'56 LP vs '68 LP

[Wilko]

Yeah, Moon, a lot of guys want a lower bridge angle--I don't get it. I purposely set up my '56 so the bridge angle is higher.

Fretboard is a bit thicker so I can lower it some if needed later on.

 

[Progear]

Wilko,

whats the skinny on the gold top ? Pretty awesome looking...:dude:

I was all about the 1968's until I found my '56.

The 68s compared very favorably in all respects for shape of neck and feel.

The '56 (and most 50s LPs I've played) are all far more resonant. It's gotta be that headstock angle.

Tons more info in some threads about my 68s and comparing them to Gladys. A converted '56 is the same as burst for tone purposes.


Thread comparing with Burst

 

[moonweasel]

Wilko,

whats the skinny on the gold top ? Pretty awesome looking...:dude:

Pro,

Both of those were Wilko's 68's which he sold to fund his 56 conversion (pictured above). He did the finish work on the bursted 68 himself, and I believe on his conversion as well?

He and those guitars in particular were instrumental (no pun intended) in helping to start me on the path that led to my website. :dude:

 

[Wilko]

Oh man I miss that goldtop. The best looking goldtop I've ever seen. I just loved the natural checking in that mild chevron pattern. Clearly a center seamed top. lovely top carve. 8.75 pounds. Very woody tone.

Found it shortly after seeing Snowy White play his in 2001 with Roger Waters.

 

[Wilko]

I shot this burst on that other '68. The first published serial number in all the books for 1969.

 

[Progear]

What a beauty... The best looking '68 humbuckered GT I ever seen...:dude:

Oh man I miss that goldtop. The best looking goldtop I've ever seen. I just loved the natural checking in that mild chevron pattern. Clearly a center seamed top. lovely top carve. 8.75 pounds. Very woody tone.

Found it shortly after seeing Snowy White play his in 2001 with Roger Waters.

 

[Progrocker111]

However, I can absolutely see how the shallower angle applied at the headstock (LSLP) could/would sound different from applying a shallower angle at the bridge (lets say a 50s guitar with a top wrap).

I dont think that a slightly lower headstock angle can generally make so much tonal difference. I would say that perhaps the wood changed more in late 60s, the guitars were generally a bit heavier in these years in comparison to 50s Les Pauls. Heavier guitars very often resonate less.

 

[Marcel M]

I'm sure most of you know this, but if you want a beefier more aggressive sound from a P90, you can just put shims under the pickups. Raising the screws makes for a louder, but more clean sound, compared to raising the entire pickup, which makes for a beefier, more aggressive sound. :jim

 

[MIKE LEAF]

I dont think that a slightly lower headstock angle can generally make so much tonal difference. I would say that perhaps the wood changed more in late 60s, the guitars were generally a bit heavier in these years in comparison to 50s Les Pauls. Heavier guitars very often resonate less.

The use of old growt Mahogany and BR fretboards on the 56 would make a lot of difference when comparing it toa 68, more than the neck or head angle.

LSLP's are great guitars in their own way, but does not stand the match compared to a 54-57 LP in my opinion (regarding gold tops).

 

[PLarson]

I like my bursted '68 with T-tops. Really nice guitar, and I love that fat neck.

 

[moonweasel]

The use of old growt Mahogany and BR fretboards on the 56 would make a lot of difference when comparing it toa 68, more than the neck or head angle.

LSLP's are great guitars in their own way, but does not stand the match compared to a 54-57 LP in my opinion (regarding gold tops).

Where precisely did you get your info on "old growth mahogany" not being used on LSLPs? How anyone on earth could substantively claim to actually hear the difference between a BR and IR fingerboard? You would have to use the same guitar to compare which is impossible.

All period Gibson literature states plainly that LSLP's are made out of Honduran Mahogany. It's not as if 100 years went by from 1961 to 1968, and the forests there magically changed their DNA. If it's a big enough tree to make a 1pc body, its "old growth" to me.

 

[moonweasel]

I dont think that a slightly lower headstock angle can generally make so much tonal difference. I would say that perhaps the wood changed more in late 60s, the guitars were generally a bit heavier in these years in comparison to 50s Les Pauls. Heavier guitars very often resonate less.

Some 50's guitars were easily in the weight range of LSLPs, and certainly some LSLP's were light enough to be amongst the 50s guitars. Respectfully, the only credit I usually give to the "LSLP's have nothing to do with 50's LP's" crowd is the angle of the headstock. There is objective science that could be figured out there. Every other case presented is filled with generalizations and subjectivity other than the headstock angle one, to me at least.

LSLP's were built by many of the same craftsman, in the same factory, painted by the same guys, using some of the same templates, same hardware (chrome though), same neck joint (for a time), two piece maple tops, some leftover plastic parts, same cases in a way, etc etc. Les was involved in their design as shown in the blue prints I have acquired. Fundamentally, to me they are what would have been 62 and 63 Les Pauls except they were built a few years later.

In the end, I may have written an entire website filled with minutia about LSLPs to help people make informed purchasing decisions, but I really like guitars for one reason: making music. You know I love Norlins just as much as any era. How many songs were written on 14 degree headstock guitars from (65???) or so until the early 80s when 17 came back? Did any of those famous musicians or even bar dogs turn their noses up at a shallow headstock angle? No, they bought the things and got on with the business of making music.

Which is what I need to be doing more of instead of digging through craigslist looking for deals. GOtta run, have a 40 pg thesis to write, ugh.

 

[MIKE LEAF]

Well, As I wrote I dig the 68/69 LPs , the difference in 'sound and feel' might have more to do with the individual instrument than fret board material,
however comparing them to the 56-58 Gt´s you end up with the fact that they are different in construction, materials, and as average a tad heavier.

Wood sourcing for Gibson changed in the mid 60´s, That can clearly be seen by comparing SG´s from 61, 65 and 69, a lot happened in those years.

From my own experience in owning guitars from both eras , I generally prefer the 50´s, hope that doesnt offend anyone here (I realize we are in the 60´s forum)

The OP asked for opinions, I gave mine, again, I like all LP´s from the 50´s and 60´s to the 70/80s and onwards, not a big difference (sound wise)

Cheers!

 

[Wilko]

I've only seen one 1968 Les Paul that was over 9 pounds. I don't think that they are "a tad heavier" than the 50 models. Most people have handled LSLPs that they erroneously thought were '68s. Tony Bacon's Les Paul book mentions 1969 as a year where the wood sourcing changed. That's when they got heavier and the wood was different.

There are few small differences in the construction compared to 50s guitars.

1. The cavities were routed before the top was glued on
2. Truss rod condom
3. headstock angle
4. very slight difference in top carve
5. body binding is a little thicker and wide in the cutaway.
6. square-ish heel shape

2 and 3 are the only ones I can see making any change is sound/feel

 

[Marcel M]

Les was involved in their design as shown in the blue prints I have acquired.

I hope I don't open up a can of worms with this, only asking for clarification, but this surprises me that he was involved with the construction of Les Paul guitars in the late 60s. Didn't McCarty invent and design the guitar for the most part? I thought Les chose the color and the tailpiece and they used his name to endorse it, but that was it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

On wikipediea it says this "The Les Paul was designed by guitarist/inventor Les Paul with the assistance of Ted McCarty and his team." But I can't find any information on what Les Paul actually had to do with the invention of the Les Paul guitar (of course, his log guitar led to the production of it). If you look at the rest of the Wiki article, it says McCarty falsely claimed he had little to do with the guitar, but then only adds that he decided on the color. :hmm Apologies if I shouldn't have posted this question here and hijack the thread, but Moonweasel's statement intrigued me. :hank I know Les said a lot about what he had to do with the guitar, but he was a talker!

 

[Progrocker111]

How many songs were written on 14 degree headstock guitars from (65???) or so until the early 80s when 17 came back? Did any of those famous musicians or even bar dogs turn their noses up at a shallow headstock angle? No, they bought the things and got on with the business of making music.

This. There was more great music played on these late 60s Les Pauls and 70s Norlins than on 50s originals, at least to me (progrock, jazzrock, hardrock etc., especially in many continental European countries like Germany, Italy, France...).

 

[PLarson]

Sorry for beeing an idiot- but what are you talking about? Neck angle? I love my early bursted '68 with the crown inlay. It sounds great! :dude:

 

[Progrocker111]

Sorry for beeing an idiot- but what are you talking about? Neck angle?

Headstock angle. Neck angle went then steeper in early 70s too.

 

[Elliot Easton]

For you guys that have owned or played both '56 and '68 LP, what would you consider the biggest differance ? ..


Sound ?
If it's sound, than would 50's P90 installed in 68 give you the same sound ?

Feel ?

yeah I know every guitar has its own personality .. But give me something guys..:dude:

The difference? 12. The difference between a D-28 and a D-18 is 10.

 

[Beano Geno]

I like the way you think, Moonman. The guitars you love so much are great instruments!