Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by Reeek, Sep 6, 2006.
So what are the factors that make the VOS 1958 and VOS 1959 so different in price?
I believe its just the flame top. There isn't anything functionally superiour about the 1959 that I've heard of.
They weigh less... Not worth the price difference tho IMO.
The "9" stamp takes more highly skilled labor, and thus those costs are passed on to you.
It's pretty much all about the wood- the body weight and the aesthetic of the top.
I'm quite happy with my 2006 R8! The top is covered with subtle flame, and it weighs a whopping 8.5 lbs!
Better looking babes are attracted to the R9s. Well worth it IMO.
R9 neck is a bit smaller and the flame top, I think the frets are bigger too, according to musician's friend.
+1 yep, the neck on the '59 feels different, or at least the one's I played did. The '58 has a real thick feeling neck.
The '59 is the Holy Grail of Les Pauls. Is it any surprise that the reissue '59 should have an unholy grail price tag.
I like the 60's neck, is the 59 similar ?
Eary 58's are the best bargain...They have the same amount of flame and that monster neck.
No. A "60's" neck is slimmer.
You could go with an R0 ('60 Reissue). Flametop, also big $$.
60's is a bit thinner..hence they tend to have worse resale..people tend to go for the '59 which many --myself included feel just right-- '58s are bigger than 59's, many find them too big to be comfortable, and I think 57's are same as 58's, maybe even a hair bigger. Best buy i think, if you can find one for the right price..is a 1999 --only year made-- '59 Plaintop. Kinda rare since only made one year, not big bucks usually if you can find one really because not flamed --though much rarer than a flametop '59--, and have that great just right sized '59 neck. Mine kicks ass. Outside of that '97-'00 seems to be the golden era of flame for the RIs, alot of those period '58s have way better tops than most of the '59s you see Gibson producing today.
I don't want to hijack this thread but what is the difference between
a Standard Les Paul and a Standard Faded Les Paul, is it just the finish
and the pickups ?
My 58 VOS has PLENTY of flame...
Sweet, you don't need a 59 with that baby.
Below is a copy/paste of my reply in this thread:
I think it's very important to debunk this neck size myth that Gibson has encouraged with their own marketing materials. People are making multiK$ decisions based on misinformation.
There is no difference in the size of the fretwire on any of the Historics I have played. There is also no consistant predictable difference in neck sizes based on model designation (expet for the R0 of course). I have owned 15+ R7s, R8s, and R9s made in 2003 and later so this is the sample group I'm basing this statement on. I realize that Gibson's own marketing materials and common "internet" wisdom contradicts this. In actual practice a blindfolded player would have a zero percent chance of correctly identifying a decent sample size of historics by model.
My experience is the same. That experience is only based on the 3 R8s I've owned and spending a few afternoons at Dave's Guitars (when they were still a Gibson dealer).
Everybody knows that women love Strats.
I'm another who hasn't seen a big difference in weight or neck size between R8s and R9s. I guess if anything you might be more prone to find a slimmer neck and lighter weight on a R9, but there's no guarantee. My current R8 has a neck that measures .885-.990, which most would say should be on a R9. I've measured R9 necks that were in the .910-1.010 range, bigger than what you'd expect on a R9. As for weight, I've seen plenty of 8.5 lb and under R7s and R8s. So to me the $1500 you pay for a R9 is all about the top, Lifton case, and the "prestige" of owning the top of the line version of the Historic Lester.