Sigh. Botched reissue for Gibson. This time the 70's Les Paul Deluxe

[nomadh]

Me too... When I was younger, a guitar could be any color, as long as it was black... but now, I have zero interest in black guitars. I have one black Jazz Bass and one black Tele, and that's more than enough for me.

I'll add to your plea to the manufacturers by saying: If you have to make black one of the color options, don't make the other one white... Or red. Give us something snazzy. I would have bought a Squier CV Deluxe Tele a long time ago if it came in some other color besides black and white.

We should start a club. No black, white or red guitars.

Well, some red finishes are good (like CAR or trans wine), just not the boring, bright red you often see... Especially on the real low-end cheepies. I don't care much for Dakota or Fiesta Red, either... And Race Red makes me mean.

I grudgingly mostly agree. 1st trans red means wood grain so I dont include that in red, although still getting a bit sick of trans red and with there was a lot more green and blue woodgrain. I suppose sparkle and candy apple would be kinda special.
Did have a sparkle black squier std and it was not nearly as yawn inducing as normal.

[Chocol8]

I have a black Cabrinita Telecaster, but that is an exception as they were born to be black with a white guard.

[idiotsdelight]

I love that guitar and regret not setting my GT neck angle to accommodate the trapeze. Next time.

I'm with whomever said do it "right". Keep all the good things of the Deluxe and fix the things that shouldn't have been done.

Same for the trapeze LP. The RI's fixed the neck angle so you could top wrap the bridge like it was intended. Duh.

That's pretty much what I was saying. If you're going to do a reissue, don't just take a standard Les Paul and slap a pair of mini-hums in it and call it a '70s reissue. Keep the volute, and lose the 9-piece, 12lb, pancake body. I just don't think I said it all in one post. But then I slid sideways into: "Who asked for this in the first place??" At least a '52 Les Paul Reissue is of interest to collectors, if not a mass market. Who, exactly, is the market for a half-assed '70s Les Paul? It's not accurate enough for collectors, and I'm not aware of any players who are pining for the good ol' days of Gibson in the '70s.

Theres a good thread at tdpri of players chomping at the bit for these.

Trogly's review says 9.5lb range? He raises all the issues you speak of as well.

No way to attach vids anymore?

[Mossman]

Theres a good thread at tdpri of players chomping at the bit for these.

Trogly's review says 9.5lb range? He raises all the issues you speak of as well.

Interesting video... Thanks for posting it. After I watched it, I did a little research to find out when Gibson started making the LP Deluxe again, and they've been in production since 2005. Calling this a '70s Deluxe makes even less sense to me now. Before, I thought it was the pickups that made it a '70s model, but since they've been making the Deluxe - with mini-hums - for the last 16 years, and none of those were called "'70s Deluxe", I'd now have to say that there isn't a single thing about this guitar that's particular to the '70s. The finishes aren't even from the '70s!

I don't know why they're called "Deluxe", either... They don't exactly have any of the accouterments that that word conjures up. The whole nomenclature is psycho-emotional marketing... I know... What marketing isn't? But this is a pretty brazen example of naming a product something that it's obviously not. The emperor has no clothes.

If I had one of those (I mean, if someone gave me one, because there's no wucking fay I'd pay $2,800 for it), I'd put P90s in it.

Actually, no... I'd sell it.