acstorfer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 19,646
- Reaction score
- 21,288
I think there seems to be a lot of people who think we are preaching that the best Gibsons were made during the Norlin era. Or they believe we are saying that these Les Pauls are identical to Les Pauls from the 1950's. While I will say that my current 1973 Les Paul Deluxe is the best Les Paul for me (while however much i loved my previous 1973 Deluxe, in all honesty it was akin to wearing furniture around my neck, and even a bit on the clowny side it sounded absolutely Les Paulliscious) and I have a belief that a guitar that is pancaked is more accurate to a 50's Les Paul than one that is weight relieved (which I have a new found respect) or chambered, I still concede that Henry era Les Pauls also have some things going for it, that the Norlin era Les Paul doesn't in terms of true to 50's. Probably for me, the most important of this issue is headstock angle. I think I am speaking for the majority in saying we love our Norlin era Gibson Les Pauls in spite, or for many or some of us because of these differences.
While some here love their "Norlins", jheez I can't stand that identification, for other reasons such as they've had it for thirty something years and know what to expect, or because it is a proven die hard play hard guitar, or even because they think it is simply the most beautiful guitar they ever laid eyes on, we all devotees of this era for our own reasons, despite conventional beliefs of the "traditionalists".
The reason I love my 1973 Deluxe is simply I can do anything I want to it, to make it my ultimate guitar. Let's face it, in it's day it would have been considered the Studio of it's time. No flash or pageantry, it was simply a guitar made for the person who wanted to beat the sh*t out of their guitar. It was a guitar created to let it be morphed into an extension of the player without fear. My guitar has figuratively been to hell and back. It was routed for a bridge humbucker. It has been routed for a Kahler tremolo. It has been drilled for a coil tap switch. It has had holes put into it for a tuner upgrade. In fact, my previous Deluxe had even more things done to it. It was built out of a solid slab (well a few slabs) of wood and could take it. It cried out, "give me all you want, I can take it!"). In fact, it wasn't only Gibson that made their guitars like that. I would have to believe that out of the box I wouldn't love the Deluxe as much as I love my "butchered" Les Paul. It was because of this solid as a rock guitars willingness to accept these changes. It is because all of these upgrades (to me) that I believe I have the best guitar in the world. I am sorry that these guitars have become more highly coveted. I am sorry that today it is heresy to truly modify these guitars. I have great joy in knowing that my guitar came to me already modified, which I would have wanted to do to a unmolested specimen but no longer could. My Les Paul to me has everything I ever wanted in a guitar and if there came a day I wanted to, I could modify it even further.
I have owned many, many Les Pauls and Gibsons for that matter. I have tried many more. I have never played a Gibson from the fifties though. While I have no doubt I think it would be very cool to hold one in my hands, and even cooler to own, I do doubt very much that I would love it more than the guitar I have now. For no small part, because I couldn't make changes to it. Probably my two finest Gibsons I have owned were my Les Paul Axcess and my 61 SG Custom reissue. These were magnificent guitars and were better built than my current Les Paul. I just couldn't bond with them. I never felt comfortable playing them. I was always too paranoid about scratching or denting them to play with wild abandon. Also, they were just too damned valuable to make the changes I would have liked to. Also, quite honestly they were too light for me. As said in Jurassic Park, if it's heavy it's valuable.
I have little doubt that people here aren't saying buy a Norlin era Gibson because they are the best guitars ever made. What we are saying is give them an honest try and disregard the chatter. You'll be selling yourself short not to keep an open mind. Especially in considering our guitars have truly stood the test of time and at 30 and even 40 years, they are still beasts.
I would love to hear from others as to why they proudly rock their "Norlins".
While some here love their "Norlins", jheez I can't stand that identification, for other reasons such as they've had it for thirty something years and know what to expect, or because it is a proven die hard play hard guitar, or even because they think it is simply the most beautiful guitar they ever laid eyes on, we all devotees of this era for our own reasons, despite conventional beliefs of the "traditionalists".
The reason I love my 1973 Deluxe is simply I can do anything I want to it, to make it my ultimate guitar. Let's face it, in it's day it would have been considered the Studio of it's time. No flash or pageantry, it was simply a guitar made for the person who wanted to beat the sh*t out of their guitar. It was a guitar created to let it be morphed into an extension of the player without fear. My guitar has figuratively been to hell and back. It was routed for a bridge humbucker. It has been routed for a Kahler tremolo. It has been drilled for a coil tap switch. It has had holes put into it for a tuner upgrade. In fact, my previous Deluxe had even more things done to it. It was built out of a solid slab (well a few slabs) of wood and could take it. It cried out, "give me all you want, I can take it!"). In fact, it wasn't only Gibson that made their guitars like that. I would have to believe that out of the box I wouldn't love the Deluxe as much as I love my "butchered" Les Paul. It was because of this solid as a rock guitars willingness to accept these changes. It is because all of these upgrades (to me) that I believe I have the best guitar in the world. I am sorry that these guitars have become more highly coveted. I am sorry that today it is heresy to truly modify these guitars. I have great joy in knowing that my guitar came to me already modified, which I would have wanted to do to a unmolested specimen but no longer could. My Les Paul to me has everything I ever wanted in a guitar and if there came a day I wanted to, I could modify it even further.
I have owned many, many Les Pauls and Gibsons for that matter. I have tried many more. I have never played a Gibson from the fifties though. While I have no doubt I think it would be very cool to hold one in my hands, and even cooler to own, I do doubt very much that I would love it more than the guitar I have now. For no small part, because I couldn't make changes to it. Probably my two finest Gibsons I have owned were my Les Paul Axcess and my 61 SG Custom reissue. These were magnificent guitars and were better built than my current Les Paul. I just couldn't bond with them. I never felt comfortable playing them. I was always too paranoid about scratching or denting them to play with wild abandon. Also, they were just too damned valuable to make the changes I would have liked to. Also, quite honestly they were too light for me. As said in Jurassic Park, if it's heavy it's valuable.
I have little doubt that people here aren't saying buy a Norlin era Gibson because they are the best guitars ever made. What we are saying is give them an honest try and disregard the chatter. You'll be selling yourself short not to keep an open mind. Especially in considering our guitars have truly stood the test of time and at 30 and even 40 years, they are still beasts.
I would love to hear from others as to why they proudly rock their "Norlins".