• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

2004 - a good year?

shednz

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
3
Hi all, wondering what you think of 2004 year for lester production. I'm looking for something lightweight and found a 8.5 lbs 2004 standard to replace my 10.5. lbs 2001 standard which my aging shoulder can no longer handle. Any opinions on the '04 era of lester? I am currently playing a 2005 ls150 tokai loverock which sounds and looks nice and weighs in at a manageable 8.4lbs, BUT does not play as nicely as my heavy '01 lester (apart from the weight). Are the '04 era les pauls ok? Appreciate all your thoughts.

Cheers, Scott
 

MikeSlub

Administrator
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
15,166
2004 was a good year. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one from that year. :hank
 

C-4

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,776
While Mike is correct, obviously, also remember that each year has produced the gamut of poor to excellent LP's and other Gibsons. Wood varies as do the humans who are applying a lot of handwork to each guitar.

Playing any guitar is going to be the ultimate test in whether you find it to your liking, no matter which year it was made in.

I had several R9's from 2004 and every one was a great guitar. However, you will read all types of comments on here and other forums about how some were not happy with their 2004 guitar. They are all individual, just as the people who built them and the wood used.

Also, one man's meat is another man's poison. You may like a guitar that someone else did not care for when he auditioned it.
 

reswot

Active member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,295
It it seems like a good guitar when you play it, it probably is.
 

tuberide

Active member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,469
This one happens to be an '04 and is a fine guitar.

005.jpg
 

DonP

Active member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,020
I have 8 Gibsons from 8 different years. The year doesn't matter as long as you get the features you are looking for (tone and playability being features as well).

For example, I'd take a 2004 Std. over a 2008+ Std or Trad. because I like the features of the 2002 - 2006 (before chambering) Standards.

Pre-2002 Standards had chrome, didn't have the correct binding, didn't have a neck choice (I prefer a 60s) didn't have the BB Pros, etc. whic are things I like, so that's why I bought a 2002 when they came out.

While I have a CR8, I didn't like the chambered Standard I tried. It was muddy. Might have just been that one guitar, I don't know.

I don't like the 2008+ models because they went back to chrome, no longer have bushing tuners, too many futuristic mods that don't jive with me.

But that's what I like. You need to figure out what you like.
 
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
183
I have a 2004 Honeyburst Standard. The fit and finish are exceptional. It plays beautifully and sounds great. I will say it's a bit on the heavy side, a little over 9 lbs, but I can live with that. I've never regretted this purchase. Someday I would like to get a Historic, an R0 maybe, but if that never happens, that's okay, I'm very happy with this Les Paul.
 

Ronman45

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
94
It it seems like a good guitar when you play it, it probably is.

Right On Reswot, (did I just say right on?) If it plays and sounds good, who cares about binding, chrome, etc. I have a '00 Standard that's ugly and a little on the heavy side but it just sings. I was looking for something similar to my '90 Standard or possibly (Gulp!) an R0, but this one sounded so good, even with the 490/498's in it that I jumped on it. Now that I have replaced the Pups, put RS pots/caps in it and a TP bridge it is quickly becoming my number one for use when gigging. I auditioned for a band last week and received a couple of comments on it's great tone running it into a Deluxe Reverb cranked pretty good. It's really hit and miss when it comes to tone but I'm glad I didn't turn my nose up at it because of the year of manufacture and it's looks.
 

CR9

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
1,608
2004 was the year the chambered-reissues (CR) were introduced and there were some spectacular guitars in that run. Being the initial run and not knowing if the run would continue, some great care was used in picking woods. But the rule for any year is "if it sounds and feels good, buy it".
 

MattD1960

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
749
i have an 04 classic I LOVE HER my favorite guitar- found right here on the fourm
 

TheMiz

Active member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,279
I know this is an old thread but if anyone wants to know more about the Chambered series you could visit :

http://www.chambered-reissue.org/

As the owner of the 6th one made I refuse to call it Chambered Reissued , I refer to it by the name the line went by when it first came out in 2004.
 

papersoul

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
3,066
2004 was a good year. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one from that year. :hank

Agree! I have a 2003 that is my number 1. She is 8.5 lbs. I love the 2002-2006 period quite a bit. The perfect LP Standards for me. I don't like the fatter fret wire used in the 90s although some great LPs from that period too, but my 1994 was 11 lbs. Yikes.

I compared my 2003 Standard to a few Historics at the time and felt my Standard was as good or better.
 
Top