Page 1 of 2
#2
It does look pretty sweet. only thing is tho is that its prbably gonna be close to £2000 on release and even tho the modifications are pretty good, i dont see the point on spending far more when a regular standard is a bit cheaper.
#3
the locking tuners/bridge and straplocks should have been on them long ago, just goes to show that they dont have to keep up to the "standard" of everyone else to sell guitars
Quote by Td_Nights
*Points to Above Poster*

Best. Username. Ever.

Quote by _-Joey-_
I wish I was gay...


PSN- td_rules Steam- tdrules
#4
well when i bought my 07 model (december 07) it was £1,500. i could have got it cheaper but Gibson had a few issues with shipping and i had to buy from a store in manchester. me and that guitar are like two brothers we know what we want from each other musically. and i am aware that sounded gay
#5
You guys see the one farthest to the right on the little scroll over diagram?


There's the reason it costs so much.
Mitch Hedberg Group
http://groups.ultimate-guitar.com/koalabears/

Quote by Irnmaiden4life
why didnt you just play like crap?
if you need help with that, ask Vincent745



Quote by imgooley
Awe, so cute...

How old are you?



Quote by H4T3BR33D3R


Old enough to yell rape.
#6
4000$ for that! that is one of the most overpriced things i have seen in a long time. sure gibsons are amazing guitars but comeon. nothing can possibly justify that price
#7
yeah, but apart from that the guitar is worth every penny. only changed the gauge of strings to 10-52's on my 2007 model and its just a lovely sounding guitar that i wouldnt sell for all the tea in china. sod the price, sod all the little tiny changes like straplocks and such its still worth it
#8
Quote by ironman1478
4000$ for that! that is one of the most overpriced things i have seen in a long time. sure gibsons are amazing guitars but comeon. nothing can possibly justify that price

That's the MSRP price. Aside from the poor (not money-wise) musicians in Europe, nobody ever pays the MSRP price.
Good music is good music...everything else can go to hell

Gear:
Gibson LP Studio
Fender Blues Deluxe Reissue
Avatar G212H (1xG12H30 1xAlnico Gold)
TS-9 Screamer
Boss Tu-2
Line6 X2-XDS Plus

The Band
#9
I never have liked the shape of the LP. But that actually looks pretty nice.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of my current price range, but still pretty nice.
You know, you're probably reading this saying "Hey, I'm bored, maybe this'll be funny?"
It's not. Too bad. No, I am not refunding you those 6 seconds of your life. So :P


#10
I just noticed there's a locking system on the output too, though I could imagine some freak accident where you pull your entire rig over.

I'm happy with the addition of strap locks, but as for the locking tuners, most Les Pauls stay in tune very well anyway and it's a bit of an eye soar.
#11
Chambered body = PHAIL.

Quote by tdrules
the locking tuners/bridge and straplocks should have been on them long ago, just goes to show that they dont have to keep up to the "standard" of everyone else to sell guitars


Yeah, I got a Gibson last year, and the strap buttons they put on them are pathetically small. I swapped them straight out for some strap locks. Would have been nice if I didn't have to do that.
#12
Quote by ironman1478
4000$ for that! that is one of the most overpriced things i have seen in a long time. sure gibsons are amazing guitars but comeon. nothing can possibly justify that price

Many things combined can justify such a price.
However, I don't see these things in that guitar. Gibbos are very nice guitars, but I can get a more interesting Fender for less money or even something from a custom shop.

EDIT: Great they use the PLEK now, it's one of the best things that ever happened to guitar manufacturing.
#13
Quote by Martin Scott
Chambered body = PHAIL

+1
Quote by drunkinkoala
you can be jesus.


Quote by Wesseem
most useless response i think i have ever seen on any forum ever.


Quote by Turkeyburger





Lolflag
#15
Quote by kckyle
ergh i highly doubt anyone is demanding this chamber bs so why is gibson keeping on distributing them



so they can raise the price.

i would never pay that much for a gibson. ever. i would buy a custom model spicifically made to my specs before i paid that much.
Quote by Mo Jiggity
What he said. You are a wise man for not buying into the hype.

ya hear that...he thinks im wise
#16
my guess is "too much", based on any other gibson prices in the UK...
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?
#17
Well I have to ive it to Gibson. I tried a few '08 Les Pauls and they we're fantastic, the quality was so much improved from before! But then some people dislike the chamebered boides, so what do they do? They start selling the Traditional!

However yeah, it's way too expensive though. You could get a Custom Shop one for almost the same price...
Quote by stratman_13
It's okay Gabel. You kick ass.



18watter video demo

My band

Recognised by the Official EG/GG&A Who To Listen To List 2009
#18
is chambered when they cut the body to like more comfortable like on ibanez rg's ?
best YouTube video ever

Quote by Crazymike100
Honesty is the best policy!

...Unless your trying to get a job. In which case, lie like you just got pulled over with a dead body and some shovels in the back seat.


Gear in Profile

Like NCIS
#19
I like the Traditional. It would be the only model I'd buy new. That or the Classic.

It'll probably be cheaper to buy the straplocks and the tuners and drop them on an older standard.
#20
Quote by sandman-105
is chambered when they cut the body to like more comfortable like on ibanez rg's ?

Nope, it means that cavities are cut inside of the guitars body before glueing the bodies maple top to the mahogany bottom. It changes the sound. It is supposed to give you a more percussive sound, which means better attack, but on the other side you lose some of the warmth the LP's tone is famous for. Not cool for traditional players, but people who like a more modern voiced guitar might like it.
#21
i'm either getting a les paul traditional or a older supreme or custom that isn't chambered and have the full 10 pound weight.
#22
Quote by kckyle
i'm either getting a les paul traditional or a older supreme or custom that isn't chambered and have the full 10 pound weight.


All the Supremes were chambered.
#24
Quote by kckyle
wait hold up. the traditional has weight relieve holes? booooooooooooo


So? All the Gibson Les Pauls have been weight relieved. Ever since the '70's
#25
i have a les paul and have gigged with it and i had no problem with the weight. it isn't chambered either. i have no idea why gibson insists and chambering their guitars
#27
Quote by TheQuailman
Nope, it means that cavities are cut inside of the guitars body before glueing the bodies maple top to the mahogany bottom. It changes the sound. It is supposed to give you a more percussive sound, which means better attack, but on the other side you lose some of the warmth the LP's tone is famous for. Not cool for traditional players, but people who like a more modern voiced guitar might like it.



Effects sustain, too. Since there is less body mess.. less sustain. I don't see the point in lessening the sustain of the Les Paul- that was the whole idea of the guitar. If people didn't like the weight, and wanted a less warm sound- buy a different guitar? It's pathetic to compromise the whole design of the guitar in order to pander to guitarists who would really be better off just buying a guitar that better suits their needs. If I wanted a brighter sound, less weight etc- I wouldn't buy a Les Paul. I mean, that the modern Gibson LPs have this would still be meaningless to me, because the guitar would still have that unwieldy size and shape.

I tolerate the sheer size and awkwardness of my LPs simply because of their sustain and warm tone. If I didn't want these things, I wouldn't buy an LP. It's also occurred to me that Gibson are cutting costs on distribution by weight-relieving the guitars. Since they weigh less, they cost less to distribute to the four corners of the globe. That's just my insanity-induced conspiracy theory, though..
#28
Quote by kckyle
even the old ones?


Yes. That's the thing that really differs it from the custom. If it wasn't for that, it would just be a Les Paul Custom with a stupid Globe inlay on the headstock and split block inlays.
#29
I don't know dude. Shipping lighter guitars is cheaper of course, but cutting the holes takes time and a worker who does it, so it costs money. I doubt they make big profits of it.

EDIT: to Martin
#30
Quote by TheQuailman
I don't know dude. Shipping lighter guitars is cheaper of course, but cutting the holes takes time and a worker who does it, so it costs money. I doubt they make big profits of it.

EDIT: to Martin


I know what you're getting at, but it's not as if a worker sits there laboriously chambering the mahogany bottoms with a chisel for hours and hours. A huge routing machine does it in like two seconds. I think the money saved on distribution far outweighs the extra two seconds during manufacture. My theory, though just an insane conspiracy, is actually well thought-out
#32
Seriously though, I think the chambering is ruining the modern Les Paul. Bring the unchambered body back, bring the sustain and tone back, that's what I say. You don't like the weight and tone? Buy a different guitar, and stop ruining the LP. Apparently, my Gibson isn't chambered. I have no way of knowing of course. It is bloody heavy and has great sustain, though, so maybe it's true. If I was to buy another high-end Les Paul, I'd go for a Tokai. Unchambered = WIN. I have lighter, brighter guitars for other applications and genres. It's pointless having a chambered Les Paul. You just have this really huge pointless guitar that could have been much smaller, as far as mass/density is concerned. I bet there's no more mass in the modern Gibson LP than there is in the SG.
#33
Quote by TheQuailman
Okay, I'm getting us some tinfoil hats then. Raid Gibson in september?

yes sign me up. i'm with you on that one.
#34
Quote by Martin Scott
Seriously though, I think the chambering is ruining the modern Les Paul. Bring the unchambered body back, bring the sustain and tone back, that's what I say. You don't like the weight and tone? Buy a different guitar, and stop ruining the LP. Apparently, my Gibson isn't chambered. I have no way of knowing of course. It is bloody heavy and has great sustain, though, so maybe it's true. If I was to buy another high-end Les Paul, I'd go for a Tokai. Unchambered = WIN. I have lighter, brighter guitars for other applications and genres. It's pointless having a chambered Les Paul. You just have this really huge pointless guitar that could have been much smaller, as far as mass/density is concerned. I bet there's no more mass in the modern Gibson LP than there is in the SG.


The unchambered body is back. It's called the Les Paul traditional.
#35
Quote by Martin Scott
Seriously though, I think the chambering is ruining the modern Les Paul. Bring the unchambered body back, bring the sustain and tone back, that's what I say. You don't like the weight and tone? Buy a different guitar, and stop ruining the LP. Apparently, my Gibson isn't chambered. I have no way of knowing of course. It is bloody heavy and has great sustain, though, so maybe it's true. If I was to buy another high-end Les Paul, I'd go for a Tokai. Unchambered = WIN. I have lighter, brighter guitars for other applications and genres. It's pointless having a chambered Les Paul. You just have this really huge pointless guitar that could have been much smaller, as far as mass/density is concerned. I bet there's no more mass in the modern Gibson LP than there is in the SG.

+1, i'm 100 percent with you on this. i like these heavy les pauls. for some odd reason the weight of these guitars boost my confident. like i know there is the sustain to back up my notes i'm playing
#36
I guess they think they'll sell more LPs when chambering them. Hell I don't care, I can get a Framus or a Morgaine (okay, that one's a bit expensive) or one of the various Japanese copies if I want the real thing tonally.
Personally I liked the chambered LPs, but I haven't had the pleasure of playing an unchambered one yet, so I can't really compare them. Meh whatever, like I said, Gibbos aren't the be and end all of electric guitars.
#37
For some reason, I feel all the LP's look the same...its also rather pricey.

but nice lookin

EDIT: I guess I should elaborate on the look the same.

They all seem like its the same as the one before it. electronics/etc.
BACK LIKE A HEART ATTACK
Last edited by Kai07 at Jul 17, 2008,
#38
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
The unchambered body is back. It's called the Les Paul traditional.


Some official Gibson blurb about the LP Traditional..

Gibson said:

Taking design and visual cues from the Les Pauls of the 80s and 90s, the Les Paul traditional starts with an unchambered mahogany body with traditional weight relieved holes for a beefy tone that maintains the resonance of modern Les Pauls.


So it's basically a load of crap. It's still has weight relief holes drilled into the body. Perhaps it's not as heavily weight-relieved as the chambered ones- it's still not the original spec, full density unrelieved body. It's a cop-out, and I'm not seeing what's so 'traditional' about it. In fact, didn't the Gibson Standards have these weight relieved holes up until this new 2008 model (which is completely chambered)..?
#39
Quote by Martin Scott
Some official Gibson blurb about the LP Traditional..


So it's basically a load of crap. It's still has weight relief holes drilled into the body. Perhaps it's not as heavily weight-relieved as the chambered ones- it's still not the original spec, full density unrelieved body. It's a cop-out, and I'm not seeing what's so 'traditional' about it. In fact, didn't the Gibson Standards have these weight relieved holes up until this new 2008 model (which is completely chambered)..?


Yeah but none of the standards except for the pre '60sand a couple of models were non-weight relieved. Since the standard was reissued in like the 70's, the things were weight relieved. Albeit, they've increased the holes recently.
#40
They are chambered to relieve weight. Gibson says it makes them sustain longer. I disagree. If that were true, Gibson would have stated they were chambered from the start in 2007. Only now are they starting to mention it on their website.

Anyway, I think they are chambering so they can use cheaper woods. The higher quality cuts of wood are lighter, so when you chamber the guitar, you can use inferior cuts of wood that weigh more.
Page 1 of 2