dude, you can make two les paul's out of the same two trees and have one that is a real cannon and one that is a dog. There is no "good wood years", there's big sounding guitars, dead sounding guitars and everything in between.
This topic came up previously, and a large number of MLP's gave their opinion based on their own instruments . I remember tabulating the results, and only 2-3 years were missing. Almost every year had good wood according to someone.
I see a lot of speculation on forums about the origin of the best mahogany, but never anything about the maple. I mean surely there have been certain years where outstanding mahogany slabs were topped with subpar maple caps or vice versa. Back in 1994 it was common practice for the left side of the cap to be made from Canadian maple, and the right from Vermont maple....
I know this is an old post , but I own a les paul from the good wood era and have been trying to find out all i can about the "good wood" era .
And from what I find it actually has nothing to do with wood or forestry or any of the crap posted in this thread .
What it actually refers to is the guitars made in the 90's to early 2000's as "good wood" simply because that is after the norlin years were Gibson tried to have better quality control over there guitars and went back to the basics and traditional ways they made fuitars in the 50's to make a higher quality instrument that ppl expected .
That is also when prices started to hit 2k , so they were trying to make a guitar worth 2k.
It literally has zero to do with wood , trees , forestry ECT and everything to do withthe quality control and a return to padt manufacturing processes.
For intstance the les pauls made in this era are made by the same ppl with the same tools and procedures that later were moved to the custom shop before there was a custom shop .
So basicly a 90's era les paul is in essence a custom shop les paul without the custom shop price tag (or they were) ......that is the good wood era.
Also , the only reason I commented on a post this old is because some of the other comments were so ignorant I wouldn't want someone who is doing the same thing as I and trying to find out as much as they can about there 90's era gibson to be lead in the wrong direction because they thought the "good wood " era was a myth , or that it had anything to do with some super secret wood selection or any other BS .
It was simply a change from norlin and "crazy" Gibson designs to try and keep up with the super strats that were huge in the 80's (and still are) to accepting thats not what Gibson does and moving back towards the original process of making a very high end guitar that even the lower end models such as my studio were good enough for professional musicians.
I hope this clears up a few things , and if anyone wants to disagree feel free to do your own research and prove me wrong.
yea the ownership changed and maybe they upped the quality control and were going in the direction to the ol 50-design, but that was an long process and at the end they made the customshop (pre-customshop they had a LOT customorders at that time, and it was hard for them to get it right, the most problematic was the top-carv) but the normal lp standard of the 90's are not like the lp of the 50's or the later customshop ones which replicate the ol 50.s guitars. The most notable differens between LP from late 70's to now (including the 90's) from customshop and 50's is the topcarv, tenon, choice of maho. Yes theire was a lot of small tweaks made in the standardproduktion and some years could be better o worse, as also from guitar to guitar from the same year.
For me, as I wanted a god LP wich constructionwise was near an old 50's Lp and the Gibson Standards of any year couldnt deliver - I instead bought som MIJ guitars from the 80:s, Greco, Burny, Tokai. Even if only the most expensive of them use Nitro and not the less expensive ones, they all just feel right when you play them.