Why 59 not 58

[andersozzy]

I have seen that it is more common to build 59´s replica than 58´s. Why is that?

Anders

[Udonitron]

59 seemed to be the golden year for the LP's however in 1959 many LP's had 58 necks and some even slimmer than the transitional 59 size.
They made kick ass topped LP's in 58 and 60 as well and there were no cut and dried solid stats for each year as they were all over the place.
I really think it has a lot to do with all the rock stars of past and still some present who were seen with, used, and played so much of the iconic music many of us have grown up listening to on a 1959 Les Paul (Richards, Claptop, Page, Green, etc) thus people associate that tone and favouritism the 59's hold with their mysticism.

[pdoodek]

I would say it's better to name it a "Burst replica" than some specified year, because the differences are not constant, and many features appears through various months not years (so f.e. smaller frets in '58 but also in early '59). Just choose your favourite specification and make it that way.

Still, 1959 Burst is the most universal in features (good points from '58 and good points from '60) and, what is most important (as was mentioned before), it's the most reverend guitar due to history and players, that used them in many iconic songs all over the years.

I think that the most important things in replica is not the year, on which you base it (cause few people would be able to recongnize which Burst is this replica, rest will must believe your word), but correct Seth Lover's P.A.F. replicas, neck of your prefered size and siginificant top carve - the rest is easily "changeable" or not important detail (but it can change your guitar from replica to copy, if that makes any difference to you, as a player). It all depends which way you want to go - too feel you have 1959 burst that was made in XXI century or just a ultimate guitar, with the best things from that golden era Lester.

[andersozzy]

Thanks for your reply

Anders

[slapshot]

why not 54,56 or 57?
that's where the real magic happened

[campbellj]

Or 60?

[pdoodek]

or the one, that Les Paul owned !

[rykus]

meduim neck, small heel, bigger frets, over wound zebra and double white PU's, I think its just more an analogy for the peak of all the best things in a LP.
Not really saying '59 was the year but that for a couple months in mid/late '59 was probably the time when all the best features where present.

[dspelman]

Originally Posted by slapshot

why not 54,56 or 57?
that's where the real magic happened

Nah. Three things made the difference (none of which had happened in those years), and they all came together at once. Humbucking pickups, the burst top, and larger frets.

This actually happened in late '58, but those models seem to be sort of lumped in with the '59's. The '60's are excellent, but lack the UV sensitive stain that caused so many '59's to fade.

Fact is, it was a '60 Les Paul that started the ball rolling, in the hands of Clapton. Rather than pick nits, most rockers, in those days, found it simpler to refer to the guitar with the right stuff as a '59, rather than saying, "Well, if you get a later '58, you'll have all the important things, and if you get a '60 you'll still have important things but the stain will be a different color, you see, and..."

[slapshot]

anyone with a clue about guitars knows that in '57 when the PAF's were matched with the stop tailpiece & tunamatic they hit a home run.nevermind the evolution from trapeze TP to wraparound to tuneamatic to adding hum buckers.zero importance in those things
fret size?slightly irrelevant
humbuckers?2 years too late
being painted a sunburst colour?totally irrelevant

but ... thanks for playing

[pdoodek]

in fact do a '52 replica. The first one, the real Les Paul (Lester didn't liked P.A.F. humbucker pickup, he was more to P90).

Then convert it to '54 (wraparound), then to '56 (TOM), then to '57 (P.A.F.s), then to '58 (Burst top), then to '59 (smaller frets), then to '60 (repaint it with tomato soup and shave the neck).

Then you will have everything you ever wanted - and the guitar would have a HISTORY !

(I dont know only how to change cedar into mahogany in '54 convertion, as some '52 were made of spanish cedar wood )

[RAG7890]

Originally Posted by andersozzy

I have seen that it is more common to build 59´s replica than 58´s. Why is that?

Anders

Which is precisely why I had a '58 built.............see my Avatar.

In reality many Vintage '58's had subtle flame, some grain & mineral streaks.

They were pretty cool & far rarer IMHO.

I prefer the road less traveled.

[Udonitron]

Watch this video...it will show you that there is no definitive regarding the model's year based specifics.
Every year had mixed bag regarding necks etc.

TOM WITTROCK | Gibson Les Paul Standard Burst 1958 1960 1959 - YouTube

TOM WITTROCK | Gibson Les Paul Standard Burst 1958 1960 1959 - YouTube

[HOT-BRIT]

Neck profile, bigger frets, flame top

[Udonitron]

Well the video above points out that other than the frets, the 58's and 60's had the same or similar attributes.
I highly doubt people would pay 10 times the cost for a 59 just for the frets but who knows.
It is all lore & all has to do with iconic players and bands using them and the desire for people to own that tone IMO.
Little do they realize it is 90% in the fingers.

[pdoodek]

Originally Posted by Udonitron

Well the video above points out that other than the frets, the 58's and 60's had the same or similar attributes.
I highly doubt people would pay 10 times the cost for a 59 just for the frets but who knows.
It is all lore & all has to do with iconic players and bands using them and the desire for people to own that tone IMO.
Little do they realize it is 90% in the fingers.

It's not only in the fingers - old Gibson guitars sounds different (especially the Les Pauls, those with P90 also) than other guitars, and thats a fact. It depends however what a player can do with that sound - he can ruin it by playing hardcore metal or just through some bad amp or use this advantage and create untouchable tone. That famous "Burst" honky, growling, blooming, kicking, f***ing sound depends mostly on Seth Lover's P.A.F. humbacking pickup, which sounds very different from modern (even "vintage style") pups (my personal favourites are "Greenie" and "Skinner Burst" so far). I still don't understand why anyone didn't made the same or even better pickup than those firstborn. If somebody has enough money (and an opportunity) and is building a replica - P.A.F.s from '50s/'60s should be in it !

[slapshot]

Originally Posted by pdoodek

he can ruin it by playing hardcore

wrong

[nicolasrivera]

Because, rock stars that made it famous where and are playing 59 les pauls.

[pdoodek]

Originally Posted by slapshot

wrong

Check out Metallica

[Udonitron]

Metallica is not Hardcore

[slapshot]

i wouldn't even bother trying

[pdoodek]

Originally Posted by Udonitron

Metallica is not Hardcore

Thrash, hardcore, whatever...I like them...they are using (Hammett for sure) Bursts sometimes on bigger gigs. But that's not the point - the point is: use your guitar for what it was made to do, that means mostly the pickups - 7-9k Ohm is not for metal !

I would say that calling your guitar a "Burst" replica and even putting that name on the headstock is far more accurate and interesting than keep that mainstream "'59" replica game. It would never be a guitar from 1959, or from 2011, because it's a history. In fact your replica builder will not build '59 Les Paul replica, even if his templates are based on a Les Paul made in 1959 - because, as was mentioned before - next Les Paul from 1959 may be very different.

Still, any idea why we discuss this on and on ?

[slapshot]

as much as metallica sucks and metallica fans sucking even more they do use their guitars for what they were made for.playing music,albeit very sucky music,but they still get played not locked in a bank vault

[pdoodek]

Originally Posted by slapshot

as much as metallica sucks and metallica fans sucking even more they do use their guitars for what they were made for.playing music,albeit very sucky music,but they still get played not locked in a bank vault

that's true. Bonamassa still is #1 modern endorser of the "Bursts".

Came to my mind, someone should try to take templates from all of the famous "Bursts", so anybody can have not a '58, '59 etc. replica but complete replica of Pearly, Greenie, Beano, Kossoff, Skinner etc....wait...I forgot about Gibson

[rykus]

Makes you realize how f'n rad Cliff Burton really was listening to anything since... May he RIP.

[thexmadxtopxhatter]

Many players prefer the elements of the sometimes over-generalized 59 les paul (thick neck, tune o matic bridge, sunburst finish, bigger frets, etc.) However, for many other players, different years are the "holy grails"

[RAG7890]

Originally Posted by thexmadxtopxhatter

Many players prefer the elements of the sometimes over-generalized 59 les paul (thick neck, tune o matic bridge, sunburst finish, bigger frets, etc.) However, for many other players, different years are the "holy grails"

Agree.............'54, '55, '56, '57, '58, transition '59 - '60.

I really like '54 / '55, '56 & '58.

The '59 is a little................................ .too common!

I plan to get a wrap tail................many say they are great. Can't wait find out.