Page 1 of 3
#1
Because of the allegations made by some that Gibson Les Paul Studios were made with sub-standard woods especially compared to the Les Paul Standard I emailed the Gibson Customer Service Dept. with this question:

It is going around on several influential guitar forums that the new Les Paul Studios are using inferior and poorly matched cuts of wood. Is the LP Studio solid mahogany (one piece) body and solid maple (one piece) top or not? What are the differences between the cuts of wood used on the Standards vs. the Studios? Please respond at your earliest convienience.
Yours Truly,
Jerry

This is the response I received from Roger Ball, Gibson Customer Service, service@gibson.com:

The Les Paul Studio uses a solid mahogany body and two-piece maple top. Same for the Les Paul Standard. The type of wood has not changed. The USA plant guitars are currently chambered, this may be what the forum folks are referring to. Thank you for the inquiry.

This answer was received about 13 hours after my initial email.
Note: This is how you document and cite sources. You may choose to believe Gibson or not, its up to you.
Please anyone who believes they have any documented and credible refutation of these statements from Gibson feel free to post, otherwise this should close the book on the unfortunate and undocumented rumours that the Les Paul Studio is made from "hacked off cuts of inferior wood."

Anyone wishing to inquire independently may go to customer.service1@gibson.com!
Last edited by uldhppi at Feb 26, 2008,
#2
Good Job. I think the allegations of "poor cuts of wood" are baseless and I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence to back this up. The thing about these forums, is all it takes is one semi-respected member to spout BS like this, and the rest of the parrots regurgitate it "fact".
Gear:

07 Gibson LP Vintage Mahogany
90-91 Fender MIJ '62 Reissue Strat
Fender Acoustic/Electric
Marshall TSL601 Combo
Crybaby Wah
Ibanez TS-9
Boss Tu-2
#3
It's great that someone actually got a hold of Gibson and asked them about this. Trying to prove to a bunch of sheep that the woods are the same as the standard is kind of hard with out the shepherd.


*cough* bokuho *cough* kidding!
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#4
I personally think it's the same quality wood, although they wouldn't be dumb enough to tell you if they did use inferior wood.

Anyway, for being proactive.
#5
Wow, finally some clarity. The only thing I notice is that he didn't say was whether the Studio had poorer quality wood to begin with but perhaps someone could clear that up?
#6
As stated by Gibson the reason the Studio's are cheaper is largely due the lack of bindings on the body and neck, and also no ornate inlays on the neck or headstock
Gear:

07 Gibson LP Vintage Mahogany
90-91 Fender MIJ '62 Reissue Strat
Fender Acoustic/Electric
Marshall TSL601 Combo
Crybaby Wah
Ibanez TS-9
Boss Tu-2
#7
Quote by Leper_Messiah_
As stated by Gibson the reason the Studio's are cheaper is largely due the lack of bindings on the body and neck, and also no ornate inlays on the neck or headstock

I'd be curious to see if those were the ONLY differences. Guitar World or Guitar Player should do a blind test, to see if they can tell any differences.
#8
Quote by Leper_Messiah_
As stated by Gibson the reason the Studio's are cheaper is largely due the lack of bindings on the body and neck, and also no ornate inlays on the neck or headstock



there is a clear binding on the studios actually. also the maple top is AA grade as opposed to AAA. I have one but im trading for a Tokai ls125 with a one piece back and neck which makes a big difference.
#9
I'm bumping this thread because I am still reading the nonsense about the Studio's wood in active threads today.
#10
Just to let you know, studios have a 2 piece back, not a "solid" one.



Quote by KileManA7X
I remember my first erection. I went to my dad and was like "Do I have Aids???". I seriously thought there was something wrong with me.



#11
finally, I was getting annoyed with the false 'lesser quality wood' **** lol
''Quietly turning the backdoor key
Stepping outside she is free.''


My Equipment =

Fender 2008 American Standard Stratocaster
Vox ADVT15-XL
Aria ASP-30
#12
thanks for that, uldhppi. I'm no fan of Gibson, but i'm also no fan of slander/baseless rumours.



as you said, though, whether or not to believe gibson is another matter. remember a while back when jenny emailed fender? She couldn't get them to admit that a custom shop fender was a "better" guitar than a MIM standard. And they claimed that a 2-piece (or indeed, multi-piece) body was "stronger" and hence "superior" to a single-piece body.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#13
this is good news as ive just oredered a studio after months of saving up, i was told by a lot of people it was only the "cosmetics" that was different and im glad to see it confirmed
#14
to my knowledge, gibson doesn't "cheap out" on their cuts of wood based on line/model (insofar as using known crappy wood for studios and known great wood for their standards, classics, etc.). what separates the different lines (and in turn the pricing) is the quality and thickness of the maple top (flame/quilt depth, shape, figure, etc), added options (binding, ebony fretboard, etc), and how much "hands on" process is used in the building of the guitar. also, finishes are available on some lines, but not to others
#15
Overall, if a guitar sounds and feels right for you I think you have a winner regardless. Everyone seems to have their own bias or preferences one way or another.
#16
Quote by Dave_Mc
as you said, though, whether or not to believe gibson is another matter. remember a while back when jenny emailed fender? She couldn't get them to admit that a custom shop fender was a "better" guitar than a MIM standard.

That was the first thing which came to my mind when I read this thread.

Using this as proof that the Studio is made from just as good materials is the same as using the Fender thread as proof that a MIM is as good as a Custom Shop guitar.
#17
As said earlier any documentation from a credible source may or may not contradict Gibson. I invite anyone to post sources so they can be independently vetted by UG. As the source I cited is the only verifiable source to date there is no evidence that Gibson is lying or misrepresenting anything. In the scientific method anecdotes (heresay, personal experience, etc.) that cannot be documented and replicated or independently verified do not pass muster, no matter how credible the source.
In court the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty.
Last edited by uldhppi at Feb 27, 2008,
#18
Quote by p.stick
Just to let you know, studios have a 2 piece back, not a "solid" one.

Is it just me or was the whole point of this thread missed by this post?

it's statements like this which the TS is on about. If you're going to make a statement like this, back it up with evidence.

or did I miss something?
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#19
I don't have any problem with someone's opinion as long as they are not misconstrued as facts.
#20
Quote by guitarman216
to my knowledge, gibson doesn't "cheap out" on their cuts of wood based on line/model (insofar as using known crappy wood for studios and known great wood for their standards, classics, etc.). what separates the different lines (and in turn the pricing) is the quality and thickness of the maple top (flame/quilt depth, shape, figure, etc), added options (binding, ebony fretboard, etc), and how much "hands on" process is used in the building of the guitar. also, finishes are available on some lines, but not to others


quoted for truth
Gear:

07 Gibson LP Vintage Mahogany
90-91 Fender MIJ '62 Reissue Strat
Fender Acoustic/Electric
Marshall TSL601 Combo
Crybaby Wah
Ibanez TS-9
Boss Tu-2
#21
Quote by whoismilan
That was the first thing which came to my mind when I read this thread.

Using this as proof that the Studio is made from just as good materials is the same as using the Fender thread as proof that a MIM is as good as a Custom Shop guitar.




Quote by uldhppi
As said earlier any documentation from a credible source may or may not contradict Gibson. I invite anyone to post sources so they can be independently vetted by UG. As the source I cited is the only verifiable source to date there is no evidence that Gibson is lying or misrepresenting anything. In the scientific method anecdotes (heresay, personal experience, etc.) that cannot be documented and replicated or independently verified do not pass muster, no matter how credible the source.
In court the burden of proof is always on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty.


agreed; however, the evidence you have so far is equivalent to asking the accused in a court of law, "did you murder the person you're accused of?" and getting the answer, "No" in return.

I don't like all the slander and unsupported accusations either, but so far all we have to counter said accusations is an equally unsupported statement from someone affiliated to Gibson (where there's obviously a vested interest to portray Gibson and its products in the best possible light).

Put it like this: if you asked a Shell spokesperson if drilling for oil damaged the environment, would you believe their answer?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your taking the time to send the e-mail, and it's always nice to see what a company answers when asked awkward questions; just we aren't really much further on.

If we could get an independent luthier or something to check one out, that'd be different. Of course, said luthier would possibly have a vested interest too. It's very hard to get an unbiased opinion, even if it's slight.

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#22
I agree Dave, that's why I'm trying to get people to post some sources.
#23
As Dave said, this thread doesn't prove anything.

And, while "innocent until proven guilty" is preferable in the court of law, it certainly is not the most effective strategy for a consumer when deciding on a product to purchase.

With that said, if you are the owner of a Gibson Studio and you like it, there is absolutely no need to feel so defensive about your guitar. If it plays well and you are satisfied with the performance that you are getting out of it, nothing has changed.
Fender Standard Stratocaster
BC Rich Mockingbird Supreme (USA Custom Shop)
BC Rich NJ Neck-Thru Series Mockingbird
Epiphone Elite Les Paul Standard

Laney TT50-112
Peavey Classic 30
Epiphone Valve Junior
Roland Microcube
#24
Quote by uldhppi
I agree Dave, that's why I'm trying to get people to post some sources.




Quote by FourSticks17
As Dave said, this thread doesn't prove anything.

And, while "innocent until proven guilty" is preferable in the court of law, it certainly is not the most effective strategy for a consumer when deciding on a product to purchase.

With that said, if you are the owner of a Gibson Studio and you like it, there is absolutely no need to feel so defensive about your guitar. If it plays well and you are satisfied with the performance that you are getting out of it, nothing has changed.


agreed. I've been gipped by enough companies (not Gibson) to operate a "guilty until proven innocent" policy.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#25
I'm not defensive, I like my Studio. I am however as many others are tired of people's opinions getting represented as facts and parroted back by young or less critically-minded players. The stakes are high, i.e. how much do you have to pay for a Gibson Les Paul before you actually get a Gibson Les Paul? It would be a shame for poorer players to have to ante up more money than is necessary to get what they want.
#26
Quote by uldhppi
... It would be a shame for poorer players to have to ante up more money than is necessary to get what they want.

Every Gibson Les Paul I've played, including the Studios and Classics, feel like they've been lovingly crafted by some Custom Shop Master. Dave probably feels the same way about his Edwards LP

TBH, I haven't met a Gibson Les Paul I didn't enjoy, specially the copies ... Burny, Tokai, Edwards, Epi (MIJ), Orville ...

#28
Quote by FourSticks17
As Dave said, this thread doesn't prove anything.

And, while "innocent until proven guilty" is preferable in the court of law, it certainly is not the most effective strategy for a consumer when deciding on a product to purchase.

With that said, if you are the owner of a Gibson Studio and you like it, there is absolutely no need to feel so defensive about your guitar. If it plays well and you are satisfied with the performance that you are getting out of it, nothing has changed.


I agree with this.

People are getting the idea to not try Studios anymore because of the bad feedback. I personally like the studios, the way the guitar sounds and feels. And some people tend to say that NON-American made Fenders don't sound good, but in reality, they can sound really good.
#29
uldhppi, thanks for taking the time to email Gibson.

Whilst I respect the points Dave makes above, surely we should also consider the idea of a Gibson official making a "false" statement and therefore misrepresenting Gibson. I can't imagine why Gibson would want to do that and don't believe they have here.

Gibson are upfront about all the parts of the Studio that differ to their higher-end models so why not when it comes to the wood? Gibson are not "drilling for oil" nor "murdering people" with the LP Studio. They are simply offering a stripped down guitar for less money. If it was proven that Gibson were in fact building Studios with "plywood, chipboard and hacked up offcuts of lower grade wood" as mentioned by some on the forum numerous times, then the company's reputation would be in serious jeopardy. Even though we all know that the corporate world is full of liars and cheats, I just don't think that this is the case here. Personally, as a very experienced and skilled finish carpenter, the mahogany that shows under the pickups and back cover of my Studio appears to be of exceptional quality.

I therefore believe that the statement in the email from Gibson is reasonable evidence that helps to prove the quality of the wood used to build the LP Studio. An independent luthiers investigation would add evidence to the "case" too, as suggested by Dave.
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Gibson DC Pro Custom shop
Fender American Stratocaster - Vintage custom
Fender Squier Strat
Fender Standard Telecaster
#30
I have a good idea. Lets get out the chainsaws and see for ourselves!
#31
Quote by uldhppi
I have a good idea. Lets get out the chainsaws and see for ourselves!


You first
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Gibson DC Pro Custom shop
Fender American Stratocaster - Vintage custom
Fender Squier Strat
Fender Standard Telecaster
#32
Quote by uldhppi
I have a good idea. Lets get out the chainsaws and see for ourselves!


Well you know who claims he did that to a Studio and Faded. Funny thing is you really don't need to cut them open to find out about the wood... pieces, quality, etc...

You'd think if someone cut up a guitar and discovered it's shit, they would post pics for the world to see. Of course that's just me!
#33
Quote by Whole Lotta Led
Well you know who claims he did that to a Studio and Faded. Funny thing is you really don't need to cut them open to find out about the wood... pieces, quality, etc...

You'd think if someone cut up a guitar and discovered it's shit, they would post pics for the world to see. Of course that's just me!


You are not alone my friend!
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Gibson DC Pro Custom shop
Fender American Stratocaster - Vintage custom
Fender Squier Strat
Fender Standard Telecaster
#35
Quote by Whole Lotta Led
Well you know who claims he did that to a Studio and Faded. Funny thing is you really don't need to cut them open to find out about the wood... pieces, quality, etc...

You'd think if someone cut up a guitar and discovered it's shit, they would post pics for the world to see. Of course that's just me!

This one?

#37
haha, great thread. I love that you can talk directly to a company member and get such a quick response. try that with other brands.. ibanez.


i just like the guitars i like.
Jenneh

Quote by TNfootballfan62
Jenny needs to sow her wild oats with random Gibsons and Taylors she picks up in bars before she settles down with a PRS.


Set up Questions? ...Q & A Thread

Recognised by the Official EG/GG&A/GB&C WTLT Lists 2011
#38
Quote by Lemoninfluence
Is it just me or was the whole point of this thread missed by this post?

it's statements like this which the TS is on about. If you're going to make a statement like this, back it up with evidence.

or did I miss something?



Sorry, I thought the thread was dedicated to the discussion of the wood for studio.

I have came across one studio and one vintage mohagany in shop. Both of them being 2 piece centre jointed.

One of my friend owns a studio as well, it is also 2 pieced.



Quote by KileManA7X
I remember my first erection. I went to my dad and was like "Do I have Aids???". I seriously thought there was something wrong with me.



#39
Quote by p.stick
Sorry, I thought the thread was dedicated to the discussion of the wood for studio.

I have came across one studio and one vintage mohagany in shop. Both of them being 2 piece centre jointed.

One of my friend owns a studio as well, it is also 2 pieced.


If you could please get some pictures, one full-length front, one full-length back and one closeup back of each guitar along with their serial numbers and year. Please make sure the resolution is as fine as possible. Thanks.
Last edited by uldhppi at Feb 28, 2008,
#40
The Les Paul Studio uses a solid mahogany body and two-piece maple top. Same for the Les Paul Standard. The type of wood has not changed. The USA plant guitars are currently chambered, this may be what the forum folks are referring to. Thank you for the inquiry.
Bolded the part which matters.

Nobody was ever arguing that the type of wood has changed. It's the quality of the wood that's changed. You'll notice the reply you got didn't address this issue at all.


Now apparently on these forums, omission is taken as if an admittance of guilt, so there you go. Unless y'all want to be complete hypocrites now and not quibble over such a glaring omission, but that will then invalidate every claim you've had against myself and the several others who have talked about the lower quality wood in the Studio/Vintage Mahogany/Faded's bodies. So your choice, either you're invalidating your own argument and making yourselves look like complete hypocrites, or you're agreeing that Gibson rather unsubtly sidestepped the main issue and didn't actually address the real problem at all. Take your pick, either's fine by me.


EDIT1:
Quote by p.stick
Sorry, I thought the thread was dedicated to the discussion of the wood for studio.

I have came across one studio and one vintage mohagany in shop. Both of them being 2 piece centre jointed.

One of my friend owns a studio as well, it is also 2 pieced.
That's standard now, nowt special about that.

If you go to the Gibson site, you'll notice something amusing; the guitars which are made with solid backs have a 360 view. All of the ones made with two piece matched backs have '360 Not Yet Available' come up. It's not much to get excited over, but it gave me a laugh.


EDIT2: for anyone curious, because a few people have asked me before, no, I've got no problem with Gibson themselves. The Studios, Vintage Mahogany and Faded guitars, I have no real issue with either; I just think it's stupid that they're sold as one thing when they're actually another. FYI, I've actually just ordered my fourth Studio guitar. So, y'know.

EDIT3, because I really should read through a thread before posting:
Quote by jj1565
haha, great thread. I love that you can talk directly to a company member and get such a quick response. try that with other brands.. ibanez.


i just like the guitars i like.
I've always found Ibanez to be pretty quick to respond. I've only contacted them three or four times, but I've always had a response within a day, which is pretty good going.


The worst are ESP and Epiphone. I like their guitars, but their customer service is really, really **** unless you're ordering a $8000 custom guitar direct from them - and even then they're pretty slow and not terribly helpful.
Last edited by bokuho at Feb 28, 2008,
Page 1 of 3