Gitfiddler Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 After seeing all of the absolutely amazing new Heritage guitars on recent threads, it made me wonder...Is Heritage building and spraying the best guitars ever?? I certainly am very impressed by what I'm seeing, and if I was in the market, would order one in a heartbeat! What do you guys and gals think?
Spectrum13 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I think Tim needs to place a custom order and see if they can build better than his Sunset 525.
Kuz Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 For me, they look nice but all my "old" Heritages (2005-2009) are under 9.25lbs. I see a lot of "newer" Heritages for sale in the 10lbs and up range. If it is true the newer Heritages weigh more, then my answer would be "no" . The weight of a guitar is a direct correlation to the quality of the wood (or at least is a correlation of the wood chosen, IMHO) and if Heritage is not rejecting heavy wood then I feel this is a quality control issue. For example, I might have been a player in the Heritage limited "40" Black Beautites, but everyone I saw was well above 10lbs. This is inexcusable in a limited edition $2,750 guitar. Just my .02 and FWIW, I LOVE my Heritages!!!
eljay Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 interesting conjecture, tim. maybe the karma is in the water supply: in the past few days i've ventured back to the les paul forum and seen all the buzz about the "true historic" models that G is peddling as of now. "best Gs ever" etc. etc.
DetroitBlues Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 For me, they look nice but all my "old" Heritages (2005-2009) are under 9.25lbs. I see a lot of "newer" Heritages for sale in the 10lbs and up range. If it is true the newer Heritages weigh more, then my answer would be "no" . The weight of a guitar is a direct correlation to the quality of the wood (or at least is a correlation of the wood chosen, IMHO) and if Heritage is not rejecting heavy wood then I feel this is a quality control issue. For example, I might have been a player in the Heritage limited "40" Black Beautites, but everyone I saw was well above 10lbs. This is inexcusable in a limited edition $2,750 guitar. Just my .02 and FWIW, I LOVE my Heritages!!! Aren't most LP custom type guitar heavier then Standards anyway? Never heard of a light weight 157 that wasn't weight relieved.... I usually associate more paint on them then most other Heritages....
Gitfiddler Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 To Kuz's comment about the weight of 150/157 models, can't customers request lighter wood?
Millennium Maestro Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 To Kuz's comment about the weight of 150/157 models, can't customers request lighter wood? Yes Heritage is putting out their best products ever... The equipment used has never been better, Finishes have never been better. setups have never been better. Yes lighter wood is an upgrade that Heritage charges extra for on a build. This summer at the pilgrimage I will be offering special deals for special builds, You will be able to select the woods and have a fairly accurate idea of the build weight by the rear slab used!
Kuz Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Aren't most LP custom type guitar heavier then Standards anyway? Never heard of a light weight 157 that wasn't weight relieved.... I usually associate more paint on them then most other Heritages.... What reason would make a 157 heavier than a 150? Ebony fretboard and bound headstock? I don't understand that logic. To Kuz's comment about the weight of 150/157 models, can't customers request lighter wood? Yep, and the guitars I custom ordered I got that option as an insurance policy to insure a reasonable weight. I am not trying to bash Heritage, but to offer constructive criticism so they can keep up with other makers. To me, any guitar over 9.5lbs is a deal breaker. I look at the weights posted on dealers' web sites and I don't see Gibson, PRS, Collings, McInturffs, Briggs, Hubers, ect., weighing more than 9.5lbs (and these are non-weight relieved guitars). But with Heritage it seems like most are over 9.5lbs. I hope weight is something Heritage will consider because many people don't want heavy guitars and many don't want their only option for a reasonable weighing guitar to be chambered.
JeffB Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Some of the finishes Ive seen on some of the newer ones posted here seem to be quite amazing.
davesultra Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 What reason would make a 157 heavier than a 150? Ebony fretboard and bound headstock? I don't understand that logic. Yep, and the guitars I custom ordered I got that option as an insurance policy to insure a reasonable weight. I am not trying to bash Heritage, but to offer constructive criticism so they can keep up with other makers. To me, any guitar over 9.5lbs is a deal breaker. I look at the weights posted on dealers' web sites and I don't see Gibson, PRS, Collings, McInturffs, Briggs, Hubers, ect., weighing more than 9.5lbs (and these are non-weight relieved guitars). But with Heritage it seems like most are over 9.5lbs. I hope weight is something Heritage will consider because many people don't want heavy guitars and many don't want their only option for a reasonable weighing guitar to be chambered. +1 The H-157LE (#12) that I owned was 9.8lbs. When I inquired about a few different 150s at Wolfe's a while back, none were under 9.5 lbs. Anything over 9 is a pass for me too.
AP515 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I agree that weight is a limiter. My first 150 was 10.5Lbs, The ones I have now are 9.4Lbs and that is the upper limit for me. I understand that the real 59 bursts are light compared to the ones made today. The wood was not as dense during that time I guess.
111518 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx On weight... Gibson, at least, has addressed the issue of heavier mahogany by weight relieving, in some way, almost all of their Les Pauls. It is now the standard practice, not the exception. Would Heritage be wise to follow suit, which is probably the only way to achieve consistently lighter weights without the added expense and environmental concerns of sourcing scarce, premium wood? That seems a complicated question, but I don't think it is simply a matter of Heritage failing to keep up. Gibson doesn't conceal the fact that it is removing wood to keep weight down, but they are also not advertising it, either.
FredZepp Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There is no doubt that Heritage is doing some amazing things with finishes , figured woods and custom features lately. And without some of the quirks that can show up in ones from the 90's (although those are a lot of my favorites due to the fast neck). I believe some of the issues with weight may be because of Heritage buying very specific species of woods, where Gibson seems more open to substituting similar woods in some cases. In Gibsons, we've seen the mahogany from Fuji or where ever , the baked maples , Richlite, layered rosewood, and of course the black market wood, that caused them problems, used. Heritage likes specific Honduran mahogany and usually eastern maple.. but we've seen an increase in western maple used more recently... (due to the figured wood in those). Gibson needs such a high volume of wood that they are constantly looking for new sources that are similar substitutes.
Kuz Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/weight-relief-gibson-les-paul-guitars-0615-2012.aspx On weight... Gibson, at least, has addressed the issue of heavier mahogany by weight relieving, in some way, almost all of their Les Pauls. It is now the standard practice, not the exception. Would Heritage be wise to follow suit, which is probably the only way to achieve consistently lighter weights without the added expense and environmental concerns of sourcing scarce, premium wood? That seems a complicated question, but I don't think it is simply a matter of Heritage failing to keep up. Gibson doesn't conceal the fact that it is removing wood to keep weight down, but they are also not advertising it, either. Actually, Gibson's Historic authentic "R" series are not weight relieved. But Gibson does have many series that are weight relieved. So I would challenge and say it is inaccurate to say that it is standard practice to weight relieve Les Paul guitars if you are going for historical accuracy and authentic Burst tone. But the general premise of your post is understood.
DetroitBlues Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 What reason would make a 157 heavier than a 150? Ebony fretboard and bound headstock? I don't understand that logic. Yep, and the guitars I custom ordered I got that option as an insurance policy to insure a reasonable weight. I am not trying to bash Heritage, but to offer constructive criticism so they can keep up with other makers. To me, any guitar over 9.5lbs is a deal breaker. I look at the weights posted on dealers' web sites and I don't see Gibson, PRS, Collings, McInturffs, Briggs, Hubers, ect., weighing more than 9.5lbs (and these are non-weight relieved guitars). But with Heritage it seems like most are over 9.5lbs. I hope weight is something Heritage will consider because many people don't want heavy guitars and many don't want their only option for a reasonable weighing guitar to be chambered. Thicker layers of paint. I think the soid colors hiding all the wood grain.
Millennium Maestro Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I am not trying to bash Heritage, but to offer constructive criticism so they can keep up with other makers. To me, any guitar over 9.5lbs is a deal breaker. I hope weight is something Heritage will consider because many people don't want heavy guitars and many don't want their only option for a reasonable weighing guitar to be chambered. I cannot speak for the Masters but I feel it is extremely apparent to me that they are traditionalists and they believe in building guitars like they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I would never expect and modern built guitar from Heritage, I expect an old school hand built guitar and they never let me down. I suspect many others here, just like me will select the lighter guitar when seeing advertised weights. In my experiences I have played a lot of guitars and you can hear a difference acoustically and electric on weight relieved guitars but does that REALLY matter? Those heavyweights however do offer something special tonally. For those with specific wants, Heritage offers Custom build specs to meet anybody's needs AT A STEAL!
Kuz Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Look, I am not bashing Heritage. There is a reason why I have owned 14 Heritage guitars and only 4 Gibsons. And there is a reason why I currently own 7 Heritage guitars and ZERO Gibsons. My point is this,.... In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, I don't ever recall the weight of a guitar being discussed. And yes, some even claimed the heaviest guitars had the best tone & sustain. But times have changed. People want LPs/150s that are lighter weight and authentic to the build of the classic bursts (meaning; solid wood guitars). There is a reason why almost all the major on-line dealers list the weight of their guitars. If weight doesn't matter, then why do they post the weights in the listings? Because weight does matter to potential buyers. I totally get ordering custom built Heritages and it is a steal. I did it 4 times myself. But not everyone wants to custom order a guitar. Many like to play them first before buying. Many don't like having to weight. A Heritage with a nice reasonable weight should not only be available via a custom order. All I am saying is that IF weight does matter so much that almost all dealers are listing the weight of their guitars, Heritage SHOULD try to do all they can to be selective of the wood & weight of guitars they produce (custom orders or regular production guitars). Charge $100-200 more but make it a reasonable weight on all guitars, not just custom orders. Other than weight, I believe Heritage Guitars to be as good or superior to any other guitar produced today!!! Just my honest opinion.
tulk1 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I think whoever is doing their finishes is off the charts awesome! And that is what people see first. As for build quality, they are certainly better than they were in 2007, no doubt. And even those were pretty dandy guitars compared to the mass manufacturers (we all know who they are). These guys wouldn't have been asked by so many other makers to be their Custom Shop if they weren't that good. As for wood, maybe that ultra light stuff is drying up? When the mass manu's are putting out thousands a day, there has to come a time when a finite supply starts to dry up. Then again, I haven't had a new Heritage since 2009. But those 2007, 2008 and 2009 guitars are just friggin' .... well ... awesome!! (everything is fun when you're part of a team)
FredZepp Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Plantation grown mahogany from Fiji ,India or Central America varies widely on where it's grown... even if it is the species known as Honduran Mahogany, which can be grown in many countries including Honduras. For instance, on the new high end "True Historic" Les Paul models , Gibson says the species of wood used is.... Mahogany... and Maple... no other details. Same is true of the Historic Series. The only specific is that it is "Solid Indian Rosewood" used for the fretboard. So that allows them to buy whatever mahogany is in good supply , or well priced ... or even lighter weight, without being specific on details.
Kuz Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Well, I would vote for light weight mahogany from where ever it is grown. My point is a 10.5-12lb Honduras mahogany guitar is going to sit a much, much longer time than a 9lb Mahogany guitar sourced from somewhere else than Honduras.
FredZepp Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Well, I would vote for light weight mahogany from where ever it is grown. My point is a 10.5-12lb Honduras mahogany guitar is going to sit a much, much longer time than a 9lb Mahogany guitar sourced from somewhere else than Honduras. I agree totally. .. all of my most recent purchases have been lighter guitars. And I wonder if the good folks at Heritage have looked at the options in mahogany or if they just stick with what they've always bought. And I personally like chambered solid bodies just fine. The really,really light ones are a bit different at first.( I have a couple of those ) . but if you took a 11 lb guitar and chambered it down to 9 lbs, it would likely be hard to tell, I use enough gain/ overdrive that any of them work just fine for me.
Vanschoyck Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 This is not objective at all, but my two Heritages are more than ten years apart, one recent, and I don't see any significant build quality difference. I have a third (still) on the way.
FredZepp Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Hey Fred, how much does your LP Custom weigh? It's 10 lbs even... ( 1977 LP Custom) My H-157 black beauty is 9.8 lbs and the H-150's are 10.2 , 9.6 and 9.2.. Only the 1988 feels heavy ( at 10.2 ) .. but it is wicked nice , so I can deal with that. I'd think that there aren't many recent 150/ 157 that fit in the 10.5 and over range.. that is quite heavy. Of course , I have chambered LP's that are as low as 6.8 and 7.9 lbs...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.