The Les Paul I've been waiting for is coming...

[FELINEGUITARS]

Or have 5 custom built ones for £12.5K :o

It's collectors and invstors territory really

[Ratrod]

Note that..

"Solid non-weight relieved mahogany back" ...

= bloody heavy!

Well noticed. This also means it isn't even made out of the same type of wood as the original.

[Philly Q]

Note that..

"Solid non-weight relieved mahogany back" ...

= bloody heavy!

Well noticed. This also means it isn't even made out of the same type of wood as the original.

What's the original made out of then?  :?

[Twinfan]

Come on then - own up!  Who bought the aged and signed one????!!!

:o  :o  :o

[Ian Price]

Come on then - own up!  Who bought the aged and signed one????!!!

:o  :o  :o

BFG?

Although I assume he wouldn't need to buy one!

[Jonesy76]

Note that..

"Solid non-weight relieved mahogany back" ...

= bloody heavy!

Good quality mahogany + non-weight relieved = perfectly acceptable
My 2002 '59 is a miserly 8 and a quarter pounds with no weight relief or chambering

[Twinfan]

I think The Rev got #1.....

[Tellboy]

Note that..

"Solid non-weight relieved mahogany back" ...

= bloody heavy!

Well noticed. This also means it isn't even made out of the same type of wood as the original.

What's the original made out of then?  :?

Yes I'm very curious about that. Surely it must have been standard construction solid mahogany/maple top?

[Twinfan]

I think Ratrod's saying the quality of the mahogany today isn't what it was in the 50s.....

[hunter]

It's very pretty, but would it come with .008s strung over the tailpiece? Wouldn't that be extremely sloppy tension then? Wonder how much height the action would need to be buzz free ...

[Will]

I think Ratrod maybe opening the Honduras / Honduran Mahogany debate?

[Ratrod]

Yes, I seriously doubt they used a similar mahogany as the original.

The potential buyers won't notice the difference anyway, cause they're not players.

Also, the original has old wood. That's magic!

[Philly Q]

Yes, I seriously doubt they used a similar mahogany as the original.

The potential buyers won't notice the difference anyway, cause they're not players.

Also, the original has old wood. That's magic!

 :roll:

Who knows if they're players or not?  You can be rich and still be a player (whatever the $%&# that means). 

But yeah, of course only "real" (non-rich) players would notice the difference, because they've all got loads of experience playing '50s Gibsons, haven't they....

OK, so it probably isn't made out of exactly the same type of mahogany as the original (I thought it wasn't available any more anyway?).   And of course it can't magically be made to perform as if it's already 50 years old.  Doesn't mean Gibson haven't done everything in their power to make these guitars as good as they possibly can, even though they are ridiculously overpriced.

[WezV]

you can get just as good wood now as you could in the 50's - there just happens to be a hell of a lot less of it.  (maybe you shouldnt bother anyway, but thats another debate)

i would hope that gibson have gone for as close to the original in weight, looks (and even tone) as they possibly could.  they seem to have spent some time picking maple tops that have a similar figure to the original so it would be nice to see how the backs compare to the originals as well

[Henk]

Still, for that amount of cash i would rather have an original 60's goldtop or custom BB. Some rather tasty samples of those (mostly '68/'69 first reissued goldtops) are still up for grabs around the 10k in euro's over here in holland.

Undoubtably good zoo's (players or not) will be a very solid investment apart from being the 'holy grail' of gibsonism, which is still the question with the late reissues.

And oh yeah.... solid backs RULE!!!!!!!!!! PDT_045