barrymclark Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Sounds like you need a Gary Moore model ... Just sayin' ... haha. Yeah. Not a fan of the huge signature thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm waiting for them to come out with the 8lb, non-weight relived model. Now that's one I'd buy. Why anyone would want 13 lbs around their necks is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthpawGuy Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm waiting for them to come out with the 8lb, non-weight relived model. Now that's one I'd buy. Why anyone would want 13 lbs around their necks is beyond me. Amen to that. I rarely if ever play my LP Standard and that weighs "only" 10lbs or so. It's also the reason why I don't have a 150 or 157 ... yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pro-fusion Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The endorsement thing is debated all the time over at the Jackson message boards, too, since Jackson doesn't pursue endorsements as aggressively as ESP and Ibanez do. Skolnick is not a huge name among rock guitarists generally, but he's a legend among guitarists who are into thrash metal. His name will carry weight with some folks who would never have heard of Heritage otherwise. That's about the most you can realistically get out of an endorsement unless your target market is teenagers, which is decidedly not true of Heritage. Gibson's and Fenders' endorsement policies are mostly driven by selling $$$$$ custom-shop recreations, or by the bait-and-switch of also selling some craptacular Epiphone or Squier/Mexi-Fender signature model that kinda sorta looks like the Big Name Guitarist's favorite guitar. None of this is relevant to what Heritage does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Amen to that. I rarely if ever play my LP Standard and that weighs "only" 10lbs or so. It's also the reason why I don't have a 150 or 157 ... yet. It's something I don't get. The Heritage semi-hollows and full hollows are super light and resosnant when compared with their Gword counterparts, but the solid bodies are often boat anchors. To be fair, many new Gword solid bodies are boat anchors as well, but I've played quite a few light ones (that were not weight relieved) as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Alex is requesting they be as heavy as possible to maximize the lows & low-mids. Alex has said this in magazines about the why he likes his guitars and Ren has said this several times as well. Greeny is my heaviest 150 around 9.75 lbs and it has the most lows & low-mids of my 150s. I find a perfect correlation between weight of my four 150s and low/low-mids. THUS if you want the TONE the back has to GROAN! (Also the reason I don't like chambered or wt relieved guitars) YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yngwie308 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Let me say this about 'signature model' guitars. The only signature model guitars I have and I have had moore than most, are my 1993 Washburn Steve Stevens SS80 models, I have two, the one I ordered in 1993, which was built exactly to Steve's own 'Artist' spec and was meant for him and my recently purchased, at much greater cost SS80 with birdseye maple cap neck, maple quilted top and Gotoh Floyd, was was ordered by Steve, but he left them and it was in the private collection of the former (now) owner of US Music ,Rudy. The whole concept of sig models is that they 98% of the time bear no relation to the actual guitar used by the artist himself. I have never seen or heard of Gary Moore ever using the production spec GM sig guitar, though Jay Wolfe says GM got versions of them, he doesn't have them now and I have never seen any pictures of them or him with any of them...so. My idea is to have the exact in every detail spec guitar the guitarist uses, that should be the point. David Grissom's PRS's may be close these days. Good for Alex Skolnick..there is still much controversy over the GM sig models..they are amazing guitars and until someone who has actually played one, besides Brent or Jay, speaks up, stock or not, then we will have another opinion. I do think extra care and build quality went into the GM models, not just EMG's and heavy wood and Gary's signature on the headstock though. My 1987 Hamer Chapparal painted by Jim O'Connor, is my Jackson Soloist sig model to me in all respects, it is actually a much finer playing instrument than an actual same vintage Soloist, just better built and easier to play and more versatile with its ebony board, 24 frets, cool inlays, top mount OFR and killer OBL pickups, so yes one can modify an existing , say 150 Heritage to be a Greeny tribute guitar, ect in appearance and specs electronically. That's cool, though Gibsons are Gibsons, and Heritages are Heritages, mostly superior. I do have my 1952/56 Les Paul Goldtop conversion that I think is superior to a Heritage Goldtop with P-90's and a tuneamatic, ect. But the topic is sig models and I sold my YJM Strat 2004, as beautiful an instrument as it was, because to me it wasn't a proper correct spec Yngwie guitar, something to do with a littke thing like the fretboard radius.."9.5, isn't "7.25 to me and so on. yngwie308 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pro-fusion Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's something I don't get. The Heritage semi-hollows and full hollows are super light and resosnant when compared with their Gword counterparts, but the solid bodies are often boat anchors. To be fair, many new Gword solid bodies are boat anchors as well, but I've played quite a few light ones (that were not weight relieved) as well. The only reason Heritage solid bodies weigh more than their Gibson counterparts is because all of the current Gibson Les Pauls except the VOS reissues have bodies drilled full of big chambers before the maple cap is added. That includes even some custom-shop stuff like the Les Paul Customs, and has been true since the mid-'80s. Heritage doesn't do that unless you specifically request it. Generally, most of the mahogany available today is heavier than the stuff that Gibson was using in the '50s and '60s. Tonally, people that play hard rock and metal tend to prefer heavier Les Pauls, since they give a more intense, harder-edged sound. Lightweight Les Pauls sound great for blues or some classic rock, but they often sound flubby and unfocused when used in a high-gain setting. My H-157 is about 10.5 lbs, and it's still my go-to instrument over my comparatively light 20th Anniv. H-150 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacerX Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm in the "heavier is better" camp also. To me they sound tighter and less muffled, all things being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I want to stop buying heavy guitars. But I cant. Its not like I go looking to buy the heavy ones. Its just that I always end up picking the heavy ones. Something in them just resonates with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 The only reason Heritage solid bodies weigh more than their Gibson counterparts is because all of the current Gibson Les Pauls except the VOS reissues have bodies drilled full of big chambers before the maple cap is added. That includes even some custom-shop stuff like the Les Paul Customs, and has been true since the mid-'80s. Heritage doesn't do that unless you specifically request it. Generally, most of the mahogany available today is heavier than the stuff that Gibson was using in the '50s and '60s. Tonally, people that play hard rock and metal tend to prefer heavier Les Pauls, since they give a more intense, harder-edged sound. Lightweight Les Pauls sound great for blues or some classic rock, but they often sound flubby and unfocused when used in a high-gain setting. My H-157 is about 10.5 lbs, and it's still my go-to instrument over my comparatively light 20th Anniv. H-150 In a VERY general sense this maybe be true. But I know many people that have owned or played 50s & 60s LPs and most tell me some were light and some were anchors. I think the Holy Grain myth has gotten so overinflated that every '59 weighed 8lbs, never went out of tune, played light butter, had perfect wood, and tone from the music nymphs. This simply isn't true. When fact I just had confirmed is that over 90% of '59 LPs had two-piece backs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pro-fusion Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think the Holy Grain myth has gotten so overinflated that every '59 weighed 8lbs, never went out of tune, played light butter, had perfect wood, and tone from the music nymphs. I didn't know that about the two-piece backs on some of the '59s. Doesn't surprise me, though. They were produced in a factory, after all, and I'm sure they often did whatever was expedient. Why waste a couple nice pieces of wood? Prior to the '90s and the rise of all that vintage cork-sniffery, I don't know that anyone gave a damn about that sort of thing. I know I didn't. A guitar either played and sounded good or it didn't. Over the years, I've learned more about why some of my favorite guitars sound the way they do, but it never gets to the level of one-piece vs. two-piece backs or even one particular year vs. another. In Les Pauls, heavy vs. light does matter, but I realize how right you are about how wood always varies in weight and density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.