why are new les pauls lighter than old ones

brainfur · Post by **brainfur** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:30 pm

i could probably learn this by searching but my firend has a 79-ish les paul that weighs like 24lbs but none that i've picked up in a store have been this heavy... did they start hollowing them out or am I just crazy?

anyway fuck a les paul but i'm curious if they've changed woods or something

sunshiner · Post by **sunshiner** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:52 pm

brainfur · Post by **brainfur** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:05 pm

well, ok then

Concretebadger · Post by **Concretebadger** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:45 pm

Whut

I knew they were bad for chambering, but didn't realise *how* bad. I'm DEFINITELY getting an ES-339 instead of an LP now. Blimey.

Fakir Mustache · Post by **Fakir Mustache** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:50 pm

They certainly chamber a lot of them, but it's also the wood. African or Asian mahogany is lighter than the Latin American wood they used to use. Plus some models don't even have a maple cap, like the Studio.

But they've been hollowing them out since the 1990s.

timhulio · Post by **timhulio** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:33 pm

Yeah, but they still sound good. I played a recent LP traditional, and it was nice and light and sounded excellent. It's not it was suddenly neck-heavy or anything.

theshadowofseattle · Post by **theshadowofseattle** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:13 pm

Concretebadger wrote:Whut

I knew they were bad for chambering, but didn't realise *how* bad. I'm DEFINITELY getting an ES-339 instead of an LP now. Blimey.

lol wat

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:18 pm

Fakir Mustache wrote:They certainly chamber a lot of them, but it's also the wood. African or Asian mahogany is lighter than the Latin American wood they used to use. Plus some models don't even have a maple cap, like the Studio.

But they've been hollowing them out since the 1990s.

This.
There is mahogany and then there is mahogany. Heavier doesn't necessarily mean better either, some of the old MIJ mahogany guitars are quite light and they arguably sound as good (if not better) as anything made before or after them.

singlepup · Post by **singlepup** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:53 pm

I had 2003 Standard... It was heavy but not ridiculously so. By no means as heavy as the late 70s variety.

However, in 2008 they changed the relief, shifting toward lighter LPs I believe. They also changed the naming scheme at this time (enter the LP Traditional) and might have changed the pups too.

Concretebadger · Post by **Concretebadger** » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:57 pm

theshadowofseattle wrote:
Concretebadger wrote:Whut

I knew they were bad for chambering, but didn't realise *how* bad. I'm DEFINITELY getting an ES-339 instead of an LP now. Blimey.
lol wat

A facetious allusion to the fact that if there's so much empty space inside the body, it might as well be a semi-hollow. Guess I fail at humour or something.

Joking aside, I'm GAS-ing for a 339 because the body size is smaller than most Gibbie/Epi archtops.

sunshiner · Post by **sunshiner** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am

ES-339 looks sweet

Fakir Mustache · Post by **Fakir Mustache** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:29 am

if it didn't have the Mickey Mouse ears, it would look like a real lollipop.

Gabriel · Post by **Gabriel** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:36 am

The 339 is a really cool guitar. There's a guy that does a few jazz-rock type gigs around here that plays one and he gets a great sound.

sunshiner · Post by **sunshiner** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:35 pm

Did you see this ES 339 Pro Limited Edition with soapbars ebay

There is no information on the official web site, but there are a few of them at different sellers on ebay

George · Post by **George** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:39 pm

i think the chambering is a fine idea. they're hard work lugging around for long periods of time

ive got an epi 339 for sale coming up as it happens - the one with grovers, black metallic paint and sparkly binding. just don't think i like dual humbucking guitars

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:22 pm

Chambering creates a really nice sound, IMO. Anyway, not all LPs are weight relieved, even in the modern age. And IIRC there's no consistency; it's not like some models are weight relieved and some aren't. Should be pretty obvious when you pick one up whether it is or isn't. BTW, many LP Studios have a maple cap and some are chambered.

As an aside, Gibson 339s are awesome but I wouldn't own an Epiphone model. The quality just isn't there. It looks, feels, and sounds more like a $200-$250 guitar. Something like a Turser or one of those fake Gibsons you see coming out of China. Personally I feel that ALL of Epiphone's regular semi-hollows have gone downhill since moving production to China. They just don't inspire me at all.

singlepup · Post by **singlepup** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 1:00 am

George wrote:i think the chambering is a fine idea. they're hard work lugging around for long periods of time

Dillon wrote:Chambering creates a really nice sound, IMO.

+1 to all of this

paul_ · Post by **paul_** » Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:08 am

Dillon wrote:Anyway, not all LPs are weight relieved, even in the modern age.

Actually all 1982-2007 production model Gibson Les Pauls had what's described as "traditional weight relief" in that pic, most people call it "swiss cheese". Swiss cheese doesn't really make the guitar sound or feel different to an old solidbody and barely provides any weight relief at all. They started chambering them in 2007, coming up with the modern weight relief/Traditional model to appease people somewhat recently. The LP Traditional has swiss cheese holes and 2012-onwards Les Paul Standards have the modern weight relief pattern to meet complainers halfway.

Pretty much everyone who's played a heavily-chambered LP says the only differences are more brightness/volume/sustain and (not to state the obvious) a lighter weight, which are all things people like in Les Pauls... it's just that Jimmy Page's wasn't like that, so they must be on crack/spending the cut-cost associated with throwing small bits of wood away on crack.