CS0, CS9, CS8, CS7 at Wildwood

[goldtop0]

Bullshit.
There is no structural or tonal advantage to the vintage tenon over the same kind of tenon that is a wee bit shorter. If anything the newer tenon has a wider shape that retains more of the necks wood and increases wood to wood contact for what may be better tone transfer.
If you have to have a vintage tenon pony up and buy one of the excellent new TH Replicas or any pre 2015 R series, if you want a top line Custom Shop Standard there are the CS series.
I don't think Gibson will have any trouble selling them.

Al, what's the difference between the neck tenon on these and the pre historics?

 

[wizardmc]

Hmmm

 

[emg32]

It seems to me Gibson's marketing is a bit at fault here. They should have done an expanded tenon that they market as better than vintage-correct tenons. I know many would have guffawed, but at least there would be a solid message about these CS's. So if you are buying a CS line 59 model, you are getting a guitar with a "better" neck joint than even old Bursts used to have. A number of small luthiers have innovated in this space, and Gibson could easily do it too, and push it as better. The guys that are vintage nuts would still have the TH option.

So they would have two tiers that they market as equal, but appealing to different crowds.

1) The evolution of the Historic Les Paul - more vintage correct every year (and I think in future years they will address the pickguard, TRC, potting of pickups, capacitors, and tuning machines).

2) The evolution of the Les Paul - better features like a much improved neck tenon. There's nothing wrong with trying to make the Les Paul better. Les himself did it all the time. Retailers could even push this line to help move them. It's the one area that I think even vintage nuts can admit could maybe be improved.

Instead it's been a murky release for the CS line, and I'm not sure to whom they are marketing. We don't know what the new tenon looks like, and Gibson is not out there saying it's better in any way. It's just another option that's not historically correct, and that' s not a good message.

They are never going to market a short neck tenon as a better feature than what is on their top of line, highest priced Historic model. It's suppose to be the best of everything and they wouldn't want to taint that in any way. IMO the short tenon they are using in the CS models is probably the same short tenon they are using on the USA models and that is the reason they are doing it. Use wood from the Custom Shop but use the necks from the USA production. Then do the finishing work like paint and plastics in the Custom Shop. Lessen production and labor costs while increasing profit margin.

 

[wizardmc]

Agree

 

[Tommy Tourbus]

Anyone have a pic of this short/wide neck joint? Is it the same as the awful famous rocker joint pics that have been making the rounds forever? Also, there is one step up between these and a regular USA model in that they are not weight relieved, so they kind of bridge a gap between production models and the TH's

 

[Soulweb]

...Also, there is one step up between these and a regular USA model in that they are not weight relieved, so they kind of bridge a gap between production models and the TH's

Very good point

 

[Marcel M]

It seems to me Gibson's marketing is a bit at fault here. They should have done an expanded tenon that they market as better than vintage-correct tenons. I know many would have guffawed, but at least there would be a solid message about these CS's. So if you are buying a CS line 59 model, you are getting a guitar with a "better" neck joint than even old Bursts used to have. A number of small luthiers have innovated in this space, and Gibson could easily do it too, and push it as better. The guys that are vintage nuts would still have the TH option.

So they would have two tiers that they market as equal, but appealing to different crowds.

1) The evolution of the Historic Les Paul - more vintage correct every year (and I think in future years they will address the pickguard, TRC, potting of pickups, capacitors, and tuning machines).

2) The evolution of the Les Paul - better features like a much improved neck tenon. There's nothing wrong with trying to make the Les Paul better. Les himself did it all the time. Retailers could even push this line to help move them. It's the one area that I think even vintage nuts can admit could maybe be improved.

Instead it's been a murky release for the CS line, and I'm not sure to whom they are marketing. We don't know what the new tenon looks like, and Gibson is not out there saying it's better in any way. It's just another option that's not historically correct, and that' s not a good message.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Gibson is making them shorter on these models because it is cheaper to make, and they can sell them cheaper? If not cheaper to make, than certainly because they can sell them cheaper. If this is so, Gibson certainly is not going to invest in a project involving an entirely new design, because that would be even more expensive. Also, how could they market something that is better and charge so much less for it? (less than the THs that is).

I get where you are coming from but logistically it doesn't make sense. The guitars are a cheaper option to the TH, so they cannot invest in making something "better" and they certainly cannot market it as better than the guitar that is way more money.

 

[Scott L]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Gibson is making them shorter on these models because it is cheaper to make, and they can sell them cheaper? If not cheaper to make, than certainly because they can sell them cheaper. If this is so, Gibson certainly is not going to invest in a project involving an entirely new design, because that would be even more expensive. Also, how could they market something that is better and charge so much less for it? (less than the THs that is).

I get where you are coming from but logistically it doesn't make sense. The guitars are a cheaper option to the TH, so they cannot invest in making something "better" and they certainly cannot market it as better than the guitar that is way more money.

My gut tells me it is to delineate the TH line as superior, and justify the upcharge. Sort of like being able to get the 6 or 8 cylinder engine only in the Luxury car divisions.

 

[Marcel M]

My gut tells me it is to delineate the TH line as superior, and justify the upcharge. Sort of like only being able to get the 6 or 8 cylinder engine only in the Luxury car divisions.

Yes. I agree. That is basically what I'm saying.

 

[Big Al]

Al, what's the difference between the neck tenon on these and the pre historics?

Prehistoric have standard rocker tenon. The CS wide/short tenon is more similar to the transition tenon, only wider with an hourglass shape to give more surface area for a tight wood to wood fit into the body. You loose the little bit that sticks into the pickup cavity, which is mostly routed away anyway.

It won't look like the vintage type under the neck pickup but should make for a better functioning one due to greater wood to wood contact. This also means more of the necks wood isn't carved away into a smaller skinnier tenon.

This along with the new serial number system are the only difference I see from a 2014 R9.

 

[Big Al]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Gibson is making them shorter on these models because it is cheaper to make, and they can sell them cheaper? If not cheaper to make, than certainly because they can sell them cheaper. If this is so, Gibson certainly is not going to invest in a project involving an entirely new design, because that would be even more expensive. Also, how could they market something that is better and charge so much less for it? (less than the THs that is).

I get where you are coming from but logistically it doesn't make sense. The guitars are a cheaper option to the TH, so they cannot invest in making something "better" and they certainly cannot market it as better than the guitar that is way more money.

I don't see how it is cheaper. The upcharge isn't due to tenon, it is all the other changes plus the limited prodution of the new reissues that accounts for price difference. It is like coins. Two coins from the same year, identical except mint mark can have big difference in price to collectors. Proof editions vary by finish and prodution numbers, all may cost the same to mint but have very different values.

 

[Marcel M]

I don't see how it is cheaper. The upcharge isn't due to tenon, it is all the other changes plus the limited prodution of the new reissues that accounts for price difference. It is like coins. Two coins from the same year, identical except mint mark can have big difference in price to collectors. Proof editions vary by finish and prodution numbers, all may cost the same to mint but have very different values.

I can see that. I wasn't sure about it being cheaper to make. My main point, however, was I think they are doing it this way so they can market the CS line cheaper, and have a cheaper version vs the most expensive TH line, which was in response to the post of why they wouldn't invest in a "better" one for the CS line. Or even if this CS one is somehow "better", why they do not market it better than the TH line. Which I think is clear.

And I would say the difference in the coin analogy is that that is something that collectors decide (one being more sought after than the other) further down the line, years after production, which drives up the price, while this is something Gibson is deciding and pricing themselves right out of the factory.

I do think we agree though, Big Al, that these will sell and there will be people out there who it does not bother. I can think of a few people I know who buy high end guitars and would just sort of blink at you when you described the difference in tenon and showed them the nicer plastic on the THs (this is coming from someone who obsessively changes all the plastic parts on my Historics, so I'm not bashing it, just pointing out there is a broad range of guitar buyers in the market).

 

[wizardmc]

..

 

[MikeSlub]

I agree that this move with the shorter tenon for the CS line is a gamble on Gibson Custom's part. The guitars look good, play well, and sound great (I tried a few). The question for me is - after so many years of differentiating Gibson Custom's guitars from USA as those with the "long neck tenon," will people warm up to this change? :hmm

I guess that time will tell. :hank

 

[Tim Plains]

Also, there is one step up between these and a regular USA model in that they are not weight relieved, so they kind of bridge a gap between production models and the TH's

2013/newer Traditionals are not weight relieved.

I see these CS8/9s as just Custom Shop Standards and nothing new since Gibson has been making Custom Shop Standards for many years. There are just more of them now to make up for the fewer historic LPs being made. Why people seem to be making a big deal out of them is beyond me. People have been complaining for years that too many historic LPs were being made. 3,000 yearly R9s not to mention the other Rs. People can't expect Gibson Custom to cut that number by 2/3 and not make/push other models to make up for it. My two cents.

 

[emg32]

2013/newer Traditionals are not weight relieved.

I see these CS8/9s as just Custom Shop Standards and nothing new since Gibson has been making Custom Shop Standards for many years. There are just more of them now to make up for the fewer historic LPs being made. Why people seem to be making a big deal out of them is beyond me. People have been complaining for years that too many historic LPs were being made. 3,000 yearly R9s not to mention the other Rs. People can't expect Gibson Custom to cut that number by 2/3 and not make/push other models to make up for it. My two cents.

I don't think many are upset about Gibson making these Custom Shop Standards. Like you said, they have been making them some for years. The problem is they are making them for the same prices as 2014 Historics.

 

[marshall1987]

Les Paul Juniors and Specials in the 50's didn't have a "long" neck tenons did they? My 1958 LP Junior single-cut doesn't have a long neck tenon.

Would these 50's models be considered to have "short" neck tenons?

 

[goldtop0]

Would these 50's models be considered to have "short" neck tenons?

Big Al's post #30 gives a good background.
I'll need to see what he explains in there though as I'm not totally up to speed with this stuff.

 

[Tim Plains]

I don't think many are upset about Gibson making these Custom Shop Standards. Like you said, they have been making them some for years. The problem is they are making them for the same prices as 2014 Historics.

Fair enough but prices always go up (what else is new?). A new Traditional costs more than my 2008 R8 did. A new Standard costs more than what my 2013 R7 cost.

 

[latestarter]

One shouldn't spend any time wondering "why" Gibson have made these change, as it is plainly obvious.

The real question is as per Mike's comment - how will people react?

Given there is no upside for the consumer, potential downside for the Custom Shop "brand" and plenty of used Les Pauls to choose from, I get the feeling it won't be positive.