Best year for LP Standards?

[57Lefty]

The pickups were burstbucker pro's. At least that's what's in my 2004.

In the Beginning they were just BB's. Then would come 1,2,3 and Pros

 

[DonP]

They went for a big re-launch and seemed to put an extra special effort into getting these right. Mine was one of the first and its serial number is a Jan '02 stamp, and I think it was shipped to the UK early for the purposes of being a review model. The model was officially re-launched around March/April of that year. I bought mine in May, it was the only one I could find in the country at the time.


Yes, they vary a lot. I'd never buy another guitar sight-unseen again, I believe I was naive and got lucky, but I do think there is a particular reason why there are many people shouting "2002" in this thread: Gibson were determined to impress with this re-launch. Whether that means they picked slightly higher grade timber for the first re-launch Standards, or put extra care into the finish and general QC I don't know.

This IS the reason why 2002 is so special. Gibson was taking extra special care with the re-launch of the Standard, and why so many 2002's are great. You have a lot better odds getting a good LP in this year than others, when the QC might have been cut back or shifted to other Gibsons.

The late 80s would be my other guess, because Henry took over and wanted to turn the company around. But the late 80s have too many "non-vintage" issues that don't appeal to me. The 2002 is missing a few things, but not much.

 

[Jersey Doug]

This IS the reason why 2002 is so special. Gibson was taking extra special care with the re-launch of the Standard, and why so many 2002's are great. You have a lot better odds getting a good LP in this year than others, when the QC might have been cut back or shifted to other Gibsons.

The late 80s would be my other guess, because Henry took over and wanted to turn the company around. But the late 80s have too many "non-vintage" issues that don't appeal to me. The 2002 is missing a few things, but not much.

Good points. I know my '88 isn't vintage correct, but it is a well playing/sounding guitar, IMO. I've not tried too many other Lesters, so my opinion doesn't carry any weight. But, I have always liked mine. I got lucky. I didn't research it beforehand. I got married in 1989, so 1988 was my year to get stuff without having to negotiate. :biggrin: I walked in and bought it. Nver regretted that purchase.

 

[zoommutt]

I remember Guitar Player had a very positive article about the 2002's.I remember a couple of other great reviews that year also.

 

[rrrcustom]

I've owned a 2002 standard, a 2004, a 2005, a 2006, and currently own a '96 standard that I bought for $500. The '96 is hands down the best so far. I've also owned a few r8's, r7's, and 68 RI's. I'd say out of those, the only one that wasn't a winner was the '03 Brazilian r7 I had.

 

[LPUncle]

2002 and 2003

 

[A. Warren]

i bet that in a blindfold test, theres not a soul alive that could pick a 2002 out from between a 2001 and 2003.

 

[papersoul]

Finding a 2002 to try first is near impossible I am finding. Seems easier to get
one on ebay and chance it. Also, see Traditionals. I am hearing nothing but GREAT things about the LP Traditionals. I wonder if those have a long neck tenon.....not that I think that matters that much.

What do you mean, "non-vintage" issues in the late 80s???

This IS the reason why 2002 is so special. Gibson was taking extra special care with the re-launch of the Standard, and why so many 2002's are great. You have a lot better odds getting a good LP in this year than others, when the QC might have been cut back or shifted to other Gibsons.

The late 80s would be my other guess, because Henry took over and wanted to turn the company around. But the late 80s have too many "non-vintage" issues that don't appeal to me. The 2002 is missing a few things, but not much.

 

[DonP]

What do you mean, "non-vintage" issues in the late 80s???

chrome hardware
wrong body shape
wrong headstock shape
tuners
pickups

i.e. anything not consistant to the 58-60 burst LPs. But that's just my personal preference.

What is the matter with your 2004 LP? I'd take that over a Traditional, once again based on my personal preferences. No, Traditionals have the old rocker joint. The new Standards have some new fangled neck joint (go to Gibson's site for a pic). But here's what I say. If it was good enough for Slash, it's good enough for me.

IMO, the new redesign for 2008 was a step backward. I don't like chrome hardware.

 

[DonP]

i bet that in a blindfold test, theres not a soul alive that could pick a 2002 out from between a 2001 and 2003.

And you would be dead wrong. A 2001 with the 490R/498T pickups would sound nothing like the 2002-2003 with Burstbucker Pros.

 

[Edward]

And you would be dead wrong. A 2001 with the 490R/498T pickups would sound nothing like the 2002-2003 with Burstbucker Pros.

OK, but I think he probably meant within the same series. Say, 2002-2005, one could not tell the difference among them.

Edward

 

[A. Warren]

yes edward, and then youre stuck with the same problem of deciding which is "better", which is purely subjective.

and ill refine my statement. I bet theres not a soul alive that can tell the difference between a 2002 and a 2003 blindfolded.

 

[Ad_02Std]

yes edward, and then youre stuck with the same problem of deciding which is "better", which is purely subjective.

and ill refine my statement. I bet theres not a soul alive that can tell the difference between a 2002 and a 2003 blindfolded.

This is missing the point.

No two guitars are the same. They all sound different.

The theory here is that, due to the big relaunch of their Gibson USA flagship model (which was a huge deal for them at the time), the company was trying extra hard to impress with their choice of woods and extra attention to quality on this particular model. The guitars got fantastic reviews when they came out and sold a lot of new guitars off the back of those reviews. They upped their game to grab some good headlines. It worked.

Whether they slipped at all after that is open for debate. But we all know that Gibsons can vary wildly in quality, and I wouldn't put it past them to occassionally have to give a talk to their staff saying, "This one is really important for us, bring your A-game."

It's just a theory though. Nobody here has set about comparing masses and masses of Les Paul Standards to see which years were top.


I know I like mine. I don't really need another one, so it's not an issue for me.

 

[stock_hippie]

1997 anybody...the sunbursts look cool

 

[guitarfish]

Is there really a "best" year? My '08 Standard is perfect, and so was the '07 I had before it. From what people are saying about the Trads and other new LPs they're getting, things are coming off the line at a pretty high standard right now.

 

[A. Warren]

Ad, the point is that its ALL SUBJECTIVE, and all those changes they made could very well be held as having no value to a lot of people. There is no "best year". Period.

Have you read all the posts in this thread? Because i think were actually in agreement.

 

[Ad_02Std]

Ad, the point is that its ALL SUBJECTIVE, and all those changes they made could very well be held as having no value to a lot of people. There is no "best year". Period.

Have you read all the posts in this thread? Because i think were actually in agreement.

Again, I'm not talking about the design changes. These are most definitely subjective. I'm talking about the timber choice and general quality of fit and finish. On everything else I agree with you.

 

[DaveDownUnder]

The best Les Paul is the one you can either: afford, like the look of, like the sound of, like the appointments of or can get away with. I've loved Les Pauls since I first heard the Beano album (1966) didn't know what they were before that. Been researching and drooling over them ever since. Owned a few over the years, liked them all. In 2002 all the guitar mags were giving the new (old) features a real thumbs up, my mate in my local guitar shop at that time gave them a glowing report too, telling me they were the nearest thing to a R series Les Paul in a working mans reach. Walked into his store one day and saw it on the wall, fell in love with it on first sight, even more when I played it and even more when I set it up for my playing style. Went into debt to get it and don't regret doing so in any way at all. Have to go with 2002. Fact is, if you like it, it's the best one for you. :jim

 

[Trans-Am]

...it would be all subjected, BB's or 490's what not. Along with other refinements and changes. I have a 2K1 Standard GT that in regards to the pickup sounded better that my other 2K5 Standard Burst. Go figure?:hmm

Peace!:hank

 

[Thin_Lizzy]

I think it varies from example to example.
My first LP was a '91 ebony Std. It was the worst Gibson I ever played!
I also owned a '94 Classic. It was an outstanding guitar!
The 2005 Std Premium+ I used to own was nice but nothing more. Don't like the fretwire on the newer Gibsons and it was way heavier that the heaviest Norlin I've ever held.
Now I have a '87 Studio Standard. Awesome guitar! It's a keeper!