R9 vs R0: Body Carve Differences

Discussion in 'Historics & Reissues' started by Andy California, Nov 8, 2017.

  1. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    I just found that Gibson specs say that Body Contour -> Carve is different for R9 and R0 (in 2016 at least): "1950's Style Les Paul" for '59 reissue and "1960 Style Les Paul" for '60.

    Is it actually different? What are the differences? I played some R0s, and never noticed any differences :)
     

    Attached Files:

  2. ONEHERO

    ONEHERO Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    One is pregnant the other one is the
     
  3. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    The difference is in that 6 instead of 5, that the guy wrote in the Gibson pages.
     
  4. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,010
    Likes Received:
    6,167
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Every carve is probably different. They are hand finished after all.
     
  5. jamman

    jamman Premium Member

    Messages:
    8,933
    Likes Received:
    7,191
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    The Originals wee suppose to have slight differences on the body and IIRC the HS . The RI's ?
    Since I 've never had both in hand to compare against the RI's . who knows or cares????

    Of course the Necks sizes and shapes are the difference you feel with both ... Old and New
    With the bodies carved the way they are today. It's just faster and less costly for Gibson to make 1 type of LP body ... Bigger differences from the Older machines for the Originals as they were not as accurate .

    You might want to post a thread in the Vintage or builder sections to get answers from those who should know more then most here ...

    Here, we just B*tch about prices and If the color or top is a nice 1 . and for More and bigger Pics :lol:
     
  6. mudface

    mudface Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    The originals were all over the place, some of the deepest carves i've seen were the early models from '52-'56. I have seen a real deep '52 and it had hardly no neck pitch/angle.....Like it has been mention it is easier for Gibson to dial up one guitar as average then try to replicate all the different carves. ....I have to admit i did not know that the original 1960 year had a different carve....:hmm:...
     
  7. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Maybe it's, like PierM said, just a typo someone entering the info on the website did, thinking "if it's a 60s LP, then it has 60s specs" :)
     
    mudface likes this.
  8. skydog

    skydog Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    719
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    I thought the bodies were assigned year designations based on flame & weight.
     
  9. mudface

    mudface Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Don't forget neck carve....,
     
  10. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    My non-scientific research suggests that recent R8, R9 and R0 are in the same weight range.
     
  11. skydog

    skydog Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    719
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    That's nice
     
    Crotch likes this.
  12. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,010
    Likes Received:
    6,167
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    The R9/R0 bodies come/came from the lightest selection anyhow. There is always variation, and neck profiles will have a bit to do with it.

    But its certainly entirely 'not scientific' when you say "weight range" and don't then make any specific determination of that range.......is it 1 pounsd? 2 pounds?!?

    I mean every guitar ever made comes in the same weight range......if you extend it far enough.
     
  13. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Here's some scientific data, a list of guitars at World Guitars at some point:
    58 TH 8.19
    58 2016 8.44
    58 2016 8.47
    58 2016 8.53
    58 2016 8.59
    58 2016 8.63
    58 2016 8.72
    58 2016 8.75
    58 2016 8.81
    58 2016 9.06

    59 2016 8.06
    59 2016 8.53
    59 2016 8.69
    59 2016 8.69
    59 2016 8.72
    59 TH 8.75
    59 2016 8.75
    59 TH 8.78
    59 2016 9.19
    59 2017 9.53

    Coda music:
    58 2016 8.33
    58 TH 8.45
    58 2016 8.56
    58 TH 8.58
    58 2017 8.98
    58 2017 9.06
    58 2017 9.09
    58 2017 9.17

    59 2017 8.37
    59 2014 8.59
    59 2017 8.78
    59 TH 8.9
    59 TH 8.9
    59 2017 9.01
    59 2016 9.015
    59 2016 9.03
    60 2017 8.924

    Peach Guitars:
    58 2014 8.69
    58 2016 8.84
    58 2017 9.16

    59 2017 8.69
    59 2016 9.4
    60 2017 8.81


    I don't see R8s being predominantly heavier than R9s, even with R8s having slightly fatter necks. Therefore I declare that "Heavier woods picked for R8" is a myth, and I just busted it.
     
  14. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,010
    Likes Received:
    6,167
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    The last years have seen a homogenisation of necks. So I would not hold the data you have gathered as being accurate if you count the majority of years that the R's did have differing neck sizes.

    And you still haven't made any science yet......that is the sort of sample size and spread I'd expect from a primary school level project.
     
  15. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    Come on, I didn't claim it was scientific, did I?

    That doesn't change my conclusion (and numbers, by the way). Unless you said something like "R9s now have fatter necks than R8".
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017 at 9:38 PM
  16. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,010
    Likes Received:
    6,167
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    ^ It does however change the validity of taking only recent weights as being the only thing relevant.

    This was a sign at Gibson for the back blanks.....not sure how relevant it is now
    reissue weight.jpg
     
  17. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    I was aware of this photo when writing everything I wrote here. I'm not convinced that photo is actually from Gibson factory (someone posts a photo with no other evidence somewhere and everyone's suddenly a believer?), but anyway, my data is for 2016 and 2017 (for guitars sold in the UK). I think it's cool that they don't do weight discrimination (anymore?) for R8 and R9.
     
  18. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    I can confirm your theory.

    I do have a list of 59, 58 and 57 Gts from one of the biggest store here in Europe, and they are ALL in the same ballpark. All R9 are heavier than 8 (so not matching that list in the picture), and basically in the same range as the R8s and GTs. Not a single one is LESS than 8. They are all 2016.
     
  19. Andy California

    Andy California Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2017
    I think the list in the picture talks about body weight (no neck, no hardware... maybe even no maple top)

    Could you please give the name of the store? Just to add to my list of Historic sellers :)
     
    PierM likes this.
  20. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Then that list make no sense at all. Those are too heavy numbers for just the back, and by the way Gibson does declare exactly the same average weight for all the Reissue backs (standard historic and true historic, 57, 58, 59, whatever);

    [​IMG]


    Thomann store.
     

Share This Page