Should Gibson bring Les Paul Custom back to Gibson USA line?

[Saiko]

I do wonder, was the Les Paul Supreme introduced because the LP Custom production was moved to the Custom Shop? The Supreme was in the price range and took it's place in the USA lineup after all, even thought about it was a completely different guitar.

I still say it doesn't matter since the Custom Shop will still have the made to measure and reissue Custom options. At the end of the day, I usually prefer Customs to Standards and when I buy one I am judging the guitar itself, not which shop it was made in. My only current LP Custom was made before the CS even existed so that was irrelevant when I decided to purchase the guitar.

 

[Overture]

I'm not sure you meant to quote me, because I never said anything about a USA LP diminishing by CS LPC.

However, I think you just made my point.

They are the exact same guitar. No difference other than the CS branding. Nothing changed when they moved the classification from production to CS - same guitar. Yet you just stated that a USA LPC would be lower-grade. It wouldn't, but Gibson marketing wants you to believe so. Apparently you do, so mission accomplished. This is all about branding, perception of superiority and higher retail. They are the exact same guitar though.

Except the instruments coming out of the CS tend to be built better, with better materials, by fewer people with more experience. I've had 3 other USA LP's other than the current one I still have, 3 from the Henry era, and one of the new Std 60's, and I've had 4 total custom shop LP's two of which I still have. The difference in quality is noticeable.

Also, the current custom has a long neck tenon, which is a recent-ish change. I don't personally believe it makes a massive difference but it is currently only available on a LP through the CS.

If I was buying new, I don't mind paying a bit more if the guitar is going to be a higher quality instrument. Call me a cork sniffing glue bag if you want. I can only go by what my hands and eyes tell me.

 

[Slashperryburst]

a Gibson USA LP Custom would be lower-grade than your custom shop anyway.

I have a 2002 custom and a 2015 custom. One was made in the regular plant, one was made in the custom shop. I love both of them, but the regular USA custom is the better guitar of the two. And not because the 2015 has a richlite board. That 2002 custom is just one of those special guitars that you'd be a fool to part with.

 

[bryvincent]

I have a 2002 custom and a 2015 custom. One was made in the regular plant, one was made in the custom shop. I love both of them, but the regular USA custom is the better guitar of the two. And not because the 2015 has a richlite board. That 2002 custom is just one of those special guitars that you'd be a fool to part with.

it the opposite for me. i have an '08 CS Custom and used to have an '87 USA Custom. i prefer the '08 CS.

except for the hardcase, the '08 CS is better in all aspects. considering the '08 has a 2-piece mahogany back vs the one piece back of the '87 and supposed to be a "good wood" era year

 

[gibsonofabitch]

gibson should just make more custom classics - they are exactly what this thread is asking for: a cheaper non-custom custom. I think they retailed for under 2k? They wouldnt even be able to keep them in stock in 2021 if that was the case https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LPCCTANCH--gibson-les-paul-classic-custom-antique-natural

 

[Overture]

gibson should just make more custom classics - they are exactly what this thread is asking for: a cheaper non-custom custom. I think they retailed for under 2k? They wouldnt even be able to keep them in stock in 2021 if that was the case https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LPCCTANCH--gibson-les-paul-classic-custom-antique-natural

I'd imagine they'd fall price wise between the classic and standard given the current price structure...but I agree, this would be a big seller I think.

 

[InTheEvening]

gibson should just make more custom classics - they are exactly what this thread is asking for: a cheaper non-custom custom. I think they retailed for under 2k? They wouldnt even be able to keep them in stock in 2021 if that was the case https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LPCCTANCH--gibson-les-paul-classic-custom-antique-natural

They seem to go quick on the used market. Gibson really should get in on it.

 

[diogoguitar]

they should.. but they won't since they probably ran the math and saw they can make more money by keeping the LP Custom in the CS department

 

[rjwilson37]

They could at least bring back the Classic Custom, an affordable Les Paul Custom from the Gibson USA lineup.

 

[Shelkonnery]

Yes, bringing back the Classic Custom as a missing link between them makes sense.

You know, up until Reissues officially became a thing ('93), the Les Paul Custom was the absolute best/top of the line Gibson you could get. They have to maintain its prestige and this means moving it to CS production in modern times.

And honestly, if you check the used market, you'll see that each decade/era of LPCs has its own thing going, regardless of whether it was made in the CS or not.

 

[fretout]

Plot twist: why not make all Les Paul Customs according to Les Paul Custom specs? Long neck tenon? ABR-1? Why would they build a Custom any other way?

If Gibson needed to hype up the Reissues, then continue to weight relieve the “normal” Customs, but build them all using the traditional techniques!

 

[diogoguitar]

Here is one perspective of why they "should' make a Gibson USA Custom: if you consider the parts/labor involved, it's kind of the same cost as making a LP Standard. Let me explain..

Take any custom builder (not necessarily a LP copy, could be a superstrat) that has the following options: add ebony fingerboard, add (extra) binding, add gold hardware.

One example is this Suhr builder from rocket music:

1. Add ebony fingerboard: +$153
2. Add extra binding: +$220
3. Add gold hardware: +$220

Subtotal: $593
Less: AAA flame maple top -$500
Net change: +$93

(I used the carved set neck as example)

Suhr Configurator

And this is assuming the dealer and the builder make profit out of these "upgrades".

 

[Slashperryburst]

Plot twist: why not make all Les Paul Customs according to Les Paul Custom specs? Long neck tenon? ABR-1? Why would they build a Custom any other way?

If Gibson needed to hype up the Reissues, then continue to weight relieve the “normal” Customs, but build them all using the traditional techniques!

If they build the normal customs using traditional techniques, they would have a single slab of mahogany for the body. No separate cap. How do you weight relieve that?

Also, your argument could also be applied to the original collection standards.

 

[fretout]

If they build the normal customs using traditional techniques, they would have a single slab of mahogany for the body. No separate cap. How do you weight relieve that?

Also, your argument could also be applied to the original collection standards.

OIC, you assumed I was referring to a 57 Custom. Since the current recipe for a Les Paul Custom is a thicker mahogany body attached to a maple cap, with humbuckers, the traditional technique I’m referring to is the 1968 Custom Techniques, since it more closely matches the woods and ingredients used in a Custom. The only major differences between a modern Custom and a 1968 Custom are the long neck tenon, and the ABR-1, so it’d be a minor change to just implement these changes/improvements to the current Customs.

The 1957 Custom is a different animal, IMHO. You can reserve the 57s, and maybe even a 1 piece backed 1968 for Reissues, but we don’t really need 3 separate Customs with 3 different construction methods.

Sure, they can apply the same updates to the other LP models while they are at it, but the topic was Customs. Do you see any benefit from a short tenon and a Nashville? Sure, the Nash has wider adjustments possible, but at the sacrifice of the break angle. But, does anyone think the Nash bridge mounts are superior to screwing the bridge studs directly to the top?

 

[Slashperryburst]

There was absolutely nothing in your post to indicate that you were talking about 1968 specs. You said "why not build them using traditional specs?"

I have no interest in turning this into an argument, but at least take the L rather than try to pretend it was obvious you were talking about 68 specs.

 

[Shelkonnery]

Plot twist: why not make all Les Paul Customs according to Les Paul Custom specs? Long neck tenon? ABR-1? Why would they build a Custom any other way?

If Gibson needed to hype up the Reissues, then continue to weight relieve the “normal” Customs, but build them all using the traditional techniques!

I see where you’re coming from, but I honestly don't consider long tenon/ABR1 noticeable upgrades at all. These features are just historically accurate, but we can’t tell the difference in a blind test. A solid body would be a nice touch though IMHO.

Here is one perspective of why they "should' make a Gibson USA Custom: if you consider the parts/labor involved, it's kind of the same cost as making a LP Standard. Let me explain..

Take any custom builder (not necessarily a LP copy, could be a superstrat) that has the following options: add ebony fingerboard, add (extra) binding, add gold hardware.

One example is this Suhr builder from rocket music:

1. Add ebony fingerboard: +$153
2. Add extra binding: +$220
3. Add gold hardware: +$220

Subtotal: $593
Less: AAA flame maple top -$500
Net change: +$93

(I used the carved set neck as example)

Suhr Configurator

And this is assuming the dealer and the builder make profit out of these "upgrades".

I think this is some faulty logic.

All Les Paul share more similarities than differences if you go this rout.

The binding in Customs is multi-ply, which is a lot more time consuming than regular binding. And although weight relieved, Regular Customs also have one-piece mahogany backs. No other USA line guitar has Ebony fingerboard at the moment AFAIK.

You’re missing the point, it’s not about costs or which factory it comes from, they have a certain status to maintain.



Would you even want it if you could have it easily?

 

[diogoguitar]



Would you even want it if you could have it easily?

That's Gibson's strategy and I don't necessarily disagree with them
I agree with you it's not about how they are making it - it's about availability.

 

[rjwilson37]

No other USA line guitar has Ebony fingerboard at the moment AFAIK.

The Les Paul Modern has an Ebony Fingerboard.

 

[Filipem]

I would definitely be interested in a USA standard line custom. I can't imagine it would be much more money than a standard. Some of the extra costs associated with a custom could be offset by using 3pc bodies or less ascetically desirable woods seeing as most are painted a solid color I wouldn't care. Outside of the thicker body and extra binding it's pretty much the same thing.

Tons of other companies offer thicker bodies with back binding models with a small up charge on their standard lines Like ESP for example

 

[bryvincent]

I would definitely be interested in a USA standard line custom. I can't imagine it would be much more money than a standard. Some of the extra costs associated with a custom could be offset by using 3pc bodies or less ascetically desirable woods seeing as most are painted a solid color I wouldn't care. Outside of the thicker body and extra binding it's pretty much the same thing.

Tons of other companies offer thicker bodies with back binding models with a small up charge on their standard lines Like ESP for example

not gonna happen