Gibson R8 or Harley Benton with Pickup Upgrades?

Kittyfrisk

crunchman said:

terada said:

johnl said:

Weren't most of the reissues in the Peach thread between 8-9lbs? For reference the non-weight relieved (I think?) Classics that were also on sale around the same time started at around 10lbs. 

 My R9 is about 7lb 15ish. All solid. Yep the r8s last year were nearly all between 8 and 9.

As for the actual 58s and 59s. They were on average in the same 8-9 range according to BOTB. To lump them in with the pancake Norlins as has been  is misleading. 

They save the lightest mahogany for the Custom Shop reissues.  I used mine on a strap for 2 and quarter hours on Friday night and it was fine.

Gratuitous picture:

Bet you can't find a Harley Benton that looks like that.

And if you could (it's really not that hard, ever heard of a veneer or fotoflame?) would that matter to the playability or sound of the guitar?
Torches & pitchforks on a postcard to this address..... 

terada

Kittyfrisk said:

crunchman said:

terada said:

johnl said:

Weren't most of the reissues in the Peach thread between 8-9lbs? For reference the non-weight relieved (I think?) Classics that were also on sale around the same time started at around 10lbs. 

 My R9 is about 7lb 15ish. All solid. Yep the r8s last year were nearly all between 8 and 9.

As for the actual 58s and 59s. They were on average in the same 8-9 range according to BOTB. To lump them in with the pancake Norlins as has been  is misleading. 

They save the lightest mahogany for the Custom Shop reissues.  I used mine on a strap for 2 and quarter hours on Friday night and it was fine.

Gratuitous picture:

Bet you can't find a Harley Benton that looks like that.

And if you could (it's really not that hard, ever heard of a veneer or fotoflame?) would that matter to the playability or sound of the guitar?
Torches & pitchforks on a postcard to this address..... 

Probably not. Just like an ikea mdf table will hold your dinner as well as a solid cocobolo table.

ICBM

terada said:

Probably not. Just like an ikea mdf table will hold your dinner as well as a solid cocobolo table.

Cocobolo? Surely everyone knows that a Brazilian rosewood table will sound better!

Kittyfrisk

^  " Bet you can't find a Harley Benton that looks like that"  was the statement, no? 
Anyone can produce a 'good looking thing' hence all the fakes abounding today, but that proves nothing, other than it's possible to produce very good looking things that look identical to grail guitars (OK, superheroes with X-Ray vision are disallowed from this conversation).

And yes, an ' ikea mdf table will hold your dinner as well as a solid cocobolo table." but will cost & weigh a lot less 
But as a conversation piece, it will still hold your impressive coffee table books/guitars etc.

 

ICBM

Kittyfrisk said:

^  " Bet you can't find a Harley Benton that looks like that"  was the statement, no? 
Anyone can produce a 'good looking thing' hence all the fakes abounding today, but that proves nothing, other than it's possible to produce very good looking things that look identical to grail guitars

Yes, the experts here will be able to pick out a couple of features that give the game away - but it wouldn't take much for the manufacturer to correct those as well.

Three-ColourSunburst

If looks are what matter, this Harley Benton SC550 (no upgrades needed to make it sound good or a pleasure to play) looks better than many 'Les Pauls' made for the brand managers who currently own the right to put 'Gibson' on the head stock.

OK, so it looks new and shiny, but surely that adds to its 'authenticity', given that fake ageing - as evident on the Gibson Custom shop example - is just an attempt to make a guitar look like something that it isn't.

https://agufish.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/hb-sc-550.jpg?w=1200

johnl

Three-ColourSunburst said:

If looks are what matter, this Harley Benton SC550 (no upgrades needed to make it sound good or a pleasure to play) looks better than many 'Les Pauls' made for the brand managers who currently own the right to put 'Gibson' on the head stock.

OK, so it looks new and shiny, but surely that adds to its 'authenticity', given that fake ageing - as evident on the Gibson Custom shop example - is just an attempt to make a guitar look like something that it isn't.

https://agufish.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/hb-sc-550.jpg?w=1200

Looks lovely. What does it weigh?

Three-ColourSunburst

johnl said:

Looks lovely. What does it weigh?

No weight relief so (according to Agufish, whose guitar it is) 'heavy, even for a Les Paul'. Then again - for those who believe in such things - do you want your Les Paul to have that 'authentic' solid mahogany tone, or one that sounds like it is full of fresh air or made of tone-sapping low density wood.

OilCityPickups

Three-ColourSunburst said:

johnl said:

Looks lovely. What does it weigh?

No weight relief so 'heavy'. Then again - for those who believe in such things - do you want your Les Paul to have that 'authentic' solid mahogany tone, or one that sounds like it is full of fresh air or made of tone-sapping low density wood.

For some of us older gits the weight issue is more about a bad back than the 'tone'! Mind you, Gibson is largely responsible for my bad back anyway from playing 70s Les Pauls on stage in my 20s ... hummmmmmm maybe I should sue them :-)

ICBM

The Chibson in the pic above weighed under 8lb, by the way...

Neil

ICBM said:

The Chibson in the pic above weighed under 8lb, by the way...

Well, balsa is a very light wood. 

ICBM

Neil said:

Well, balsa is a very light wood. 

That's pretty much what overly-light Les Pauls sound like to me, whether they're made by Gibson or anyone else. And yes, the 'mahogany' in that was certainly some sort of lightweight fibrous crap with no resonance... the guitar didn't sound *terrible* amplified - the pickups in the pic are Duncans - but it still didn't have the punch and power of a good Les Paul.

Three-ColourSunburst

Neil said:

ICBM said:

The Chibson in the pic above weighed under 8lb, by the way...

Well, balsa is a very light wood. 

He was joking. If you want a 'balsa wood density' Les Paul, you apparently need to sort through a load of R8s and R9s, as folklore has it that the 'better quality' (come lower quality) better sustaining (come less sustaining) more 'toneful' (come less toneful) higher mojo (come lower mojo) come who the fek knows lighter stuff is reserved for these.

I'm no expert on wood, but a quick search suggest that in reality high-density mahogany is characteristic of old, naturally grown trees, whilst younger plantation grown trees tend to produce lower density timber which, as a consequence, is also mechanically inferior to the denser, forest grown timber in terns of strength, resistance to crushing and so on, as well as being more prone to shrinkage. Overall, it does seem that higher-density mahogany is on most counts, actually better quality than the low density stuff.

johnl

So what you're saying is you don't want to buy a Gibson? 

Kittyfrisk

^ Well, I have 3 Gibson LP's & an SG Standard, so I won't be rushing out soon, but I would buy another if the price & guitar were right for me.
I'm much more likely to buy another Tokai, MIJ Maya, or even a Harley Benton just for fun, as they are so affordable that I don't really have to agonise over splashing cash, then suffering buyers remorse.

Three-ColourSunburst

ICBM said:

yes, the 'mahogany' in that was certainly some sort of lightweight fibrous crap with no resonance... the guitar didn't sound *terrible* amplified - the pickups in the pic are Duncans - but it still didn't have the punch and power of a good Les Paul.

The guitar in the picture is the Harley Benton SC550 reviewed by Agufish and is fiited with Wilkinson pickups. It is not the Chibson you played that had Duncans in it.

Grumpyrocker

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Neil said:

ICBM said:

The Chibson in the pic above weighed under 8lb, by the way...

Well, balsa is a very light wood. 

He was joking. If you want a 'balsa wood density' Les Paul, you apparently need to sort through a load of R8s and R9s, as folklore has it that the 'better quality' (come lower quality) better sustaining (come less sustaining) more 'toneful' (come less toneful) higher mojo (come lower mojo) come who the fek knows lighter stuff is reserved for these.

I'm no expert on wood, but a quick search suggest that in reality high-density mahogany is characteristic of old, naturally grown trees, whilst younger plantation grown trees tend to produce lower density timber which, as a consequence, is also mechanically inferior to the denser, forest grown timber in terns of strength, resistance to crushing and so on, as well as being more prone to shrinkage. Overall, it does seem that higher-density mahogany is on most counts, actually better quality than the low density stuff.

It's the other way around. The older slow grown stuff is lighter. The newer more intensively farmed and quicker grown stuff is denser. 

Three-ColourSunburst

Grumpyrocker said:

It's the other way around. The older slow grown stuff is lighter. The newer more intensively farmed and quicker grown stuff is denser. 

Comparison of wood properties of planted big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia Macrophylla) in Martinique island with naturally grown mahogany from Brazil, Mexico and Peru.

Density of plantation trees was found to be significantly lower compared with natural forest trees. The tangential shrinkage of young trees (< 40 years old) was significantly higher than that of old trees (> 40 years old). Both values were significantly higher than that of natural forest trees. The radial shrinkages of young and old trees were significantly higher than that of natural forest trees. Although the density of natural forest wood was higher than that of plantation trees, the difference in modulus of elasticity (MOE) was insignificant. The static bending strengths (MOR) of young and old trees were significantly lower than that of natural forest trees. The crushing strength in compression parallel to grain of plantation trees was significantly lower than that of natural forest.

https://agritrop.cirad.fr/560903/1/document_560903.pdf

Kittyfrisk

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Grumpyrocker said:

It's the other way around. The older slow grown stuff is lighter. The newer more intensively farmed and quicker grown stuff is denser. 

Density of plantation trees was found to be significantly lower compared with natural forest trees. The tangential shrinkage of young trees (< 40 years old) was significantly higher than that of old trees (> 40 years old). Both values were significantly higher than that of natural forest trees. The radial shrinkages of young and old trees were significantly higher than that of natural forest trees. Although the density of natural forest wood was higher than that of plantation trees, the difference in modulus of elasticity (MOE) was insignificant. The static bending strengths (MOR) of young and old trees were significantly lower than that of natural forest trees. The crushing strength in compression parallel to grain of plantation trees was significantly lower than that of natural forest.

https://agritrop.cirad.fr/560903/1/document_560903.pdf

That's my experience & understanding relating to 'old growth' mahogany.
Also, given that almost everyone these days goes nuts for old growth 'sinker' woods, why do people think they sank in the first place? 

Gassage

So, just musing- extending this concept to cars, should I get a Porsche 911 Turbo S, or a Reliant Robin with an extra wheel and a pair of Rolls Royce Olympus Turbojets with afterburners strapped to the roof?

Which should I get? I'm in a quandry.