#1
hey,

this is my first post on the forum so here it goes.

I have always lusted after the Les Paul Custom and I will soon be in a position to purchase one but the more I look at artists whose sound I draw from I'm seeing more classics than Customs with a few standards here and there. so the question is what is the biggest difference between the custom and the classic besides the almost 2000 dollar price jump?
#2
The frets are hammered better, better construction, usually a better paint job, and the P-Ups are a fair bit better I'm quite sure.
#4
Quote by UltimateDud
The frets are hammered better, better construction, usually a better paint job, and the P-Ups are a fair bit better I'm quite sure.


Wrong, wrong, and.. wrong.


The Classic and Custom share the same exact quality, fret work, etc.

Differences worth noting are:

Classic: Higher output ceramic pickups, slim taper neck, greenish inlays and tuners.
Custom: Alnico pickups, double multi-ply binding, binding on headstock, block inlays, better tuners.
#5
^That.
The difference is indeed pickups, neck profile, fretboard, cosmethics, and a long neck tenon.
Hufschmid
Blackat
Washburn USA Custom Shop
PRS
Mayones
Orange
Diezel
Engl
#6
Quote by Josh Shiells
Wasn't there a rule of some kind against 'vs.' threads?

Yes, it is a bit stupid. I've seen threads been closed because a guy asks SG Vs Les Paul. I mean, I'm more than happy with closing the FENDER VS GIBSON OMG threads. But do threads like this have to be closed because they say vs? It doesn't do any harm.
Quote by IROBOTInferno
I've never been caught (beating off), but my dad was picking up my gf once and "accidentaly" grabbed her boobs.
#7
The Classic is also chambered I believe, while the Custom isnt and its quite heavy.
#8
Quote by Josh Shiells
Wasn't there a rule of some kind against 'vs.' threads?


Yes and no. Doign a thread called Gibson vs. Fender and just get people to vote isn't allowed. However this is a case of a guy buying a guitar, which it is allowed to ask help with!
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
#10
Quote by jarudy
newer ones are, not older models?


do you have any idea when they started chambering the bodies?
#11
Quote by colorprinter867
do you have any idea when they started chambering the bodies?


Very late in 2006 is when they started chambering.
#12
Actually they'ved been taking big ol' chunks out of the bodies since the late 70's. However it was a few years ago they revised their method, so they are taking out even more wood now, but claiming it effects the tone less (which is sheer bs as anyone with any degree of common sense can tell, taking out half the guitar's mass is always going to effect the tone) while increasing sustain more (again, not possible. Physics isn't Gibson's friend).
Yes, I know everything. No, I can't play worth a damn.
A child is trafficked and sold for sex slavery every 30 seconds. Support Love146.
#13
Quote by MrFlibble
Actually they'ved been taking big ol' chunks out of the bodies since the late 70's. However it was a few years ago they revised their method, so they are taking out even more wood now, but claiming it effects the tone less (which is sheer bs as anyone with any degree of common sense can tell, taking out half the guitar's mass is always going to effect the tone) while increasing sustain more (again, not possible. Physics isn't Gibson's friend).


Apparently, physics isn't yours either.

If you can use physics to explain this, I will take your word on this. So, please elaborate on why this is "not possible."

I will make the claim that the chambered body does not affect the sustain at all, or at least not a noticeable amount, and that the people at Gibson know this, otherwise they would not have done this. Does it change the sound of the guitar? It damn sure does, it changes the body's resonance, but does it noticeably limit the sustain? No, it should not if the weight chambering is methodically placed.
Last edited by al112987 at Sep 10, 2008,
#14
the Classic looks like a really sweet Les Paul (if it's the one I'm thinking of; the 1600 dollar one?). I think Alex Lifeson used it on Snakes and Arrows for some stuff; at the very least, it was the guitar he had in the Guitar World article following the album release, and in some other mags.

No offense to owners of relatively new LP customs, but if i'm droppping 3500 bucks on a guitar, I don't want it to be chambered to hell; I'd rather spend the money on a beat to hell 70s or 60s one that weights like 15lbs instead.
#16
Quote by al112987
Apparently, physics isn't yours either.

Why not...?

I was expecting your post to explain why the previous poster was wrong, but the explanation just never came. Sure, he very well may be wrong, but what's the point of posting this bold, pithy retort without anything to back yourself up?

(With that said, I do like the way your post started; I even hunched closer to my computer anticipating a scientific smackdown---but I was left disappointed.)
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
#17
Quote by FourSticks17
Why not...?

I was expecting your post to explain why the previous poster was wrong, but the explanation just never came. Sure, he very well may be wrong, but what's the point of posting this bold, pithy retort without anything to back yourself up?

(With that said, I do like the way your post started; I even hunched closer to my computer anticipating a scientific smackdown---but I was left disappointed.)


No, I want to hear why its not possible and that "everyone with common sense can see it."

There is a certain methodology to how Gibson places their chambering. I highly doubt they make such a drastic change without putting a large amount of thought into it.

I've played the new chambered les pauls, they are definitely louder and brighter sounding and I do not feel that they have any less sustain than older models.
Last edited by al112987 at Sep 10, 2008,
#18
Quote by al112987
No, I want to hear why its not possible and that "everyone with common sense can see it."

There is a certain methodology to how Gibson places their chambering. I highly doubt they make such a drastic change without putting a large amount of thought into it.

I've played the new chambered les pauls, they are definitely louder and brighter sounding and I do not feel that they have any less sustain than older models.

Yeah, I understood that from your post---I was just expressing my disappointment at not seeing the "scientific smackdown" that I expected from the first line of your last post.

With that said, I am inclined to agree with you on some level here: Despite the bullshit that Gibson throws us at (read: I HIGHLY doubt there is any way taking chunks out of the wood is actually adding sustain), I don't believe the chambering results in any significant loss of sustain. (And from personal experience--although I'm sure there are many out there with better ears--I certainly can't hear any difference.)

At any rate, no one can really blame Gibson for chambering their guitars---they're just giving consumers what they want: People have been complaining for years that the Les Paul is too heavy, and so they've given people a lighter Les Paul.

For people like myself that prefer a heavy guitar, it is a sad but certain reality that we are a minority in our preferences, and we're just going to have to live with the few options for true solid-body Les Pauls that we are given (Epi Elitist, Gibson Custom Shop, used older Les Pauls).
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
#19
The guitars are certainly more resonant and give more natural volume in which a player could perceive higher sustain, but personally, I don't see why the weight of the guitar would really matter much at all. I personally am not sure how I feel about the chambering myself, but so far, I haven't really found a downside in terms of sound. They sound much better acoustically to be honest, and have a more complex and open, airy type of sound overall.

Older les pauls (I'm talking about the late 50s holy grail les pauls) were made from lightweight mahogany and had very breathe-able, resonant and complex tone, that is simply not achievable with a 15 lbs guitar. These are certainly heavier than say strats, but I've been told from many les paul enthusiasts that the '58s/'59s they've encountered were not significantly heavier (around 10 lbs or so) than the weight chambered les pauls (around 8 lbs).
Last edited by al112987 at Sep 11, 2008,
#20
Quote by RG_FANMAN
the Classic looks like a really sweet Les Paul (if it's the one I'm thinking of; the 1600 dollar one?). I think Alex Lifeson used it on Snakes and Arrows for some stuff; at the very least, it was the guitar he had in the Guitar World article following the album release, and in some other mags.

No offense to owners of relatively new LP customs, but if i'm droppping 3500 bucks on a guitar, I don't want it to be chambered to hell; I'd rather spend the money on a beat to hell 70s or 60s one that weights like 15lbs instead.


The guitar that you are speaking of is from some "Inspired by" line. It's like the Classic Custom that they put out.


New LP Customs aren't chambered. Mine weighs about 12lbs. Gibson Custom Shop is the only place you can get non chambered LP's, anymore.
#21
/\

really? I thought the custom models were chambered.

An no, I looked at the Lifeson issue again, it's the classic, the 1800 - 2199 line of Les Pauls, specifically the vintage sunburst model (which i think is 2199 exactly).
#22
Quote by RG_FANMAN
/\

really? I thought the custom models were chambered.

An no, I looked at the Lifeson issue again, it's the classic, the 1800 - 2199 line of Les Pauls, specifically the vintage sunburst model (which i think is 2199 exactly).


Yes, really. My Custom is probably the heaviest axe I have ever had, and my buddies Custom is damn near as heavy.

Actually the only guitar I can find like the one in the Lifeson interview is the Classic Antique. Here:

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-Classic-Antique-Electric-Guitar?sku=512599

There is also the Les Paul Classic, which has the exact same headstock as a Standard.

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-Classic-Electric-Guitar?sku=512001

I distinctly remember the guitar Lifeson sported had the non Standard headstock design. The only other difference is the pickups(Classic 496r,500t--- Antique -57Classics)

Both are chambered.
#23
Quote by MAYNARD
The guitar that you are speaking of is from some "Inspired by" line. It's like the Classic Custom that they put out.


New LP Customs aren't chambered. Mine weighs about 12lbs. Gibson Custom Shop is the only place you can get non chambered LP's, anymore.
my 2004 is the same heavey about 12lbs
#24
Quote by MAYNARD
Yes, really. My Custom is probably the heaviest axe I have ever had, and my buddies Custom is damn near as heavy.

Actually the only guitar I can find like the one in the Lifeson interview is the Classic Antique. Here:

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-Classic-Antique-Electric-Guitar?sku=512599

There is also the Les Paul Classic, which has the exact same headstock as a Standard.

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-Classic-Electric-Guitar?sku=512001

I distinctly remember the guitar Lifeson sported had the non Standard headstock design. The only other difference is the pickups(Classic 496r,500t--- Antique -57Classics)

Both are chambered.


Oh cool, i didn't realize the new customs weren't chambered. I guess that's why the felt a bit sweeter to me (for some reason, I love heavy guitars).

And no, on the table of contents of the GW (may have been Guitar Player...I think it was guitar player, but either way he had the same guitar in both mag photos) Lifeson's holding a Les Paul that has Classic written on the truss rod cover.
#25
Quote by RG_FANMAN

And no, on the table of contents of the GW (may have been Guitar Player...I think it was guitar player, but either way he had the same guitar in both mag photos) Lifeson's holding a Les Paul that has Classic written on the truss rod cover.


They are close, but Lifeson's had the different design on the head stock(not Les Paul's sig, just a pearloid-ish crown sorta shape inlaid, along with headstock binding. Trust me on this one. It's not a a regular Classic.

I am looking at the picture, as I type. If it's a Les Paul Classic, then he had the neck replaced, or the headstock modified.

I am also 99% sure it's a production guitar and not a custom order, but I cant find the same guitar with the same finish.
Last edited by MAYNARD at Sep 11, 2008,