Jump to content

When Did Gibson Start Chambering Les Pauls?


turdadactyl

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

More precise terminology, please: Gibson produces both chambered Les Pauls and Les Pauls with "weight relief" holes. Big difference both in terms of history and purpose.

 

 

Exactly- they have been weight-relieving since the 80's. This involved putting "swiss cheese" holes in the guitar with no rhyme or reason.

 

They started late '06 taking a more logical approach- still removing wood for weight relief, but doing so in a fashion that created designed chambers in the guitar that increased the acoustic resonance.

 

People complain about it all the time, but as someone with a weak back, I support the practice if not doing it is going to result in 13 lb monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One man's "chambered"...oh, nevermind.
:facepalm:

 

Ha!

 

And to answer the "why do I say it's unholy" question. I've owned A LOT of guitars over the years. I think when you find a Les Paul that you love it's got a lot to do with the resonance of such a heavy piece of SOLID wood. To put chambers in a Les Paul makes it no different than so many other decent guitars out there. If I wanted a Chet Atkins, I'd buy a Chet Atkins. Now if I want to buy a recent LP I have to sit there and check the dating to make sure I'm getting what I'm looking for.

 

Sure, it should mostly be based on my ears, but if I find a deal on ebay I want to be able to snag it and only have to worry about a new setup or new pickups. I don't want to get a guitar only to find out it's HALF a guitar with a LP top on it from a Gibson factory.

 

Of course, to each his own. I just think a LP should be a LP...not a LP with gastric bypass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Having played, the Epiphone Les paul ultra II, it's not what'd I'd expect in a 1959 les paul custom or anything. It's a more modern guitar.

New gibsons are generally heavier, actually, and the tone is less "round" from the chambering. More traditional, but the sustain, it seems to be all there, unless we're counting milliseconds. If we're doing that, we may as well talk about steel versus nickel or aluminium stop tailpieces, wrapping the strings over the tailpiece, bigsbys, bone or graphite nut, long or short neck tennons, heavier metal tuning keys or traditional plastic keys, roller or tune o matic bridge.

 

If you want unrelieved, get a BFG, an LP:VM, a studio, or a traditional.

If you want relieved, then get a standard, a custom, or what have ye.

 

People have been hating weight relieved les pauls a while now.

To be honest, that's how the SG came to be, a lighter les paul through thinner body, and double sharp cutaway, and a slimmer neck for balance.

Les paul took his name off of that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Having played, the Epiphone Les paul ultra II, it's not what'd I'd expect in a 1959 les paul custom or anything. It's a more modern guitar.

New gibsons are generally heavier, actually, and the tone is less "round" from the chambering. More traditional, but the sustain, it seems to be all there, unless we're counting milliseconds. If we're doing that, we may as well talk about steel versus nickel or aluminium stop tailpieces, wrapping the strings over the tailpiece, bigsbys, bone or graphite nut, long or short neck tennons, heavier metal tuning keys or traditional plastic keys, roller or tune o matic bridge.


If you want unrelieved, get a BFG, an LP:VM, a studio, or a traditional.

If you want relieved, then get a standard, a custom, or what have ye.


People have been hating weight relieved les pauls a while now.

To be honest, that's how the SG came to be, a lighter les paul through thinner body, and double sharp cutaway, and a slimmer neck for balance.

Les paul took his name off of that one.

 

The BFG, VM and Studio are all chambered. The Traditional now has the swiss cheese that all LPs aside from Historics had from the mid 80s till the end of 06.

 

to sum up current production LPs: Historics (aside from C series) are solid, Traditionals have weight relief holes all the rest are chambered.

 

The lightest solid (Historic) LP I've ever seen was around 7 3/4 lbs. I had a weight relieved Classic (swiss cheese) that was 7.8 lbs. Most of the chambreed are 7-8 lbs with some going a bit higher.

 

My advice on picking one? Play a bunch, buy the one you like and can afford- if it sounds and plays nice and is a weight that you like who cares what's inside

 

The thing I want to know is where the hell are all the light Strats- It's getting tough to find one that weighs less then my Les Pauls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Members

 


If you want unrelieved, get a BFG, an LP:VM, a studio, or a traditional.

If you want relieved, then get a standard, a custom, or what have ye.

 

 

bfg's have a huge chunk of wood missing...

all the ones you have listed have swiss cheese weight reduction:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

don't let the chambered models scare you, they sound great. I've tried several and they do sound a little different (acousticallyl louder) but I like it.

 

I think it's a myth that you need a back breaking 11 lb monster to sound like a true Les Paul. Try 'em all and let your ears decide, not some internet forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well personally I want my LP to be built as close to original (50's 60's) specs as possible.....I want full round tone...balanced lows mids and highs...

 

I have no problem with gibson building and people buying chambered guitars...cool if people like that then whatever....I just don't want it. I personally believe that it can't all be internet myth, and that chambering a guitar will create a different sounding animal than one with a solid mahogany body.

 

And from what I've heard the best solid LP's for full balanced sound usually fall in the 8 to 10 pound range..(that jives with mine)..and usually the really heavy old ones don't sound that great....(and that jives with the one really heavy one I played...which sounded like absolute {censored})...Not scientific I admit but so far I haven't heard a logical argument to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...
  • Members

Les Paul's are boat anchors with a guitar strap attached. They take "getting used to".

Especially after jamming, rehearsing, or performing with one for over 3 hrs.

After 5 hrs you need a massage, chiropractor, or switch to a lighter guitar while standing.

But the chambered/weight relieved guitars don't have the sustain or cajones of the solid ones.

I've played some from the 50's that were light because Gibson used older wood to begin with that wasn't green.

Also they were seasoned by age.

An elastic type strap also helps that moves on your shoulder to prevent soreness and arm fatigue.

But if you want to play something lighter, pick a different guitar.

I've played a Custom for over 33 years, but there are reasons I keep other guitars in the arsenal.

Solid wood Les Paul's are the Mac Daddy of Rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The title says it all. What was the first year they started this unholy practice? Ok...here's a follow up. What is the lightest weight you can expect from a non-chambered Les Paul?

 

My 2017 Les Paul Faded has something called Ultra Modern weight relief.

It is 8.1 pounds. I do not think there is a lot of weight difference between ultra-modern weight relief & modern weight relief (shown below).

 

Bottom line: Buy a Les Paul w/ either modern or ultra-modern weight relief

for the lightest non-chambered weight available.

 

Here is a Gibson chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I own a Custom Shop Edition Les Paul Studio 1983 - first year of the Studio. The Studios probably started the weight relieved standard and it wasn't as much aimed at a way to cheaply lighten a Les Paul as much as it was simply a way to create a lighter Les Paul that might be more comfortable for gigging guitarists.

 

I own quite a few Les Pauls and it's interesting to hear the different tones based upon the construction. The lightest LP I own is a vintage mahogany that comes in at a ridiculously low weight of 6 pounds 9 ounces, which has plenty of bluesy vibe with its BB Pros, but noticeably lacks the usual dose of sustain from an LP. Compare that to my 57 Les Paul Custom RI with Bigsby weighing in at 10 pounds 8 ounces. My R9 weighs 9 pounds 3.

 

The days of highly porous Brazilian mahogany are over, so you've got to let your ears be your judge on what body construction will suit your tastes. I also own a LP Supreme which has another type of clambering and thereby imparts a bit of a semi-hollow tone which I found make me break into a Chuck Berry riff out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
"....I own quite a few Les Pauls and it's interesting to hear the different tones based upon the construction. The lightest LP I own is a vintage mahogany that comes in at a ridiculously low weight of 6 pounds 9 ounces' date=' which has plenty of bluesy vibe with its BB Pros, but noticeably lacks the usual dose of sustain from an LP. Compare that to my 57 Les Paul Custom RI with Bigsby weighing in at 10 pounds 8 ounces. My R9 weighs 9 pounds 3...."[/quote']

 

My Les Paul Special double-cut / P90's weighs the same -- 6 lbs - 9 ounces.

 

LOVE playing that thing. Ergonomically it's the best.

Like holding a baby in my arms. No need for weight

relief or chambering on it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...