52-59 Conversion, Amazing 2 Piece Plain Top

[HOT-BRIT]

Yes they are not late 50's bursts and it is a shame that some people insist on forcing a square peg into a round hole and destroying part of gibson history in the process

[pinefd]

I, personally, applaud Jim for yet another amazing conversion. And while I may be in the minority (or silent majority), here is my view on conversions...which I've posted before:

I think that most of us will agree that those early trapeze goldtops were not particularly good guitars. And had Gibson discontinued making them in the early to mid ‘50s, none of us today would probably be giving them a second thought. But the fact is that Gibson continued to make the Les Paul model, and it would eventually be the late ‘50s guitars (and ’60) that would one day get everyone’s attention…and admiration.

The rest is history as far as the desirability, collectability and meteoric rise in value of these late ‘50s ‘bursts is concerned…and they thus became know as the “holy grail” for us LP enthusiasts. Now, unfortunately, these holy grail guitars are out of reach price-wise for most of us. And those early, practically unplayable goldtops…which could have just as easily been relegated to the trash heap…have been riding on the coat tails of their younger siblings in recent years from a collectability standpoint.

So it’s my feeling that if someone wants to take an early goldtop and turn it into their own personal holy grail, then more power to them. Heck, if I could take a Corvair, and with a few non-reversible modifications turn it into a Corvette clone, I’d do that in a heartbeat too…in spite of the collectability of the Corvair in its own right. But that’s just me…and I’m just being…Frank.


Frank

[mapleflame]

Originally Posted by pinefd

I, personally, applaud Jim for yet another amazing conversion. And while I may be in the minority (or silent majority), here is my view on conversions...which I've posted before:

I think that most of us will agree that those early trapeze goldtops were not particularly good guitars. And had Gibson discontinued making them in the early to mid ‘50s, none of us today would probably be giving them a second thought. But the fact is that Gibson continued to make the Les Paul model, and it would eventually be the late ‘50s guitars (and ’60) that would one day get everyone’s attention…and admiration.

The rest is history as far as the desirability, collectability and meteoric rise in value of these late ‘50s ‘bursts is concerned…and they thus became know as the “holy grail” for us LP enthusiasts. Now, unfortunately, these holy grail guitars are out of reach price-wise for most of us. And those early, practically unplayable goldtops…which could have just as easily been relegated to the trash heap…have been riding on the coat tails of their younger siblings in recent years from a collectability standpoint.

So it’s my feeling that if someone wants to take an early goldtop and turn it into their own personal holy grail, then more power to them. Heck, if I could take a Corvair, and with a few non-reversible modifications turn it into a Corvette clone, I’d do that in a heartbeat too…in spite of the collectability of the Corvair in its own right. But that’s just me…and I’m just being…Frank.


Frank

And for the record, what ya doing with the Philly purchased wood brotha.

[pinefd]

Originally Posted by mapleflame

And for the record, what ya doing with the Philly purchased wood brotha.

I had a feeling that question might come up! So, I've now bought three goldtops over the past year and a half, with the intention of doing conversions on all three. The '55, as has been well documented here, I ended up restoring to a goldtop, and the '52, I'm thinking, is just in too nice a shape to convert as well. The '53, on the other hand (with multiple issues), I still plan to convert that one, but haven't done anything with it yet. And I haven't decided which route to take with it yet, namely whether to go the '57 conversion route, or try for a 'burst or different kind of finish. I think a lot depends on how the top looks once the re-paint is stripped off of it.


Frank

[GooCart]

Originally Posted by pinefd

I, personally, applaud Jim for yet another amazing conversion. And while I may be in the minority (or silent majority), here is my view on conversions...which I've posted before:

I think that most of us will agree that those early trapeze goldtops were not particularly good guitars. And had Gibson discontinued making them in the early to mid ‘50s, none of us today would probably be giving them a second thought. But the fact is that Gibson continued to make the Les Paul model, and it would eventually be the late ‘50s guitars (and ’60) that would one day get everyone’s attention…and admiration.

The rest is history as far as the desirability, collectability and meteoric rise in value of these late ‘50s ‘bursts is concerned…and they thus became know as the “holy grail” for us LP enthusiasts. Now, unfortunately, these holy grail guitars are out of reach price-wise for most of us. And those early, practically unplayable goldtops…which could have just as easily been relegated to the trash heap…have been riding on the coat tails of their younger siblings in recent years from a collectability standpoint.

So it’s my feeling that if someone wants to take an early goldtop and turn it into their own personal holy grail, then more power to them. Heck, if I could take a Corvair, and with a few non-reversible modifications turn it into a Corvette clone, I’d do that in a heartbeat too…in spite of the collectability of the Corvair in its own right. But that’s just me…and I’m just being…Frank.


Frank

I couldn't agree more, well if my English was better I probably could come up with something smart to say, but I think you really nailed it there Frank.

[mapleflame]

Originally Posted by pinefd

I had a feeling that question might come up! So, I've now bought three goldtops over the past year and a half, with the intention of doing conversions on all three. The '55, as has been well documented here, I ended up restoring to a goldtop, and the '52, I'm thinking, is just in too nice a shape to convert as well. The '53, on the other hand (with multiple issues), I still plan to convert that one, but haven't done anything with it yet. And I haven't decided which route to take with it yet, namely whether to go the '57 conversion route, or try for a 'burst or different kind of finish. I think a lot depends on how the top looks once the re-paint is stripped off of it.


Frank

Yeah it would be cool to see whats under the paint. Why don't you strip it and find out brotha.

[jimi55lp]

And don't be shy to show it off once you've stripped the finish?

[leftyguitarman]

I really try and stay out of these threads. But I have to say, this one time, seeing vintage Les Pauls get cut up to be "converted" literally makes me sick to my stomach. I cringe when I see this and my stomach literally churns.

I see it as destroying something beautiful because you can't have what your heart really desires.

Originally Posted by pinefd

And those early, practically unplayable goldtops…which could have just as easily been relegated to the trash heap…

While I've never played one of these guitars, you speak of them like they are the equivalent of a $79 guitar from a starter pack sold at a no name music store. Somehow, I highly doubt that they could be easily "relegated to the trash heap." YMMV.

[yeti]

I like the comment about Burst envy. That really sums it up BUT what's are you going to do if you can't have the real thing? Buy a Historic? ( Yes, actually that's what I'd recommend, or a replica) or find an affordable "issues guitar" and make it your own little dream machine. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. I sense a little conversion envy from some of the critics. One more thing. It's been said that Trap GT's aren't very good, etc. I beg to differ. You get the shallow angle but guess what, that's what all the guys with their top-wrapped Lesters ( talk about a fad) get too. It's not that big of a deal. '52 GT's rock and with the Glaser mod they probably play well too. i want one more than I want a Burst.

[EdBok]

Just a newbie jumping in over my head here - How far does it make sense to go to keep the original parts when you have them? I have a '52 LP which has a failed broken-headstock repair and a bad re-finishing job, both done in the mid-1970's. I've held on to it for 35+ years in the hope that someday I'd have time to attempt a restoration. The time may be here, and I want to bring it back as far as I can to it's former glory. Plus, I have all the parts it came with (see the attached photos).

It will need a serious headstock repair, or a new neck, but I'd love to keep the existing neck and especially the fingerboard. What does it make sense to keep, and what to trash?

The trapeze bridge had been removed and the mounting holes filled before we got it, though we have the old parts. I've verified the caps (Grey Tiger paper/wax 0.2 mfd 400V), and the pots (0.5 Meg IRC 6150689 B214) as circa 1952. But from what I gather on this forum and others, there is clear evidence of the re-paint. Once that was done, the soul of the gold top was gone, no? But the instrument still cries out to be played, and the rest of it can be made functional again. I will not put a finish on it, other than to varnish (or shellac) the top, so it will remain an amber kind of naked, even where the new head repair will be.

But the wire harness shielding has corroded, and the legs had broken off both caps. I was able to repair the caps, but was it worth the effort? I've seen so many posts that say those caps were lousy, but those were mostly radio guys. And should I trash the wiring? It's still functional, but does keeping it add any value, especially if I can't get the corrosion to stop? Or it is more just the warm and fuzzy feeling of having the original stuff in there?

I could go on, but will wait for my LP-restoration superiors to share some philosophy.

[58 special]

Looks like a hopeless case send it to me and I'll dispose of it for you .
All in jest . No first hand experience, but BCR Greg has a reputaion here.I'm sure he could repair that, using all your oringinal parts . And won't convert it.

[1981 LPC]

Ed, always keep all originals parts - whether it's vintage guitars or cars.

Hope you have the '52 restored to its goldtop glory.

[alligatorbling]

do what makes you happy =)

some people like to drop big blocks in muscle cars that came with small blocks...

it is what it is.

[taypeng]

i would sell the broken and unusable parts...keep the usable ones. send them to greg for repair and refin. string up and play the hell out of it. but thats just me.

[mapleflame]

Originally Posted by EdBok

Just a newbie jumping in over my head here - How far does it make sense to go to keep the original parts when you have them? I have a '52 LP which has a failed broken-headstock repair and a bad re-finishing job, both done in the mid-1970's. I've held on to it for 35+ years in the hope that someday I'd have time to attempt a restoration. The time may be here, and I want to bring it back as far as I can to it's former glory. Plus, I have all the parts it came with (see the attached photos).

It will need a serious headstock repair, or a new neck, but I'd love to keep the existing neck and especially the fingerboard. What does it make sense to keep, and what to trash?

The trapeze bridge had been removed and the mounting holes filled before we got it, though we have the old parts. I've verified the caps (Grey Tiger paper/wax 0.2 mfd 400V), and the pots (0.5 Meg IRC 6150689 B214) as circa 1952. But from what I gather on this forum and others, there is clear evidence of the re-paint. Once that was done, the soul of the gold top was gone, no? But the instrument still cries out to be played, and the rest of it can be made functional again. I will not put a finish on it, other than to varnish (or shellac) the top, so it will remain an amber kind of naked, even where the new head repair will be.

But the wire harness shielding has corroded, and the legs had broken off both caps. I was able to repair the caps, but was it worth the effort? I've seen so many posts that say those caps were lousy, but those were mostly radio guys. And should I trash the wiring? It's still functional, but does keeping it add any value, especially if I can't get the corrosion to stop? Or it is more just the warm and fuzzy feeling of having the original stuff in there?

I could go on, but will wait for my LP-restoration superiors to share some philosophy.

#1 send the harness and pickups to Dr. Vintage aka Rick Norman. He can get it cleaned up and resolder it back to it's original glory. You will probably have to replace the caps with some repro's. Also he can put some leads back onto the P90's. There are a few people that can fix the headstock and do a proper refin/and re-apply the Les Paul script. I would try to save the headstock and neck as it's worth more to be original. The stud bushing that are in the guitar right now would have to be removed and plugged if you want to restore the guitar to a trapeze. Lots of options. Your welcome to message me anythime as I have restored several 52's over the years. Good luck and thanks for sharing this guitar. With a little patience it will come back to life.

After looking at the picture of the top, it appears to have been sanded down a bit. The bridge pickup rout looks very shallow. If you could take some pics of the top from the side on four angles that would help. Also would love to see the head stock break. It would help to be able to give advice

[jimi55lp]

Originally Posted by EdBok

Just a newbie jumping in over my head here - How far does it make sense to go to keep the original parts when you have them? I have a '52 LP which has a failed broken-headstock repair and a bad re-finishing job, both done in the mid-1970's. I've held on to it for 35+ years in the hope that someday I'd have time to attempt a restoration. The time may be here, and I want to bring it back as far as I can to it's former glory. Plus, I have all the parts it came with (see the attached photos).

It will need a serious headstock repair, or a new neck, but I'd love to keep the existing neck and especially the fingerboard. What does it make sense to keep, and what to trash?

The trapeze bridge had been removed and the mounting holes filled before we got it, though we have the old parts. I've verified the caps (Grey Tiger paper/wax 0.2 mfd 400V), and the pots (0.5 Meg IRC 6150689 B214) as circa 1952. But from what I gather on this forum and others, there is clear evidence of the re-paint. Once that was done, the soul of the gold top was gone, no? But the instrument still cries out to be played, and the rest of it can be made functional again. I will not put a finish on it, other than to varnish (or shellac) the top, so it will remain an amber kind of naked, even where the new head repair will be.

But the wire harness shielding has corroded, and the legs had broken off both caps. I was able to repair the caps, but was it worth the effort? I've seen so many posts that say those caps were lousy, but those were mostly radio guys. And should I trash the wiring? It's still functional, but does keeping it add any value, especially if I can't get the corrosion to stop? Or it is more just the warm and fuzzy feeling of having the original stuff in there?

I could go on, but will wait for my LP-restoration superiors to share some philosophy.

I'd say always keep the original parts, even if you don't reuse them on the guitar "one man's trash, another man's treasure" ! It looks like your headstock has an allready failed repair attempt? BCR Greg and a few others can and will make that break good as new with almost no signs of the repair in many cases. The good thing about the neck repair is that your guitar has been stripped almost totally and will require a full refinish, making the hiding of the repairs very doable! BCR Greg who is a member here and has his shop in Phili. also makes a custom conversion bridge bar for you trapeze tailpiece to overwrap the strings if you go back original, and it is totally reversable back to the under wrap original for properity. The Grey Tiger caps can be tested for tolerance and leakage, and good originals can be found very easily on the net in both colors lettering. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the tone quality of the vintage Grey Tiger caps or the Bumblebee caps. Your P90s may be good and only need to have the leads reattached. If you search thru some of the past threads on 1952/53 GT restorations and repairs you'll find many examples. Keep us posted on your restoration attempts, and don't be affraid to ask for advice as thats the main reason most of us are here? Good luck, and welcome to the forum. "Don't Crush Em', Restore Em' "

[DonP]

Originally Posted by EdBok

.

Just a bump to wake up the thread. I like Mapleflame would like to see more pictures.

I'm hoping you will get this back together. It's always great seeing a guitar come back from the dead.

And even though I'd normally hate to have a repaired headstock vs. a new neck, with an old guitar like this I'd personally go with the headstock repair in order to save the neck. I believe the neck wood has a lot to do with the tone, and replacing the neck would lose a good chunk of it.

[Set-Neck]

I've always wondered about others opinions on Gibson necks from 52 till about 64. When they introduced a narrow nut they just lost me as an audience.

Originally Posted by RAG7890

Thanks Frank......................great pic, lots of old wood in that last shot Good contrast.

................suppose this would be a great time to start a new Thread re the pros & cons of these P90's Les Pauls re playability, top carves, neck shape, angles, tone etc. etc. The list goes on.

I want one to play not to collect but I don't really know enough about them & need to learn a fair bit.

I know my way around Historics & Replicas but in the Vintage area I'm a complete novice................