• 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!

Murphy lab yay or nay?

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
I don't care about the aging - I think it looks cool, but I don't buy a guitar because of it. The aging is tasteful on my MLs - the LP has a little more dings and scratches than the 335, which just has light checking, but both genuinely look and feel like old guitars. Only thing missing is musty old cigarette smell.

I bought both of my MLs (online, mind you; I didn't get to play them beforehand) because the rumors were that the MLs were a step up from your average Custom Shop guitar. Maybe I just got lucky, but the rumors were true for the two that I got. Super comfortable necks, very resonant wood, good weight (7.5 lbs for the 335, 8.2 lbs for the LP) and something different about the Custombuckers (for the first time I have not felt the urge to rip them out and replace them with boutique pups).

I'd happily buy another ML or two if I can afford them. Would like an SG and an LP Custom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoP

programmer

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Messages
36
Cool guitars, yes

11-10-2022-18-59-35.jpg
 

executor

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
13
I was sceptical of ML guitars (never Been a fan of the idea of pre-aged guitars), but once I picked up one, it was better than 6 stanard R9s I tried - it was lighter, sounded better and setup from the factory was on point… oh and no tuning issues.

Still not the biggest fan of aged guitars (though ultra-light aged ones are fine), but I have been impressed by the MLs I have tried purely as instruments.
 

KoP

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
62
Cool guitars, yes

11-10-2022-18-59-35.jpg
That's badass. But I just can't justify the price difference.

I had a '91 Standard in honeyburst just like that. It was one of the first batches of guitars that Gibson did with CNC routers. The computer settings were off, so the pickup/bridge/tp layout on the body was shifted to one side by between 1/4" at the neck pup to around 1/2" at the tailpiece. I didn't notice it for a long time, but when I finally did, I got rid of it. I couldn't stand to look at it. This was after they stopped marking guitars as seconds. Really bad QC back then. There were apparently around 500 that were finished like that and shipped. 1991 only, and only for a couple weeks. (n)
 

jb_abides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,276
Do folks believe Gibson is doing a 'pick of the litter' sort for reissues that go to ML, is this halo effect, or are all post-ML inception historic reissues just getting better (via wood selection, improved build/QC, etc.) ...?

Apart from aesthetics [via different finish formulation] and feel [via rolling and wear on the neck] there is no rational explanation for 'best I've ever...' relative to same era Custom Ship historic reissues with comparable specs, assuming ML owners have a sufficient sample set on which to base their assessment i.e. ownership of many historic reissues.

This would tend to indicate ML acclaim boils down to neck treatments for the 'broken-in' feel [discounting aesthetics of aging process]. Agree?

FWIW, I think speculation there's some 'alternative CustomBucker' for ML falls flat. If Gibson were doing that, they'd certainly advertise that!

Congrats to the owners of the fine examples in this thread... 🍑
 

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
Do folks believe Gibson is doing a 'pick of the litter' sort for reissues that go to ML, is this halo effect, or are all post-ML inception historic reissues just getting better (via wood selection, improved build/QC, etc.) ...?

Apart from aesthetics [via different finish formulation] and feel [via rolling and wear on the neck] there is no rational explanation for 'best I've ever...' relative to same era Custom Ship historic reissues with comparable specs, assuming ML owners have a sufficient sample set on which to base their assessment i.e. ownership of many historic reissues.

This would tend to indicate ML acclaim boils down to neck treatments for the 'broken-in' feel [discounting aesthetics of aging process]. Agree?

FWIW, I think speculation there's some 'alternative CustomBucker' for ML falls flat. If Gibson were doing that, they'd certainly advertise that!

Congrats to the owners of the fine examples in this thread... 🍑

The necks are a big part of it, but also the resonance of the wood and the clarity of the Custombuckers.

As a frame of reference. I've been playing/buying Gibsons since 1987. I've owned 41 of them over the years - from '60s & '70s vintage through Gibson USA, Memphis, and Custom Shop.

17 out of those 41 are Custom Shop Gibsons built between 2007-2021 - a mix of LPs, SGs, Firebirds, and ES models.

2 out of those 17 are True Historic LPs (one hand painted by Tom Murphy) and 2 are Murphy Labs ('64 335 and R8 LP).

A good chunk of the Custom Shop models I've owned have had Custombuckers. The ones in my current MLs just sound a little different to me. I don't think that ML is necessarily using special Custombuckers but I suspect that they might be putting more attention into pairing the right CBs for a particular guitar.
 

E.M.

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
141
Do folks believe Gibson is doing a 'pick of the litter' sort for reissues that go to ML, is this halo effect, or are all post-ML inception historic reissues just getting better (via wood selection, improved build/QC, etc.) ...?

Apart from aesthetics [via different finish formulation] and feel [via rolling and wear on the neck] there is no rational explanation for 'best I've ever...' relative to same era Custom Ship historic reissues with comparable specs, assuming ML owners have a sufficient sample set on which to base their assessment i.e. ownership of many historic reissues.

This would tend to indicate ML acclaim boils down to neck treatments for the 'broken-in' feel [discounting aesthetics of aging process]. Agree?

FWIW, I think speculation there's some 'alternative CustomBucker' for ML falls flat. If Gibson were doing that, they'd certainly advertise that!

Congrats to the owners of the fine examples in this thread... 🍑
The top several things that separate my ML from other historics I’ve owned are 1) the “snappiness” of the tone - similar ping as a vintage instrument, 2) neck feel, 3) weight/aesthetics 4) tonal clarity of pickups. I’ve owned 8-10 historics and several Gibson USAs so that’s my reference comparison set. So “best ever” is relative to my own knowledge and experience that I have had. The benefit of this forum is that there are many players who have had many guitars over the years to base their opinions on, so we can assimilate that knowledge to judge whether or not the Murphy labs stand apart from other re-issue categories.
 

jb_abides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,276
The necks are a big part of it, but also the resonance of the wood and the clarity of the Custombuckers.

As a frame of reference. I've been playing/buying Gibsons since 1987. I've owned 41 of them over the years - from '60s & '70s vintage through Gibson USA, Memphis, and Custom Shop.

17 out of those 41 are Custom Shop Gibsons built between 2007-2021 - a mix of LPs, SGs, Firebirds, and ES models.

2 out of those 17 are True Historic LPs (one hand painted by Tom Murphy) and 2 are Murphy Labs ('64 335 and R8 LP).

A good chunk of the Custom Shop models I've owned have had Custombuckers. The ones in my current MLs just sound a little different to me. I don't think that ML is necessarily using special Custombuckers but I suspect that they might be putting more attention into pairing the right CBs for a particular guitar.

I have many Custom Shop/Historic reissues 2000-onward, but no Murphy Labs (obviously, there are none for me).

You imply both wood sort and pickup matching.

I may see the former happening, not the latter. Too many variables and not enough time to swap/match... and based on 'what'?
 
Last edited:

jb_abides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,276
The top several things that separate my ML from other historics I’ve owned are 1) the “snappiness” of the tone - similar ping as a vintage instrument, 2) neck feel, 3) weight/aesthetics 4) tonal clarity of pickups. I’ve owned 8-10 historics and several Gibson USAs so that’s my reference comparison set. So “best ever” is relative to my own knowledge and experience that I have had. The benefit of this forum is that there are many players who have had many guitars over the years to base their opinions on, so we can assimilate that knowledge to judge whether or not the Murphy labs stand apart from other re-issue categories.

1-4 can vary for every historic reissue; it's individualistic and subjective. That said, let's limit to ML versus normal reissue of the same era, i.e. post ML-inception: the same specs exist in that universal set.

Then only wood sorting and neck treatment are meaningful variable, if they exist. [Unless someone proffers the ML finish formula, razor-slicing and vinegar-soaking hardware impart tonal magic. Then I argue that's purely aesthetic or would have distinguished themselves in prior TM creations as a whole.]

Otherwise, I argue it's akin to 'Good Wood Year' magical thinking or recency bias. Not that these aren't great guitars. Instead, the whole of the historic reissues both ML and Non-ML are benefiting from improved materials, build quality, etc. If not that, then back to wood sorting and neck treatment as possible variables.
 

E.M.

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
141
1-4 can vary for every historic reissue; it's individualistic and subjective. That said, let's limit to ML versus normal reissue of the same era, i.e. post ML-inception: the same specs exist in that universal set.

Then only wood sorting and neck treatment are meaningful variable, if they exist. [Unless someone proffers the ML finish formula, razor-slicing and vinegar-soaking hardware impart tonal magic. Then I argue that's purely aesthetic or would have distinguished themselves in prior TM creations as a whole.]

Otherwise, I argue it's akin to 'Good Wood Year' magical thinking or recency bias. Not that these aren't great guitars. Instead, the whole of the historic reissues both ML and Non-ML are benefiting from improved materials, build quality, etc. If not that, then back to wood sorting and neck treatment as possible variables.
“the whole of the historic reissues both ML and Non-ML are benefiting from improved materials, build quality, etc.”

Agree 100%.
 

CAGinLA

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
489
I have many Custom Shop/Historic reissues 2000-onward, but no Murphy Labs (obviously, there are none for me).

You imply both wood sort and pickup matching.

I may see the former happening, not the latter. Too many variables and not enough time to swap/match... and based on 'what'?
Why would the latter not happen, LOL? We know that the CS does this with special runs such as artist models. They also offer tweaked CBs for Wildwood CME Spec models. There's a reason that MLs cost so much and it's not just the aging.
 
Top