MyLesPaul.com
Homepage - Sponsors - Subscription - Auctions - Advertise - Spy  
Go Back   MyLesPaul.com > The Les Paul > Gibson Les Pauls
MLP Meet 2014 LIKE MyLesPaul on Facebook FOLLOW MyLesPaul on Twitter
  
Like Tree1Likes

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 08-11-2009, 07:56 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
clane04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North Central, WV
Posts: 248
Thanks: 6
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Standard vs. Studio body thickness

I haven't found any pic comparison's for the difference in body thickness of a studio compared to a standard, so I figured I'd take some. I'm not trying to argue a point (I love all three of my gibby's equally), I just want to present some info for those who might be interested.





LPBR likes this.
__________________
The Original Bastards of Shit Rock

www.soundcloud.com/swampdrag
www.reverbnation.com/swampdrag
www.facebook.com/swampdrag
clane04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Les Paul

Beitrag Sponsored Links

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on MyLesPaul.com
   
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:03 PM   #2 (permalink)
The Devil's Advocate
 
The_Sentry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Neverwhere, CA
Posts: 26,319
Thanks: 1,102
Thanked 1,477 Times in 323 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Mmmm...hmmm....
__________________

The Reverb Nation Page!
"The Best Way to improve your tone is to practice every day"
The_Sentry is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
nauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,791
Thanks: 1
Thanked 534 Times in 226 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

YOU SCUMBAG POS TRADING ASS ************

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





















































jk

pretty cool idea
__________________
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Peavey Classic 30
nauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:25 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
clane04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North Central, WV
Posts: 248
Thanks: 6
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by nauc View Post
YOU SCUMBAG POS TRADING ASS ************

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






jk

pretty cool idea
Pretty brutal words, but TRADING??? I can take the rest, but don't you dare call me a TRADING!!!!
__________________
The Original Bastards of Shit Rock

www.soundcloud.com/swampdrag
www.reverbnation.com/swampdrag
www.facebook.com/swampdrag
clane04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:30 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
nauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,791
Thanks: 1
Thanked 534 Times in 226 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

lol..........

wheres the rest of the pics
__________________
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Peavey Classic 30
nauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:35 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
clane04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North Central, WV
Posts: 248
Thanks: 6
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Those are the only three I got before the camera died. Here are some older photos (I never get tired of posting them). If you have a request for other angles let me know and I'll get them sometime....maybe.






__________________
The Original Bastards of Shit Rock

www.soundcloud.com/swampdrag
www.reverbnation.com/swampdrag
www.facebook.com/swampdrag
clane04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 08:45 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
nauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,791
Thanks: 1
Thanked 534 Times in 226 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

sweet! those are nice!
__________________
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Peavey Classic 30
nauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 10:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,709
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

And the point of all this would be?...
dspelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 10:57 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cynic79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 90
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by dspelman View Post
And the point of all this would be?...
That Studios are just a bit thinner for whatever reason?

I can confirm that my 90's Studio Lite is a bit thinner than my 00's Standard.
cynic79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 10:59 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
nauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,791
Thanks: 1
Thanked 534 Times in 226 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic79 View Post
That Studios are just a bit thinner for whatever reason?

I can confirm that my 90's Studio Lite is a bit thinner than my 00's Standard.
could you measure them, id like to know how the Studio stacks up to the Studio Lite

thanks
__________________
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Peavey Classic 30
nauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-11-2009, 11:12 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cynic79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 90
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by nauc View Post
could you measure them, id like to know how the Studio stacks up to the Studio Lite

thanks
I just did a quick measure. 4.4 centimeters on the Studio Lite. 4.9 centimeters on the Standard.
cynic79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 12:08 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
nauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 9,791
Thanks: 1
Thanked 534 Times in 226 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic79 View Post
I just did a quick measure. 4.4 centimeters on the Studio Lite. 4.9 centimeters on the Standard.
cool, thanks!
__________________
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Peavey Classic 30
nauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 11:05 AM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
cphilip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 33
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

I have a 2008 Studio in Arctic White that measures almost exactly the same as your Studio. It might be 1/16th of an inch wider though. Not by much thicker and probably is the finish coat being thicker.

Just in case anyone wanted to know if there was a difference between an all Mahogany and a Regular Studio
cphilip is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 11:27 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Hedcrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 749
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

I had always wondered about this. When I got my Studio, I thought it seemed thinner than my Epi Standard. I was pretty sure it was, but I never got around to measuring a Gibson Standard. I looked online and didn't really find an answer.

Now I have one.

I know I shouldn't care and everything, but to be honest I felt a little let down when I discovered that my Studio was thinner, and that it was chambered. Somehow it just didn't seem right to me. It doesn't bother me as much these days because I love the guitar, but it still nags me a little. I had always worked under the assumption that the Studio was just like any other LP, but without binding/ornamentation. That's how Gibson describes them. Now we know that it's more than that.
__________________
========================
Hedcrash
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant."
Hedcrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 11:32 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cynic79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 90
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

I do wonder why the Studio is a bit thinner than the Standard given that it is supposed to be the same guitar minus cosmetic appointments. I don't think it makes the Studio a lesser guitar, but it is a bit odd.
cynic79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 11:36 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cynic79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 90
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedcrash View Post
I had always wondered about this. When I got my Studio, I thought it seemed thinner than my Epi Standard. I was pretty sure it was, but I never got around to measuring a Gibson Standard. I looked online and didn't really find an answer.

Now I have one.

I know I shouldn't care and everything, but to be honest I felt a little let down when I discovered that my Studio was thinner, and that it was chambered. Somehow it just didn't seem right to me. It doesn't bother me as much these days because I love the guitar, but it still nags me a little. I had always worked under the assumption that the Studio was just like any other LP, but without binding/ornamentation. That's how Gibson describes them. Now we know that it's more than that.
Keep in mind that the Standards have been chambered since mid-2006, so the fact that your Studio is chambered makes it no different from the current crop of Standards.

In any case, I haven't noticed any huge tonal differences between a good chambered Les Paul and a good swiss cheese Les Paul. I played a non-chambered 2006 Les Paul Standard last week at Guitar Center that was identical to my 2007 Les Paul Standard down to the finish. Besides the added weight, there was no big tonal difference between the two guitars. I'm sure I could have picked up a few differences if I played them back to back, but the chambered Les Paul certainly didn't seem to be a lesser guitar than its non-chambered twin.
cynic79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 12:19 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Hedcrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 749
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Oh I know they've been chambered since 2006. In fact, mine was one of the first as it was built the first week of November 2006. I realize that it's all in my head, but in my head is where it matters. Like I said, I love the guitar, it's just one of those things that is always there as footnote.
__________________
========================
Hedcrash
"I know you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant."
Hedcrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 05:25 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
clane04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North Central, WV
Posts: 248
Thanks: 6
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
I have a 2008 Studio in Arctic White that measures almost exactly the same as your Studio. It might be 1/16th of an inch wider though. Not by much thicker and probably is the finish coat being thicker.

Just in case anyone wanted to know if there was a difference between an all Mahogany and a Regular Studio

Thanks for the info, I didn't have regular studio to try. I'd like to know the thickness of other models if anyone wants to put some up (i.e. Customs, Supremes, and that ever elusive 1964 Les Paul).
__________________
The Original Bastards of Shit Rock

www.soundcloud.com/swampdrag
www.reverbnation.com/swampdrag
www.facebook.com/swampdrag
clane04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 05:29 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
guitar_randy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,168
Thanks: 31
Thanked 55 Times in 28 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Maybe it just has something to do with the binding.
Its not much of a difference
__________________

GuitarRandy
guitar_randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 07:04 PM   #20 (permalink)
The Devil's Advocate
 
The_Sentry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Neverwhere, CA
Posts: 26,319
Thanks: 1,102
Thanked 1,477 Times in 323 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitar_randy View Post
Maybe it just has something to do with the binding.
Its not much of a difference
That's what I was thinkin'.

TBH...I actually wouldn't mind a thinline Lester myself....(I guess they already have those though...they're called "SG's" )
__________________

The Reverb Nation Page!
"The Best Way to improve your tone is to practice every day"
The_Sentry is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 07:10 PM   #21 (permalink)
V.I.P. Member
 
im_b0r3d_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where streams of whiskey are flowing
Posts: 2,851
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Studio is thinner, because it doesn't have binding...
im_b0r3d_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 08:11 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
frehley76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kenosha,WI
Posts: 496
Thanks: 10
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Both my '09 68 Custom and '03 57 GT are 2"
frehley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 08:28 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,709
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by im_b0r3d_ View Post
Studio is thinner, because it doesn't have binding...
Binding doesn't add thickness -- binding rides in a channel carved into the edge of the body after the body thickness is already set. The Studio would be the same thickness with or without binding.


Here's another question, since you have your tape measure out (this one will be a bit more difficult to measure) -- how deep is the body overall (including the highest center portion) on each guitar?
dspelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 08:33 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,709
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sentry View Post
That's what I was thinkin'.

TBH...I actually wouldn't mind a thinline Lester myself....(I guess they already have those though...they're called "SG's" )
The Axcess have a slightly thinner body (and hollow). Mine's still in the shop -- anyone want to measure theirs?
Just for whatever it's worth -- the Carvin CS (California Singlecut) series is a 1.62" body at the edge, and about 2.2" at the center. It's a fully solid body guitar, though, so it still weighs in at an average 8.75 lbs (according to Carvin.

dspelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 08:42 PM   #25 (permalink)
V.I.P. Member
 
im_b0r3d_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where streams of whiskey are flowing
Posts: 2,851
Thanks: 8
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by dspelman View Post
Binding doesn't add thickness -- binding rides in a channel carved into the edge of the body after the body thickness is already set. The Studio would be the same thickness with or without binding.
But the studio's body ends right where the standard's binding starts. I'm sure Gibson somehow saves money doing it that way.
im_b0r3d_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 08:47 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
frehley76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kenosha,WI
Posts: 496
Thanks: 10
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Maybe they sand the top down at the edges to make it flat with the body since there is no binding. i have not had a Studio in years and dont remember what the edge looked like.
frehley76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 10:03 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
axepilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern NJ
Posts: 3,093
Thanks: 50
Thanked 60 Times in 11 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic79 View Post
I do wonder why the Studio is a bit thinner than the Standard given that it is supposed to be the same guitar minus cosmetic appointments. I don't think it makes the Studio a lesser guitar, but it is a bit odd.
Just a guess, but perhaps the top is a little thinner. Both of my Studios are 1/8" thinner than my Standard.
axepilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-12-2009, 10:54 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cynic79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,338
Thanks: 90
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

Quote:
Originally Posted by axepilot View Post
Just a guess, but perhaps the top is a little thinner. Both of my Studios are 1/8" thinner than my Standard.
I've thought that as well, but again, that runs counter to Gibson's statement that the Studio is the same as the Standard, just without appointments. A thinner top is a somewhat more important difference in construction.
cynic79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-13-2009, 11:30 AM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
kspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,473
Thanks: 30
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

The tops are the same thickness. As someone stated earlier, the binding is routed into a channel on the maple cap and small parts of the back and doesn't sit "on top" of anything - take a look at any build thread in the luthier forum for visuals - so the Studios actually have a little more wood up top, not that it makes any discernible difference.

The measurable difference is in the mahogany back. It's a cost savings issue as thicker, larger boards of mahogany are more expensive. It costs more to build a single piece neck with the headstock pitched 17 degrees (Gibson) vs 13 degrees (Epiphone).
kspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-13-2009, 12:45 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Montclair, VA
Posts: 1,189
Thanks: 1
Thanked 15 Times in 6 Posts
Re: Standard vs. Studio body thickness

I posted these pictures back in the norlin section awhile ago, but figured I would repost in this thread instead of linking to it.

2006 Studio


1978 Les Paul Custom.


2003 Les Paul Custom


2005 1968 Reissue GC Model
siggy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Our Network: PRS Guitar Forum | Luthier Forum | SG Guitar Forum | Marshall Amp Forum | Music Gear Forum | 7 String Guitar Forum | Acoustic Guitar Forum

MyLesPaul proudly supports St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Copyright © 2006-2014, MyLesPaul.com. All Rights Reserved.