Gibson Les Paul Custom - Talk me into or out of buying

@Shepdoggiest get your hands on a Tom Bartlett replica some time, would love to get your thoughts. I havent been able to try one yet, despite him living a couple hours away afaik.

MGL has one for $11k usd, which to me is “buy a vintage something” money haha. The Retrospec model sells for considerably less used.
 
Shepdoggiest said:
Point taken. I understand what you're saying. I don't mind those 'old practices' that to me make the guitar a LP visually, even less than perfect. What I do mind is making the ABR-1 saddles narrow instead of wide like they were originally. They do not sound like the original to my ear. They emit unnatural, harsh overtones those wide ones didn't. QC things like missing screws, non functional tuners and setups that could not have been Plek'd on a $7K guitar are inexcusable, decidedly QC level issues imo. And those saddles make the guitars not sound like what they were created from. The Heritage guitars are made at the old Gibson factory by former Gibson top level employees and to my ear are sonically better besides much better physically. Of course, that's one man's opinion. But I speak from hands on experience prior and now.
Click to expand...
The Murphy Lab guitars are Les Pauls at there best and that's based on playing possibly around 30 50s originals and pretty much everything since.
 
That's more than I've played of originals. At a $20K entry, correct? That's unequivocally guitarist rape level pricing in my senses. I could've played some, but refused because of the aforementioned feelings on $20K to make a guitar what it should be closer to outta the gate at $7K. A view based on the same principle applies to a Murphy vs. real 59's - it's still not - foremost that none of the materials were from the period to make it 'real'. There is no justification for a $12K increase in price from $7K- except to make the charges fully attributed to labor. More than double the price of a new Standard at $3K. Murphy's more than 6 times the price of a new Standard. Honestly, I believe Gibson found the cash cow that would move 'holy grail' level product at a huge markup the materials don't suggest should be appropriate at $6700, moreso at $20K. To say 'aging a guitar without the guitar being even 1 day older' valuing it worth another $12K minimum is another level of it from the price vs. measurable difference with testers having as completely blind POV as can be created.

My guess would be that in blind recordings in mixes, there's a fair amount of Gibson affictionados who would be hard pressed to differentiate a Heritage (as long as all have the same pickups) as a real '59, or a Murphy - both of which they'd never heard before. That's the one thing I could hear straight away, that the Heritage changed their pickup recipe from the original. But better guitars in most every sense I experienced at a shop that may get to 'select their LP stock' in whatever sense that is. At the end of discussions on the net, I say enjoy and love the Gibson LP, friend. It comes down to our feelings about what is in our hands. For me, the wool was pulled aggressively from my eyes, ears and hands. I am glad. Personal experience with a product, or 'mileage' always varies the longer I live. Then there's the unmeasurable affection for a product that elevates said product higher. That's the joy of our humanity.

BTW - I still have a 1986 Charvel/Jackson Model 1 (your pic, correct?) but with a Kahler instead of Floyd. I love those guitars, especially for the neck and frets. Mine needs a refret and all new electronics in the worst way.
 
Budda said:
@Shepdoggiest get your hands on a Tom Bartlett replica some time, would love to get your thoughts. I havent been able to try one yet, despite him living a couple hours away afaik.

MGL has one for $11k usd, which to me is “buy a vintage something” money haha. The Retrospec model sells for considerably less used.
Click to expand...
https://reverb.com/item/1468977-tom...s-paul-replica-burst-brazilian-rosewood-board from 8 years ago. I bet the getting hands on one is lpretty hard to accomplish. I'd sure like to though, man. Looking at the current site, it seems he may have had reasons to no longer make exacting LPs?
 
Orville might be worth a look! Not going to be new but there are some nice ones out there and the Japanese guitars are pretty nice! I cant think of any others out there besides Collings that are going to be accurately built and not have some sort of imperfection..
 
Shepdoggiest said:
That's more than I've played of originals. At a $20K entry, correct? That's unequivocally guitarist rape level pricing in my senses. I could've played some, but refused because of the aforementioned feelings on $20K to make a guitar what it should be closer to outta the gate at $7K. A view based on the same principle applies to a Murphy vs. real 59's - it's still not - foremost that none of the materials were from the period to make it 'real'. There is no justification for a $12K increase in price from $7K- except to make the charges fully attributed to labor. More than double the price of a new Standard at $3K. Murphy's more than 6 times the price of a new Standard. Honestly, I believe Gibson found the cash cow that would move 'holy grail' level product at a huge markup the materials don't suggest should be appropriate at $6700, moreso at $20K. To say 'aging a guitar without the guitar being even 1 day older' valuing it worth another $12K minimum is another level of it from the price vs. measurable difference with testers having as completely blind POV as can be created.

My guess would be that in blind recordings in mixes, there's a fair amount of Gibson affictionados who would be hard pressed to differentiate a Heritage (as long as all have the same pickups) as a real '59, or a Murphy - both of which they'd never heard before. That's the one thing I could hear straight away, that the Heritage changed their pickup recipe from the original. But better guitars in most every sense I experienced at a shop that may get to 'select their LP stock' in whatever sense that is. At the end of discussions on the net, I say enjoy and love the Gibson LP, friend. It comes down to our feelings about what is in our hands. For me, the wool was pulled aggressively from my eyes, ears and hands. I am glad. Personal experience with a product, or 'mileage' always varies the longer I live. Then there's the unmeasurable affection for a product that elevates said product higher. That's the joy of our humanity.

BTW - I still have a 1986 Charvel/Jackson Model 1 (your pic, correct?) but with a Kahler instead of Floyd. I love those guitars, especially for the neck and frets. Mine needs a refret and all new electronics in the worst way.
Click to expand...
First up no with the picture. It is a 100% original Late 80's custom order Jackson Soloist." I" if you don't know am a full time tech who specialises in Rock guitars and first division Vintage and by rock guitars I mean ex Rock star. I have been doing this full time for almost 35 years now.
The thing that Gibson do now that makes the "value" of one of their high ticket Murphys arguably worth it is they give Tom the run of the wood shop and as much time in production as it takes . This is not something you should underestimate the value of. I have played many A/B with 50's originals and the Murphy special runs are usually better, always better playing and often sound better too.If you don't know doing a relic finish is 100% different to a new finish in every part of the process to get it to look convincing and the new ones do. It take more time to do a Murphy heavy relic than paint 20 R9s now put that on the ticket with the pick of the wood shop that is that of a volume producer( Large inventory ) and TIME to get the details right. This adds up to multiples of the price. Is it "value"? up to you but an original is going to be $300Kish so $30K for a near exact replica that is certificated as "Real" may sound like a deal to the people they are aiming for.
 
Andy Eagle said:
First up no with the picture. It is a 100% original Late 80's custom order Jackson Soloist." I" if you don't know am a full time tech who specialises in Rock guitars and first division Vintage and by rock guitars I mean ex Rock star. I have been doing this full time for almost 35 years now.
The thing that Gibson do now that makes the "value" of one of their high ticket Murphys arguably worth it is they give Tom the run of the wood shop and as much time in production as it takes . This is not something you should underestimate the value of. I have played many A/B with 50's originals and the Murphy special runs are usually better, always better playing and often sound better too.If you don't know doing a relic finish is 100% different to a new finish in every part of the process to get it to look convincing and the new ones do. It take more time to do a Murphy heavy relic than paint 20 R9s now put that on the ticket with the pick of the wood shop that is that of a volume producer( Large inventory ) and TIME to get the details right. This adds up to multiples of the price. Is it "value"? up to you but an original is going to be $300Kish so $30K for a near exact replica that is certificated as "Real" may sound like a deal to the people they are aiming for.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for all the clarifications and information, Andy. At $20-30K 'people' is perhaps a pretty small group I know I can't be in, very unfortunately. Not being able to see the headstock at that pic angle, they looked pretty identical. I had to open the pic to note the uncovered singles. Great guitars.
 
Andy Eagle said:
The Murphy Lab guitars are Les Pauls at there best and that's based on playing possibly around 30 50s originals and pretty much everything since.
Click to expand...

Aw crap… I didn’t need to read this. My local shop has a few used ones that I’ve been avoiding on purpose. 😁 Oh well, I guess I’m going guitar shopping.
 
Andy Eagle said:
They may vary a bit but you are missing the point by a whole degree of magnitude . I can easily find a more precisely built instrument for thousands less but it won't sound the same, nothing quite does not even high end single cuts from other builders costing more. Not unless they are copying the production methods. QC isn't going to make them that much better because they still use many old school practices and many stages are simply not in the production method. For example the binding is ALWAYS not perfectly flush because they don't sand the body after it is fitted to make it . The whole step is just missing from production. The binding scraped nibs are done with a single sided razor and that is it . The tint bleeds in to the binding because the lacquer almost guarantees it will. The back and sides of the head are never flatted before buffing because they don't have a step in the production to do it. There is small variation in QC but even the best LP is a Gibson and that is what it is, you buy it because of the heritage and the sound. Epiphones are cleaner builds but they don't sound even close because of poor materials and significant differences is construction methods. Gibson have always used top quality materials and produced a "musical" sounding guitar even the budget models sound good because they are cutting cost with simplicity of design not crappy components and poor wood selection. A cheap guitars should be a very simple one (Les Paul Junior) to cut costs not a look alike POS with a veneer of subterfuge to cover the garbage it is made of (think Sire).
Click to expand...
This is all 100% true, but having worked in a very famous vintage guitar shop in Australia for many years (who were also by a huge margin the highest seller of 59RI's - like more than every other shop in Australia combined), I might as well chip in. I played literally hundreds, if not thousands of "vintage" Gibsons that came through our shop as I did the setups and inspections. I also played hundreds of Custom Shop Gibsons for the same reason. Gibsons were by and large nice guitars up until somewhere around 1967, then something happened - much the same happened with Fender - 1966 Strats are generally great, '67s are a whole 'nother story. Perhaps there was a spike in wood prices around that point, but Gibson started making necks out of five pieces of Mahogany instead of one piece - they put it down to stability but I have always found it quite curious that the laminates they use are pretty much the thickness of a floorboard (hmmmmm...... wood supply......?), late 60s SGs for some reason are often plagued by fingerboards that sort of rot away - when you are trying to refret them the frets literally fall out again, leaving no option but glueing in and clamping down, which you shouldn't have to do!

From then on Gibson was just a slow motion bus smash up until Norlin sold the company. Les Pauls with "pancake" bodies because thin wood is exponentially cheaper than thicker sections, no attempt to bookmatch tops, heck - three piece plain maple tops on Les Paul Customs - even my L5S, which was the most expensive solid body Gibson ever made has a three piece, non matched top!

They definitely got better when Norlin gave up, at least construction quality wise, but factory Gibsons as opposed to Custom Shop are just scarily hit or miss (and yes, there are good ones). Custom Shop 59RIs were shipped with seemingly no fret crowning - just flattish, rough frets - on a guitar that cost more than $14K Aussie dollars! They are much better now I will add.

We get people selling Gibsons second hand here from the "good wood" era..... that is garbage, there has never been a "good wood" era unless you are referring to pre 1967. There have been "bad wood" eras (laminated rosewood fingerboards some time around 2012 due to Gibson not being overly careful about their supply provenance), but I laugh every time someone says "The "good wood era" - oh, yeah, you mean around 1955 then?......."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom