2016 Les Paul Tradition - Traditional Weight Relief - Wildwood

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
I think it's official.

Wildwoodguitars has posted some new 2016's and the traditional is listed as Traditional weight relief.

These new traditional's look so close to perfect but why on God's green earth would they decide to make a close to perfect traditional and revert to traditional weight relief? It just makes me shake my head at Gibson.
(not to mention the tune-0-matic that appears to have carried over - the tone sucking titanium hex key version - which is easily replaceable)

Is anyone else disappointed or does the traditional weight relief not bother you? Thoughts, opinions?

2016 Les Paul Traditional Premium Finish | New Arrivals | Wildwood Guitars
 

pomaranc

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
410
Reaction score
270
Want a full, no weight relieved body?

Go CS.


That being said, I love the specs..

And what if I don't want to twice the money just do don't have holes in my guitar?
That being said, personally I don't really mind the traditional weight relief
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
Want a full, no weight relieved body?

Go CS.


That being said, I love the specs..

I think that argument is ridiculous.

Gibson had no problem making a non-weight relieved Traditional 2013-2015 which I know was a selling feature for a lot of customers and then decides to revert back to 2012 specs just for the sake of reverting to 2012 specs (Traditional weight relief)

Make the traditional that every one wants. Make it with no weight relief with a 50's and 60's neck option with an ABR bridge. It probably costs them more in manufacturing time to make the 9 hole Traditional weight relief model.

Just disappointed I guess.
 

budg

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
2,976
Reaction score
2,278
I have no problem with traditional weight relief. I had a 2012 Traditional and a 13 . The weight was about the same. The 2012 pissed all over the 13 lam board and all.

Would you rather we go back to 15 specs?
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
I have no problem with traditional weight relief. I had a 2012 Traditional and a 13 . The weight was about the same. The 2012 pissed all over the 13 lam board and all.

Would you rather we go back to 15 specs?

Hahaha on the 15 specs. Hell No!

I just want what I want. A non weight relieved Traditional!
Not a custom shop $6000 guitar!
 

Tim Plains

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
14,232
Reaction score
11,758
I don't know why people continue to buy new Trads with so many used R7, R8, G0s on the market, and by used I mean a guitar somebody bought and barely played at home. Same price and sometimes less then what Wildwood would charge for that Trad. Nothing against Trads, I like them, used to own a few and older Standards, but you can get a lot more for your money.

It does seem strange Gibson would start swiss cheesing these again, though. Perhaps it's an error?
 

VDeuce

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
546
Eh, I've had plenty of R7s and R8s that were really not that great. And the necks are just way too large.

Some of the non-weight relieved Trads were getting pretty porky. My guess is that they believe most people still want a guitar under 10 pounds and relief helps there.

I'm fine with the weight relief.
 

technomancer

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
248
Reaction score
116
I don't see anything wrong with the specs on these. Traditional weight relief doesn't bother me at all.
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
I don't see anything wrong with the specs on these. Traditional weight relief doesn't bother me at all.

I guess i was curious more than anything.
I will have to try out a few myself when they arrive in Canada. I have a 2013 and 2014 Trad both of which I love very much.

I just can't get my head around a weight relieved Trad and I know the 2008-2012 lineup was such, I just never played one of these.
 

djjagdish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
2,201
Reaction score
1,456
Looks good to me. Not in the market but if I was this would be a consideration.
 

donnycraven

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,513
I'm totally OK with this, I hate 15lb les pauls. They have fixed things good enough in my book. I mean i could bitch about textured back plates, 300k volume pots, and bridges, but I wont.
 

geetarfreek82

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
979
I'm totally OK with this, I hate 15lb les pauls. They have fixed things good enough in my book. I mean i could bitch about textured back plates, 300k volume pots, and bridges, but I wont.

Yup. All things I would replace anyway.
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
Interesting

My general leaning would be towards a LP Traditional - Just generally the guitar I like best. But I do have to say the 2016 Standards are kind of drawing me this time around.

I would have to gut the electronics. But some of the finishes I've seen so far are stunning.

I guess a proper test drive is in order first before I put a final judgment on the Traditional.
 

budg

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
2,976
Reaction score
2,278
I am partial to the ice tea burst myself. Mad as hell at myself for selling it . I bought a 13 traditional but didnt dig the neck. Too chunky and the rosewood board was too light for my taste. The neck on the 12 was perfect IMO.
 

donnycraven

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,513
Interesting

My general leaning would be towards a LP Traditional - Just generally the guitar I like best. But I do have to say the 2016 Standards are kind of drawing me this time around.

I would have to gut the electronics. But some of the finishes I've seen so far are stunning.

I guess a proper test drive is in order first before I put a final judgment on the Traditional.

I just cant get enough of the traditional ground plate myself. I think it has been in all 12 Les Pauls I owned except the Signature Ts and Studio pro that had push pulls and no ground plate. I wish they would just sell that part.
 

1allspub

Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
4,514
Reaction score
5,162
Well, nothing is "official" until Gibson releases the specs. Wildwood, GC & Sweetwater say "Traditional Weight Relief"... While AMS & Sam Ash say "Non-Weight Relieved". So who knows??? Gibson, please release the specs on the guitars you've been building and shipping for weeks now!!!!!!

That said, the safe bet it they are indeed traditionally weight relieved. Which is just fine with me! :D
 

cristi tanasescu

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
4,464
Reaction score
2,862
I think that argument is ridiculous.

Gibson had no problem making a non-weight relieved Traditional 2013-2015 which I know was a selling feature for a lot of customers and then decides to revert back to 2012 specs just for the sake of reverting to 2012 specs (Traditional weight relief)

Make the traditional that every one wants. Make it with no weight relief with a 50's and 60's neck option with an ABR bridge. It probably costs them more in manufacturing time to make the 9 hole Traditional weight relief model.

Just disappointed I guess.

Nope they won't do them like that because then there would be no reason for true historics and the other CS reissues with short tennons. Trads would get too historical accurate , so it would make no sense to buy the CS guitars anymore.


Take it with a huge grain of salt
 

Latest Threads



Top