Help Me Understand the "Reissue" Craze

[Pythonman]

Not bashing here, but that "lighter" thingy on Reissues does not seem a rule to me. I still see way more over 8.5lb reissues than under 8.0 (and lot of average 9lb). My R8 it's 7.7lb, but I really struggled to find it that light.

8.5 to 9 lb guitars with non weight relieved bodies are the target range for Historic LPs. A 9 lb USA Gibson Standard has had 2 lbs or more of extra weight drilled out of them. There's the difference the titebond sniffing crowd pretends doesn't exist.

 

[Leotis]

I've owned probably 9 or 10 regular production Les Pauls over the years. Although I searched through over a dozen (probably 15 or 16) to find the two I've got (R9 & R0), both of those play, feel and sound better than any of the production LP's I've ever had- bar none. In fact, they play, feel and sound better than just about any guitar I've ever owned, period. My R9 will have to be pried out of my cold, dead hands. I sold it once during a particularly rough financial period and missed it so badly that I tracked it down and bought it back as soon as I was able. That guitar is just "it" for me. I can't imagine another guitar ever displacing it.

 

[bulletproof]

Ya know,one of the damndest things Ive found about guitars is this.....

One guy can buy a fairly expensive instrument and he ends up not liking the tone,the feel and he just cant get on with it. He sells it to another guy who takes that guitar and just makes it sing.

My point is....if one finds a damn good guitar,no matter the cost/year/finish,it has nothing to do with cost,weight of the wood,new and improved plastics,etc. It becomes his/her number one because its a damn good guitar that they can make sing for them.

Sounds crazy,huh?!?!

 

[freebyrd 69]

Gibson employees are mass production workers, usually focused on one or two aspects of the various stages of mass production.

I doubt many of them could build a guitar from start to finish.

I hired a professional painter to paint the house I recently purchased. I doubt he could build a house from start to finish, but he did one HELL of a job painting my home. He has been doing it for almost 30 years now. I have seen enough paint jobs, I wouldn't have received the same quality job had I gone to "collegepaintersforthesummer.com." Same with the Custom shop. I've been there and met many of the employees. They have been doing their job for years, in a lot of cases decades. They are far from a typical joe blow mass production worker. The guitars are the sum of these skilled workers hands on work.

 

[jamman]

Rags .... Funny thread right here and should go for at least 80 pages .... Summer Fun I guess .
2cents add-on ,
The Custom Shop , (As I understand it), Normally get the more experienced ,skilled workers , At building guitars . which , get you a better made guitar (or at least the possibility of 1) Yup , It's production line work and those who do the same thing for long periods of time . usually get good and fast , at that 1 job ... It could be considered , semi skilled or a skilled type job , depending on what is being done ....
Custom shop built guitars are more hands on in their build then USA made guitars ... That's part of what you pay for ...

Want to know what Gibson looks for in new employee's ? Look at a job applications , descriptions of job titles and requirements for Gibson guitars builders ... That will tell you most of what you need to be considered to get a job . Some jobs don't need any exp. as Gibson does train people to do building specific type of work . Also , In the past as I recall it , some even advanced to other sections of production .

 

[ARandall]

You can start a job as a worker and be a damn good technician in your field in a few years if you have the aptitude. In fact if I was in the business of making guitars I'd want the right type of mechanically skilled person, but not yet with any specific experience - so as to train them my way and not have them pre-prejudiced.

And lets face it, guitars are not such a precise finished product anyhow.....especially electrics.
Violins......yep, you'd want a few years and a good bit of knowhow before taking one of those on from scratch. But as most of the workers in Gibson would have been well used to building archtops and acoustics before moving onto electrics I can't see the electric guitars as being much of a challenge really.
So I think we can comfortably discard as absolute rubbish the build of them being poor, or by poorly skilled workers.

Bursts were great due to the right type of wood, some great pickups and the right tone for the late 60's movement into distorted blues/rock. They were simply a guitar before their time in the 50's.

And it is for all the above reasons that the reissues hit the spot for many people - as they consistently seem to capture the closest to that combo that gibson makes. And of course they look way closer too.
This doesn't mean that a USA Gibby won't do that same tone if you get the right one.....and it certainly doesn't mean everybody wants the burst tone at all.

 

[PierM]

8.5 to 9 lb guitars with non weight relieved bodies are the target range for Historic LPs. A 9 lb USA Gibson Standard has had 2 lbs or more of extra weight drilled out of them. There's the difference the titebond sniffing crowd pretends doesn't exist.

I stand corrected...and I've also messed with numbers in my head because of Kg/Lb conversions. Just checked again and you are right and my R8 it's also 8.7lb, not 7.7, while the majority were average 9lb.

 

[Detector]

It's mainly nostalgia for mid aged guys, like any other "cars were better in the 50', formula one was better in the 60', rock was better in the 70', money was better in the 80'..etc etc...etc". Oh wait, it's all true!!

Now this I can understand. As a car collector myself, I can appreciate the craftsmanship and skill it took to build the say 1967 Shelby Cobra. That said, I also realize the fact that the 1967 Shelby doesn't hold a candle to the performance of a modern Shelby. Except for nostalgic value. I also understand as wood ages and cures it CAN sound better. Not always, but generally it improves. But that doesn't explain the modern RI's popularity and especially price.

For $120,000 I can own a brand new 1965 Mustang. Everything copied down to the radio, just new. Now I have a hard time thinking many would actually pay $120,000 for a new 1965 Mustang when you could buy the real McCoy like new for less than 1/2 the price, but hey, you never know.

I just never quite got the RI/Historic price difference when you have new technology that by all rights should be making a better quality guitar. Kind of the same with amps. I was gigging in the 60's & 70's and personally thought those were some of the crappies instruments I ever played. Especially the amps, yet I see people paying a small fortune for stuff I'd only use as a last resort.

 

[BBD]

I stand corrected...and I've also messed with numbers in my head because of Kg/Lb conversions. Just checked again and you are right and my R8 it's also 8.7lb, not 7.7, while the majority were average 9lb.

Which brings up a point I have mentioned before about the supposedly unique qualities of old growth mahogany.

The Reissues are physically exact copies of the originals, right down to the routs. This means they have the same internal volume as the originals. They also have the same weight range.

Any physics textbook will tell you that density = mass/volume (p = m/v), which gives us something interesting to think about: the same mass range/same volume = *same density range*. Yes, both vintage and modern production appear to be made of timber with the same density range.

Since wood density determines the efficiency of mechanical conduction, which is how wood affects the amplified tone, it's hard to see what tonally significant difference exists between '59s and Reissues, unless it arises from the pickups.

 

[PierM]

Always good data;

 

[BBD]

Thanks for posting the weight range table PierM.

 

[ARandall]

Which brings up a point I have mentioned before about the supposedly unique qualities of old growth mahogany.

The Reissues are physically exact copies of the originals, right down to the routs. This means they have the same internal volume as the originals. They also have the same weight range.

Any physics textbook will tell you that density = mass/volume (p = m/v), which gives us something interesting to think about: the same mass range/same volume = *same density range*. Yes, both vintage and modern production appear to be made of timber with the same density range.

Since wood density determines the efficiency of mechanical conduction, which is how wood affects the amplified tone, it's hard to see what tonally significant difference exists between '59s and Reissues, unless it arises from the pickups.

But this is not the whole case, and completely ignores how that density is achieved. Wood is not and never has been a uniform substance. I think even the most stay at home would agree that 2 species of wood with the same density will not sound the same. And even 2 bits of the same timber in a guitar can be quite different in tone even with the same weight.


So whilst the physics you quoted is accurate, your ability to understand the complexity of the issue and therefore to arrive at the right conclusion seems lacking.

 

[Dick Banks]

I'm not a collector at all--I prefer buying a professional assembly-line guitar, preferably US made (or Japanese, in the case of Gretsch) and then not worrying about if I ding it or if my cats get snot on it. So I have no collector bias. But I will say that before you judge the reissue/vintage crowd, do yourself a favor and go play one.
They are NOT assembly-line guitars; they don't play like assembly-line guitars, and they don't sound like assembly-line guitars.
If I was a better player, I might go for one. For now, my Gibson LP Trad Pro IV and Fender Strat Elite suit me (and my listeners) just fine.

 

[BBD]

But this is not the whole case, and completely ignores how that density is achieved.

Density is density.

Wood is not and never has been a uniform substance.

Hence the range in '59 production and modern Reissue production.

I think even the most stay at home would agree that 2 species of wood with the same density will not sound the same.

And I think this is a baseless, unphysical assertion. And we are considering mahogany vs mahogany, let's not forget.

So whilst the physics you quoted is accurate, your ability to understand the complexity of the issue and therefore to arrive at the right conclusion seems lacking.

Undemonstrated so far.

 

[bulletproof]

Yup....pretty crazy alright.

 

[lpthomas]

To understand the "craze", just look at a few Custom Shop guitars and then look at current US production Les Pauls! I sure would want to lust after a current Les Paul Standard as it would be a lot cheaper, but they just don't look great to me. Especially if you have the originals in mind. The "Heritage Cherry Sunburst" sometimes looks a bit artificial. Many who like the look of a lemon burst Les Paul can not even get one from the US line currently (Honey Burst is close, but not available with a red back). I could go on!

To me, the reissues are just nicer Les Pauls, which you can buy today. I don't particularly care about the historic accuracy. I wasn't around in the 50s and will never play an original. Thus, I cannot compare the two myself. But just look at two headstocks in a shop, Custom Shop and regular line! The regular guitars are quite ugly in the details, I think. The stamped serials, the black lacquer on top of the headstock, the overall colour of the red backs...it's just not "nice". Granted, this is very superficial, but it's what got me hooked.

Whoever gets a kick out of Beauty Of The Burst is probably a candidate to appreciate the reissues. If there's no difference to you, you're probably quite lucky!

With Levi's and Levi's Vintage Clothing it's quite similar. While one would think, denim jeans are better today than they were ever before, there are many people who strongly disagree and buy unfaded 250+ dollar jeans which are supposed to replicate fabrics and cuts from the 40s and 50s...

 

[MikeC]

I like this @BBD guy.

He doesn't give two sheets about mojo.

 

[MikeC]

Perhaps I'm not understanding the definition of a reissue or the concept of the craftsmanship of Gibson was better 50 years ago. Is a reissue basically a new guitar built from old specs? Is this a persona taste thing? If so, why do they cost so much more than a Gibson with modern technology, which by all rights should make an improved version of the old guitar.

Or is it as simple as if you want to have the sound of a 60's guitar, which being better or worse would be personal opinion, you either buy a 60's vintage guitar or a new one built to old 60's specifications?

Thanks

Do you play a tube amp?

 

[XpensiveWino]

For me, my reissue was a better guitar, for me. Play 'em see what you think. The sum of all of the parts combined on that guitar makes it a keeper for me.

To the comment that reissues are only a $$ status symbol, I was lucky enough to find my R8 Flametop for $1200. I could clear 200% or more in the classifieds tomorrow, but I really love that guitar. It's not a $$ symbol, AND it's a killer guitar (why else would I keep it???).

To the comment about Norlin's, I agree, it won't make me replace my Norlin, but I'll add a reissue to the collection any day that I can ; )

I've now got my LP bases covered: R8 - smooth and classic, Dickie Betts tone on mine, a 2003 Standard with Duanebuckers - rich, but can get nasty, 1975 Goldtop Deluxe with P90's in it, snarly and mean, Mike Ness baby!

 

[Sct13]

Exactly ...

I have 3 and im still broke