• 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!

Year-by-Year History of the Historic Les Paul Collection

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,219
Maybe Danelectro can edit the front end of this thread to put in these changes.

I am unable to add anything to the front end because the character count reached the limit of 10,000 characters.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,219
I just discovered that the back control cover changed in 2009. The profile is slightly different and the holes are shifted. I compared it with the cover on my 1960 LP and it doesn't match so I'm not sure why they bothered to change it. Same goes with the pickguard profile which changed in 2009 to a profile that is less accurate to a burst guard than the pre-2009 guard was.
 

zoltan

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
72
what is the difference between "historic" and "re-issue" ? Which is better for collecting and playing ? I do not have that much money, but looking to get me ONE that I can keep for a life time. I personally like Black Custom, but have no idea to go with "historic" or "re-issue".
 

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
I just discovered that the back control cover changed in 2009. The profile is slightly different and the holes are shifted. I compared it with the cover on my 1960 LP and it doesn't match so I'm not sure why they bothered to change it. Same goes with the pickguard profile which changed in 2009 to a profile that is less accurate to a burst guard than the pre-2009 guard was.
Maybe its just me ... but having followed the Reissue line for so long now, with all of Gibsons bullshit little changes every year, claims of measuring original bursts ...marketing crap about being so close to a late 50's les Paul.... I just find the whole thing a bit pathetic now to be honest. When you think ..... the requirement for making your multi thousand dollar guitar actually something close (ish) to a burst, is having it torn apart and half of it replaced in a makeover ....... yet a one man show can get hold of one vintage guitar in his tool shed, measure it properly and build a true replica from scratch,.... its no wonder so many people just bore of the whole Historic line.
I just think its time perhaps that Gibson stopped even calling these guitars 1958 / 1959 etc Reissues .... what's the point if they aren't ever going to be the same. Give them an appropriate name and let people enjoy what are in fact good guitars, .... without having to be constantly disappointed about just how un-1959 etc they really are.
 
Last edited:

Peter100

New member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
124
Maybe its just me ... but having followed the Reissue line for so long now, with all of Gibsons bullshit little changes every year, claims of measuring original bursts ...marketing crap about being so close to a late 50's les Paul.... I just find the whole thing a bit pathetic now to be honest. When you think ..... the requirement for making your multi thousand dollar guitar actually something close (ish) to a burst, is having it torn apart and half of it replaced in a makeover ....... yet a one man show can get hold of one vintage guitar in his tool shed, measure it properly and build a true replica from scratch,.... its no wonder so many people just bore of the whole Historic line.
I just think its time perhaps that Gibson stopped even calling these guitars 1958 / 1959 etc Reissues .... what's the point if they aren't ever going to be the same. Give them an appropriate name and let people enjoy what are in fact good guitars, .... without having to be constantly disappointed about just how un-1959 etc they really are.
Hi Garry Less Moore alexandria, that is what this forum is all about , if you not happy with it , i know you are playing on a Gibson Studio, you have to go to other forums.
OR you buy you a real R9 LP re issue
Peter100
 

wild.joz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,933
Hi Garry Less Moore alexandria, that is what this forum is all about , if you not happy with it , i know you are playing on a Gibson Studio, you have to go to other forums.
OR you buy you a real R9 LP re issue
Peter100

:bigal
 

Calgary Flametop

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
119
2007
* Brighter back red filler color.
* Real honduran mahogany.............
* 50th Anniversary Goldtop (Ewwww) 157 to be built

I just want to say something about this comment. There a gazillion Historic bursts out there. I own a couple dozen myself. I also own one of the 50th Anniversary Goldtops. I have the Standard Version, but there is also a Custom version. All 157 Custom versions were built, but supposedly not even 100 of the Standard versions ended up getting built. I talked to a Gibson rep on the phone a while ago, when they used to do that LOL, and he could not find serial 57S 100 or a few higher he tried in his system. Whatever the actual count is there are hardly any of these available. I have played the 50th Goldtop live on several occasions and have had a few people, all female, comment on how beautiful the guitar was. I think I have had all of one comment on any of my R8 or R9's and it was from a guy who couldn't stop talking on how great the Historic Gibson Les Pauls were.

Anyways, what I am trying to get at here is that what is wrong with a little showmanship? These 50th Anniversary Goldtops are awesome looking guitars and the 24K Gold Plated plate on the headstock acts like one of those sustainers that you can buy and add to the headstock. As well, the last time I played the light shining off of the plate made a gold Gibson headstock picture on the far wall. Very artistic I thought. I like my R8's and R9's too, but unless you are a total introvert and don't want to get noticed, the bling of the 50th Ann. Goldtop shouldn't warrant a comment like ewww.
 

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
Hi Garry Less Moore alexandria, that is what this forum is all about , if you not happy with it , i know you are playing on a Gibson Studio, you have to go to other forums.
OR you buy you a real R9 LP re issue
Peter100

I've struggled to work out this post ....

...maybe you could give me your arse's email address so I could request more info ?
 

Calgary Flametop

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
119
Who is saying that Gibson's Historic line are way out of spec? Original bursts were soft tooled and their angles and thickness's were all over the place so who in their right mind can say that one copy is more accurate than another? Also, I have seen more supposed burst copies farther off base than where Gibson got to by 2007. I saw a Max recently that had a bone nut, solid black side dots, incorrect fret wire, wired bridge, etc. It had way more parts wrong than the historics, so if there are no exact angles and dimensions how can it be more accurate?
 

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
Who is saying that Gibson's Historic line are way out of spec? Original bursts were soft tooled and their angles and thickness's were all over the place so who in their right mind can say that one copy is more accurate than another? Also, I have seen more supposed burst copies farther off base than where Gibson got to by 2007. I saw a Max recently that had a bone nut, solid black side dots, incorrect fret wire, wired bridge, etc. It had way more parts wrong than the historics, so if there are no exact angles and dimensions how can it be more accurate?


look, I'm not the biggest fan of Max's ... if you wanna be 'super-anal' with vintage accuracy. But I can GUARANTEE you that it was way more accurate than a Historic. Ok it had the wrong nut material (change it for £30), the wrong fret wire (even bursts were refretted so I don't see how that matters),a wired bridge (that's not part of the guitar by the way)......and black dot markers (Tortoise dots often look solid black .... but you may be right).
But, if it was a Max (and not just a badly put together Max kit) ..... it was more than likely made from old growth wood.....built with hide glue......braz board......proper nitro finish ...... Aniline dye sunburst.....no trussrod condom....... more correct(ish) dimensions, body shape, cavity placements,knob placements, headstock size, ..... better top carve and C.N inlays.
These things are the specs (AT LEAST) that need to be set in stone...... after that, yes, you can have variation and still float within the realms of original bursts.
Replicas do get more burst-accurate than a Max ..... but I'm sorry mate, Historics did not get more accurate than a Max at ANY point.... for the reasons stated above.
 
Last edited:

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
Anyway, without getting into the pointless, un-arguable Historic vs Replica debate ...... it was the steps backwards of late in the historic line that really prompted my previous post. I've always liked Historics and I've owned plenty of great ones. But I still stand by both my comments above. :salude
 

Calgary Flametop

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
119
Anyway, without getting into the pointless, un-arguable Historic vs Replica debate ...... it was the steps backwards of late in the historic line that really prompted my previous post. I've always liked Historics and I've owned plenty of great ones. But I still stand by both my comments above. :salude


I don't want to get into a big debate on this either, but from what I have checked on the dimensions for the 50's bursts in the last week they were so all over the place that I could not give any copy from any source as being more accurate in that department. I even read that Gibson looked at 25 50's guitars at the onset of the Historic line and took an average of them. There are 50's bursts with as much as 3/8" difference in body depth. As far as the glue goes on the neck joint there is really isn't enough involved to really play a factor. The joint is such a tight fit and is pretty much wood on wood. Its not like it is a rocker tenon with a bunch of glue. Things like fretboard inlays I can't see playing any affect into sound either.

Anyways, I have played a fair share of non-Gibson made burst copies and some have been very nice, but I have also played a lot of Historics and some of them have been very nice as well. The best tone that has grabbed me in the last couple years came from a 2011 Gibson Hard Rock Maple Lemon R9. The couple years before that it was a copy made in Canada and the couple years before that it was a 2004 Navigator made in Japan.

All I am trying to say is that there are a lot of little mom and pop burst copiers popping up all over the place and all of them proclaim how accurate they are, but finding a really great guitar is way more subjective than that. Most of them are quite new to the guitar building world and unless it was D'Angelico rising from the grave himself I don't know how much weight I can put on just using more accurate parts. As I said above I have played some nice so called accurate copies, but I have played just as many dud copies as I have played dud Gibsons.
 

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
No burst was ever built the way a modern Historic is ....

..... a GOOD replica is built the way 'at least one' burst was.

That's all ..... not saying one is better than the other, but the point is clear.

Once again, ... I love Historics, ... but they are what they are.
 

alexanderja

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
1,379
Anyway, I'm sorry everyone, this isn't the place for this conversation really :salude
 

Calgary Flametop

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
119
I know I am confused. As far as dimensions go there can be no true god and the only things that seem to get my Gibson Historics and other LP copies sounding like my 50's Pauls are pots, caps, aluminum tailpieces and original PAF's or good copies like Throbak's, etc.

Anyways, to keep in spirit with the start of this thread I am going to say the 2011 Historics I am finding quite amazing in the feel department and I really like the heavy flecks, iron and grain of the hard rock maple. The carve of the top grain on my 2011 is also very nice and it could be 9 0696's twin. I have a 2011 Murphy on the way that has a top with more going on than any I have seen to date. My 2012 Historic comment is boo hoo to the laminated fretboard.
 

oceantoad

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
1,034
Have only owned 1994-2000 Historics, 12-18 years later, it is still all about the wood!

Some of you guys must really suss one out, and compare one day.
 

jamdogg

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
10
Have only owned 1994-2000 Historics, 12-18 years later, it is still all about the wood!

Some of you guys must really suss one out, and compare one day.

there is something to be said for that. My '85 Flametop RI is an absolute monster of a guitar, despite being historically inaccurate. :)

Gotta be the shaws and the wood.....
 
Top