Gibson LP Traditional 2015 - Acceptable Bookmatching?

[palindrome]

I bought this new. It's a Gibson LP Traditional 2015. I quite like the guitar, except perhaps for the weight (but I expected something like that, considering that the Traditionals don't feature weight relief) and the fact that all four control knobs weren't flush with the pot axes, so I replaced them with other knobs from my drawer (breaking one of the original knobs in the process of removing it), which work perfectly well (and look better IMO).

The only other issue (no. 3) I am currently having is the bookmatching. The top is even somewhat tricky to photograph, since one of both surfaces reflects more light. I really don't mean to get hung up on this, but I catch myself wondering if YOU would consider this quality of bookmatching (including an ever so slight color difference) acceptable, in the sense of "within the normal range of variation".

[Jabberwocky]

Many of the Historic R8s and R9s have non-bookmatched tops. Some folks even prefer them as they look vintage authentic. Here is an original 1958, >$650 000, at Carter's Vintage . 3-piece top! And that's an original 1958 Les Paul Standard.

Bookmatched tops tend to look photoflame and some don't like that. If you care to trawl the world of Les Pauls, you will find that most of them have non-bookmatched maple tops.

If it really bothers you send it back to your dealer and ask to see another.

The Traditional you got looks good. Does the figure shift in the light i.e. peekaboo from different angles? Most importantly, how does it play and sound?

[plasticpigeon]

I agree, it doesn't look bookmatched. I have a gibson archtop with a carved back (and perhaps front too) that isn't bookmatched. Your guitar looks nice to me.

[Greentone]

The old Les Pauls weren't bookmatched all that carefully. The original that is illustrated above tells the story very vividly, IMO. I think Gibson is doing a faithful job of recreating its past...it just might not be a past that people want to see today.

Consider the VOS-series ES-175 and ES-330 guitars. They look pretty plain, right? Well, that's what the originals looked like. The very flamey 175s from the 90s are an aberration from the past...that many players just happen to prefer.

I think that many people just got hung up on very flamed maple. Gibson didn't use that much of it back in the day.

[palindrome]

Thanks everybody for the reassurance!

My best guess right now is that the whole thing just boils down to a case of ephemeral NGD nitpicking.

Jabberwocky: No, I don't see any shifting patterns, neither when rotating the guitar nor on peekabooing my eyes.
and yes, I do like the playability, and I really like the sound.

More specifically:

Playability was good right out of the box. I replaced the original set of strings with Thomastik Swing 10s, which gave me a good basis for comparison, since I also have these on two other solidbodies I own. Having adjusted the whole system to my liking, I must say that perhaps I expected a _wee_ bit more in terms of playability, if only against the background of Gibson's own super-PLEK blurb. Still nice, though.

The sound did live up to my expectations, and immediately so, even with the original strings. To my ears, these pickups (Gibson calls them "59 Tributes" or something) are more transparent and articulate than the 57 Classics (at least judging from their performance on the ES-135 I once had). Also, they are microphonic/unpotted (you can clearly hear a pick knocked against them through the amplification).

OK, the pickups aren't all there is to it, so I guess the guitar itself is really good, too.

I'll have to find a way to deal with the weight, though. My balance displays 79.2 kg under my bare self as compared to 84.0 kg under my bare self holding the guitar. So far, I've done most of the playing lying on the couch.

BTW, the overall build quality in terms of bindings along the fretboard, etc., seems impeccable to me.

The neck is rather fat, and I wouldn't even have noticed the considerable (46 mm) nut width hadn't I known about it beforehand (my subconsciousness would have put this down to the neck profile, I guess).

The G-force system works flawlessly, as far as I can tell at this point. Before buying, I did make sure that it would be removed without much ado. But now that I've seen and experimented with it, I see no reason to take this step in the foreseeable future (imaging you have an on-board tuner, and one that actually does the tuning -- two birds with one stone, as it were).

Have I already mentioned that the guitar is heavy?

[nopedals]

I always look at the book matching right away. If it is poorly done, I won't buy the guitar. On yours it looks like the stoner on the assembly line did not even try. I would return it. If you are spending 4 figures on a new guitar, it ought to be no excuses IMHO. And yes, on the vintage ones it is often mediocre.

[palindrome]

I always look at the book matching right away. If it is poorly done, I won't buy the guitar. On yours it looks like the stoner on the assembly line did not even try. I would return it. If you are spending 4 figures on a new guitar, it ought to be no excuses IMHO.

OK, thanks, I can see now that the topic is controversial, after all.

[plasticpigeon]

I always look at the book matching right away. If it is poorly done, I won't buy the guitar. On yours it looks like the stoner on the assembly line did not even try. I would return it. If you are spending 4 figures on a new guitar, it ought to be no excuses IMHO. And yes, on the vintage ones it is often mediocre.

I don't think it is bookmatched and that is probably intentional. I don't believe it is the same piece of wood that has been split and joined, it is probably two pices of wood from different trees, or maybe the same tree but a different part of it. You can't bookmatch two dissimilar pices of wood!! This doesn't mean bad workmanship unless you specifically ordered an instrument with bookmatched wood.

[SamBooka]

Many of the Historic R8s and R9s have non-bookmatched tops. Some folks even prefer them as they look vintage authentic. Here is an original 1958, >$650 000, at Carter's Vintage . 3-piece top! And that's an original 1958 Les Paul Standard.

Bookmatched tops tend to look photoflame and some don't like that. If you care to trawl the world of Les Pauls, you will find that most of them have non-bookmatched maple tops.

If it really bothers you send it back to your dealer and ask to see another.

The Traditional you got looks good. Does the figure shift in the light i.e. peekaboo from different angles? Most importantly, how does it play and sound?

Pretty rare to see an original with a 3pc.. that is usually the first sign that it is a refined goldtop.. interesting.

[palindrome]

On second thoughts, and courtesy of plasticpigeon, it is probably fair to say that Gibson doesn't even mention "bookmatching" on the product page.

Gibson.com: Les Paul Traditional 2015

[Jabberwocky]

2016 R8



2015 True Historic 9

[Jabberwocky]

2016 True Historic 9

[TH]

Send it back before you bond with it.
It happens to be a guitar that passes for good enough in my book, but that's the book of someone who doesn't really care about those things.
You do. Believe me, as someone who has seen the variety on a production line, there's a fantastic jaw dropper out there. It can be yours. And even if you never play a single note on it, it'll be a keeper. If you care about those things.
Your choice. Why not be thrilled with it?
David

[palindrome]

Just for the record, I'm not into flamed tops or jaw droppers.

Like all pedants, I want symmetry (think Mr. Monk). But I can still appreciate a good excuse for asymmetry and all sorts of other imperfections.

I have a feeling that the guitar is successfully flattering me into not being returned. While I keep insisting, make no mistake, I reserve the right to sell you one day.

[fws6]

There is much more than bookmatching ! Archtops for tone and stability ideally have a perfectly quarter sawn and book matched top. Although a critical luthier will probably argue that the appeal is mostly visual. Anyways, since this type of wood is really expensive, and not really necessary to use on a solid body , Gibson on the Les Pauls also used flat sawn woods , and even flitch-matched tops. There is no tonal (audible) difference and can also be very attractive albeit not symmetrical. Very common to see non bookmatched tops on Les Pauls (old and new) !

Even though I am not into Les Pauls at all, I like guitar books and can definately recommend to buy a copy of the "beauty of the burst" book. The book has a nice chapter that explains very well how the different figured tops are made.

I hope that Carter guitar has a good story to go with it, because like Sambooka I would say that is a refinned goldtop. Although there must have been some transition phase between the goldtops and the bursts. Since the guitar is built first and finished later, obviously there would have been some old mismatched goldtop bodies finished in the new burst color, before they were switched over to using perfectly two piece.

[Woody Sound]

I always look at the book matching right away. If it is poorly done, I won't buy the guitar. On yours it looks like the stoner on the assembly line did not even try. I would return it. If you are spending 4 figures on a new guitar, it ought to be no excuses IMHO. And yes, on the vintage ones it is often mediocre.

Remember that as you look farther away from the center, there is a lot of wood between the "book pages" that gets carved away. Thus by the time you get to the outer edge, it's possible that the 2 pieces won't look alike, depending on how "deep" the flame pattern lies.

Now you might argue that for a premium cost, they should use wood with deeper consistent flame. I don't disagree. But I don't think you can blame it on the guy putting it together. Rather, the person responsible for choosing the wood.

BTW, love the color. Sort of a tan/pink-ish brown. A refreshing change from red/yellow. And it's interesting how the burst goes all the way around the rim, rather than having most of the upper bout dark. Don't know if I like THAT or not

[plasticpigeon]

The guitars that Jabberwocky has posted have lovely figuring, but i don't think any of them are bookmatched! Well maybe the 2016 True Historic 9 might be.

[Hammertone]

Here is an original 1958, >$650 000, at Carter's Vintage . 3-piece top! And that's an original 1958 Les Paul Standard.

Pretty rare to see an original with a 3pc.. that is usually the first sign that it is a refined goldtop.. interesting.

..I hope that Carter guitar has a good story to go with it, because like Sambooka I would say that is a refinned goldtop. Although there must have been some transition phase between the goldtops and the bursts. Since the guitar is built first and finished later, obviously there would have been some old mismatched goldtop bodies finished in the new burst color, before they were switched over to using perfectly two piece.

Ah, er, … there's a reason for the price on that particular guitar. Imagine if you had the FIRST sunburst Les Paul ever made. Wait, no need to imagine - that's it.

[Jabberwocky]

Ah, er, … there's a reason for the price on that particular guitar. Imagine if you had the FIRST sunburst Les Paul ever made. Wait, no need to imagine - that's it.

That's the tale of the tape. First Burst evah. https://www.fretboardjournal.com/pod...ntage-guitars/

[Jabberwocky]

The guitars that Jabberwocky has posted have lovely figuring, but i don't think any of them are bookmatched! Well maybe the 2016 True Historic 9 might be.

Good catch and that was my point showing this small sample: none of them can be considered bookmatched but nice figure.

[yebdox]

Jabber, where is that R8? Is that a pic from a dealer?

[Jabberwocky]

Jabber, where is that R8? Is that a pic from a dealer?

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/hist...-plaintop.html

House of Guitars, Rochester, NY.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm a simple guy. If it plays well and sounds good, I can live with assymetrical flame, or (heaven forbid!) a plaintop.

If memory serves me (based on what I've read), that three-piece top was planned as a goldie but was used to test-drive the burst finish. There was a thread about it on MLP not too long back.

[GNAPPI]

I'm a simple guy. If it plays well and sounds good, I can live with assymetrical flame, or (heaven forbid!) a plaintop.

Agreed! Most Gibson ES models have rather plain one piece tops and some of my fave semis are solid colored.

[Matt Cushman]

If you look at the wood behind the bridge you can see that the maple is almost flat sawn. The figure shows best on quarter sawn pieces of wood. Pieces like this often do not look well-matched due to variations in grain from piece to piece. I thought the figure looks very good in the most important area which is between and above the pickups.