What are the good and bad years for Gibson Les Pauls?

Alex

Alex

Administrator
Joined
Mar 24, 2024
Messages
42
Reaction score
137
In your opinion, besides the 1950's, what are the best and worst years for Gibson Les Paul in terms of wood and other features?
 
Next year will be the most accurate Les Paul the Custom Shop has ever made! J/K

If the wood is important to you, then 1999 to 2005 the Custom Shop sourced the correct wood, but the construction was with modern glue and the truss rod had a sheath.

The early 2003 Les Pauls used Brazilian Rosewood, and from a wood standpoint, they were as close to a '50's Les Paul as you could get.
 
Last edited:
DelawareGold said:
Next year will be the most accurate Les Paul the Custom Shop has ever made! J/K

If the wood is important to you, then 1999 to 2005 the Custom Shop sourced the correct wood, but the construction was with modern glue and the truss rod had a sheath.

The early 2003 Les Pauls used Brazilian Rosewood, and from a wood standpoint, they were as close to a '50's Les Paul as you could get.
Click to expand...
My 03 R7, Braz board… A little on the heavy side, but the perfect Les Paul for me!

IMG_6259.jpeg
 
I don't usually concern myself with anything older than 1969, although I've had some. I have nostalgia for anything before my time. I really do like 70's and 80's stuff though.

I had a couple of Les Paul badged SG's from the 60's. They were ok, but not spectacular. I eventually sold them.

The oldest Les Paul that I've ever played was a first year with the wonky bridge and trapeze. I couldn't get used to the bridge. You could change it, but it would devalue the guitar, so it was a no go for me. They wanted 10K for it at the time, but that was years ago. So yeah, I guess 1952 was a bad year.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top