Pawn Stars 1961 Gibson Les Paul SG

[Lesandmarywerefamily]

Originally Posted by BillB1960

Well let's see according to the logic put forth by some in this thread the fact that you joined this forum after the sale of the guitar to the pawn shop and just about the time it went up for auction on Ebay and immediately started attacking the provenance thereby potentially devaluing the guitar would indicate that you have something to gain. Perhaps you're considering bidding or may already have the high bid on the guitar eh?


Sum of the parts there chief...

Wow really? Sorry I ever put anything up on this board. Sorry for my input and any additional info I gave trying help. Think and say what you'd like, judge as you will. I have nothing to gain at this point, we weren't compensated at all by the show for our appearance, in fact we were in Vegas for 4 days waiting to talk to them and we were not reimbursed one penny for any of our expenses.

Doesn't really matter though does it, I'm sure soenone else will just pick this apart too.

This will most likely be my last post here, shame on me for thinking this was the best place to clear the air. I was obviously wrong.

[Kevin James]

Originally Posted by Lesandmarywerefamily

Wow really? Sorry I ever put anything up on this board. Sorry for my input and any additional info I gave trying help. Think and say what you'd like, judge as you will. I have nothing to gain at this point, we weren't compensated at all by the show for our appearance, in fact we were in Vegas for 4 days waiting to talk to them and we were not reimbursed one penny for any of our expenses.

Doesn't really matter though does it, I'm sure soenone else will just pick this apart too.

This will most likely be my last post here, shame on me for thinking this was the best place to clear the air. I was obviously wrong.

I don't thing the post you quoted was aimed at you. It was aimed at another user.

Your posts here are appreciated by quite a few people here, myself included.

[E.L. Fudge]

Originally Posted by Lesandmarywerefamily

Wow really? Sorry I ever put anything up on this board. Sorry for my input and any additional info I gave trying help. Think and say what you'd like, judge as you will. I have nothing to gain at this point, we weren't compensated at all by the show for our appearance, in fact we were in Vegas for 4 days waiting to talk to them and we were not reimbursed one penny for any of our expenses.

Doesn't really matter though does it, I'm sure soenone else will just pick this apart too.

This will most likely be my last post here, shame on me for thinking this was the best place to clear the air. I was obviously wrong.

Your input on this subject was both valuable and appreciated. Thanks for shedding some light and sharing information on the guitar.

[Rigel42]

I think RobAnsteele theory is correct. Pawnstars has just about every guitar forum talking about their show, Cowtown and "ford" family was able to sell a guitar for 3x the value. This is a Vegas Shuffle in action.

Take a step back and look. This isn't Les Paul's guitar and its not even a real Les Paul. Its an Old SG, possible a '63 that has zero connection with Les Paul. My advice to anybody that's bidding on this guitar "Its not worth anywhere near 6 figures, don't be stupid". That said I'm reserving my right to say "I told you so".

[LPG]

Originally Posted by Lesandmarywerefamily

Wow really? Sorry I ever put anything up on this board. Sorry for my input and any additional info I gave trying help. Think and say what you'd like, judge as you will. I have nothing to gain at this point, we weren't compensated at all by the show for our appearance, in fact we were in Vegas for 4 days waiting to talk to them and we were not reimbursed one penny for any of our expenses.

Doesn't really matter though does it, I'm sure soenone else will just pick this apart too.

This will most likely be my last post here, shame on me for thinking this was the best place to clear the air. I was obviously wrong.

Please know that your input has been very much appreciated on this forum...by most of us...and by me for sure.

The post you responded to was definitely aimed at another member and his post.

[River]

Originally Posted by Lesandmarywerefamily

Wow really?

Bill wasn't "speaking" to you.

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by Smash88

It would be great if this were the next episode of Brad Meltzer's Decoded. The history channel trifecta...

Or how about the seedy underworld of the message board illuminati ?

[Lesandmarywerefamily]

Originally Posted by Kevin James

I don't thing the post you quoted was aimed at you. It was aimed at another user.

Your posts here are appreciated by quite a few people here, myself included.

Honestly,

I think I need to step away I'm feeling like I'm being attacked anytime I try to post something that could help with ANY questions people might have. I was honestly trying to help but I seem to be muddying the waters more and I think it's time to sit silent as requested by my husband out the gate.

I used to sit and talk to Mom (Mary's sister and yes even though that wasn't her REAL name, that's what everyone called her even in the family. I know that's one of the things being questioned here) and she told me so many stories about being on the road with Les and Mary. Mom was married to Wally Kamin, Bass player for Les and she sang the harmonies to Mary backstage. Those memories should be shared not locked away in the families heads or mine!!! They will die with us and I think the world should enjoy them as much as we do. Les had quite the sense of humor! But when people start to mock, call names and tear me to shreds for things I've said it makes me not want to say anything And I'm not whining!! LOL

I am NOT a guitar expert, I don't understand half the lingo and I sure am not here to waste my time or anyone else's.

Some of the members here have been very welcoming and gracious and I do appreciate that.

God Bless

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by RobAnsteele

Tonebone...
Good day.
....
Wow. Typical avoidance response to the issue at hand, just think of something unrelated and nefarious that disqualifies the guy from having a position on the topic....

You really don't get what I was driving at, do you "Rob?" Let's see, most come to forum to find answers.
"Should I get a Gibson Studio or a SG Faded? Does anyone know if an old Selmer amp sounds good with humbuckers?" etc, etc.

Or the other type, that come here to help. Jonesy sells controls kits at ridiculously cheap prices for what he builds. Beerdog helps folks with wah pedals for practically free. Greg fixes broken headstocks so you can't even tell they were ever broken. One fellow builds insanely good amps for a really good price. Plans and blueprints for Les Paul homebuilders abound. Dozens post free lessons in the lessons area.

There are great threads here trying to uncover the truth behind old guitar hero's and their recordings.

But you swoop in out of the blue like a seagull to pick on one particular thread and one family down on their luck.

I think Bill has you pegged (and that is what I was driving at in my earlier post). Trying to derail an ebay auction so you can get it cheaper makes the most sense of all. You come here and start pointing a little jaundiced, colored flashlight beam around, I held up a mirror to you, and the beam illuminated your face. A rich, lonely, grasping, poor soul trying to discredit an ebay auction so you can save a few sheckels. Seems to make sense, all and all.

If you had some kind of history here, your accusations might carry some weight, but your sudden arrival and extremely targeted inquisition says it all.

[HOT-BRIT]

Kevin who is an expert on these vinage SG's has stated that this guitar is not a 1961 and is in fact a 1963 he posted photographic evidence to back up his dating of the guitar. Being a 1963 and not a 1961 makes a huge difference in valuing this guitar because the valuation of this guitar is based on the association of this guitar with Les Paul.
But how involve could Les Paul have been with this guitar if it is a 1963?
Les Paul's second five year endorsement contract with Gibson ended in 1962 and he never liked the SG design and only used and promoted it because he was obligated to do so while under contract with Gibson, once the contract expired in 1962 Les Paul had nothing more to do with the SG and was never seen with one again.
Marry Ford was going through a divorce that started in 1962 and was finalized by 1963, one of the reasons Les Paul did not renew his contract with Gibson in 1962 was because he did not want to give any share of that money to Mary in his divorce settlement with her, this was not a friendly divorce, so how much and what type of association would Les Paul have had during and after his divorce with her, If the guitar is a 1963 then I doubt that Les Paul had any thing at all to do with it and certainly would not be maintaining it for Mary, if it is a 1963 Mary would have never played this guitar to accompany Les Paul.
But on the Pawn Star show they made a big deal of the association of the guitar with Les Paul this was there selling point and the major factor and influence when valuing the guitar.

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

Kevin who is an expert on these vinage SG's has stated that this guitar is not a 1961 and is in fact a 1963 he posted photographic evidence to back up his dating of the guitar. Being a 1963 and not a 1961 makes a huge difference in valuing this guitar because the valuation of this guitar is based on the association of this guitar with Les Paul.
But how involve could Les Paul have been with this guitar if it is a 1963?
Les Paul's second five year endorsement contract with Gibson ended in 1962 and he never liked the SG design and only used and promoted it because he was obligated to do so while under contract with Gibson, once the contract expired in 1962 Les Paul had nothing more to do with the SG and was never seen with one again.
Marry Ford was going through a divorce that started in 1962 and was finalized by 1963, one of the reasons Les Paul did not renew his contract with Gibson in 1962 was because he did not want to give any share of that money to Mary in his divorce settlement with her, this was not a friendly divorce, so how much and what type of association would Les Paul have had during and after his divorce with her, If the guitar is a 1963 then I doubt that Les Paul had any thing at all to do with it and certainly would not be maintaining it for Mary, if it is a 1963 Mary would have never played this guitar to accompany Les Paul.
But on the Pawn Star show they made a big deal of the association of the guitar with Les Paul this was there selling point and the major factor and influence when valuing the guitar.

Very interesting Hot-Brit. Would love to hear what Lesandmarywerefamily has to say about this chronological events.

[delawaregold]

Originally Posted by nicolasrivera

Very interesting Hot-Brit. Would love to hear what Lesandmarywerefamily has to say about this chronological events.

This is only conjecture, based on photographs of the guitar today,
which may not have all original parts on it, especially the pick guard.
Others who have done an in hand inspection, say it is a 1961 SG.
In any event, the family presented the guitar as is, when they
SOLD it. They have no need to explain anything further. The buyers
have all had an opportunity to do their own research, and they are
still satisfied to have run the bidding up to nearly 100K, so far.
If anyone has anything to explain, it would be the bidders, who
obviously see something you do not. I don’t think they will comment
until after the Auction.

[HOT-BRIT]

Originally Posted by nicolasrivera

Very interesting Hot-Brit. Would love to hear what Lesandmarywerefamily has to say about this chronological events.

It is plain for us all to see Nico, as we all know Kevin is an expert on these vintage SG's, he has spent a long time studying and researching them, Kevin as used his expertise to examine the photos and TV footage and he has come to the conclusion that the guitar is a 1963 and not a 1961, he backed up the dating of the guitar with photographic evidence showing the difference in features. if any one wishes to challenge Kevins dating of the guitar then it would be very good to get some more expert opinions on the age of the guitar.
The guitar being a 1963 and not a 1961 changes every thing! as the value placed on this guitar is based on the association of the guitar with Les Paul
every thing I Stated above is based on facts and the time line.

[Fletch]

An endorsed celebrity getting a "63" model in 62 doesn't seem all that unrealistic. Everyone knows that there are cross-over features along all years for Gibsons back then, maybe they just gave here the one with the most updated "improvements" or "features"... They didn't just make every 1962 guitar exactly the same up until December 31, stop everything, and then start with the new models on January 1 of the next year.

And somebody please explain the sideways vibrola, which I believe was only made in 61 and early 62... then dumped because it didn't work. So why would they go put that failed part on a celebrity guitar if it was a 63?

And just because they were divorcing in 62 doesn't mean she might not still get equipment through the endorsement deal somehow. And what's to say Gibson didn't give her a guitar AFTER Les' contract expired for some reason?


I don't understand why some people get so bitter about people making money. This includes the family, Cowtown guitar, AND even the schmucks on the show. So what. If you don't like the price of it, then don't buy it. If you DO decide to go drop $250,000 on it, then you're probably going to get on a plane and go inspect it yourself... pull the pots, check the pickups, count the screws, smell it, touch it, tastes it, whatever. Then if you don't like it don't buy it. If you DON'T get on a plane and go look at it well then sorry, you get what you deserve...

But if you do buy it, don't tell the internet or you shall be judged harshly.



fletch

[pmonk]

Dear Lesandmarywerefamily, read this thread -> Framptons '54 Custom found and you will realize how retarded this forum can be (and how wrong in ID'ing guitars)

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by HOT-BRIT

It is plain for us all to see Nico, as we all know Kevin is an expert on these vintage SG's, he has spent a long time studying and researching them, Kevin as used his expertise to examine the photos and TV footage and he has come to the conclusion that the guitar is a 1963 and not a 1961, he backed up the dating of the guitar with photographic evidence showing the difference in features. if any one wishes to challenge Kevins dating of the guitar then it would be very good to get some more expert opinions on the age of the guitar.
The guitar being a 1963 and not a 1961 changes every thing! as the value placed on this guitar is based on the association of the guitar with Les Paul
every thing I Stated above is based on facts and the time line.

Thank. But there is still a slight chance that Kevin could be missing something, as Joe Ganzler says, he stopped dating burst based only on photos, there is nothing like first hand inspections.

Could that SG have been manipulated by Les AFTER the divorce? Maybe! Because if she turns out to be a 63 then it seems dates don't ad up.

But the truth is that anything we discuss here has little to no significance to the bidders if they even visit this forum as Artie says the bidder had the chance to investigate this. but you know there are a lot of people with endless deep pockets that just don't bother and bid just for the pleasure of doing it.

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by pmonk

Dear Lesandmarywerefamily, read this thread -> Framptons '54 Custom found and you will realize how retarded this forum can be (and how wrong in ID'ing guitars)

You should be fair and state that there are members that did ID the guitar correctly, don't generalize you opinion.

[old mark]

Originally Posted by decoy205

btw from what I read Chum is pretty smart. He puts on the act for the show.

Wait!!! You mean TV is NOT TELLING THE TRUTH??????


O . M . G !!!!!






mark

[SG Lou]

Some of my observations:

The majority of 61 and 62 Customs I have seen both in pictures and in real life had only 3 screws in the P/G. From 63 on they added the 4th screw The SG in question has 4 screws.

Gibsons sales brochure in 61 shows the Custom with 3 screw in the P/G. Same goes for the 62 model. By 63 it shows a 4 screw P/G

On the other hand you can do either a Google or Yahoo image search and come up with a so called 61 or 62 with a 4 screw P/G ? You figure it out.

The Sideways Trem, It was carried over for a very short time on the 63 Customs.

To me it looks like the SG in question is a 63 Model


Now on the serial numbers.

In 1961 Gibson started a new serial number system that covered all instrument lines. It consisted of numbers that are impressed into the wood. It is also generally known to be the most frustrating and hard to
understand system that Gibson has employed. The numbers were used between the years 1961-1969. There are several instances where batches of numbers are switched in order, duplicated, not just once, but up to
four times, and seem to be randomly assigned, throughout the decade. In general though, the numbers are
approximately as follows:

1961 100-42440
1962 42441-61180
1963 61450-64220
1964 64240-70500
1962 71180-96600
1963 96601-99999
1967 000001-008010
1967 010000-042900
1967 044000-044100
1967 050000-054400
1967 055000-063999
1967 064000-066010
1967 067000-070910
1967 090000-099999
1963, 1967 100000-106099
1963 106100-108900
1963, 1967 109000-109999
1963 110000-111549
1963, 1967 111550-115799
1963 115800-118299
1963, 1967 118300-120999
1963 121000-139999
1963, 1967 140000-140100
1963 140101-144304
1964 144305-144380
1963 144381-145000
1963 147009-149864
1964 149865-149891
1963 149892-152989

So, is it a 3, 4, 5 or 6 number serial numbered Custom ?

[Lesandmarywerefamily]

Originally Posted by SG Lou

Some of my observations:

The majority of 61 and 62 Customs I have seen both in pictures and in real life had only 3 screws in the P/G. From 63 on they added the 4th screw The SG in question has 4 screws.

Gibsons sales brochure in 61 shows the Custom with 3 screw in the P/G. Same goes for the 62 model. By 63 it shows a 4 screw P/G

On the other hand you can do either a Google or Yahoo image search and come up with a so called 61 or 62 with a 4 screw P/G ? You figure it out.

The Sideways Trem, It was carried over for a very short time on the 63 Customs.

To me it looks like the SG in question is a 63 Model


Now on the serial numbers.

In 1961 Gibson started a new serial number system that covered all instrument lines. It consisted of numbers that are impressed into the wood. It is also generally known to be the most frustrating and hard to
understand system that Gibson has employed. The numbers were used between the years 1961-1969. There are several instances where batches of numbers are switched in order, duplicated, not just once, but up to
four times, and seem to be randomly assigned, throughout the decade. In general though, the numbers are
approximately as follows:

1961 100-42440
1962 42441-61180
1963 61450-64220
1964 64240-70500
1962 71180-96600
1963 96601-99999
1967 000001-008010
1967 010000-042900
1967 044000-044100
1967 050000-054400
1967 055000-063999
1967 064000-066010
1967 067000-070910
1967 090000-099999
1963, 1967 100000-106099
1963 106100-108900
1963, 1967 109000-109999
1963 110000-111549
1963, 1967 111550-115799
1963 115800-118299
1963, 1967 118300-120999
1963 121000-139999
1963, 1967 140000-140100
1963 140101-144304
1964 144305-144380
1963 144381-145000
1963 147009-149864
1964 149865-149891
1963 149892-152989

So, is it a 3, 4, 5 or 6 number serial numbered Custom ?

Serial number of the guitar is 103367

[Thumpalumpacus]

The SN isn't shown in the pics, do you have any of it?

[JCarno]

Originally Posted by Lesandmarywerefamily

Serial number of the guitar is 103367

That........




















Answers that!!!!!!

[Kevin James]

I would like to address a couple of things at this point.

I very much appreciate the kind words and vote of confidence by Hot Britt. I am however a little uneasy about being called an expert. It is fairly obvious by anyone reading my posts here that I have a great passion for the early Les Paul/SG's. They are my favorite guitar and I have learned a ton about them. Enough to feel more than confident about personally authenticating any example I am personally buying for myself. However the term "expert" implies you know all there is to know. I on the other hand still learn more every day and expect that will be the case for a long time to come. So, knowledgeable... yes, expert... no.

For the record, based on what has been seen in the pictures and other information that has been provided by VERY reliable sources I do feel that this guitar is more LIKELY to be a 63 than a 61. However, Artie makes an extremely valid point that the pick guard could have been changed. Why it would, who knows but anything is possible and only an in hand inspection would give more evidence as to if this is the original pick guard or not and even then it is not possible to be 100% certain.

The serial number. Tom Wittrock has stated at LPF that this guitar was photographed and included in Robb Lawrence's book "The Les Paul Legacy". As Tom states, Rob reported that this guitar has a 6 digit serial number. The serial number is not shown in the auction to my knowledge, nor was it shown on the show. I also do not have a copy of Robb's book. However if Tom says this IS the guitar in the book and it does have a 6 digit serial number I have no reason to question that. Tom is as reliable a source as you can get, and he would not mention anything if he was not absolutely positive so I do believe him. But again, only an in hand inspection would confirm this 100%.

The issue of the sideways trem. The company that designed and manufactured it went out of business in 1962, and Gibson did take steps to come up with a new trem at that time, which is seen on some 62's. This was the short Maestro with the inlaid ebony block (as seen on my 62 in my avatar). However, only a small number of these were produced most likely as a test and as history shows it is not the final version that became standard. Gibson still had a large stock of the sideways trems which most of the SG/LP's were shipped with, and that stock did last well in to 1963. The myth that the sideways guitars ended in 62 is just that, a myth... as is the myth that the Les Paul engraved truss covers ended in 62, they still had stock of those on hand as well and they too lasted well in to 63.

I do believe this guitar is a 63, but there are other things I want to see that only an in hand inspection would clarify. I want to see the pot codes, as well as the solder joints to verify those pots themselves are original to the guitar. I want to see under the pickups. IF it is a 63 it becomes possible that 1 if not all of them could actually patent number pickups and not PAF's. Starting in 62 and combination of pickups could have been possible, it could have 3 PAFS, it could have 3 patent Numbers, or a combination of both.

So to summerize, yes, I do believe it is more likely a 63 because there is more pointing to 63 than there is pointing to 61 or 62, but only an in hand inspection would confirm this 100%.

What I do know as 100% fact is 6 digit serial numbers started in 63 and 4 screw guards did not exist in 61 (still not 100% sure on 62 CUSTOM's but that last screw did NOT show up on Standards until 63 and that I AM 100% certain on).

So who would I believe more, Tom Wittrock and Robb Lawrence that this guitar has a 6 digit number, or Jesse at Cowtown Guitars that this is a 61. Who do YOU think I'm going to believe more?

As to the value of the guitar. I disagree that it being a 61 or 63 changes the value in the slightest. A run of the mill 61, 62 and 63 all things being equal in condition and originality are all valued about the same.

If this is Mary Ford's guitar (what proof has anyone offered that it is NOT?) I still don't think the difference of 61 or 63 makes a difference as the increased value there is in it being owned by Mary, not whether or not Les worked on it or had anything to do with it. Also, I do not believe any one here has seen and read the supplied documentation personally, so we don't know what all is there. There could well be a document that includes the serial number.... which would be pretty proof positive. I don't know if there is or not, but the buyer was convinced enough to make the purchase. So in the end it was worth at least $90,000 for the seller, because they were paid $90,000.

<edit>

Ok... as I was typing that novel the serial has now been confirmed by the seller as 6 digits, so yes that points to 63.

[SG Lou]

Originally Posted by Kevin James

I would like to address a couple of things at this point.

I very much appreciate the kind words and vote of confidence by Hot Britt. I am however a little uneasy about being called an expert. It is fairly obvious by anyone reading my posts here that I have a great passion for the early Les Paul/SG's. They are my favorite guitar and I have learned a ton about them. Enough to feel more than confident about personally authenticating any example I am personally buying for myself. However the term "expert" implies you know all there is to know. I on the other hand still learn more every day and expect that will be the case for a long time to come. So, knowledgeable... yes, expert... no.

For the record, based on what has been seen in the pictures and other information that has been provided by VERY reliable sources I do feel that this guitar is more LIKELY to be a 63 than a 61. However, Artie makes an extremely valid point that the pick guard could have been changed. Why it would, who knows but anything is possible and only an in hand inspection would give more evidence as to if this is the original pick guard or not and even then it is not possible to be 100% certain.

The serial number. Tom Wittrock has stated at LPF that this guitar was photographed and included in Robb Lawrence's book "The Les Paul Legacy". As Tom states, Rob reported that this guitar has a 6 digit serial number. The serial number is not shown in the auction to my knowledge, nor was it shown on the show. I also do not have a copy of Robb's book. However if Tom says this IS the guitar in the book and it does have a 6 digit serial number I have no reason to question that. Tom is as reliable a source as you can get, and he would not mention anything if he was not absolutely positive so I do believe him. But again, only an in hand inspection would confirm this 100%.

The issue of the sideways trem. The company that designed and manufactured it went out of business in 1962, and Gibson did take steps to come up with a new trem at that time, which is seen on some 62's. This was the short Maestro with the inlaid ebony block (as seen on my 62 in my avatar). However, only a small number of these were produced most likely as a test and as history shows it is not the final version that became standard. Gibson still had a large stock of the sideways trems which most of the SG/LP's were shipped with, and that stock did last well in to 1963. The myth that the sideways guitars ended in 62 is just that, a myth... as is the myth that the Les Paul engraved truss covers ended in 62, they still had stock of those on hand as well and they too lasted well in to 63.

I do believe this guitar is a 63, but there are other things I want to see that only an in hand inspection would clarify. I want to see the pot codes, as well as the solder joints to verify those pots themselves are original to the guitar. I want to see under the pickups. IF it is a 63 it becomes possible that 1 if not all of them could actually patent number pickups and not PAF's. Starting in 62 and combination of pickups could have been possible, it could have 3 PAFS, it could have 3 patent Numbers, or a combination of both.

So to summerize, yes, I do believe it is more likely a 63 because there is more pointing to 63 than there is pointing to 61 or 62, but only an in hand inspection would confirm this 100%.

What I do know as 100% fact is 6 digit serial numbers started in 63 and 4 screw guards did not exist in 61 (still not 100% sure on 62 CUSTOM's but that last screw did NOT show up on Standards until 63 and that I AM 100% certain on).

So who would I believe more, Tom Wittrock and Robb Lawrence that this guitar has a 6 digit number, or Jesse at Cowtown Guitars that this is a 61. Who do YOU think I'm going to believe more?

As to the value of the guitar. I disagree that it being a 61 or 63 changes the value in the slightest. A run of the mill 61, 62 and 63 all things being equal in condition and originality are all valued about the same.

If this is Mary Ford's guitar (what proof has anyone offered that it is NOT?) I still don't think the difference of 61 or 63 makes a difference as the increased value there is in it being owned by Mary, not whether or not Les worked on it or had anything to do with it. Also, I do not believe any one here has seen and read the supplied documentation personally, so we don't know what all is there. There could well be a document that includes the serial number.... which would be pretty proof positive. I don't know if there is or not, but the buyer was convinced enough to make the purchase. So in the end it was worth at least $90,000 for the seller, because they were paid $90,000.

<edit>

Ok... as I was typing that novel the serial has now been confirmed by the seller as 6 digits, so yes that points to 63.

I'm in 100% agreement with you Kevin.
Oh and BTW: 62 Customs had only 3 screw P/G's too

[tazzman]

Maybe it wasn't Marys after all?

[Kevin James]

Originally Posted by SG Lou

I'm in 100% agreement with you Kevin.
Oh and BTW: 62 Customs had only 3 screw P/G's too

Thanks Lou. Yes, I am pretty sure on that as well, I just haven't looked at enough 100% verified 62 customs to prove the case to myself with 100% certainty so I mention as a diclaimer that I am not 100% certain on Customs. I do know that screw was added to the standard in 63 and that I AM 100% sure about.

[Hasbeenracer]

Kevin, the pot code verifys that they are in fact from 1961....and they are the original pots. Unfortunately I don't have a photo of the codes, just the cavity. I'm sure you will recognize that those are original solder joints on everything but the switch and where the pickups were grounded the the neck volume pot casing.
The pickup are PAF's and they are the original pickups. I wish I had photographed the backs of them, but for some reason I didn't.
I can't explain why it has a six digit serial number....possibly to designate it as Mary's guitar or as a prototype, which would explain why it has a rounded neck heel. My understanding is that Gibson built Mary's guitars just for her....they were not "off the shelf" guitars.
The fourth screw in the pickguard is there because I put it there.
The refret was done by a repairman named Kerry Irwin in the early 80's because I was living in Belguim at the time. He's also the guy who "lost" the trussrod cover that had Mary's name on it.

I go back to 1977 with this guitar and outside of Mr. Irwin, was the only person to ever work on this guitar (the sellers brother did the output jack repair though).

I've been a close friend of the family since 1975 and even met aunt Mary several times. This guitar is the real deal guys.

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by Hasbeenracer

Kevin, the pot code verifys that they are in fact from 1961....and they are the original pots. Unfortunately I don't have a photo of the codes, just the cavity. I'm sure you will recognize that those are original solder joints on everything but the switch and where the pickups were grounded the the neck volume pot casing.
The pickup are PAF's and they are the original pickups. I wish I had photographed the backs of them, but for some reason I didn't.
I can't explain why it has a six digit serial number....possibly to designate it as Mary's guitar or as a prototype, which would explain why it has a rounded neck heel. My understanding is that Gibson built Mary's guitars just for her....they were not "off the shelf" guitars.
The fourth screw in the pickguard is there because I put it there.
The refret was done by a repairman named Kerry Irwin in the early 80's because I was living in Belguim at the time. He's also the guy who "lost" the trussrod cover that had Mary's name on it.

I go back to 1977 with this guitar and outside of Mr. Irwin, was the only person to ever work on this guitar (the sellers brother did the output jack repair though).

I've been a close friend of the family since 1975 and even met aunt Mary several times. This guitar is the real deal guys.

Welcome to the forum, glad you are giving more info on her, as you may have seen this is a mess.

Can you please tell us more about you.

Thanks you.

[Kevin James]

Originally Posted by Hasbeenracer

Kevin, the pot code verifys that they are in fact from 1961....and they are the original pots. Unfortunately I don't have a photo of the codes, just the cavity. I'm sure you will recognize that those are original solder joints on everything but the switch and where the pickups were grounded the the neck volume pot casing.
The pickup are PAF's and they are the original pickups. I wish I had photographed the backs of them, but for some reason I didn't.
I can't explain why it has a six digit serial number....possibly to designate it as Mary's guitar or as a prototype, which would explain why it has a rounded neck heel. My understanding is that Gibson built Mary's guitars just for her....they were not "off the shelf" guitars.
The fourth screw in the pickguard is there because I put it there.
The refret was done by a repairman named Kerry Irwin in the early 80's because I was living in Belguim at the time. He's also the guy who "lost" the trussrod cover that had Mary's name on it.

I go back to 1977 with this guitar and outside of Mr. Irwin, was the only person to ever work on this guitar (the sellers brother did the output jack repair though).

I've been a close friend of the family since 1975 and even met aunt Mary several times. This guitar is the real deal guys.

Hi. I feel silly calling you Hasbeenracer, but I do have some questions for you.

What is your connection with this guitar? Lesandmarywerefamily is the sellers wife, and the seller was Mary's nephew, I am not clear who you are though. A friend of the family doesn't really explain how you would have inimate knowledge of this guitar or why you did work on it. Tone of voice can not be sensed through the internet so I want to be clear that question is not meant to sound rude or offensive, but to have a clear undertanding only.

It does seem you are stating that you have an in depth history with this guitar so I would like to know how was the neck on this guitar. Was it thick front to back with a round shape, or was it thin front to back with a sort of flat shape?

WHY did you add a screw to the pick guard?

Do you have a larger version of that picture? I do see something strange and do not want to say just yet but the picture (even expanded) is too small to see what I am looking for.

Pot dates (if the pots are verified as original to the guitar) can not prove a guitar was made a particular year, they can only prove the guitar was not made PRIOR to that year. So, for example pots dated 1961 can not prove the guitar is a 61, they can only prove it is not a 60 etc.

The serial number is consistent with 1963, that is not an opinion, that is a fact. A proto type, since it is not a production guitar may not even have a serial number at all, not sure what it would have but a serial number that matches a range for a future year is very very doubtful.

[BillB1960]