PDA

View Full Version : Differences between currently available Gibson Les Paul Juniors



red
January 21st, 2008, 02:45 AM
I've been doing some research into Gibson Les Paul Juniors lately. They're very nice guitars, and I'm interested in getting one for myself, but with the instruments these days being what they are, and prices being what they are, I thought I'd ask around and dig up all the relevant information I could find on current production Gibson Les Paul Junior guitars. In the hope that this information will be useful to somebody else as well (and save them from digging around the Internet and waiting for replies from Gibson support), here's what I could find:


Les Paul Nasville Junior (http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Divisions/Gibson%20USA/Guitar%20of%20the%20Week/Nashville-LesPaulJr-Week41/) (GOTW 41)
It's got a 3-piece mahogany body, one-piece mahogany neck. NO maple caps or any kind of maple (some online vendors have got this wrong), and NO pickup switch (Gibson made a mistake on the specs page). It's got a satin nitrocellulose finish (cheaper, faster to apply). Pickup: P90. Source: Gibson support, email exchange.
The tuners are said to be Grovers. Source: various forums.
The problem with satin finishes is that they don't look so hot to begin with, they wear out fast and they develop "shiny spots" where the hand rests on the body.
Also, anything with a body of more than two pieces will tend to resonate worse than a guitar with a two-piece, or ideally a one-piece body. I might be wrong, but on a guitar this simple small details like this might count.
The guitar only comes with a gigbag from most vendors.
BJA Les Paul Junior (http://www.gibson.com/en%2Dus/Divisions/Gibson%20USA/Guitars/LesPaul/Billie%20Joe%20Armstrong%20Les%20Paul/)
It's got a one-piece mahogany body, one piece mahogany neck. Gloss (and vintage-correct for the sunburst version) nitrocellulose lacquer finish.The pickup is not a regular P90, but it's not a humbucker either. It's more or less what happens on a MIA Stratocaster in positions 2 and 4 - two single coils out-of-phase, except that for the H90 one coil is dummy-only so you only actually hear one of them. Also, the dummy pickup is "weaker" that the "real" one, so it doesn't cancel out all of the hum and it doesn't really make the combination either a humbucker, or two "normal" out-of-phase coils. It's supposedly coil-splittable, so at least in theory you can modify the wiring to end up with an almost regular P90 without changing the pickup. Source: Gibson support, email exchange.
There's also my other thread here (http://www.thefret.net/showthread.php?t=5419) about this and some off-topic stuff as well :).
I'm not sure what the tuners are, but I gather from forums and Harmony Central information that both the tuners and the electronics are noticeably higher quality on the BJA than on the "regular", discontinued LP Jr., and the finish looks higher-quality as well. It's got a small BJA signature on the back of the neck where the headstock begins.
The guitar comes with a funky hardcase shell.
"Regular" Les Paul Junior (http://www.gibson.com/products/gibson/LesPaul/lpj.html) (discontinued, but still available in Europe through Thomann.de and in the US through Musician's Friend)
"The Les Paul Junior model body could be comprised of up to three pieces of mahogany. The finish on a regular Les Paul Junior model would be a glossy nitrocellulose lacquer. The tuners installed on most Juniors would be the Gibson Deluxe tuners." Source: Gibson support, email exchange.
The tuners are said to be inferior, and some owners report tone pot failure.
A good rule of thumb seems to be: if the finish on the back is black, it's a 3-piece body (later period LP Jrs), if it's natural, it's a one-piece or two-pieces body. Apparently some of the 3-piece bodies are horribly matched for grain - but indeed, it CANNOT be that one of the guitars has a 9-piece body, like some reviewer on Musician's Friend said - at least not according to Gibson's support dept.
The pickup on these is a regular P90.
The guitar comes with only a gigbag from most vendors.


I did not go into CS/Historic territory because 1. they're pretty much good instruments so there's not much to dig up on them, and 2. the BJA seems a pretty close approximation of both A. a CS reissue, if you swap the H90 with a P90, and B. the original LP Jr. philosophy construction-wise (as far as the non-CS LP Jrs go). Plus, a CS is a lot more cash for not that much more mojo IMHO.

I may have left something out, or some of my info could be wrong (especially the part collected from forums and Harmony Central). I welcome all comments, and hope this helps somebody else as well.

red
January 21st, 2008, 04:51 AM
Update: I've asked the Musician's Friend staff in their online chat thing if the "regular" LP Jr. has a nitro finish, and how many pieces of wood their bodies have, and they said the finish is nitro indeed, and the bodies are 1-piece bodies as far as they can tell (but I suspect that the man was being A. a salesman, and B. just estimating by looking at the guitar - so it might have just been one with a nicely matched woodgrain).

I've also asked the Thomann (because I live in Europe so Musician's Friend is a source of information only) support about the finish for their "regular" LP Jr (http://www.thomann.de/gb/gibson_les_paul_junior_vsb.htm), and they've replied (and I quote): "No NITRO!". Pretty confusing stuff, right?

That being said, I congratulate the lucky "regular" LP Jr owners who are happy with their purchase, but buying one sight unseen looks more and more like a real gamble to me at this point.

Robert
January 28th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Hey Red, thanks for writing up this! It's really great info.

hubberjub
January 28th, 2008, 09:40 PM
I like Les Paul Juniors. They are a simple guitar. However, Gibsons biggest downfall is their fit and finish. I wouldn't worry abouth whether the body is one or two pieces. Most modern guitars are at least a two piece body. I don't see any justification of the price difference between the regular Les Paul Junior and the Billy Joe Armstrong model.

red
January 29th, 2008, 02:21 AM
I like Les Paul Juniors. They are a simple guitar. However, Gibsons biggest downfall is their fit and finish. I wouldn't worry abouth whether the body is one or two pieces. Most modern guitars are at least a two piece body. I don't see any justification of the price difference between the regular Les Paul Junior and the Billy Joe Armstrong model.
"What most guitars are like these days" or "what most people do" shouldn't really be a criterion for judging quality, should it? :)

That being said, the negative things I have read about the "regular" Gibson Les Paul Junior include:

it needed to be re-tuned every couple of songs during gigs because the tuners don't hold up very well.
someone received theirs with a perfect human hand print under the outside coats of finish.
the tone pot failed within a couple of weeks.
the bridge is supposedly hollow metal (like a tin can), not a solid bridge.
someone said he counted 9 pieces of mahogany in the body (though I'd take that with a grain of salt).
the people at Thomann.de swear that the finish on the ones they have is not nitrocellulose lacquer (maybe a refinish job? I don't know).


Plus, they only come with a gig-bag, so ordering them remotely is a bit of a risk unless you also buy a hardshell case for them to be carried in.

I'd guess they're similar enough sound-wise that someone on a budget might prefer to get the regular LP Jr, but if you're really aiming at being as close as possible to what Keith Richards or Leslie West were playing, IMHO the BJA is the best value for the money. The CS guitars are too similar to the BJA, and with proper tools and patience one can totally convert a BJA to CS reissue specs.

Just my 2 cents.

red
January 29th, 2008, 02:23 AM
Hey Red, thanks for writing up this! It's really great info.
You're welcome, I hope it helps!

hubberjub
January 29th, 2008, 08:21 AM
[QUOTE=redI'd guess they're similar enough sound-wise that someone on a budget might prefer to get the regular LP Jr, but if you're really aiming at being as close as possible to what Keith Richards or Leslie West were playing, IMHO the BJA is the best value for the money. The CS guitars are too similar to the BJA, and with proper tools and patience one can totally convert a BJA to CS reissue specs.

Just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]

You mention that people on a budget might prefer the regular Les Paul Junior. You seem to forget that the Les Paul Junior was designed as a budget guitar. At nearly double the price of the regular model the BJA model is hardly a bargain. Forget the finish (because Gibsons paint shop is wretched) and how many pieces of wood are in the body, for the money saved you can afford to replace the hardware and put a good P-90 in. Neither guitar is hand built. They are both CNC made. This is a simple guitar. You have already put more time and effort into your post than Gibson put into R&D for the Junior. If you like it you should buy it.

red
January 29th, 2008, 09:07 AM
You mention that people on a budget might prefer the regular Les Paul Junior. You seem to forget that the Les Paul Junior was designed as a budget guitar. At nearly double the price of the regular model the BJA model is hardly a bargain.
Yes, you are right, the LP Jr was intended as a budget guitar. Yes, you are right, the BJA is not a bargain. But times have changed, and it's simple economics. Nowadays, Mike McCready from Pearl Jam is playing an LP Jr, Keith Richards is playing an LP Jr, Leslie West used to play an LP Jr, and Billie Joe Armstrong is playing an LP Jr.

So it's NOT a budget guitar anymore. Because of the hype, lower priced models appear to be sub-par, moderately priced models seem to be mediocre, and high-priced models seem to be OK. In times when the demand is high for people qualified for a certain job, they're likely to be able to get higher wages. In times when a certain guitar is being played by more famous players, it's bound to go for a higher price.

Is that morally right? No, not if you ask me. Everything should be priced according to what it costs to manufacture it. Is that the way the world works? Sadly, it would appear so.

Again, that's just my opinion. I might be wrong. Certainly, there are comparable guitars for way less money (such as PRS SE One), but I'm superficial and would prefer the Gibson logo on the headstock :). I totally respect your opinion, and I sincerely thank you for your input.

Brian Krashpad
January 29th, 2008, 10:33 AM
On Gibson finishes: whether gloss or satin/faded: the general rule of thumb is that they are nitro. Virtually without exception.

The only Gibson I can remember in the last couple decades with a poly finish was the LP Special Humbucker SL, the SL standing for "sans lacquer."