Gibson Les Paul late 90's/early noughties

St_Hubbins

Hi All,

I have read somewhere that the build of Les Paul's coming out of Gibson was particularly good in the mid to late 90's going into the noughties. But cannot recall the exact dates and/or reasoning behind this. I am looking at a 2002, what is the consensus regarding that year? 

Cheers,


Nick

guitargeek62

Varies from guitar to guitar - don’t believe the hype!

Babones

St_Hubbins said:

Hi All,

I have read somewhere that the build of Les Paul's coming out of Gibson was particularly good in the mid to late 90's going into the noughties. But cannot recall the exact dates and/or reasoning behind this.

The internet was starting to take off.

guitars4you

In 2002 Gibson made a number of changes to the LP Standard that has made such models 'more desirable' to many players who required more of a vintage vibe  - Such models were available between 2002 and 2006 - Key features were figured maple tops - Burst Bucker pick-ups and vintage style binding in the cutaway + Vintage style 'Kluson' tuners - At the time such features resulted in quite a hefty price increase - They also offered for the first time 2 neck profiles, albeit more subtle difference between the two  - The 50's profile was a touch fatter, but not the same depth as 57/58/59 R7/R8/R9 vintage replicas - The 60's profile was a touch slimmer - A host of new 'burst' based finishes that were more vintage flavoured than those released during the 80's and 90's

After 2006 Gibson then went down the annual change format and made a host of changes over the years - If they had have stuck to the 2002/2006 era then I'm sure they would not have attracted so many negative comments that they receive today

Are they better than an 80's or 90's model regarding feel and tone ? - Then that is  matter of taste/opinion - I think the 2002/2006 era are more consistently good - Regarding 80's and 90's models then it has always been a case that some models from that era are good and others less so

Caffeine_Vampire

Early 90's studios are said to have been made with woods meant for LP Customs because the demand for studios was high.  I own a '91 studio and the quality is good but not significantly more or less so than others I've played from different eras.  

ICBM

Caffeine_Vampire said:

Early 90's studios are said to have been made with woods meant for LP Customs because the demand for studios was high.  I own a '91 studio and the quality is good but not significantly more or less so than others I've played from different eras.  

The ebony for the fingerboards was actually the stock which had been rejected for Customs because it wasn't evenly black enough - which is why you get the apparent oddity that a 'cheap' guitar had a 'premium' fingerboard wood. It's likely the body woods would have been the stock which had been rejected for guitars with non-solid finishes due to visual imperfections as well - I've seen several refinished Studios which seem to indicate this. It makes no difference to the sound of course, but it was a great way of making an economical Les Paul while using up surplus material.

Caffeine_Vampire

@ICBM ;

 Yeah, I heard the same thing re: the ebony boards, having said that mine is uniformly black.  There's a long thread about this on TGP with posts from one of the builders from that time.  I don't put much stock into it tbh, a good guitar is a good guitar, I bought mine for that reason alone.

St_Hubbins

Thanks to all for your collective wisdom - much appreciated.

JerkMoans

FWIW this is my 2003, and it's the mutt's nuts.

Hope that helped  

Deijavoo

If you can try it let that be your guide. My B7 Custom is from 98 and that was an important year for me, but most importantly it's a beast of a fiddle.

Trude

Deijavoo said:

If you can try it let that be your guide. My B7 Custom is from 98 and that was an important year for me, but most importantly it's a beast of a fiddle.

I also have a '98 B7, and can confirm mine's a beast too! So that's two data points for starters.. 

jeztone2

Nah. That’s bollocks

My brothers 2001 Standard is nice but has a wrongly seated machine head and orange peel galore. My mates 2000 LP Custom has stain marks aplenty on the binding. 

My brother thinks my 2017 Classic is a tidier built guitar and to some extent it is. But I got lucky, I’ve seen some terrible examples. Dawson’s had a 2017 Classic with a fingerboard that looked like pine. 

I think Gibson have always been inconsistent and until they bring in someone from Fujigen or PRS to run QC & start using CNC I suspect that will always be the case. 

Just try loads and see what you bond with. 

sawyer

I've a 2003 which is a very nice guitar with nice vintage vibe to it. Every guitar varies though but the 2002-2006 seem a bit more consistent. Can't beat trying in person.

DrCornelius

I’ve had 3 or 4 from 2000 to 2004 over the years and every one has been spot on and as @sawyer said had a bit of a worn in woody sounding vibe to them all.

I love Les pauls but can’t play them hence the PRS 594 purchase . If I did buy another one that’s the era I’d go for though.