New Gibson , well this looks great!

fields5069

On the plus side, the rosewood fingerboard on The Paul gives smooth feel and smooth tonality.

guitars4you

Bigsby said:

The only thing I don't like is the price. Just two years ago I picked up a new SG Standard HP for £949. I guess the Brexit vote hasn't helped, but that's a lot more guitar for significantly less money. IIRC the typical retail was about the same as these.

Brexit itself is not the reason for higher prices - Prices have gone north on the EU mainland as well - Main influences on prices changes are Gibson's factory price, coupled with exchange rates

chrisj1602

I think the price is fine.  As much as I preferred it when a new R8 was £1,899, they're not anymore.  If a LP Standard is £2,799, and a Mexican Fender can cost over £1,000 then this seems well priced to me.

Philly_Q

hotpickups said:

fandango said:

Never mind the SG Special, it’s The Paul 40th Anniversary in walnut that does for me:

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2019/USA/The-Paul-40th-Anniversary-2019.aspx

Now that is nice

Bloody hell, I wish I hadn't looked!

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

earwighoney

Philly_Q said:

Bloody hell, I wish I hadn't looked!

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

Yeah they look superb.  Probably the most GAS I've had for a Gibson LP for a while but I'd be a bit wary of an all solid Walnut body guitar as they are very likely to be a very body. 

TTBZ

I'm already starting to think about trading in my Standard for one of these bad boys..

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

impmann

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

Mine had DiMarzios.

Still sounded huge. It could do nice cleans though... original pickups were a bit bark-y for that. Btw I didn’t change them but I know the guy who did and he still has the original pickups... now in an Explorer. Crushing gainz toanz \m/

Philly_Q

I didn't realise what pickups were in the originals, but I was looking at the picture of the reissue thinking hmmm, that looks like it should have Dirty Fingers.....! 

guitars4you

impmann said:

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

Mine had DiMarzios.

Still sounded huge. It could do nice cleans though... original pickups were a bit bark-y for that. Btw I didn’t change them but I know the guy who did and he still has the original pickups... now in an Explorer. Crushing gainz toanz \m/

were the originals the early days of Dirty Fingers or did some still have T Tops - ie transition era ?

DeeTee

guitars4you said:

impmann said:

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

Mine had DiMarzios.

Still sounded huge. It could do nice cleans though... original pickups were a bit bark-y for that. Btw I didn’t change them but I know the guy who did and he still has the original pickups... now in an Explorer. Crushing gainz toanz \m/

were the originals the early days of Dirty Fingers or did some still have T Tops - ie transition era ?

I've read a lot of things saying they were T Tops, and a few saying Dirty Fingers. I've been looking up The Paul recently, because I was born in 79 and I'm thinking that I might try and get one as a "year of birth" guitar. I've not been able to get my hands on one yet though, so as is often the case, I think ICBM is more likely to know.

ICBM

I haven't personally seen an original one without Dirty Fingers, but that doesn't mean they didn't make other versions - that's a small sample, not more than half a dozen or so.

Personally I love the clean sound of them, it's almost like a more powerful Rickenbacker High-Gain sound - very middy and slightly compressed.

The really big problem with the originals is that they can suffer from body and neck seam separation, which is very hard to fix.

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

The really big problem with the originals is that they can suffer from body and neck seam separation, which is very hard to fix.

Because of the walnut?

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

Because of the walnut?

Not sure, but I assume so. It might be a wood that doesn't take glue very well, although WezV will know more about that than I do. About half the ones I've seen have had at least some separation though.

The problem is that to fix it means working glue into the crack, which is very narrow - unless you want to take the whole thing apart and re-do it.

impmann

DeeTee said:

guitars4you said:

impmann said:

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

Mine had DiMarzios.

Still sounded huge. It could do nice cleans though... original pickups were a bit bark-y for that. Btw I didn’t change them but I know the guy who did and he still has the original pickups... now in an Explorer. Crushing gainz toanz \m/

were the originals the early days of Dirty Fingers or did some still have T Tops - ie transition era ?

I've read a lot of things saying they were T Tops, and a few saying Dirty Fingers. I've been looking up The Paul recently, because I was born in 79 and I'm thinking that I might try and get one as a "year of birth" guitar. I've not been able to get my hands on one yet though, so as is often the case, I think ICBM is more likely to know.

I’ve seen them with both.

My old one had Dirty Fingers... not my sound at all.

I know someone with a Firebrand (same thing as a The Paul but with fake ageing) and that’s fitted with low wind humbuckers - it sounds gorgeous 

DeeTee

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

Because of the walnut?

Not sure, but I assume so. It might be a wood that doesn't take glue very well, although WezV will know more about that than I do. About half the ones I've seen have had at least some separation though.

The problem is that to fix it means working glue into the crack, which is very narrow - unless you want to take the whole thing apart and re-do it.

About half? Damn. Thank you for the tip. As I might be scouting around for one, what should I be looking for, especially if I'm just going from pictures on a Reverb ad?

ICBM

DeeTee said:

About half? Damn. Thank you for the tip. As I might be scouting around for one, what should I be looking for, especially if I'm just going from pictures on a Reverb ad?

It can be hard to see in pictures, unless they're very close-up or high-resolution.

Phil_aka_Pip

Bring back the 175!

guitars4you

impmann said:

DeeTee said:

guitars4you said:

impmann said:

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I really like that, although I agree there was nothing particularly amazing about the originals.  I suspect you'd have to be lucky to find one which (a) looked nice and (b) wasn't too heavy.

I never liked the look of the originals and they were certainly heavy, but the combination of the walnut body, ebony fingerboard and Dirty Fingers pickups gave them a massive ringing tone that was quite unique. Not at all what you want if you think a Les Paul must sound like a 50s Standard, but a great sound. Sadly they've missed two of the three vital elements, although the pickups could be replaced.

Mine had DiMarzios.

Still sounded huge. It could do nice cleans though... original pickups were a bit bark-y for that. Btw I didn’t change them but I know the guy who did and he still has the original pickups... now in an Explorer. Crushing gainz toanz \m/

were the originals the early days of Dirty Fingers or did some still have T Tops - ie transition era ?

I've read a lot of things saying they were T Tops, and a few saying Dirty Fingers. I've been looking up The Paul recently, because I was born in 79 and I'm thinking that I might try and get one as a "year of birth" guitar. I've not been able to get my hands on one yet though, so as is often the case, I think ICBM is more likely to know.

I’ve seen them with both.

My old one had Dirty Fingers... not my sound at all.

I know someone with a Firebrand (same thing as a The Paul but with fake ageing) and that’s fitted with low wind humbuckers - it sounds gorgeous 

I dare say typical of any transition model/era and factories using up old stock before new parts are used etc 

WezV

DeeTee said:

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

Because of the walnut?

Not sure, but I assume so. It might be a wood that doesn't take glue very well, although WezV will know more about that than I do. About half the ones I've seen have had at least some separation though.

The problem is that to fix it means working glue into the crack, which is very narrow - unless you want to take the whole thing apart and re-do it.

About half? Damn. Thank you for the tip. As I might be scouting around for one, what should I be looking for, especially if I'm just going from pictures on a Reverb ad?

They do often suffer from some issues on the joints.  Walnut normally glues fine, so it must be something to do with the batch Gibson had for these.  It can look worse than it is

I had one with T-tops for a while.