Norlin Hater gets owned - One of the Best Writeups on Norlin LP's I have read.

[kmrumedy]

Go this from another forum. OP Doesn't Like Norlins, posts statement - gets this response: Original post in italics response underneath. I think I am just going to copy and paste this reponse for now on when I see these types of comments.

Originally posted by xxxxxx Here's a dissenting voice. I heartily DISAGREE about the '70's Norlin guitars. These are most often inert, rather toneless, shoulder breakers (HEAVY). The pancake body suffocates the resonance. Simply compare the acoustic tone of these to any 1 piece body guitar and you'll see. Yes, there are some exceptions: I had a really nice 70's standard that played well and sounded good, but most of these are like the 70's strats: corporate bean counter guitars made cheaply by a demoralized workforce. These are the guitars that STARTED the vintage craze becasue they were (and are) SUBSTANDARD. If you can buy one cheap, do it. Are they worth the $1000 plus prices? NOT TO ME. Better off with a 1 piece body post-Norlin guitar.


Lots of misinformation there. I'll state the obvious then explain.

This is meant to provoke thought and maybe stir things up alittle.
My style sounds rough and confrontational, but I don't mean it that way.
It is my barroom New Yorker argumentive style. I've got strong opinions and I'm not slamin' you Litcrit, as much as sayin' as we do up here, "Are you outta your friggen' mind?" "SUBSTANDARD?" Let me tell you all about it "

The obvious.
Norlin Les Pauls are not 50's Les Pauls. Neither are Historics.
They are not toneless or lifeless. They can break a shoulder.
They were not made by bean counters, but rather by proud skilled craftspeople who were not demoralized. They are not SUBSTANDARD.

Now the good stuff.
Norlins Les Pauls were made as a modern upgrade to the extinct originals(remember they BOMBED!). Thinking at that time was that heavy dense wood makes for better tone. This is true in many respects. Here are the truths.

A three piece neck is stiffer and more stable than a one piece. It has allways been a quality feature on Gibsons, and the BEST made guitars have allways featured them. Budget guitars got the one piece mahogany neck. Stiffer stable necks sound better. One piece mahogany necks are desireable on Les Paul reissues because it is a vintage spec. A one piece neck does not sound better than a laminate neck. I have compared many, done tests with great players with good ears and none of us could hear a difference that could be attributed to the neck. A soft neck or an instable one is easy to hear and pick out, it sounds like shit and is usually a one piece neck with a thin profile, though I recently played a freinds R9 with a soft fat neck that was a turd.

I want to meet the man who can hear the difference between a stiff stable onepiece neck and a three piece neck, 'cause he would be God.

Headstock pitch, shape and volute do seem to affect the tone and Norlin Les Pauls had them all. They also had small pegheads increased pitch and no volute. Each sounds different but none is better. Clearly if you want an authentic 50's tone, the 50's style tapered small voluteless steep pitched headstock will get you there. But I have heard wonderful tones from the Norlin design and though not as correct from a vintage point, they none the less produce a good tone that differs somewhat from vintage specs.

Things like Three Piece Maple or Mahogany Necks were unpopular with vintage "Why can't they make them like the 50's" fanantics, much like the ones you see here (I'm one too). Most people had no problem with them then and I still don't. They are well made functional necks that play and sound fine.

This is the main point of contention. They are not made like 50's. Most of the complaints are by people who value 50's burst above all else, and can see no other type. Anything that deviates from a 59 is caa caa. I've seen people foamin' at the mouth over the hue of the red in the burst, a multi piece neck can give such a person a stroke!

Lets talk bodies.

One piece bodies do not sound different than laminate ones. If they did you would HEAR the difference between 1974 sandwich bodies and 1975 one piece bodies. I've heard hundreds yet I've never spotted that thing that would define them tonewise by body construction. If you can you are a way better man than me.

I do prefer a onepiece body for it's look and obvious value, but I have owned many and still have a sandwich one because it sounds so freakin' good. Though I do not mind three piece necks in all honesty I would rather have a one piece body. Not for sonic but rather asthetic reasons.

Three piece maple is not as pretty, and I much prefer a two piece top, but I can't hear the difference. It is all about the look and I would say a three piece top has less visual quality than a centerseamed top. Again it is asthetics. Remember too that all those tonaly superiour 50's Goldtops had multi piece tops! So you can't argue about laminations. Firebirds have 7!!!

Resonance. Lets talk about resonance. Every Les Paul I have heard with a loud overly resonant acoustic tone sounded like a rubber guitar through an amp covered with a blanket. All that string energy that is vibrating the wood to create that acoustic tone is gone, sucked away by the wood and the pickup never sees it so your amp never reproduces it. Clashing out of phase frequencies further wool up the tone. You want toneless and lifeless? Don't look at the heavy stiff guitar.

Toneless and lifeless blanket statements are dead wrong in respect to these guitars. In fact a very good argument can be made that the reverse is true. Most heavy stiff guitars are louder, brighter and have a tighter bass. They have a huge sustaining tone. They lack some of the airy woody midrange of a vintage Paul but they ring with a loud clear voice with medium output alnicoV loaded Humbuckers and pure nickle strings. I have never, ever heard a dull, lifeless, toneless Les Paul from this era that was in good shape and stock condition. Things like hot ceramic overwound Humbuckers and stainless or plated stainless strings do not help them.

They were beautifuly made.
Binding, finish and woodwork is excellent on these guitars. They were made as well as ever, then. Nothing in the 70's was even close.

There are other distinctions too. Norlins came in many flavors.
First types were Sandwich bodied, 3 piece Mahogany Neck then 3 piece Maple Neck ones. Many sound awesome. These were only made for about 4 years.

Next came the one piece bodied 3 piece neck ones. Still lots of good sounding ones. Both had a preponderence of 3 piece tops but 2 piece tops aren't that rare. These were made until 82 or so.

In 80 they had both one piece, and my favorite Three piece, Vintage style necks, with small headstocks, no volutes and 17 degree headstock pitch. Bookmatched Flame tops made a reappearence then too.

By 83 Norlin Les Pauls had one piece bodies, one piece mahogany necks, deep dish carve and vintage style small headstock without volute and bookmatch tops were more common. By the end in 87 they were allmost allways bookmatched.

That is just Standards. Norlin had some cool models and good ideas. Some of which I'd like to see again. They were well made and in general sound good. They are not 50's replica's. We have Historics for that. They are excellent Les Pauls. They are not the holy grail, nor are they the best ever made. They may not even be collectable, (I think they are and look to Mike Slub for inspiration), or fetish instruments but, they made some stellar music that is still emulated today. I'd say take a good honest look and listen to one with an open mind, you might rediscover something besides substandard. As far as any modern guitar killing a Deluxe dead... bullshit! That is one ignorent statement. As for Gibson's modern day propaganda, are you that gullable? They are trying to sell you on new product. With a list price better than 3K, and soon to go up they better be good. I'm excited about the new Standard and think it is a good thing. Can't wait to try one out.

But I do not look to Gibson for truth. Truth is on the stage and in the studio and rings in my ears and lays in my hands. Listen to my cut on the first Forum CD for a Norlin Les Paul in action, that's the truth, and it ain't substandard.

[Kalamazuu]

That's a great post, well really a great response to a not so great post, goes well with that thread asking why Norlins had a bad/good rap.

[River]

Originally Posted by kmrumedy

Thinking at that time was that heavy dense wood makes for better tone. This is true in many respects. Here are the truths.

If you say so.

I don't see much pwnage, I see battling opinions held so strongly that they constitute beliefs.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Beauty is in the ear of the listener.

[Satch0922]

I like the response, well written to express his experience. The entire argument is "brain damage". Maybe I take the easy way out and tote the line " there can be gems and lemons in every year of production regardless of era".

I have sold three LPs made in the 2000s because they didn't "fit" (feel, tone, playability). I have sold LPs made in the 80's for the same reason. The keepers I have are 74,83,84,88,91,93,05,06,07. Go figure.

[b-squared]

I still have my '76 Custom, and although the 60s profile neck hurts my hands after awhile, the tone on that guitar is stellar.

BB

[frankthomson]

i woulda sed something like....
"if u dont own AT LEAST one Norlin, then ur a pussy"

hehe...
fukn pussies.

[Midnight Blues]

I just basically said the same thing in another thread, but I have two. One I've had over 35 years, the other just about 35 years and I love them both!!!! So does my Luthier. I obviously have dated myself, so I can say this: There wasn't any talk that I can remember back then about the "substandard quality" of Les Pauls. In fact, it was quite the contrary. They were still the Guitar to have and every Guitar player that I knew/read about, either wanted one or had one.

[HOT-BRIT]

It is the uninformed & inexperienced who love to jump on the band wagon by making there uninformed & unsubstantiated negative claims about Norlin era Gibson guitars, it gives them a sense of self importance & self worth that they feel they are lacking, they also feel like it makes them look like an expert on Gibson guitars in the eyes of there peers, when in fact it just makes them look stupid, ignorant & uninformed.

[pmonk]

Well, I just put some new strings and oiled up the fret board on the 81 LPC, and she plays as sweet as sweet can be!

[Midnight Blues]

Originally Posted by pmonk

Well, I just put some new strings and oiled up the fret board on the 81 LPC, and she plays as sweet as sweet can be!

I'll bet she sounds just as good too!

[Jack's back]

Originally Posted by Midnight Blues

There wasn't any talk that I can remember back then about the "substandard quality" of Les Pauls.

Couldn't agree more! Frankly, I have only encountered this Norlin hate since I started reading here at MLP.
I personally have no problem with some "wannabe's" snobbery. Having been around the block a few times, I prefer to trust my own ears rather then the mindless ravings of a few self appointed "experts". I have never, as in NOT EVER, had an audience member / participant complain about the sound of my 71 deluxe.

Oh, and I drink and like my local, domestic beer, too!

[blakem]

This is an AWESOME Thread!!!!!

[cmh6122]

I have only owned one Les Paul. I bought it for $850 including tax and a Choice case that was considered a real upgrade from the chainsaw case on 6 Decemer 1977. I had just turned 22, and was making maybe $3.25 an hour. I was convinced then, and believe to this day it was built by craftsmen that intended it to be special.

Built in Kalamazoo, maybe by some hands that had caressed the vaunted '59s.
I have played dozens of LPs in my 44 years of playing (to include the 59 burst the guy I still trade with owned when I bought mine from him), and would not trade my guitar for anything.
It wasn't till I found this forum that I discovered the 'Norlin' controversy(yeah I know I should get out more).
I am grateful my Les Paul doesn't have to be better than everyone elses to be the one for me.

[Bud Stoner]

Originally Posted by cmh6122

I am grateful my Les Paul doesn't have to be better than everyone elses to be the one for me.

I couldn't have said that better.

[Progrocker111]

Great thread for Norlin lover like me. But i must add some things.

1. pancake bodies lasted until early 77, not 74 like here mentioned

2. I had many Norlins, most from early 70s and i must say, that there is in general fairly big tone difference between the earlier 70s with mahogany necks from Kalamazoo and later 75 and later ones made in Nashville. The earlier ones sound in general better to me, they were still made from Honduras mahogany and have richer and more dynamic tone. Later ones with maple neck sound more stiff, cold and in your face to me and in generally are heavier too. Dont forget too, that the earlier ones had longer neck tenon and i would swear that the earlier T-Tops with patent nr. decal have more mids and a bit air in the tone than the ones with stamped patent nr.

I would divide the Norlin era into these 3 categories:

1. late 69 - early 75
2. 75 - 82 until mahogany necks again appeared
3. 82 - early 86 with more correct 50s specs, no volute etc., but with swiss cheese weight reduction holes

Norlins are great rock and hardrock guitars, but in general they really sound more focused, clear and kind of thinner and tighter than Historics or earlier Gibsons. For some it could be advantage (higher gain applications, great sustain and tight bass etc.), for some negative. They arent so well suited for for example traditional blues or 60s bluesrock playing. I like them very much, because i play mainly 70s progrock and hardrock and these genres were very often played with late 60s and early 70s Gibsons. They suit me better than Historics...

Sorry for my not great English.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

Great thread for Norlin lover like me. But i must add some things.

1. pancake bodies lasted until early 77, not 74 like here mentioned

2. I had many Norlins, most from early 70s and i must say, that there is in general fairly big tone difference between the earlier 70s with mahogany necks from Kalamazoo and later 75 and later ones made in Nashville. The earlier ones sound in general better to me, they were still made from Honduras mahogany and have richer and more dynamic tone. Later ones with maple neck sound more stiff, cold and in your face to me and in generally are heavier too. Dont forget too, that the earlier ones had longer neck tenon and i would swear that the earlier T-Tops with patent nr. decal have more mids and a bit air in the tone than the ones with stamped patent nr.

I would divide the Norlin era into these 3 categories:

1. late 69 - early 75
2. 75 - 82 until mahogany necks again appeared
3. 82 - early 86 with more correct 50s specs, no volute etc., but with swiss cheese weight reduction holes

Norlins are great rock and hardrock guitars, but in general they really sound more focused, clear and kind of thinner and tighter than Historics or earlier Gibsons. For some it could be advantage (higher gain applications, great sustain and tight bass etc.), for some negative. They arent so well suited for for example traditional blues or 60s bluesrock playing. I like them very much, because i play mainly 70s progrock and hardrock and these genres were very often played with late 60s and early 70s Gibsons. They suit me better than Historics...

Sorry for my not great English.

some good points, but the T-tops are very consistent and there is no audible difference between the older patent number sticker or the later stamped base plate T-tops.

[sangandongo]

Originally Posted by River

If you say so.

I don't see much pwnage, I see battling opinions held so strongly that they constitute beliefs.

I agree.

[siggy14]

I love the stiff neck comment, just another cork sniffer response! Honestly I have owned many, and my two main stays are a 78 and 79 and there is no stiff necks.

It is bad enough there is norlin hate, but it is even worse when norlin owners start hating on each other and try to say some years are better then the others.

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

Great thread for Norlin lover like me. But i must add some things.

1. pancake bodies lasted until early 77, not 74 like here mentioned

2. I had many Norlins, most from early 70s and i must say, that there is in general fairly big tone difference between the earlier 70s with mahogany necks from Kalamazoo and later 75 and later ones made in Nashville. The earlier ones sound in general better to me, they were still made from Honduras mahogany and have richer and more dynamic tone. Later ones with maple neck sound more stiff, cold and in your face to me and in generally are heavier too. Dont forget too, that the earlier ones had longer neck tenon and i would swear that the earlier T-Tops with patent nr. decal have more mids and a bit air in the tone than the ones with stamped patent nr.

I would divide the Norlin era into these 3 categories:

1. late 69 - early 75
2. 75 - 82 until mahogany necks again appeared
3. 82 - early 86 with more correct 50s specs, no volute etc., but with swiss cheese weight reduction holes

Norlins are great rock and hardrock guitars, but in general they really sound more focused, clear and kind of thinner and tighter than Historics or earlier Gibsons. For some it could be advantage (higher gain applications, great sustain and tight bass etc.), for some negative. They arent so well suited for for example traditional blues or 60s bluesrock playing. I like them very much, because i play mainly 70s progrock and hardrock and these genres were very often played with late 60s and early 70s Gibsons. They suit me better than Historics...

Sorry for my not great English.

[Progrocker111]

Originally Posted by siggy14

I love the stiff neck comment, just another cork sniffer response! Honestly I have owned many, and my two main stays are a 78 and 79 and there is no stiff necks.

It is bad enough there is norlin hate, but it is even worse when norlin owners start hating on each other and try to say some years are better then the others.

OMG, there is only my general observation, nothing else. The later Norlins are great for hardrock, early metal and higher gain applications, so its all very subjective...

[HarleyJohansson]

Originally Posted by siggy14

I love the stiff neck comment, just another cork sniffer response! Honestly I have owned many, and my two main stays are a 78 and 79 and there is no stiff necks.

It is bad enough there is norlin hate, but it is even worse when norlin owners start hating on each other and try to say some years are better then the others.

Didn't sound much like corksniffery to me, just sounded interesting and cool to read. But I don't personally believe the wood makes much of a difference myself and definitely not different years; yes, wood might sound different depending on how it's been treated and if late 50's guitars were made with care... well, that's why they probably sound good. But there are just way too many variables; saying that 70's and 80's guitars are better for heavy rock, while 50's aren't, well, you've taken just the image of them. I wouldn't play Ac/dc with a 59 burst either, although it would still take the friggen roof off your house. This sound posts are pretty useless, each guitar does sound different, but in my opinion, which is of course right, I say, that the amp is where it's at. And the cables. I've seen a lot of people babbling on about tone, while using little, tiny, laughable "telephone" cables. I could go on and on.

[79standard]

I am too happy with my '79 to worry about Norlin-haters. I had a chance to A/B my Norlin with my brother's R0, and they were both very very enjoyable in different ways.

Hey, it's music: it's good.
Don't fight!

[siggy14]

Because too many people throw this phrase around, what they really mean is the guitar is not setup right, either the string gauge is to heavy, or the action is too high or the TP is to low etc... All these cause the strings to feel to stiff to play, there are so many factors in why a neck might feel to stiff, I find the most common answer is the action is not set up correct or the strings are to tight.

But wood is not going to make a neck of a guitar feel stiffer or softer when playing, well unless you are trying to bend the neck like RR did, then the maple neck might be a bit stiffer.

Once again the only thing worse then norlin hate is norlin hate by another norlin player. Maybe we should have 3 norlin forums listed as follows

Early 70 norlins, there you can brag about our guitars are better because they have mahogany necks and believe our T-Tops sound different even though there was no difference in production of them. And of course RR played a early 70's, end of story....

Late 70 norlins early early 80's, they will brag about how much stronger the necks are since they are 3 pc maple and how they are not crappy early 70's with pancake bodies that weigh a ton

80's norlins, they will brag the guitars are better because there is no volute and they went back to 1pc Mahogany necks and back to having a deep top carve.

So you can see how silly this will all get, the fact that late 70's norlins have a maple neck is negated by the fact that early 70's norlins have an extra slab of maple in the body, both guitars are going to be a tad bit brighter the traditional Les pauls, but things like pickups will change the brightness of the guitar more then that maple ever will. So lets stop giving the real norlin haters more fuel to burn their hate with.

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

OMG, there is only my general observation, nothing else. The later Norlins are great for hardrock, early metal and higher gain applications, so its all very subjective...

[Progrocker111]

Originally Posted by siggy14

Early 70 norlins, there you can brag about our guitars are better because they have mahogany necks and believe our T-Tops sound different even though there was no difference in production of them. And of course RR played a early 70's, end of story....

Late 70 norlins early early 80's, they will brag about how much stronger the necks are since they are 3 pc maple and how they are not crappy early 70's with pancake bodies that weigh a ton

80's norlins, they will brag the guitars are better because there is no volute and they went back to 1pc Mahogany necks and back to having a deep top carve.

There are many more differences between early and late 70s Norlins than just pancake body and mahogany vs maple neck. There are different neck tenons, different neck angles, top carves, etc. I wasnt bashing late 70s Norlins, just commented my own experience and believe me, i have had and played dozens of them. I like all Norlins, but the early 70s ones a bit more. However i have little experience with 80s Norlins.

[siggy14]

His whole statement is just putting down the later norlins, sorry but my 78 and 79 do not sound thin, either do any other norlin I found, there is just to many biased opinions in there. If he would have said, in his opinion then I would have been nicer.

To OP I understand by your response to my response it is just your opinion or observation, but you never once stated that, you stated everything as fact as you have owned many and this is your findings, that is not opinion, but fact based on research, flawed research as I highly doubt you had the same exact pickups, same exact settings, same exact amp and did a side by side test at that moment.

Something to think about, as to wood from 50 etc.., let me throw this by you.

Average 50's LP was about 8.5 pounds, they did not have the cavity plates like most les pauls have, they did not have the heavy tuners and had aluminum TP

My current 78 LP is 9.75 pounds and my 79 is 10.25 pounds, from another thread if I was to take out the cavity plates, change the jack to a standard one and put an aluminum TP and change my tuners, well then both my guitars would weight less or about the same as the average 59 les paul, the only thing that 59 has on my guitars is the long tenon, and if that long tenon makes it sustain longer then my guitars, good luck, because mine sustain to long as it is.

I dont care about classic pickups as they usually do not have enough output for me. I like the 3pc maple neck with volute because it is more stable and stronger. As to it maybe being a little bit brighter, that is why they made a treble control Knob on my amp!

Originally Posted by HarleyJohansson

Didn't sound much like corksniffery to me, just sounded interesting and cool to read. But I don't personally believe the wood makes much of a difference myself and definitely not different years; yes, wood might sound different depending on how it's been treated and if late 50's guitars were made with care... well, that's why they probably sound good. But there are just way too many variables; saying that 70's and 80's guitars are better for heavy rock, while 50's aren't, well, you've taken just the image of them. I wouldn't play Ac/dc with a 59 burst either, although it would still take the friggen roof off your house. This sound posts are pretty useless, each guitar does sound different, but in my opinion, which is of course right, I say, that the amp is where it's at. And the cables. I've seen a lot of people babbling on about tone, while using little, tiny, laughable "telephone" cables. I could go on and on.

[siggy14]

As you can see below, Besides the pancake body and the maple neck, the only difference is the early 70's had the trans tenon, once again the tenon argument is whole other story, I have owned many with long tenon and see no proof that one sustains longer then the other, it really depends on the guitar. Besides, I have never really seen the need for a guitar to sustain so long. As to the top carve, not sure what year they changed but that really does not make a difference to me, both feel and play great.

On Dec 19, 1969 Ecuadorian Company Ltd (ECL) bought controlling interest in Chicago Musical Instruments (CMI) which owned Gibson. The new company was named Norlin. Gibson was Norlin's last musical company asset to be sold off, in January 1986.

Changes timeline (note: changes don't happen on Jan 1st, there are always variants):
PRE-NORLIN
- 1965 - headstock angle changes, chrome replaces nickel hardware, brazillian is no more.
- 1968 - re-release of the Les Paul, GT with P90s and Black Custom. Long tenon. Wide binding.
- 1969 - wide headstock, wide binding, 3pc neck, pancake body, trans tenon. Deluxe introduced to use up the mini hums left over from sending Epiphone offshore.

NORLIN
- 1970 - volute, Made In USA stamp, confusing serial numbers start.
- 1974 - (?) Standards reintroduced, 'white' Customs, 20th Anniversary Customs (the first anniv issue from a guitar mfg).
- 1975 - necks change to maple, short tenon introduced, Nashville plant starts building LPs in conjunction with Kalamazoo. Serial number changes to decal.
- 1977 - end of pancake body. Decal serials still used, also the start of the modern 8 digit serial numbers.
- 1981 - end of volute
- 1983 - start of weight relief holes
- 1984 - final production at Kalamazoo in June
- 1985 (?) - end of 3 pc neck

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

There are many more differences between early and late 70s Norlins than just pancake body and mahogany vs maple neck. There are different neck tenons, different neck angles, top carves, etc. I wasnt bashing late 70s Norlins, just commented my own experience and believe me, i have had and played dozens of them. I like all Norlins, but the early 70s ones a bit more. However i have little experience with 80s Norlins.

[Progrocker111]

Originally Posted by siggy14

His whole statement is just putting down the later norlins, sorry but my 78 and 79 do not sound thin, either do any other norlin I found, there is just to many biased opinions in there. If he would have said, in his opinion then I would have been nicer.

I never wrote they sound thin. I had for example many late 70s LPs and most of them played very good, some were very heavy and not very resonant, but for some players that could be positive. I like more early 70s as i stated because they sound more "traditional" and more 60s like and thats the fact, not only my opinion. Dont forget another fact, that the early 70s ones had until 72 better caps and pots too (Sprague and 500k), they really are much closer in tone and feeling to 68s and 69s and to me thats a positive, perhaps for you not.

[riffsmachine]

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

I never wrote they sound thin. I had for example many late 70s LPs and most of them played very good, some were very heavy and not very resonant, but for some players that could be positive. I like more early 70s as i stated because they sound more "traditional" and more 60s like and thats the fact, not only my opinion. Dont forget another fact, that the early 70s ones had until 72 better caps and pots too (Sprague and 500k), they really are much closer in tone and feeling to 68s and 69s and to me thats a positive, perhaps for you not.

+3 There is a clear difference in terms of shape, look, construction, materials, "retro-vibes mojo pressure", sound even compared with a 75' or 76'. You can see clearly just by your eyes the differences year by year startin' by late 75'. Even from a picture... I have a 79' KM (Kalamazoo model) and a 80' Custom and they are fine (expecially KM) but another things compared with early ones that i own. It is not a matter that "my guitar is better than yours", but if you own more than one and play them every day, you can feel,see the differences.

[siggy14]

Post 16 you say
"Norlins are great rock and hardrock guitars, but in general they really sound more focused, clear and kind of thinner and tighter than Historics or earlier Gibsons"

So that is where I got the thinner part from, honestly I am not going to keep going back and forth, things like pickups and wiring or all small, I can buy after market Caps and pots and TP's and bridges that will make any current gibson sound more vintage.

Originally Posted by Progrocker111

I never wrote they sound thin. I had for example many late 70s LPs and most of them played very good, some were very heavy and not very resonant, but for some players that could be positive. I like more early 70s as i stated because they sound more "traditional" and more 60s like and thats the fact, not only my opinion. Dont forget another fact, that the early 70s ones had until 72 better caps and pots too (Sprague and 500k), they really are much closer in tone and feeling to 68s and 69s and to me thats a positive, perhaps for you not.

[siggy14]

Perception plays a big role, trying to say a 75 is so much different and better sounding then a 76 or later etc.. is a invalid point. No two guitars are going to sound the same, plus like I said perception plays a big role.

I went through this battle, and actually had to sit down, clear my mind and let my fingers and my ears decide on which guitars to keep. I have had reissues, I have had early 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000 les pauls, and in the end I sold them all, my two best sounding and best playing guitars are both late 70 ear norlins. They beat out a 59 reissue, a 68 reissue and a 57 reissue, and trust me I wanted so badley to keep one of the reissues because I was believing the hype on the neck tenon, better wood etc.. But in the end my fingers and ears told me what was right.

Not that I am putting down your guitars, maybe you just have great KM guitars, or maybe in your mind those are the best sounding because you want to believe the hype that they have better wood and build quality.

Originally Posted by riffsmachine

+3 There is a clear difference in terms of shape, look, construction, materials, "retro-vibes mojo pressure", sound even compared with a 75' or 76'. You can see clearly just by your eyes the differences year by year startin' by late 75'. Even from a picture... I have a 79' KM (Kalamazoo model) and a 80' Custom and they are fine (expecially KM) but another things compared with early ones that i own. It is not a matter that "my guitar is better than yours", but if you own more than one and play them every day, you can feel,see the differences.