Les Paul Classic neck profile, old and new?

[lastinline]

I've been reading on here that the earliest models have smaller neck profiles and that the necks became bigger as time progressed. Is there a noticeable difference when comparing the early nighties models to later models?

[83135]

yes

[lastinline]

Also I've been reading that they were of superior quality in the beginning. Can someone give me between what years are considered the best from the beginning?

[JW123]

Ive got a 90-92 model which has a smaller neck and has held up real well. I have an 04 that has a larger neck and to me the little details on the guitar just arent as good. Soundwise I use stock pickups and I dont know if I recorded them and forgot which one I used if I could tell a difference.

[lastinline]

I was going to buy a 05 but now I'm going to wait. I've always wanted a Les Paul and I prefer smaller necks so I think an early Classic is the ticket.

[Liam]

The early Classics had really skinny necks. My guess is that if you want a nice skinny one pre '95 is a good bet. Nice guitars...

[winiwii]

well mI heard that 59`s have the best but that for presonal opinions I personaly prefer an extremly thin neck because of short fingers that and thinner necks are slightly better for speed

[cswanston]

I've got 6 old 90 to 93 Classics. They are all fantasic guitars. The necks are mostly thin, but the neck profiles on some of the old, "Model Logo" Classics are not always consistent. I have a theory, but realize that I'm not holding myself out as a guy who knows a lot, or anything at all, about the Les Paul. My Les Paul knowledge is like my guitar-playing ability--I've got just enough to fake out my girlfriend. So, I will be glad to corrected by anyone who really knows what they're talking about.

I think the inconsistencies in some--though not most-- of the neck profiles for old "Model Logo" Classics results from the fact that some fo the Classics with nicer tops began their lives as Reissues, in some cases, R9's. More than one of the flamed Classics I own have "Reissue" stamped in one of the pickup cavities, with the "Reissue" stamp crossed out with black marker and something like "LPPP" handwritten in. This is why I believe some of them began their lives as formal reissues.

I might be wrong, but I think Gibson did not have a separate custom shop facility in those days, so that Classics and Reissues were made under the same roof (though perhaps by different builders). My speculation is that the tops on some fo the reissues were downgraded at some point during their construction, not always because of the intensity of the flame or figure, but because of some imperfection in the flame pattern, and those downgraded reissues became Classics. I have a beautiful Cherry Sunburst that is intensely flamed, but has a wierd, twisty, funky spot in the flame pattern near the bridge, which swirls around a small bald patch where there is no flame. It also has a neck profile that is more consistent with a 59 than with the necks on most of my other Classics. I figure the cherry was "downgraded" from a Reissue to a Classic because of the irregularity in the top (which I prefer over a perfect "photoflame" looking flame pattern) I have an intensely flamed amber Classic that has a similar "reissue" stamp, later crossed out, in one of the pickup cavities.

Unless I'm mistaken, Gibson funded its "Historic" line with contributions from dealers, who were required to put up something like 10K if they wanted to sell the "formal" reissues that would be ijncluded within the Historic line. At the time, the Classic was a great guitar. Some of its features brought it closer to the original 60 sunburst than its formal reissue counterpart. The tops on some of the "Plus" and "Premium Plus" models were great. The guitars were light.

I'm just speculating here, but I think that Gibson needed to change the Classic so that it could not be viewed in any way as a "reissue." I don't think that Gibson would have had much confidence that they could raise the money they needed from dealers to fund the Historic line as long as dealers feared that the Classic posed a risk of "cannabalizing" potential sales of Historic Reissues. I'm just speculating, but I think that's why the snot green fret markers (the old ones were beautiful), the thick binding and the "Classic" script showed up on the Classics sometime in '93. At that point, they could never be mistaken for a formal reissue.

A later run of Premium Plus models in the mid 90s returned the "Model" script to the headstock, added gold hardware, rewplaced the hot ceramic pickups for the 490/496 combination, but retained the thick binding in the cutaway. Ive got one. It is a beautiful to look at, but plays like crap and sounds horrible. It has a baseball bat neck like a 58 or some 59s. This is the only other post 93 Classic I own or have ever played, and it sucks. I keep it arounbd mostly because I hate myself for buying it, and I display it in a conspicuous place it to punish myself. The guitar is so bad, that after three years, I still haven't pounished myself enough for having made the mistake of buying it.

The old "Model Logo" classics are fantastic guitars. You'll probably notice that the fret markers on your guitar are smokey grey, with only a touch of green swirls, at the most. I've got an 06 VOS R0, and there's not a discernible difference in quality. The neck is more substantial on the R0, with shoulders that the Classic necks don't have. But the Classics are light, beautiful, have no quality issues, and are every bit as playable as the R0. I'm not a big fan of the hot, ceramic pickups (though they really make my old Silvertone amps grind), but I'm a huge fan of the "Model Logo" Classic.

I also think it's the only undervalued Gibson out there. I really think it should be considered as a "Prehistoric." Don't get rid of it.