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:
    179
    Likes Received:
    63
    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:
    69
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    One is pregnant the other one is the
     
  3. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    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:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Every carve is probably different. They are hand finished after all.
     
  5. jamman

    jamman Premium Member

    Messages:
    9,085
    Likes Received:
    7,304
    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:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    5,962
    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. skydog

    skydog Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    740
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    I thought the bodies were assigned year designations based on flame & weight.
     
  8. mudface

    mudface Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    5,962
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Don't forget neck carve....,
     
  9. skydog

    skydog Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    740
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    That's nice
     
    Crotch likes this.
  10. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    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.
     
  11. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    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.
     
  12. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    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
     
  13. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    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.
     
  14. PierM

    PierM Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    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.
     
  15. ONEHERO

    ONEHERO Member

    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    EXACTLY!!!! I don’t know how many people believed this trolling pic from old!!!!!!!




     
    PierM likes this.
  16. Bigcat2017

    Bigcat2017 Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    I only know Gibson even use scratched guitar for the official photo.:doh:
     
  17. mudface

    mudface Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,185
    Likes Received:
    5,962
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Are you Sniff'n glue again Andy?:laugh2:
     
    Crotch likes this.
  18. jamman

    jamman Premium Member

    Messages:
    9,085
    Likes Received:
    7,304
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Weights are still used in deciding what get picked . the last reference to it was here in an interview with EW about the TH guitars. IMO it's still used (to some effect ) for all PL's coming out of the CS .

    http://www.theguitarmagazine.com/features/gibson-custom-shop-tour/

    Quoted from a few paragraphs into the article

    "Our main criteria for mahogany is the size: it’s gotta be a one-piece body. And then, the weight. We don’t have criteria for the grain because we want to buy one-piece bodies. For the most part, I want straight grain and I want it more quartersawn-looking"
     
  19. ARandall

    ARandall Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    6,791
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Er, why is nobody able to realise Gibson doesn't import wood cut to shape. They import body blanks. The weights for a typical blank are accurate......
     
  20. BBD

    BBD Senior Member

    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    988
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2017
    What you have found supports your argument Andy, but you need a bigger sample size to make any strong claim.

    There's also the possibility that Gibson may have internal protocols for weight selection but they are not observed diligently on the shop floor.
     

Share This Page