Talk:Gibson Les Paul Studio

the studio deluxe series is not represented.

Merge "Swamp Ash Studio" into this?

There is an article on the Gibson Les Paul Swamp Ash Studio. Although that article is rather bigger and more detailed than this, I think it should be merged into this because it is a variant of the Les Paul Studio.

However, this should probably be expanded to give a more comprehensive history and timeline of the LP Studio models, so that the merger does not overwhelm this article with info on the LP SA Studio. Respectfully, SamBlob 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea go for it! There are too many LP model articles. These 2 can easily be merged. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think you should merge them. What's the point in having two articles for the same model (kind of the same). Plus, I am thinking about adding some info off of gibson.com. Tell me know to if you don't want me to. --Smartman93 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of merging the articles. As for adding content, if it makes a better article, go right ahead! Respectfully, SamBlob 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited this page to remove the link to the Swamp Ash Studio to avoid double redirects. Respectfully, SamBlob 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Banara Smartwood the rarest?

Is it true that the reason the Banara wood is so rare: The Gibson Banara smartwood Studio the science inadvertently introduced some errors in counting the population of Banara wood available, and that’s what lead to Gibson producing these in such small numbers? I know there are several woods they use, but read they made a mistake when it came to Banara by misidentifing its genus and species? I thought I saw a news article about the issue coming up, and they were trying to keep it quiet, may have even been that Banara was actutally endangered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.118.135 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An infobox for the Gem Series?

I have entered a subsection for the Gem series. I have also prepared an infobox using [Image:GibsonGem.jpg] as the featured image. I have not yet added it because I believe that might be overkill for a limited series of unknown historical importance to the marque.

I would appreciate any advice or comment on this idea. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Without seeing your GEM infobox my only thought is that right now the article looks unbalanced with an infobox plunked in the middle for the Swamp Ash but no infobox at the lead for the main model. A "mini" infobox would be handy for this type of situation where the "sub" or limited variation models don't warrant an article of their own...but would benefit from having an infobox all the same. Try your infobox and see how it looks. I am thinking that 2 pics of the Swamp Ash is 1 too many?....Thoughts? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided just to put up a small picture. It worked better in the full article than it did as a section preview. I set up an infobox for the main picture instead. Respectfully, SamBlob 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good. FU availability or not I am still thinking of grabbing a promo pic from Gibson.com....for consistency. But I know as soon as I grab one Abu will swoop in and tag it as replaceable. I have no luck with fair use. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub? Cleanup?

Who would review this article to see if it's still a stub-class article? Also, I think I put the "Cleanup" tag on the article when I merged the "Gibson Swamp Ash Studio" into it. Does it still need it? Respectfully, SamBlob 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup & class c

I did some major cleanup and got rid of the cleanup template. Xenocidic promoted this article to C class. Washburnmav (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Info boxes and photographs

I added a link to a photograph of the Vintage Mahogany model which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I have a feeling that the article would be better off with just one info box and if possible more photographs. If a particular model differs from the general description of Les Paul Studio that is in the info box, perhaps it should just be made clear in the text? Antti Salonen (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

50s and 60s Tribute models

The 50s and 60s Tribute models need to be included. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I added that section, based on the information I have. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. The period for the guitar is given as 1983 and on. There is a section called 1982-1985 which is contradictory.

2. Aren't "Smartwood Studio" and "Swamp Ash Studio" redundant as titles? All other models before them do not repeat "Studio". Should the titles be "Smartwood" and "Swamp Ash" only?

3. Should the program be spelled SmartWood or Smartwood?

4. What instruments are included in the "SmartWood line of instruments"?

5. "Amethyst, Sapphire, Topaz, Emerald, and Ruby" should not point to the actual gemstones.

6. When was the Smartwood introduced?

7. no Studio Deluxe represented.

ICE77 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Tribute models

I added a section on the 1950's and 1960's tribute models (see my 2011 message above). But this section has been removed - why? (Here is one, for instance.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For instance: reverb.com Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)