Interesting that the current models are solid with no weight relief.

 

Thanks for posting that. It's nice to see it all together. I've played 2 out of 3 of those types plus the unseen 4th type: the unchambered heavyweight. Haven't played the cheese hole version.

IMO, the lightest fully chambered type and the completely unchambered versions (weighing 2 metric tonnes) sound the best. The fully chambered guitar, to me, is the most comfortable (and damn near the most expensive).

 

What a waste of good wood. I wonder what they use the sawdust for.

 

It’s really hard for modern Gibson to compete with companies making original quality Gibsons for 1/150th of the price of their vintage models.

I’d take an ES Les Paul over any model on their catalogue purely based on what’s being described in this article.

 

A heavy Les Paul.
And a Marshall stack.
Gives a ringin in a ears.
And a troublesome back.

 

I have two chambered Les Pauls that l love, both under 8lbs and sound great for low to medium gain tones once I ditched the burst buckers.

+10 lbs LP’s have been really hit and miss for me. A couple killer sounding ones and some real deadwood ones as well including an 11 pounder that was a dud.

Im on the hunt right now for a nice 9 lb or so Standsrd or Custom that is a real player.

 

They say the chambered ones are prone to feedback, it is true. I have an Epiphone LP Ultra that is chambered and it does feedback, but not the strident kind, more of a low hum. To help with that, I inserted dense soft foam under the pickup and it helps a lot.

This is what it looks like inside. Shallower on the upper part for the belly cut. That is one comfortable 6.8 lbs LP.

 

I've only owned one chambered Les Paul, and you could tell - it sounded different, not bad just different. I'm actually thinking of trying to find another one - there are deals to be found since the internet tells everyone they suck (totally untrue).

I honestly can't tell the difference between traditional and modern weight relief. I do think the unchambered Les Pauls (I have a 2019 Standard 60's and a 2018 Classic P90 - both under 10 lbs) seem to have something special, but I wouldn't shy away from a weight relieved LP.

 

Isn’t your classic antique chambered?

 

I have a few slabs of lovely mahogany, and an almost-bookmatched pair of nicely-flamed maple pieces for a cap. My goal is to make some form of chambered guitar, conceivably with an F-hole. Because the mahogany slabs are only thick enough to make a proper body when glued together, any chambering needs to be in both pieces in quasi-symmetrical fashion, before the cap goes on.

What is not apparent from the posted photos here is:
a) whether the cap goes directly on top of what is shown,
b) if there is more mahogany, is it also chambered, and if so how,,
c) how thick is any "sub-cap" layer.

 

What is not apparent from the posted photos here is:
a) whether the cap goes directly on top of what is shown,
b) if there is more mahogany, is it also chambered, and if so how,,
c) how thick is any "sub-cap" layer.

½" maple cap on mine with veneer on top, nothing more.

Speaking of hit or miss,I think any Les Paul under 7lbs is gold and extremely difficult to find unless you pay big bucks or get lucky.

$300 / 6.8 lbs

 

I believe that the pictures at the top are all the mahogany and then the cap goes on top, no extra mahogany

What would be interesting, albeit tedious...build the unchambered version, do some tone recordings...pop the cap and do firat level of chambering...replace the cap, refinish the guitar...tone sample, repop and chamber completely for a tone sample...

This way, its the same guitar and pieces, the closest you could get to truly seeing what the tone differences would be

 

I agree, because otherwise any claims about the effect on sound/tone are complete BS. One can only determine that by trying the same guitar in various configurations.

 

Speaking of hit or miss,I think any Les Paul under 7lbs is gold and extremely difficult to find unless you pay big bucks or get lucky. That's why I threw up my hands and bought a Gibson LP CM. Definitely not the same thing, but very close and just about 50% lighter.

 

Chambered sound a bit better for me, more 'ring' to it.

 

^ An Ultra for $600, very good. Someone should jump on that.

 

I am ambivalent about weight relief. My Les Paul’s range from +8 pounds to around 11 pounds and I can’t tell the difference in sound. Weight is probably the last thing I consider when buying. I think it’s only Les Paul owners that talk about weight. YMMV.

 

Okay, I think I get it. Looking along the side edge, it appears that the maple cap is not that thick (no thicking than the binding), and is comparable to the wood I intend to use. But where my planned instrument will be made with flat pieces, a Les Paul has a carved top, which allows the centre to be a 1/2" thick, and the only wood atop the chambered mahogany back. That makes more sense now. I was thinking of my own scenario and wondering "Well if there's only 3/16-1/4" of maple over an empty space, that isn't very rigid, is it?". But if it's a 1/2" or so, then that's structurally quite solid.

I have a clone of an old Mosrite Combo. It is fully hollow, like an Epi Casino, but the maple top is more like 3/8-7/16" thick, such that if you tap the top with your eyes closed, it sounds like a solid body.

And correct me if I'm way off, but would some of those chambered formats be less amenable to addition of a B5 Bigsby than others? It looks like any screws to hold the unit in place might go through the top into empty space.

 

You can totally make a flat top, just make the total thickness plus or -2 inches. Leave some wood in for Bigsby. Get creative with the binding, only you will see it

 

The 12th fret has a black 1990 Les Paul standard that is 10.25lbs. They are advertising this Les Paul as a solid body non weight relief. Gibson started traditional 9 hole weight relief on all Les Paul standards in late 82 early 83 and Customs at the same time, or shortly there after. I emailed them stating this fact and wanted to know if this was a special run or one off. They have yet to respond.

 

^ That's almost exactly how much my LP Studio weighed. But a player needs the whole package, and I think Gibson knows that considering their considerable R&D focus into weight relief over the years.

Some can hear the difference between the weights, others may not have the same hearing and don't notice as much - or simply could care less as long as they have that general LP tone. The real issue for me and weight relief isn't really tone, it's playability. A lightweight guitar that sounds great is a musical inspiration.

 

My early 70s LP is a little brighter than my semi-hollow 2013 LP Custom Florentine (f-holes and from the Benchmark series).

Both have the same pickups.

 

I purchased this from a forum member earlier this year (photo from the guitar's original owner).

It is a "CR8"-- a chambered '58 re-issue. I love it. It is bright (in a good way) and airy for a LP. Weighs about 7.5 lbs.

I also have own(ed) two LP Trads and two LP Tributes, which were all weight relieved guitars.

Could I say consistently that weight relief makes a positive difference in tone? Obviously not, because I haven't played enough of a sample to say. Do they still sound good? Definitely, yes. Do I appreciate that they don't weigh 10lbs.? Yep.

 

I have a 2008 fully chambered tribute (its just under 7 lb...so i think its fully chambered) with P90s. Its one of my two go-to guitars. its super resonant and lightweight...best of both worlds.

 

Years back I went to the L&M in Mississauga and grabbed a black LP Custom off the wall. It must have been at least 14 lbs. The heaviest guitar I've ever held and imo, virtually impossible to play standing up. Couldn't believe it. Always wondered who bought it.

 

^ A guitar that weighs that much is just lazy guitar making. Similar tone & easier playability proves to me that excessive weight is unnecessary - unless a player is actually looking for mass.

Since selling my 10.2lbs Les Paul about a year ago, I've been on a revelation of sorts by pruning 5 additional [decades owned] guitars from my collection and replacing them with 5 others that are under 7lbs - all done for weight reasons only. My experience in the last 18 months or so has shown me that the special feeling of that 'one-of-a-kind' guitar CAN be replaced. I have no regrets about this way overdue decision considering I actually made a profit on swapping out all that heft and have better guitars to show for it.

 

You made me curious, so I weighed my '64 Epi Coronet. Difficult to weigh it accurately and in a stable manner, but the scale read between 4lb 15oz and 5lb 8oz, depending on how I balanced it.. No chambering. Just a slightly thinner body, very light wood, and a thinner neck.

 

I'm more concerned about how the play, sound & feel vs what they weigh or if/how they are chambered or weight relieved.
But I also get that for some weight is an issue.
Fortunately I am good with heavy guitars & light ones.
My Les Paul is about 10 pounds--and I like that--but I also like my Mustang--whcih is quite light & my Ibanez AF500F bass--very light as well.

So isn't a good thing there are heavy guitars & light guitars, chambered & slide, etc?

 

I find 8.5ish lbs and no weight relief to be the sweet spot