NGD: 2019 Original Collection Les Paul 60s Standard Unburst

PierM

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
6,289
Reaction score
12,368
There was talk in another thread about fret size on these new models. I thought in the couple of weeks that I played my 50’s Standard, it felt fantastic and they played very smoothly. I wouldn’t say the fret size is as high as was suggested in that thread, though. In fact, I feel the fret height was closer to the “Low” profile that Gibson used in the 2019 line. What’s your take on them, jstarr?
That thread was saying these frets are too low.
 

danzego

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,210
Reaction score
447
That thread was saying these frets are too low.
I know. I’m basing my comment off of the measurement that was given (.045; 1.15mm by 2.28 mm) and what I encountered actually measuring the frets on my 50’s Standard using a feeler gauge. It had nothing to do with that guy’s opinion of them (which I don’t agree with, btw). :)

With that said, I did remeasure the fret height on my Traditional. Being that I’m relatively new to doing so, I’m thinking that my measurements weren’t taken as well as they could have been the first time. I remeasured toward the middle of the fret, still using a straight edge and feeler gauges, and I’m getting somewhere in the range of .040, give or take .01 to .02 depending on the fret (because fretboards aren’t always perfectly straight). Once my replacement 50’s Standard arrives late this week, I’ll be able to compare, but the measurements I took last week with the first one seemed to be very similar to what I was seeing on the Traditional.

The point is, I don’t know exactly what these frets are on the new line, but they don’t follow with the classic Dunlop Medium Jumbo used on Gibsons that are said to be .106 x .036. They’re absolutely more narrow than that (a good thing, I think; somewhere between .090 and .094 using a magnifying glass and a Stew Macdonald ruler) and they look to be a bit taller (also a good thing).....if I’m measuring properly, that is.
 

jstarr823

Starr Guitar Works
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
8,649
It’s a beauty.. if ever my R9 and I parted ways the new run of standards would be my first point of interest..
Thanks. I have to tell you, I was quite impressed when A/Bing the 60s Standard against the R0. A few little details (like the new thinner neck binding and seemingly improved top carve/dish) on the 60s STD made it any easy choice. Undoubtedly, the R0 in some respects was negligibly “nicer” in appointment. But from a “feel” standpoint, I’d challenge someone to tell the difference blindfolded. I’m running 10-52 strings on this (which I never go that heavy) and it plays like butter. It has a nice shallow neck angle, so I’m sure that helps.
 

flamesarewicked

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
2,186
Thanks. I have to tell you, I was quite impressed when A/Bing the 60s Standard against the R0. A few little details (like the new thinner neck binding and seemingly improved top carve/dish) on the 60s STD made it any easy choice. Undoubtedly, the R0 in some respects was negligibly “nicer” in appointment. But from a “feel” standpoint, I’d challenge someone to tell the difference blindfolded. I’m running 10-52 strings on this (which I never go that heavy) and it plays like butter. It has a nice shallow neck angle, so I’m sure that helps.

I definitely broke the budget on mine but...it’s just such a joy to play and after my recent pickup swap... makes it just that much better. Would I be completely happy with a more affordable choice? Absolutely.. I keep mentally battling myself... it’s so much money on one guitar... but it’s just such amazing guitar... reverb must think I’m a weirdo... about once a month I’ll relist it for sale to try to be a little more conservative when it comes to guitars... but then I always end up taking it down.. I could nearly buy two of these new standards for what I’d sell it for... the struggle goes on lmao
 

danzego

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,210
Reaction score
447
Busted out the digital micrometer. Frets on this 60s Standard are 0.038” high by .093” wide. Which, I guess, is some weird Narrow Medium Jumbo?
Thank you for checking into that. That’s right where I was at in height when I measured the 50’s Standard and I got 6/64 in width eyeing it out on the Traditional (so there’s the .093; I’m all proud of myself :applause:).

So that’s VERY interesting, I think. We’re looking at the same size frets as the 2019 line, but instead of calling them “Low”, now they simply changed the name to Medium Jumbo, which is more marketable. That seems somewhat shady if you ask me. But then, does that really even qualify as low to begin with, since a “true” medium jumbo (at least according to Dunlop) is only .036? And does anyone at all besides myself even really care? Haha.

Thanks again for checking that.
 

danzego

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,210
Reaction score
447
HNGD but everyone knows that the piece of felt under the guard robs the tonez, that’s why they didn’t use them in the 50’s.
This dude knows what’s up. The felt dampens resonance and adds weight. As usual, Gibson’s designers drop the ball.
 

jb_abides

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
857
Reaction score
1,255
Hey JStarr - Congrats and enjoy! Thanks for all the detailed info here, you are really providing lots of useful info on the new Original Standards.

How's the neck profile feel between the 60 Standard slim taper and the R0?

Also, WRT to the blindfold test, all you'd have to do is reach for the tuners and feel the Grover kidneys... a nice touch on the 60 Standard, IMHO.

Cheers and HNGD! :cheers:
 




Top