• The Gear Page Apparel & Merch Shop is Open!

    Based on member demand, The Gear Page is pleased to announce that our Apparel Merch Shop is now open. The shop’s link is in the blue Navigation bar (on the right side), “Shop,” with t-shirts, hats, neck buffs, and stickers to start. Here’s the direct link: www.thegearpageshop.com

    You’ll find exclusive high-quality apparel and merchandise; all items are ethical, sustainably produced, and we will be continuously sourcing and adding new choices. 

    We can ship internationally. All shipping is at cost.


Gibson Standard Historic and True Historic

Kmaz

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
8,878
I was incorrect in thinking that Gibson's Historic line morphed into True Historic. I see, this morning, that a Standard Historic and True Historic model are available.
Unless I've missed something, the difference between the two seems minimal at best? Are the 'True' models considered to be on a different level as compared? Maybe some 'True' owners can weigh in?
 

cap10kirk

Member
Messages
8,519
It's a minimal difference, the true historics are just supposed to be made a little more like the real 50's guitars. Not worth the extra cost to me though, I'd rather buy a real 50's Junior or Special if I were to spend that much. The normal R4, R6, R7, etc are great guitars, I'd be very happy with one of those, and save that extra money.
 

Bossanova

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
7,828
Yes, the specs became very confusing around the end of '14. Each year seems to have had multiple runs and some retailers had their own exclusive runs, which further complicates everything. I'll let the experts clarify, but we are looking at variations in construction (tenon), plastics, and maybe glue (hide glue on TH).

For myself, I could never justify the cost of a TH over a used pre-15 historic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C-4

cap10kirk

Member
Messages
8,519
Yes, the specs became very confusing around the end of '14. Each year seems to have had multiple runs and some retailers had their own exclusive runs, which further complicates everything. I'll let the experts clarify, but we are looking at variations in construction (tenon), plastics, and maybe glue (hide glue on TH).

For myself, I could never justify the cost of a TH over a used pre-15 historic.
As far as the 2016's go, the Standard Historic has the long neck tenon, hide glue, 1 piece mahogany body with 2 piece maple top. Just like the True Historic. The plastics are slightly different, and the True Historic has a thinner wet sanded finish. That's according to Gibson's website, comparing the two 57 reissues.
Personally, I'd get a used R4 or R7.
 

sws1

Member
Messages
11,445
The biggest difference is the finish. On the TH, it looks much more like an original 50s LP. Thinner, wet sanded, not quite as glossy.

They also have different wood piles at Gibson from which they pull the wood. SH vs TH. There is some overlap of the wood, but there is also some distinction.
 

Bossanova

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
7,828
I'm waiting for the Ultra True Historic line. Or possibly the Hyper True Historics if I can wait that long...
You should just keep buying them new for 7K and selling them a couple of years later for 50% less to buy the 'new and improved' model. After all, isn't that how we treat our electronics and automobiles..?
 

C-4

Member
Messages
13,757
While I do not own a True Historic, I was seriously contemplating buying one. Then I started seeing them come up for sale used. It is just my personal opinion, which means nothing, of course, but I am feeling that those who purchased a TH did not find them earth-shattering enough to justify keeping them, based on the price being asked. I'm sure there is a difference, but I think it was not that great.

I decided instead, to go for a PRS, which I am waiting for now. They are in the same area, price-wise, but after reading up on both as much as I could find, the PRS seems to offer better wood, with choices not being offered by Gibson.

In that price range, I felt that I would rather be catered too a bit then just buy what was in the shop.
ymmv :)
 

Tim Plains

Senior Member
Messages
6,147
Music Zoo has a comparison article if you want to Google it. Gibson also matches neck/body wood grains on true historics if that matters to you.

Then I started seeing them come up for sale used. It is just my personal opinion, which means nothing, of course, but I am feeling that those who purchased a TH did not find them earth-shattering enough to justify keeping them
That has nothing to do with them not being good enough. This has been going on for years. Some people think the newest historic is always the best and will make them sound like Jimmy Page instead be working on their chops.
 

cutaway

Senior Member
Messages
18,212
I'm not too proud to admit I would have been swayed by all the negative forum rumble over the CS line. As a result I walked into the store pure and unaffected by all the negative chatter
If you'll read through the 'chatter,' it's not to imply these are bad guitars. The negativity (if you choose to call it that, though I really don't see it that way) is toward Gibson's propensity to change a few minuscule features and charge and extra 4-7k for a guitar that largely lands in the neighborhood of marketing hype.
 
Last edited:

cutaway

Senior Member
Messages
18,212
I never said anyone implied they were bad guitars, and I have read all of the chatter. I was simply pointing out that when you frequent forums like this, and others, it is very easy to be swayed by all the talk about something, like tenon length for instance, that may not affect the tone. And honestly I can't even follow the point you are making. I would understand if you're talking about calling a Historic a True Historic and charging more for it, but that isn't even the case with the CS line. When looking at specs alone it wasn't even on par with the previous Historic models so what you're saying really makes no sense. Didn't mean to hit a nerve with you dude, good lord. I was simply saying use your ears rather than what you read on a forum. Not sure why that got you all bent out of shape.
How did you get from my post I'm bent out of shape? I'm not at all. :) We're good.
 

vanderkalin

Member
Messages
2,160
As far as the 2016's go, the Standard Historic has the long neck tenon, hide glue, 1 piece mahogany body with 2 piece maple top. Just like the True Historic. The plastics are slightly different, and the True Historic has a thinner wet sanded finish. That's according to Gibson's website, comparing the two 57 reissues.
Personally, I'd get a used R4 or R7.
So it's wet sanded and thinner but still with the plasticizers? Way to go gibson. Maybe in 10 years we will have a guitar that Yaron was building 10 years ago. For twice as much.
 

davess23

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
6,466
If I buy one, I'll need an affidavit from Gibson stating that this is the most accurate, absolutely on the money copy of a 50s LP that they're ever going to build. And that if they ever do build a better one they'll exchange it straight up for my True Historic and pay the shipping. Otherwise I think I'll keep my newly re-branded "False Historic" 1997 R6 and 2001 R8. "They're not real, but I like them."
 

rburkard

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
3,138
The biggest difference is the finish. On the TH, it looks much more like an original 50s LP. Thinner, wet sanded, not quite as glossy.

They also have different wood piles at Gibson from which they pull the wood. SH vs TH. There is some overlap of the wood, but there is also some distinction.
Yes, this is correct. The True Historics also use hide glue, the standard Historics not. This results in a very noticeable difference in tone. The wood quality on the True Historics seems to be better and is usually more lightweight. People should stop judging unless they have played a True Historic and compared. I did and the differences are very obvious. Whether the price difference is justifiable is up to everybody to decide. For me it was.
 

Tim Plains

Senior Member
Messages
6,147
The True Historics also use hide glue, the standard Historics not
2013 historics have hot hyde glue for the neck-to-body joint. 2014/newer (standard) historics have hot hyde glue for the neck-to-body and fretboard-to-neck joints.

And the wood quality is not "better." They just sift through the wood set aside for the historic line and match the neck/body grain visually. There's a video about it on YouTube. That's it.
 

RichSZ

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
1,966
The biggest difference is the finish. On the TH, it looks much more like an original 50s LP. Thinner, wet sanded, not quite as glossy.

They also have different wood piles at Gibson from which they pull the wood. SH vs TH. There is some overlap of the wood, but there is also some distinction.
You're not really saying anything here other than what you were originally trying to say is not really true or is only true now and then.
 

Rhythm Rocker

Member
Messages
2,158
I vote our brother TGP member Tim Plains as resident Gibson Consultant.

Bro cuts thru all the misinformation time after time and educates us all.

And check out his sweet Gibson collection.
 




Top