OK, Vintage Vs. Replicas

[marshallcrazy]

Not sure I've seen a thread on this before, I apologize if there was and I missed it. Got to thinking this morning on my way to church after the latest exchange with Flick on the Max/Derrig thread. So, here's the two questions I pose to you knowledgeable friends on here:

1. Do you think dollar for dollar, the high end replicas are a better deal than true vintage bursts and probably tone wise couldn't tell them apart?

2. Given the price range of high end replicas depending upon what they're loaded with and have on them, say 20k-50k, is a high end replica loaded with vintage electronics at least, a better deal dollar for dollar than say a true conversion or a whatever 50's LP you could get in that same price range say topped out at 50K?

What say you, guys?

 

[dkirwan]

Not sure I've seen a thread on this before, I apologize if there was and I missed it. Got to thinking this morning on my way to church after the latest exchange with Flick on the Max/Derrig thread. So, here's the two questions I pose to you knowledgeable friends on here:

1. Do you think dollar for dollar, the high end replicas are a better deal than true vintage bursts and probably tone wise couldn't tell them apart?

2. Given the price range of high end replicas depending upon what they're loaded with and have on them, say 20k-50k, is a high end replica loaded with vintage electronics at least, a better deal dollar for dollar than say a true conversion or a whatever 50's LP you could get in that same price range say topped out at 50K?

What say you, guys?

I've played a guitar clinic, a Keebler and a Max. I've played the real thing and a conversion.

All were exceptional guitars. No question. Only the conversion and the vintage sounded like old Gibsons. Because they were. Unless you use the same era wood, sourced from the same place, dried in the same way and made by the same folks...your guitar will sound different. Period. The Keebler I had was killer. It sounded no better than the Brazilian Gibsons I had and not as close as the 07 R9 I have now sounded compared to the oldies.

 

[les strat]

All vintage Les Pauls do not sounds th same. Some suck. Some are to die for. That said, you can find a Historic that is in that territory. Don't let anyone fool you. You just got to hunt and pick.

 

[SoloDallas]

I have had many conversion LPs (I think 5 or 6) and kept only one (a Lentz conversion). I also played and owned a few historics. Never played a real '59.

What has been said above is true.
There IS vintage that won't sound magical to say the least. There are vintage guitars (Les Pauls, SGs, ... ) that really are magical instead.

There also ARE historics in 50s territory. Still new, still to evolve in time, in their own way.

If I could, I'd always go vintage (ONLY 50s and 60s vintage). But it's out of the question: getting more and more expensive.
So I am trying many historics. I am starting to have a whole lotta fun.

 

[Frutiger]

I've played both a real '59 & a Max plus a few 50's goldtops. I've been lucky in the fact that all of the vintage Les Paul's I've played have been wonderful guitars.

The Max I played, well it was good but it just didn't feel quite 'right'. It was fitted with 50's parts & double black PAF's, sounded pretty cool but it was also up for £15,000 - that's pretty much conversion prices & I'd rather have a real gibson that's been chopped about than a fake, no matter how good.

 

[les strat]

Good Historics are out there, I have a good R8, but I have a G0 that eats it and sounds great with any pickups you put in it. Pure vintage warmth, honk, sparkle.... all the good descriptive nouns. I'd put it up against a burst in a blind taste test.

 

[ReverendJWblues]

Good Historics are out there, I have a good R8, but I have a G0 that eats it and sounds great with any pickups you put in it. Pure vintage warmth, honk, sparkle.... all the good descriptive nouns. I'd put it up against a burst in a blind taste test.

A bunch of the G0's Ive played have been absolutley wonderfull I even picked the best of the lot (as for my tastes of course) for me, its got a wonderful tone, and plays like butter. Ive played many les pauls for maybe 30 seconds and put them back up. Theres good and bad but we are all different in our tastes. I even finally got a chance the other day to play a real burst, I was ready to shit my pants. It didnt sound nearly as good as my JPP or my G0 but maybe it was just me, as I'd never played a real burst maybe my expectations were to high. Dont get me wrong it was no dog, but it didnt do much for me. At least I finally got to play one for that I'm gratefull, I had a damn big fear of dropping it.

 

[Liam]

OK G0, new thing on me. Someone going to tell me about them?

 

[FUS44]

No two guitars sound the same. But you can get some qualities out of a replica which put you in burst-ville. The best way I can describe it is to compare a real one. Because when you play a note or chord, you can verbalize the concept you're getting at. I'm convinced unless you're deaf, you'll hear it. But until someone does the old Nigel Tufnel "Hear that?, That's the sustain" (which I had done for me by a burst owner) it's tough to put into words. I tried in another thread regarding having played a burst. But it's tough. I was also get a handle on some of the sound qualities by hearing a guitar which did not have those characteristics right afterward. Strum the burst, listen, verbalize. Then strum the other guitar and the differences are easier to pin down. but there are sustain and midrange characteristics which I've heard get close, (to this particualr guitar). I would love to play more replicas! I've played more real ones than replicas(or so I think)

 

[les strat]

OK G0, new thing on me. Someone going to tell me about them?

They are the special run R0's for GC. Basically same specs as a regular R0 (long tenon, solid lightweight mahogany, Burstbckers 1 & 2, VOS, etc.), just in plaintop.

 

[marshallcrazy]

No two guitars sound the same. But you can get some qualities out of a replica which put you in burst-ville. The best way I can describe it is to compare a real one. Because when you play a note or chord, you can verbalize the concept you're getting at. I'm convinced unless you're deaf, you'll hear it. But until someone does the old Nigel Tufnel "Hear that?, That's the sustain" (which I had done for me by a burst owner) it's tough to put into words. I tried in another thread regarding having played a burst. But it's tough. I was also get a handle on some of the sound qualities by hearing a guitar which did not have those characteristics right afterward. Strum the burst, listen, verbalize. Then strum the other guitar and the differences are easier to pin down. but there are sustain and midrange characteristics which I've heard get close, (to this particualr guitar). I would love to play more replicas! I've played more real ones than replicas(or so I think)

Very good point. I call it acoustically resonant and "being in tune with itself". My number one rule before buying any guitar is to play it unplugged for awhile and "do" what is described above. That's actually the best description of this that I've heard, kudo's on that! It is true; if it sounds really good unplugged it has the potential to sound really good plugged into an amp.

Why do I say potential? Well, it might sound not so good plugged in depending upon what you like in pots/caps/pickups. But, that's easily remedied. What's described above is the sound of the woods themselves. And, usually I go through pulling down 10-30 guitars before I find one that sounds this way.

Back on topic, my Max's "sound this way". They are easily the best sounding acoustically resonant guitars I own. The whole guitar and neck just vibrate and come alive when you strum it. You can literally feel it in your hands if that makes sense. That's the quality most associated with the old bursts that are also deemed "players". I've been very, very fortunate in that I was able to see, hear, play and then buy some of Max's best work. Some things are just meant to be, I guess.

 

[hbucker]

This is an intriguing question. Good thread. As one who thinks a lot of the vintage hype has reached folklore proportions, I do still understand the appeal of SOME of these great old instruments.

Tone aside, what I would offer up is the idea that no reissue could match the feel of one of the originals. Unless the original has been stored under someone's bed for 50 years in a perfectly humidified environment. Even then I'm not so sure. But a guitar that has been played even periodically over 50 years will have a certain feel to it that can't be replicated at the factory.

 

[LoKi]

All vintage Les Pauls do not sounds th same. Some suck. Some are to die for. That said, you can find a Historic that is in that territory. Don't let anyone fool you. You just got to hunt and pick.

This absolutely true. No matter who says what is better, there are amazing guitars from every year Gibson has been in business. I think the trick is to not fall in love with the first one you see, but to try as many as you can.

Its like fine wine. Some people just do not have the palette for it, but it can be learned and appreciated.

 

[plainburst]

I've never, and probably never will, get the chance to play a real burst, but when I strummed my 59 Replica for the very first time, it sounded just like how I had always imagined a burst would, if you know what I mean? Notes were mellow but clear, and the whole of the guitar was vibrating. I thought to myself "hell yeah, this is it". I am not saying it sounds like a burst, but there's a magic ingredient in the replica certainly! Maybe the fact that its been stuck together with hide glue, no truss rod condom, braz board, very hard and dry mahogany? My r8 is a great guitar and it totally blows it away, with all due respect.

 

[dkirwan]

All I'm saying...

Is that when people use terms like "blows it away"..."much better than an Historic"....I get queasy.

Vintage Gibson's have a unique tone. Not necessarily better, or worse...but distinct. It has to do more with serendipity of the parts, the raw materials, the manufacturing process and the workers.

When I hear a vintage burst...that's the sound I want to hear. That's the sound of the music I grew up with. That's why I want my Lester to sound like that. Not necessarily because it is "better". It's because that's what 50's Gibson Les Pauls sound like. Now, I know there are variations between guitars...tho, I've never heard a burst I thought "sucked"....ever. There are variations, but they all have a certain distinct ring to them. That can never be recaptured unless the same wood, parts, production methods and techniques are used.

The Keebler I had was wonderful. Old growth Mahog. Braz. Hide glue, right neck size etc. But it sounded no closer to the real deal than other replicas or Historics. If it aint the real deal...it never will be. No matter how hard you wish it to be so.

 

[CharlieS]

The Keebler I had was wonderful. Old growth Mahog. Braz. Hide glue, right neck size etc. But it sounded no closer to the real deal than other replicas or Historics. If it aint the real deal...it never will be. No matter how hard you wish it to be so.

It all depends on the guitar. My Uber Keeb has been A/B'd against bursts and conversions, as well as one of the best hard rock maple R9s I've ever seen or heard. The Keeb was like another burst, and sounded better than the conversions I compared at the time. IMO of course. I've run across other conversions which were just as good--again, it depends on the guitar.

The R9, while capturing some of the qualities of the old ones, didn't quite get everything that the old ones could. I have played about a half dozen bursts and many conversions. Also Max, GC, Keebler and (name withheld) replicas. The best of the replicas would hang with the bursts without question. I've played very many historics and never found one which sounded like a burst. They'd sound good, but a bit different....less of the hollow dry bark or 'Tele on steroids' quality present in so many old ones.

 

[plainburst]

All I'm saying...

Is that when people use terms like "blows it away"..."much better than an Historic"....I get queasy.

A wrong choice of phrase perhaps! What I mean is I can get much closer to my 'ideal' tone with my replica than with my Historic and that really inspires me when I play it. Having said that I don't believe all replicas are better than all Historics. I must have just got lucky

 

[lp59aholicDon]

As has been stated, Not ALL Bursts or vintage were killer guitars, not all replica's make it happen, very subjective thing, alot of chemistry involved in it. I have played several vintage Les Pauls and one or two were nothing to scream over compared to a few replica and conversions , the whole Old wood, pickups, hardware, handcrafting all comes into play

 

[8 1443]

I agree that if you don't have old growth mahogany, you won't get the same mellow sound. I have building guitars for over 20 years, and some of them have sounded really good, some just o.k. and some (even with beautiful Honduras mahogany) have sounded just aweful. If you can get a good piece of wood, you can get a good sound. That includes the top and fretboard.

 

[dwagar]

one thing to keep in mind when comparing is the pickups. Some of us are fortunate enough to have PAFs to compare guitar to guitar, most of us don't and likely never will.

Dollar for dollar, I think the best for a player would be a conversion. As an investment, maybe not. I suspect Max's have appreciated faster in the last few years than old Gibsons have.