• From: Bangkok/London
  • Registered: 2012-09-30
  • Posts: 78

Topic: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

Hi,
I wonder if anybody could tell me if the VOS reissue 1959 and the original one are in similar weight?
It's just something that I really want to know and it stucks in my head for a while.
I can't shake it off unless I know the answer so I think this forum is the place that
can help enlighten me. smile
I have the pleasure to play Murphy Aged reissue 1959  and VOS reissue 1959 so I know the first one is lighter than the latter one and both of them are in lighter weight comparing to my Les Paul Custom 1985.
(If I could afford to buy the original 1959, I would do it right away but I couldn't so I ask you all here).

Thanks and take care,
Ryn

LittleMissBlues's Website

  • From: Detroit
  • Registered: 2006-06-02
  • Posts: 5,807

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

Hi Ryn,

From what I've heard, all Les Pauls vary in weight.  1959s are no exception. Some people like light ones, others like them heavy. Websites like WildWood guitars are now even posting weights next to the guitars for sale. You can notice the weight differential between identical looking Les Pauls of the exact same model.

Of all of us, Joe himself owns the most 1959 Les Pauls, so he'd be able to verify if the ones he has are similar in weight and/or what weight they are...

- Nic from Detroit... posting on JB's Forum since 6-2-2006
Ask me about my handwound Great Lakes Guitar Pickups
Since 2010, Bonamassa fans have taken advantage of my JB friend discount = my cost + shipping. cool
  • From: N.Wales, UK
  • Registered: 2009-03-06
  • Posts: 2,183

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

Who here would choose a chambered body over a heavy one? What is the average weight of a 59?

  • From: Bangkok/London
  • Registered: 2012-09-30
  • Posts: 78

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

DaveWammbarro wrote:

Who here would choose a chambered body over a heavy one? What is the average weight of a 59?


As far as I have checked ....it's between 8lbs -9.50lbs


NPB_EST.1979 wrote:

Hi Ryn,

From what I've heard, all Les Pauls vary in weight.  1959s are no exception. Some people like light ones, others like them heavy. Websites like WildWood guitars are now even posting weights next to the guitars for sale. You can notice the weight differential between identical looking Les Pauls of the exact same model.

Of all of us, Joe himself owns the most 1959 Les Pauls, so he'd be able to verify if the ones he has are similar in weight and/or what weight they are...

Thanks so much! I just checked the website you mentioned. Coolio

LittleMissBlues's Website

  • From: West Sussex
  • Registered: 2011-05-17
  • Posts: 307

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

LittleMissBlues wrote:
DaveWammbarro wrote:

Who here would choose a chambered body over a heavy one? What is the average weight of a 59?


As far as I have checked ....it's between 8lbs -9.50lbs


NPB_EST.1979 wrote:

Hi Ryn,

From what I've heard, all Les Pauls vary in weight.  1959s are no exception. Some people like light ones, others like them heavy. Websites like WildWood guitars are now even posting weights next to the guitars for sale. You can notice the weight differential between identical looking Les Pauls of the exact same model.

Of all of us, Joe himself owns the most 1959 Les Pauls, so he'd be able to verify if the ones he has are similar in weight and/or what weight they are...

Thanks so much! I just checked the website you mentioned. Coolio

That range sounds about right.
No one bothered to that extent about weight when these guitars were built but it has become a big deal recently because of 'tone folklore'.

  • From: N.Wales, UK
  • Registered: 2009-03-06
  • Posts: 2,183

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

Are the aluminum tail pieces a big deal in getting closer to the sound...and do the VOS have them?

  • From: Fairfax, VA
  • Registered: 2009-09-11
  • Posts: 1,337

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

Tried checking the Vintage Les Paul registry where you can find weights, but links are broken
http://www.lespaulforum.com/registry/

ES-335 #37
Pictures http://www.flickr.com/photos/jclark42796/sets/
More pictures https://picasaweb.google.com/114580443759038003888/
  • From: North Carolina
  • Registered: 2008-10-26
  • Posts: 2,926

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

They weigh less and some people believe that they have better tone properties then pot metal.  I still think 1080 cold rolled steel is the best option for best string vibration transfer.  I'm also a total believer of the wrap around method and screwing the bridge tail piece flat to the body.  I can tell a huge difference on the Nashville Bridge vs. the ABR-1 with the reverse wrapping method.  ABR-1 tend to buzz a lot when I do it to them.  http://www.callahamguitars.com/#gibson_tailpiece makes the best imho.  This is milled not potted.  Even if Aluminum is milled its still extruded leaving pores in it.  Steel is SOLID.

DaveWammbarro wrote:

Are the aluminum tail pieces a big deal in getting closer to the sound...and do the VOS have them?

AD3THREE's Website

  • From: over yonder....in PA
  • Registered: 2009-02-09
  • Posts: 240

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

probably somewhere between 50 lbs and 100 lbs....It should hurt your back when you put them on - that heavy.

"The way I like to look at it is....if that's the last time I ever got to play, I'd better give it everything I've got." -SRV
  • From: Detroit
  • Registered: 2006-06-02
  • Posts: 5,807

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

A good coffee table weight - infinite sustain! tongue

- Nic from Detroit... posting on JB's Forum since 6-2-2006
Ask me about my handwound Great Lakes Guitar Pickups
Since 2010, Bonamassa fans have taken advantage of my JB friend discount = my cost + shipping. cool
  • From: Fairfax, VA
  • Registered: 2009-09-11
  • Posts: 1,337

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

TubeSaturation wrote:

probably somewhere between 50 lbs and 100 lbs....It should hurt your back when you put them on - that heavy.

So that makes my custom about 125lbs big_smile (which is what it feels like)

ES-335 #37
Pictures http://www.flickr.com/photos/jclark42796/sets/
More pictures https://picasaweb.google.com/114580443759038003888/
  • From: Bangkok/London
  • Registered: 2012-09-30
  • Posts: 78

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

jclark42796 wrote:
TubeSaturation wrote:

probably somewhere between 50 lbs and 100 lbs....It should hurt your back when you put them on - that heavy.

So that makes my custom about 125lbs big_smile (which is what it feels like)

Cheers all smile yeah and my custom is very heavy and my back hurts!
And 125lbs is heavier than me!!!
If I could send Thai massage through Internet, I would send to you lots right away!
smile it's life saver after playing heavy guitars.

LittleMissBlues's Website

  • From: N.Wales, UK
  • Registered: 2009-03-06
  • Posts: 2,183

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

AD3THREE wrote:

They weigh less and some people believe that they have better tone properties then pot metal.  I still think 1080 cold rolled steel is the best option for best string vibration transfer.  I'm also a total believer of the wrap around method and screwing the bridge tail piece flat to the body.  I can tell a huge difference on the Nashville Bridge vs. the ABR-1 with the reverse wrapping method.  ABR-1 tend to buzz a lot when I do it to them.  http://www.callahamguitars.com/#gibson_tailpiece makes the best imho.  This is milled not potted.  Even if Aluminum is milled its still extruded leaving pores in it.  Steel is SOLID.

DaveWammbarro wrote:

Are the aluminum tail pieces a big deal in getting closer to the sound...and do the VOS have them?

I'm sure I've said it before...I don't think I can justify that price for a tailpiece. It needs to be half that...

  • From: West Sussex
  • Registered: 2011-05-17
  • Posts: 307

Re: Original Les Paul 1959 weight

DaveWammbarro wrote:
AD3THREE wrote:

They weigh less and some people believe that they have better tone properties then pot metal.  I still think 1080 cold rolled steel is the best option for best string vibration transfer.  I'm also a total believer of the wrap around method and screwing the bridge tail piece flat to the body.  I can tell a huge difference on the Nashville Bridge vs. the ABR-1 with the reverse wrapping method.  ABR-1 tend to buzz a lot when I do it to them.  http://www.callahamguitars.com/#gibson_tailpiece makes the best imho.  This is milled not potted.  Even if Aluminum is milled its still extruded leaving pores in it.  Steel is SOLID.

DaveWammbarro wrote:

Are the aluminum tail pieces a big deal in getting closer to the sound...and do the VOS have them?

I'm sure I've said it before...I don't think I can justify that price for a tailpiece. It needs to be half that...

Faber - a lot less than half.