How close is an R9 to a real '59?

Danielsguitars

I get to play some of the best vintage examples from a great collection that a very nice man has,  I've compared a couple of my hand made ones against his 58 burst and there was a difference but not enough for me to want the 58, he has a lovely 54 that I'd have taken home but I'll be back to compare again when I've got one done with original pups and caps just to compare 

He even had his friend who owned a well known 60 burst for years play mine and he agreed they're close enough

It is very nice when someone who has these vintage guitars like my hand made stuff and said they're very close, even phil harris played mine too
If it's well made and with good wood it'll get very close for most imo, if you've got the money to buy vintage that's great but most people haven't so will commission a handmade guitar, just my opinion anyway 

merlin

peteri said:

The difference is they're all the same 

There, corrected that for you....!



Just kidding. 

designerseye88

customkits said:

I get to play some of the best vintage examples from a great collection that a very nice man has,  I've compared a couple of my hand made ones against his 58 burst and there was a difference but not enough for me to want the 58, he has a lovely 54 that I'd have taken home but I'll be back to compare again when I've got one done with original pups and caps just to compare 

He even had his friend who owned a well known 60 burst for years play mine and he agreed they're close enough

It is very nice when someone who has these vintage guitars like my hand made stuff and said they're very close, even phil harris played mine too
If it's well made and with good wood it'll get very close for most imo, if you've got the money to buy vintage that's great but most people haven't so will commission a handmade guitar, just my opinion anyway 

I'd much rather commission a UK builder than buy from Gibson

Danielsguitars

merlin said:

peteri said:

The difference is they're all the same 

There, corrected that for you....!



Just kidding. 

lol 

TA22GT

I'm absolutely sure that not every 59 had that magic dust and neither is every R9 a pale comparison.

It boils down to each individual instrument. One of the things Gibson never get right is that the 50's all had tapered thickness headstock.

In the pick below of my replica you can see how the headstock tapers from the low E string to the G string. All the Bursts listed in BOB are the same. I actually feel it adds a bit of zing but we won't go there!!

koss59

Hmm, both my historics ( Les Paul and 335 ) have the tapered headstock so I’m pretty sure all Gibsons will have that.

TA22GT

koss59 said:

Hmm, both my historics ( Les Paul and 335 ) have the tapered headstock so I’m pretty sure all Gibsons will have that.

Wow. Surprised to hear that because those I have played didn't seem to or maybe had very little. Glad yours have!

Edit: does this apply to certain years of the R9? I can't keep up with the various versions.

Danielsguitars

well the 55 custom i looked at didn't really have a taper not like the 58 and 54 I've seen, not sure why either 

koss59

Well my R7 is from 2005 and Nashville 59 Es is 2008 so I presumed they always did it and it was just a result of how they finished the headstock off.

Danielsguitars

The biggest bug for me on reissues is they don't use the original fret scale and don't angle the tailpiece so it just looks wrong to me

TA22GT

koss59 said:

Well my R7 is from 2005 and Nashville 59 Es is 2008 so I presumed they always did it and it was just a result of how they finished the headstock off.

I'm very happy to be corrected mate!

sunshinewelly

I bought one a couple of years ago after thinking that now that i could afford one i should get one. To be honest it felt exactly like my les paul signature T Gibson and sounded worse than my prs custom 24 so i sold it. I dont know if its just me but i did go through a stage of deciding i must own not just a standard les paul or a basic american strat but had to have a R9 and a masterbuilt strat. glad i am now over that as both the r9 and the masterbuilt strat have been sold. I have retained my strat plus (i much nicer guitar than the masterbuilt fender) and i have 2 les pauls - a signature T and a slash gibson rossa corsa - which were both nicer to play than my R9.

Jonathanthomas83

sunshinewelly said:

I bought one a couple of years ago after thinking that now that i could afford one i should get one. To be honest it felt exactly like my les paul signature T Gibson and sounded worse than my prs custom 24 so i sold it. I dont know if its just me but i did go through a stage of deciding i must own not just a standard les paul or a basic american strat but had to have a R9 and a masterbuilt strat. glad i am now over that as both the r9 and the masterbuilt strat have been sold. I have retained my strat plus (i much nicer guitar than the masterbuilt fender) and i have 2 les pauls - a signature T and a slash gibson rossa corsa - which were both nicer to play than my R9.

That is definitely worth knowing. Good bit of advice based on some experience.

crunchman

I think someone said it above, but you can get good guitars and not so good guitars at any price point.

I've got more experience of Fenders at different price points than Les Pauls, but sometimes you can find a Mexican one that is great.  I've played Mexican ones that I would prefer to all but a handful of US guitars that I've played.

Having said that, I'd have to say that the best sounding electric I've ever played was a 50's Tele.  The neck had been drastically shaved down, so it put the lie to the huge necks sound best generalisation that is out there as well, but it did sound absolutely huge.  It was a refinish as well, so probably not down to some magic in 50's nitro.  That's the only 50's guitar I've personally played though.  I think that some of it is old wood, but there is more to it than that.  I've played a couple of 69 (year of birth) Teles, but they were hugely underwhelming.

I'm not sure there is any one factor that makes a great guitar a great guitar - although I've never found one that sounds great plugged in that didn't sound good unplugged, so it's wood and construction more than pickups for me.  Good pickups are the icing on the cake.  If the underlying cake is horrible, it's wasted.

I've seen enough people say that they have played Bursts, or pre-CBS Fenders, that weren't great, to come to the conclusion that some were better than others (like modern guitars).  I suspect the extra bit that the good old ones have is down to the way the wood has aged.

Ossyrocks

I’ve played six ‘58-‘60 Les Pauls, but only four of them into a decent amp at volume. All four were quite different and had their own character. The Mick Ralph’s 58 had a haunting neck pickup tone that I have never been able to recreate on any other guitar. The 59 was Carmelita, and was my favourite for all round tone and playability, simply fabulous, and again I have never been able to get that tone from any Gibson reissue. The ‘60 was the curveball, very funky, like the whole voice of the instrument was shifted up from the others, but immensely enjoyable.

I have had numerous Gibson historics before and since and I would say none came close enough. Like the difference between CD’s and vinyl on my system. Same album, same system, but the vinyl will take it every time.

The nearest I have come in ownership is my TM replica, which to me gets me in the ballpark and is streets ahead of a Gibson Historic. With my eyes closed in a blind hearing and playing test, I’m sure I would struggle to tell the replica. That could not be said of any of the reissues I have played. 

Rob

fretfinder

Ossyrocks said: The nearest I have come in ownership is my TM replica, which to me gets me in the ballpark and is streets ahead of a Gibson Historic. With my eyes closed in a blind hearing and playing test, I’m sure I would struggle to tell the replica. That could not be said of any of the reissues I have played. 

I’ve owned two Terry Morgan replicas, both very nice guitars - with the ageing, the neck shapes and the top dishing being the standout features for me. But neither of them was a patch on my 2005 R9 as a player, or in the feel and the sound/tone. And yet each of the TMs was ‘worth’ more than twice as much as the R9. I’m sure there are some replicas out there that are indeed streets ahead of an average Historic, but I’m not sure a general rule applies. A really good Historic is hard to beat in my experience, and ‘good value’ compared to some replicas.

springhead

TA22GT said:

I'm absolutely sure that not every 59 had that magic dust and neither is every R9 a pale comparison.

It boils down to each individual instrument. One of the things Gibson never get right is that the 50's all had tapered thickness headstock.

In the pick below of my replica you can see how the headstock tapers from the low E string to the G string. All the Bursts listed in BOB are the same. I actually feel it adds a bit of zing but we won't go there!!

I'd never noticed this so it got me wondering.  I've got three different model Gibsons, from 1960, 1984 and 2016.  Having just found a ruler, all three of them have headstocks that taper as shown above.  1.5, maybe 2mm from neck to logo end.  The '84 (a 335) and 2016 (a LP) are both Nashville, USA models, not CS.  So are there some Gibson guitars that don't taper?

impmann

Whenever these debates rage we get folks whittering about them sounding like classic rock recordings. If that's your bag, then great. Down the rabbit hole you go...

For the rest of us, who don't want to sound like Clapped-Out, Page, Kossoff or any of these other guys its all a little bit moot.

Steve Lukather played the solo to Roseanna on a late 50s Burst Les Paul. Depending on who you believe, it may have had EMGs in it. I think I read he still has it, but rarely plays it... preferring a more modern guitar. When you hear him play that solo now on his Musicman Luke, does he sound the same? Of course he does.

As for my credentials for contributing to this conversation - well, I've played the infamous Greenie and my feelings toward it are almost identical to @guitars4you . I wanted to love it but truly couldn't. I genuinely don't think its a great guitar - its been played by some great players on some great recordings. To paraphrase Chet Atkins - if you put it down, how does it sound now?  Kirk Hamster still sounds like Kirk Hamster when he plays it...

There are other examples of me playing, repairing and selling vintage Gibson guitars - but this isn't a penis waving competition.

Fact is, I've worked in the volume guitar production industry - you get good and bad in every batch. Sometimes you get a stand out guitar - it could be made from the same wood stock as the rest but it sounds somehow 'better'. But then I've had others pick up the same instrument and not have the same opinion of it. That's life and always has been the case - anyone that tells you otherwise is talking from their backside.

Are the materials "inferior" now? Depends on your point of view. The rosewood issue has now come to a head - but frankly, even these "golden eared" folk couldn't hear the difference between the different types in a studio environment. The older braz stuff may be darker in colour, but the actual tonal change is microscopic if there is any (my opinion is I'm less than convinced that there is *any* difference).

The mahogany we now have isn't as light/well aged - does it make a difference to the sound? Maybe, but does it 'bad'? No it doesn't - and anyone that's telling you otherwise is trying to sell something.
Maple is maple - the tops on the classic LPs were supposedly really important to the sound, but much is made about the 'hog when it comes to discussions like this and nothing about the maple. There's a reason for that, IMHO...

Pickups/electronics - if you are insane like Joe B, you may believe that the pots are the main contributing factor. I think we can file that under the same baloney that goes with gold plated mains plugs for hi-fi equipment. As for pickups - as @TheGuitarWeasel says the variables there are endless because the specs/work processes were 'fluid' at best. That said, a lot of Gibson humbuckers are pretty ropey sounding IMHO today.

 Terms like "mojo" are used - which is much like believing in fairies. Carry on if you do, I won't tell you not to. Some seem to genuinely believe that there is magic in old guitars that make you play better. That, my friends could be dried out and you could fertilise a lawn.

I'm not going to tell anyone NOT to buy a vintage guitar or lust after one - good luck to you. But I get quite cross when I read opinion dressed up as fact when it comes to them. There is no such thing as magic, so stop using that term. Not *ALL* sound "better" and define "better". One person's better is another person's 'different'.

To address the OP's original question - both guitars are made of similar woods, to a similar design. So they sound similar. They both sound like Les Paul style electric guitars. Do they sound different enough to warrant the price difference? Only you can decide - but my opinion is that a lot written about late 50s Gibsons is fairy dust, flannel, marketing, and blanket sweeping statements. I'm sure there are great ones, and I have no doubt that the guitars mentioned above (with the exception of the Greenie Les Paul) are superb, inspirational guitars. But equally, I've played some superb, inspirational guitars that were made last year.

TA22GT

impmann said:

Whenever these debates rage we get folks whittering about them sounding like classic rock recordings. If that's your bag, then great. Down the rabbit hole you go...

For the rest of us, who don't want to sound like Clapped-Out, Page, Kossoff or any of these other guys its all a little bit moot.

Steve Lukather played the solo to Roseanna on a late 50s Burst Les Paul. Depending on who you believe, it may have had EMGs in it. I think I read he still has it, but rarely plays it... preferring a more modern guitar. When you hear him play that solo now on his Musicman Luke, does he sound the same? Of course he does.

As for my credentials for contributing to this conversation - well, I've played the infamous Greenie and my feelings toward it are almost identical to @guitars4you . I wanted to love it but truly couldn't. I genuinely don't think its a great guitar - its been played by some great players on some great recordings. To paraphrase Chet Atkins - if you put it down, how does it sound now?  Kirk Hamster still sounds like Kirk Hamster when he plays it...

There are other examples of me playing, repairing and selling vintage Gibson guitars - but this isn't a penis waving competition.

Fact is, I've worked in the volume guitar production industry - you get good and bad in every batch. Sometimes you get a stand out guitar - it could be made from the same wood stock as the rest but it sounds somehow 'better'. But then I've had others pick up the same instrument and not have the same opinion of it. That's life and always has been the case - anyone that tells you otherwise is talking from their backside.

Are the materials "inferior" now? Depends on your point of view. The rosewood issue has now come to a head - but frankly, even these "golden eared" folk couldn't hear the difference between the different types in a studio environment. The older braz stuff may be darker in colour, but the actual tonal change is microscopic if there is any (my opinion is I'm less than convinced that there is *any* difference).

The mahogany we now have isn't as light/well aged - does it make a difference to the sound? Maybe, but does it 'bad'? No it doesn't - and anyone that's telling you otherwise is trying to sell something.
Maple is maple - the tops on the classic LPs were supposedly really important to the sound, but much is made about the 'hog when it comes to discussions like this and nothing about the maple. There's a reason for that, IMHO...

Pickups/electronics - if you are insane like Joe B, you may believe that the pots are the main contributing factor. I think we can file that under the same baloney that goes with gold plated mains plugs for hi-fi equipment. As for pickups - as @TheGuitarWeasel says the variables there are endless because the specs/work processes were 'fluid' at best. That said, a lot of Gibson humbuckers are pretty ropey sounding IMHO today.

 Terms like "mojo" are used - which is much like believing in fairies. Carry on if you do, I won't tell you not to. Some seem to genuinely believe that there is magic in old guitars that make you play better. That, my friends could be dried out and you could fertilise a lawn.

I'm not going to tell anyone NOT to buy a vintage guitar or lust after one - good luck to you. But I get quite cross when I read opinion dressed up as fact when it comes to them. There is no such thing as magic, so stop using that term. Not *ALL* sound "better" and define "better". One person's better is another person's 'different'.

To address the OP's original question - both guitars are made of similar woods, to a similar design. So they sound similar. They both sound like Les Paul style electric guitars. Do they sound different enough to warrant the price difference? Only you can decide - but my opinion is that a lot written about late 50s Gibsons is fairy dust, flannel, marketing, and blanket sweeping statements. I'm sure there are great ones, and I have no doubt that the guitars mentioned above (with the exception of the Greenie Les Paul) are superb, inspirational guitars. But equally, I've played some superb, inspirational guitars that were made last year.

Awrsome.

meltedbuzzbox

impmann said:

Whenever these debates rage we get folks whittering about them sounding like classic rock recordings. If that's your bag, then great. Down the rabbit hole you go...

For the rest of us, who don't want to sound like Clapped-Out, Page, Kossoff or any of these other guys its all a little bit moot.

Steve Lukather played the solo to Roseanna on a late 50s Burst Les Paul. Depending on who you believe, it may have had EMGs in it. I think I read he still has it, but rarely plays it... preferring a more modern guitar. When you hear him play that solo now on his Musicman Luke, does he sound the same? Of course he does.

As for my credentials for contributing to this conversation - well, I've played the infamous Greenie and my feelings toward it are almost identical to @guitars4you . I wanted to love it but truly couldn't. I genuinely don't think its a great guitar - its been played by some great players on some great recordings. To paraphrase Chet Atkins - if you put it down, how does it sound now?  Kirk Hamster still sounds like Kirk Hamster when he plays it...

There are other examples of me playing, repairing and selling vintage Gibson guitars - but this isn't a penis waving competition.

Fact is, I've worked in the volume guitar production industry - you get good and bad in every batch. Sometimes you get a stand out guitar - it could be made from the same wood stock as the rest but it sounds somehow 'better'. But then I've had others pick up the same instrument and not have the same opinion of it. That's life and always has been the case - anyone that tells you otherwise is talking from their backside.

Are the materials "inferior" now? Depends on your point of view. The rosewood issue has now come to a head - but frankly, even these "golden eared" folk couldn't hear the difference between the different types in a studio environment. The older braz stuff may be darker in colour, but the actual tonal change is microscopic if there is any (my opinion is I'm less than convinced that there is *any* difference).

The mahogany we now have isn't as light/well aged - does it make a difference to the sound? Maybe, but does it 'bad'? No it doesn't - and anyone that's telling you otherwise is trying to sell something.
Maple is maple - the tops on the classic LPs were supposedly really important to the sound, but much is made about the 'hog when it comes to discussions like this and nothing about the maple. There's a reason for that, IMHO...

Pickups/electronics - if you are insane like Joe B, you may believe that the pots are the main contributing factor. I think we can file that under the same baloney that goes with gold plated mains plugs for hi-fi equipment. As for pickups - as @TheGuitarWeasel says the variables there are endless because the specs/work processes were 'fluid' at best. That said, a lot of Gibson humbuckers are pretty ropey sounding IMHO today.

 Terms like "mojo" are used - which is much like believing in fairies. Carry on if you do, I won't tell you not to. Some seem to genuinely believe that there is magic in old guitars that make you play better. That, my friends could be dried out and you could fertilise a lawn.

I'm not going to tell anyone NOT to buy a vintage guitar or lust after one - good luck to you. But I get quite cross when I read opinion dressed up as fact when it comes to them. There is no such thing as magic, so stop using that term. Not *ALL* sound "better" and define "better". One person's better is another person's 'different'.

To address the OP's original question - both guitars are made of similar woods, to a similar design. So they sound similar. They both sound like Les Paul style electric guitars. Do they sound different enough to warrant the price difference? Only you can decide - but my opinion is that a lot written about late 50s Gibsons is fairy dust, flannel, marketing, and blanket sweeping statements. I'm sure there are great ones, and I have no doubt that the guitars mentioned above (with the exception of the Greenie Les Paul) are superb, inspirational guitars. But equally, I've played some superb, inspirational guitars that were made last year.

smashed it