• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Max weight for a R9?

Phatfrank

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
263
Hi guys! I've put in an offer for a beautiful 2003 R9, I haven't seen the guitar in the flesh but from pictures she's just my cup of tea; heavy wear and lots of mojo. The seller bought it from a guy who picked it up (used) some years ago in the States, so apart from the serial /COA he doesn't know a lot about it. In this regard I have 2 questions I was hoping "The Oracle that is LPF" could help me with;

1 - Did Gibson do a factory "heavy aged" look in '03? COA not signed by Murphy, btw. And serial not in the braz-range. If it is in fact "aged" and not real wear, it does look a bit rough (which I like, I might add)

2 - What is the max weight of a R9? Seller quotes "about 4.5 kg" - which is pretty much 10 lbs. I've had 4 R9s and still have a CC R9 and none have been close to this weight. Not a deal breaker for me, but seller does not have a digital weight and I suspect he's off by at least half a pound.

Attached a pic for those interested:)

Thanks!

994_1556935711.jpg
 

AA00475Bassman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
3,351
Lots of vibe I like it's not Ace over flamed , once again weigh is subjective.

I believe sound & how it plays defines guitar .
 

kuwahara80

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
354
It has a refret, also. Maybe it really got played a lot and that is natural aging.:unsure:
Cool looking guitar!
 

MikeSlub

Administrator
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
14,898
That guitar has been played! 2003 was a good year. Fret job isn't good - look at those rough ends! 10 lbs. would be unusually heavy.
 

Phatfrank

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
263
That guitar has been played! 2003 was a good year. Fret job isn't good - look at those rough ends! 10 lbs. would be unusually heavy.
Both frets and nut need some attention, yes. And thanks on input on weight - Pretty much what I thought.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,201
I'm not sure that Murphy was aging any guitars for Gibson in 2003, and the "factory aging" process didn't exist at the time. I have my doubts that the wear is all natural. The 2003 lacquer has plasticizers in it which resist checking, although it can still check with extreme temperatures. My guess is that the long check lines were done with a razor. Also, in the relfelctions on the bass-side of the top there appears to be spider web checking, which would be an indication of CO2 or liquid nitrogen freezing.

Regarding the weight, and R9 above 9 lbs is somewhat uncommon, and I'd say anything above 9.5 lbs would be very rare.

I've owned two 2003 R9s (one was 8.2 lbs and the other 8.9 lbs) and I still own the 2003 BRW R7 which I bought new, and all three are great guitars. Its a cool looking guitar, so if you don't mind the heft and the aging floats your boat, go for it.
 
Last edited:

Cranknfrank

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
53
Both frets and nut need some attention, yes. And thanks on input on weight - Pretty much what I thought.
You might be able to get by with a fret dressing......but if not......a fret job will run you around $400. You might want to address the frets in your negotiations.
 

stumphead

Active member
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
382
10 lbs is not a good number for a Historic ..... has bad ring to it

to put it in perspective I had a historic reissue with real ebony board 57 custom black beauty which was 8.2 lb
 

Keefoman

Active member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
506
I don’t think weight should put you off. It’s how it sounds and feels that matters. It looks great by the way. :)
 

Keefoman

Active member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
506
curious ..... at what weight would even you yourself say its "too much " ?
I really don’t know, but I can say that I have never owned, or even tried a guitar that is so heavy that I have thought that I can’t handle it. My heaviest guitar today is my R8 which is about 4.3 kg. (A little less than the 10lbs.) Never thought of it as an especially heavy guitar.
 
Last edited:

corpse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
4,190
To me that looks like a heavy age circa 2010-2013- Music Zoo had a bunch- or it is home-done; those look like OTPG rings the way they are bent so someone wanted an old looking finish. I bet it's a '13 and like the weight, the seller has the SN wrong (very easy to do and innocent enough). No way a legit Historic is #10 and that one pic looks legit.
I love that look- I could wake up next to that any day.
 
Last edited:

Drayve85

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
114
Natural or not? That is a damn-fine looking Les Paul. Must be a good player if some of the wear is natural.
 

axeman565758

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
1,057
10 lbs is crazy.....no way that's correct...tell him not to stand on the scale while holding the guitar....just the guitar by itself....!!!! :LOL:
No Murphy painted/aged R9's in '03 that I'm aware of. I'd try to obtain a little more info....and definitely do not pay extra for the aging if it's a home made job..!
 

Phatfrank

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
263
Thanks for all the input. The COA is correct for a 2003, so fairly sure it’s legit. It looks like the seller will accept my lowball offer so hopefully I’ll get more answers soon.
 

Phatfrank

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
263
Thanks again for sound advice, the seller got a higher bid so I’ll let this one pass. Good looking guitar, but the need for fretwork and that weight just makes this a no-brainer👍
 
Top