Reissue vs. Vintage

[GearHo]

Old guitars are overpriced and over rated, talent is not.

I have old guitars, new guitars, shiny guitars, and aged guitars,I sound just like me playing any one of them.

of course I feel like I sound better when playing an old guitar, but that is the sound of validation coming from my depleted bank account.

with The 10k price of the newest recreation of the oldest les Paul you can clearly hear the tone of a porking up your ass, unmistakable, and soon to be improved with next years model.

we miss you Henry....and the “good wood” years.

 

[rykus]

I had a 2001 R9 that sounded as good as my 69 custom to me... and that Custom was my bench mark guitar.

But I also had a 58 custom and about 25 other vintage, replicas , historic reissues and a historic makeover Les Paul's that weren't quite as good.

I have a replica now I think is as good but don't have either the 01 or 69 to compare too so its just better than my 58 still lol.

I don't think paying more makes them sound better to me, maybe the opposite even.. but I do like owning old player grade stuff even if there are great new options that have a consistency thats hard to match searching out old guitars.

 

[Rigidarm]

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.

i have a’63 SG and a famous player friend got a new reissue SG. Of course we were interested in sound differences... the ‘63 was deeper, richer and had more top and bottom tones and sustain. The ‘63 was the far better sound.

 

[Sheer Cerebral Power]

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?

Well, I have one of each(58-60)and I can tell you,they have very little in common with any of the expensive custom shop remakes(which I also have had).

 

[premiumplus]

Great thread. I have a 50th anniversary 1968 Les Paul Custom, the one they only made 300 of. When I graduated high school my parents bought me a brand new 1968 LPC and I had it for 18 years. I loved that guitar, but what a heavy beast it was. I ended up selling it back in the '80s.
I always missed that guitar, and I bought the 50th anniversary model and it is a great instrument. I've got a friend with a vintage 1968 Les Paul Custom and we got together and compared my anniversary to his real '68. They were pretty close, but I preferred mine; the pickups were hotter and the guitar has a meatier tone. I really like the pickups in that guitar, they have a great presence and ballsy tone but they aren't strident.
So it's not a '59 to RI comparison, but the guitars are still 50 years apart. Oh, and my 50th anni. LPC weighs way less than the Norlin guitar did. It's not weight relieved yet it weighs right at 9 lbs.
I love my new Anniversary LPC as much as I did my original.

 

[captdan61]

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.

I've gotten the opportunity to play to Vintage 57 Les Paul junior both of them were very similar both of the more real light and Lively incredibly resonant super comfortable necks. And I've decided before I die I want to own one I just can't afford one I'll talk my dream is to find one with a headstock repair that's been refrigerated and has different tutors on it you know one that you actually can take out play in a bar what those two guitars completely changed my mind I've always thought the Les Paul Junior's with the ugliest goddamn thing I've ever seen in my life. Love gold tops for love flame tops love customs always have hated The Look of Love spell juniors. Now I look at them and I understand they're not fancy but they play incredibly and the town is amazing and they're worth their weight in gold at least the two that I've had a chance to play I would consider them the two bass guitars outplayed in my life. Admittedly I have not played a reissue perhaps they're the same I really don't know but when you're talking about Les Paul Junior's the custom shop stuff is over $3,000 and 4 less than double that you can probably find a player's grade vintage the Vintage will go up in value or retain its value all the minute you buy though reissue it will decrease in value I'm an accumulator not a collector and I really am not worried about making money or retaining value on instruments I just play them but the idea of the Vintage sounds an awful lot more enticing than the idea of getting the reissue at least when you're talking about prices that close

 

[pmonk]

The biggest factor is the player. A great player can make a vintage guitar sing and a reissue sound like a vintage guitar.

Back in the day when I was taking guitar lessons from a classically trained player (and a damn fine guitar player) when he will played my guitar through my amp it just sounded better.

 

[painter33]

sounds just like buying a classic car, in my case an old Beetle. I’m disappointed by what previous owners have done to these babies. Stock was beautiful, to my eye, but for reasons unknown to me, people add, subtract, or even severely alter design and functional elements that VW’s engineers sweated over for decades. Even something as small as the “Cali” style window trim, all black rubber ruins the look around the windows that had chrome(aluminum) trim inserted for a completely finished look drives me crazy. And, why removed the bumpers???

Buying “used” is fraught with the decisions of others, decisions that to the next owner were made capriciously.

 

[Rigidarm]

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.

Good information. We have Napa hillside vineyard at 1,600’ to 1,800’ above the valley floor. The quality of the hillside is tremendously better in all comparable points. Color, smell, phenolics, soft tannins, full mouth feel, fruitfulness of plum and cherry, and viscosity. The rocky soil drainage and slow growth due to vine stress from fewer nutrients increases plant intensity, fewer grape berries but much better fruit. The vines in the valley are grown in years of runoff clay deposits and heat pockets without upslope breezes which lends to a flabby effect. I can understand how other plants or trees might grow similarly.

 

[50 Watts]

Well, I have one of each(58-60)and I can tell you,they have very little in common with any of the expensive custom shop remakes(which I also have had).

Having owned and played both, you are the perfect person to comment. What did you find lacking in the reissues? Conversely, what was superior with the vintage instruments?

 

[Big Monk]

Good information. We have Napa hillside vineyard at 1,600’ to 1,800’ above the valley floor. The quality of the hillside is tremendously better in all comparable points. Color, smell, phenolics, soft tannins, full mouth feel, fruitfulness of plum and cherry, and viscosity. The rocky soil drainage and slow growth due to vine stress from fewer nutrients increases plant intensity, fewer grape berries but much better fruit. The vines in the valley are grown in years of runoff clay deposits and heat pockets without upslope breezes which lends to a flabby effect. I can understand how other plants or trees might grow similarly.

The term "Old Growth" is really not a good descriptive device. Is it simply Old Mahogany? Is it Old British Honduran (Belizean) Mahogany? Is it "downhill" lumber but Old?

The term says nothing about wood quality, kilning, etc.

In reality, "Old Growth" typically means "from a big ass tree". You can see how "...this guitar was made from big ass tree mahogany..." does not have the same ring and mystique to it.

 

[dasherf17]

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?

I totally agree with your reason #1...I could NOT take a true vintage ANYwhere, having had a '63 Firebird and '67 Flying V stolen when I left them at band practice (in '75...I still feel that one)...
To your question, yes...ballpark. They're meant to look like, but given the technology put into the new ones, hopefully play and sound better with all the vintage-like sound. There are those who like their vintage looking like new...and those who like them to look like rat rods (the age/relic thing).

 

[dasherf17]

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.

I agree with a statement I heard awhile back..."all Gibson's doing is making copies of their old stuff"...waaaiiil, there ARE improvements (hopefully realized by consumers) and the prices asked are not as high as "the real thing"...

 

[steviegitar]

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.

One I let get away was a FEATHER LIGHT mid 60's melody maker double pickup with Grovers and routed with REAL PAF's. Worth nothing really (other than the value if the PAF's) but it screamed and at about 5 pounds you could play it all night with no shoulder fatigue. Also the PAF's were low output so it cleaned up and almost sounded like an acoustic with low levels - low gain. Reaslly did sound like a 'bust just a tiny bit brighter which was not a bad thing.

 

[lwchafin]

Aside from head to head comparisons through the same signal chain, what we think is the sound of vintage guitars IMHO is formed by what we recall them sounding like primarily in recordings in the studio or live recordings. Regarding all the guitars discussed here the amount of electronics that came between the string being struck and the eardrum being vibrated is ridiculously varied and the sound we heard was massaged through effects, amps, mixing boards, tape recorders, digital recorders, and on and on. I loved the recordings of Clapton' SG when he was with Cream - but what I heard was that SG through everything it took to put that Disraeli Gears album into my hand and onto my mid level Pioneer stereo system, and that SG sounded different on my buddy's dad's AR/McIntosh/Klipsch mono rig than it did on my system. I would be hard pressed to compare that to the early 2000s SG I have, and truth be told, Clapton's fingers probably went a long way to creating the sound I loved and attributed to that guitar.

 

[zdoggie]

I think that duane has a real taste for reality,If I had 300k to spend I would'nt buy a 59 lp for all of reasons that duane mentioned its just common sense I also believe in the myth factor some people are jusy gaga over these old guitars
and each to his own ,too risky of an investment to expect a profit on sale day this is very faddish here today and gone tomorrow, since joe bonamassa sold his dumbles you hear too much about them now fender bassman's are through the roof ,for my money BS.

zdog

 

[Rogueaverage616]

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

Thats what i was going to say.I never had the luxury of playing a real 59’ or 60’ Burst, but i played a 1968 Gold top, that underwent a 1957 conversion, and could have bought that guitar, but truth is that the 2018 R0 i bought instead, was just better in every way.Sustains forever just about,sounds really good. My 2019 R9 is the same.

they sound even better with the Klon Clone i just built,and wired up.As well as the Mi Audio super crunch box

 

[Cory]

I’ve never had the privilege of playing a vintage LP, but even with modern day advancements and standardization of builds (including reissues) still being marginally different in tone, resonance, playability, etc. I can only imagine that vintage guitars would be the same (or worse) - I’m assuming that it comes down more so to nostalgia in terms of the desire for a vintage instrument - being a guitar enthusiast and avid Gibson fan, I think if I ever got to plug in a real ‘59 burst, I would think it was the greatest experience ever...in my mind, but it being exponentially that much better compared to a modern day custom shop build? I assume the actual difference is much less than some make it out to be - but again, this is an assumption from someone with no real life comparative experience, so what the hell do I really know anyways - but what I think is a pretty safe bet is that if you played both interchangeably in either a band setting or in front of an audience, I don’t think anyone would hear/notice any difference whatsoever.

 

[Johnny Strabler]

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?

 

[Johnny Strabler]

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?

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?

Whenever I'm tempted to weigh in on Guitar forums I'm reminded that if guitar players were as smart as we think we are, well...let's just acknowledge that NO ONE is as smart as guitar players think they are! That said, this subject comes up so often that I MUST (reluctantly) throw this out there; isn't the most likely scenario the most likely to be true? Not all 'vintage' guitars are still around. The ones that are still around after 70 yrs are the exceptional ones. Like 'natural selection', or 'survival of the fittest' in Darwin's theories of evolution - it just makes sense! The ones that were garbage in 1959 were not treasured, tweaked, played, held onto, & handed down. Look how many 'vintage' guitars Clapton went through trying to emulate his heroes - before accepting that the magic was in his hands. The 60's era SG I owned for a couple of years in the 70's was, in my hands, nothing more than a slab of mahogany, with strings.Though I wish I had it now, and would no doubt deem it priceless, I didn't treasure it then, hence I can only approximate it's year. A final 'obvious' observation I will make is that the majority of Senior members seem to fall in the same camp. Isn't it far more likely that we find it easier to attribute our hero's impossible talents to exceptional, unobtainable tools? It eases our own shortcomings, and keeps our dreams alive. It's worth remembering that many of our heroes were 'discovered' before they could afford a U.S. made Gibson/Fender - vintage or otherwise. But take everything I say with a grain of salt, because I'm a Guitar Player.