2015 PRS Custom 22 or 2015 Gibson Les Paul Standard

[Macmutt]

I say a neck is unplayable for me and you respond with insults about my playing ability and intelligence. Nice.

I don't think that's what he meant, it's just that any guitar player whether primarily a rhythm or lead player can pick up any guitar and play some chords or riffs no matter what kind of neck it is. Although some are obviously more comfortable than others to play for each player, it comes down to personal preference.
However i must disagree with your statement as well, because if anything a wider neck allows for easier bends and fretting without sliding off the top or bottom of the neck....Which in fact was a problem for me on Gibsons older and more narrow necks when i tried them in the past.

 

[strat63]

I don't think that's what he meant, it's just that any guitar player whether primarily a rhythm or lead player can pick up any guitar and play some chords or riffs no matter what kind of neck it is. Although some are obviously more comfortable than others to play for each player, it comes down to personal preference.
However i must disagree with your statement as well, because if anything a wider neck allows for easier bends and fretting without sliding off the top or bottom of the neck....Which in fact was a problem for me on Gibsons older and more narrow necks when i tried them in the past.

So maybe unplayable was the wrong word to use. A very wide neck doesn't agree with my short fingers. It was quite noticeable and very uncomfortable for me to play.

 

[kes7u]

Wow. I think most of us could figure out this was hyperbole. Not as if his hands fall off when he tries to grab the neck, thus rendering the guitar unplayable.

Reminds me of my first shift on call as a resident when we had the busiest night they had seen in several years. When I arrived home, my wife asked me how my night was. I told her it was a "train wreck". She was mortified and proceeded to ask many questions regarding the wrecked train.

Regarding the new Gibson neck width at the nut, I don't know if your information is accurate. The PRS wide thin/pattern thin and wide fat/pattern necks are 1 and 11/16" at the nut. I believe this was the same as the Les Paul BEFORE the change. Do you have the new measurement? It doesn't take much of an increase to result in a large change in feel.

Kevin

This is a face palm moment. No guitar is unplayable. If you can't pick up any guitar and approximate your normal playing skill within about 30 minutes, you need to further examine your playing skill. I'm not trying to be brash here but ignorant statements like this are everything that is wrong in the guitar community. I understand brand loyalty and we want to bash the Big G every chance we get but we have to be a little more intelligent about it. If you don't like it, you don't like it. But, to say something is unplayable is just not the intelligent way to go about it. I'd like to think this little PRS group is smarter than most forums.... definitely richer...but hopefully smarter too.

The new Gibson necks are VERY similar in width to a PRS pattern thin. The shoulder width (string to edge of board) is about the same. You don't hear anyone saying the pattern thin profile is unplayable.

 

[kes7u]

OK found the measurement:

PRS pattern regular : 1.656"
PRS pattern thin / wide thin or pattern/wide fat or Les Paul pre 2015: 1.688"
Les Paul 2015 : 1.795"

The difference between pattern and pattern regular is Significantly smaller, ( 0.032" vs 0.107") and yet easily noticeable.

 

[HANGAR18]

I guess I'm a purist but the thing that irks me most about Gibson making any changes to the Les Paul model is that the Les Paul because one of the most prolific and popular guitars on the planet without any of those "innovations". How do you improve upon that? What do they hope to accomplish with the changes? Once you are at the top of the mountain, isn't any other direction you go going to be downhill? (Changing your identity counts as going downhill.)

 

[HANGAR18]

I guess I'm a purist but the thing that irks me most about Gibson making any changes to the Les Paul model is that the Les Paul because one of the most prolific and popular guitars on the planet without any of those "innovations". How do you improve upon that? What do they hope to accomplish with the changes? Once you are at the top of the mountain, isn't any other direction you go going to be downhill? (Changing your identity counts as going downhill.)

But then again, I prefer the 21st Century Mustang GT's a whole lot better than the 1960's era Mustang GT's, so maybe I just have the wrong attitude.

 

[Macmutt]

I couldn't agree more, Drew! I have bought and will always buy what I love.

It was just clear to me from his posts that he put a lot of stock in the potential future value of his instrument.

I have every intention of keeping this guitar until my last day on earth and loving & enjoying it as often as possible.
However I have two young children and whether they end up playing guitar or not, me leaving this guitar to them in 30 to 40 years will help them either musically or financially, and if they do end up in a better place musically or financially because of the increasing value of Gibson's.....Then you bet I made the right choice.

 

[Macmutt]

I guess I'm a purist but the thing that irks me most about Gibson making any changes to the Les Paul model is that the Les Paul because one of the most prolific and popular guitars on the planet without any of those "innovations". How do you improve upon that? What do they hope to accomplish with the changes? Once you are at the top of the mountain, isn't any other direction you go going to be downhill? (Changing your identity counts as going downhill.)

Everything evolves not always for the better, but in this case I believe the Les Paul is much improved from it's predecessors.
Imagine how the purists electric guitarist's of the 50s felt when tremolos & whammy systems and solid state effects amps & pedals started coming around.
Progress is never accepted easily and never by everyone, but we usually end up coming around to some of the innovations sooner or later.

 

[kes7u]

Please excuse my profane language, but this is bull pucky. Hogwash.

You are absolutely fooling yourself if you can even attempt to claim that the value of your 2015 Les Paul Standard will be greater than a 2015 PRS Custom 22 in 30 to 40 years. I would venture to guess that based on the current instrument quality and status of the companies in question, that it may in fact be the reverse.

In this case, I just find this to be an absurd reason for a purchase, and in fact seems like more of a rationalization on your part.

I have every intention of keeping this guitar until my last day on earth and loving & enjoying it as often as possible.
However I have two young children and whether they end up playing guitar or not, me leaving this guitar to them in 30 to 40 years will help them either musically or financially, and if they do end up in a better place musically or financially because of the increasing value of Gibson's.....Then you bet I made the right choice.

 

[gwardealy]

Not all Gibsons increase. Look at the sale prices on Ebay. Use the Classic as an example. They are selling for the about the same they did 8 years ago. Some get a little more depending on the exact model...condition. Of course the new LP's might be worth something if they don't sell a lot of them and its seen as some weird year they tried to make New Coke. Older Gibson now will sell for more because they are more rare. These days, and i bet in 40 years....the increase for an investment, will not be too much. they are massed produced.

I do agree Gibsons tend to hold their value more than a PRS...with some exceptions. One good answer to that, is...buy a used PRS. You can usually find them in excellent condition. Or some stores are selling a previous model year at discounts.

But the real reason to buy is that you love it now, and love playing it. And what your children will get out of it...is you.

 

[Macmutt]

Change of plan please check my new thread.

 

[Macmutt]

Willcutt has lots of new Ted McCarty SC and DC guitars as we speak. Ask me how I know!!!:cheers:

I checked all the Ted McCarty models on Wilcutt Guitars website, none of them have the THIN neck carve, their all wide fat....Didn't they make the thin profile for the McCarty's ?

 

[vchizzle]

I checked all the Ted McCarty models on Wilcutt Guitars website, none of them have the THIN neck carve, their all wide fat....Didn't they make the thin profile for the McCarty's ?

No, maybe a one off here or there. Have you played a wide-fat or pattern(forgive me if you've mentioned it)?

 

[Macmutt]

No, maybe a one off here or there. Have you played a wide-fat or pattern(forgive me if you've mentioned it)?

No i haven't played the wide fat to be honest, but i know i have come to prefer the Gibson's Slim taper profile to all others, so that's how i came to the conclusion i would most likely prefer the pattern thin profile.

 

[gball]

I guess I'm a purist but the thing that irks me most about Gibson making any changes to the Les Paul model is that the Les Paul because one of the most prolific and popular guitars on the planet without any of those "innovations". How do you improve upon that? What do they hope to accomplish with the changes? Once you are at the top of the mountain, isn't any other direction you go going to be downhill? (Changing your identity counts as going downhill.)

No offense meant, but does your LP have one of these ridiculous things on it?:

If it does, then you can truly call yourself a "purist" but If not, then you are playing a Les Paul that Gibson improved upon, most feel quite successfully.

 

[Steve B]

Short of the 30%ish price increase my main gripe is how we are being G-Forced to get a G-Force on any new 2015 Gibson Les Paul. Is it an advancement? In the technical sense it sure is! But in my opinion, it "Cheapens" the Guitar.

Although it may offer the benefit of quickly dialing in alternate tunings...I feel it is really designed to address a frequent criticism of Les Paul's...their ability to stay in tune.

No harm no foul though Gibson (Live and learn as they say)..I still love ya...you just don't get my cash this round...ain't the free market system great!

Steve

 

[kes7u]

I was in the same boat for a while. Always enjoyed the Gibson slim taper and PRS wide thin. I then got a guitar with a pattern neck, just because I otherwise loved the guitar. After playing it for a short while, I realized how much I loved the neck profile, even preferring it to wide thin.

I would suggest that you at least give the pattern a shot. It is DEFINITELY no '58 Les Paul neck. It is actually quite nice. Please try it!!

Kevin

No i haven't played the wide fat to be honest, but i know i have come to prefer the Gibson's Slim taper profile to all others, so that's how i came to the conclusion i would most likely prefer the pattern thin profile.

 

[CVS]

While not exactly the same as the 2 guitars that you are considering, I have a 1980 LP Standard and a 2003 PRS CU24 - I have played both of these instruments "side by side". There are definite tonal differences that I hear. You can also play the CU24 in single coil mode, which you cannot do with an LP. The new PRS CU22's and CU24's come with different pick ups than mine which has HFS Treble and Vintage Base, so maybe sound is now closer to that of an LP. From a playability standpoint I like the PRS. It just seems easier to play to me, especially once you get past the 18th fret. I also do not like the weight of the LP. Both are great guitars!!!

I would try both out and then decide which is best for you. My guess is the decision will not be an easy one. Good luck

FYI - I am not a big fan of the 25% + price increase that Gibson is trying to get for the LP these days

 

[Macmutt]

While not exactly the same as the 2 guitars that you are considering, I have a 1980 LP Standard and a 2003 PRS CU24 - I have played both of these instruments "side by side". There are definite tonal differences that I hear. You can also play the CU24 in single coil mode, which you cannot do with an LP. The new PRS CU22's and CU24's come with different pick ups than mine which has HFS Treble and Vintage Base, so maybe sound is now closer to that of an LP. From a playability standpoint I like the PRS. It just seems easier to play to me, especially once you get past the 18th fret. I also do not like the weight of the LP. Both are great guitars!!!

I would try both out and then decide which is best for you. My guess is the decision will not be an easy one. Good luck

FYI - I am not a big fan of the 25% + price increase that Gibson is trying to get for the LP these days

Yeah i am not happy with their price hike either, and after speaking with my older brother yesterday, who has been playing guitar for almost 40 years, he said to me "putting aside the expense, the new features of the G-force tuner and brass nut, the guitar is like 80% routered out and that is not a true Les Paul."
Even though the Traditional LP is not weight relieved at all, it has the largest profile neck the rounded XL, and the 57 pick ups neither of which i want, if it had the burstbucker pros and the slim taper there wouldn't be anything to think about.

 

[gball]

the guitar is like 80% routered out and that is not a true Les Paul.

I sorta kinda agree with that. My buddy bought a new LP last week and brought it by over the weekend - thing weighs just a little more than my Mira! Both my LP and my 245 weigh significantly more, and to my ears my 245 sounds more like what I think of as classic LP tone.

That being said, it was put together perfectly, the setup was amazing, it played great and most importantly sounds killer. Just a little like "Les Paul Light" compared to the unchambered guitars.