80s & 90s Gibson Les Paul Standard

[DylanLP]

Q1: specifically what are the major differences between the 80s and 90s Gibson Les Paul Standard (apart from the pickups)?

Q2: Why people across guitar forums generally regard the 90s as the ‘good wood’ era for Gibson? Is it based on any evidence?

Q3: some people say the les Paul traditional model is based on the 80s and 90s Standard. Is this true?

 

[frozenotter]

1) Not sure, major.
2) Because they heard it from the last guy ..and so on.
3) Intentions aside, Traditionals are not of the quality of a '90's Standard. They sit perfectly where they're priced - in between a Studio and Standard.

 

[cmjohnson]

All I can say about the early 80s Gibsons is that some featured Schaller made tuning machines (actually mid-late 70s into the 80s) and introduced the Nashville style Tune-O-Matic bridge. Both of which were improvements over previous hardware. I do wish Gibson had stuck with Schaller made tuning machines and I consider the classic ABR-1 bridge type to be inferior to the Nashville variety. 80s Gibsons are very trouible free. They may not be accurate to late 50s specs but they are good instruments.

 

[Christosterone]

Calling @cherrysunburst00

-Chris

 

[cherrysunburst00]

"Good Wood Years" is generally cited by people selling . There's no real consensus on when those years were; some say that it's '89-93. Others say those years years were late 90s-early 00s.

Another source of argument is the second golden age--89 through 93. The theory is that after the Norlin-owned Gibson years (which ended in about 1986) Gibson's builders were highly motivated to build fine Lesters; these people (myself included) believe (rightly or wrongly ) that the craftsmanship was especially higher in that 4 year period because of inspired motivation.

Many aficionados (again, myself included) like the feel of those 90s necks. A bit beefier, but not baseball bat.

As OP said, pickups changed. One thing that continued (at least until 99 or so) was the wide binding in the cutaway. I actually prefer that feature (largely because my first Lester had it).

Before 1982/early 83 Lesters would have been solid, but for the rest of the decade (until about 2006ish) Standards had swiss cheese weight relief.

One final difference that comes to mind is the chainsaw case of the 80s (my Gibson dealer at the time said you could literally throw the case down a flight of stairs and the guitar would be safe; which I don't totally discount, but have never tested). In the 90s, the brown/pink cases with the shroud was used (my personal favorite)

 

[DarrellV]

Well, OP, it's gonna be hard to top ol Cherry's reply!

My cents based on a crapload of research I did about my own 82 while I was thinking of buying it, and after tends to agree with him.

So much was going on in this period. Nashville was coming up to speed and Kalamazoo was winding down. During the early part of this period both plants were producing guitars and especially Kalamazoo was even involved with one offs and special order runs.

The outcry for Gibson to make them like they used to never ceased, and a couple dealers like Jimmy Wallace and Guitar Trader got to spec their own. Response was really good. Cue @Texsunburst59 who owns a Jimmy Wallace.

It seems like Gibson during this period was awaking from a slumber of many years and actually started trying to do better.

The scrapwood construction gradually went back to 2 piece tops for example. The wood was different too.

Gibson seems to have hit upon some really dense and heavy mahogany during this time. So much so they had to start relieving them in late 82.

My early 82 weighs 11 pounds! Some have posted 12 pounders on here.

Wood can be dense and be dead its true, but I can only go by mine own and the responses by owners here and other reads I've done that agree with the quality of the wood from this period.

The fit and finish of this period are also generally considered as very good.

Proportions and carves were closer to spec... not 57 perfect, but better than they had been.

Smaller headstocks, reduced neck angles, no volute, maple 3 piece necks (changed back to mahogany around 84?)

Can't discount the pickups and why Gibson never even bothered to promote them!

The late 70's and early 80's saw new makers like DiMarzio and SD taking a good bite out of the OEM Market.

It was reportedly a widely held belief that Gibson pickups of this period sucked, and the first thing to do was rip them out and put in something else.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes and without telling anyone Gibson asked Tim Shaw to re explore the design of the early PAF pickups and to create his own.

These were not widely promoted in sales literature and one reviewer stated he didn't even know his guitar had them as he ripped them out unplayed when he bought his guitar.

They went into a new series called the Heritage 80. Gibson's first statement that they were going to try to go back and better.
Cue @bungle for that Heritage elite!

While they were not completely accurate, most would agree they were a fine instrument and many pros took them up.

So to me the 80's 90's were one of Gibson's best periods for fit, finish, attention to detail, better woods, closer to what people wanted,Tim Shaw replica PAF's, and experimentation.

Gibson released a ton of new, not always good, models in the face of stiff resistance by the market for anything new.

Some, like the Corvus, still make me scratch my head, but the snow white sparkle Customs and my own Candy Apple Red Standard, the Classics of the 90's, the Heritage series, so much goodness came out of that period.

Guitars of the month and week....

 

[ARandall]

Gibson didn't do much really in the initial changeover period. I got a 94 Les Paul Standard that had a 3-piece top on it.....so they didn't go all out about making them all 2 piece.
And all the Norlin features were gone before HJ took over anyhow, save for the Nashville bridge and short tenon. Both of those stayed on the new Gibsons.
"Good wood' is essentially a lie based on ignorance. There is nothing you can grade wood on that will guarantee a good guitar. The 90's still made quite a few boat anchors too, and the tone wasn't the vintage open tone of the historics, but more the thicker tone of the 80's guitars.

The Shaw pickups were certainly light years better than the 90's pickups for vintage accuracy (490's 498T, Bill Lawrence) - In fact people's tone quest for Brothers in Arms tone is the Shaw pickup in an 84 or 85 pre-historic.

 

[somebodyelseuk]

Couple of friends of mine switched from Yamaha SGs to Les Pauls in '85/6. One had a pair of black Customs, the other Standards in CSB and cherry and Customs in CSB and white. I'm pretty sure they were brand new ones supplied by the UK distributor in some endorsement deal, and that they all had maple necks and plain tops, but I could be wrong.
Around '88/9 the one with the CSB Stds & Customs 'swapped' his for a pair of new '59 reissues...naturally, CSB, mahogany necks, flamed tops.
From memory, it was around '86ish that they went back to mahogany necks, and I do remember flamed tops becoming a common theme from around '92ish...
I've got a Tony Bacon/Paul Day book somewhere written around '94, when all the relevant people were still alive and all this stuff was fresh in people's memories.

EDIT: I also vaguely remember there was a period - late '70s/early '80s - when Les Pauls were going out with the bridges in the wrong place.
Don't know if it was Les Paul specific, or 'Gibson-wide', but it was assumed, by the outside world, that the scale length was 24 3/4", when it was actually 24.6" (24.579" IIRC). At some point, for whatever reason, they started putting bridges at 24.75" from the nut, but didn't tell the guy who cut the fret slots - at least that's the scenario I assume iis the reason for that screw up. Whether they went back to '24.6' or repositioned the fret slots...? I do remember that was a reason why quite a lot of people played alternatives to new Les Pauls in the early '80s.

 

[DylanLP]

Thanks for whoever took part in this thread.

Maybe we can now conclude that
90s ‘good wood’ is a complete myth however the craftsmanship (QC) was consistently better during most part of the 80s and 90s.

 

[DarrellV]

Thanks for whoever took part in this thread.

Maybe we can now conclude that
90s ‘good wood’ is a complete myth however the craftsmanship (QC) was consistently better during most part of the 80s and 90s.

It is pretty much impossible to call wood good or bad, as has been stated...

But whatever batch they got in during that time was a lot more dense and heavier than previous years. This seems to be acknowledged from research I've done on my own, and from owners of guitars from across this time line in here.

IIRC it's the main reason they started to weight relieve them.

This doesn't give them a magical wood quality, agreed, but it did make for some heavy, solid feeling instruments.

It may have been psychological too, coming out of the pancake era from a few years back, that players felt a noticeable difference in the heft and feel of these instruments.

No need to get crazy on this because it is well known that the density changes from tree to tree and not all of the guitars from this period are boat anchors. But some are....

I don't have the stats at hand but is Gibson making still making anything modern at over say 10, 11 pounds all the time?

From what I've gathered in here that's not the case. Most of the public does not want boat anchors any more.

So we can say the wood was different during that period. Better or worse will always be subjective and never a hard fast rule.

YMMV of course!

 

[DylanLP]

It is pretty much impossible to call wood good or bad, as has been stated...

But whatever batch they got in during that time was a lot more dense and heavier than previous years. This seems to be acknowledged from research I've done on my own, and from owners of guitars from across this time line in here.

IIRC it's the main reason they started to weight relieve them.

This doesn't give them a magical wood quality, agreed, but it did make for some heavy, solid feeling instruments.

It may have been psychological too, coming out of the pancake era from a few years back, that players felt a noticeable difference in the heft and feel of these instruments.

No need to get crazy on this because it is well known that the density changes from tree to tree and not all of the guitars from this period are boat anchors. But some are....

I don't have the stats at hand but is Gibson making still making anything modern at over say 10, 11 pounds all the time?

From what I've gathered in here that's not the case. Most of the public does not want boat anchors any more.

So we can say the wood was different during that period. Better or worse will always be subjective and never a hard fast rule.

YMMV of course!

Thanks Darrell. Because there are tons of threads scattered around the net talking about how 2002 was the best year for Gibson or the early 90s etc. I’m glad you’ll clarified that there’s no such thing or any evidence to support it.

 

[zombiwoof]

I don't think Gibson just happened to get a supply of heavy wood, their buyers can get any weight wood they want. I think they developed the weight relief as a way to use heavier wood in general that in the past they would have rejected for the weight issue. It's a matter of economics in the long run.
Al

 

[ARandall]

The wood had been gradually growing heavier and more dense. As the plantations were a long way off, they were logging forests differently as the 70's went into the 80's. Plus the whole 'heavy = sustain' thing meant they weren't so worried.
But of course there is a point where the supply of lighter billets couldn't be regularly gotten......

I don't think Gibson just happened to get a supply of heavy wood, their buyers can get any weight wood they want.

Gibson would have just been ordering a certain 'grade' (based on price they wanted to pay) according to the way the mills defined it. If you buy middle of the road then whatever billets that are cut down you get middle of that. And Gibson was (and is) a TINY player in the wood buying department. Unless you go to a small logging company and become the big fish in the small pond, then there is no way that Gibson would have been able to bring any sort negotiating might to the table.
Remember....its only guitars where weight matters - all the other users (and end-uses) for the timber don't care.