software

In the mid 90's, when PRS was cutting into Gibson's market with their 24 fret guitars, Gibson retaliated by introducing the Les Paul Double Cutaway.
Ironically, PRS fired back with the Singlecut, which caused all the controversy we hear about.

But, what about the DC? You hear very little about them, and people seem to think of them as a second rate LP, even though they're built essentially the same. I've messed with them, but I still prefer 22 frets, so I never owned one.
Do they balance well with the strap? That's my only concern, since it has a light body and long 24 fret neck.
Here's an auction for a nice one, even though it's a gcrep (GC) auction.
from : localhost/cgi.ebay.com/Gibson-Les-Paul-...QQcmdZViewItem

The problem i had with them is I just thought they didn't sound good... at all. It just seems like that lil' bit of extra mahogany and weight makes the biggest difference in the tone

Man, that one's cherry but it's also way overpriced. I remember them being around $1200-1500 new!

Anyway...they don't have hte same low mid girth as a regular LP and are a bit closer to the PRS vibe, but my main gripe is that the upper horn nails me in the ribcage and are just uncomfertable to play. Years ago one of my friends owned a Heritage with a similar body shape...sounded great but it did the same thing.

IMHO you change anything about Mr. Paul's original idea... You change the foumula and it's not a LP anymore. I'm suprised he'd sign off on a DC with his Name on it? Maybe Gibby just did it without telling him? Wouldn't be the 1st time. (i.e.) 61' Les Paul's

I'll tell you this...they sound and feel NOTHING like a quot;real' Les Paul...my biggest beef besides that you cold never get one in a fat neck is the 24 fret...as cool as they are for some guys and as much as some guys quot;needquot; 24 frets they just don't sound like they should to me, when you move that neck pickups IMO it ruins the tone. If I were gonna buy a DC like that I would go for a flat top Hamer Sunburst over that anytime...still, not a true LP tone but IMO better that a LPDC

I always really loved the look and feel of the dc's. I mean I don't need 24 frets (no one does really), so I don't care about that. It does change the tone of the neck pickup alot, so thats not too kool. But I don't dislike the tone differnce, and I don't Like it either. its just kinda one of those things.
I actully prefer the dc's to Normal Lps. But then again I hate Les Pauls. Haha.

-edward

I'd love a DC in Amber with a CC/A2P combo. :drool: I like that shape infinately more than the PRS shape.


Originally Posted by kmcguitarsIMHO you change anything about Mr. Paul's original idea... You change the foumula and it's not a LP anymore. I'm suprised he'd sign off on a DC with his Name on it? Maybe Gibby just did it without telling him? Wouldn't be the 1st time. (i.e.) 61' Les Paul's

FYI: Mr. Paul endorsed the LP model, de didn't design it. He only designed the trapeze tailpiece.

GS

They're beautiful guitars, I'd be more than happy to play 'em. Isn't the whole double-cutaway what Les Paul himself didn't like in the first place? They tried to make those just as popular as the single cutaway's but Les Paul didn't like 'em, so they ended up producing them anyway a couple years later as the SG and took the maple cap off it.

I really wanted to like the LP DC models, as I love LPs and I love the LPS DC body style. I just don't think they worked right. TGWIF is right on about the necks- the ones I touched all had the 60 neck profile. I also owned a Hamer quot;Prototypequot; that had that body style- the guitar just didn't work for me either.

Like you guys didn't know that was coming...
Originally Posted by GuitarSandwichFYI: Mr. Paul endorsed the LP model, de didn't design it. He only designed the trapeze tailpiece.

GS

You're probably right, but Les has said differently over the years.

I played one, and the upper fret access was horible. I have big hands, and there was just no room in the cutaway for me to reach up to the higher frets. On a regular Les Paul I don't have a problem.

I think it's kindof funny how Gibson created that to try and copy PRS' design, when the PRS is developed from Gibson's designs

i honestly just find most of them ugly. thus why i never bother to look at them.

-Mike

I like how they look but I've never played one.


Originally Posted by XSSIVEi honestly just find most of them ugly. thus why i never bother to look at them.

-Mike

Beat me to it. They are absolutely fugly. To be honest, to me, they don't feel like real LPs anyway.

Depends on how you use them. The DC Specials with 2 P90's is my favorite choice for a slide guitar. For regular guitar playing I like Strats and my 335 best.


Originally Posted by GearjoneserIn the mid 90's, when PRS was cutting into Gibson's market with their 24 fret guitars, Gibson retaliated by introducing the Les Paul Double Cutaway.

from : localhost/cgi.ebay.com/Gibson-Les-Paul-...QQcmdZViewItemI think you'd better check the facts... PRS wasn't a drop in Gibson's bucket in the mid 90s. Gibson defends itself with lawsuits, not by designing a guitar to copy somebody else.

Even now, PRS only makes a fraction (like 60 guitars a day) of what Gibson does.

GS


Originally Posted by GuitarSandwichFYI: Mr. Paul endorsed the LP model, de didn't design it. He only designed the trapeze tailpiece.

GS

The Facts on who designed The LP vary depending on who you ask. McCarty and Co. may have had a prototype before they brought Lester on. As we all know Les Paul was a early pioneer the soild body guitar. So I can't see him putting his name on a guitar that he didn't have any Input on beside's the failed trapeze tailpiece.

Welp they don't sound the same...thats the biggest issue for me...I don't think they are ugly, per-se. Just different.

I don't like where the pup selector is,I don't care for 24 frets, and I also hate just one vol and one tone control for a 2 HB guitar...I want at least 2 volumes and a tone, and would prefer 2 and 2.

Also, since the sound is not the same as a true LP, I'd just as soon have an Explorer/Firebird/V, whatever..

The DC jr's and whatnot w/ P90s are a different story, those I'm just fine with.


Originally Posted by kmcguitars

As we all know Les Paul was a early pioneer the soild body guitar. So I can't see him putting his name on a guitar that he didn't have any Input on beside's the failed trapeze tailpiece.

The patent for the Les Paul doesn't have his name on it either. According to the principals at Gibson they approached Les Paul with a finished prototype. He wanted the trapeze tailpiece to support his injured and imobilized arm.
The 52 LP doesn't look anything like what Paul had been working on (the infamous log) or any of his current giging axes.

The one Les Paul model that he really had a hand in was the quot;recordingquot; model.

Sorry to hijack the thread... it was about the double cut Les Pauls, which of course were originally designed in the late 50s. To my eye the Gibson quot;reissue/upgradequot; of the 90s looks more like a Hamer or a Curlee than a PRS. By the time Gibson released their carved top DC Curlee was history, Hamer was established and PRS was an up-and-comer.

I imagine that Gibson just figured, heck... we invented this, we might as well have a piece of the action.

As far as the lack of popularity, it's hard to compete with the classic LP even when you are Gibson.

GS