Heritage Website

[Kuz]

I think there is a defined difference in tone and sustain based on the weight of a guitar.

Of my guitars that are the most alive, resonate, and have the most sustain are lighter in weight.  They are also a tad brighter.

I also feel heavier guitars are darker with more low end, but muddier & less alive.

I greatly prefer lighter guitars because I want resonance and sustain, and I can make a brighter guitar sound darker.  It is near impossible to artificially increase sustain ( that still sounds good... I know compressors can help but they can suck tone too) and also it is nearly impossible to make a dark guitar sound brighter & alive.  

Most of the the LP Bursts from the 50s were under 8.75lbs.  Lighter, denser wood was used back then.  It has and always will be about the quality of the wood.

[Yooper]

I'm not convinced there's an extra pound of water in my 9.5 lb. v. my 8.5. I found the 9.5 to be too bright with '59s. SLE 101's fixed it. The 8.5 has P-90s and sounds "just exactly perfect" for me. There is no objective "best" sound. It's personal. I can still make the "best guitar" sound like crap.

I played a granite guitar (solid rock) that had incredible sustain. Pretty thin though. I'll take any wood over it.  I don't know why he made it, but it sustained like crazy.

Still waiting for that blindfold test.

[deytookerjaabs]

1 hour ago, Kuz said:

I think there is a defined difference in tone and sustain based on the weight of a guitar.

Of my guitars that are the most alive, resonate, and have the most sustain are lighter in weight.  They are also a tad brighter.

I also feel heavier guitars are darker with more low end, but muddier & less alive.

 I greatly prefer lighter guitars because I want resonance and sustain, and I can make a brighter guitar sound darker.  It is near impossible to artificially increase sustain ( that still sounds good... I know compressors can help but they can suck tone too) and also it is nearly impossible to make a dark guitar sound brighter & alive.  

 Most of the the LP Bursts from the 50s were under 8.75lbs.  Lighter, denser wood was used back then.  It has and always will be about the quality of the wood.

 

 

 

This is a small sample size, given my time researching and shows etc I'd say right near 9lbs and above is extremely common for 50's Les Pauls when you take them all into account.

Notable collector/dealer Tom Wittrock says "Some feel that anything over 9lbs would be heavy, but that's probably the average for 50s LP's." Well known buyer/player (Bonamassa) of them who may have played more than anyone on the planet said: "A tick over 9 and under 10 I find to be the best sounding ones. Big and Mighty." 

I know many famous ones are right about 9 or more like Greeny (8lb 15oz), Hotlanta (9.5), Pearly Gates (said to be over 9lbs), The Beast (9.5), Joe Perry's (9.5)...

Add to that, look at those neck sizes, many from .85-.89 at the first to .95 +/- at the 12th fret with the taper really slimming down towards '60 along with lots of 'burst owners describing neck contours as "soft V" to "slim C". Personally, of the 50's I've gotten to pluck for a few minutes I can't recall a single one having a "U" profile like tons of modern historic Gibsons do. 

 

 

I've read before that the age/demographic of "Custom Shop" guitar buyers keeps the demand for as light as possible guitars since many in that demographic prefer the comfort of less weight. Given the fact that all these famous guitars were "porkers" I'd say it's safe to assume they didn't lack sustain/resonance/clarity by any stretch. 

[HANGAR18]

Was not Gibson using the Swiss Cheese Holes technique of weight relieving the Les Paul guitars back then?
(Three or four golf ball sized holes under the Maple cap.)

[Kuz]

11 hours ago, deytookerjaabs said:

 

 

 

This is a small sample size, given my time researching and shows etc I'd say right near 9lbs and above is extremely common for 50's Les Pauls when you take them all into account.

Notable collector/dealer Tom Wittrock says "Some feel that anything over 9lbs would be heavy, but that's probably the average for 50s LP's." Well known buyer/player (Bonamassa) of them who may have played more than anyone on the planet said: "A tick over 9 and under 10 I find to be the best sounding ones. Big and Mighty." 

I know many famous ones are right about 9 or more like Greeny (8lb 15oz), Hotlanta (9.5), Pearly Gates (said to be over 9lbs), The Beast (9.5), Joe Perry's (9.5)...

Add to that, look at those neck sizes, many from .85-.89 at the first to .95 +/- at the 12th fret with the taper really slimming down towards '60 along with lots of 'burst owners describing neck contours as "soft V" to "slim C". Personally, of the 50's I've gotten to pluck for a few minutes I can't recall a single one having a "U" profile like tons of modern historic Gibsons do. 

 

 

I've read before that the age/demographic of "Custom Shop" guitar buyers keeps the demand for as light as possible guitars since many in that demographic prefer the comfort of less weight. Given the fact that all these famous guitars were "porkers" I'd say it's safe to assume they didn't lack sustain/resonance/clarity by any stretch. 

Look I don't want to get in a long drawn out conversation about wait of vintage Burst LPs, but doesn't the chart prove my point that I was close in saying most weigh in/under 8.75lbs and the chart says the average wait was 8.86lbs?  Not one LP was documented weighing over 9.72 lbs and it is common to find many (not all) Heritage 150s that are over 10lbs.   

Bottom line is the good old grown lighter weight mahogany wood is all most all gone.   I think the ONLY advantage that vintage guitars have over modern ones is the wood.  The vintage guitars by pure chance had a better chance of sounding better only due to the wood (denser & drier), it certainly wasn't due to tolerance levels and machining of back in the late '50s. In my opinion, Modern guitars with excellent wood are superior to vintage guitars in playability, intonation, and equally as good in tone.  But the wood must be excellent.  

The best chefs in the world can't make tough inferior Golden Corral steaks taste like Ruth Chris steaks.....

[deytookerjaabs]

3 hours ago, Kuz said:

Look I don't want to get in a long drawn out conversation about wait of vintage Burst LPs, but doesn't the chart prove my point that I was close in saying most weigh in/under 8.75lbs and the chart says the average wait was 8.86lbs?  Not one LP was documented weighing over 9.72 lbs and it is common to find many (not all) Heritage 150s that are over 10lbs.   

Bottom line is the good old grown lighter weight mahogany wood is all most all gone.   I think the ONLY advantage that vintage guitars have over modern ones is the wood.  The vintage guitars by pure chance had a better chance of sounding better only due to the wood (denser & drier), it certainly wasn't due to tolerance levels and machining of back in the late '50s. In my opinion, Modern guitars with excellent wood are superior to vintage guitars in playability, intonation, and equally as good in tone.  But the wood must be excellent.  

The best chefs in the world can't make tough inferior Golden Corral steaks taste like Ruth Chris steaks.....

 

That's what I meant by "small sample size." I've seen plenty of 50's Les Pauls right up towards 10lbs, especially the first couple years of the P90 guitars and plenty of customs, one of my fav's I ever played was a '52-'57 conversion and it had to be near 10. So, I think if we actually did the math on all the known ones we'd find Tom's estimate to be correct that 9 is average....He would know

Point being, a Les Paul in the 9-10lb range with a normal neck profile is nothing to scoff at. Today, "Historic" specs have people convinced that 50's Les Pauls were all 8.5lbs with huge necks. I would say the average historic comes in at 8.75lbs tho, with it being far more difficult to find them in the 9lb range. 

As for the "old growth" argument, I don't buy it per the mahogany. The only scientific analysis I've read was posted years ago on the LPF by well known luthier Bharat Khandekar who sent samples of wood kept from his many projects/repairs on 50's Les Pauls for lab analysis. The Mahogany came back from the lab as Khaya, an African variant. Gil Yaron said he saw bulk purchase order receipts for Mahogany from Africa dating to the 50's, huge orders. Given the amount purchased and the average weights it's likely the trees were fairly nourished & fast growing: hard, red, light in weight. Old trees tend to be heavier than the average per blank and are premium stock for woodmakers. 

IMO there's too many myths in terms of the tone chase of the 50's guitars due to their prices/popularity, lots straight from the mouths of dealers/enthusiats themselves. 

[High Flying Bird]

On 8/12/2018 at 5:22 PM, Kuz said:

I think there is a defined difference in tone and sustain based on the weight of a guitar.

Of my guitars that are the most alive, resonate, and have the most sustain are lighter in weight.  They are also a tad brighter.

My first Heritage was a 1989 black H-150.  It was heavy as hell and by far the heaviest guitar I have ever owned.  It was bright and very tonefull.  Not plugged in it had the sustain of a piano.  The only other guitar I have ever heard sustain this long acoustically was a friend's, father's '58 or '59 Les Paul cherry sun burst.  It was heavy as hell too.  Both guitars were "hard."  If you bumped your wrist it hurt. 

I personally feel that it is a matter of the individual guitar and guitar player that determine the results of sustain test.  How an electric guitar sounds with no amplification is the true feel of a good instrument.  You can always change pickups but you can't make chicken salad with chicken shit.  Here I am playing that guitar after finding a couple of suits in the appartment's garbage cans.  ;^)

[buzzy]

4 hours ago, High Flying Bird said:

Here I am playing that guitar after finding a couple of suits in the appartment's garbage cans.  ;^)

 

 

 

Priceless!  color me green with envy

[Millennium Maestro]

On 8/11/2018 at 12:49 AM, rockabilly69 said:

 calling original owner Heritage guitars Golden Era is kind of comical to me

"I Think" I am the yoho that coined that one... I can guaranty the connection to the factory is different for all, I know many like me have been very blessed and spoiled with close ties to the Golden Era guys. We have had intimate relationships over builds, shared special times with the actual people that built our guitars and many of us actually got to feel like part of the process.  Some of us have had employees built us guitars, some employees have performed secret tasks on builds for excellent loyal people. The Golden Era included a ton of mojo in my eyes. To me its really cool looking at a guitar and saying Katie did this, Curly did that, Jack did this, Pete did this, Jim really took care of me with this, Arnie really got my neck profile... Heck I still laugh at just the thoughts of some of the stories those Golden Era guys shared with me!  

It does make me sad that those experiences have all but vanished and many good folks such as yourself completely missed out... I understand why you don't get it.

I will always choose to support friends over corporations, and "my friend built" guitars are spectacular with at worst a full complete setup.  

[FredZepp]

yeah... based on the instruments I own and have played, I do consider the time that the plant was supervised by the original craftsmen using the original equipment to be a golden age.  Of course, I love vintage Gibsons, quirks and all, so not surprising.   Visiting the place and meeting the people was a magical experience unlike any other brand. 

 

That doesn't preclude for me that the new Heritage may not also have  it's own unique golden age also.

[Polo]

34 minutes ago, Millennium Maestro said:

We have had intimate relationships over builds, shared special times with the actual people that built our guitars and many of us actually got to feel like part of the process.  Some of us have had employees built us guitars, some employees have performed secret tasks on builds for excellent loyal people. The Golden Era included a ton of mojo in my eyes. To me its really cool looking at a guitar and saying Katie did this, Curly did that, Jack did this, Pete did this, Jim really took care of me with this, Arnie really got my neck profile... Heck I still laugh at just the thoughts of some of the stories those Golden Era guys shared with me!  

It does make me sad that those experiences have all but vanished and many good folks such as yourself completely missed out... I understand why you don't get it.

I will always choose to support friends over corporations, and "my friend built" guitars are spectacular with at worst a full complete setup.  

This is a good take on the golden era thing.  

 

[pressure]

My own experience is a little different. Still having conversations on Tuesday on guitar builds. I was able to trim the binding on the headstock overlay during PSP11 of a new Heritage build (it's coming). Still talking to Ren, Bill, Jim, Marv and Pete. So...same as it ever was minus the sawdust.

[rockabilly69]

2 hours ago, Millennium Maestro said:

"I Think" I am the yoho that coined that one... I can guaranty the connection to the factory is different for all, I know many like me have been very blessed and spoiled with close ties to the Golden Era guys. We have had intimate relationships over builds, shared special times with the actual people that built our guitars and many of us actually got to feel like part of the process.  Some of us have had employees built us guitars, some employees have performed secret tasks on builds for excellent loyal people. The Golden Era included a ton of mojo in my eyes. To me its really cool looking at a guitar and saying Katie did this, Curly did that, Jack did this, Pete did this, Jim really took care of me with this, Arnie really got my neck profile... Heck I still laugh at just the thoughts of some of the stories those Golden Era guys shared with me!  

It does make me sad that those experiences have all but vanished and many good folks such as yourself completely missed out... I understand why you don't get it.

I will always choose to support friends over corporations, and "my friend built" guitars are spectacular with at worst a full complete setup.  

I can understand having a personal connection to the builder of your guitar, I've had a few guitars built, and I loved talking through the details of the build and  and thankfully getting what I wanted, while making friendships that lasts years! And I have talked to a few of the Heritage guys on the phone especially when I got my last H150. Unfortunately, the guitar had numerous problems I had to sort out (label on the inside backplate/cover said Seth Lovers, guitar shipped with Pearly Gates, chrome hardware instead nickel as ordered, missing set screw on Tonepros bridge, no truss-rod wrench or Tonepros allen wrench shipped, bad fretwork).  But even then, it was nice to talk to Marv who straightened my problems as quick as possible. But the term "Golden Era", is pretty much known in guitar circles as the late 50's early 60's Gibson era, when the some of the finest vintage guitars on the planet were built (ie ES335, Burst, etc).  And when using it in ads to sell guitars, where I first noticed the term being used, it's kind of comical! I think many a novice would perhaps think it was perhaps when a company was building the best guitars of their history, which as I said, that jury is still out on. That said,  many times people have offered to buy my two Heritage guitars built in that era and I have turned those offers away as they are great, toneful guitars. Honestly both required more than a full set-up to get them there. One of them is just the body, neck, and tuners, that the guitar shipped with. And the other one I changed all the hardware, and pickups, but kept everything else. That is why I laugh at the term "Golden Era". I would hardly do those mods to a '59 ES335. 

 

On 8/13/2018 at 8:49 AM, deytookerjaabs said:

 

That's what I meant by "small sample size." I've seen plenty of 50's Les Pauls right up towards 10lbs, especially the first couple years of the P90 guitars and plenty of customs, one of my fav's I ever played was a '52-'57 conversion and it had to be near 10. So, I think if we actually did the math on all the known ones we'd find Tom's estimate to be correct that 9 is average....He would know

Point being, a Les Paul in the 9-10lb range with a normal neck profile is nothing to scoff at. Today, "Historic" specs have people convinced that 50's Les Pauls were all 8.5lbs with huge necks. I would say the average historic comes in at 8.75lbs tho, with it being far more difficult to find them in the 9lb range. 

As for the "old growth" argument, I don't buy it per the mahogany. The only scientific analysis I've read was posted years ago on the LPF by well known luthier Bharat Khandekar who sent samples of wood kept from his many projects/repairs on 50's Les Pauls for lab analysis. The Mahogany came back from the lab as Khaya, an African variant. Gil Yaron said he saw bulk purchase order receipts for Mahogany from Africa dating to the 50's, huge orders. Given the amount purchased and the average weights it's likely the trees were fairly nourished & fast growing: hard, red, light in weight. Old trees tend to be heavier than the average per blank and are premium stock for woodmakers. 

IMO there's too many myths in terms of the tone chase of the 50's guitars due to their prices/popularity, lots straight from the mouths of dealers/enthusiats themselves. 

I personally have read that Gibson used a few different woods on the Les Pauls, and the some of the best Les Paul tone I personally heard was a converted '52 that was thought to have used Spanish Cedar. And as for Kyaha (ie African Mahogany) I've had two guitars built with it, a Martin 00016S, and my brand new Zemaitis A24MF, and that guitar is ridiculously loud acoustically, and rings like a bell. The average historic these days is closer in weight to the typical 58 through 60 bursts as per most of the info I've been reading. Here's a good sample size of weights as culled from the Burst registry...

[rockabilly69]

BTW, from some of the pictures posted from the PSP, the new factory shop floor looks great and more like the kind of place that I would like to build a guitar. I get very confused when I'm working in an area that is not kept clean and orderly. I always clean as I go with each step when working on guitars, and that's how would like to work if I was to work in a guitar building position. I am very interested to hear the reviews of some of the newer built Heritages! Especially regarding the setups! 

[Millennium Maestro]

33 minutes ago, rockabilly69 said:

1- label on the inside backplate/cover said Seth Lovers, guitar shipped with Pearly Gates, chrome hardware instead nickel as ordered, missing set screw on Tonepros bridge, no truss-rod wrench or Tonepros allen wrench shipped, bad fretwork)....

2- That said,  many times people have offered to buy my two Heritage guitars built in that era and I have turned those offers away as they are great, toneful guitars. Honestly both required more than a full set-up to get them there.

3- One of them is just the body, neck, and tuners, that the guitar shipped with. And the other one I changed all the hardware, and pickups, but kept everything else. That is why I laugh at the term "Golden Era". I would hardly do those mods to a '59 ES335. I

1. I completely understand, in a Heritage business relationship pre Corp. there was a policy "We reserve the right to substitute..."  of which I was not a fan, I firmly believe that disrespected dealer IS the key to making sure the guitar is what it is supposed to be even now. Even the biggest dealer had to work through these type of issues.  One of the biggest things Plaza did aside from saving the Heritage company was the stocking of all necessary parts
2. Without ever having met you, I suspect we are both very discerning people with all of our equipment, some day we will meet and I look forward to it.
3. In full honesty, the guitar could have been ordered/delivered exactly as you required, but most likely you performed the Rockabilly custom shop treatment to a factory ordered guitar none of us could expect a 59 R.I. with basic wired/Shaller/Tonepros/ built guitars. But after a few mods....   WOW

On a side note I have been having fun transforming NEW Gibsons from modular modern guitars to classic ol' school vibed guitars with much fanfare from the buyers

[deytookerjaabs]

2 hours ago, rockabilly69 said:

 

 

I personally have read that Gibson used a few different woods on the Les Pauls, and the some of the best Les Paul tone I personally heard was a converted '52 that was thought to have used Spanish Cedar. And as for Kyaha (ie African Mahogany) I've had two guitars built with it, a Martin 00016S, and my brand new Zemaitis A24MF, and that guitar is ridiculously loud acoustically, and rings like a bell. The average historic these days is closer in weight to the typical 58 through 60 bursts as per most of the info I've been reading. Here's a good sample size of weights as culled from the Burst registry...

 

 

 

All the 9+ pounders I've seen these days are a few years old but the good news is those ones sell slow and get a few price drops! There's an almost 10lb '02 R7 locally for $2500, behemoth. I've been looking at new historics for fun from time to time (as in 2018/17) and they all seem to be under 9 with maybe one at 9 I've seen on the dot. Over 9 is pretty rare even though some many famous 'bursts were. Only point being, for me, that 9-10lb range sounds damn fine on those old records so it doesn't scare me away. Beyond that, people really seem to be very preoccupied with seeing how close to 8lbs and under they can get kind of like 6lb Tele/Strat freaks, I've played a ton of those featherweights and never noted anything to be particularly superior other than you can spin'em in the air with ease. To each his own. 

 

The African Mahogany thing, there might be something to it? I've even been surprised at the acoustic volume of 50's BR-6's, they're loud. Word is the early-mid 80's and late 70's Tokais were Khaya too but I've not seen 100% verification on that, my '83 LS-60 refin I used to have had quite the unplugged presence and the wood looked top shelf. But, the Burny I had from back then was made out of some white mahogany-ish budget-ey stock. There's a number of modern MIJ singlecut models made with Khaya too that fly under the radar but I've read good things. 

[rockabilly69]

3 hours ago, deytookerjaabs said:

 

 

All the 9+ pounders I've seen these days are a few years old but the good news is those ones sell slow and get a few price drops! There's an almost 10lb '02 R7 locally for $2500, behemoth. I've been looking at new historics for fun from time to time (as in 2018/17) and they all seem to be under 9 with maybe one at 9 I've seen on the dot. Over 9 is pretty rare even though some many famous 'bursts were. Only point being, for me, that 9-10lb range sounds damn fine on those old records so it doesn't scare me away. Beyond that, people really seem to be very preoccupied with seeing how close to 8lbs and under they can get kind of like 6lb Tele/Strat freaks, I've played a ton of those featherweights and never noted anything to be particularly superior other than you can spin'em in the air with ease. To each his own. 

 

The African Mahogany thing, there might be something to it? I've even been surprised at the acoustic volume of 50's BR-6's, they're loud. Word is the early-mid 80's and late 70's Tokais were Khaya too but I've not seen 100% verification on that, my '83 LS-60 refin I used to have had quite the unplugged presence and the wood looked top shelf. But, the Burny I had from back then was made out of some white mahogany-ish budget-ey stock. There's a number of modern MIJ singlecut models made with Khaya too that fly under the radar but I've read good things. 

Well my historics are all over the map R7 8.1 lbs, R6 9 lbs 10 oz, R0 8 lbs 14oz, and my Heritages are 9lbs even and 9lbs 6oz. My favorite one if the bunch is the the 8.1 lb R7 with a close secong going to the R0 and they are the lightest, but they all do something that keeps them worthy of hanging on to.

[rockabilly69]

7 hours ago, Millennium Maestro said:

2. Without ever having met you, I suspect we are both very discerning people with all of our equipment, some day we will meet and I look forward to it.

Discerning yes, and of course it would be nice to hang out and actually play guitars instead of talking about them:)

[HANGAR18]

On 8/14/2018 at 12:58 PM, Millennium Maestro said:

   ...We have had intimate relationships over builds, shared special times with the actual people that built our guitars and many of us actually got to feel like part of the process.  Some of us have had employees built us guitars, some employees have performed secret tasks on builds for excellent loyal people. The Golden Era included a ton of mojo in my eyes. To me its really cool looking at a guitar and saying Katie did this, Curly did that, Jack did this, Pete did this, Jim really took care of me with this, Arnie really got my neck profile...

 

...and "my friend built" guitars are spectacular with at worst a full complete setup.  

Dammit Guy, how am I supposed to put my Brockburst up for sale when you go reminding me of this kind of stuff!

<sigh> Okay... I'll try to find a different way to raise some cash.