# Gibson Les Paul Studio



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

Looking at sites like Kijiji and some forums, it seems the Les Paul Studio guitars seem to have a bad reputation.

Why is that-are they not basically a regular LP without the binding and fancy finish?

I saw a couple of used ones today in a store and both well under $1000-cheaper than a lot of imports.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Where do you get that they have a bad rep? They used to be $750 used, now they're $850-$900 and up depending on condition. You can still find older ones for around $800.

I don't think I've met someone who has slammed studios. They're pretty common.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

I have seen ads people looking to buy or trade for an LP and have seen the comment "no Studios".


----------



## capnjim (Aug 19, 2011)

The only reason people say no studios is because they are Kijijidiots who are hoping some one will offer a 1500-2000$ Les Paul for their 700-800$ guitars.
Studios are great guitars. As good as any other Les Paul out there.


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

I have an lp studio and I loveit. I will likely keep it until I can afford a custom shop lp.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

I had one for a few years and thought it was a great guitar but sold it to fund a Traditional. I remember the day I sold it I plugged it in and the words "I'm going to regret selling this" went through my head and I wasn't wrong. A gloss studio from the 2000s is a lot of guitar for about $7-800.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

I’ve got a 2012 Studio Faded with a baked maple board. It’s one of the most criticized LP’s on the Internet. The Internet is wrong,it’s a great guitar. I’ll never sell it and I’ll never find another LP for the price I paid either.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

The one I saw today at a local L&M was a faded wine color-did not have the time to plug it in ,however it sounded good acoustically-they are asking $750


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

I have had a bunch of the more budget friendly gibsons and my usual go too is one of the cheapest with some mods.
I have an lpj that I gutted the pcb and wired 50s style with some motorcity pickups and it's a great guitar. (Far left)


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

RBlakeney said:


> I have had a bunch of the more budget friendly gibsons and my usual go too is one of the cheapest with some mods.
> I have an lpj that I gutted the pcb and wired 50s style with some motorcity pickups and it's a great guitar. (Far left)
> View attachment 214697


Love the Guard Dog!

Epic.

Looks like a grouchy old geezer.

"Stay away from my guitars and get off my rug...kid"


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

Dorian2 said:


> Love the Guard Dog!
> 
> Epic.
> 
> ...


She is 11 and deaf. She is the female clint Eastwood of dogs.


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

I don't see any hate for the studio. It's always included in the " Gibson should keep making… " posts. Up there with juniors, specials, traditional's, standards, customs. I own one, and have tried a few, and they played great with my eyes closed. It's a Gibson electric through and through.


----------



## StratCat (Dec 30, 2013)

I have the 2016 faded cherry and love it. 


















The 2016 models have good reviews.


----------



## Tim Plains (Apr 14, 2009)

Nothing wrong with Studios. I don't like the pickups but those can be changed.
People who write "no Studios" selling/trading something else just want binding.


----------



## Larry (Sep 3, 2016)

rollingdam said:


> Looking at sites like Kijiji and some forums, it seems the Les Paul Studio guitars seem to have a bad reputation.
> 
> Why is that-are they not basically a regular LP without the binding and fancy finish?
> 
> I saw a couple of used ones today in a store and both well under $1000-cheaper than a lot of imports.



I have a Gibson 2010 black Studio/chrome Hardware, i bought New in 2010, Mint, built like a tank, sounds as good as any Les Paul...... i would not take less than $1250. if i was inclined to sell it. 
LB


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I like Studios as well. Nice guitars. Quick question though...isn't the Maple cap in the Studio thinner than something like a Standard? Wouldn't that affect the over tone or Timbre of the guitar?


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

Dorian2 said:


> I like Studios as well. Nice guitars. Quick question though...isn't the Maple cap in the Studio thinner than something like a Standard? Wouldn't that affect the over tone or Timbre of the guitar?


I don’t think it is any thinner. I’m pretty sure the difference of top is the grade of wood. So the studios will be plain instead of the nice flame.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

RBlakeney said:


> I don’t think it is any thinner. I’m pretty sure the difference of top is the grade of wood. So the studios will be plain instead of the nice flame.





Dorian2 said:


> I like Studios as well. Nice guitars. Quick question though...isn't the Maple cap in the Studio thinner than something like a Standard? Wouldn't that affect the over tone or Timbre of the guitar?


It is more a visual/quality thing. Whether it is a veneer or cap will have little difference in the tone. There are lots of discussions and/or arguments on wood tone and the effect on an electric guitar. There are just too many other factors.


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

I’ve had 2. My first Gibson was the 2011(?) Fireburst.
Great guitar. Thought I needed a “better “ LP, bought a 120th Anniversary lemon burst classic.
Somewhere in the back of my brain, I feel the Studio was better. IMO.
Oh, and I have the ‘86 black Studio (see avitar) cause, it was a smokin deal that I couldn’t pass up.


----------



## mrfiftyfour (Jun 29, 2008)

Awesome guitars.
Whenever I see a guy playing one, I can't help but think that he couldn't afford a Standard.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

I had a 90's one, wine red and the only difference between it and a standard was binding.

Same pickups.

Loved the ebony fretboard.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Studios also came with maple necks in the 80's, and that adds a little something IMO. Outside of a custom order somewhere, thats not a common thing on a set neck singlecut. The day I found out, I was floored. My AJC has a maple neck and none of my guitars sound quite that good.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Budda said:


> Studios also came with maple necks in the 80's, and that adds a little something IMO. Outside of a custom order somewhere, thats not a common thing on a set neck singlecut. The day I found out, I was floored. My AJC has a maple neck and none of my guitars sound quite that good.


+1...although mine is a '79 LP Deluxe, it has the Maple neck as well. That neck gives these guitars a character to be reckoned with IMO.


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

I have a 1987 studio standard. Maple neck and body binding, weight is around 8 pounds, Shaw pups. It gets played as much as my other Les Paul's. It's really nice to look at but the important bit is the sound and playability.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i have a 2014 studio pro i bought new. when i bought it, i was looking for a used classic or standard. i bought the studio because it had all the features i wanted , but no biding, for a hell of alot less moola. i love that guitar. i had a standard, many years ago, and it was nice. i had a faded before too. but this studio just _feels_ better for some unexplainable reason. i will admit i sometimes run into this scenario when someone sees me carrying a gibby case:

*them* "oooh whatcha got in there?"
*me* 2014 studio pro
*them* "oh...just a studio, huh? yeah, those are cool too."

however, at every jam ive attended, someone usually ends up playing it and later saying "dam, that studio is pretty nice!"
there's something about this guitar, i cant say what it is. but it's somehow a cut above many. i won't ever sell it.












Larry said:


> I have a Gibson 2010 black Studio/chrome Hardware, i bought New in 2010, Mint, built like a tank, sounds as good as any Les Paul...... i would not take less than $1250. if i was inclined to sell it.
> LB


hope you never need to, cause you'll never get that much for it. however, just tween you & me, i love the black ones, i think they look soooo rock and roll.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

The maple neck thing is part of why I'll probably own a used Huber at some point. Scott from Cancer Bats let me try his at KOI Fest and I was like "damn, I wish our band was also a big deal and that I had money" haha.

But yeah, anyone who bags on a studio a) probably hasn't played one that's set up and b) really really needs binding.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Are the differences between a Studio and a Standard that minor, like binding? There is a whopping difference in price. I know these are high priced guitars but there must be more than just the binding.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

Budda said:


> The maple neck thing is part of why I'll probably own a used Huber at some point. Scott from Cancer Bats let me try his at KOI Fest and I was like "damn, I wish our band was also a big deal and that I had money" haha.
> 
> But yeah, anyone who bags on a studio a) probably hasn't played one that's set up and b) really really needs binding.


Didn't the BFG have a maple neck as well?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Are the differences between a Studio and a Standard that minor, like binding? There is a whopping difference in price. I know these are high priced guitars but there must be more than just the binding.


its also marketing


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

cboutilier said:


> Didn't the BFG have a maple neck as well?


Without checking, I think you're right.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Nothing wrong with them. The only reason I don’t have one is because I went with an elitist with bindings instead. About the same price used


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Nothing wrong with them. The only reason I don’t have one is because I went with an elitist so I could have a nice top with bindings instead. About the same price used


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> Are the differences between a Studio and a Standard that minor, like binding? There is a whopping difference in price. I know these are high priced guitars but there must be more than just the binding.


i know there are others here who could give you a far more accurate (and thus confusing) answer, but i will give it a shot:

....sorta/kinda, but not really.
you would have to pick a specific year and model of studio for a definitive answer. across the timeline of the studio, it has had _almost_ all of the features found in the higher end models, just not all of them at once. the earlier ones didn't have the switching options that every les paul comes with these days (i think maybe some of the historic guitars excepted?)
some of them are solid bodies, and many are some version of weight relief or chambering depending on gibby's whim at the time. most have plain tops but not all. some of them have pretty nice tops. i don't really know if any of them were above AAA though. there were several different pickups used over the years. different neck shapes, and material, and fingerboards too. some used klusen tuners, some didn't. some had partial binding. there doesn't (to my mind) seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. just whim. bodies were often multi piece, but not always.
the gist of it seemed to originally be a working man's les paul. all the go with none of the show. some of them are that, some are something...more.
but in the broadest sense, i would answer yes. the studio is the entry level fully functional les paul. it does what the standard is meant to do, for far less money.
if you want to know what it's like to play a les paul, but balk at the cost, a studio will get you there for less.


***the special is a whole nother animal, and certain features separate it from inclusion in the above opinion.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i know there are others here who could give you a far more accurate (and thus confusing) answer, but i will give it a shot:
> 
> ....sorta/kinda, but not really.
> you would have to pick a specific year and model of studio for a definitive answer. across the timeline of the studio, it has had _almost_ all of the features found in the higher end models, just not all of them at once. the earlier ones didn't have the switching options that every les paul comes with these days (i think maybe some of the historic guitars excepted?)
> ...


That's about what I see when trying to compare Les Paul's........no rhyme or reason to their models. It has to be the most confusing model in the guitar world.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> That's about what I see when trying to compare Les Paul's........no rhyme or reason to their models. It has to be the most confusing model in the guitar world.


... and you can’t get enough of them


----------



## VHTO (Feb 19, 2016)

As others have stated, there are a lot of year-to-year variances, but for the most part they are a Standard without binding or electronic trickery.

I just consigned my beautiful cherry red trans LP Studio at Kaos. It's listed at $799 with Gibson gig bag and upgraded Orange Drops, price is flexible. www.kaosmusiccentre.com


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

People who want Gibsons want a status object. The Studio's cheaper price and lack of finish details highly reduces it desirability for those wanting to define themselves through objects.

This doesn't mean Gibson's are crap guitars (something can be both a good guitar and a status object) nor does it mean Studios are cheap or unusable. It simply means in the Gibson game, Studios don't impress. 

TG


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

*some* studios have appointments I prefer to Standards...I would take an ebony fretboard over binding, for example.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

traynor_garnet said:


> *People who want Gibsons want a status object.* The Studio's cheaper price and lack of finish details highly reduces it desirability for those wanting to define themselves through objects.
> 
> This doesn't mean Gibson's are crap guitars (something can be both a good guitar and a status object) nor does it mean Studios are cheap or unusable. It simply means in the Gibson game, Studios don't impress.
> 
> TG


Speak for yourself man. Status has nothing to do with it for a lot of Gibson fans. That's a pretty disrespectful and shallow statement you made there.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> Speak for yourself man. Status has nothing to do with it for a lot of Gibson fans. That's a pretty disrespectful and shallow statement you made there.


I cant tell if thats sarcasm or not.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

This thread has upped my GAS for a studio considerably. A local store has a 2008 that I could probably get for around $600. I have been resisting for over a month now. Please stop this thread immediately. I need some dental work.


----------



## capnjim (Aug 19, 2011)

Guitars are such strange things. Its weird how some can play so much better than others. One of the best guitars I have played/owned was a '94 studio. I got it for 400$ with extra pickups and tuners as it had an ugly headstock repair. But, man, did it ever play well. I sold it for 450$ and should have kept it for that price. I had a 2012 Les Paul Classic and it played horribly, it had weird too tall frets.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Budda said:


> I cant tell if thats sarcasm or not.


True...it's was early so I will stand to be corrected in my assumption if that's the case.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Dorian2 said:


> Speak for yourself man. Status has nothing to do with it for a lot of Gibson fans. That's a pretty disrespectful and shallow statement you made there.


Dorian: I agree it's not true of everyone but it is true of enough people that the brand often gets seen that way. The fact they give them to just about every high profile player so people see them playing their product adds to that view and Gibson makes millions from that marketing strategy. They are not the only company doing that but maybe they have been the best at it.

It is great when we hear people get a very decent Gibson for a reasonable price and love the way it plays and sounds. It appears you are one of them. Good for you!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

VHTO said:


> As others have stated, there are a lot of year-to-year variances, but* for the most part they are a Standard without binding or electronic trickery.*


That is a lot of money to pay for binding and some electronics. A new 2018 Standard starts at $3200.00 USD where a new 2018 Studio starts at $1650.00 USD. (They actually have them on sale today for $1199.00 USD) That's basically double. I wonder how much it would cost to add the binding and electronics after.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Kerry Brown said:


> This thread has upped my GAS for a studio considerably. A local store has a 2008 that I could probably get for around $600. I have been resisting for over a month now. Please stop this thread immediately. I need some dental work.


$600 is a good buy.

I took a wash on selling my last one, upgraded pickups and tuners...


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Dorian2 said:


> Speak for yourself man. Status has nothing to do with it for a lot of Gibson fans. That's a pretty disrespectful and shallow statement you made there.


What? I didn't say people were wrong or dumb for buying a Gibson. People are willing to pay through the nose to have that corporate logo on the head stock. They do this because of the status associated with the brand. If they didn't care about status, they would buy one of the umpteen million LP copies that are available at much lower costs (no not cheap junk, but high quality LPs that are not made by Gibson). Some people, however, only/simply want 'A Gibson.' Why do you think that is?

A Studio just doesn't carry the same 'cred' as the higher end models and its why they are not as sought after. A fine guitar though, despite not being able to play in the full mystique of the LP.

TG


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

LP Studios are some of the best bargains out there - especially the 80's versions that were very close, specs-wise, to their more expensive brethren. But like all (at least partially) handmade items, you should play and judge each one on it's own merits. And ignore the haters.




Steadfastly said:


> Dorian: I agree it's not true of everyone but it is true of enough people that the brand often gets seen that way. The fact they give them to just about every high profile player so people see them playing their product adds to that view and Gibson makes millions from that marketing strategy. They are not the only company doing that but maybe they have been the best at it.


Just another classic steadly inaccurate and incorrect statement. You're known for them. Haters gonna hate though.

You think Gibson is best at it, in a universe of Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche/Mercedes/BMW? Or Breitling/TAG Heuer/Rolex? Or Louis Vuitton/Fendi/Gucci? 

A guitar company doesn't have near the universal market those other products do. Far more people shop for cars, watches and bags than guitars. I would venture that if you did a survey of all of those companies and Gibson, it would be the least recognized brand name there. 

But haters gonna hate. You're just a hater.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

High/Deaf said:


> I would venture that if you did a survey of all of those companies and Gibson, it would be the least recognized brand name there.
> 
> But haters gonna hate. You're just a hater.


i don't know if i agree about the brand recognition. as far as gibson is concerned, i believe their branding to be as strong as the others you mentioned.

but for all the grief some of us give steadly, i think he is largely just misunderstood. he's not a hater, he just feels strongly about his threshold of what a reasonable value is for a guitar.
tbo, i don't _entirely_ disagree with him. case in point: 
in 94 or 95 i bought an elitist lp with a gibby headstock on it. it cost me $800 at a sam ash in s.carolina. about 5 years later, i hit some hard times and tried to sell it. no one would pay more than $200 for it. in fact, when i sold it, i got $300 from a guy who ran a pawnshop and wanted it for himself. it was a fairly rare guitar (around here, anyhow)
when i bought that guitar, i had so much actual cash that it was becoming a pita. the value of money was not the same to me then, as it is now. i picked the guitar i liked the best that day, it turned out to be an epi. but i could have bought any guitar in that whole store that day, and wouldn't have noticed the absence. 
well, f.f. to 2018. that same $800 is now worth $1400. today, that $1400 represents almost 2 weeks of take-home pay. there is no way in hell i would buy a $1400 epi lp these days, because no possibility exists that i would get more than $300 for it, even in flawless condish.
that's both value threshold and brand recognition all in one stroke. it says epi on the headstock, and not gibby. no one is gonna care that it's a collectible elitist with a gibby headstock.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

traynor_garnet said:


> What? I didn't say people were wrong or dumb for buying a Gibson. People are willing to pay through the nose to have that corporate logo on the head stock. They do this because of the status associated with the brand. If they didn't care about status, they would buy one of the umpteen million LP copies that are available at much lower costs (no not cheap junk, but high quality LPs that are not made by Gibson). Some people, however, only/simply want 'A Gibson.' Why do you think that is?
> 
> A Studio just doesn't carry the same 'cred' as the higher end models and its why they are not as sought after. A fine guitar though, despite not being able to play in the full mystique of the LP.
> 
> TG


Yeah @traynor_garnet , I totally understand that and it's part of the reason I was too offended by a post that I put into my own context. Just so I can give you a bit of context as to why I took exception to the bolded quote is that I've always prided myself on not being some "corporate fanboy" of any brand whatsoever. I've always gone out of my way to not wear name brand clothing, play what every Tom, Dick and Harry is playing, and listening and playing music that is as far from Corporate as you can imagine. Biggest part for me is that I washed dish's for a year as a 16 year old in a shady Hotel restaurant for a year to save enough to buy the guitar my heroes were playing. It's a lot different now though and I totally agree that many people with very well paying jobs are buying my favorite guitar for different reasons than my own.....but I don't like being lumped into that category as a part of a broad statement. I also don't begrudge those folks that can afford a beautiful guitar just for looks or status. The more the merrier IMO, especially when it comes to Gibson guitars.

My apologies for taking it personally and taking your post verbatim.

Cheers


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Dorian2 said:


> Speak for yourself man. Status has nothing to do with it for a lot of Gibson fans. That's a pretty disrespectful and shallow statement you made there.


 It absolutely does. You cannot feel or hear a AAA top. That’s all about prestige. I don’t know about you but I play with my eyes closed half the time. And if they are open, I’m not seeing anything, much less the guitar I’m playing.

I might sound like an ass, but If you can’t convey your work with a well set up studio you may as well go home. 

Mojo is not in your gear.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't know if i agree about the brand recognition. as far as gibson is concerned, i believe their branding to be as strong as the others you mentioned.
> 
> but for all the grief some of us give steadly, i think he is largely just misunderstood. he's not a hater, he just feels strongly about his threshold of what a reasonable value is for a guitar.
> tbo, i don't _entirely_ disagree with him. case in point:
> ...


True, it’s a very limited market. Those who know them will pay good money if you’re patient and know your market, but you can unload a Gibson much faster.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

so having nice things is only about status? 

if haters are gonna hate, what do jealous types gonna do?

correction,;,, mojo is in the gear


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

vadsy said:


> so having nice things is only about status?
> 
> if haters are gonna hate, what do jealous types gonna do?
> 
> correction,;,, mojo is in the gear


 for me personally, having nice things is more about enjoying them for whatever they are. however, in some instances, status has to be a consideration. like when it comes to the necessity of considering resale value. when i'm broke, and need money, selling some of my gear is often the quickest way to obtain cash. guitars are always the last item, and that's part of what makes it so important. if i'm going to sacrifice what i love, i want the best possible roi.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Scotty said:


> It absolutely does. You cannot feel or hear a AAA top. That’s all about prestige. I don’t know about you but I play with my eyes closed half the time. And if they are open, I’m not seeing anything, much less the guitar I’m playing.
> 
> I might sound like an ass, but If you can’t convey your work with a well set up studio you may as well go home.
> 
> Mojo is not in your gear.


I've explained my statement after that....I don't own expensive, nice to look at guitars. I'm a players guitar guy. I just fingered out the one sentence that rubs me the wrong way, but out of context. I think everyone should think like me and grab a guitar they fall in love with and play the fuck out of it for 30 years.. That's that's why my $700 LP can hang with any of the nice ones no problem. It's my sound.

Anyways, I loved the 2016 Studio I rented for a month last year. Didn't pay what they wanted. It was about $1650 at the time. I might be regretting it because it was nice. Might have to hunt it down.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't know if i agree about the brand recognition. as far as gibson is concerned, i believe their branding to be as strong as the others you mentioned.


On a guitar forum, sure. In the general population, that has not been my experience. Products that potentially everyone uses, not just <1% of the population, have much higher brand recognition, IME.



> but for all the grief some of us give steadly, i think he is largely just misunderstood. he's not a hater, he just feels strongly about his threshold of what a reasonable value is for a guitar.


Jeeez, do ya think? At least 75% of his posts are 'anti expensive guitars' while the other 25% are 'how to be loyal to US retailers, at the expense of Canadian retailers'. I doubt anyone here doesn't have a good idea of what his rants/mantras are. He is, ummmmm, prolific, to say the least. Obsessed may be a better description. As I've said before (and had edited out before), Gibson should move their head office and warehouse space to steadly's head, they get so much free rent there.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

I fully agree that Studios don't have the same cred as a Standard.

They are like a "Standard Lite".


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> for me personally, having nice things is more about enjoying them for whatever they are. however, in some instances, *status has to be a consideration. like when it comes to the necessity of considering resale value.* when i'm broke, and need money, selling some of my gear is often the quickest way to obtain cash. guitars are always the last item, and that's part of what makes it so important. if i'm going to sacrifice what i love, i want the best possible roi.


If you have resale value in mind, I have to agree it is likely one of the best brands to think about. They do usually hold value and especially if you are buying a used one in good condition. You will likely get most of your money back and sometimes even make a little. 

BTW, you are right about how I value things. As some here know, I worked a number of years for an international manufacturer and I know how inexpensively things are made. Some other members understand that as well. Some don't. Companies make huge profit margins in marketing those products and it's the way they use marketing to fool people that sticks in my craw. I have seen a lot of people get ripped off over the years and many who couldn't really afford it but thought they were saving money in the long run but were not going to.These companies often play on people's emotions and take advantage of them. How many beer advertisements have old, fat, ugly people in their ads? So I appreciate you understanding that.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Dorian2 said:


> Yeah @traynor_garnet , I totally understand that and it's part of the reason I was too offended by a post that I put into my own context. Just so I can give you a bit of context as to why I took exception to the bolded quote is that I've always prided myself on not being some "corporate fanboy" of any brand whatsoever. I've always gone out of my way to not wear name brand clothing, play what every Tom, Dick and Harry is playing, and listening and playing music that is as far from Corporate as you can imagine. * Biggest part for me is that I washed dish's for a year as a 16 year old in a shady Hotel restaurant for a year to save enough to buy the guitar my heroes were playing. * It's a lot different now though and I totally agree that many people with very well paying jobs are buying my favorite guitar for different reasons than my own.....but I don't like being lumped into that category as a part of a broad statement. I also don't begrudge those folks that can afford a beautiful guitar just for looks or status. The more the merrier IMO, especially when it comes to Gibson guitars.
> 
> My apologies for taking it personally and taking your post verbatim.
> 
> Cheers


That certainly makes sense. When we put that kind of effort and time into getting something we want badly, it holds a certain place in our heart. We should all be able to see how thoughtless comments, even unintended ones, could hit a raw nerve when a situation like yours is involved. We certainly appreciate things a lot more when we have to scrimp and save (and wash dishes) to buy something we wanted badly. Nice story IMO.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> BTW, you are right about how I value things. As some here know, I worked a number of years for an international manufacturer and I know how inexpensively things are made. Some other members understand that as well. Some don't. Companies make huge profit margins in marketing those products and it's the way they use marketing to fool people that sticks in my craw. I have seen a lot of people get ripped off over the years and many who couldn't really afford it but thought they were saving money in the long run but were not going to.These companies often play on people's emotions and take advantage of them. How many beer advertisements have old, fat, ugly people in their ads? So I appreciate you understanding that.


So why only pick on Gibson if you hate marketing? It certainly seems that they take most of your blame. Why chastise the corporation if individual consumers are the ones making stupid choices? Hardly seems fair.

I also don't understand how you hate marketing when you're a part of a well oiled and polished global machine that does it on an exponential level. You demand proof and scientific evidence when it comes to guitars but manage to live purely on faith and convey a need for the same when handing out pamphlets at my door?


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

Image and street cred are a big part of our industry. How many fake Marshall stacks line the back of stages of the big names, and again the little guys with Marshall badges on their Traynors.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

I am beginning to regret I started this thread...all the personal attacks and other BS does not belong here.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

rollingdam said:


> I am beginning to regret I started this thread...all the personal attacks and other BS does not belong here.


Welcome to the web. Just like most of the population going over the speed limit, you can try to avoid it but it's most likely going to happen.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

rollingdam said:


> I am beginning to regret I started this thread...all the personal attacks and other BS does not belong here.


that's the thing about any conversation, isn't it? you can never be positive where things may go. for me, that's what makes it interesting.
one thing to keep in mind though - even though some folks seem to enjoy giving steadly a hard time, i bet if he was in a fix, those same people would help him if they could. 
kinda like with family. i wouldn't tolerate anyone punching my brother, but if i did it, that was ok.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

And some have, Cheezy. One member gave a guitar to a kid friend of mine free of charge and many of you have given me good advice which I appreciate.


----------



## StratCat (Dec 30, 2013)

rollingdam said:


> I am beginning to regret I started this thread...all the personal attacks and other BS does not belong here.



I agree completely. Negativity is not constructive. 

We are all guitar players and have preferences and opinions. If someone doesn’t agree with someone elses opinion, just simply say, “i don’t agree.” and then state your opinion about the OP’s subject without belittling other members who have commented.

Namaste.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I concur. Spewing hate, especially towards only one company and their customers (and especially if you have no actual experience with the company), is sad. Say it once and move on. To start a dozen threads just to bash that company? Really? There are a few brands I've had bad experience with - and yet I haven't started even one thread about them. I may weigh in once or twice in a related thread about my bad experience, but I don't go on ad nauseum about it. It's pretty obvious to me others like the brands so I don't really need to rain on their parade over and over again. But haters gotta hate. YMMV.


----------



## capnjim (Aug 19, 2011)




----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Guncho said:


> I fully agree that Studios don't have the same cred as a Standard.
> 
> They are like a "Standard Lite".


The funny thing is, a base explorer doesn’t / didn’t cost that much more than a Studio: isn’t built with much better materials...yet avoids the connotation of cheap/entry-level.

In terms of the prestige brands, I don’t think a layperson associates prestige with Gibson any more than Fender, which has more than its share of over priced crap also.
“Master built” ...suck my dick. Master still used 4 screws to attach a body to a neck like there’s been no innovation since 1940.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Scotty said:


> It absolutely does. You cannot feel or hear a AAA top. That’s all about prestige. I don’t know about you but I play with my eyes closed half the time. And if they are open, I’m not seeing anything, much less the guitar I’m playing.
> 
> I might sound like an ass, but If you can’t convey your work with a well set up studio you may as well go home.
> 
> Mojo is not in your gear.


I don’t know if a fancy top is about prestige. I have an epiphone with a AAAA top and it gets no love lol.
I can appreciate the beauty of certain woods, without prestige being a factor.

Makes me wonder why no one rags on PRS here with their $10k guitars with wood patterns that look like angel’s pussy wallpaper.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

You've got 16 minutes if you want this custom at $1000.00 off USD.

Stupid Deal of the Day | Musician's Friend


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> You've got 16 minutes if you want this custom at $1000.00 off USD.
> 
> Stupid Deal of the Day | Musician's Friend


Too late but you can get this LP for $220.00 USD.

Stupid Deal of the Day | Musician's Friend


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

almost all studios are slightly thinner than a standard, by about 1/8 to a 1/4"

look at the heel, the body doesn't protrude out as much

not sure if it's due to a thinner mahogany body, or thinner maple cap

they did make some special editions that are full thckness though


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

my first LP was a '90's studio: it was a killer gtr and I cold have saved a whole lot of time and money, if I'd just kept the thing


----------

