Les Paul Junior vs Les Paul body shape

[Micha Schellhaas]

Hi,

I was wondering if some of you can share some information regarding Les Paul body shapes/sizes.

Is the Junior smaller? I find contradicting information out there.

How about the scale lenght?

Thanks in advance,

I am mapping out a guitar that I want to have build...

[Peter Poyser]

I can't speak for the current production.

But all the Vintage Models are identical in size.

And are completely interchangeable in the same Gibson Case.

The Les Paul Junior II (dual pickup) version, originally was supplied with and directly in fits in precisely the same Pink Lined Case that comes supplied with the Les Paul Standard and Les Paul Custom Models.

A Thick Fluffy Over laying Guitar Shaped Top Material took care of any slack because of the reduced top size, but in any case, the Guitar was snugly hugged by the sides of the case well enough to prevent movement.

Historically, the difference between them was that the Junior II was All Mahogany Body Construction to the normal depth of Mahogany, whilst the Standard and Custom Models had an additional Maple Top Cap curved like a Violin Top.

Made via a Production Machine Gibson had that no other Manufacturer owned. making them supposedly impossible to copy.

 

 

The Maple Cap was the norm.

The lighter bodied Junior was a departure.

But one welcomed by Players who wanted less weight.

 

 

The P-90 Single Coils gave a Clear Tone compensating for the Mahogany Construction.

The Neck was a Mahogany with a Rosewood Fingerboard.

Scale Length was 24 3/4".

 

Now Modern Junior II's will have a Maple Neck that's been Heat Treated to look like Rosewood.

And will probably have rather different Pickups and Electrical Pots and Wiring if recent experience of Gibson is anything to go by.

But to my eye, and I was looking at one recently, they seem to be the same in overall dimensions. I think it's an underrated Guitar, particularly at its price point, if you can find a good one.

The Single Pickup Model never interested me, but as far as I know that's the only difference, and they were  the same in overall dimensions. My understanding is, they are all carved out by Computer Controlled Programmes today so they shouldn't vary from Guitar to Guitar like early Fenders, though it's possible today they might use Wood Blanks that are not as thick as the Historic Versions, so it might be worth checking that out if it's important to you.

I basically am most  familiar with the Historical Vintage Custom, Standard and Junior II Models.

Things have changed a lot inside with the Modern Versions.

Far too much to write here.

 

 

P

[Kerry Krishna]

Peter, can you clarify:
"Now Modern Junior II's will have a Maple Neck that's been Heat Treated to look like Rosewood.'

[Peter Poyser]

Current Production Models.

 

Les Paul Junior -

Maple Neck and Rosewood Fingerboard.

 

 

Les Paul Junior Special Humbucker -

Quarter-Sawn Mahogany Neck and Baked Maple Fingerboard.

(The Fingerboard is heat-treated Maple hardwood giving a traditional rich brown appearance).

 

 

Les Paul Junior Special P-90  -

Quarter-Sawn Mahogany Neck and Baked Maple Fingerboard.

(The Fingerboard is heat-treated Maple hardwood giving a traditional rich brown appearance).

 

 

'Baked Maple has been baked in an oven at 200-300 degrees for a period of time.

This process is called "torrification," and it makes the wood very hard, live sounding, and stable.

It is not a chemical process, and is environmentally friendly. According to Gibson, the baked maple they use for fingerboards has the sound of ebony with the look of medium-brown pau ferro.'

 

Here you can see what 'Baked Maple' looks like, and hear it compared to Rosewood.

http://www.andertons.co.uk/blog/guitars/gibson-baked-maple-fingerbo...

 

 

 

P

[Paul Verticchio]

Let me attempt to summarize:

The body dimensions are the same except for the thickness.

Both have what is commonly called a "24.75" scale length. The exception was the 3/4 size Junior. Do the research for more info on that.

Kerry: he's talking about Gibson's goofy advertising. They began using 'baked' maple for FB's instead of RW, coincidentally right after the CITES raid. They look as bad as they feel, but my disdain for the Gibson Corporation's current quality, customer relations & direction is well known.

I think Peter copied & pasted Gibson's info. I understand little of what he posts....but that just may be me.

[Peter Poyser]

Quote: "The exception was the 3/4 size Junior."

 

 

Kerry, with due respect.

I would in all honestly, completely discount the 3/4 Size Junior altogether.

The Salient Point about that Model is the Short Scale Length, which is only 22 1/2". So it's likely to cramp the style of all but the very Smallest of Players.

Although it was made in a Great Guitar Factory, by Fine Craftsmen, from Excellent Materials. It was in fact a very Poorly Conceived Guitar Design. This not in dispute anywhere.

Just Focus upon the Dual Pickup Junior II's would be my advice if you want it. And forget all about the Short Scale Model (Which is why I didn't mention it) if you want to Design and Make a Really Good Guitar for Yourself.

 

It's the Best of the Closely Related, Alternative Designs.

 

 

P

[Micha Schellhaas]

Thank you guys for all your replies!

I'll have a guitar build, first I wanted to go for a Junior repro, but I do really like 2 pickups, and a figured top would be nice too... !

That's why I researched body sizes etc. I really like the Junior single cut design, ideally I would just add one pickup (I want to go for the P90's without the dog ears, I believe they call them). BUT then you have to fit one more control/switch.

One great thing about the Junior for me is that the place where the Les Paul has the toggle switch, it's empty - I really like that. So the PU switch would have to go in line with the Juniors two pots (Fano does something like that but the goes Tele style)...

Ideas welcome!

[Paul Verticchio]

Hi Micha.

P-90's without dog ears are called 'soapbar' pickups. That'll make your search easier. Check out the Joe Barden design. They're on my current 'lusting after' list.

As far as control placement, that's WHY you build a guitar for yourself.  Place things where YOU want them to be, not where others have. Switches & pots should be where your hand can most easily access them. Make sense?

Sounds like fun.  Have a great time with it.

Best of luck,

Paul

btw: I saw on your 175 post that the instrument is being worked on by our friend Eric. GREAT CHOICE.   It's in extremely capable hands!  Prepare to be amazed.:)

[Micha Schellhaas]

Yes, Eric is GREAT! I fully trust that he'll have that ES 175 restored beautifully, he's a great guy with a good vibe and I could tell from the beginning that he's really into it for the love of it.

Paul, of course I make the choices for my own custom build guitar myself, and I will have everything just the way I want it. I believe many participants in this forum have designed guitars before, and might have had the same thoughts and search process as I do when it comes to details - the reason I am asking questions here is because I think it's great to learn from each other, point each others in new directions, share and inspire. Right? I don't think it's unlikely that somebody could point me towards a design detail such as pot/switch placement that I did not see yet, that is innovative and that I will like a lot. I hope that makes sense too? ;-)