The article is incredibly dumb.
This is a very good point. I have never seen one. I heard once of a guitar used for a Historic Makeover that had a poorly glued section of the fretboard, but with the level of quality control at a company like Gibson this was probably a one in a million thing. Many parts of really old guitars are laminates. The holly on the headstock for example. Haven't seen seen any 70 year old Les Pauls missing those.it's been over ten years.
Raise your hand if the fingerboard fell off your 2012.
Tbh., I read about a 1/3rd of the article and instantly dismissed it for lack of context.. and went straight to the source of who wrote it.. came across the author’s bio.. and just laughed..The article is incredibly dumb
I’ve never used AI.. but was curious.. so I signed up for free trial.. and asked AI to write aboutMaybe it's an AI project?
Spot on..Also It's not easy to determine the tonal difference between 2 Les Pauls is because of the "Wood".
I’ve never used AI.. but was curious.. so I signed up for free trial.. and asked AI to write about
“Gibson Guitars good wood, bad wood periods”
“Vintage Gibson Les Paul’s and the current prices” .. it literally took about 2mins to create this..
Agreed.. it’s just info from the web.. regurgitated.. with truth and the lies combined.. so this just answers the question of AI.. is it a load of bull.. ?Nothing there that is new information. Just seems like well known facts with sentences wrapped around.
I don't know, are 52 Les Pauls really as desirable as 59's?
BTW, if that was AI, it just took your question and re-stated "Gibson Guitars". It's "Gibson Brands", I believe, which a real person would have probably known. More commonly , it's just "Gibson".