Finally! A true vintage Les Paul! 53 Gold Top

gball said:
Nice score, Geoff. Should be fun.

It's hilarious to me that the only real design element of the early Les Pauls that Les Paul himself designed is that trapeze tailpiece which ended up being an objective disaster. The '52's are all but unplayable because they have a really shallow neck angle and the tailpiece will never allow proper action. Great for slide I suppose. Good to hear you have a remedy on the way.
Click to expand...
I read that that was the one thing he had no hand in.? I also saw that the prototype was indeed a top wrap but it hadn't had the maple cap yet so that raised the bridge up. Only cure was under wrap.
I think the issues are overblown. This is an early 53, exactly like the 52. The action is fine and it is playable and stays in tune, I gave er a decent go over last night. the only real issue is not being able to palm mute. In 52 most players were likely playing jazz or standards.
I have no real issue other than the palm mute which I have a fix for. They changed the later 53s to the non trapeze wrap over bridge tailpiece.
But the action is fine, bridge height is adjsutable. It is not a shredder, granted.
 
Jethro Rocker said:
I read that that was the one thing he had no hand in.? I also saw that the prototype was indeed a top wrap but it hadn't had the maple cap yet so that raised the bridge up. Only cure was under wrap.
I think the issues are overblown. This is an early 53, exactly like the 52. The action is fine and it is playable and stays in tune, I gave er a decent go over last night. the only real issue is not being able to palm mute. In 52 most players were likely playing jazz or standards.
I have no real issue other than the palm mute which I have a fix for. They changed the later 53s to the non trapeze wrap over bridge tailpiece.
But the action is fine, bridge height is adjsutable. It is not a shredder, granted.
Click to expand...

From sources I have read (various books on the subject, guys like Bacon and Bitoun, but even those guys were not there when all this went down), they make it sound like the trapeze, which Les designed, was the only thing he insisted on that made it to the production guitars other than the gold color. The guitar was designed by Ted McCarty and John Huis before LP's input, and they needed a high-profile endorser so got his feedback on the prototype, which seems to have always had the maple cap. But the production guitars ended up with a flaw: the neck angle was less than the prototypes. Then, by late '52/'53 they had started compensating for the neck angle to make the tailpiece work, but in the process created the legacy of the pronounced angle we deal with today, which requires the tailpiece to be raised, or deck it and top wrap, to feel right. But that could all be wrong, and knowing Gibson probably is!

Of all places, Guitar Center has an interesting, albeit uncredited, artice:

The History and Evolution of the Gibson Les Paul | A Timeline of Changes | GC Riffs

From the origins of the legendary Les Paul all the way through to it's modern incarnations; we cover it all.
www.guitarcenter.com www.guitarcenter.com

At any rate. I've played a couple of early production '52's and they are a joke, as bad as any '70s offshore knockoff for action.
 
gball said:
From sources I have read (various books on the subject, guys like Bacon and Bitoun, but even those guys were not there when all this went down), they make it sound like the trapeze, which Les designed, was the only thing he insisted on that made it to the production guitars other than the gold color. The guitar was designed by Ted McCarty and John Huis before LP's input, and they needed a high-profile endorser so got his feedback on the prototype, which seems to have always had the maple cap. But the production guitars ended up with a flaw: the neck angle was less than the prototypes. Then, by late '52/'53 they had started compensating for the neck angle to make the tailpiece work, but in the process created the legacy of the pronounced angle we deal with today, which requires the tailpiece to be raised, or deck it and top wrap, to feel right. But that could all be wrong, and knowing Gibson probably is!

Of all places, Guitar Center has an interesting, albeit uncredited, artice:

The History and Evolution of the Gibson Les Paul | A Timeline of Changes | GC Riffs

From the origins of the legendary Les Paul all the way through to it's modern incarnations; we cover it all.
www.guitarcenter.com www.guitarcenter.com

At any rate. I've played a couple of early production '52's and they are a joke, as bad as any '70s offshore knockoff for action.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Sounds right then.
But why is my early 53, same design as 52, nothing was changed yet, and various other things I have seen, really not an issue at all in terms of action other than the non ability to palm mute. I have played a new PRS with worse string height. :unsure: Mine is very playable as is.
 
Here is from that article.

"But, due to a shallow neck angle, the string action was too high, and the bridge had to be adapted by running the strings under the tailpiece. Unfortunately, that “solution” made it difficult to palm mute, produce any sustain or maintain accurate intonation."
That, I get. B7t the action is indeed not a issue with underwrap.
I must have reversed who designed what!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top