software

I'm pressed for time...but I checked out one today at guitar center while I was in the area. I guess it was a cherry sunburst.

Uhm ...the 1st thot that came to my mind was the pic on the website must be airbrushed It looks like my 5 year old took his fingerpaints to it

I personally in million years would not pay 1900 smackers for such a fuggly guitar..no matter how well it played or how well it sounds.

The lack of gloss finish is cool...the back is cool...the top..oh my gawd... It makes the green trap inlays on the similarily priced Classic look absolutely fabulous.

I think someone at Gibson is on crack. Perhaps in a solid cherry finish or black, it would look cool...but (and thats really what it looked like)

ok... but what did it sound and play (and weigh) like?

Yum yum yum... I love vomit-looking guitars...

Hmmm, that's a drag. I liked the tobacco one but that was only pics.

I thought they were going to be great by looking at the website....that's really a bummer. I'll have to check locally to see if they have any, and to compare quality control to what you found.

Good gosh, for a hundred more you could get a Historic! If you can afford 1900, you can afford 1995. Don't settle for less IMHO.

If you watch closely you can find some great Historics for $2k, especially the 57' RI Goldtops, which is #1 on my wish list. I've always wanted a flame top also, and the one TC had was just too good of a deal to pass up.

As long as players continue to buy these quot;pedigreed 2ndsquot;, customer minded Gibson (total sarcasm intended) will continue such practices to even more dastardly rip offs.

wow.. that sort of surprises me cause we all know that the pics of the websites and such always have the best finish. This was the first gibson that i saw that i really did like and i wanted it in that finish, but if it really is that bad in person then i guess thats better, cause at least ill save my cash hehe.

Singing the commercial......I did it Eeeeeebbbaaaayy. LOL

The local used market is even better. I can swoop up a LP Std any day of the week in for $1200.


Originally Posted by Hot _Gritsok... but what did it sound and play (and weigh) like?

Grits. Weight was I'd say average for a Paul. More than my new Epihone, less than my Deluxe.

Factory setup was ..eh.. Action too high for my tastes.

I only had a couple minutes to noodle with it (had my 5 year old with me)..accoustically it was a pretty resonant guitar. I did not get to plug it in, cos my boy was getting impatient (someday he will get his priorites straight..going to lunch at Chuck E. Cheese is not more important than Les Pauls )


Originally Posted by suislidE03wow.. that sort of surprises me cause we all know that the pics of the websites and such always have the best finish. This was the first gibson that i saw that i really did like and i wanted it in that finish, but if it really is that bad in person then i guess thats better, cause at least ill save my cash hehe.

I don't know how every color will look as this was jes one guitar, but if its any kind of stereotypical representation...yukkk.

Personally, the older I get, the more I prefer just a standard black finish in a Les Paul. Weird, I know....


Originally Posted by Scott_FGood gosh, for a hundred more you could get a Historic! If you can afford 1900, you can afford 1995. Don't settle for less IMHO.I totally agree. I haven't seen one of the faded LP's, but the pics I saw didn't thrill me.