Is Gibson's Fijian Mahogany lighter than the South American variety?

Jeztone

I bought a Les Paul Trad Pro II last year, at first I thought it was chambered, but its 9 hole weight relieved. Its got to be the lightest Les Paul Ive ever owned. Ive noticed the Trads are full weight this year. Is this due to Fijian Mahogany being lighter? Ive heard rumblings about this on T'web, but not played enough recent Les Pauls to qualify it?

thermionic

I thought the Traditionals weren't chambered or weight-relieved at all?

Adam_MD

I think the earlier ones weren't and then they started to weight relieve. They just switched back to no weight relief in 2014 specs.
I vaguely remember hearing that traditionals were weight relieved and standards were chambered for a while, anyone know if this is right?

not_the_dj

http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx

not_the_dj

...also don't confuse the Traditional with the Trad Pro ii. Different beasts and not just a Traditional with coil tap/boost.

GuitarMonkey

not_the_dj said:

http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx

“In my heart of hearts I really think that weight relieving is the right thing to do,” says Gibson Master Luthier Jim DeCola. “It’s just a good thing. It costs us extra time and effort to do it, so we’re not saving anything. It’s an expense on our part, but we feel good about doing it.”

Translation: "We can save a packet by using cheaper, denser woods and still charge top dollar for our guitars."

ArchtopDave

GuitarMonkey said:

not_the_dj said:

http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx

“In my heart of hearts I really think that weight relieving is the right thing to do,” says Gibson Master Luthier Jim DeCola. “It’s just a good thing. It costs us extra time and effort to do it, so we’re not saving anything. It’s an expense on our part, but we feel good about doing it.”

Translation: "We can save a packet by using cheaper, denser woods and still charge top dollar for our guitars."

Gibson may well have to be realistic as a volume guitar builder. Good quality mahogany is becoming increasingly rare and it's price is going up and up and up. 

GuitarMonkey

Absolutely. But Gibson making it out to be them altruistically doing a favour for the customer rather than it being a business decision based on availability of affordable wood is being economical with the truth.

It takes time yes, but on balance it saves Gibson money and equals more profit. They are a business after all.

p90fool

GuitarMonkey said:

It takes time yes, but on balance it saves Gibson money and equals more profit. They are a business after all.

I don't think the quantity of good lightweight mahogany Gibson would need every day is available at any price.

not_the_dj

GuitarMonkey said:

Absolutely. But Gibson making it out to be them altruistically doing a favour for the customer rather than it being a business decision based on availability of affordable wood is being economical with the truth.

 

Simple marketing, it's known as "Features and Benefits". Happens all over the place, you turn a downgrade of spec into a plus point.

GuitarMonkey

not_the_dj said:

GuitarMonkey said:

Absolutely. But Gibson making it out to be them altruistically doing a favour for the customer rather than it being a business decision based on availability of affordable wood is being economical with the truth.

 

Simple marketing, it's known as "Features and Benefits". Happens all over the place, you turn a downgrade of spec into a plus point.

How come we give @mdphillips1956 such a hard time for doing the same thing? 

the_passenger

The mahogany Gibson uses these days is indeed a lighter type sourced from Fiji plantations.

Mahogany type used on a 2003 R8 (South American - heavier):




Mahagony type used on a 2013 R8 (Fiji plantation - lighter weight)

GuitarMonkey

The lower one looks like it was cut from a stump, it's so gnarly.

the_passenger

I frequently see this type of figuring on recent Reissues from the past few years (since around 2009).

Neil

The lower pic doesn't even look like mahogany as I recognise it.

That said there are many different species of mahogany like woods around the world.

guitargeek62

The lower one is a beauty, I'd go for that on looks alone.

the_passenger

Both mahogany types above are from the same species / Swietenia macrophylla /, the difference comes from the quality of weather, soil and the altitude of the actual plantation. Gibson sources their mahogany from Fijian plantations since 2009.

Adam_MD

guitargeek62;203131" said:

The lower one is a beauty, I'd go for that on looks alone.

Totally with you on that, it looks epic

Jeztone

Interesting Mr Passenger. I used to own a 2003 Les Paul Classic, the back looked like granite, it was the tightest densist grain pattern. Weighed about 10.5lbs. My Trad Pro II is defietly less than 9lbs.

GuitarMonkey

the_passenger said:

Gibson sources their mahogany from Fijian plantations since 2009. 

Because it is not an indigenous species to Fiji and therefore not covered by CITES?

crunchman

I'm not sure that mahogany is on the CITES list yet.  I think it's scarce enough to be too expensive for production guitars, but not scarce enough to be endangered.