# 2007 Les pauls



## Marlon (Sep 9, 2007)

Is is true that all the new les paul standards are significantly lighter than the old ones. I read that on a lot of reviews...


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Marlon said:


> Is is true that all the new les paul standards are significantly lighter than the old ones. I read that on a lot of reviews...


I depends on how much mahogony Gibson wants to remove. They normally tap the mahogony for weight relief.

Historics are the only ones with solid chunks of wood.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

it shouldnt be. you can buy a chambered model for weight reduction, i believe.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Budda said:


> it shouldnt be. you can buy a chambered model for weight reduction, i believe.


Not chambered. They still tap out the mahogony with standards. When I say tapped, I mean the drill holes here and there in the mahogony for weight relief.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Not chambered. They still tap out the mahogony with standards. When I say tapped, I mean the drill holes here and there in the mahogony for weight relief.


Wouldn't that affect the tone quite a bit? I think Les Pauls are meant to be heavy ass guitars and people just whine too much, sounds like Gibson's just thinking up more cost-cutting measures to make a bigger profit:zzz:


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

All new Les Pauls (outside of the historics) have significant routing throughout the body. We are not talking the small holes they used in the 90s, this is more like a semi hollow body! Here is an x ray of a new LP.











TG


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> All new Les Pauls (outside of the historics) have significant routing throughout the body. We are not talking the small holes they used in the 90s, this is more like a semi hollow body! Here is an x ray of a new LP.


That looks like the P-90/Bucker configuration of a the Les Paul BFG. It shares it's "weight relieved" body with the other low end Les Paul, the Studio. I seriously doubt that's representative of the amount of wood in a Standard which goes for over twice that price. Got an x-ray of one of those?


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

I agree with traynor_garnet above. There was a huge outcry about this on the lespaulforum ( as you can imagine, it was a shit-storm over there!) and on thegearpage. The new Les Pauls are significantly weight relieved compared to previous models. I'm not sure ifs always to the extent of the x-ray above, but they are much lighter than before.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

iaresee said:


> That looks like the P-90/Bucker configuration of a the Les Paul BFG. It shares it's "weight relieved" body with the other low end Les Paul, the Studio. I seriously doubt that's representative of the amount of wood in a Standard which goes for over twice that price. Got an x-ray of one of those?


Yes, the above picture is of a BFG but Gibson has confirmed that all new Les Pauls (not just the low end ones) are built like this. If you search you tube you will find a video factory tour of the Gibson plant that clearly shows all the LP bodies routed in this manner. Here is a shot of a regular (non BFG) LP.










TG


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

From the Gibson site:

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/Chambering the Les Paul_ A Mar/


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Yes, the above picture is of a BFG but Gibson has confirmed that all new Les Pauls (not just the low end ones) are built like this. If you search you tube you will find a video factory tour of the Gibson plant that clearly shows all the LP bodies routed in this manner. Here is a shot of a regular (non BFG) LP.


That's....awful. A little bit of me just died.  Who does that to a fine piece of mahogany?


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Who does that to a fine piece of mahogany?


Someone who should be shot. :2guns:


----------



## Marlon (Sep 9, 2007)

that sucks, i just found out that the old ones were about 12.5 pounds, and the new ones 7.5 pounds. the price should also be 45 percent less than...


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

That's just not right--I like the chunky nature of the Les Pauls--that's a 5 pound difference given Marlon's weights.

At least they do mention it on their website, btu how many people buying them know that?

At least the historics don't do that, but this could still drive up the cost of older Les Pauls.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

zontar said:


> At least they do mention it on their website, btu how many people buying them know that?


Actually, they made the switch without telling anyone. Once people discovered this Gibson eventually came clean.

I know of stores who don't even know Gibson is doing this. I told as salesperson in a local place but I could tell he didn't believe me.

TG


----------



## Marlon (Sep 9, 2007)

guys, on some guitar selling selling sites the reviews for the sold les pauls in 2007 are horrible. people say they sound worse too..........
are the 2006s all light too???


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> Actually, they made the switch without telling anyone. Once people discovered this Gibson eventually came clean.
> 
> I know of stores who don't even know Gibson is doing this. I told as salesperson in a local place but I could tell he didn't believe me.
> 
> TG



That's not right--especially with the prices the new regular ones get these days.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Looks like the Gibson spin doctors worked overtime to explain this for 2007. There was another Gibson article, which I can't find at the moment, in which they admit they started just drilling holes for weight relief. They added that this was because supplies of lighter mahogany were not longer available as they once were for the productions models. After much experimentation (trail and error?) they said they came upon a pattern that gave superior resonance to just drilling random holes. Gibson would start using this new pattern of weight relief drilling in their 2007 Les Paul productions models.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Does anyone know what year they started doing this? It would be good to know from a collectable standpoint. Of course if there's enough backlash then they may stop this process thereby ensuring that these "hollow" ones will be collectable because of being limited in production. Or they could come out with yet another variation of the Les Paul... maybe call it the Less Paul! :wink:

My opinion is that the big players, Gibson and Fender especially, have watered down their flagship guitar models into so many subsets that it's devalued them as a whole. That's part of the reason vintage instruments get so much more on the open market. When someone says they have a pre-CBS strat or a '59 Les Paul it's a known quantity (condition aside). Nowadays when someone says they have a new strat that could mean anything from total dreck to a very nice guitar depending on the model, hardware, the day it was made, place of manufacture etc...
They've largely taken the "craft" out of it and reduced it to a business model. :frown:


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Whoa, I didn't know they took it that far, I still though they were doing holes for weight relief.

For a few hundred extra just get a historic 57 gold top, that way you get all the wood.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

i have an 03 LP studio - i dont think it's got much weight relief to it .

i didnt know gibson was doing all that...

so guys, who wants to come buy a heritage LP with me?


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2007)

This might explain why I always see people asking for the weight of LPs on The Gear Page. I thought it was because they were seeking out lighter LPs but maybe they're looking for LPs with more wood in them!


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Knowing what they do to the new Gibson Les Pauls makes me wonder if there is any real difference between a Gibson and an Epiphone.


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

traynor_garnet said:


> Yes, the above picture is of a BFG but Gibson has confirmed that all new Les Pauls (not just the low end ones) are built like this. If you search you tube you will find a video factory tour of the Gibson plant that clearly shows all the LP bodies routed in this manner. Here is a shot of a regular (non BFG) LP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep that's pretty brutal alright, what happened to the good old Lester being the king of "solid-body" rock guitars eh?:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

I have also been hearing stories about wood shavings being left in the chambering, creating rattling sounds. Yes kids, buy a new LP and it can double as a maraca. Two instruments for the price of one. Talk about value for your money. :zzz:


----------



## Marlon (Sep 9, 2007)

and on top of all that, the price doesnt even change....


----------



## jane (Apr 26, 2006)

Wow. I better get one of those 1958 historics in iced tea before they start drilling holes in those too. That's been my dream guitar since I started playing and I will be so bummed if by the time I get one, they're drilling holes in them.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

I can't see the price changing as they started with the same size blank.

I'm not either for or against this. Getting rid of some of the weight is not necessarily a bad thing, and the mahogany that they are using is denser than the more expensive light weight stock - so the tone of the denser wood if it was not chambered would sound different than a body made the same way from the lighter stock.


----------



## vokey design (Oct 24, 2006)

I never would have thought that my LP was so airy inside. Just jumped on the scale with and without it.. I am 8.1 lbs heavier with the 06 Studio (mahogany top) 

I still love the tone even if it is coming from a mahogany balloon.


----------



## Marlon (Sep 9, 2007)

im pretty sure most people with 2007 les pauls dont realize how light they are compared the older ones......

i do like the fact that they weigh less though, just that the price doesnt go down sucks....


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Ironic how Les Paul copies are actually truer to the original than what Gibson's putting out as "Les Pauls" these days:zzz: I think Gibson's got the wrong idea in mind. If they made a separate line of heavily routed Les Pauls called like "Les Paul Light" for the people whining about weight, I wouldn't mind. Yet they choose to do this on their standard models...what they're doing is overhauling the design of an iconic guitar that has been around for decades and has without a doubt withstood the test of time, why change what's already perfect? Along with the shoddy QC issues they've been having recently, Gibson's digging their own grave... Basically, I think they should just make a separate line of heavily routed LPs and brand them "LP Lights" or something and keep the standard models untouched and made the "authentic" way.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

pssst -heritage!

the guys who made the original gibsons, working in the old gibson factory, to original gibson specs. thats who's gonna be makin my LP custom


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I don't think Gibson is doing this as a cost cutting measure? It actually costs more to route out these pockets then to leave it solid. I wouldn't be surprised if the tone is better from the routed bodies. Hollow bodies like the ES series have great tone? 

I think Gibson is doing this more to keep selling LP's? There are just way too many people complaining about the weight of LP's being too heavy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've never really understood the complaints about weight.

The weight of a Les Paul is not a problem for me at all. I would have no objection with a lighter Les Paul if chambering it improved tone, but if they relieve weight to the extent that they cause an imbalance in the guitar (making it neck heavy) that would be a major goof up IMO.


The weight of any Les Paul is less than 10 lbs.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Paul said:


> Isn't _Pearly Gates_, the beloved LP owned by Billy Gibbons a heavily chambered insturment?


Actually, thats a good point. I dont think he uses Pearly Gates live anymore, but apparently he gets his newer Les Pauls "custom chambered" to make them lighter (theres a Tonequest article on this somewhere). Theres certainly nothing wrong with Gibbons tone, so maybe this whole "lighter Les Paul = terrible tone" is just an urban myth?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Budda said:


> pssst -heritage!
> 
> the guys who made the original gibsons, working in the old gibson factory, to original gibson specs. thats who's gonna be makin my LP custom


Actually I had a discussion with my tech in regards the heritages. The only issue he had was the scale length wasn't right. It made for some difficult tuning in his opinion. That said he's a freak when it comes to that stuff. You gotta love Jim.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> Theres certainly nothing wrong with Gibbons tone, so maybe this whole "lighter Les Paul = terrible tone" is just an urban myth?


You're on to something there. I've certainly played some new LPs that felt and sounded fantastic. All the sustain I expected and more. I'm just, I don't know...annoyed they didn't disclose this sooner. It;d be like buying a Porsche that was hella fast and then popping the hood when you got home and finding a little 4 banger under there. It'd still be hella fast, but you'd feel kind screwed it wasn't at least a 6 cylinder. How's that for a lousy analogy?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> You're on to something there. I've certainly played some new LPs that felt and sounded fantastic. All the sustain I expected and more. I'm just, I don't know...annoyed they didn't disclose this sooner. It;d be like buying a Porsche that was hella fast and then popping the hood when you got home and finding a little 4 banger under there. It'd still be hella fast, but you'd feel kind screwed it wasn't at least a 6 cylinder. How's that for a lousy analogy?


The only thing I would be concerned about is weird feedback because of the chambering. I played a chambered PRS and got some weirdness going on at certain frequencies.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

You can probably chalk it off to evolution. At least they still offer the historics.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

the weight thing cracks me up!

if you think a gibson LP is too heavy.. dont flippin' buy one! im sure there are plenty alternatives that will offer you the same style and sound.. without the weight.


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

Budda said:


> the weight thing cracks me up!
> 
> if you think a gibson LP is too heavy.. dont flippin' buy one! im sure there are plenty alternatives that will offer you the same style and sound.. without the weight.


I couldn't agree more!
BTW:
Washburn had a ad in GW a few months ago that said one of their guitars( I forget which one sorry) thats alot lighter than a LP standard but its quite a bit thicker thru the body so its tone is the same.
Don't know if its true or not, but thats what they claim.
Eric


----------



## noobcake (Mar 8, 2006)

Budda said:


> the weight thing cracks me up!
> 
> if you think a gibson LP is too heavy.. dont flippin' buy one! im sure there are plenty alternatives that will offer you the same style and sound.. without the weight.


My thoughts exactly, Les Pauls are meant to be heavy, since they're simply made that way. Complaining about a Les Paul's weight is like complaining about a Hummer being too big...if you don't like big cars, don't drive a Hummer ya know? :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

noobcake said:


> My thoughts exactly, Les Pauls are meant to be heavy, since they're simply made that way. Complaining about a Les Paul's weight is like complaining about a Hummer being too big...if you don't like big cars, don't drive a Hummer ya know? :smilie_flagge17:


 I agree but Gibson must have been listening to someone when they made the decision to lighten them. That fact that so many LP owners don't even know about this says one thing. Nobody can tell the difference.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Found this quote in someone's sig on the Gear Page. This is what I read in the article I couldn't find:

_""The weight relief pattern has changed for 2007. We have modified the original Swiss cheese hole pattern to something that has a purpose other than to lighten up the guitar. Originally, the holes were cut in a pattern that maximized the available space and did not take into consideration tone, balance, and sustain..........."
- Roger Ball, Gibson Customer Service"_


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

for me, this is a non-issue. As someone said above, chambering isn't a cost saving thing, it'd actually cost more to do.

If you want a solid body, go to the historic line, an R7 or R8 can be had for reasonable $.

I've heard comments that the new chambered Standards sound and play great. If you find one that does, do you really care if it's chambered?


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Budda said:


> the weight thing cracks me up!
> 
> if you think a gibson LP is too heavy.. dont flippin' buy one! im sure there are plenty alternatives that will offer you the same style and sound.. without the weight.


Besides, what's 10 pounds? If you can't lift that, maybe you should be playing the recorder instead.


Looking at the pic, I wonder if the routing thing isn't more about being able to use cheaper wood, routing out the knots so they don't affect the tone. The body also looks weak where the jack plate goes in. That could become a problem on some of those guitars (planned obsolescence or just bad design, I don't know).


----------



## µ¿ z3®ø™ (Apr 29, 2006)

dwagar said:


> If you want a solid body, go to the historic line, an R7 or R8 can be had for reasonable $.


and if one checks around for used historics, they can be found for a reasonable price considering the quality of the guitars (particularly 2K3 and earlier). my experience w/ the 2K7 historics and VOS guitars are that they are again producing fairly excellent guitars in general. i played a 2K7 R9 murphy that was an exceptional guitar (if kinda pricey).


----------

