R8 and R9 comparison

[ledzepzoso3]

Hey everyone, i dont know if a thread like this has been made already because there are just to many to go through them all, but can someone tell me what the real differences from the R8 to the R9 are? I really have my mind set on the R8 because ive actually played one before and it just sounded outstanding, it sounded so much like Jimmy Page(My guitar influence). Ive never actually played a R9 but i know that Jimmy Page amongst many of my favorite musicians used an R9. I also know that Jimmy's first les paul was a R8 until Joe Walsh gave him the R9. But i just really need to know the differences because I am 16 years old, and i am planning on getting my first gibson, hopefully by this christmas. And i am aware that the R8's and R9's amongst all the V.O.S guitars will continue rising in price. I am already hurt from the price raise of the R8 from $3,009 to $3,699 within this month!

Please any help would be apreciated !!

 

[ledzepzoso3]

Oh and can somone also tell me why the R9 is soooooooo Legendary ? and what changes were made from the R8 to the R9 that made it so Legendary ?
thanks so much!!

 

[stinger]

First off, Jimmy Page's #1 is believed to be a 1959 Les Paul Standard, not an R8 or R9. This is the one he got from Joe Walsh. It has no serial number so no one is certain but all the evidence suggests it is and Jimmy and Joe both say it is. There is alot of confusion on this subject.

Later on he got his #2 which is also a 1959. This one has its serial number intakes so it is certain.

As you refer to these guitars of Jimmys as R8 and R9, you are mistaken. His guitars are not historic reissues. They are bursts. Real 1959 Les Pauls. The R8 and R9 are merely modern day guitars made to the specs of the old bursts. Great guitars for certain but they are not the real deal.

The R8 would be a representation of the 1958 Les Paul. It has a thicker neck than the R9, which is a representaion of a 1959 Les Paul. The current histporic R8 and R9 differ in price, top and neck size. Otherwise they are similar to each other. The R8 has a plain top and the R9 has the flamed top as well as the thinner neck.

Real 1958s and 59's differed only in neck size and perhaps some other smaller details. 58 necks was thicker but both had flamed tops.

Which one is better? The 1959 is the holy grail of old bursts, but this doesn't mean they are the best of the old ones. I don't know if anyone really knows for certain why the 59 is more sought after than a 58 because there is really no significant reason for it as far as I know.

I do know that Jimmys two are 59's, The Rev's Pearly Gates is a 59 and there are many others too. It could be that these and other famous players happened to use 59's so that could be why the 59 is more sought after.

 

[cryptozoo]

R7s, R8s and R9s all sound pretty much the same. Anyone who tells you different hasn't played enough of them. The historic neck sizes can vary, it depends on the specific guitar.

If you want a flame top, get an R9. Otherwise, go with and R8 or R7 and save some bucks.

 

[Vintage_Burster]

There is hardly any difference in R8 neck and R9 neck. Ive played 2 R8's and 2 R9s. There is probably less then 0.5cm of a difference between them.

I still believe the R8 I played was a mile better than the R9 I played (1 played 1 R9 and 8 plugged in.)

 

[2manyGuitars]

There is hardly any difference in R8 neck and R9 neck.
...probably less then 0.5cm of a difference between them.

Ummm...
that's almost a quarter of an inch.

Did you mean 0.5 mm?

 

[Vintage_Burster]

yeah sorry.

 

[stinger]

There is hardly any difference in R8 neck and R9 neck. Ive played 2 R8's and 2 R9s. There is probably less then 0.5cm of a difference between them.

I still believe the R8 I played was a mile better than the R9 I played (1 played 1 R9 and 8 plugged in.)

No 2 necks are the same. The R8s are bigger than R9's but there may be exceptions. My R8 has a bigger neck than my R9.

As for sound, my R8 was a bit better sounding than my R9 but this doesn't say much because each guitar is different. I can assure anyone that my 5 Les Pauls do not sound the same from each other.

If you're going for the best sounding one to get, you gotta play them. There is really no determining feature on any one of these guitars that will make it a better sounding guitar than the next one. You simply have to hear them to know.

 

[Pooker]

... Which one is better? The 1959 is the holy grail of old bursts, but this doesn't mean they are the best of the old ones. I don't know if anyone really knows for certain why the 59 is more sought after than a 58 because there is really no significant reason for it as far as I know...

The are a few reasons why '59s are to be considered the "holy grail" amongst the original Les Pauls:

1. Bigger frets were introduced late 1958, which made wide string bending easier.
2. PAFs began to be wound slightly hotter and during mid to late 1959 the zebra and double white bobbins were introduced -- Cosmetic only, but double white PAFs are the rarest pickup and command the highest dollar.
3. In early to mid 1960, the bursting formula was changed to a fade resistant tomato soup colour, reflector knobs were introduced, the PAF bobbins returned to double blacks, and the slim-taper neck became more common -- all of which are less desireable traits among most burst enthusiasts.

The modern day Gibson models R8, R9, and R0 do not try to recreate models from the year 1958, 1959 and 1960, but are more of a marketing label to provide options and pricepoints to consumers.
For example, all current R8s are plaintops (thus lower price) with bigger necks, the R9 has a slightly narrower neck, with the R0 narrower still, and both the R9s and R0s have figured tops. This does not reflect the actual bursts from 1958 through 1960.
There is also a stratification of mahogany weights with the heaviest going to the goldtops (R4, R6, R7) and the lightest to the R9s and R0s.

 

[Tim Plains]

ledzepzoso, I was going to mention weight, but Pooker beat me to it.
R9s are supposed to be the lightest. They cost a premium and that's one of the things you pay for...very light wood. Flame top & lightest possible wood.

Oh, and if $3,699 hurts you, don't even consider looking at a new R9.

 

[Vintage_Burster]

No 2 necks are the same. The R8s are bigger than R9's but there may be exceptions. My R8 has a bigger neck than my R9.

As for sound, my R8 was a bit better sounding than my R9 but this doesn't say much because each guitar is different. I can assure anyone that my 5 Les Pauls do not sound the same from each other.

If you're going for the best sounding one to get, you gotta play them. There is really no determining feature on any one of these guitars that will make it a better sounding guitar than the next one. You simply have to hear them to know.

No, but R8 necks will always be bigger then R9s, most are very close though.

Off topic; Do Historics have 58s and 9s have Zebras under the covers? Didnt th original burst have Zeberas, and Stingers too...why didnt they keep them? Not all that correct are they?

 

[stinger]

No, but R8 necks will always be bigger then R9s, most are very close though.

Off topic; Do Historics have 58s and 9s have Zebras under the covers? Didnt th original burst have Zeberas, and Stingers too...why didnt they keep them? Not all that correct are they?

Historics most likely have double blacks. The originals had cremes, double blacks and zebras and I think depending on what plastic was available, they used what they had. Keep in mind that in the late 50's, taking the covers off the pickups was not something Gibson would have anticipated players doing. They figured the coils would not be exposed ever. The were not sold with covers off. That was a mod that players started doing.

The burstbucker pickups put in historics all come from the same stock. There are no R8 BB's or R9 BB's for example. These historics are not accurate to the most anal detail. That kind of pickiness would only appeal to a smaller market. Most people buy these things to play and choose the historics cause they feel they get a better instrument because they are close to the original burst.

Gibson as any company nowadays has to balance cost vs profits and put out a product that has function. All the historics have the same fret wire now. It might be more historical to use smaller wire on a Black Beauty to make it the fretless wonder it was called then but who would buy one? They make them to be played.

No doubt Gibson could still make improvements to the guitars to make them more accurate but I doubt you will ever see total accuracy.

 

[Vintage_Burster]

Why do they use the same nitro and glue anymore either? (Seems like I should ask while your here, since you seem to know a fair bit on this )

 

[Pooker]

Why do they use the same nitro and glue anymore either? (Seems like I should ask while your here, since you seem to know a fair bit on this )

They don't use the same nitro or glue.
If you meant to ask "why DON'T they use the same nitro and glue", then the answers are finish stability (more plasticisers added to the nitro) and ease of production (titebond is very easy to work with).

 

[Texas07R8]

I think the double cream pickups are the best looking without covers but really do they sound different??? I doubt it, I think what happened is as others mentioned before that the bobbin vendor started running out of black plastic and had to ship some cream colored ones for a while in 59 and 60, maybe some late 58's too. Some of those first cream bobbin arrivals ended up with a black bobbin to make what we now call zebras. After a while of that they ran out of black all together and ended up with double cream only.

The winders back then had manual cutoffs when it reached 5000 winds the operator was notified and they hit the stop switch, naturally some ended up with more windings than others. Apparently some of the sweet spot pafs were done on those double creams in 1959. Who knows, maybe they had one lazy operator that wasn't so fast to pull the stop lever on those old winders.

Regarding the fret thickness, according to Gibson they introduced the thicker frets sometime in 59 and supposedly the neck was a little slimmer than the 58 and earlier Lesters. Some argue that the flamed maple and mahogany were the reason for the tone of the bursts back then. Personally I believe it was the sum of all parts. I think that Gibson didn't know how good of a guitar they had with the bursts. And it's brutally obvious the public didn't see it either back then because the killed the Les Paul as we know it after 1960 until 1968.

Historics are not bursts by any stretch but they are Gibson's version of a modern day burst. At least as close as they feel they can or want to make it today. I don't know why the R9 has such a premium over an R8. Flamed maple simply doesn't cost $2000 more than non flamed maple.

The R9 has the exact same pups and electronics as an R8 or R0 for that matter. The same fretwire too. There may be some slight differences in neck profile and or thickness but I've played a few R8s and R9s and I couldn't really feel any different and I played one R9 that didn't play as good or sound as good to me as an R8.

If you look at the used market on Historics, it seems that R9s lose a larger percentage of their retail price than an R8. So that tells me what I've felt all along that you pay a big premium for a flamed maple top over a plain top when buying new.

Having said that, I love flame tops but I'm rather picky about the look. I don't care for over the top flames, chevron or angled flames. I like the wide slightly wavy more subtle flames and I love to see cross grain and some mineral specks in the wood.

I almost bought an R9 instead of my R8, I didn't because I didn't like the chevron flame and the color wasn't exactly what I wanted. It played really well and I really didn't mind spending the money for a flame top that I just had to have but at the time I really fell for a particular R8 so I bought it instead. I took the rest of my money (the difference in an R8 and R9) and two weeks later bought an 87 Les Paul Custom.

 

[stinger]

Historics are not bursts by any stretch but they are Gibson's version of a modern day burst. At least as close as they feel they can or want to make it today. I don't know why the R9 has such a premium over an R8. Flamed maple simply doesn't cost $2000 more than non flamed maple.

The R9 has the exact same pups and electronics as an R8 or R0 for that matter. The same fretwire too. There may be some slight differences in neck profile and or thickness but I've played a few R8s and R9s and I couldn't really feel any different and I played one R9 that didn't play as good or sound as good to me as an R8.

If you look at the used market on Historics, it seems that R9s lose a larger percentage of their retail price than an R8. So that tells me what I've felt all along that you pay a big premium for a flamed maple top over a plain top when buying new.

The R9 and R0 are more pricey because of marketing. Plain and simple. Thery only offer flamed maple and a different case for the huge upcharge and those two differences do not in anyway explain the higher cost. Gibson gets huge profit on the R9 as opposed to the R8 because people are willing to pay and think errantly that the guitar with the 9 on it is better because of the stigma of the original 59 burst. Marketing totally. Is a 1959 Les Paul better than an 1958? No, I don't think so and the R8 is not an inferior instrument to an R9. People seem to think so and this works to Gibsons advantage.

Facts being what they are, the R8 is the same as an R9 with slightly larger neck and plain maple top. But the case is actually superior in function to the R9's Lifton case. From a practivcal sense the R8 is a better deal by far than the R9. You are litterally paying more for the flamed top. And thats basically it. If you want a guitar to play and sound good, then the R8 is the ticket. If you want the eye candy, R9 wins but at a price.

This R8 and R9 question has been asked alot and this to me proves that there is a stigma about the R9 being a better guitar. That is just not true. Each historic guitar needs to be judged by its own virtues and not by some preconcieved notions. The truth is that you won't know whch guitar is better until you play and hear it. And they are not all the same sounding.

And the fact that R9's get the lighter woods may be true but they vary enough that a light R7 or R8 is very possible. All my historics are about 9 lbs except the Custom which is heavier.

 

[Tim Plains]

Texas07R8, there's no doubt you get gouged when you buy a R9.
I think what you wrote in the previous post is right on the money.

Aside from the flame top, you do get lighter wood with a R9...supposed to, anyways. I recall reading a post here a while ago where a guy said the body of a R9 has to weigh 4 lbs or under before assembly and that only 4/1000 slabs of mahogany met that requirement. Whether that is complete B.S. or not is beyond me. I just remember reading it.

My R9 is 8 lbs 3 oz, that's damn light for a solid bodied guitar! I've never held a R7/R8 that light.
I didn't buy it because of the weight, it just turned out to be a bonus.
Is a guitar with a flamed top that weighs a half pound lighter than the next guitar worth an extra $2,000? No, but if that guitar just sounds absolutely incredible and better than every other guitar you've heard, then yeah...I'd say it's worth getting gouged. It's too bad all R9s aren't like that.

 

[Boleskinehouse]

Mine are both fine guitars, but the R8 is better than my R9..

 

[Tim Plains]

Stinger, you slipped that post in while I was typing.

Each historic guitar needs to be judged by its own virtues and not by some preconcieved notions. The truth is that you won't know whch guitar is better until you play and hear it. And they are not all the same sounding.

+1

 

[Pooker]

...Aside from the flame top, you do get lighter wood with a R9...supposed to, anyways. I recall reading a post here a while ago where a guy said the body of a R9 has to weigh 4 lbs or under before assembly and that only 4/1000 slabs of mahogany met that requirement. Whether that is complete B.S. or not is beyond me. I just remember reading it...

This is a pic (not mine) from the Gibson custom shop tour which specifies the weight range for mahogany blanks: