software

I've made up my mind to get a Gibson Les Paul Standard, 60s neck.
Looked around but what I found was a 2nd hand Les Paul Classic going for a pretty good price.

Please help me out here...

If I took the 60's standard and the classic and fitted the same pickups in, would they be identical guitars? I know the classic has quot;aged inlaysquot; and it doesn't come in the same finishes as the Standard... but besides the appearance, would it feel and sound the same? Are the materials, build quality (etc) all the same?

I wonder why the classics are cheaper... I don't want to look back sometime down the road and think quot;If only I just dished out a bit more and got the standardquot;.

I really wanted a flame maple top... but if the classic is the same guitar when I close my eyes, I'd get this one.

Thanks guys.

Do It

There's a bunch of minor little things in the Classic that differentiate it from the Standard. The thin neck, the aged inlays, the ceramic pickups, the headstock decal, the binding in the cutaway, the 1960 pickguard, I don't know if they've put premium tops on Classics for quite a while...

Basically, the Classic is a hell of a guitar- constructed pretty much with the same materials and construction methods as the Standards. I personally hate the neck on them...

You might wish to try the stock pickups out for a while before you go swapping them out- you might actually like them.

If the price is right, go for it. They're great guitars. Just as good as a Standard, and a better value IMO.

Jeff

Nothing wrong with the Classic at all, IMO. I had one over the summer for a bit, and it was a really nice paula, one of the better ones I bought this year...had good tone and sustain, and was built very well (perhaps the best out of all the ones I bought this year).

The quot;agedquot; inlays are hit or miss...mine were a yellowed look, and I actually quite liked them, some are that snot green color and pretty fuggly.

You are getting a plain maple top, no flame. I've heard some say they are two piece bodies, but mine and the ones I've seen locally have all been one piece.

The 500T pickup I really liked for a distortion class pickup...tonally between a Duncan Distortion and a DiMarzio super. You just have to play with it (the height) to get it lose some the brittleness/harshness. I was able to dial it in to where it was pretty damn good. The 496 I liked less, for a neck pup it was a bit too compressed and sterile.

If the 60s neck is good for you, then hell yeah, go for it...all the tone and playability of a Standard without the price. Also don't overlook the Faded Standards, there you have your choice of neck, and the finish they use def helps with getting a good resonant guitar. They are a bit cheaper than a normal standard. I've played some iffy standards/classics (tone-wise), but I've yet to hear an iffy Faded. The iffy part about them is most are butt ugly. Mine is a bit better than most, but.... I will blatantly SPAM here too and say my faded is for sale and for a good price

Thanks for your help guys.
I might go for it. Didn't have a chance to play it yet though.
I find that the classics just look pretty plain compared to the standards... But it all comes down to whether its worth forking out cash just for aesthethics... Hmmm.


Originally Posted by spudsThanks for your help guys.
I might go for it. Didn't have a chance to play it yet though.
I find that the classics just look pretty plain compared to the standards... But it all comes down to whether its worth forking out cash just for aesthethics... Hmmm.

That's true. The other thing is that it has to feel and sound right to you, regardless of the look of the grain. I've played some beautiful looking dogs.

And I will quote the Rev Billy G again, quot;It's in the hands, brahquot; Get what speaks to YOU not for what it looks like. If it feels right and sounds right then dang dude, you will make it sing!

3rded....looks are secondary...my faded is the quot;worstquot; of the lot for looks I had...and my firebird is not exactly quot;gorgeousquot;, but they sound and play awesome...My Hamer, I figure I just got lucky for both....

much easier to connect with a great sounding axe thats not so much to look at, than a gorgeous one with so-so tone.

And I will say this, IMO and from my experience...if you're really looking for the quot;bigquot; LP tone...go with a 50s neck...or the 59 profile on the Studio/Deluxe. I'm 100% convinced it *DOES* make a difference. all of the 60's necks I owned and played did not have as much classic paula low mids/low end .The 60s necks guitars regardless of pups were all a bit more mid and high end focused (great for leads, less so for quot;chugga chuggaquot;). My faded 50s, my CSB standard 50s, and Deluxe all that low end growl/chunk.


Originally Posted by JumpMarineAnd I will quote the Rev Billy G again, quot;It's in the hands, brahquot; Get what speaks to YOU not for what it looks like. If it feels right and sounds right then dang dude, you will make it sing!Excellent quote! That summs it all up!

Thanks


Originally Posted by JeffBAnd I will say this, IMO and from my experience...if you're really looking for the quot;bigquot; LP tone...go with a 50s neck...or the 59 profile on the Studio/Deluxe. I'm 100% convinced it *DOES* make a difference. all of the 60's necks I owned and played did not have as much classic paula low mids/low end .The 60s necks guitars regardless of pups were all a bit more mid and high end focused (great for leads, less so for quot;chugga chuggaquot;). My faded 50s, my CSB standard 50s, and Deluxe all that low end growl/chunk.

Jeff you ignorant slut...In all honesty, it makes all the sense in the world that a thicker neck is going to transfer vibration better, hold a better bottom end, etc... but everything I've actually experienced is variations in guitars is more of a variation in guitars rather than the neck thickness. I had a friend who was a complete and utter gear whore- far beyond me- and we did a lot of A/B ing our guitars through each others' rigs. He preferred the 60 style neck, as a lot of his guitars were LP Classics- and he complained about the necks on my Historics and even some of my Standards and Deluxes. All things considered, he had some guitars that weren't as quot;throatyquot; as some of mine, but he also had guitars that had quot;chunkquot; and could sing (an early 90's goldtop Classic) better than mine. All my guitars are tree trunk necks.


Originally Posted by The Golden BoyJeff you ignorant slut...In all honesty, it makes all the sense in the world that a thicker neck is going to transfer vibration better, hold a better bottom end, etc... but everything I've actually experienced is variations in guitars is more of a variation in guitars rather than the neck thickness. I had a friend who was a complete and utter gear whore- far beyond me- and we did a lot of A/B ing our guitars through each others' rigs. He preferred the 60 style neck, as a lot of his guitars were LP Classics- and he complained about the necks on my Historics and even some of my Standards and Deluxes. All things considered, he had some guitars that weren't as quot;throatyquot; as some of mine, but he also had guitars that had quot;chunkquot; and could sing (an early 90's goldtop Classic) better than mine. All my guitars are tree trunk necks.

Hee hee..ignorant slut...me likey

No doubt I'm talking relative here. not absolutes in the fact that 60s necks will never have good low end...just that with a 50s neck you are much more likely to get it..again thats just my experience comparing 3 and 3 I had this year...as well as playing various others at shops. assuming quot;equalquot; construction quality and wood quality..I believe the 50s (bigger) necks will have the edge tonally

I'm on this 70's SNL thing for some reason. First quot;Shimmerquot; now quot;Point/Counterpointquot;...

I have a '99 LP Classic and an '03 LP Studio, and the Classic is a bit brighter and leaner than the thick-necked Studio -- which is probably why the 59 set works better than the Antiquity set did in the Classic. Anyway, up until the last few years, the Classic was actually a notch higher in the LP chain than the Standard (higher retail price, etc.). In addition to the other differences mentioned, the older Classics (like mine, so not too old) had the nickel ABR-1 bridge rather than the chrome Nashville bridge -- I'm not sure whether this feature has changed in the recent models.

I actually prefer a plaintop, and the neck seems fine to me, as I'm primarily a Tele player, so for me the Classic is, well, classic.

The stock 500t/490 don't sound good to me at all. I had a Classic 60 goldtop a long time ago. I'd recommend something like the CC/Seth in that guitar, since the thinner neck and vintage style bridge make the guitar a little thinner sounding that Std's with the 50's neck. If you like those necks and the price is right, go for it.
Personally, I'd search the used market till you find a 50's neck Std for around $1300. In the long run, you'll be happy you did.

Thanks for the posts guys.
I'm actually set on the thinner neck. I just prefer it for some reason. If I get a standard, I'm gonna get one with a 60's neck anyway. I agree that a fatter neck would contribute to a deeper tone and perhaps better sustain too. But these things are useless if my fingers are tripping over each other coz the neck is too fat. I think i've got pretty small hands. =)

I really do like it... Here's a picture:
Its a '98 classic. Do you think thats the honey burst? Seems rather red to me. Not too fond of all that red without a nicely figured top.

Probably will go for it. All depends on the price negotiation.


Originally Posted by GearjoneserThe stock 500t/490 don't sound good to me at all. I had a Classic 60 goldtop a long time ago. I'd recommend something like the CC/Seth in that guitar, since the thinner neck and vintage style bridge make the guitar a little thinner sounding that Std's with the 50's neck. If you like those necks and the price is right, go for it.
Personally, I'd search the used market till you find a 50's neck Std for around $1300. In the long run, you'll be happy you did.

I don't really like ceramic magnet pickups. I'll probably sell the 2 it comes with. I'm going to take my '59 from my epi and put that in. Would probably go with a CC or C5 in the bridge.

I've got big hands (long fingers too) and while I've considered getting a tree trunk neck, I've found that the 60s style slim taper really is comfortable for me. I've compared Les Pauls in stores and many times the Classics were as good or better than the Standards I've played. Just because they are variations on a theme, doesn't make them quot;cheaperquot; guitars, they definitely deliver that signature Gibson tone.

That color looks awesome and I'm not even a huge sunburst fan, I say grab it!

A local store here in Canada had a pile of those new Classics in at a discount... they were $400-$500 cheaper then a new Standard! i wanted one!!!

Most of the classics I see are very red like the one in Spuds' post. I've gone on to the Les Paul forum many times, and many users have been able to get the green inlays to fade into natural color (like on the historic series) by placing the guitar in bright sunlight for a few days.