'56 LP vs '68 LP

[Wilko]

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

Funny stuff.

 

[Progear]

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

funny, but no help at all... :3zone

 

[Elliot Easton]

Sometimes a little laughter is good enough.

 

[djd100]

I thought the bridge and tailpiece studs were different, along with the nut material, as well as the ABR inserts (50's LP's vs LSLP's). Everything that touches the string can make a difference IMO.

As Moon says I think one can approximate the headstock angle with string winding.

I agree that a lot of 50's LP's are more resonant, and since that's obvious when playing them acoustically it's got to be in the wood.

That said, I love my early 69 with real 59 PAF's and Faber hardware, sounds great (sorry Moon, too late, it was routed and converted in the 70's LOL)!

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

 

[Wilko]

I thought the bridge and tailpiece studs were different, along with the nut material, as well as the ABR inserts (50's LP's vs LSLP's). Everything that touches the string can make a difference IMO.

Bridge studs are the same. No inserts. Studs in wood, regular pat number ABR style bridge with retainer wire (chrome)
Tail studs are same, chrome.

Nut is regular Gibson as on bursts.

 

[j45]

I put '52 P-90's in every late 60's (68,69) one piece body, one piece neck, goldtop I've owned (four to date) and they instantly became tonal equivalents in harmonic detail of my 50's LP's including my original burst. Not something I've experienced with much PAF and P-90 swapping I've done over the years. Those one piece neck/body late 60 LP's have a sound unlike most other later Gibson's IMO, I've done a lot of PU swapping and none have responded to earlier PU's as well. I do not believe the late 60 p-90's compare in any way to the 50's P-90 but that's just my opinion and personal taste. It's a very different sound and if you are looking for the tone of a 50's P-90 LP I don't think the later P-90's get it in any way. I would have never changed pu's if they did. I will say the necks are better tapered on the 50's LP's for my tastes as well. I find the late 60's necks to taper a bit awkwardly as they go to the upper frets as compared to the 50's models. The 60's P-90's may have better gain in some cases but at the expense of spectacular harmonic content of the early 50's P-90's IMO. It's a personal preference for sure. I have, however, loved the tone of every one piece body/neck late 60's LPC I've owned when dead stock and never thought of changing anything. And don't let the big headstock of the early 69 goldtops throw you, as long as the tenon is there and one piece body/neck...I find they are close or equal to the small headsock 68's....and MUCH cheaper...if it is just that 50's LP tone you are looking for they can be real vintage bargains...especially if there are an issue, rout, etc., or two. Some the best vintage LP's I've owned were such guitars and bought well under $5k.

 

[djd100]

Are the bridge and TP studs made out of the exact same material as the 50's LP's (I know they're designed the same etc)?

LSLP ABR's had nylon inserts though most have been changed by now.

I read where the 50's nuts were Corian, LSLP's too?

Bridge studs are the same. No inserts. Studs in wood, regular pat number ABR style bridge with retainer wire (chrome)
Tail studs are same, chrome.

Nut is regular Gibson as on bursts.

 

[jimmi]

There are plenty heavy 50s LPs. My 54 wrap tail, as great of a player that it is, wieghs well over 9lbs. I have seen several 50s customs edging toward 11lbs and played a near mint '58 goldtop last year that had to be over 10lbs. They have generally sounded great. Wieght alone is not the determining factor of wood ore guitar quality (with in reason...if it is 20lbs then you can't really gig it, but you get what I am saying).

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

 

[lhric]

There are plenty heavy 50s LPs. My 54 wrap tail, as great of a player that it is, wieghs well over 9lbs. I have seen several 50s customs edging toward 11lbs and played a near mint '58 goldtop last year that had to be over 10lbs. They have generally sounded great. Wieght alone is not the determining factor of wood ore guitar quality (with in reason...if it is 20lbs then you can't really gig it, but you get what I am saying).

Right. It depends on the minerals in the wood. How fast the wood dries out overtime as well. I have not personally owned any 50s Les Pauls but have owned several LSLPs. I had a 69 goldtop deluxe with one piece body and it probably weighed at 8lbs roughly. But had a 68 goldtop that weighed close to 10lbs. I have a 71 54/58 goldtop reissue that weighs maybe 9lbs.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

I find that saying a 50s Les Paul was heavy if it was over 9 pounds is hilarious. :hee

That was about the average, and many ranged well over that. :ganz

 

[Wilko]

BOTB average weight is 8.86 lbs.

And every time I read/hear someone say anything about a 1968 Les Paul I wonder if it even was a '68.
There is too much misinformation about what they are.

 

[Wilko]

BTW, Some very Iconic guitars have turned out be '68s.

One of Rick Neilsen's favorites is a 68 conversion.

Tom Scholtz...

Joe Perry...

 

[Progear]

BOTB average weight is 8.86 lbs.

And every time I read/hear someone say anything about a 1968 Les Paul I wonder if it even was a '68.
There is too much misinformation about what they are.

Thank god we have Stephen and his very informative LSLP site... :teeth

 

[MIKE LEAF]

BTW, Some very Iconic guitars have turned out be '68s.

One of Rick Neilsen's favorites is a 68 conversion.

Tom Scholtz...

Joe Perry...

I bet you a few of these guitars were made in 69 or the early 70´s, Like Angus '68 SG and many more guitars that were checked out
and was confirmed made a later year than 68.

'68 sounds good right?

They didnt make a lot of LP guitars in 68, yet everyone seems to have owned one.

 

[Progrocker111]

They didnt make a lot of LP guitars in 68, yet everyone seems to have owned one.

Exactly, i have seen or played so many 68s which then after my first look turned to be early Norlins. :hee

 

[Reno_1ted]

I bet you a few of these guitars were made in 69 or the early 70´s, Like Angus '68 SG and many more guitars that were checked out
and was confirmed made a later year than 68.

'68 sounds good right?

They didnt make a lot of LP guitars in 68, yet everyone seems to have owned one.

This.

Thank god we have Stephen and his very informative LSLP site...

And this. :salude

 

[Wilko]

I bet you a few of these guitars were made in 69 or the early 70´s, Like Angus '68 SG and many more guitars that were checked out
and was confirmed made a later year than 68.

'68 sounds good right?

Rick Neilsen's '68 was often called a Burst by him. It is a small headstock 1968.

Tom Scholtz's is a known '68 small headstock guitar.

Joe Perry is pictured with his small headstock '68.

IMNSHO, the 1968 Les Paul is a special guitar.

 

[jimmi]

I find that saying a 50s Les Paul was heavy if it was over 9 pounds is hilarious. :hee

That was about the average, and many ranged well over that. :ganz

I have played at least 5 over 10lbs. Two were early 50s customs that were boat anchors and every bit of 10.5-11lbs. That is heavy for a guitar no matter what you say. The 58 goldtop that Crawford has for sale is every bit of 10+ lbs.

Doesnt mean they don't play or sound great but light they ain't.

 

[c_wester]

BTW, Some very Iconic guitars have turned out be '68s.

One of Rick Neilsen's favorites is a 68 conversion.

Tom Scholtz...

Joe Perry...

And my favorites.
Mick Ronson
Henry Vestine

 

[Aloha_Mark]

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.

This is an anecdotal claim at best. Until someone pays for a DNA test on 50's wood vs. 1968/69 mahogany, we don't know the correct answer. I do know that the best ears in the business prefer 50's guitars. Joe Bonamassa got rid of his 1968 LP Goldtop, afaik. As much as I would like my humbucker'd 1968 LP to be the penultimate guitar in my collection, I have to honestly admit that it isn't, and never will be numero uno.