Educate me, Gibson friends

[Bob Womack]

Jaden, the new Standards are in the 7.8 to 8.2 pound range, which is entirely reasonable.


Bob

[The Growler]

Originally Posted by Jerry D

I think you meant fit the bill.

You're right. I'll blame it on the spell checker.

[The Growler]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

We really must see this guitar!

By the way, I traded a 2993 LP Studio a year ago that had the biggest neck I had ever seen and very low frets.

Bob

Did you pick it up in your DeLorean?

To the OP, as Dru and others have pointed out, there are hundreds of configurations of studios and standards over the years, including baseball bat necks, slim, 60s tapered, etc. plus the differences in pickups, wood grade tops, binding, etc.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by The Growler

Did you pick it up in your DeLorean?

To the OP, as Dru and others have pointed out, there are hundreds of configurations of studios and standards over the years, including baseball bat necks, slim, 60s tapered, etc. plus the differences in pickups, wood grade tops, binding, etc.

whoop. 2003.


Bob

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Jaden, the new Standards are in the 7.8 to 8.2 pound range, which is entirely reasonable.


Bob

I don’t get along with the thickness of the one in my local shop. Thinner body leads to the advantage of the SG with the good looks of the Standard.

[hbg]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

We really must see this guitar!

By the way, I traded a 2993 LP Studio a year ago that had the biggest neck I had ever seen and very low frets.

Bob

Thank you! Trying to find a way to link to a picture. May just purchase a charter membership, but not sure if I want to commit to that yet!

[Jeff Scott]

Here's some free advice, buy a PRS; you'll thank me for that bit of wisdom.

[Logdy]

What about dean zelinsky guitars?

[Jaden]

If you land the LP, the only thing to have sorted out is a well set up nut that doesn’t bind. A Paul that stays in tune like a champ is a prize.

[C-ville Brent]

Les Pauls can be heavy (when you're in your 50's anyway). I have a Studio - weight relieved but still pretty heavy and a Traditional - very heavy. I like them both a lot. Different pick ups but sound like a Les Paul. As a previous member noted, a bit of a different flavor.

Get a good strap! I now have a 2 1/2" LM suede on both and it helps a lot.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Mich Novice

Looking for some insight on differences between Les Paul studios and standards. I want an LP but debating which way to go with it. Are we mostly talking about wood quality and aesthetics, or is there a quality difference with electronics, etc? Any experiences that can’t be found on a spec list would be much appreciated! I will likely buy used, perhaps unless I decide there is a forever piece out there.

As far as the sound goes, no-one would ever be able to correctly identify studios from standards in a blind test.

There's a good chance they WOULD be able to tell the difference between different pickups in either model.

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by moon

As far as the sound goes, no-one would ever be able to correctly identify studios from standards in a blind test.

There's a good chance they WOULD be able to tell the difference between different pickups in either model.

My thoughts as well, moon.

[rwmct]

I might be interested in the Studio model but am suspicious of the "weight relief" whatever that means. Weight relief and Les Paul seem like words that do not go together.

[C-ville Brent]

There is some information available, or used to be, on Gibson's site. It seems they route out areas of the mahogany body from the top (sort of like for a control cavity or pick up) before they put the maple cap on. My 2014 Studio is noticeably lighter than my 2014 Traditional. I personally can't say that the extra weight adds or detracts from the tone (they have different pickups). Generally the Studios seem to have less binding and cost less.

Toured the Gibson factory in Nashville several years ago where they make hollow and semi-hollow body guitars. There was a room full of workers with razor blades scraping paint from binding. I asked why they didn't mask off the binding before paint and was told that it didn't work. Helped me understand why the guitars with binding usually cost so much more.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by rwmct

I might be interested in the Studio model but am suspicious of the "weight relief" whatever that means. Weight relief and Les Paul seem like words that do not go together.

I was with you for a while. The problem here is that the mahogany sourcing between the beginning of the model ('50s) and now has changed. The newer mahogany is heavier. It began at the end of the '60s, by the way. I have a pair of LPs. My tried and true road warrior '74 Standard I bought used in '77 was made in Kalamazoo and weighs 9.8 pounds.



It sounds wonderful and very powerful. But as I, um, "matured," I found I didn't want to sling that weight for long periods. It is truly fatiguing to use for a long night or a long recording session. So, I added a 2018 Standard that is weight-relieved with Gibson's latest scheme called the Ultra-Modern Weight Relief System. It looks like this:




I can tell you that this is the most balanced Les Paul I've played or owned. I've owned others with various weight-relief systems and wasn't over fond of those systems. They tweaked it over twenty years and this was the result. On this guitar, the sustain seems to be much like the solid '74 but it weighs 7.8 lbs, is extremely balanced for-and-aft, and is a joy to play on your lap or on a strap. It also has a sweeter tone than the '74.



Bob