2016 Les Paul Tradition - Traditional Weight Relief - Wildwood

jlb32

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
5,301
Reaction score
4,531
The 9 swiss cheese holes do not bother me. You will never be able to hear a tonal difference between that type of weight relief and a solid body.

I will say that one at Wildwood looks pretty damn nice. Nice dark fretboard also.
 

Sean French

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
773
Reaction score
353
Les Pauls and Les Pauls Custom until '60 had a body with 1 3/4" in thickness, the firsts '52 didn't even had a separated rosewood frettboard, but one piece mahagony neck .. '61 - '68 Les Pauls simply didn't exist.. with the reinvention of Customs and Standards, thickness increased to 2".. 70th the sandwich bodys came along..then multipieces backs, not to mention volutes, triple piece maple necks, mahagony top, two, three and five piece mapletops and so on and on..
Swiss holed weight relief started in '82, so there are indeed very few years for complete solid bodys. Don't care about.. :D

LP Standards/Customs never had 1 3/4" thick bodies. They were always 2" give or take , due to hand sanding , as illustrated in this thread.
All production 52's had Rosewood boards. It's possible one or two prototypes didn't.

Let me ask you this. Is a pancake body and or a three piece neck solid or weight relived?
Solid of coarse. Solid doesn't mean one piece.
So ,your comments about that are irrelevant to this discussion about weight relief.:thumb:
 

vivanchenko

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
375
Reaction score
171
Unlike chambering and modern weight relief, traditional weight relief is sonically neutral. The only possible impact can be a very, very little more resonance, if anything at all. So, can those people who are bitching about traditional weight relief be termed as cork-sniffers? I know, calling those good guys like that is too cruel, but to me that's just who they are.
 

Emddie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
270
Reaction score
104
Who fu***n cares if it sounds good, plays good and looks good ?!!
 

donnycraven

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,513
Unlike chambering and modern weight relief, traditional weight relief is sonically neutral. The only possible impact can be a very, very little more resonance, if anything at all. So, can those people who are bitching about traditional weight relief be termed as cork-sniffers? I know, calling those good guys like that is too cruel, but to me that's just who they are.

I think its like knowing you dont have Bumble Bee PIOs in your harness just Russian ones. It sounds exactly the same but... You know, and you just know everyone in the audience does too. They are watching you burn up your solo but inside they are thinking, he has traditional weight relief in his Les Paul, he would be a lot cooler if he had no weight relief.
 

Ansen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
653
LP Standards/Customs never had 1 3/4" thick bodies. They were always 2" give or take , due to hand sanding , as illustrated in this thread.
All production 52's had Rosewood boards. It's possible one or two prototypes didn't.

Let me ask you this. Is a pancake body and or a three piece neck solid or weight relived?
Solid of coarse. Solid doesn't mean one piece.
So ,your comments about that are irrelevant to this discussion about weight relief.:thumb:

Every Les Paul and Les Paul Custom until '60 was 1 3/4" in thickness. That's the way, Gibson advertised them in specsheets. Tell them it wasn't.

I think, you should proof some old catalogues for thickness of Les Pauls until '60 before you say never? I did.. here's just an one exampel:

attachment.php


To me, solid means not multipiece and not pancake, but i can live with your different opinion in this point. At least i just wanna show of, that there wasn't such a thing like "..like they did for 30 years..". No, they don't did for 30 years, not approximately.

Aehm..and your comment, that additional informations about Les Pauls in a Les Paul forum are irrelevant seems irrelevant to me..:D
 

Attachments

  • ProspektFretlessWonder.JPG
    ProspektFretlessWonder.JPG
    61 KB · Views: 309

donnycraven

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,513
Every Les Paul and Les Paul Custom until '60 was 1 3/4" in thickness. That's the way, Gibson advertised them in specsheets. Tell them it wasn't.

I think, you should proof some old catalogues for thickness of Les Pauls until '60 before you say never? I did.. here's just an one exampel:

attachment.php


To me, solid means not multipiece and not pancake, but i can live with your different opinion in this point. At least i just wanna show of, that there wasn't such a thing like "..like they did for 30 years..". No, they don't did for 30 years, not approximately.

Aehm..and your comment, that additional informations about Les Pauls in a Les Paul forum are irrelevant seems irrelevant to me..:D

So the Custom Lite is more historically accurate?
 

R8 Pilot

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
521
Reaction score
628
No holes or with holes..does it really matter as all that is important is how it sings.

Heard some holed Les Pauls kill a full weight and vice a versa

Every build on any individual guitar will sound different.

Haven't we all learnt that yet?

Lets move on and celebrate 2016
 

JMB1984

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
4,892
Reaction score
3,144
Love the Pelham Blue 2016 Standard Wildwood has also.


2016 Les Paul Standard | New Arrivals | Wildwood Guitars

I have always liked Pelham Blue. The Standards in DesertBurst and FireBurst are real nice as well:

2016 Les Paul Standard | 2016 Gibson USA Line | Gibson USA | Electrics | Wildwood Guitars

2016 Les Paul Standard | 2016 Gibson USA Line | Gibson USA | Electrics | Wildwood Guitars

If the necks on the Standards weren't like pencils I would be all over one of them, but no dice for me.

I hope someone from the forum ends up with one of them though :thumb:
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
Unlike chambering and modern weight relief, traditional weight relief is sonically neutral. The only possible impact can be a very, very little more resonance, if anything at all. So, can those people who are bitching about traditional weight relief be termed as cork-sniffers? I know, calling those good guys like that is too cruel, but to me that's just who they are.

Sorry dude - I don't sniff corks and I don't drink - except for tea and water.
It's interesting to see the varying takes on weight relief to the current era LP's. I guess I will reserve my judgement to what the guitars actually sound like this year!
 

519tbarr

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
594
Reaction score
559
I think its like knowing you dont have Bumble Bee PIOs in your harness just Russian ones. It sounds exactly the same but... You know, and you just know everyone in the audience does too. They are watching you burn up your solo but inside they are thinking, he has traditional weight relief in his Les Paul, he would be a lot cooler if he had no weight relief.

Hahahaha!
That was awesome dude! I was howling over here!
 

{JAKE}

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
729
Reaction score
725
Want a full, no weight relieved body?

Go CS.


That being said, I love the specs..

Yeah, I kinda dig the weight relief and so does my irritated disk in my lower back. If I want true historic specs, Ill save my pennies and buy a CS.
 

IGRocker

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
571
Reaction score
359
Every Les Paul and Les Paul Custom until '60 was 1 3/4" in thickness. That's the way, Gibson advertised them in specsheets. Tell them it wasn't.

I think, you should proof some old catalogues for thickness of Les Pauls until '60 before you say never? I did.. here's just an one exampel:

attachment.php


To me, solid means not multipiece and not pancake, but i can live with your different opinion in this point. At least i just wanna show of, that there wasn't such a thing like "..like they did for 30 years..". No, they don't did for 30 years, not approximately.

Aehm..and your comment, that additional informations about Les Pauls in a Les Paul forum are irrelevant seems irrelevant to me..:D

1 3/4" at the edge of the body. It's roughly 2" at the top of the carve, give or take because they are hand sanded. 50s Les Pauls are definitely NOT 1/4" thinner than Les Pauls made from 1968 on up. Sorry to burst your bubble there :)
 

soundxplorer

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
182
Reaction score
138
Reading this thread before bed last night gave me nightmares.

In my dream, my vintage sunburst LP Studio seemed like it was made of hard, crusty French Bread (dark brown at the edges, fading to gold in the center, the color matched perfectly). I noticed an irregular bubble near the bottom edge, and when I touched it the entire lower horn broke off. It was completely hollow inside.

I was devastated, because it's my favorite guitar. I thought about trying to glue it back on, but then I realized that something so fragile wouldn't hold up over time. It was a very depressing dream. Then I woke up at 5:00 am, and had to go play my baby to make sure everything was OK. :)
 

Ansen

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
653
1 3/4" at the edge of the body. It's roughly 2" at the top of the carve, give or take because they are hand sanded. 50s Les Pauls are definitely NOT 1/4" thinner than Les Pauls made from 1968 on up. Sorry to burst your bubble there :)

Until '60 Gibson speced them in the catalogues with 1 3/4 "in thickness. With the reinvention of Standard and Custom Gibson stated them 2" in thickness in their catalogues.
I know, there thicker in the middle, but i guess, Gibson wouldn't change the point of measurement for there given specs, so i think they measure at the edge. And if you measure a today Standard at the edge, you will find 2" thickness, the Studios comes with 1 3/4 ".

Please, look into the advertisements from Gibson before '60 and after '68.
I don't worry for my bubbles..:)

Search Willkommen im Musiker-Board | Musiker-Board for the topic gibson-kataloge-und-berichte ..


P.s. Indeed I wrote Gibson last year about this and asked them for specs (length / wide / deep) of actuell Historics series guitars. They didn't like to answer my request, but stated it as a business secret..
At this point, they lost a customer.
 

Sean French

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
773
Reaction score
353
Until '60 Gibson speced them in the catalogues with 1 3/4 "in thickness. With the reinvention of Standard and Custom Gibson stated them 2" in thickness in their catalogues.
I know, there thicker in the middle, but i guess, Gibson wouldn't change the point of measurement for there given specs, so i think they measure at the edge. And if you measure a today Standard at the edge, you will find 2" thickness, the Studios comes with 1 3/4 ".

Please, look into the advertisements from Gibson before '60 and after '68.
I don't worry for my bubbles..:)

Search Willkommen im Musiker-Board | Musiker-Board for the topic gibson-kataloge-und-berichte ..


P.s. Indeed I wrote Gibson last year about this and asked them for specs (length / wide / deep) of actuell Historics series guitars. They didn't like to answer my request, but stated it as a business secret..
At this point, they lost a customer.


All the Bursts measured for BOTB Book have a body thickness , measured from the side including the top/binding average at 1.9685" thick. That is not including the top carve from the middle .
Gibson simply used the back thickness , which is 1 3/4" spec , in early adverts and didn't include the top. Which is 1/4" thick at the binding.
The late 60's through todays adverts included the top and not just the back.
It's that simple.

I've held and played around 100 50's LPs. None were 1 3/4" at the side including the top/binding.
 

johnnymg

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
419
Reaction score
183
Here's an good description from Gibson on how they do the 3 different types of weight reliefs: trad, modern, and chambered:

Weight Relief: What it's all about

BTW, just got a guitar from Wildwood and I couldn't be happier with the guitar or Wildwood. GREAT folks!

cheers
John
 

Latest Threads



Top