What years and models were "weight-relieved"?

[ChrisCst22]

I have two Custom 22's. a 2004, and a 2008. The '08 is considerably lighter than the '04. Also if I knock on the back the pitch sounds more hollow in the center of the back versus the edge or bottom portion. Is there a chance it's weight relieved?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/imagecdg.jpg

It's not letting me add this photo to the post. Might be the iPad.

 

[László]

I'm under the impression that only the Singlecuts were. However, maybe the center tone where you're tapping on the back is related to the pickup cavities and wiring holes.

Just guessing, of course. I'm sure someone will come along who actually knows the answer.

 

[FunkyFreeman]

Greeting everyone. It's my first post which I hope to be as useful as possible for you guys.

PRS's ex-R&D Head Joe Knaggs confirmed that all the thick-body Singlecuts that being made from early 2007 were drilled 8 long slots in the area below the bridge. Please see the link and photo from x-ray thread for reference.

Read how Joe Knaggs says on the link below;

http://www.musicradar.com/gear/guitars/electric/6-string-solid-body/singlecut-satin-19612

I e-mailed PRS Customer Support about how to distinguish the weight-relieved Singlecuts from the real solid, Pual (CS Division) replied me that PRS did weight relief to Singlecut for a short period, but he cannot tell how to specify which guitar were done so.

After asking others about this fact, I found that many people cannot tell if their Singlecut are weight-relieved or not, nor did many online retailers! But after my research, I think I discover that the easy way; it the WEIGHT. I think the weight-relieved Singlecut weighs about 3.5 kilogram +/- 100 to 200 gram. But if you find a 4+ kilogram, especially one that was made before 2006 - it's highly possibly an original, none chambered Singlecut.

I also found that some 20th Anniversary models are weight-relieved.

I'm thinking about getting a Singlecut Satin (they were made in 2007 and more reason why I'm guessing it's the light version is that it weighs just 3.7 Kg) but still don't know if there is any disadvantages comparing to the heavy version as a few demos videos of Singlecut Satin are found on youtube. It's quite difficult to find such specific and rare samples in Thailand. Have anyone ever tried a/b on both versions? Your suggestions are greatly appreciated.

 

[LCblues1987]

Very interesting! My 2001 SC and my 2007 SCT are just ounces apart, even with the body thickness difference.

 

[justmund]

I think the wood can make a pretty massive difference to weight, I've got a Custom 22 Soapbar that's 4.12kg (just over 9lb).

Perhaps some tapping aft of the bridge, in the centre, and listening for a change in tone closer to strap pin might work? Perhaps x-raying is the only way to be 100% sure...

 

[FunkyFreeman]

I think the wood can make a pretty massive difference to weight, I've got a Custom 22 Soapbar that's 4.12kg (just over 9lb).

Perhaps some tapping aft of the bridge, in the centre, and listening for a change in tone closer to strap pin might work? Perhaps x-raying is the only way to be 100% sure...

It's nice for me to see your guys' replies. According to the wood weight issue, I have more info on that. In December 2005, when US Appeal Court allowed PRS to resume their Singlecut production, Musicradar.com interviewed Paul . In the conversation he said he would not drill the Singlecut body in order to loose weight but to use 'lightweight mahogany' instead. Here are references;

"Yeah, we play with that [the weight] on an ongoing basis. We've come up with lighter mahogany for the backs. Some other people drill holes in the bodies before they put the maple tops on to reduce weight. We don't do that."

Read all the context of this interesting interview here;

http://www.musicradar.com/gear/guitars/electric/6-string-solid-body/singlecut-19673

If you guys already read the review of Singlecut Satin that I previously posted, it's funny how could Paul came up with drilled-body Singlecut implementation just one year after he said 'NO' to it.
After learning from other major weight-relief players like Gibson LP, I roughly conclude that weight relief might not degrade the tonal characteristics (for LP context) so the production of weight relieved guitars is not a shame. Don't get me wrong, I just feel strange about the conflict between what Paul said and what exactly produced. I'm still a PRS lover.

The existing of drilled-body Singlecuts implies that for a period (guess it's around 2006-2007), PRS lacked lightweight mahogany stock.

Like I said, I love PRS. But sometimes when I visit gibson.com, especially Les Paul Standard page, I cannot reject that I think prsguitars.com needs a real big improvement. More detailed information should be provided, not just 'mahogany body bla bla bla' at least customers should have the chance to know the fact of the construction of the guitar they are going to buy especially because this brand is expensive. Many potent buyers are serious about these details. Revealing what PRS have got on their website might yield a positive feedback to them, I believe.

It would have been ridiculous if I just know my PRS is a weight-relieved after I paid $2700+ for it.

 

[justmund]

I don't think weight relieving would negatively affect the tone either, it would affect it yes, but in a good or bad way depends on what you're looking for. It's like having a semi-semi-hollow!

As for your strange feelings... Paul didn't say they would never do it, he just said at the time they don't do it.

"Yeah, we play with that [the weight] on an ongoing basis. We've come up with lighter mahogany for the backs. Some other people drill holes in the bodies before they put the maple tops on to reduce weight. We don't do that."

He also said they don't drill holes, and they never did. They routered slots out for the weight relief chambers. Maybe he knew full well they would in the future, but was keeping the method a secret.

This is what Gibson traditionally do (I found this image on a google search, all rights to the owner who's put their name on the image)

Which is "drilling holes". They've got new methods now, which is pretty close to a combination of the 2 methods.

I'm sure if PRS weight-relieved their guitars now, it would be listed on the website.

I'd be more concerned about paying $2700+ for a guitar that wasn't built to the same quality standards, attention to detail and brim full of innovation as a PRS.

 

[FunkyFreeman]

Yes, I think the bottom line is how buyer feel weight-relieved guitars. If they feel OK, then there's just nothing to worry about.

I may not good at English language, but Paul's conversation really convinced me to think that way.

In my opinion, drilling the hols and making channels in the body are alike because they're methodes of loosing the wood mass as well. Perhaps 'drilling holes' in term of Paul means 'Swiss-chees' LP body weight-relief method?
However, any methods Paul's done to his products, I think that he has considered well enough.

Do you think the current SC58, together Stripped counterpart also weight-relieved?

 

[justmund]

Do you think the current SC58, together Stripped counterpart also weight-relieved?

No, they're not

http://prsguitars.com/forum/showthread.php?911-The-X-Ray-Thread/page2

 

[Supasso]

The new 2013 SC245 is also not weight-relieved.

To answer the OP's question, no, your custom is not weight-relieved. All Customs are supposed to be fully solid, unless it has a rare, semi-hollow body option. Woods do vary in weight a lot. Also, on average, stop-tail ones tend to be lighter than trem ones. My CU24 is only 7.2 pounds, and it's 100% solid.