Come on all you Gibson heads, a poor Fender boy needs some steer......

Dingwall

I am shopping for a new guitar. This is good news and I think I want to get my first Gibson guitar (I have 12 others but no Gibson)!

I am currently looking at Les Pauls, the new Midtown and also ES339 (2nd hand).

Can someone please explain to me exactly why I would want to spend £1800 on a Les Paul standard when I can buy a Studio Les Paul for under £600! Now I know that the Studio is meant to be a cheaper stripped down LP and it doesn't have the expensive and labour intensive lacquer job of the standard. But I need someone to tell me why one is 3 times the price of the other?

Is it the wood, attention to detail in manufacturing proces, pickups?! Would I be able to tell the difference if blind folded?

The Studio in question also comes with Bursbucker Pros which is what a lot of the Custom shops come with. Is this the self same pickup or do the studios use lower quality ones?

When I had an acoustic guitar built for me by Brook guitars the prices varied from £1500 to £4000 for the same model. When I asked what the differences were they told me it was purely cosmetic, i.e. inlays, binding etc and that the quality of tone was the same.

Are we talking about the same thing with Les Pauls?

Gearhead

If you have a dozen guitars already then you might know - play it dude. If it speaks to you, who cares what model it is? I know if I'd ever buy a Gibbo LP it would not be a Studio, but that's because those cream bound cherry burst flampe Maple tops on the Standard look sooooo cool. While you're comparing, also take the R9 into account, more money for what appears to be the same guitar. That is, if you can't hear or feel the difference.

Skylark

All the Les Paul studios I have played were pretty lame tone wise.
Construction was good , as you mentioned mostly cosmetic differences compared to a Std , maybe get a studio and upgrade the pups.... would probably sound better than a current model Std.

But from my experience just save yourself the hassle - if you can afford it then just buy the real thing - a nice sounding and playing 2hnd Gibson Les Paul Std would probably be the best way to go. Getting a studio is like getting a Ferrari with a really crappy paint job - it just doesnt feel right , although it would still drive pretty much the same.

And on this subject , an epiphone with really good hardware and pups/wiring will probably sound better than the current Gibson Les Paul std.
Though you wont get the same thrill as you would with a Gibson when you look at the logo as you pick it up and in that instant remember all the legends made with the exact model of guitar you hold.
But thats purely psychological ?

shaunf

Dingwall wrote:
Can someone please explain to me exactly why I would want to spend £1800 on a Les Paul standard when I can buy a Studio Les Paul for under £600! Now I know that the Studio is meant to be a cheaper stripped down LP and it doesn't have the expensive and labour intensive lacquer job of the standard. But I need someone to tell me why one is 3 times the price of the other?

I'm not up to speed with the spec of the latest model Studios or Standards for that matter. What I can tell you though, is if you look for an older Studio, like say a mid nineties model, the differences between the Studio and Standard of that time were mainly cosmetic. Studio - only available in 3 colours, Gibson logo silkscreened instead of MOP inlay, gig bag instead of hard case, 50's neck instead of 60's slimtaper, no binding. Oh, these mid nineties Studios also had Ebony fretboards, compared to the Standard's Rosewood boards.

The Studio in question also comes with Bursbucker Pros which is what a lot of the Custom shops come with. Is this the self same pickup or do the studios use lower quality ones?

Burstbucker Pros, which the Studios, and I think the Standards come with are not the name as the Burstbucker 1 and Burstbucker 2 that the Custom Shop Historics come with.

singemonkey

+1 on older studios with ebony boards, unchambered, 1 or 2 piece bodies. Modern studios are made of as many as 4 pieces which is partly why they're cheaper than standards which have 2 piece bodies, typically, and have solid flame-maple tops. But for all the fact that I like teasing people, there's not that much difference in sound. You're paying largely for construction costs - materials. Of course the binding does increase the time taken to produce the guitars too.

The main reason I now prefer Tokais is the completely solid construction throughout their lineup, and both Studios and Standards are now chambered - i.e., they are hollow, and this affects the weight (they are much lighter and easier on the back) but are subtly different in tone from old Les Pauls. Not necessarily bad - because many classic guitars, like Gretsch duo-jets were also chambered. But different. My choice in the Gibson factory line up, if I had to choose, would be the Les Paul Traditional which is weight relieved but not chambered - or older standards or studios which are similarly weight relieved but not chambered.

dirkv

I would like to add my 2 cents worth to this topic

I own a 2010 Studio (Faded Cherry) and I adore this guitar. For me, it sounds amazing. You are getting a quality instrument for a fraction of the cost. I understand what everyone is saying about the mid-90's models but realistically you are going to walk into a shop and pick up a newer model.

We should also keep in perspective here that this 'cheaper' modern model is still priced around R8000

So the options are:

1. You can search around for a mid-90's model (which, i imagine, will be hard to find)
2. Walk into Marshall, pick up a Studio, fall in love with it and walk out a happy man

Dingwall

UPDATE:

Went to local music store and tried out a Les Paul Standard (£1749), Les Paul 2008 (£1899), Les Paul Classic Custom Baked Maple (£1399),Les Paul Classic Plus (1699) & a Les Paul Studio (£999).

All I can say is that each guitar felt quite different in terms of weight and overall feel. In terms of quality it was clear that the more expensive Les Paul's were better made instruments. They felt 'much' more expensive.

I found the Les Paul 2008 had the least bark of the bunch. I was at low amp levels so difficult to really tell! And my overall favourite, although not much in it, was the Les Paul Classic Custom. The guitar felt solid and expensive, the baked maple familiar (ebony in my main gigging guitar) and the sound was as good as any on the day.

But there was not a great difference in overall sound quality, the Studio certainly held it's own (again at the levels I was playing at).

Conclusion - I am none the wiser........but I did check out the spec for the new Les Paul 2012 and this looks very very nice indeed.....arriving at UK music shops some time this month......£2000........argghhhhhh!!

VellaJ

Dingwall wrote: And my overall favourite, although not much in it, was the Les Paul Classic Custom. The guitar felt solid and expensive, the baked maple familiar (ebony in my main gigging guitar) and the sound was as good as any on the day.

Well, if the LPCC was your overall favourite, I'd think that's a pretty good choice. If you liked the feel, build quality and sound, that's awesome. It's also the 2nd cheapest, second only to the Studio. From what you've said, IMHO, that would be the one to go for.

Dingwall

VellaJ wrote:
Dingwall wrote: And my overall favourite, although not much in it, was the Les Paul Classic Custom. The guitar felt solid and expensive, the baked maple familiar (ebony in my main gigging guitar) and the sound was as good as any on the day.

Well, if the LPCC was your overall favourite, I'd think that's a pretty good choice. If you liked the feel, build quality and sound, that's awesome. It's also the 2nd cheapest, second only to the Studio. From what you've said, IMHO, that would be the one to go for.

ahhh but check out the 2012 spec........(I think I should hang on)

VellaJ

Dingwall wrote: ahhh but check out the 2012 spec........(I think I should hang on)

If you got the cash, then do that ?

Hammeron

Dingwall wrote: UPDATE:

Went to local music store and tried out a Les Paul Standard (£1749), Les Paul 2008 (£1899), Les Paul Classic Custom Baked Maple (£1399),Les Paul Classic Plus (1699) & a Les Paul Studio (£999).

All I can say is that each guitar felt quite different in terms of weight and overall feel. In terms of quality it was clear that the more expensive Les Paul's were better made instruments. They felt 'much' more expensive.

I found the Les Paul 2008 had the least bark of the bunch. I was at low amp levels so difficult to really tell! And my overall favourite, although not much in it, was the Les Paul Classic Custom. The guitar felt solid and expensive, the baked maple familiar (ebony in my main gigging guitar) and the sound was as good as any on the day.

But there was not a great difference in overall sound quality, the Studio certainly held it's own (again at the levels I was playing at).

Conclusion - I am none the wiser........but I did check out the spec for the new Les Paul 2012 and this looks very very nice indeed.....arriving at UK music shops some time this month......£2000........argghhhhhh!!

So the most expensive one had the least bark....and the second cheapest out of 5 was your favourite. It seems to me that when you played them you didn't let the price affect your opinion, well done. Oh, and on the contrary, I think you are much wiser.

Reinhard

Keep in mind the 2012 Custom has a maple cap, no binding on the rear, and have a baked Maple fretboard.
I prefer the specs of the older ones TBH (Ebony fretboard,double body binding etc), but if you like the tone, the specs don't matter ?

singemonkey

Reinhard wrote: Keep in mind the 2012 Custom has a maple cap, no binding on the rear, and have a baked Maple fretboard.
I prefer the specs of the older ones TBH (Ebony fretboard,double body binding etc), but if you like the tone, the specs don't matter ?

+1 to all that.

Dingwall

Reinhard wrote: Keep in mind the 2012 Custom has a maple cap, no binding on the rear, and have a baked Maple fretboard.
I prefer the specs of the older ones TBH (Ebony fretboard,double body binding etc), but if you like the tone, the specs don't matter ?

I am talking about the 2012 Standard which is a high speccd beast from what I can tell:

AAA Premium Figured maple cap - looks stunning
Asymmetrical neck with rosewood fretboard
Split pickups including an out of phase option and a direct humbucker output, bypassing all tone controls for more grunt/power
Locking tuners
Burstbuckers

Shawnvs

(purely my view)

I dislike the studio. Most I've played felt worse than most entry level instruments. Poor craftsmanship and doesn't deserve to be even labeled a Gibson.

That said; I have a very precious little baby from 1980, I love it to bits and is worth more than my flat (and the bank knows that unfortunately). However, I played on one of my student's dads Gibson. Also pure awesome tone, but lighter strings (I am addicted to 13") so please make sure you test these axes first.

Play it for a week or a month before you purchase it. Compare your guitars without being biased like me. If you invest in an expensive instrument with THAT kind of money, it is your responsibility to make sure you sleep at night knowing that you really have a sound crafted instrument in your arms.