Was watching this auction and nobody bid on it up until the last 3 hours of the auction!!! Was debating......'72 Les Paul or fishing boat, '72 Les Paul or fishing boat. I REALLY wanted it but, the boat won!!! ......my birth year......the guitar of my dreams in the color I want. Ofcourse I would have taken the black tape sticker shit off and put it back to stock "Rhoads" specs!!! Almost brings tears to the eyes. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %3AIT&rd=1
[img]http://img500.imageshack.us/img500/3465/banner2xt.jpg[/img]
[b][color=red]The saying, "words can not describe" are so true when it comes to Randy Rhoads.[/color][/b]
orion_damage wrote:Man i'd love to get an old les paul, rippin stuff on it is probably pretty easy, thick sustain
I don't think you need an old Les Paul for that rippin' sound... I've got a 2006 Les Paul that sustains for days...
The old Les Pauls are better than the new ones. They don't make them like they used to, because the modern day Gibson factory worker doesn't have pride in his job like the old factory workers of the USA did. So now you're seeing an inferior instrument coming out of Gibson, compared to the old days. The golden age of Gibson is over.
Before you get all pissed off, these are not my words. I know several old timers including my uncle who collects guitars will tell you the same thing. The owner of my local vintage guitar shop says the same thing too.
Further proof. My friend bought a Gibson recently and returned it because it had sharp frets, a fret that was not seated all the way in, muddy pickups, a spot near the joint left unpainted but somehow passed inspection and a g string that always buzzed due to the bridge. Now these kind of problems you'd expect from a cheap instrument but not one that you paid THOUSANDS for, like he did. Until Gibson workers get proud again about their work, you will continue to see poor quality come out of there. PRS has pretty much taken over as the #1 American guitar factory as far as quality, they are everything Gibson used to be.
orion_damage wrote:Man i'd love to get an old les paul, rippin stuff on it is probably pretty easy, thick sustain
I don't think you need an old Les Paul for that rippin' sound... I've got a 2006 Les Paul that sustains for days...
The old Les Pauls are better than the new ones. They don't make them like they used to, because the modern day Gibson factory worker doesn't have pride in his job like the old factory workers of the USA did. So now you're seeing an inferior instrument coming out of Gibson, compared to the old days. The golden age of Gibson is over.
Before you get all pissed off, these are not my words.
I realize that you are quoting others when you make these statements, but you - and they - are wrong. Oldtimers always say the older models is better than the newer model. It helps validate them as people somehow.
The truth is that some older models are better than some newer models. And saying that the workers take no pride in their work is crazy as well. I've played loads of Les Pauls at Guitar Center and never came across the issues you mention. On rare occasion Quality Control misses something, but to say the "Golden Age" is over because one friend got a questional guitar is ridiculous.
Paul Wolfe wrote:
I don't think you need an old Les Paul for that rippin' sound... I've got a 2006 Les Paul that sustains for days...
The old Les Pauls are better than the new ones. They don't make them like they used to, because the modern day Gibson factory worker doesn't have pride in his job like the old factory workers of the USA did. So now you're seeing an inferior instrument coming out of Gibson, compared to the old days. The golden age of Gibson is over.
Before you get all pissed off, these are not my words.
I realize that you are quoting others when you make these statements, but you - and they - are wrong. Oldtimers always say the older models is better than the newer model. It helps validate them as people somehow.
The truth is that some older models are better than some newer models. And saying that the workers take no pride in their work is crazy as well. I've played loads of Les Pauls at Guitar Center and never came across the issues you mention. On rare occasion Quality Control misses something, but to say the "Golden Age" is over because one friend got a questional guitar is ridiculous.
Dude it's totally true. These guys are not just old timers they are guitar conneisuers. You can take an old Gibson and a new one and tell the difference immediately. Gibson used to be the top as far as quality, but now PRS is the top. And it's true unfortunately our(meaning USA) factory workers won't work hard unless they feel they are getting paid enough....it happened with the car industry which explains why Ford now puts out crap cars compared to imports...and now it's happening with our guitars, fortunately PRS still has that pride.
yeah it peeves me that they hollow out the guitars, thats crazy
anyhow i dont think i'll ever get a Gibson LP now. I was thinking about it after reading the latest issue of guitarist (with a LP special feature). I love LP's but they simply cost too much. I've even fallen in love with a wine red LP custom but its ridiculous. Im not sure i could ever afford an LP and even if i could there are guitars that are just as good offering better value for money. It would be somewhat illogical to buy an LP.
If i really want an LP one day i might find a luthier to make me one. Then i can get exactly what i want, no hollow body and guarenteed top rate workmanship. and theres a good chance it would cost less than many LP's.
dont get me wrong im not dissing gibson. I've heard all sorts of rumours about the company but i still have confidence they can deliver top rate product. Im just not sure i could live with the price...
okay, my 2006 les paul standard weighs just over 9 lbs. it's heavy. does anyone know what a vintage model weighs?
my '79 strat is 7.5 lbs by comparison.
Last edited by frank on Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
So I went to my local store, Gibson dealer, just to check the tonal differences on LP's. Tried out all 31 LP's they had. I tapped on the backs and found out which models were hollowed out and which ones were swiss cheesed. All of them except 4 historics were "weight relieved". And out of all of them only one had everything you want. good playability, that endless sustain, and it didn't look too bad either. It was a cherryburst Standard. But at $2049 it wasn't going anywhere with me. Being a long time Gibson owner and LP fan I really wanted something to justify a new LP purchase. After playing all those LP's I just couldn't do it. It just drives the purchase of an Edwards. Where I get all the wood I'm paying for. Now I just need to figure which one
frank wrote:okay, my 2006 les paul standard weighs just over 9 lbs. it's heavy. does anyone know what a vintage model weighs?
my '79 strat is 7.5 lbs by comparison.
The vintage spec ones I played yesterday were pretty heavy. They seemed like 10+ lbs easy.
......my birth year......the guitar of my dreams in the color I want. Ofcourse I would have taken the black tape sticker shit off and put it back to stock "Rhoads" specs!!! 
Almost brings tears to the eyes. 
