Pawn Stars 1961 Gibson Les Paul SG

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by Smash88

Evidence that the guit is a 63 not a 61 (thus changing the timeline / value of the guit), mysterious posters trying to counter / convolute the evidence, Ebay quoting this thread, Pawn Stars not disproving this evidence and what seems to be an unwillingness to have a true expert authenticate the guit...the smoke is clearing.

they never responded to the Ebay questions that I sent a few days ago also

[Indyclone]

Ok, whatever it is... a '61 or '63...

It's only a 100k guitar because of who played it... or supposedly played it, I guess.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by Indyclone

Ok, whatever it is... a '61 or '63...

It's only a 100k guitar because of who played it... or supposedly played it, I guess.

it would be a $15000 guitar normally

[BillB1960]

Originally Posted by Smash88

Evidence that the guit is a 63 not a 61 (thus changing the timeline / value of the guit), mysterious posters trying to counter / convolute the evidence, Ebay quoting this thread, Pawn Stars not disproving this evidence and what seems to be an unwillingness to have a true expert authenticate the guit...the smoke is clearing.

We can assume you won't be bidding on it then?

[Hasbeenracer]

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

we don't know who hasbeenracer is,
we don't know when photos were taken, it could have been a couple of days ago,
we don't know hasbeenracer's motivation for posting here

No worries Hot-brit. I'm a repairman/technician/builder based in the Los Angeles area. I mostly work for artist and studios. If you're ever in the LA area, PM me and I'll give you the phone number and address of my shop.

I checked the properties of the original photos before posting it here and it has a date of Aug.1st, 2009

My motivation was to clear up some of the confusion about the pots and pickups and to give you guys a little history/backround on the guitar since I go back to 1977 with it.

Originally Posted by Kevin James

Features also did not change Jan 1 so the fact that hasbeen racer says he added the fourth screw himself doesn't prove anything. And to be honest, that is the one thing in his statement that I DO question, and for 2 reasons.

1. If he added it, how is it that its placement is PERFECTLY in line with where the factory installed that 4th screw.

2. How did the guard not crack when he drilled the hole? If you've ever handled these early 60's guards, they all warp to some extent and the plastic is quite hard and brittle. Seems suspiciouse to me....

I've been at this for over 35 years Kevin and would like to think that I've picked up enough skills to drill a hole in a pickguard. Seriously though, I determined where the hole should go by looking a picture in a book, marked it and drilled it on my drill press with a block of wood behind it. While the plastic was starting to shrink a little by the late 80's/early 90's, it really wasn't all that brittle at the time. If you remember from my earlier post, I did this as a precautionary measure at the request of Greg who was worried that it was going to continue to distort. The guitar was not even being played anymore by this time.
Thank you very much for the compliment on it being "perfectly in line" with the factory screw.

[Kirk2000]

Where did that serial number come from?.. I looked all over the ebay auction and it is not mentioned, and the picture of the back of the headstock has no serial number.. Oh, if I just got screwed over by my ex husband during a heated divorce (which left me broke) I would never give a guitar to a member of my family with my ex husbands name on it, especially if I could remove it with two screws...

[Kevin James]

Originally Posted by Hasbeenracer

I've been at this for over 35 years Kevin and would like to think that I've picked up enough skills to drill a hole in a pickguard. Seriously though, I determined where the hole should go by looking a picture in a book, marked it and drilled it on my drill press with a block of wood behind it. While the plastic was starting to shrink a little by the late 80's/early 90's, it really wasn't all that brittle at the time. If you remember from my earlier post, I did this as a precautionary measure at the request of Greg who was worried that it was going to continue to distort. The guitar was not even being played anymore by this time.
Thank you very much for the compliment on it being "perfectly in line" with the factory screw.

Glad to see you back. As I mentioned, yes I did question (to myself) how it was so perfectly placed and how it did not crack. It was questionable but not imposible. As I also mentioned that was the only thing I questioned about what you've had to say and as such I gave (and am still giving) you the benefit of the doubt.

Only reason I mentioned it today was in response to the suggestion if you added the screw that means its not a 63. Being that features did not change on Jan 1 every year it doesn't really prove anything.

[LPSGME]

Originally Posted by Hasbeenracer

My motivation was to clear up some of the confusion about the pots and pickups and to give you guys a little history/backround on the guitar since I go back to 1977 with it.

So did you do the re-fret? I believe you previously said it was done in the 80's, so you must have some knowledge about it.

If so, I'm left wondering why the nephew allowed the TV show expert to speculate that it might have been done by Les himself? Didn't he have any any knowledge about it passed on from you?

Still, what you are saying about the extra screw does, sort of, contradict the serial number proof of the guitar being a '63. Although I guess it's possible that a '63 could have gotten a 3 screw pick-guard from the usual fallback explanation of coming from back or bottom of some parts bin.

All that aside, I believe someone else also pointed out that, the toggle switches on the 61's are closer to the pick-guard (like the SG on the album cover) which this toggle doesn't seem to have imo for it's location. And then there's my understanding, backed by actually having a first year issue, that they came with Brown/Pink Lifton cases.

So what do you think from all the evidence; is it a 61 or 63?

[Kevin James]

Originally Posted by Kirk2000

Where did that serial number come from?.. I looked all over the ebay auction and it is not mentioned, and the picture of the back of the headstock has no serial number.. Oh, if I just got screwed over by my ex husband during a heated divorce (which left me broke) I would never give a guitar to a member of my family with my ex husbands name on it, especially if I could remove it with two screws...

The guitar was photographed and featured in Robb Lawrence's book "The Les Paul Legacey. It was noted as being provided by Les's nephew Greg Corona. It was also noted as having a 6 digit serial number, 103367.

User lesandmarywerefamily also stated in post # 230 of this thread the serial number of the guitar was 103367 which matches Robb's published findings.

That is where the number comes from.

[Core]

Originally Posted by Indyclone

So there's no photo of the serial numbers?

Do we know if it's inkied or stamped?

Is this guy completely wrong?



Gibson Les Paul Sunburst Standard guitar info 1958 1959 1960 sun burst vintage value



To me this says that it's possible that the number "103367" may have been used in 1960.


And what about hasbeenracer, who said that he personally put that 4th screw on the pickguard?

Also the reason for the 6th digit pre 1963 means they made more than 10,000 units in each cycle so in '60 there would be no reason to have the 2nd digit be a "0". Does not make sense. It would and can only be a "1" if there is overflow. It makes perfect sense to have the number 103367 for 63 as everything indicates that.

It's already been proven by Gibson's serial number shipping ledger and somewhere in this thread or elsewhere there was a pic posted of the number. If I can go back through I will try and find it.

[Indyclone]

Originally Posted by Core

Also the reason for the 6th digit pre 1963 means they made more than 10,000 units in each cycle so in '60 there would be no reason to have the 2nd digit be a "0". Does not make sense. It would and can only be a "1" if there is overflow. It makes perfect sense to have the number 103367 for 63 as everything indicates that.

It's already been proven by Gibson's serial number shipping ledger and somewhere in this thread or elsewhere there was a pic posted of the number. If I can go back through I will try and find it.

I saw it... actually I helped him post it...

What it doesn't show is that Gibson never used that number before that.
Which they have been known to do.

[LPSGME]

Originally Posted by Kirk2000

Where did that serial number come from?.. I looked all over the ebay auction and it is not mentioned, and the picture of the back of the headstock has no serial number..

The photos uploaded here, showing the back of the headstock, also don't appear to show any serial number. Why is that?

[Actinic]

We are 16 pages deep in this thread. Lol. Has anyone seen the movies, The Grifters, or The Nine Queens? What if this entire deal is one big grift, where the original owners lost Mary's original SG Custom, and substituted a 1963 model? Among the many theories postulated so far, what makes this any more or less credible?

[GTrocker]

If there is no serial number, then there is a possibility when re-fretted it may of had a repair and refinned, now that is just a guess, but I found a '65 white SG Junior in the early 90s and loved it, bought it and had it for 20 years and never did see a serial number, it should have had the impressed or stamped numbers, but nothing, smooth, found out years later it had been refinned maybe in the 70s as the paint was very aged and small chips here and there to see the mahogany wood, it played great all those years, very true neck and was a wonderful guitar, but not original with the refin, so we are going by the honor system here with posted info from the previous owner, 103367 shows in the Gibson book, but is not clear in the photos. Is there anyone in Las Vegas on this board that could see the LP Custom in person and verify there is a serial number? I am curious too. PSs are saying nothing in the Q & A area of their eBay ad, but I am sure they have had many questions.

J~

[rockstar232007]

Originally Posted by LPSGME

The photos uploaded here, showing the back of the headstock, also don't appear to show any serial number. Why is that?

It's there. It's just really faint due to the thickness of the finish.

I've seen other, more detailed pics, and in the right light, on the right angle, you can actually see it.

[Core]

Originally Posted by LPSGME

The photos uploaded here, showing the back of the headstock, also don't appear to show any serial number. Why is that?

No I can see it, I have a laptop and if I angle the screen at about 45 degrees to my eyes I can see the 367 clearly but it's really faint. The first 3 digits don't show up well though. I'm sure if it was in hand or photographed at a different angle with some glare or light on it it would show clearly.

[LPSGME]

Does anyone know if the numbers are impressed or inked?

[rockstar232007]

Originally Posted by LPSGME

Does anyone know if the numbers are impressed or inked?

Impressed.

[GTrocker]

Ok, I can see a small indent on the left, still would be cool if a member here could see it first hand if from the Vegas area.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by GTrocker

If there is no serial number, then there is a possibility when re-fretted it may of had a repair and refinned, now that is just a guess, but I found a '65 white SG Junior in the early 90s and loved it, bought it and had it for 20 years and never did see a serial number, it should have had the impressed or stamped numbers, but nothing, smooth, found out years later it had been refinned maybe in the 70s as the paint was very aged and small chips here and there to see the mahogany wood, it played great all those years, very true neck and was a wonderful guitar, but not original with the refin, so we are going by the honor system here with posted info from the previous owner, 103367 shows in the Gibson book, but is not clear in the photos. Is there anyone in Las Vegas on this board that could see the LP Custom in person and verify there is a serial number? I am curious too. PSs are saying nothing in the Q & A area of their eBay ad, but I am sure they have had many questions.

J~

I sent questions the beginning of the week to them about the guitar, but they decided to ignore the questions, I received no reply from them.

[beakos]

I angled my laptop and could see the "10'. That's weird!

I really can't be certain but it looks more inked than stamped.

[Actinic]

mary_ford_sn.jpg

This is the best I could do from home. I used High/Mid/Lowtone adjustment, and then messed with the gamma. Don't have access to FBI or NSA computers from home. You can see the presence of six numbers. Looks very much like 103367.

[GTrocker]

I hear ya HB, man, nice job with the zoom in , whom ever gets this guit, will dig it along with the vintage paperwork. Rock it and turn it up to 11.

[rockstar232007]

Originally Posted by GTrocker

I hear ya HB, man, nice job with the zoom in , whom ever gets this guit, will dig it along with the vintage paperwork. Rock it and turn it up to 11.

Sadly, whoever gets it probably won't even play it? Most people willing to spend this type of money on these types of guitars, only use them as "trophies". Hell, my great uncle paid $1,200 for a totally stock '61 about 4 years ago (LONG story), but since then, it's only been out of it's case three times since then...and that was when I played it!

Shame.

[GTrocker]

Originally Posted by rockstar232007

Sadly, whoever gets it probably won't even play it? Most people willing to spend this type of money on these types of guitars, only use them as "trophies". Hell, my great uncle paid $1,200 for a totally stock '61 about 4 years ago (LONG story), but since then, it's only been out of it's case three times...and that was when I played it!

Shame.

That is a shame , but at least you enjoyed it , these instruments were made to be played, even as a collector, you need to play them or maybe act like you can..........lol. Not to get off topic, I suppose it would be the same as a classic vintage car sitting in a collector museum and never being driven and enjoyed, shame really, IMO.

Anyway, on a positive note: GIBSONS ROCK!

[BillB1960]

Originally Posted by GTrocker

That is a shame , but at least you enjoyed it , these instruments were made to be played, even as a collector, you need to play them or maybe act like you can..........lol. Not to get off topic, I suppose it would be the same as a classic vintage car sitting in a collector museum and never being driven and enjoyed, shame really, IMO.

Anyway, on a positive note: GIBSONS ROCK!

Why must you post everything in bold?

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by BillB1960

Why must you post everything in bold?

Why do you have to critzice the way he wants to post his writing?

[GTrocker]

Originally Posted by BillB1960

Why must you post everything in bold?

Sorry man, been on many message boards and this is a first for me with the bold thing, but then I have a hard time reading a fully capitalized post, so excuse the boldnest, that's just how I write.

J~

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by GTrocker

Sorry man, been on many message boards and this is a first for me with the bold thing, but then I have a hard time reading a fully capitalized post, so excuse the boldnest, that's just how I write.

J~

I am goona start posting in bold to support you

[circusboy28]

It has to do with this guitar leaving the factory around a year after Les and Mary split up - meaning this guitar almost certainly has zero association with Les Paul, or even much history of note with Mary. If she in fact did own it from new, at best it was simply that - a guitar of hers acquired after her time with Les, and well after her famous period of making music.

As such, it has little historical value and is certainly WAY overvalued. If it actually sells for the price on ebay then someone is going to get their fingers burned. Badly. It's a non original '63 SG Custom of at best peripheral historical importance.

Um, yes...the shipping date IS kinda important.