? for the LP specialists
Oh, Jimmy
Posts: 957
I have a 95 Les Paul Standard. I love everything about it. Now, I know Gibson quality slipped for some years, but I was wondering if mine falls in those years.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Oh, Jimmy
Posts: 957
Comments
yes, they'll tell you the quality sucked in the mid 90s. they'll also say it about the mid 80s and mid 70s.
i have a 96 custom. i don't care if it sucks because it's awesome and doesn't suck to me.
mine is excellent. excellence is subjective. both my gibsons are fantastic guitars. my biggest beef with gibson now is the raising of prices on the standard stuff whilst producing lower grade product to fill the old price points.
the whole historic thing gets tiring. a big pissing contest to justify the fact that gibson's marketing worked on them.
i'd rather get drunk on rotting grapes and have fun than sip fancy wines too.
The thing that people get on Gibson about is the consistency of there stuff, but that isn't just a gibson problem. I think it is true that historics are more consistent than the regular production line.
If you don't like "wank LP threads" don't read them man. No need to take shots at the people who do enjoy them.
I am sorry if people spending money on guitars offends you.
No problem... I have a short fuse this morning too.
So what's your favorite Historic LP?
anyway, apologies again. i'll just drop it.
i don't have the skill to really justify anything anyway.
I agree that Gibsons are pricey... but when you find a good one... they are tough to beat.
At the end of the day I think I am a telecaster guy though.
In all seriousness, I wish guitars (good ones) were cheap. But the truth is they never were. Even in the 50's when all these great accidental guitars were first created they weren't cheap.
Do some really basic math and you will find that with inflation and COLA's that we are getting some of these guitars at a bargin today compared to the days of old.
There is an article that was recently published that determined the values being set on Vintage and new Custom shop pieces are exactly were they were 5 decades ago, not bad huh?
Consider a new Strat in the 50's sold for 250 bucks and a new Les Paul burst in 59 sold for 750, do the math and see what you come up with.
Now go back and look at who bought those guitars back in the day, it all starts to make sense. The big companies did us all a favor by introducing lower priced guitars. Now it is up to the small companies to keep the big ones on their toes and keep forcing them to improve the product. I am impressed by a lot of what I see. There are bargins out there!
Hanging at www.TheGuitarHub.com
The only Forum for players by players.......
Playing Les Pauls, Teles, Hubers, Gustavssons, Kolls through a Mad Professor amp with a Bob Burt Cab.
BJF powers my Pedal Board
Well, it depends!
I think one of the oldest sayings in all languages is, "they don't build them like they used to!"
I bet people were standing around when they were building the pyramids and shaking their heads going, those things won't last 20 years!
I think with Les Pauls, like houses and cars and anything, it's a combination of mystique and quality and consistency.
Oh, Jimmy, the bottom line is: You have a 95 and it's good. That means it's a good guitar! I've played TONS of nice Pauls from the "Bad " era.
I had a 57 Goldtop and a 58 Sunburst (Real ones) that I bought in the 60's. The Goldtop wasn't really as good a guitar as a lot of later Pauls. The 58 was rocking though! I cried when that thing went!
Each guitar is a different instrument. Different feel, different sound and different mojo. The quality DID go down in the late 70's 80's, maybe 90's but the question is, how bad. It IS true that a lot of artists quit playing Les Pauls because the quality wasn't there, even on ones built for them, but that was also a hardware and neck issue.The hardware kept messing up, the necks were not the right size and feel to them. Guitars take a beating on tour, so that's why good hardware and controls are important. You can't have that stuff messing up in the middle of playing for 25,000 people. That's when Paul Reed Smith made his mark. He brought a fine instrument to people like Carlos Santana, and they said," Whoa,,,, Cool!".
In the present day, I just get frustrated at looking at brand new Gibsons that need fret repairs, finish flaws , have improperly aligned tuners, sometimes you even see a misplaced bridge. It's not that they are THAT much worse than a lot of other companies, but they sure as hell charge more for their product!
Almost every $800 or so Strat comes through just needing a neck adjustment and nothing else, Epiphone Elites arrive with Grover tuners and the same hardware you'd find on a Les Paul ($699.00 on Musicians Friend right now!) and need hardly any tweaking, Heritages and Gretsches come ready to play. Then you have to take a $2200+ list Les Paul Standard and either file and smooth the rough frets, sometimes even reset them, just like I have to do on the Cort Les Pauls that go for $400.
I go through tons of new guitars at my friends music store. I set them up for him. Any brand, any style, acoustic or electric have wide ranges of differences. Some finishes look better, some pieces of wood are better than others, but that's to be expected. If you wanted perfect everytime, you would have to build with some sort of graphite or space age material.
The set ups are always different, but that's an adjustable thing and doesn't count to me.
Uhhh, what the heck was my point?
I forget what the hell I was even writing about! But that's not unusual for me!
Oh! Just because they say all those years were BAD for Les Pauls, doesn't mean all of them were.
If the guitar speaks to you and sounds good, and it feels good when you're playing it, and the electronics and controls are well put together, it's a good guitar, no matter what the brand and year.
Don't be mankind. ~Captain Beefheart
__________________________________