When & What Gibson Les Pauls Have Weight Relief Holes?

[Bbreaker]

[SciFiGuy]

I know my 1998 LP Double Cut does. Here's an article from Gibson although it doesn't get into real specifics.

 

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/ProductSpotlight/GearAndInstruments/Chambering%20the%20Les%20Paul_%20A%20Mar/

[GreaserMatt]

Would an '06 classic have weight relief holes?

[Help!I'maRock!]

Any guitar standard production Les Paul made in the past 25 years, with the exception of the new '08 Standard.

 

yes, an '06 classic would have weight relief holes.

[Brian May]

 

Would an '06 classic have weight relief holes?

 

 

Definately!! All standards and Classics had for probs 20yrs!

[RaVenCAD]

On a related note... When did the use of pancake bodies end?

[Radiohead, lol]

Would an '06 classic have weight relief holes?

 

yes, or it could be chambered.

 

 

weight relief is the 'swiss cheese holes'

 

chambered is...

 

 

 

as far as i know

 

 

 

Oh, and I've heard it was 1982 when they started with the weight relief.

[Bbreaker]

There's a '08 Gibson Custom Shop Les Paul Green Sparkle top I'm interested in.

Think Gibson would have any knowledge if it's reliefed if I give them a serial #?

[bigconig]

 

There's a '08 Gibson Custom Shop Les Paul Green Sparkle top I'm interested in. Think Gibson would have any knowledge if it's reliefed if I give them a serial #?

 

 

 

I'm sure they could. Most custom shop stuff is solid unless specified as chambered though.

 

Gibson USA Les Pauls were swiss cheese from 83-4 through late 2006. They went with chambering in late 06 on all Non custom shop LPs aside from the traditional which is solid.

 

Historic reissues were all solid aside from the cloud series which were chambered.

[ermghoti II]

 

Would an '06 classic have weight relief holes?

 

 

Chambered, since '05.

[Wyatt]

 

On a related note... When did the use of pancake bodies end?

 

 

They were phased out inconsistently. From around 1976 to maybe as late as 1980, some guitars may have a solid back, some a pancake back.

[RaVenCAD]

Ok, so if I ever buy the first Les Paul I ever lusted over (a 1988 LP Custom, white), what construction was most likely used? Relief holes? chambered? solid?

[ubernerd]

 

Ok, so if I ever buy the first Les Paul I ever lusted over (a 1988 LP Custom, white), what construction was most likely used? Relief holes? chambered? solid?

 

 

Relief holes (since 82).

[GuitarNoobie]

from MyLesPaul.com

 

Gibson USA

Weight-relief started around 1982/1983. Every Gibson USA Les Paul between 1982 - 2007 is weight-relieved. They do not have solid-body construction. Weight-relief is also known as "swiss cheese holes" and refers to the nine holes drilled out of the body in order to reduce the weight of the guitar.

 

Chambering officially began for 2007 but the late 2006s are also chambered. Any Les Paul made after October 2006 maybe or likely is chambered. Every 2007 and newer Gibson USA Les Paul is chambered, except for the Les Paul Traditional. The Les Paul Traditional has swiss cheese holes. Chambering is essentially hollowing out the body. Again, this is in order to reduce the weight of the guitar.

 

Gibson Custom Shop

Gibson's Custom Shop makes regular production guitars and historic reissues. The regular production guitars, such as the Les Paul Custom, are also weight-relieved. They do not have solid-bodies.

 

The historic reissues are solid. All historic reissues, be it Standards or Customs, are solid. The exception being the chambered reissues. Chambered reissues are often referred to as Cloud 9 guitars. They are identified by their serial number, which begins with CR. chambered-reissue.org

 

So,

A 2003 Les Paul Classic is weight-relieved

A 2008 '57 reissue is solid

A 1995 Les Paul Standard is weight-relieved

A 2009 Chambered '58 reissue is chambered

A 2008 Les Paul Studio is chambered

A 1987 Les Paul Custom is weight-relieved

 

 

If you put on your x-ray goggles, this is what a chambered Les Paul would look like:

 

 

This is what a weight-relieved Les Paul would look like:

 

[GreaserMatt]

So, my '06 classic is weight relieved, but not chambered? I think I can live w/ that...

[GreaserMatt]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Gibson would do either of these things; I mean, it's a les Paul, dammit; they are supposed to be heavy. Not for girly men... nancy boys either, LOL...

[schoolie1]

On a related tangent, are any of the Gibson Les Pauls built with Honduran Mahogany? Any confirmation that they are not using African?

 

Thanks!

[EADGBE]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Gibson would do either of these things; I mean, it's a les Paul, they are supposed to be heavy.

That's why I won't buy one.

 

 

[ihavenofish]

 

On a related tangent, are any of the Gibson Les Pauls built with Honduran Mahogany? Any confirmation that they are not using African? Thanks!

 

 

ive never seen an african mahogany usa gibson. you can tell by looking at the wood easily enough. they just use 4 or 5 pieces of it for a body now.

 

they DO use spanish cedar (also a south american mahogany species) for some guitars, like melody makers. probably depends on which one costs less for them at any given time since that model is their cheapest.

[ermghoti II]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Gibson would do either of these things; I mean, it's a les Paul, dammit; they are supposed to be heavy. Not for girly men... nancy boys either, LOL...

 

Yesterday morning, your guitar was fine, now you're not sure.

 

50's Les Pauls weighed 8-9.5 lbs, most between 8.5-9. Les Pauls became heavy in the early 70's when it became impossible/uneconomical to buy the better quality, lighter mahogany in pieces large enough for a guitar body. By the early eighties, there were monstrous 14lb Pauls floating around, and the consumer was getting tired of it. Gibson figured out a way to reduce the weight, without having to spend an exorbitant sum on the body blank (and realistically, there isn't sufficient lightweight mahogany to sustainably produce Gibson production levels at any price).

 

The chambering is an entirely different construction technique, with it's own sonic properties, and is not (solely) a weight reduction strategy.

 

If you don't want holes, buy a Historic. If you don't want to pay that much for a guitar, you just figured out why Gibson weight-relieves.

[ihavenofish]

Yesterday morning, your guitar was fine, now you're not sure. 50's Les Pauls weighed 8-9.5 lbs, most between 8.5-9. Les Pauls became heavy in the early 70's when it became impossible/uneconomical to buy the better quality, lighter mahogany in pieces large enough for a guitar body. By the early eighties, there were monstrous 14lb Pauls floating around, and the consumer was getting tired of it. Gibson figured out a way to reduce the weight, without having to spend an exorbitant sum on the body blank (and realistically, there isn't sufficient lightweight mahogany to sustainably produce Gibson production levels at any price). The chambering is an entirely different construction technique, with it's own sonic properties, and is not (solely) a weight reduction strategy. If you don't want holes, buy a Historic. If you don't want to pay that much for a guitar, you just figured out why Gibson weight-relieves.

 

 

the traditional pro is not weight relieved, and its the cheapest of the standards.

 

in the 70's and early 80's, gibson was using maple necks, which contributed to the heavy weight. alot of them also had grover tuners, which add over 1/4 a pound vs the plastic tulip klusons. higher output pickups mean more copper, more weight. alnicoV weighs more than alnico2 and 3, zinc tailpieces are 3.5 times heavier than aluminium, etc etc. that maple caps on modern les pauls are also thicker by 3/16" than those of the 50's. so its really not the fault of the mahogany supply for the tanker weights. it was spec. people seem to think that the body wood makes up all the weight of a guitar. it doesnt.

 

in the mid 80's the "i want a heavy guitar" fad was over. i guess one of gibsons cheap ass ways of dealing with that was a drill press.

 

i have a little chart of weights of about 50 late 1950's LP's. the average weights is 9 lbs, the high 10, the low 8.5. im sure you can find this chart online somewhere. so i think its also a misconception that the average old les paul was super light.

 

in the end, the swiss cheese weight relief method drops 1/4 pound off a body at MOST. chambering maybe 1-1.5lbs.

[guitarcapo]

Just buy an Agile if you want a Les Paul type guitar without weight relief

[bryvincent]

 

the traditional pro is not weight relieved, and its the cheapest of the standards. in the 70's and early 80's, gibson was using maple necks, which contributed to the heavy weight. alot of them also had grover tuners, which add over 1/4 a pound vs the plastic tulip klusons. higher output pickups mean more copper, more weight. alnicoV weighs more than alnico2 and 3, zinc tailpieces are 3.5 times heavier than aluminium, etc etc. that maple caps on modern les pauls are also thicker by 3/16" than those of the 50's. so its really not the fault of the mahogany supply for the tanker weights. it was spec. people seem to think that the body wood makes up all the weight of a guitar. it doesnt. in the mid 80's the "i want a heavy guitar" fad was over. i guess one of gibsons cheap ass ways of dealing with that was a drill press. i have a little chart of weights of about 50 late 1950's LP's. the average weights is 9 lbs, the high 10, the low 8.5. im sure you can find this chart online somewhere. so i think its also a misconception that the average old les paul was super light. in the end, the swiss cheese weight relief method drops 1/4 pound off a body at MOST. chambering maybe 1-1.5lbs.

 

 

Traditionals are weight relieved(swiss-cheesed), Standards(2008 spec) are chambered. The Traditionals are basically like the Standards used to be(pre-October 2006).

[ihavenofish]

 

Traditionals are weight relieved(swiss-cheesed), Standards(2008 spec) are chambered. The Traditionals are basically like the Standards used to be(pre-October 2006).

 

 

i didnt say traditional, i said traditional pro.

[ermghoti II]

Traditional Pro is weight relieved.