Hey--this is a 1956 I'm Reviewing--and it ain't gold!
Written: Jan 21 '04
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: You can't find this guy--a '56 flame-top--for love nor money
Cons: Too expensive for anybody who doesn't drive a Ferrari.
The Bottom Line: An essential guitar for serious players and collectors, out of the amateur's price range, buy a less expensive version instead.
|
|
|
| buffoonery's Full Review: Gibson 1957 Les Paul Goldtop |
This is an unusual one.
I was raised on Gibson hollow-bodies--ES-5 and ES-175 (see my reviews) in particular--but recently changed to a Strat when I picked the guitar back up after a thirty year hiatus and got into playing rock after being locked into standards for so long. But I'm still a Gibson guy. I like the unmistakeable feel, I like the sound, and I guess there's sentimental attachment, too.
So, I recently ran into an unusual Gibson, a 56 Les Paul BUT it's a flametop. Now, my understanding is that there weren't any LP flame tops until 57. But my understanding from my guitarhead colleague at work who owns this thing (and bought it at a pawnshop for $800 or so, talk about a steal) and who researched it as best he could, is that the flametop is actually factory work. It's way too professional and if you didn't know better, you'd think you were looking at a '57 or '59.
What's also different about this is that somebody changed the original pickups (probably P-90's) to PAF's AND added a cheap-*ss pick-guard plus messed with the original bridge. So, what you've got is one a weird-*ss guitar here, where do you even start valuing it, even after you get past the dings?
As far as playability...well, it's a Gibson. There's been enough debate here about how difficult it is to play LP's given their weight and a lot of noise from people who don't like the sound. OK, we're all entitled to our particular prejudices. Once we've done that, there's a few salient facts:
1) The LP is one of the two most important rock and roll guitars, the other being the Fender Strat (see my review).
2) The guitar growls. You can't play many rock standards without it. Forget Led Zeppelin without it.
3) It looks pretty f*cking cool.
I said it plays like a Gibson. That means it's slow, slower than a Strat or Ibanez or like equivalent. But the neck is firm and you can grab and bend the living hell out of the strings and that means a lot. There's 22 frets, playable into the 15th position comfortably, but you really can't get to the 21st or 22nd. The neck is 24.75", mahaogany, fingerboard rosewood/trapezoid, body mahogany/alder and top maple/alder.
And I won't deny it's heavy. I also don't like the lack of the Strat's contours--a Strat fits into the belly, this sticks into your gut. So, you got a fat, heavy, slow guitar here. Why the hell even play it?
Because it sounds great, stupid. Gourmands can B & M about not getting that quite "killer tone" or whatever cliche of the day is out there, but quit the BS kidding around, this is a great sounding guitar and everybody's got to have one, although not necessarily at collector's prices.
What I mean is, save the three or four grand you were going to spend on a 57 reissue or a Black Beauty, pick up a nice Epiphone knock off, and have two grand left to buy a Tele, an Ibanez, and a bunch of stomp boxes. There's guaranteed fun for the whole family.
On the other hand, if you've got the dough, go upscale. I don't know what this '56 is worth, but I'd love to have it in my collection. So maybe I will buy that reissue after all....
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.