identical you're proclamations are not only factless they are baseless too.


I don't need to return the personal attack. Facts, logic and reason should speak for themselves. If hyping your TH 59 Murphy by calling other Historics inferior makes you feel better have at it.

But at least have the integrity to own up to the logic that follows from your grand proclamations. That since there will be no selection process between true and standard historics, the new standard historics will not have the benefit of being selected over other historics as you seem to infer repeatedly. Unless the color of the plastic and shape of the pickup significantly affects tone. Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"
 

surfreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2002
Messages
1,115
I cannot answer the OP's question.

All I can say is that my 2016 TH Murphy aged R9 is a better sounding, better playing guitar than the other TH R9s I have played so far. I bought it not because it was an aged example or even a TH one: I bought it because I wanted the best guitar my money can buy.

If I am allowed a more generalized statement, these Historics are all excellent guitars. This said, the thrill is in the chase: play as many as you can, even of exactly the same model, and choose the right one for you.
 

renderit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
10,951
Great, you've made rather large grandiose proclamations regarding guitars repeatedly without a scintilla of fact to back it up. Someone could walk into a guitar store and think a banjo with pig ears sowed on sounds better than a burst. Saying it doesn't make it so. And unless you believe all True Historics are identical and all standard historics are identical you're proclamations are not only factless they are baseless too.


I don't need to return the personal attack. Facts, logic and reason should speak for themselves. If hyping your TH 59 Murphy by calling other Historics inferior makes you feel better have at it.

But at least have the integrity to own up to the logic that follows from your grand proclamations. That since there will be no selection process between true and standard historics, the new standard historics will not have the benefit of being selected over other historics as you seem to infer repeatedly. Unless the color of the plastic and shape of the pickup significantly affects tone. Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"

Not to start it again, but you do realize you are claiming the opposite "without a scintilla of fact to back it up" don't you? Just playing the devil's advocate here. "Saying it doesn't make it so." applies to you as well. It is an unwinnable argument so "Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"".

IMO they grab an already nicked one off the rack and nick it more. Maybe spending extra time making it playable though.
 

clearmudd

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
499
I think the real question is, do you like the FEEL of a "new" finished guitar or a "worn" finished guitar?

Personally, i kinda like both, but "worn" feels a little more comfy.

The other question is purely cosmetic, " what LOOK do you prefer? "

Some believe that ageing adds to the Tone, that i believe is subjective. What i may like, you may not, kind of thing. It's all about what you can do with that TONE.

Tone is instrument to instrument regardless of finish type, that's just my opinion.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
Gibson sends Murphy a husk which has been through the finishing stage (lacquered), however the guitar has never seen pickups, tuners, nor strings. He ages the finish and then sends them back to Gibson where they are assembled and shipped out the door.

Murphy-aged Lesters look very cool, however the guitars are not selected based on having the best tone, and contrary to popular belief, Tom Murphy does not have a can of magic fairy dust that makes them sound better. Its the same wood, same lacquer, and same electronics that goes into a regular Historic.

I've owned a couple of Murphys as well as 20 or so other Historic Les Pauls. The aged finish of the Murphys looks very cool, and the neck does feels a little better in the hands due to the rolled binding edge (which is a mod I'll usually do anyway when a neck has sharp edges). I can't say that my Murphys sound any better or any worse than my other Historics, they're all in the same ballpark.

I will say that I'm more comfortable and get more enjoyment out of playing a Murphy (or my aged HMs) because I can relax and just play without treating them with kid gloves like I would a pristine Les Paul. If I'm rocking out and the headstock makes contact with a cymbal, big deal. Additional scratches and dings just add to the overall effect.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
You either skim through posts too casually or have a tenuous understanding of the context of this discussion and the facts as they exist.

The facts of this argument reside in the specs as disclosed by Gibson. These specs provide the following: That Murphy aged THs and non Murphy aged THs are manufactured using identical wood types, glues, pickups, building methods etc, with the one exception: the Murphy Aged True Historics are aged by Tom Murphy. Thats it. No special selection, no exotic woods or glues, no specially hand wound pickups, non of that. Those are the facts, not my opinion.

So what I am stating is based on the facts as they are available to us from Gibson. My opinion as you call it concurs with and is supported by these facts. Why you choose to be obtuse to this reality and continue this argument is beyond me.

You and others on this forum can continue ignore the facts and offer an a contrary opinion that is factless. That is your right. It is however my right to point that out.

I might also add that due to the fact that no two guitars sound identical means that the opinions you are deriving are on their face flawed when used to make sweeping generalizations about all Murphy Non Murphy. CC cs Non CC etc.

So like I said, you may disagree but unless you show me facts or a produce the results of a tone study that had sufficient quantities of all the guitars discussed, a consistent testing methodology and multiple testers it's just BS on BS. or as I previously posted just another opinion without a scintilla of fact to back it up.

Not to start it again, but you do realize you are claiming the opposite "without a scintilla of fact to back it up" don't you? Just playing the devil's advocate here. "Saying it doesn't make it so." applies to you as well. It is an unwinnable argument so "Man up and own what you say, don't be a politician or worse a "TV journalist"".

IMO they grab an already nicked one off the rack and nick it more. Maybe spending extra time making it playable though.
 

clearmudd

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
499
Poor, poor Renderit, you crank these guys up like an old tin lizzy, they puff and backfire and spew out a 20 page essay on facts, figures and proof.............man, it makes my eyes hurt.:dang
 

renderit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
10,951
I fully stand by my reading ability and my ability to judge character based on past performances. I withdraw nothing.
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
Here's some interesting facts; that don't seem to have bugger all to do with the subject matter.

I've played hundreds of Gibson guitars, over what seems like *hundreds of years. Some I've liked, some I haven't. I've bought some, and passed on others.

I've never, ever, bought a guitar that I didn't like. I've never bought a guitar based on someone else's opinion....ever.

I've compared, unscientifically, for many years...and always arrived at a personal preference. That preference, by definition, is better than those foregone.

The 2001 Murphy I played for years - never found any Historic able to live with it...despite trying over a number of years...which either means I'm an idiot, or that my preference theory stands up.

This stuff is really simple to me, largely because it doesn't involve the opinion of others.

When the amp's on and you hit that first note..this stuff counts for nothing...zero, you're on your own. That's a fact. That's what I do with these things, I play 'em.


* That's not a fact... I made that bit up....I'm only 12.
 

clearmudd

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
499
My reading skills may use some improving. Though i read the OPs question again, and it seems kinda straight forward " does gibson pick among the best of the THs to be aged?''. He did not mention Murphy or in house, nothing of the sort.

Could it be they just seem better after they have been aged?
It just seems to be a subjective question, what kind of facts and proof can one get?

Other than trying it for yourself.:ganz
 
Top