How close is an R9 to a real '59?

merlin

None of the vintage guitars were vintage when they were made. They were all brand spanking new and my guess is that a reissue is more like a new guitar built back then, as it would have been. 

I can't see how all the sweat, piss, smoke and diddly-dong can be added retrospectively. Get a new guitar built to quality specs, from great wood, with great attention to detail, pickups, hardware and soft stuff, made with care and play it's ass off until you're close to dead (or at least older than you are now) then sell it to some young guy who thinks it has "mojo"....

Or am I being cynical?

rsvmark

I have an R8. I have never played or am likely to play a 58. I also have a CS 62 strat from @guitars4you ;

i played a massive gig (well for me) last weekend. Other members of the band remarked on how good my sound was- 'you can tell those are nice guitars.' 

The crowd was ace and didn't give a shit. I was happy as you like to be playing a gig with my rig cranked up. 

Absolutely no no one remarked that 'the sound was good, and it's really close, but it's not really authentic'

jumping@shadows

merlin said:

None of the vintage guitars were vintage when they were made. They were all brand spanking new and my guess is that a reissue is more like a new guitar built back then, as it would have been. 

I can't see how all the sweat, piss, smoke and diddly-dong can be added retrospectively. Get a new guitar built to quality specs, from great wood, with great attention to detail, pickups, hardware and soft stuff, made with care and play it's ass off until you're close to dead (or at least older than you are now) then sell it to some young guy who thinks it has "mojo"....

Or am I being cynical?

Yes, if Gibson actually did any of the things you describe then you’d have a fighting chance, but even their most expensive and exclusive attempts look like they’ve been recreated from an artists rendering of a vintage Les Paul.

Here’s a couple of my recent projects, a ‘53/‘59, ‘52/‘56 and 2012 R9 makeover...guess which ones produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones I’ve ever heard in person, and which one sounds flat/harsh/cheap? 

gringopig

.

gringopig

.

jumping@shadows

gringopig said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

jumping@shadows said:

This subject has been hashed out a million times, and so many responses are prefaced with ‘I’ve never played a real ‘59 but...’..
I have played, handled (and in far lesser numbers sold) multiple ‘58-‘60 Sunburst Les Pauls, and as most here know personally worked on and owned countless ‘52-‘56 Goldtops, with 6 on my bench at present alongside my own personal ‘60 Burst, and I have at least as many reissue guitars in for refinishing, and when you live and breath this stuff, and spend 40hrs a week inside them the OP’s question is moot imho. 
If you can’t tell the difference between a Historic reissue and a real late ‘50s Standard within minutes of handling, then vintage is not for you, and unerringly when I open the case on the latest True Historic offering in for a vintage correct makeover, I’m baffled by what £7500 buys you.. 

Thats the point, I've never tried a vintage Gibson and I'll likely never be able to...so your thoughts on the matter would be welcome. I'm not asking if itsi a good substitute, I'm asking if I'm getting anywhere near close to feeling how it feels to play one by playing g a reissue, or if it's futile and will never be replicated.

I vote: futile. Buy a nice reproduction that sounds great.

I would buy an ‘80s Tokai over any Historic RI as they’re a closer aesthetic replica in the ways that matter to me (top carve, neck/headstock shape, sunburst colours), and have a genuine broken in, vintage feel, and cost about as much as a new USA Std. 

gringopig

..

.

merlin

jumping@shadows said:

Here’s a couple of my recent projects, a ‘53/‘59, ‘52/‘56 and 2012 R9 makeover...guess which ones produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones I’ve ever heard in person, and which one sounds flat/harsh/cheap? 

I would hazard a guess that your makeovers produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones you've ever heard in person, and the other ones sound flat/harsh/cheap. 

Or it could be the other way round, depending on who's listening. 

I'm not trolling but taste is so deeply subjective that I would suggest posting some sound clips so we can all decide..... 

rossi

Unless you can play an R9 properly it wont make any difference if its a Chibson or a 59.If you can do it justice then you dont need to ask .

jumping@shadows

merlin said:

jumping@shadows said:

Here’s a couple of my recent projects, a ‘53/‘59, ‘52/‘56 and 2012 R9 makeover...guess which ones produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones I’ve ever heard in person, and which one sounds flat/harsh/cheap? 

I would hazard a guess that your makeovers produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones you've ever heard in person, and the other ones sound flat/harsh/cheap. 

Or it could be the other way round, depending on who's listening. 

I'm not trolling but taste is so deeply subjective that I would suggest posting some sound clips so we can all decide..... 

No, in fact they all look/feel in the same league thanks to the refinishing, but even when made over the RI is a flat and characterless guitar- just as it was when it arrived. 

Bridgehouse

Is it fairy dust?

Is it subjective opinion?

I dunno.

I tell you what tho, when I played my 64 Precision and a CS 64 reissue side by side, they were similar but not the same. Is that a problem? No.

They were/are both very good basses. 

I've played some basses that cost £300 that have been exceptionally good. Some bass players have played my 64 and described it as "sublime", I suspect there are some out there that would describe it as utter tosh. If you like a Jazz bass then you'd think the wide nut and silly string spacing on my P was utterly ridiculous.

So is a reissue as good as a 59? I've owned an R8 and it was excellent. TBH I don't care if it's as good/bad as a real 1958 Les Paul.

When it comes to guitars of any sort you have to play lots and decide which individual one makes sense and talks to you.

Everything else is just thin and watery gravy.

gringopig

.

ATB_Guitars

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Similarly, how close is an R8 to a '58? I know they're meant to be amazing replica's of the best and most sought after guitars in Gibson's history, but for those who've had the luxury of playing an original, how close do they get?

Not even close. Nowhere near in terms of feel, vibe, smell, look and general feeling of excitement it will bring. 

It is not just the sound or playability that makes these guitars special, it is a combination of so many factors that all work together to produce an instrument that more often than not, a truly wonderful thing to have.

If you get a good original 59, 58 or 60 that has not been messed around with too much, you will have one hell of a guitar that I guarantee no R8/R9 will be able to touch. 

jumping@shadows

gringopig said:

Which isn't to imply that ALL re-issues are flat and characterless surely? Those are two subjective terms and to inflate the criticism to encompass everything that isn't an original might be a tad harsh. Maybe you just have a bad one? I've played 4 owned by a friend and my own '68 reissue and flat and characterless are two descriptions I couldn't apply to any of them. 

I make that statement from direct and immediate comparison to the two ‘50s guitars, through the same amp- the old ones have ‘that sound’ in spades, and can be shaped toward whatever you might want, while the R9 was simply missing ‘that’- it was cold, tinny, one dimensional and managed to be both shrill and muddy at the same time, and it was no contest as to which sounded closest to the ideal of a great Les Paul.

gringopig

.

wesker123

jumping@shadows said:

This subject has been hashed out a million times, and so many responses are prefaced with ‘I’ve never played a real ‘59 but...’..
I have played, handled (and in far lesser numbers sold) multiple ‘58-‘60 Sunburst Les Pauls, and as most here know personally worked on and owned countless ‘52-‘56 Goldtops, with 6 on my bench at present alongside my own personal ‘60 Burst, and I have at least as many reissue guitars in for refinishing, and when you live and breath this stuff, and spend 40hrs a week inside them the OP’s question is moot imho. 
If you can’t tell the difference between a Historic reissue and a real late ‘50s Standard within minutes of handling, then vintage is not for you, and unerringly when I open the case on the latest True Historic offering in for a vintage correct makeover, I’m baffled by what £7500 buys you.. 

"True Historic in for a vintage correct makeover"
FFS have Gibson got it that wrong?
Even Tom Murphy's creations?

jumping@shadows

gringopig said:

jumping@shadows said:

gringopig said:

Which isn't to imply that ALL re-issues are flat and characterless surely? Those are two subjective terms and to inflate the criticism to encompass everything that isn't an original might be a tad harsh. Maybe you just have a bad one? I've played 4 owned by a friend and my own '68 reissue and flat and characterless are two descriptions I couldn't apply to any of them. 

I make that statement from direct and immediate comparison to the two ‘50s guitars, through the same amp- the old ones have ‘that sound’ in spades, and can be shaped toward whatever you might want, while the R9 was simply missing ‘that’- it was cold, tinny, one dimensional and managed to be both shrill and muddy at the same time, and it was no contest as to which sounded closest to the ideal of a great Les Paul.

I believe you. However, for those of us without access to an original or even a reworked original, it is difficult to grasp meaningfully what is meant by 'that sound' given that this concept will vary depending on the expectation of the player or listener. One might expect the sound of Eric Clapton playing a 1960 Les Paul through a small wattage Marshall combo, others might think it is Jimmy Page playing a Les Paul through a Marshall stack. Descriptions such as cold or one dimensional are hard to fathom too.
I suppose shrill and muddy would imply there is some non linear filtering going on in the region of frequencies that some might describe as the 'vocal characteristic' region. What about not plugging them in. Can you differentiate?

Can you swap the pickups around. That would eliminate one possibility; that of a faulty or substandard pickup and get those of us without access to these mythological mysteries some sense of how a modern reproduction is deficient and in what areas.

I worry about the use of phrases such as 'the ideal of a great Les Paul'. I can understand having a preference for one physical example in comparison to another but it's hard to compare anything to an 'ideal' especially as this illusory instrument only exists as a recorded sound comprising many many elements of which the actual recording process is one of the often forgotten parts.

Take the ideal of Clapton, Peter Green, Billy Gibbons, and you’re in that zone- the sound that comes out the amp sounds compellingly like those artists, while the R9 does not, and when I sit playing it doing the same things as I do with the old ones, I don’t get any closer, while it’s completely intuitive with the latter...that’s about as clear as I can make imho.

Danielsguitars

All i can say is of the few gibson historic stuff I've picked up they felt ok, nothing special, one in particular an aged custom shop 9k fucking new 6k second hand had the worst tone of any les paul I've ever heard even ox4 pickups didn't help, didn't play it more than 5 minutes

I'm with yukki any of the good vintage mij guitars would be where I'd go, in fact i had a 1980 greco super real, i could've bought gibson but didn't and never would unless it's old

guitars4you

Another issue to consider is supply, demand and availability - Regardless of how good or close an R9 is to an original, there are not enough 'conversions' or 'boutique replicas' from the likes of Terry Morgan and Gil Yaron, amongst others , to satisfy the demand that is out there - By nature, there is only a certain amount of 'conversions' and 'boutique replicas' available, as such both markets can exist 

skaguitar

jumping@shadows said:

merlin said:

None of the vintage guitars were vintage when they were made. They were all brand spanking new and my guess is that a reissue is more like a new guitar built back then, as it would have been. 

I can't see how all the sweat, piss, smoke and diddly-dong can be added retrospectively. Get a new guitar built to quality specs, from great wood, with great attention to detail, pickups, hardware and soft stuff, made with care and play it's ass off until you're close to dead (or at least older than you are now) then sell it to some young guy who thinks it has "mojo"....

Or am I being cynical?

Yes, if Gibson actually did any of the things you describe then you’d have a fighting chance, but even their most expensive and exclusive attempts look like they’ve been recreated from an artists rendering of a vintage Les Paul.

Here’s a couple of my recent projects, a ‘53/‘59, ‘52/‘56 and 2012 R9 makeover...guess which ones produce some of the greatest electric guitar tones I’ve ever heard in person, and which one sounds flat/harsh/cheap? 

wow... I hope the owner or eventual owner of that R9 isn't reading this thread...they'll be over the moon that they've paid to have it made over and it will still sound cheap and nasty and shrill...:)