callmeval
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 74
Surely cosmetic flaws are a testament to the fact that they're handmade guitars & shouldn't this be a reassuring thing? I mean, if Les Paul's were 100% aesthetically perfect it'd raise questions & concerns? Like, make people suspect them of being made by machines instead of people?
Also, why should Gibson bother making Les Pauls cosmetically faultless when their nitro finishes have the breaking strain of a Kit Kat & "ageing" them is considered a cool thing to do anyway? lol
I think it's really weird that some guys will literally take a magnifying glass to their Les Pauls & suffer a crippling nervous breakdown the moment they discover evidence of it being a handmade guitar. I mean, what do you expect? You bought a handmade instrument with vintage specs ffs
Later the same guys will purr over a 50s era LP with rotting inlays, rusted hardware & a worn out body covered in blemishes & dings. I don't get it.
Also, why should Gibson bother making Les Pauls cosmetically faultless when their nitro finishes have the breaking strain of a Kit Kat & "ageing" them is considered a cool thing to do anyway? lol
I think it's really weird that some guys will literally take a magnifying glass to their Les Pauls & suffer a crippling nervous breakdown the moment they discover evidence of it being a handmade guitar. I mean, what do you expect? You bought a handmade instrument with vintage specs ffs
Later the same guys will purr over a 50s era LP with rotting inlays, rusted hardware & a worn out body covered in blemishes & dings. I don't get it.