Vintage vs modern Les Paul

[Zosojoe]

Hi, I'm sure I'm going to get laughed at for this one but I have to ask. What is the difference between the Vintage Les Pauls and the modern ones... I have herd that the necks are thicker, but how much thicker can they really be... also someone said they were made better and they were more quality. He was pretty much making it sound like the newer les pauls are crap compared to the vintage ones. But I own a 1997 Black beauty, and I absolutley love it... I think the modern les pauls are just as much a work of art as the vintage ones. I would appreciate some feedback, thank you.

[J.T.]

In my opinion, the biggest difference is the wood. Compare fretboards, for instance. While the stuff they used back then looks like black coffee, the stuff they use now looks more like heavily creamed coffee. Next biggest difference is craftsmanship. And here's where the heated debate starts. Many things that were done by hand "back in the day" are now done on CNC machines. "But the CNC machines are more exacting!" the modern proponents say. Yes they are. But I'd still rather own a hand built BMW M than an assembly-line BMW M, any day. But that's just me...

[Zosojoe]

I see... The wood on my fretboard is quite dark, and does not look like heavy creamed coffee. The used the same kind of wood then as they do now, correct? Also, nothing on the newer Gibsons are done by hand? Lol I thought they were still hand crafted. Are the necks thicker on the vintage LP's? Also J.T I saw that you own a Echoplex... Is it possible to still find these around? Thank you very much for you're input.

[rxbandit]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

I see... The wood on my fretboard is quite dark, and does not look like heavy creamed coffee. The used the same kind of wood then as they do now, correct? Also, nothing on the newer Gibsons are done by hand? Lol I thought they were still hand crafted. Are the necks thicker on the vintage LP's? Also J.T I saw that you own a Echoplex... Is it possible to still find these around? Thank you very much for you're input.

The Black Beauty's have ebony fretboards.

[Zosojoe]

Where can I find a video comparing the sounds of a vintage Les Paul vs a newer one?

[J.T.]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

I see... The wood on my fretboard is quite dark, and does not look like heavy creamed coffee. The used the same kind of wood then as they do now, correct? Also, nothing on the newer Gibsons are done by hand? Lol I thought they were still hand crafted. Are the necks thicker on the vintage LP's? Also J.T I saw that you own a Echoplex... Is it possible to still find these around? Thank you very much for you're input.

As Rxbandit said, you'd have an ebony fretboard. Generally that comes on Customs and Limited Editions (like my red one). But not always. I believe (but not totally sure) that the old, old guitars with rosewood all had Brazilian, "Middle" production was Indian, and newer is Madagascar. I could easily be corrected on that. They seem to go from darkest to lightest in that order.

Funny you should mention the Plex. I was just looking into that tonight. Check eBay - there's some old ones and there's a couple examples of new reproductions. And here's a great resource page: Regis's Echoplex Page . Enjoy!

[Zosojoe]

This is some good stuff, thank you. Also, is the necks on the vintage Les Pauls thicker then the newer ones?

[planks]

Are Old Guitars REALLY Better?

[planks]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

<snip>The used the same kind of wood then as they do now, correct?</snip>

They used old growth wood for the vintage LPs.

Old Growth Wood on an Electric - Fact or Fiction

[River]

How much does your '97 weigh? That'll tell you a lot right there.

How much thicker can a neck be? A lot. There is no comparing my '92 and my R8. The difference in "feel" from one end of this chart to the other is night and day.



My '92 is a fine guitar. Its only flaws are in the fitting of the control cavity cover. But it's heavy, and the fret board is nothing to write home about, aesthetically.

[J.T.]

Your measurements are very interesting, River. I wonder if there's a database anywhere. Then I wonder if it can be taken further, to include things like body and headstock measurements. And then we could put in qualitative measurements, and use that to predict which guitars will be tone monsters, etc. Ack, I've been in the computer biz waaay too long, lol.

[Ermghoti]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

What is the difference between the Vintage Les Pauls and the modern ones...

Close to a half million dollars in some cases.

[Tarz N Amps]

Originally Posted by River

How much does your '97 weigh? That'll tell you a lot right there.

How much thicker can a neck be? A lot. There is no comparing my '92 and my R8. The difference in "feel" from one end of this chart to the other is night and day.



My '92 is a fine guitar. Its only flaws are in the fitting of the control cavity cover. But it's heavy, and the fret board is nothing to write home about, aesthetically.

Thanks! That is a great chart. Something that I've wanted to do but have not taken the time....yet.

[Frails]

Hope I don't come across as a dick but that chart needs some correcting. I worked as a Mechanical Engineer for 12 yrs before switching to IT Consulting and never once did I see a measurement written as 2/16, 4/16, 8/16, 10/16, 14/16 or 12/16. They should read 1/8", 1/4", 1/2", 5/8", 7/8" and 3/4" respectively. Since the material in question is wood, I can understand the use of fractions as opposed to decimal since tolerances are harder to hold, especially as assembled. The decimal equivalent is probably only one place, or .X but I have no idea what kind of tolerances they are using. In other words according to your chart, an 09' R8 has a thickness of 7/8" or .875. But that could be plus or minus 1/16" or more. So it could be anywhere from .813 to .937. And I'm only ASSUMING .06 tolerance. It could be more but I doubt it's less. So my point is that one guitar to the next clearly will feel different in your hands, thus the need to try them out. So these types of charts should only be a reference. It's very possible to find a R8 with a much thinner neck than you expect.

[SoloDallas]

Here's my '53/'59 conversion. '59 original PAFs. Marshall amp.

Never found any new one that can get close

YouTube - Les Paul Slow Blues

YouTube - Les Paul Slow Blues

You Tube

You Tube

[J.T.]

Originally Posted by Frails

Hope I don't come across as a dick but that chart needs some correcting. I worked as a Mechanical Engineer for 12 yrs before switching to IT Consulting and never once did I see a measurement written as 2/16, 4/16, 8/16, 10/16, 14/16 or 12/16. They should read 1/8", 1/4", 1/2", 5/8", 7/8" and 3/4" respectively. Since the material in question is wood, I can understand the use of fractions as opposed to decimal since tolerances are harder to hold, especially as assembled. The decimal equivalent is probably only one place, or .X but I have no idea what kind of tolerances they are using. In other words according to your chart, an 09' R8 has a thickness of 7/8" or .875. But that could be plus or minus 1/16" or more. So it could be anywhere from .813 to .937. And I'm only ASSUMING .06 tolerance. It could be more but I doubt it's less. So my point is that one guitar to the next clearly will feel different in your hands, thus the need to try them out. So these types of charts should only be a reference. It's very possible to find a R8 with a much thinner neck than you expect.

I don't think this was intended to be a design doc. It's a simple comparison. Keeping it all in sixteenths allows for a casual viewer to have a common point of reference. This is why engineers (and hardcore techies) should not be allowed to design user interfaces or reports or anything that a business user needs to work directly with - because they find it impossible to view anything in any perspective other than their own. I'm a consultant as well, and I certainly hope you take a different tact with your clients...

[Frails]

Originally Posted by J.T.

I don't think this was intended to be a design doc. It's a simple comparison. Keeping it all in sixteenths allows for a casual viewer to have a common point of reference. This is why engineers (and hardcore techies) should not be allowed to design user interfaces or reports or anything that a business user needs to work directly with - because they find it impossible to view anything in any perspective other than their own. I'm a consultant as well, and I certainly hope you take a different tact with your clients...

Ha! Spoken from a true "users" point of view. Imagine if things had to be designed by your crazy user logic....probably a lot of using the word, "thingy". And I don't care what point of reference logic you trying to sell me, there's a right way and a wrong way in the engineering world to talk about dimensions and design. I was simply identifying that point, not trying to put anyone down. But now to you personally, if it's too over your head to make the conversion, I feel sorry for YOUR clients. No one in manufacturing would take you seriously if you said 10/16. I was just trying to help someone else avoid the embarrassment.

This is why engineers (and hardcore techies) should not be allowed to design user interfaces or reports or anything that a business user needs to work directly with - because they find it impossible to view anything in any perspective other than their own.

Who else should design them? If you seriously think that users and developers/engineers are on the same playing field, then you, son, need to find a new line of work. I get paid for expertise, thinking outside the box, being able to hit the ground running in any situation, meeting impossible schedules, incorporating Best Practices and results! And by the way, business is thriving and was even through the downturn. So I think my clients take no issue with my tact, but thanks for your concern.

[planks]

Originally Posted by SoloDallas

Here's my '53/'59 conversion. '59 original PAFs. Marshall amp.

Never found any new one that can get close

YouTube - Les Paul Slow Blues

YouTube - "Claptonian lil thing" (On a backing track)

That's some great playing and enjoyed much

to that sound!!

[EvLectric]

Damn Solo, that bridge pickup SNARLS!

[J.T.]

Originally Posted by Frails

Ha! Spoken from a true "users" point of view. Imagine if things had to be designed by your crazy user logic....probably a lot of using the word, "thingy". And I don't care what point of reference logic you trying to sell me, there's a right way and a wrong way in the engineering world to talk about dimensions and design. I was simply identifying that point, not trying to put anyone down. But now to you personally, if it's too over your head to make the conversion, I feel sorry for YOUR clients. No one in manufacturing would take you seriously if you said 10/16. I was just trying to help someone else avoid the embarrassment.

Well, if you disparage the "users" point of view, then that shows a little too much arrogance, IMO. Our job as consultants is to translate those "thingies" into techno-speak for the designers and developers, so that they build what they understand, and the users get the thingies that they understand. Hence the concept "to consult." I can live in both worlds quite easily, thankyouverymuch. Which is exactly what makes me a good consultant. One who tries to force those who deal in a different world (i.e., the business) to adapt to his, cannot be doing right by his customers. Again, opinion, but based on plenty of anecdotal evidence and experience.

Originally Posted by Frails

Who else should design them? If you seriously think that users and developers/engineers are on the same playing field, then you, son, need to find a new line of work. I get paid for expertise, thinking outside the box, being able to hit the ground running in any situation, meeting impossible schedules, incorporating Best Practices and results! And by the way, business is thriving and was even through the downturn. So I think my clients take no issue with my tact, but thanks for your concern.

Son?!? LOL! Dude, I've been 30 years in the computer biz. Hardware, software, service management, technical support management and consulting. I'm presently a managing consultant for the largest business consultancy in the world, specializing in CRM and BI, and have been for over 10 years. So, please, set your arrogant attitude aside. You have nothing to "teach" me. And it's obvious that users and developers aren't on the same playing field, or there wouldn't be a need for us consultants. But you seem to think that you are "above" your users, and that's where I have a problem - and then you carry that same attitude into this arena, where it in no way applies.

Again, the point is that doc was not a design doc, and your criticism of it was completely unnecessary. Showing off your balls does not necessarily make them any less hairy or ugly than those attached to any of the rest of us. Get over yourself.

[planks]

[Frails]

YouTube - OH GOOOOOOOD FOR YOU.

YouTube - OH GOOOOOOOD FOR YOU.

[BBLong]

Old is not definitely better. I have been playing and repairing guitars for about 27 years and I can tell you from playing great old electric solidbodies from the 50's to today, archtops from the 40's to today, and acoustics as old as a 1917, 1938, 1942, 1958, 1959, some 60's, and up to today's old Martins, and a couple of old Gibson acoustics from the 20's until today, that old is not always better.

Some old guitars are crap. No matter what you do to them they sound dead, feel dead, and are just not that great. This includes old Gibson and Fender guitars, some of which might be considered "holy grails." Some old guitars are pretty good, and some are fantastic. It's all in the individual guitar. There is little to no evidence that Fender, Gibson, or any other company was very selective in the quality of wood they were choosing back then. Today, a company like PRS changed the game by researching what makes a good guitar a good guitar, and he does have people that select his wood based on quality, and then it is dried very well to prevent changes in the wood after finishing it. So, all the internet hype/crap you hear about old wood, unpolluted, blah, blah, blah, is conjecture, and nothing more. It sounds good and logical, so people buy into it.

The bottom line is some guitars are better than the sum of their parts, others are equal, and some are caca. I do believe that some old guitars "feel" better b/c they were good ones and got the hell played outa them, so they feel comfortable, like an old pair of jeans, the second you pick them up.

Hell, Jimmy Page modified his original Les Paul to tap the pickups. So, is the solder, wire, and electronics original? Nope. Also, many of his songs were recorded with tele's and a Danelectro, but everyone thinks every sound they hear on Led Zep records are his unadulterated holy grail. Not at all true.

Old wood is old wood. Some guitars are better than others, regardless of era, age, components, etc.

Believe what you want, but old is not necessarily better. More expensive b/c of collectibility? Yes. Better, no.

Finally, rosewood and ebony were originally chosen for fingerboards b/c they are more resistant to swelling and shrinking with moisture changes than other woods. It is why railroad ties are made of rosewood, and old ones are brazillian rosewood. Rosewood does not swell and shrink repeatedly, resulting in rotting, as much as some other woods, so it makes a great fingerboard to absorb all that moisture and then dry out from sweaty fingers. It take some severe drying out to get rosewood to dry and crack. Also, a lot of critters that eat wood (insects) do not like rosewood. It's another reason railroad ties are made of them. Brazillian rosewood was cheaper to import due to distances of shipping, and ease of getting the wood up and down rivers. Indian rosewood is now more abundant b/c brazillian rosewood forests are endangered. If you can hear a difference in a 1 -2 inch slab of rosewood, whether its brazillian or indian, you got better ears than Eric Johnson. A solid rosewood neck is different, but that thin piece on your fingerboard is making very little diffrerence, except in color and grain patterns.

Bob

[Frails]

Very good info, thank you!

[lineboss58]

Originally Posted by BBLong

Old is not definitely better. I have been playing and repairing guitars for about 27 years and I can tell you from playing great old electric solidbodies from the 50's to today, archtops from the 40's to today, and acoustics as old as a 1917, 1938, 1942, 1958, 1959, some 60's, and up to today's old Martins, and a couple of old Gibson acoustics from the 20's until today, that old is not always better.

Some old guitars are crap. No matter what you do to them they sound dead, feel dead, and are just not that great. This includes old Gibson and Fender guitars, some of which might be considered "holy grails." Some old guitars are pretty good, and some are fantastic. It's all in the individual guitar. There is little to no evidence that Fender, Gibson, or any other company was very selective in the quality of wood they were choosing back then. Today, a company like PRS changed the game by researching what makes a good guitar a good guitar, and he does have people that select his wood based on quality, and then it is dried very well to prevent changes in the wood after finishing it. So, all the internet hype/crap you hear about old wood, unpolluted, blah, blah, blah, is conjecture, and nothing more. It sounds good and logical, so people buy into it.

The bottom line is some guitars are better than the sum of their parts, others are equal, and some are caca. I do believe that some old guitars "feel" better b/c they were good ones and got the hell played outa them, so they feel comfortable, like an old pair of jeans, the second you pick them up.

Hell, Jimmy Page modified his original Les Paul to tap the pickups. So, is the solder, wire, and electronics original? Nope. Also, many of his songs were recorded with tele's and a Danelectro, but everyone thinks every sound they hear on Led Zep records are his unadulterated holy grail. Not at all true.

Old wood is old wood. Some guitars are better than others, regardless of era, age, components, etc.

Believe what you want, but old is not necessarily better. More expensive b/c of collectibility? Yes. Better, no.

Finally, rosewood and ebony were originally chosen for fingerboards b/c they are more resistant to swelling and shrinking with moisture changes than other woods. It is why railroad ties are made of rosewood, and old ones are brazillian rosewood. Rosewood does not swell and shrink repeatedly, resulting in rotting, as much as some other woods, so it makes a great fingerboard to absorb all that moisture and then dry out from sweaty fingers. It take some severe drying out to get rosewood to dry and crack. Also, a lot of critters that eat wood (insects) do not like rosewood. It's another reason railroad ties are made of them. Brazillian rosewood was cheaper to import due to distances of shipping, and ease of getting the wood up and down rivers. Indian rosewood is now more abundant b/c brazillian rosewood forests are endangered. If you can hear a difference in a 1 -2 inch slab of rosewood, whether its brazillian or indian, you got better ears than Eric Johnson. A solid rosewood neck is different, but that thin piece on your fingerboard is making very little diffrerence, except in color and grain patterns.

Bob

The truth yes but not the whole truth, i have some older guitars along with newer models and many but not all of the older models sound amazing. Thats not just my opinion but the view of others who have played them, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned "sum of the parts" so true.

[River]

Originally Posted by J.T.

I don't think this was intended to be a design doc. It's a simple comparison. Keeping it all in sixteenths allows for a casual viewer to have a common point of reference. <snip>

'Zactly.

Frails, I have a few references and some experience when it comes to making technical information easier to digest while remaining meaningful. I generally start with "how would an uneducated schmuck like myself like to see that data displayed so I can get the gist at a glance, without my glasses?"

That compilation is unabashedly inaccurate and unconventional. But it works better for me than accurate (three decimal place) thickness charts and some fuzzy "oh, it was, you know, a nice chunky "D" with broad shoulders".

Of course those girth measurements could be identical for two very differently shaped necks, but they're generally not. They're a starting point that works for some of us, as do references to C, D, and DD cup sizes. I own and have played several of the guitars on that list, some after the measurements were taken, and so far the chart has proven a good predictor of "feel". I will ask for them next time I consider purchasing a guitar without playing it.

It just is what it is, and not what it's not.

[Frails]

Understood. I wasn't trying to come off as a douche. Just trying to educate. But I guess I came off that way anyway. I'd still run for cover if JT came into my business as a "consultant" blahahaha

[lp_junkie]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

This is some good stuff, thank you. Also, is the necks on the vintage Les Pauls thicker then the newer ones?

Yes, the vintage necks are thicker in most cases-

The woods on the old ones are Brazilian Rosewood (now endangered) fingerboards and the bodies/necks real honduran mahogany (also endangered)
These woods were old growth even back then, now the woods are much newer in age as it is harvested as soon as it is mature enough.

The differences in vintage vs modern is like comparing a Pinto to a GT500, both are Fords but one is light years better. Vintage being held as the GT500.

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by Zosojoe

Hi, I'm sure I'm going to get laughed at for this one but I have to ask. What is the difference between the Vintage Les Pauls and the modern ones... I have herd that the necks are thicker, but how much thicker can they really be... also someone said they were made better and they were more quality. He was pretty much making it sound like the newer les pauls are crap compared to the vintage ones. But I own a 1997 Black beauty, and I absolutley love it... I think the modern les pauls are just as much a work of art as the vintage ones. I would appreciate some feedback, thank you.

For what i have experience, here is what i think.

New les pauls are far more playable instruments, they have to be because there has been significant improvement is building steps.

I currently own 3 Les Paul and a historic thats coming next month, a custom from the 80´s one from 1990 and one from 2003, they all play well, but the 1990 has so much play time in her from the previous original owner that just feels so well to play, its got lots of fretware and its totally relic up, its just beautiful and inspiring to play. the 2003 is a real rocker, feel very solid and the action can go soo low its just real easy to play and the one from the 80´s she's good too, but my least favorite because the neck has something to it that i cant bound with yet.

Referring to big or thing necks its up to you to find one that feel good, the R8 thats coming next month has a big fat neck and i love that, one of my teles has that and just feel right, i have big hands. The one from 1990 has a fat one too but the one from 2003 and the 80´s are more like 50´s or 60´s stile LP necks, and are fast to play.

The more guitars you get to your collection the more color tones you ad, don't stay with just one, get at least 6 with different characteristics.

No one guitar can be the perfect guitar.

But this is my favorite and could never part from it.

1990 Les Paul.

[Frails]

Gorgeous!