Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by scolfax, Apr 14, 2016.
So... how are the 2016 Traditional Les Paul Studios?
The current MAP price of $1499 puts them up against used Classics and Traditionals (I bought a month old Mint 2016 Traditional for $1450 last fall), so they're currently a terrible horrible no good value. Having said that, the one that I've played was like every other 2016 I've played- decent wood selection (much improved from 2013-14), solid fit and finish and overall QC, well set up and good playing guitar. I would recommend one if you can find one at a discount.
Agreed on the iffy value proposition. Especially when used ones are as common as they are.
Not a fan of the faded line but how is it you can get a new Studio for $799 vs these for $1,499?
Polishing the finish takes a lot more man hours.
Most of the cost of a guitar is labor.
I agree but the same can be said about every guitar, new vs. used, I don't get why people buy new Standards or Trads when used R8s cost the same and sometimes less. Granted, you do get the lifetime warranty busing new in the US. It matters to some.
not to derail, but the studio i don't get (pricing) is the Les Paul Studio ES. it's 2799. it's a no frills, no binding version of the real deal.
it's $100 more than a fully bound LP ES. you wanna take a bath on a guitar, pick one of these beauties up new.
^^ it has body binding, but it's black.
I agree with go used..saw a very nice 94 Studio on the local CL a few weeks back for $650, if I didn't already have my 93 (also from CL) I'd have jumped on it.
For the OP, in that price range, as said, there is so much more you can get.
i would say go used on ANY of the big 3 manufacturers, if it's possible. i love my 2014 studio pro, i don't know what's so terrible about the wood though. mine seems to be pretty nice for a studio, but maybe there's something i am not seeing? can you explain further?
FWIW, I'd get a faded if I was buying new. At 799, and a probable discount, there's not much risk in it, can always sell it for 600 or so later if you want. The problem comes in if you like 'shiny', or if you're constantly going to be looking at a bound cherry sunburst longingly
Looks like paint
Considering the guitar in my avatar...I can't be too much of a binding snob!
If it's $700 per guitar, I'm in the wrong business. Which way to guitar polishing school?
While shopping for a Les Paul I tried quite a few studios. I tried faded, 50s, the regular 1400 dollar one. To me they all felt cheap and not well put togeter. I preferred my Agile AL 2000 to every studio I tried. Not even close.
I ended up buying a used tradional pro II. For me, it beats the studios easy peasy.
The "Faded" versions aren't just missing "polishing". It's a thinner finish overall, much thinner. That, btw, = better tone, all things considered, just not as pretty. I'll take better tone over pretty any day, especially for around half the price, but I seem to be in the minority. That's ok, I pick the good ones up dirt cheap after the bling snobs overlook them. Advantage me. If they made one with NO finish I'd be all over that in a heartbeat, I'd just Tru-Oil or Wudtone it and get max resonance out of it.
The Studio ES is a lot less than the new ES standard, which is around $3500 iirc. The ones linked above from GC is probably an old link. If you look at current Studio ES prices vs. current bound ES prices, they are a good deal, like a 339 studio vs the regular 339.
How do you figure?
Ok take a piece of wood. Tap it. Now take it and wrap it in 10 layers of tight plastic wrap. Tap it. See?
Thinner finishes let the wood resonate better. The thinner, the better. Having experimented with that for the last 8 years or so, I have no reservations saying that the less finish on a piece of wood, the better tone you're going to get. Pretty easy to do the testing.