Guest HRB853370 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Gibson went to the weight relieved mahogany (swiss cheese holes) body in the 80's. I do not have a scale to weigh my guitars, but it feels as though both of my H-150's are a bit heavier than my 2008 Les Paul Traditional, which is non-chambered, but weight relieved. Does anybody know if Heritage H-150's weight relieved in the same fashion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koula901 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 In general I don't think they are weight relieved, unless you order an H 150 LW (light weight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Weigh yourself on a bathroom scale and then weigh yourself with the guitar. The difference will get you close. On a digital scale within +- 1 lb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 NO SWISS CHEESE at this factory.... As kouls901 said .. the only weight relieved/ chambered 150 is a 150 LW.. (Light Weight) Other wise... it's a solid chunk of Honduran Mahogany. And some of the Heritage non-relieved 150's can weight less than a weight relieved Les Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteraltongreen Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Gibson went to the weight relieved mahogany (swiss cheese holes) body in the 80's. I do not have a scale to weigh my guitars, but it feels as though both of my H-150's are a bit heavier than my 2008 Les Paul Traditional, which is non-chambered, but weight relieved. Does anybody know if Heritage H-150's weight relieved in the same fashion? Just weighed my '86 C140.It's 12 pounds in weight.I would say it's solid,not weight relieved.My Guild '96 Bluesbird IS weight relived,and it weighs 9 pounds.The Bluesbird is a 15" closed body,the H140 is a 12" solid.Don't ask,I love 'em both.If you've got a heavy guitar,a 4" leather strap,preferably with air pockets will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoNameBand Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Gibson went to the weight relieved mahogany (swiss cheese holes) body in the 80's. I do not have a scale to weigh my guitars, but it feels as though both of my H-150's are a bit heavier than my 2008 Les Paul Traditional, which is non-chambered, but weight relieved. Does anybody know if Heritage H-150's weight relieved in the same fashion? I had a conversation w/Marv on this topic at PSPIII. His reply was that unless requested by the customer, 150's are Not weight relieved. This concept came about when aging guitar players began complaining about the weight and back strain. The issue is, the heavier the guitar, better tone and sustain, the lighter the guitar, fewer work comp. claims. It seems that the best compromise is an average weight of 9lbs. hope this helps, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I had a conversation w/Marv on this topic at PSPIII. His reply was that unless requested by the customer, 150's are Not weight relieved. This concept came about when aging guitar players began complaining about the weight and back strain. The issue is, the heavier the guitar, better tone and sustain, the lighter the guitar, fewer work comp. claims. It seems that the best compromise is an average weight of 9lbs. hope this helps, I'm not sure I buy this "the heavier the guitar, the better the tone and sustain". I haven't played a whole bunch of vintage ('50s) Les Pauls (maybe a dozen or so) but I think I can honestly say that every one of them was light by today's standards - I'm guessing in the 8lb (or even under) range. A friend of mine who used to own a local guitar shop said he had a gold top come through (can't remember the year) that weighed in at 7lbs 6oz! He said the guitar had tone for days! I think the stiffness of the wood has far more to do with sustain than weight. Think about it: water weighs more than most all wood out there. Why not attach a neck to a water balloon? If weight was all that is necessary for sustain a water balloon should sustain for days. I think we all realize how silly this is. I hope we all realize how silly it is to think "heavy guitar" equals "great sustain". I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoNameBand Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'm not sure I buy this "the heavier the guitar, the better the tone and sustain". I haven't played a whole bunch of vintage ('50s) Les Pauls (maybe a dozen or so) but I think I can honestly say that every one of them was light by today's standards - I'm guessing in the 8lb (or even under) range. A friend of mine who used to own a local guitar shop said he had a gold top come through (can't remember the year) that weighed in at 7lbs 6oz! He said the guitar had tone for days! I think the stiffness of the wood has far more to do with sustain than weight. Think about it: water weighs more than most all wood out there. Why not attach a neck to a water balloon? If weight was all that is necessary for sustain a water balloon should sustain for days. I think we all realize how silly this is. I hope we all realize how silly it is to think "heavy guitar" equals "great sustain". I don't buy it. Not for a minute. It has to do with the density of the wood, not the amount of water in the balloon. The more dense the wood, heavier weight, more sustain. Softer woods won't sustain the same way a dense mahogany will. However, the more dense the mahogany, the heavier it is. Trivia that will not help in a balloon fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegleg32 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'm not sure I buy this "the heavier the guitar, the better the tone and sustain". I haven't played a whole bunch of vintage ('50s) Les Pauls (maybe a dozen or so) but I think I can honestly say that every one of them was light by today's standards - I'm guessing in the 8lb (or even under) range. A friend of mine who used to own a local guitar shop said he had a gold top come through (can't remember the year) that weighed in at 7lbs 6oz! He said the guitar had tone for days! I think the stiffness of the wood has far more to do with sustain than weight. Think about it: water weighs more than most all wood out there. Why not attach a neck to a water balloon? If weight was all that is necessary for sustain a water balloon should sustain for days. I think we all realize how silly this is. I hope we all realize how silly it is to think "heavy guitar" equals "great sustain". I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Interesting analogy Gman, and while I don't have the knowledge to disagree with you, that does seem to go against traditional thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoNameBand Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'm not sure I buy this "the heavier the guitar, the better the tone and sustain". I haven't played a whole bunch of vintage ('50s) Les Pauls (maybe a dozen or so) but I think I can honestly say that every one of them was light by today's standards - I'm guessing in the 8lb (or even under) range. A friend of mine who used to own a local guitar shop said he had a gold top come through (can't remember the year) that weighed in at 7lbs 6oz! He said the guitar had tone for days! I think the stiffness of the wood has far more to do with sustain than weight. Think about it: water weighs more than most all wood out there. Why not attach a neck to a water balloon? If weight was all that is necessary for sustain a water balloon should sustain for days. I think we all realize how silly this is. I hope we all realize how silly it is to think "heavy guitar" equals "great sustain". I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Additionally, Gibson is releasing a few '59-'60 Les Paul reissues including the signature series Collector #1, Jimmy Page, Pearly Gates and Warren Haynes, all of the models being released currently have a target weight of 8.6 / 8.9 / 9.15 / 9.3 lbs. These are perceived as the perfect weight for vintage recreation '59 & '60 Les Paul guitars by the Gibson Custom Shop. Also, as a side note, sound travels and sustains for quite a long time in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 There are definitely two schools of thought on the weight issue. We used to talk of the "rule of 8's " for a vintage LP. Pickups at around 8 ohms resistance and weight in the 8.x pound range being considered optimum. I have heard a lot of players that do go for the heavier guitars because they like the tone... Al Skolnick being the famous Heritage player that likes them heavier. I'm easy... I've found ones of both types that I love. A lot of my Les Paul style guitars are around 9 LBS.. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark555 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Just weighed my '86 C140.It's 12 pounds in weight.I would say it's solid,not weight relieved.My Guild '96 Bluesbird IS weight relived,and it weighs 9 pounds.The Bluesbird is a 15" closed body,the H140 is a 12" solid.Don't ask,I love 'em both.If you've got a heavy guitar,a 4" leather strap,preferably with air pockets will help. Pete, your guitars are stunning..... Next time I come to your house I am going to nick your Bluesbird.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mgoetting Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Just weighed my '86 C140.It's 12 pounds in weight.I would say it's solid,not weight relieved.My Guild '96 Bluesbird IS weight relived,and it weighs 9 pounds.The Bluesbird is a 15" closed body,the H140 is a 12" solid.Don't ask,I love 'em both.If you've got a heavy guitar,a 4" leather strap,preferably with air pockets will help. What?! Your 140 is 12 lbs? Now I need to weigh mine. I would have guessed 8. Yours must have a thick neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mgoetting Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 What?! Your 140 is 12 lbs? Now I need to weigh mine. I would have guessed 8. Yours must have a thick neck. I just weighed mine on a medical scale. 7.9 lbs. Yours must be one of those double neckers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushover Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I just want to weigh in (pun intended) that wood density and/or weight are just one of several variables in the tone and sustain equation. As far as sustain is concerned I have both a 157, and a gibbon vintage mahogany studio (read ugly Betty..) and the weight difference between them is very noticeable since the gibby is weight releeved, yet both have incredible sustain. Compared to my 535 and milli, there is no comparison in the sustain dept, yet despite the fact that the gibby weights about the same as the milli and is at least 2-3lbs less than the 157 the sustain between them (gibby and 157) is about the same, but the sustain on the milli is nowhere close. I'm still a firm believer.. A guitar either has it or doesn't, and with all of the otherwise identical guitars out there you're not going to know it unless you try 'em. Not surprisingly, I'm happy to report that my Heritage guitars have it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mgoetting Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I listened to Alex Skolnick explain that his guitar is heavy (13 lbs) and it is not for everyone. But it needs to be heavy to compete with the drummer, other guitar, etc. He obviously doesn't have an 11 on his volume control. I don't follow what he's saying. Someone please explain what he means. It must be sustain and piercing tone, not volume, that he's getting at. I also don't get how my 140 is 7.9 lbs and older LPs are only ounces more. This is confusing. I'm starting another thread on 157/150/140 densities-mass-weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I listened to Alex Skolnick explain that his guitar is heavy (13 lbs) and it is not for everyone. But it needs to be heavy to compete with the drummer, other guitar, etc. He obviously doesn't have an 11 on his volume control. I don't follow what he's saying. Someone please explain what he means. It must be sustain and piercing tone, not volume, that he's getting at. I also don't get how my 140 is 7.9 lbs and older LPs are only ounces more. This is confusing. I'm starting another thread on 157/150/140 densities-mass-weight. I don't know what Alex says... but some would say that the extra mass helps the low end.. a lower resonance to the guitar and enhanced low end frequencies. ... to give the guitar that low end to compete with the others in the room. ( seems like we should play a Spinal Tap song here... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Gibson went to the weight relieved mahogany (swiss cheese holes) body in the 80's. I do not have a scale to weigh my guitars, but it feels as though both of my H-150's are a bit heavier than my 2008 Les Paul Traditional, which is non-chambered, but weight relieved. Does anybody know if Heritage H-150's weight relieved in the same fashion? My H150 is heavy! Heavier than my '91 Les Paul. That's why I love it! It sustains forever and does have a powerful low end when cranked (and although I don't crank it very often, it sounds really full and fat when I do...it's all very subjective, but that's my perception). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredZepp Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I was just reading this.... "Here are the are average documented weights of 28 Les Pauls from 1958-1960 as reported in the Beauty of the Burst (page 220). The average weight is 8.86 pounds. Minimum is 8.10 pounds and the maximum is 9.72 pounds." ( For What It's Worth.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoNameBand Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I was just reading this.... "Here are the are average documented weights of 28 Les Pauls from 1958-1960 as reported in the Beauty of the Burst (page 220). The average weight is 8.86 pounds. Minimum is 8.10 pounds and the maximum is 9.72 pounds." ( For What It's Worth.. ) Good reporting Zepp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koula901 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 FWIW, when I demo'd a 150 and a 137, the 137 sustained almost as well as the 150, and the 137 weighed 8.5 lbs, the 150 weighed between 9-10.2 lbs. The 150 I ended up buying weighs 10.4 lbs and its Honduran mahogany which is curious, because I've read that's supposed to be a lighter wood than other kinds of mahogany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurph1 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 My H-140 is meant to be lighter..(It has a thinner body) but has sustain for days!! It also has the allegedly tone robbing Schaller hardware..but once again..Sustain for days!!So, IMHO the heavy weight equals great sustain theory just doesn't hold water!! Your mileage May vary.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 It has to do with the density of the wood, not the amount of water in the balloon. The more dense the wood, heavier weight, more sustain. Softer woods won't sustain the same way a dense mahogany will. However, the more dense the mahogany, the heavier it is. Trivia that will not help in a balloon fight. Soak your wood in water - it'll make it heavier and increase the sustain - NOT! There's way more to it than just density. Water is more dense than most wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteraltongreen Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 What?! Your 140 is 12 lbs? Now I need to weigh mine. I would have guessed 8. Yours must have a thick neck. It does seem heavy.It's only a bathroom scale,so won't be that accurate ! Perhaps I shouldn't have stood on the scales at the same time ! Right,I've re done the exercise,and it's 9lbs.As we,in Britain have been forced into using the metric scale for the last 40 years,when we don't want to,I've mixed up the figures.Silly me.Can't be right all the time.Take heed,though.Don't let your government dominate you.They work for you,not themselves,as they do here in Britain. Peter Alton Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuDBoNe Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I was just reading this.... "Here are the are average documented weights of 28 Les Pauls from 1958-1960 as reported in the Beauty of the Burst (page 220). The average weight is 8.86 pounds. Minimum is 8.10 pounds and the maximum is 9.72 pounds." ( For What It's Worth.. ) I was just reading a story about Randy Bachman's '59 Les Paul....he says it weighs about 14 or 15 lbs http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Feat...y-bachman-0611/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.