software

Saw this over at the LPF, and thought some of you might be interested. If you have a non-historic Les Paul built in the last 10-12 yrs or so, your guitar looks like this underneath.
Sorry, i can't see anything, but it sounds interesting - whatever it might be!

Oh wow...that many holes? That can't be good. This isn't good for Gibson at all.

Why are they screwing themselves over? Horrible QC as of late, the dealer issue, and now this?

Or is this a good thing? I'm guessing it's weight releif holes, for a batch of maybe too-heavy mohogany?

Hmmmm, interesting...

Does that mean it has an almost-semi-hollow tone then?

Yes, these are quot;weight reliefquot; holes. Gibson switched to using African Mahogany years ago, when the supply of South American Mahogany became too expensive and unreliable in it's availability. African Mahogany is significantly heavier (in most cases) than SAM. African Mahogany does produce some nice, lightweight pieces, depending on how the tree grew. Pieces higher up in the tree tend to be lighter weight. Gibson reserve's these pieces for the Historic Re-issues and other custom shop guitars, and does not drill weight relief holes.

Gibson claims that the weight relief holes are small enough in diameter as to not affect tone, and that is probably true given that they are covered by a maple cap, and not connected. The tone is not that of a hollow body. Opinions vary of course, but the general consensus is that there is no tone change. YMMV

I actually wish they'd drill a few more holes in it, as my LP Studio (which is a bit lighter than most Standards) is still heavier than ideal for me.

in my experience, heavier guitars sound better. my prs is way heavier than anything else i own and sounds way better; coincidence? i think not.

on a different note, i am happy to hear that gibson is having problems...maybe prs will buy then out, hehehehehe...

haahaah swiss cheese les paul

why don't they cut out wood in a USEFUL place like a tummy cut. Those retards.

^^ man, i would love to see the day!

imagine PRS's values applied to gibson's product range - singlecut ahoy!

tom

hopefully prs values dont change like mesa's gibson tried to buy them out they sed no that craftsmanship and tone were more important even if it doesnt affect tone that kinda a sheisty move

Here's a comparison of Gibson's long and short tenon design. The long tenon design is pretty good when they get it right, but take a look at the short tenon. See how it rocks back and forth in the pocket? Gibson does that because it's easier to set the neck angle that way...much easier than taking the time to adjust the neck pocket for the proper angle, and then building the neck heel correctly. This why I will never own a Gibson that doesn't feature a long tenon design.
Ryan

I saw that photo of the tenons the other day, pretty startling IMO.

So, now that I see the short-tenon design, uh, what exactly is in those HUGE gaps? Glue? Air? Damn. My Tom Anderson has more of a set neck than that...? I have a 1980 Kalamazoo LP standard with the neck volute. If any of you would be so kind as to hip my ass to whether this is a short or long tenon, it would be appreciated (as that ass is lazy and doesn't want to pull the strings off and pop the pickup out...


Originally Posted by Xeromus
why don't they cut out wood in a USEFUL place like a tummy cut. Those retards.heh heh heh....but hey look on the bright side...no matter what it looks like on the inside, it still says quot;Gibsonquot; on the outside.


Originally Posted by boraborablueSo, now that I see the short-tenon design, uh, what exactly is in those HUGE gaps? Glue? Air? Damn. My Tom Anderson has more of a set neck than that...? I have a 1980 Kalamazoo LP standard with the neck volute. If any of you would be so kind as to hip my ass to whether this is a short or long tenon, it would be appreciated (as that ass is lazy and doesn't want to pull the strings off and pop the pickup out...

1980 LP Standard = short tenon

Long tenons were used on all models made before mid-1969. After that, they shortened it a little bit, and then shortened it again in the mid 70's, where it remains today. Only the historic reissue models still use the long tenon. That's a shame, because it's a superior design and it's really no harder to do from a building standpoint.

Ryan

With the modern CNC machines, it seems it would be no trouble at all the make all Gibson LPs with the long neck tenon. In fact, with the accuracy they can provide, setting the neck angle would be basically done by the machining process. The modern short tenon looks so unstable, but if glued well it should be a non issue. Of course, there is no substitute for wood to wood contact IMO...

Nathan

Wow.

If they call them quot;weight reliefquot; they are reviled and ridiculed. If they call them quot;tone chambersquot; people will line up to pay insanely inflated prices for them. You make the call.


Originally Posted by rspst14Here's a comparison of Gibson's long and short tenon design. The long tenon design is pretty good when they get it right, but take a look at the short tenon. See how it rocks back and forth in the pocket? Gibson does that because it's easier to set the neck angle that way...much easier than taking the time to adjust the neck pocket for the proper angle, and then building the neck heel correctly. This why I will never own a Gibson that doesn't feature a long tenon design.
Ryan

Pretty interesting stuff, for sure. I'm wondering how much the shorter tenon affects tone? I'd like to see the same view of a PRS or Heritage just for sh!ts and giggles.

....Bob