My Paul's finish is coming off the back of the neck, exposing the wood. It was a $2500 mint 1989 guitar but now with the blemishes its worth alot less. After 20 years my Strat never dissolved in my hands, but this Paul was made to fall apart. Yeah yeah its got two layers of wood everywhere and is a pain in the ass to manufacture, but the finish sucks! My beautiful sunburst finish has holes exposing the raw wood grain. Sweaty palms?

It seems that Gibson doesn't have to make a quality product anymore simply because they are Gibson. The finishes do suck lately. You want a beautiful instrument for a fraction of the price(and with a better finish) look int a Heritage.

A new, black Les Paul standard I was looking at a few days ago in a store was peeling at the heel joint, exposing a pinkish (primer?) layer underneath. Definitely upsetting when they're asking me to part with what is. for me, a lot of money.

I don't know.....I have owned my LP Standard since '85 and never had that problem at all. The only thing is that the neck pickup has tarnished, but it looks kind of cool. I do agree that they are now way over priced though.

I don't know. I've got a '78 Les Paul Custom and it still looks decent, the finish aged beautifully.
I believe Gibson is one of the last manufacturers that uses nitrocelulose (don't know the spelling, sorry) laquer, which is more sensible than the polyester shit, that everyone else seems to use. (Polyester always looks flawless and is so hard, that it still looks brand new after several years). The drawback: It sucks tonewise, because polyester is thicker than laquer and prevents the wood from "breathing"

New gibsons have polyester finish, sorry

they have some infos on their web-site:

it seems that 2 or 3 of the new models really use polyester

http://www.gibson.com/whatsnew/pressrelease/1998/sep10a.html

but besides that, it's still nitrocellusose, isn't it?

http://www.gibson.com/reference/infoguides/2.html

http://www.gibson.com/products/custom/csu/summer8story.html

hey, lafayette is right. Gibson alway uses the good old nitro and still does, but these youngdters are uses to that south-east plastic guitars, they won't recognice the real deal.

You've gotto take a little care with this stuff, but it's worth the treat!

I have a flying v that I played as my main axe for about 2 years straight, doing gigs every weekend, and eventually my forearm wore a spot in the finish. The back of the neck also wore a little bit. It didn't show wood, but it was more of a haze. After two years of playing out, I don't think that is too bad. People pay Fender almost double for a guitar that was MADE to show wood (relics). Guitars wear cosmetically. So what?! It doens't matter what it's worth to someone else. It matters what it's worth to YOU. I still have that V and I wouldn't sell it for the price of a new one. Gibson makes a fine instrument(mostly with nitro). Out of the 10 or so that I own(owned), I've only been disappointed with one and it was a lower priced model(Les Paul Studio DC). I'd take a Gibson over a PRS any day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lafayette:
I don't know. I've got a '78 Les Paul Custom and it still looks decent, the finish aged beautifully.<br />I believe Gibson is one of the last manufacturers that uses nitrocelulose (don't know the spelling, sorry) laquer, which is more sensible than the polyester shit, that everyone else seems to use. (Polyester always looks flawless and is so hard, that it still looks brand new after several years). The drawback: It sucks tonewise, because polyester is thicker than laquer and prevents the wood from "breathing"

---

Yes i do think nitro does breathe,,, once it wears some.One way i look at it is as long as the guitar is toneful when bought if it wears and sounds better, great but it sure sucks waiting 15 yrs for it! I know several guitar makers like PRS and dean a few others that have proprietary finish's
that allow the guitar to resonate. I have heard many a prs or heritage wipe a 58' historic.VDG

yes lord vader!