Author Topic: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)  (Read 11685 times)

uwe

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21480
  • Enabler ...
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2013, 12:24:37 PM »
They have their fans! Still.
We've taken too much for granted ... and all the time it had grown ...
From techno seeds we first planted ... evolved a mind of its own ...

Psycho Bass Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2013, 09:52:09 PM »
Ironically, I remember when the Bart Les Pauls were new and a small local dealer (try finding many of those for Gibson) had a couple in stock and the one he sold while I was hanging out one day only sold because the kid who bought it was a Pearl Jam fan and his friend told him the Barts in the LP were the same as what Jeff Ahmet had in his bass. Both played like dogs (bad setups) and sounded like crap but the guy bought the less worse of the pair. It's doubly funny now that Jeff has a signature T-Bird knockoff that uses passive pickups.

 I wonder how many Epi LP standards there are out there. Specials are obviously a dime a dozen, but you don't see many Standards; they're a whole different ballgame. Anybody know where I could find out when Epi made their flower pot Les Pauls and how many of them there were and what their specs were? Of the few I've played, the neck width at the nut and the profile has varied WILDLY.

ramone57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2013, 04:39:55 AM »
know where I could find out when Epi made their flower pot Les Pauls and how many of them there were and what their specs were?


PBG,  this site may help you figure it out. 

http://epiphonewiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Barklessdog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4473
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2013, 04:42:30 PM »
Nice bass and I like the Ice Cream Cup headstock.

SKATE RAT

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
  • too much chicken will make you blind.
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2013, 02:49:19 PM »
exactly like my red 92 'cept yours is in better shape. mine has a Les Paul trc with white border
'72 GIBSON SB-450, '74 UNIVOX HIGHFLYER, '75 FENDER P-BASS, '76 ARIA 4001, '76 GIBSON RIPPER, '77 GIBSON G-3, '78 GUILD B-301, '79 VANTAGE FLYING V BASS, '80's HONDO PROFESSIONAL II, '80's IBANEZ ROADSTAR II, '92 GIBSON LPB-1, 'XX WAR BASS, LTD VIPER 104, '01 GIBSON SG SPECIAL, RAT FUZZ AND TUBES

4stringer77

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
    • View Profile
Contrary to what James Bond says, a good Gibson should be stirred, not shaken.

Dave W

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 22253
  • Got time to breathe, got time for music
    • View Profile

Psycho Bass Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2013, 02:10:55 PM »
Blank trc on this mint condition closet classic.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-Gibson-Les-Paul-Bass-LPB-1-Tobacco-SunBurst-w-OHSC-Hardshell-Case-/200902250583?pt=Guitar&hash=item2ec6b51057

That's seriously overpriced. The ONLY cool thing about that bass is flowerpot and case. There's a reason they weren't made that way for long. Two years of production for a bass at Gibson is what, 50 or 60 instruments? (I'm ALMOST being sarcastic.)

4stringer77

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1900
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2013, 06:43:52 PM »
I'm still attracted to the early model LP. Passive, simple controls and classic looks. I'd rather pick up a cheaper older beater than a pristine expensive one.
Contrary to what James Bond says, a good Gibson should be stirred, not shaken.

uwe

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21480
  • Enabler ...
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2013, 09:33:29 PM »
 
That's seriously overpriced. The ONLY cool thing about that bass is flowerpot and case. There's a reason they weren't made that way for long. Two years of production for a bass at Gibson is what, 50 or 60 instruments? (I'm ALMOST being sarcastic.)

Why so harsh ???  - there is nothing wrong with those basses at all if the shape is not too guitarish for you. And this particular model only tested the market (gibson was sceptical at the outset and toyed with the idea of bringing out a doublecut instead) initially to eventually blossom into three versions, all of them active initially to court then perceived prevailing tastes: LPB-1/Special, LPB-2/Deluxe and LPB-3/Standard before towards the middle of that series' life cycle they first faded out the Deluxe and then the Special, reverting the Standard to passive for a couple of more years. Towars the very end of the cycle, the LP Faded was basically the initial model (ie passive) again, sans inlay, and with 2+2 controls, ABM bridge and the soapies slightly more upfront. Those sound near identical to the first ones. The single cut LPs went then dormant for a while until the three pup BFG version brought them back for a short time only to pave the way for the oversized body versions that they still produce today though the "Oversize" moniker has meanwhile been dropped (with the body extension retained).

All in all, the Phl Jones spawned long scale LP series has been a longstanding model and - for Gibson standards - a consistent seller. And hardly anybody is ever less than satisfied with the sound of these basses which give you a maho tone that's more ballsy and focused than, say, a TBird though the high register experience is of course not the same.
We've taken too much for granted ... and all the time it had grown ...
From techno seeds we first planted ... evolved a mind of its own ...

Denis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Harvester of Appendixes
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2013, 05:21:44 AM »
Nice bass and I like the Ice Cream Cup headstock.

I like the Ripper ad. :)

http://epiphonewiki.com/index.php/Ripper_Bass
Why did Salvador Dali cross the road?
Clocks.

Psycho Bass Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2013, 04:40:19 PM »

Why so harsh ??? 

The tobacco burst (which looks good on a LP Jr to hide the body seams) combined with that horrible Fenderannabe bridge and the TB pickups just doesn't work. It looks more like a bad Chinese knockoff than an actual Gibson. I DEMAND the three point on the LP Standard bass. I despise the Warwick bridge and Fender-inspired bridges do not belong on it either. It needs chrome and a carved top that actually has some depth to it. Give the damn thing some pickup rings out of pity!

uwe

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21480
  • Enabler ...
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2013, 03:47:17 PM »
 :mrgreen: Ok, ok, we can discuss the esthetics all night, but neither the TB Plus soaps nor the Schaller bridge made it a bad sounding bass! And I never understood why the carved top LP Standards did not retain the tried and trusted Holy Immaculate Trinity bridge but went for that heathenish Warwick Panzer bridge. That said, the brutal assertiveness of an LP Standard does have to do with that German chunk of metal in it.

And incidentally, didn't the use of chrome TB plus pups (with rings!) on the Standards please you no end?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 06:16:42 AM by uwe »
We've taken too much for granted ... and all the time it had grown ...
From techno seeds we first planted ... evolved a mind of its own ...

Psycho Bass Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2013, 05:13:55 PM »
I've got Fralin Bassbuckers, which are guitar sized, not TB, with creme rings on mine, but the covers are chrome. My major issue with the eBay bass is that the finish looks like it's hiding something.

Psycho Bass Guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
    • View Profile
Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2013, 05:29:37 PM »
That said, the brutal assertiveness of an LP Standard does have to do with that German chunk of metal in it.

I've played a few with the Warwank bridge. I prefer the three-point, though in all honesty, those basses were setup less than optimum. My gripe with the Warwick is in changng the strings. Even when I was doing 5-10 guitar and bass setups a day, I could never string a Warwick without the damn ball ends popping loose from the tailpiece. For the first few, I chalked it up to inexperience. After that, I just got pissed off. I never could find a 'trick' to hold them in place while bringing them up to tension; the slack always pushed them out the back of the slot and they'd pop right off. Eventually, I just started making the people who brought them in hold the string while I tuned them up until it had enough tension to not fall out, but I will forever hate them and ALL open top-slot bridges.