2012 Gibson R series guitars with one-piece fingerboard...?

fretfinder

A guy on eBay selling a 2012 R9 reckons his has a one-piece board because it's got the black certificate book. He claims that the black books were only used in the first quarter of 2012 when Gibson used one-piece boards and that after that they changed to the brown books and laminated boards. Sounds like wishful thinking to me but does anyone know if there's any truth in that? Cheers.

Brize

It's plausible - I think it's well established that early 2012 guitars had one-piece boards. I wasn't aware that they changed to the brown books part-way through the year, though. If the two-piece board issue is a concern, you'd want a picture of the end of the board with the nut knocked off.

For what it's worth, I own a 2012 R8 with what I assume to be a two-piece board (I've never bothered checking) and it's the best sounding Les Paul I've ever owned.

fretfinder

Thanks for that. My concern about the laminated boards is that if the fret tang goes deeper than the top layer you've effectively got a 24 piece board!

Philly_Q

Interesting discussion, I hadn't heard the "brown book" story before!

It happens that I have two 2012 Les Pauls, a "black case/book" R4 and a "brown case/book" CR8.  Both have low serial numbers suggesting they were made in early 2012 (depending, of course, how many were made in 2012).  I got the R4 before I'd heard about the laminated boards so I emailed Gibson about it, this is what they said:

"From the serial number we unfortunately cannot tell you for sure if the your R4 has a solid or a bi layered Rosewood fingerboard. The serial number 4 20XX proper conveys [that]...... apparently the guitar was made more towards the beginning of the year, meaning it was fabricated in a period of transition from one specification to another. By February 2012 all Custom Shop guitars had a layered fingerboard. It might be that your guitar still had a solid fingerboard, however, we do not have records how many Reissue guitars were made in January, so we cannot be sure."

 

Bogwhoppit

There is no conclusive evidence that Gibson had a had a first in, first use stock policy, or any workforce that abided by it. 2012 appears to be the year when you could say with some certainty that Gibson's used a laminated board. However, my 'made in 2012' Gibson (date stamped 2013 model) didn't ?

Gibson and consistency don't sit comfortably with each other, so I doubt matching a one piece board with a coloured certificate book is plausible.

 

Philly_Q

Yes, their records don't seem to be particularly detailed.  It seems to be accepted that as soon as 2012 was over they were immediately back to one-piece boards, but if I had an early 2013 Custom Shop guitar I would have some lingering doubts. 

Bogwhoppit

Philly_Q said:

It seems to be accepted that as soon as 2012 was over they were immediately back to one-piece boards,

 

I've recently seen a 2014 Les Paul with a two piece board, demonstrating that old stock is still being used. There are also plenty of examples from late 2013 (Nov and Dec build numbers) with laminated fingerboards.  Unless you take the nut of your recently acquired Gibson, you'll never know.

underdog

Bogwhoppit;318332" said:

Philly_Q said:
  Unless you take the nut of your recently acquired Gibson, you'll never know.

Which surely begs the question, so why worry about it at all

p90fool

fretfinder;318309" said:

Thanks for that. My concern about the laminated boards is that if the fret tang goes deeper than the top layer you've effectively got a 24 piece board!

Rather like a lot of pre-CBS Fenders.
Don't worry about it, that glue is really not going to spontaneously fall off.

Philly_Q

Bogwhoppit said:

I've recently seen a 2014 Les Paul with a two piece board, demonstrating that old stock is still being used. There are also plenty of examples from late 2013 (Nov and Dec build numbers) with laminated fingerboards.  Unless you take the nut of your recently acquired Gibson, you'll never know.

Presumably this means there are significant numbers of people actually taking the nut (or maybe the end binding) off their LPs just to check if they have bi-layered boards.

I know it's not major surgery, but it's not something I'd want to do unless the nut actually needed replacing.  :-S

As pointed out above, it's not much different from a round-lam '60s Fender.  And it's basically only a bit more glue.  All Gibsons are held together with glue.

jeztone2

Bogwhoppit;318323" said:

Gibson and consistency don't sit comfortably with each other

 

This is why my next Les Paul will be a Feline Lion

Bogwhoppit

Philly_Q said:

Presumably this means there are significant numbers of people actually taking the nut (or maybe the end binding) off their LPs just to check if they have bi-layered boards.

I did with mine because I wanted a laminated fingerboard for extra stability ( it was going to be kept in an unfriendly environment), except mine was one piece. My friend removed the nut from his newly acquired 2014 Les Paul Standard out of curiosity and was really hacked off to find a laminated board lol.

Don't worry, no guitars were harmed during the process,  my friend is a master cabinet maker. We were kind and loving towards the little Gibson rascals. No one would even know they were de-nutted.

 

Skipped

The only reason it matters is that 2012 Historics are cheaper than other years and probably always will be. Something you will surely keep in mind unless you are 100% certain you are buying a "keeper".
You may have noticed that ebay sellers will use any form of words to avoid identifying their guitar as a 2012 model. For example - saying it was purchased brand new "last year".

I would buy a 2012 Historic if it was a great player. But 2012 guitars for sale at 2013 prices seem destined to be a frustrating experience for the seller. I feel a little bit of sympathy for the guy on Gumtree/ebay who is wanting more for his 2012 Aged R8 than Sounds Great are asking for a brand new (old stock) identical guitar.

richardhomer

p90fool;318388" said:

[quote="fretfinder;318309"]Thanks for that. My concern about the laminated boards is that if the fret tang goes deeper than the top layer you've effectively got a 24 piece board!

Rather like a lot of pre-CBS Fenders.
Don't worry about it, that glue is really not going to spontaneously fall off. [/quote]
In the interests of pure pedantry, it would be 23 pieces on a 22 fret fingerboard and 22 on pre-CBS Fender....

ICBM

richardhomer said:

In the interests of pure pedantry, it would be 23 pieces on a 22 fret fingerboard

It is a 24-piece board - 23 small pieces and one large one, because there is still the underlayer . (I'll give you the Fender one in the interests of even purer pedantry .)

In practice the fret slots aren't going to be deep enough in the middle of the board to cut right through the top layer. (Also different from the Fenders, which being round-lam, ie "veneered", are indeed thin enough to be cut completely by the fret slots.)

I don't really like it on the Gibsons either, just because it's "not right" on a guitar which is supposed to be built just like they were in the 50s - but I can't see that it's going to make any practical difference to the stability or tone. It's certainly less of a problem than a poorly-fitted neck joint. It wouldn't stop me buying a guitar if I liked the rest of it.

Van_Hayden

To be honest the best thing you can do to an R series is take the nut off and bin it. Nylon crap "authentic" cheap nasty nonsense.

Check the board and then fit a decent one.

Forge

Gibson are particularly inconsistent in specs. The only consistent thing is how they claim each newly released R version gets closer to the originals. I would not worry about the 2 piece fingerboard but they will irk the LP snobs and therefore mildly impact on the resale value. For the story on specs the 2001 R6 I am currently restoring appears to have what looks like a braz board (when compared to a braz neck) but officially there were only a few legal braz boards in 2002/2003....not that Gibson has ever been know to use illegal woods in the past...cough...

Philly_Q

Skipped said:

The only reason it matters is that 2012 Historics are cheaper than other years and probably always will be. Something you will surely keep in mind unless you are 100% certain you are buying a "keeper".
You may have noticed that ebay sellers will use any form of words to avoid identifying their guitar as a 2012 model. For example - saying it was purchased brand new "last year".

I would buy a 2012 Historic if it was a great player. But 2012 guitars for sale at 2013 prices seem destined to be a frustrating experience for the seller. I feel a little bit of sympathy for the guy on Gumtree/ebay who is wanting more for his 2012 Aged R8 than Sounds Great are asking for a brand new (old stock) identical guitar.

That's a good point.  I had been vaguely thinking about selling my R4 but I'd probably get rubbish money for it.

Had I known about the bi-layered fingerboard thing before I bought it, I would have hesitated.  I really doubt that it has any detrimental effect on the tone or longevity of the guitar, but Gibson were really, really stupid to think that it wouldn't piss people off.

Still, to come back to the start of this thread, it does have a black case and black wallet for the CoA, so maybe I can use that as a selling point.