orvilles vs gibson LP standard

Tokai Forum

Help Support Tokai Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sir Punk

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
so I am wondering what are the differences between a Gibson LP standard and an Orville/OBG.

The standard's have fret binding and it seems to me that Orville don't.

Also some Orville have 2 piece necks but I don't know if that's true for standards.

what else?
 
Orville and Orville By Gibson are two completely different guitars. Only the OBG reissues have fret edge binding they also have the long neck tenon and are generally better built guitars than the gibson standards, the obg's have a much better and more stable neck joint.

Mick
 
http://cgi.ebay.com/Orville-by-Gibson-Les-Paul-AWESOME-w-hard-case_W0QQitemZ250272827777QQihZ015QQcategoryZ33034QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

it seems to me that this has not fret edge binding. But it's hard to see.
 
There are two different Orville by Gibson models, the 'standard' and the 'reissue'

The one in the listing is a standard, has 'standard' on the truss-rod cover and no FEB. The reissue's have a blank cover and FEB, either way, fret-edge binding is really only cosmetic, an OBG standard will still be a great guitar!
 
ok I gotcha. so OBG standard are somewhat comparable to gibson standard?

and do both reissue and standard OBG have more stable neck joint than a gibson? is what you say based on your personal experience?
 
Both the standard and the reissue have a long tenon neck joint, whether or not this contrubutes much to the tone, or the stability we could all have a week long debate and not reach a conclusion :wink:

One thing a long tenon is, is historically correct, just like a real '58

Really the only difference is the FEB, a modern Gibson Standard has FEB so really an OBG reissue would be closer in outward appearance to a modern standard, but in terms of construction both a OBG standard and a reissue are closer to a real '58 Les Paul.

Oh, from personal experience I've never had any 'stability' issues with a modern Gibson neck joint, but the best overall sounding and playing Gibson I ever had was an OBG :D
 
so are you telling me that gibson standard have short tenon?

the only problem is that the prices of OBG are almost as much as a used standard. I wish I woke up a few years earlier :D
 
Sir Punk said:
so are you telling me that gibson standard have short tenon?

the only problem is that the prices of OBG are almost as much as a used standard. I wish I woke up a few years earlier :D

Yes, a standard has a short tenon, and also more than likely a 'weight relieved' body which is a fancy way of saying it has holed drilled in the mahogany!

Yes an OBG reissue is almost the same price as a Standard, but it's just about Historic spec apart from the 2-piece back. I would say get an OBG reissue in preference to a standard. The last few standards I've picked up in my local shop have been pretty uninspiring, but if you can find a nice one, used, then that would hold it's value as much as the OBG.
 
The Terada made G serial regular OBG's can sometimes have separate neck heels (2 piece neck) on the lower priced OBG's. Terada also do this on some K Orvilles which isn't surprising seeing that a lot of the K Orvilles seem to be rejected G serial OBG's. The other difference between Gibson and Japanese guitars is that Gibson mostly use Honduras Mahogany (but that might have changed a bit recently) and the Japanese makers mostly use African Mahogany. I have Gibsons and Orvilles and the wood type difference means nothing to the sound IMO. Fret edge binding is like car power windows, not needed IMO.
 
http://cgi.ebay.com/1992-ORVILLE-BY-GIBSON-LES-PAUL-LEMON-BURST-FLAMETOP_W0QQitemZ140251406896QQihZ004QQcategoryZ38086QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

this has a medium tenon and it's a OBG. how come?
 
Sir Punk said:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1992-ORVILLE-BY-GIBSON-LES-PAUL-LEMON-BURST-FLAMETOP_W0QQitemZ140251406896QQihZ004QQcategoryZ38086QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

this has a medium tenon and it's a OBG. how come?

You got me there!! Hopefully japanstrat will be along soon :D
 
another one here with m tenon

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140243701078&indexURL=1&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting
 
The G serial OBG's and the K Orvilles are made by Terada mostly from 1988-1993. Terada made them with different tenons, long, medium long, and medium. Terada also made some OBG's and K Orvilles with separate neck heels. FujiGen is the other OBG and Orville maker mostly from 1993-1998 and they use no letters in their serial numbers. All of the FujiGen OBG's and Orvilles have long tenons and I've never seen one with a separate neck heel.
 
could you guys give me some infos about the necks?

I'd like a 60's style neck. what kind of variety can I find among O or OBG. and is there a way to tell from the serial number or other details?

do any OBG have ebony fretboards?
 
Sir Punk,

I went through several Gibson LP's over about a 10 year period a few years ago when I got back into playing and came to the conclusion that I just did not like Les Paul's. I jumped over soley to strat's and tele's. Fender Japan re-introduced me to MIJ quality which then got me into looking at OBG and Burny... turns out that I didn't dislike LP's- I disliked GIBSON LP's (numerous pieces from a '72 deluxe, a '81 Standard, an '02 Standard to name a few). Quality and workmanship range from "not-worth-the-??" to absolute CRAP.
IMHO, if you are shopping for a LP in the Gibson Standard price range- get an OBG. (same goes for SG's which are my main guitars now).
My rule of thumb to friends who ask-If you are shopping for:
Entry LP (Epiphone, etc) - buy an Orville instead
Gibson LP - buy an Orville by Gibson LPS instead (like the listing you posted)
historically accurate Gibson RI (ha-ha) - buy an OBG LPR, or if Customs are your thing an OBG '57 LPC (ebony board) instead.

And your question about necks, I think generally the LPS's lean more to a 60's profile. My LPR has a fatter 50's profile.

Villagers homepage has some great info... http://www.japanguitars.co.uk/Page%201%20history.html

Good luck.
 
Sir Punk said:
so I am wondering what are the differences between a Gibson LP standard and an Orville/OBG.

The standard's have fret binding and it seems to me that Orville don't.

Also some Orville have 2 piece necks but I don't know if that's true for standards.

what else?


I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.
 
Koubayashi said:
I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.


A 'dead' electric guitar is dead because of the physics of the lumber, just as one that is 'alive' is alive because of the physics of the lumber.

Many people seem not to understand, or even refuse to accept the fact (some here on this forum even) that LUMBER and its' inherit characteristics, play the greatest role in the construction of any given solid body instrument (namely guitars) as it relates to the instruments' ability to produce vibration aka sound.

In a thread from another forum I posted the below reply, in response to a question about Fender style solid body guitars but the last statement of my reply is true for Gibson style solid bodies as well.

IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber



"of all of the Strat bodies I have personally owned, between ash & alder, ash IMO is the winner hands down

I prefer two piece/center seam with tighter growth ring structure on the bass side & wider GRS on the treble side ........................

I don't see why pine would not be a good choice; IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber"
 
MIJvintage said:
Koubayashi said:
I spent half a day trying a 58 and a 59. The 59 was dead. It was a horrible guitar that any simple Greco EG500 would beat.

I have some ObG reissues and some ObG Std's (that is funny if think about it) and they are more or like the same in the quality. I have scrutinized in various pragmatic ways without finding any major differences in the quality.

It's the same with the Squier and Fender JV's. A friend of mine has a fully original 1961 Strat but his work guitar is a beaten up JV Strat.

There is no general truth that A is better than B. In the end of the day it all comes to each guitar, no matter name or country of origin.
Though, in my personal opinion the Japanese tend to be more consistent. If I buy a ObG I know what to expect but when I buy a Gibson LP Std I never know.


A 'dead' electric guitar is dead because of the physics of the lumber, just as one that is 'alive' is alive because of the physics of the lumber.

Many people seem not to understand, or even refuse to accept the fact (some here on this forum even) that LUMBER and its' inherit characteristics, play the greatest role in the construction of any given solid body instrument (namely guitars) as it relates to the instruments' ability to produce vibration aka sound.

In a thread from another forum I posted the below reply, in response to a question about Fender style solid body guitars but the last statement of my reply is true for Gibson style solid bodies as well.

IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber



"of all of the Strat bodies I have personally owned, between ash & alder, ash IMO is the winner hands down

I prefer two piece/center seam with tighter growth ring structure on the bass side & wider GRS on the treble side ........................

I don't see why pine would not be a good choice; IMO, everything depends on the physics of the individual lumber"

I agree. Pickups can be changed but not the soul (the wood) of the guitar.
Hagstr?m (aka Goya) used pine for their guitars. They sound crappy :D
 
the body wood on one of Eric Johnson's most favorite Strats (a '54 named 'Virginia') was actually spruce, which is a close genetic cousin to pine :wink:

If ANYONE knows about & is particularlly sensetive to 'tone' I believe it would be EJ :) ..............
 

Latest posts

Back
Top