What's your craziest or plain dumbest Historic story ?

[Dr. Green]

I have one since new. At the time they were a revelation: mahogany neck, flamed bookmatched top, reasonable PAF facsimile , thin cutaway binding. I remember the first time I clapped eyes on it, I was breathless. I recently had a refret, and the luthier to the stars remembered it on the wall more than 40 years on.

It's the best LP I've owned ( including a 58 TV Special ) but not the best I've played. That honor goes to a magical, beat up 57 Goldtop with a chrome Plymouth Sattelite badge glued to the top.

It came into its own when I changed the pots and caps, 300k was not cutting it. That's the guitar that I'll usually show up last with, if I'm in a recurring situation because once they hear it, they don't want to hear anything else.

Compared to a modern reissue it's 57 kinds of wrong but I love mine.

Can I ask you what you think of the Heritage 80 - "tone wise " - compared to the new historics with the hide glue and custom buckers - 2013 and onward ?

 

[brandall10]

How did your 2005 R7 sound before the Historic Makeover? And what did you notice about the sound after Historic Makeover? Curious to know because I was considering going through the Historic Makeover process. If it is just barely noticeable then it is not worth the high price tag. If it was a huge night & day difference in brightness and volume then I may consider it..

Gibson's good wood period was in the 50's - not the 90's (great flamey tops though - 1995-1996 were the best years for Les Paul flame tops IMHO)...

I haven't gotten it back yet, just noting the quality of guitar it is. Did it to burst it, primarily https://www.lespaulforum.com/index.php?threads/historic-makeovers-r7-r9.219526/

The 90s Historics are seen as a 'good wood' period relative to the more modern/historically correct lines since 2001 or so... at least I've seen that used as an argument by those who are fans of this era and you'll see it mentioned in for sale posts. Not like the originals with old growth all-around of course, but distinctly different partially due to the low production and the idea that Gibson had to shift strategy to greatly increase production output.

 

[class5lp]

Picked off a brand new custom shop 59 Les Paul Murphy aged in Bourbon Burst with a killer top for $1999 when Music 123/Guitar Sale bought the left over inventory from Music Machine when they closed up. The web girl was new and listed it as a Gibson USA Les Paul. The store manager called me to advise that they were aware of the problem but were still going to ship me the guitar because it was fair game and their mistake. I am certain they were worried about bait and switch!

 

[Dr. Green]

what great stories and even more than that - what a great thread

 

[ADP]

what great stories and even more than that - what a great thread

Don't break your arm there.

 

[Flogger]

Can I ask you what you think of the Heritage 80 - "tone wise " - compared to the new historics with the hide glue and custom buckers - 2013 and onward ?

After the harness change I got a lot of what I was looking for, a more open sound. 300k pots did the Shaws no favors.

That said, I think the current reissues sound spankier, more scooped in the low mids compared to the Heritage 80.

The new ones are sparkly, real old ones can sparkle, but it's more burnished.

Under drive, though it's easy to tell the new ones from vintage; runaway harmonics. Old PAFs and Patent#s with an age appropriate harness have a strong fundamental without the hairiness that new ones have. The old Lesters and ESs I've known were all like that, my 66 ES345 does it too.

As for playability, I've owned it for 40 years. My hand was formed by that neck.

 

[jimijam33]

I haven't gotten it back yet, just noting the quality of guitar it is. Did it to burst it, primarily https://www.lespaulforum.com/index.php?threads/historic-makeovers-r7-r9.219526/

The 90s Historics are seen as a 'good wood' period relative to the more modern/historically correct lines since 2001 or so... at least I've seen that used as an argument by those who are fans of this era and you'll see it mentioned in for sale posts. Not like the originals with old growth all-around of course, but distinctly different partially due to the low production and the idea that Gibson had to shift strategy to greatly increase production output.

One thing I do not like about Historic makeovers is that they DON"T remove the maple top and re-glue using Hyde glue. For the price they are charging, they should do this step.

Gibson may have used good wood on their 90's historic's but that was negated when they used yellow glue and truss condom. They are among the flamiest tops ever used on Les Pauls though (1995-1996)..

 

[ADP]

One thing I do not like about Historic makeovers is that they DON"T remove the maple top and re-glue using Hyde glue. For the price they are charging, they should do this step.

Gibson may have used good wood on their 90's historic's but that was negated when they used yellow glue and truss condom. They are among the flamiest tops ever used on Les Pauls though (1995-1996)..

The tops were glued with formaldehyde glue. Regardless, the wood itself matters more than the glue.

 

[brandall10]

One thing I do not like about Historic makeovers is that they DON"T remove the maple top and re-glue using Hyde glue. For the price they are charging, they should do this step.

Gibson may have used good wood on their 90's historic's but that was negated when they used yellow glue and truss condom. They are among the flamiest tops ever used on Les Pauls (1995-1996)..

That sort of stuff is controversial to the degree it makes an impact. HM themselves stopped doing truss rod replacements, Kim told me point blank he doesn't believe it does anything. I happen to believe this stuff makes a *subtle* difference, and again, it comes down to the wood more than anything, hence my note about my '05 that slaughters a recent model R9.

AFA removing the top, I don't know if that's possible without damaging it. And Gibson ain't correct on that detail anyway as the originals used urea formaldehyde.

 

[jimijam33]

The tops were glued with formaldehyde glue. Regardless, the wood itself matters more than the glue.

According to who?

All 90's historics used yellow glue on all joinery (and into 2000's). Why not use formaldehyde on all joinery then? And if wood matters then why do the 90's historics LP's NOT sound that good?

 

[jimijam33]

That sort of stuff is controversial to the degree it makes an impact. HM themselves stopped doing truss rod replacements, Kim told me point blank he doesn't believe it does anything. I happen to believe this stuff makes a *subtle* difference, and again, it comes down to the wood more than anything, hence my note about my '05 that slaughters a recent model R9.

AFA removing the top, I don't know if that's possible without damaging it. And Gibson ain't correct on that detail anyway as the originals used urea formaldehyde.

I would agree it would be tricky to remove the top (without damaging the wood). Trickier to re-align and glue back to the body. I don't hold much faith in Gibsons line of R9's (now). There is always a one off that might sound good.

I'm curious to find out your impressions before & after the makeover..

 

[ADP]

According to who?

All 90's historics used yellow glue on all joinery (and into 2000's). Why not use formaldehyde on all joinery then? And if wood matters then why do the 90's historics LP's NOT sound that good?

Your credibility has flown out the window.

 

[brandall10]

According to who?

All 90's historics used yellow glue on all joinery (and into 2000's). Why not use formaldehyde on all joinery? And if wood matters then why do the 90's historics LP's NOT sound that good?

If 'according to who' you mean the glue join for the top, it's historical record. Formaldehyde has environmental hazards and can't be used anymore at any scale (small builders have been known to use it though). If we're talking about tonal benefit, if it really is there, modern hide glue is probably a suitable replacement though.

I totally respect your personal experience here and you owned at one time what was a phenomenal piece of early Historic lineage that just didn't really sound all that good. The oldest historic I've plugged into an amp was a 2001 so I don't have personal experience with any guitars from those years. But I've played probably about 50 historics over the past 20 years and my opinion is it seems like a crap shoot... out of a lot of 10 guitars, you might find 1 or 2 that are excellent, 5-6 that are pretty dang good, and a few that are just underwhelming. I did hold an opinion similar to yours for a long time but after playing so many historics I just started coming around to the idea that the glue, condom, and other historically accurate features of the build probably don't add more than tonal shade and do little to actually determine if the guitar is great of not - the main variable of course, when everything else is the same, is the wood, and that can vary widely.

It seems the '13 and onward guitars have a tinge more brightness to them but it's not something I can quantify as sounding better. My '13 R8 is on pretty equal footing w/ my '05 but that was a guitar from Daves that was the best of 5 played by a store employee. I still feel the '05 edges it out a bit, like a bit more of a vocal quality to it, more vintage like, the R8 is more of a rock guitar, very punchy in the mids. That '05 has a really visually superb piece of mahogany on it and I attribute that to it being what it is more than anything else.

I would agree it would be tricky to remove the top (without damaging the wood). Trickier to re-align and glue back to the body. I don't hold much faith in Gibsons line of R9's (now). There is always a one off that might sound good.

I'm curious to find out your impressions before & after the makeover..

I really can't trust my opinion on something that I haven't had for over a half year. My take is it will look dramatically better and play and feel a fair bit better due to the shoulders taken in and the finish.

I didn't do the full package because it already has a nice piece of fretboard wood (Madi?) and they don't do the truss rod replacement, so any tonal improvement really is going to come in a thinner/harder finish. And it might sound a bit 'thinner' due to a bit less mass in the neck.

 

[jimijam33]

Your credibility has flown out the window.

You know NOTHING about 90's historics...

 

[jimijam33]

If 'according to who' you mean the glue join for the top, it's historical record. Formaldehyde has environmental hazards and can't be used anymore at any scale (small builders have been known to use it though). If we're talking about tonal benefit, if it really is there, modern hide glue is probably a suitable replacement though.

I totally respect your personal experience here and you owned at one time what was a phenomenal piece of early Historic lineage that just didn't really sound all that good. The oldest historic I've plugged into an amp was a 2001 so I don't have personal experience with any guitars from those years. But I've played probably about 50 historics over the past 20 years and my opinion is it seems like a crap shoot... out of a lot of 10 guitars, you might find 1 or 2 that are excellent, 5-6 that are pretty dang good, and a few that are just underwhelming. I did hold an opinion similar to yours for a long time but after playing so many historics I just started coming around to the idea that the glue, condom, and other historically accurate features of the build probably don't add more than tonal shade and do little to actually determine if the guitar is great of not - the main variable of course, when everything else is the same, is the wood, and that can vary widely.

It seems the '13 and onward guitars have a tinge more brightness to them but it's not something I can quantify as sounding better. My '13 R8 is on pretty equal footing w/ my '05 but that was a guitar from Daves that was the best of 5 played by a store employee. I still feel the '05 edges it out a bit, like a bit more of a vocal quality to it, more vintage like, the R8 is more of a rock guitar, very punchy in the mids. That '05 has a really visually superb piece of mahogany on it and I attribute that to it being what it is more than anything else.



I really can't trust my opinion on something that I haven't had for over a half year. My take is it will look dramatically better and play and feel a fair bit better due to the shoulders taken in and the finish.

I didn't do the full package because it already has a nice piece of fretboard wood (Madi?) and they don't do the truss rod replacement, so any tonal improvement really is going to come in a thinner/harder finish. And it might sound a bit 'thinner' due to a bit less mass in the neck.

Gibson didn't use Formaldehyde on the 1990's historic LP tops. Where is this historic record? Curious to know.

As for the Makeover, it is personal preference. I can't justify the cost unless their is a large tonal benefit. I would agree with your assessment "13 and onward guitars have a tinge more brightness" as I have personally noticed this difference.

 

[ADP]

Gibson didn't use Formaldehyde on the 1990's historic LP tops. Where is this historic record? Curious to know.

As for the Makeover, it is personal preference. I can't justify the cost unless their is a large tonal benefit. I would agree with your assessment "13 and onward guitars have a tinge more brightness" as I have personally noticed this difference.

Nobody said they used Formaldehyde glue in the 90's... Keep reaching...

2013.5 uses "Old Brown Glue" for their neck joints and fretboards. They used Titebond II for the top to the body. In 2015 for the True Historics they glued the tops with Old Brown, but I think 2013.5 and 2014 had better wood. It's all speculative.

The bottom line - none of them are even close to a real one (in terms of construction).

 

[jimijam33]

Nobody said they used Formaldehyde glue in the 90's... Keep reaching...

2013.5 uses "Old Brown Glue" for their neck joints and fretboards. They used Titebond II for the top to the body. In 2015 for the True Historics they glued the tops with Old Brown, but I think 2013.5 and 2014 had better wood. It's all speculative.

The bottom line - none of them are even close to a real one (in terms of construction).

Look at you post from yesterday, you said - "The tops were glued with formaldehyde glue. Regardless, the wood itself matters more than the glue."

Now you say "Nobody said they used Formaldehyde glue in the 90's".

So..... What are you trying to say?????????

 

[ADP]

Look at you post from yesterday, you said - "The tops were glued with formaldehyde glue. Regardless, the wood itself matters more than the glue."

Now you say "Nobody said they used Formaldehyde glue in the 90's".

So..... What are you trying to say?????????

On a REAL Les Paul. From Kalamazoo in the late 50's...

 

[brandall10]

Right, and also per the post I made

Gibson didn't use Formaldehyde on the 1990's historic LP tops. Where is this historic record? Curious to know.

That wasn't claimed, quoting myself: "And Gibson ain't correct on that detail anyway as the originals used urea formaldehyde."

The point ADP and I are making is the most current and accurate Historics to date are not period correct on what could be seen as a fairly major point. In spirit modern hide glue is better than titebond, sure.

Somewhat agree about doing a Makeover, it's hard to justify on balance. If you feel the whole experience will really improve an otherwise great guitar, awesome. I'm not of that mindset. It's about cosmetics (big deal considering what was covered up), feel, and getting the neck dialed in. Also worth noting, the resale of HM guitars holds and could increase an older/used guitar as they're a brand unto themselves, so it's not like setting your money on fire or anything if you're not totally jazzed about the end product.

 

[jimijam33]

On a REAL Les Paul. From Kalamazoo in the late 50's...

My argument here has been on the 90's historics. To be clear I already knew about the construction of the vintage Les Paul's. You muddy the water by your statements (for not being clear).

It seems it's your credibility that has gone out the window....