Les Paul weight

It is certainly heavy by today's standards; but was less-so in the Norlin years, where I've seen some that were 12+ pounds.

I typically like to go for LPs (and all others, as well!) that are 9.5 and under.

Scott

 

My experience of Les Pauls are that the lighter ones are great for your back (assuming that they are actually all solid, OK). The heavy ones can still be very resonant - my favourite Les Paul weighs 11.5 lbs and is very resonant.

Don't buy by the weight - you must try them.

Best, Pete.

 

My Les Paul Elegant solved the weight problem; light, resonant, FAT tone and sustain like a grand piano.

 

I won't buy an LP much over 9 lbs. Anymore unless it is really awesome. My favorites all seem to fall in that 8.8-9.2 range. But that's only because I've been buying them for 30 years. When I first started , I really didn't care. Also didn't see a lot of light ones in the 70's and 80's.

 

I, too, find that the 8.5-9.2 range seems to be the prime spot, anything 9.5+ is suspect ergonomically for me and the real light ones don't always have the tone IMO.

Yes a 10.5 lb'er is heavy.

 

Not if it's in a case.

With so many light LPs out there, I don't think I could go much over 9.

 

actually, the weirdest thing about the weight of a les paul to me is that in some models it feels as if it is all concentrated in the butt end of the guitar.

you can test this by going to Guitar Center or where ever and sitting down and playing some and see how many feel like they want to swing the headstock up in the air when you're not hunched over the thing.

that was a large factor in determing my les paul purchase, but i don't even have that one any more. it sure was nice and evenly wieghted though.

 

Always try before you buy.

A light one that has been hollowed out does not sound the same as a solid. Ymmv, of course!

Good luck!

Best, Pete.

 

My best LP is around 10 lbs. It sounds so good that I don't care about the weight.

I second Trisonic, don't go by the weight only. Many of the current crop of LP look like they have a different species of mahogany that I find visually appalling.

 

After owning at least a dozens Les Pauls over the years, I have always favored the heavy ones as just sounding thicker and fuller to me. I have had many guitar tech/experts tell me the lighter ones sound fuller and thicker, although I have to dis-agree.

I own 1 now that probably is in the 8-9lb range and feel it is the thinnest and brightest(not in a good way) Les Paul I have ever owned.(and it's a 1959' reissue).

I agree, try many and don't pay attention to weight. Just find the 1 that feels and sounds right to your ear.

 

I agree w/ all that... I'm lucky that both my Lesters are 9-9.2 lb., not too heavy. Both tone monsters.

jc

 

Yes, at the risk of repeating myself: Buy by tone and then weigh it, you may be surprised.

Best, Pete.

 

but if you will be standing long with it, weight does become a factor. If seated, it doesn't matter. Mine range from mid 8 - 9 3/4 lbs...and all have different personalities. My fave is the heaviest (it has P-90s), the one with most sustain weighs 8.6, and the loudest acoustically is 8.7. But ya know what? They all sound just great! Like many have said, tone first, weight second...to a point. Good luck!

 

This is a good point. I have back problems, ruptured a disc a couple of years ago. I'm very sensitive to weight, and I use a postal scale to weigh guitars and determine what works and what doesn't. My rule of thumb for LPs is, anything over 9 lbs is no go; it'll hurt me. Under that, and I can usually play a full night with no problems.

So I just picked up an Historic, 8lbs 11oz, and it started bothering me right away. Problem is, it's body heavy, and that seems to make a difference. Balance is important, along with just the weight.

/rick

 

I have 3 historics (an R6 w/ p-90's, R9 and a CR9-cloud 9) and the cloud 9 is the thickest sounding of the bunch and is 7.2 lbs, that may be due to the tone chambers. That being said my favorite by far is my 99 R9 that is 8.8 lbs. This one kind of annoyed me at first because I can't get the stop-tail flush with the body-it is up about 1/2 an inch, but the thing just sings like Nigel Tufnel says "whaaa"

 

Fred,

That Nigel comment was

 

None of my LPs have the stoptail flush w/the body, eventhough they could. There are several reasons NOT to do so. First, if the strings contact the rear body of the bridge, the tail s/b raised as to free any contact. There may be a small benefit to that in terms of string harmonics. Second, and most important, Those tune-o-matic bridges will slowly flatten if too much continual pressure is applied. It's best to relieve that, and raising the tail makes a big difference. Lastly, raising the tail lessens the final string angle, resulting in a much slinkier feel for bends, etc. Any benefit which may be realized (and it's arguable whether this matters at all) in improved resonance as a result of a flush tail, are easily trumped by these reasons.

 

Thanks AaeCee, over the last couple of years I have gotten over it-thanks for the tip