Reissue vs. Vintage

[50 Watts]

For those who have played the real deal 59 and 60 Les Pauls how do you feel they compare to the newer reissues. I ask for a couple of reasons. First, I'm never going to lay out 300k or more for a vintage burst and if I did, I'd frankly be afraid to take it anywhere so a reissue is probably the closest thing I (or a lot of people) will get. Second, I have had mixed experiences with vintage guitars. I own several and while they do have nice qualities. They smell old which I like. They are comfortable to play and feel "broken in". That said, they have often been messed with (tuners, bigsby on then off etc.). I often find myself saying that "this guitar would be great had someone not ..." I recently acquired a 2020 1960 reissue and it is hands down the best guitar I have played.

My basic question is, are the new reissues in the same ballpark as the vintage instruments? If not, what are the palpable differences?

 

[HIDDEN]

Sounds like you answered your own question

 

[Sct13]

They are similar in comparison....

Just go ahead and get a reissue (of anything) Congrats on your 60 RI .....Then get it HM'd ...and that's as close as it gets ....

I don't buy into the vintage guitars anymore....when I was a kid, they were all just used guitars ....and quite frankly they still are...there are a few that are Gems.....but they are making nearly All of them even better now

So go ahead and dive right in....the water is fine

 

[50 Watts]

Sounds like you answered your own question

Yes. To a degree.

 

[calieng]

I have never heard anything new sound like a vintage guitar. Only speaking for Strats, Teles, SG....never had a real '59 Les Paul.

Not just the wood but I think something going on with the pickups too. But nothing new sounds like an old guitar. I just got a 1965 Jazzmaster that reminded me of that last week. Almost shit my pants on the first strum.....and even the 1970 Tele I got a few weeks earlier kills my Custom Shop Fenders for tone.

I am sure the new reissue guitars will sound that good or better after 50 years of playing.

 

[msalama]

Well as I just said elsewhere, things vintage aren't necessarily things of quality any more than these modern $150 shoddies we've all grown to hate.

I had a small collection of vintage 60's Fenders in the past, and some were complete dogs. Others were of course good or even great, but ironically enough, the dogs always sold at premium because they were mint. And of course they were, because who the hell in their right mind plays a POS guitar for any length of time?

There are only 2 guitars that I genuinely miss and regret selling. The other was a beat-to-shit '69 Strat refretted with jumbos, the other a 100% original '73 Tele Custom. The rest though? Good riddance, had no need for them then and still don't. Fetched a pretty penny too and I did reinvest those monies wisely, so no regrets or complaints whatsoever

PS. And before Ye Olde Doubting Thomases start, yes, they were all set up properly and mostly 100% original.

 

[ARandall]

Even if a vintage piece sounds way different to a reissue, there should be no assumption that the vintage one is in any way 'better'. We all have our likes, and even a RI (which is actually trying to be a vintage toned 'copy') might do the tone you want more than a vintage guitar.

But you can't afford a vintage one, so there simply isn't a choice between them anyhow.

 

[Duane_the_tub]

If you took the absolute best sounding vintage LP in existence and put it head-to-head against the best sounding reissue you could find, would the old one definitely sound better? How much better - enough to justify that it could cost you up to 100 times more?

If you simply must own a vintage LP and have the money, by all means go for it. Invest in a really good security system for your home. I'm sure nothing compares to the feeling of staring at a vintage Burst and whispering to yourself, "this is mine", playing a few classic rock riffs on it, trying to explain to your bemused wife or the occasional, trusted visitor what makes it so special ("Just listen ... isn't that amazing?"). Once you get bored with that and go public with your ownership, it will definitely get you likes on social media, and some of those surprised face and heart emojis. If you're really brave, you can bring it backstage at concerts and use it as an in to rub elbows with a few rock stars. Maybe handcuff the Lifton to your wrist like in one of those spy movies.

A year or two later when the novelty has worn off, you'll face reality: you can sell the vintage Burst - maybe even at a nice profit - and replace it with a reissue that sounds nearly as good and can just be a nice guitar that you own. No additional stress of just taking it out of its case and handling it, or lost sleep over fears of someone tracking you down online and burglarizing your home to steal it. You can let your dopey brother-in-law play it when he's awkwardly hanging out in your den during a family gathering, or maybe even put it in your teenage son's lap one day and set him off down the same road.

And the vintage LP will move along on its journey, with a lucky new owner to stare at it.

 

[Pageburst]

i currently own vintage Gibsons including a beautiful 62 SG, 66 ES345. I have owned and played numerous vintage guitars: Strats, Goldtops, conversions, ES335s etc.

i can state unquicoally that the vintage guitar myth is a bunch of absolute unsubstantiated hype. It seems to be perpetuated on Internet forums by people who eitheir parrot the same old hyperbole they read, have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth or clueless people who get so enamored with the idea of “vintage” that a placebo effect occurs. Vintage sounds better has also never been proven or measured objectively.

I love my vintage guitars they play and sound beautifully. And I am always on the lookout to make additional vintage purchases. why? Because one thing a historic will never be is an original. Original vintage cars, art, furniture etc., will always be far more valuable then reproductions, regardless how well the latter is made. Owning a piece of history from the 50s/60s golden era is well worth the price of admission. The fact that many of these instruments sound great and can still be enjoyed (playable “art”) is the icing on the cake.

bottom line if an idiotic NFT can be worth 10s of thousands if not more, 300k for a Burst is a bargain.

 

[Big Monk]

If you took the absolute best sounding vintage LP in existence and put it head-to-head against the best sounding reissue you could find, would the old one definitely sound better? How much better - enough to justify that it could cost you up to 100 times more?

If you simply must own a vintage LP and have the money, by all means go for it. Invest in a really good security system for your home. I'm sure nothing compares to the feeling of staring at a vintage Burst and whispering to yourself, "this is mine", playing a few classic rock riffs on it, trying to explain to your bemused wife or the occasional, trusted visitor what makes it so special ("Just listen ... isn't that amazing?"). Once you get bored with that and go public with your ownership, it will definitely get you likes on social media, and some of those surprised face and heart emojis. If you're really brave, you can bring it backstage at concerts and use it as an in to rub elbows with a few rock stars, maybe. Maybe handcuff the Lifton to your wrist like in one of those spy movies.

A year or two later when the novelty has worn off, you'll face reality: you can sell the vintage Burst - maybe even at a nice profit - and replace it with a reissue that sounds nearly as good and can just be a nice guitar that you own. No additional stress of just taking it out of its case and handling it, or lost sleep over fears of someone tracking you down online and burglarizing your home to steal it. You can let your dopey brother-in-law play it when he's awkwardly hanging out in your den during a family gathering, or maybe even put it in your teenage son's lap one day and set him off down the same road.

And the vintage LP will move along on its journey, with a lucky new owner to stare at it.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter.

After seeing your Historic with Vintage parts, I'm inclined to hold that as the new, reasonable person Burst. I still go in and look at that thread every few days.

 

[boola1]

I've heard some videos on youtube of vintage Les Pauls which clearly have magic and worthy of their mythical status.

I've heard some videos on youtube of vintage Les Pauls which just aren't all that great.

Most vintage Les Pauls I've heard on youtube aren't intonated nearly as well as a modern Historic, that's one thing that IMO is categorically better nowadays.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that the top 1% of Historics are as good or better than the best 'Bursts'.

 

[burstone]

This has been debated for decades. Best thing to do is find out for yourself since you'll get a spectrum of opinions.

Here's what I said recently in a similar thread.

Holy Grail

Does anyone on this forum actually own a 1959 Gibson Sunburst Les Paul? I've been reading and watching a lot about the 58-60 "burst" Les Pauls and I was just curious. If you have other more modern Les Pauls, how does the 59 compare? Did you get it recently or have you had it since before prices...

www.mylespaul.com

 

[Sct13]

To elaborate of your last question ....

There is something to say about drier woods ... they are lighter and the wood has had time for cells to dry up, leaving tiny cambers. This probably helps better on acoustic instruments rather than solid bodies.

Also the worn in feel is always a good thing.

which leads to condition and pricing.

 

[calieng]

It is not hype or a myth to say that a guitar played for years will sound better than it did originally (in most cases). The constant vibrations alter the wood fibers - some even say the molecules in the wood realign, and the pickups get slightly demagnetized and some would even say magnetic field aligns with the string vibrations. Also the finish gets worn thinner and cracks allowing the body to resonant better. That would be the science of it.

Yes some old guitars were dogs. And most old guitars do not play as well as new ones as far a fret level, action, etc. But every vintage guitar I have owned has sounded better than the equivalent new model. There are no new pickups I have ever heard that sound the same as 50 year old pickup. If they are out there I would love to know what brand and model.

 

[Tim Plains]

I've gotten my hands on about a half dozen 50s Gibsons, most with old strings and bad set ups, not all, and always left feeling underwhelmed. One is a 58 burst that is a daily player and set up well but a total dog.

 

[50 Watts]

It is not hype or a myth to say that a guitar played for years will sound better than it did originally (in most cases). The constant vibrations alter the wood fibers - some even say the molecules in the wood realign, and the pickups get slightly demagnetized and some would even say magnetic field aligns with the string vibrations. Also the finish gets worn thinner and cracks allowing the body to resonant better. That would be the science of it.

Yes some old guitars were dogs. And most old guitars do not play as well as new ones as far a fret level, action, etc. But every vintage guitar I have owned has sounded better than the equivalent new model. There are no new pickups I have ever heard that sound the same as 50 year old pickup. If they are out there I would love to know what brand and model.

I think you hit the nail on the head. There is definitely something to a vintage instrument be it changes in wood due to drying, vibration and finish, changes in the pickups over time, changes in the pots, different materials no longer available etc. My only comparisons are vintage ES-335's to modern ones. Despite similar construction, they do sound different. The vintage ones to me always sound a bit mellower and darker. I guess the question is are the foibles of a vintage instrument worth the difference in tone or can you get close enough with a reissue. Should be easy to settle (sarcasm implied).

 

[Pageburst]

I offered a $10k challenge on the LPF if anyone thinks they can actually hear how old a piece of mahogany is. I was more than happy to bring my vintage, replicas and historic guitars to a blind shootout. Funny, I never got any takers.

We can go back and forth, but until there is proof that old wood somehow contains magic tonal dust, I have to go with default logic. A great guitar is a great guitar regardless of age and being able to hear the age of a guitar is beyond the ability of normal human hearing.

Who would need Gruhn if vintage guitars had some noticeable tonal difference. Right? we could close our eyes and know vintage from new by listening. But that doesn’t happen. Even experts and believers get fooled and the only way to tell vintage from new is through careful examination particularly of the finish.

bottom line, Some of the beautiful Historics being made today are second to none tonally. But to the vintage devout that need to believe the myth. more power to you. Just know a Burst won’t make you sound more like Peter Green than a good Historic.

 

[Big Monk]

We can go back and forth, but until there is proof that old wood somehow contains magic tonal dust, I have to go with default logic. A great guitar is a great guitar regardless of age and being able to hear the age of a guitar is beyond the ability of normal human hearing.

I've made the point on the forum a number of times in the last few weeks that the QUALITY of the wood made, and still makes, a difference, not the age.

In that regard I make the case that the "old growth" mythos is at it's core based on repeated misunderstandings about what Gibson was doing back in the day. The physical size of the tree, or the characteristic most closely related to how old (large) the tree was, was and is merely an indication of the size of the body blank one might get out of the milled lumber. In essence, any tree that was X diameter, +/- a tolerance an experienced person would deem acceptable to factor in waste wood, imperfections, etc., would be suitable.

Here is an excerpt from Tony Bacon's "Million Dollar Les Paul" (Chapter 8: Workmanship - Pg. 140-141):

"In general, Gibson sourced its maple from relatively close to the factory, while the mahogany came from British Honduras (now Belize) in Central America, and the rosewood from Brazil. When Tim Shaw was at Gibson researching construction for the Heritage Standard Series reissues of 1980, he studied the wood used in the original Bursts.

Shaw discovered that pretty much all the maple Gibson used was hard maple from Northern Michigan. And the mahogany? "That was central American, from [British] Honduras (modern day Belize). They used to favor what was called 'pattern grade' mahogany, although that is no longer a Lumber Association grade. They tended to get mahogany that grew in well drained areas.

"The extremely heavy mahogany that we see these days," says Shaw, "is a result of growing in ground that is not well drained. The tree sucks up water and a lot of minerals from the soil. You can be on a hillside, and up the hill is a mahogany tree with completely different mechanical properties than down the hill. In the old days, they went for the more 'uphill' stuff."

In short, "old growth" is a buzz term, a misnomer, pathologically mythical, etc. What is more important is the quality of the wood.

I think the topic of kilning is much less discussed than it should be. Gibson, IIRC, had very strict and proceduralized kilning practices. The quality of the wood and how it is kilned/dried, etc. is the real secret, vintage or modern.

 

[Big Monk]

Damn gang.

Didn’t mean to shut the thread down!

 

[calieng]

meh.