Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Les Pauls' started by delawaregold, Nov 13, 2017.
Pretty guitar nonetheless.
So non-orignal parts, unknown repair of a broken neck at the heel and oddball s/n for 595k.
Let me wire the funds right over.
Only one word describes.....Want!
Heel break repair or not, it’s still an awesome looking Burst. I would love to hear this guitar live through an old Marshall setup or maybe a cranked up Blues Junior. Thanks for posting this, delewaregold!
Can someone please enlighten an ignorant soul?
Why is this the last "burst". To my knowledge Gibson has made bursts on the LP for decades after and still does??
Bursts are Bursts, everything else is just a replication if the golden years between 1957 & sometime very early 1961.
Historics, Replicas, Clones, Fakes, whatever are not Bursts.
Of course not all Vintage Les Pauls if this era are great but it is what it is.........IMHO anyway.
But but.... As I understand it, is burst just a way of painting a guitar with a receding different colour around the edge.
Is the "last burst" the last of the original(first) guitars with a burst painting or is it the last 1959 model painted in bursts or??
What non-original parts are you referring to?
There were a couple comments that said the were some bursts after 1960...
Is this true?
Cool guitar, bound to a display case and not be played. I get the collection thing, but at some point, what's the point?
Half a million for a busted guitar? That's laughable.
Add me to the list of people confused how a "real burst" had a freshness date that ended in the '60s. Does it have something to do with the people making them? I've got a 2013 in my hands and am 30 feet from a 2011.... am I living in a dream?
Also curious (albeit to an incredibly minor degree) how on any plane of existence this is worth $600k - but whatevs. As Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute....
It's all B.S. I never had one in my hands never heard one played. I don't care I can never imagine any mojo or tone or whatever costing half a mil.
I tried explaining this burst craze thing to a friend of mine yesterday. The whole re-issue thing the true historics..... he looked at me like I was crazy.... lol.
He said "Hold on... your telling me that the most expensive guitars Gibson makes are replicas of the first ones back in the 50's? They haven't been able to improve the damn thing in 60 years? How is that possible"
I couldn't come up with a damn thing to say....
It's a matter of preference and wallet size.
The 59-60 bursts are not unlike the Stradivari violin. No one has been able to improve the violin and I cannot foresee of any improvements to any traditional musical instruments.
Overall, the market prefers traditional Les Pauls. Think about how Gibson was ridiculed for the robot tuner in 2015.
This does pose a strategic dilemma for Gibson: how much longer will the customer base continue to buy expensive, vintage style guitars that fundamentally haven't changed in 60 years? Another consideration is the shrinking income potential for millennials and the die-off of current customers who are baby boomers. For as much as we like to rag on Henry for his poor leadership of the company, I don't particularly envy the overall position he finds himself in, trying to divine the future direction of the business going forward.
I get the comparison but I don' agree. The company that made the "burst" is still in existence and with decades of experience. Having produced millions of guitars in that time they should be able to produce something of the same or better quality than back the those made in the "magic years" i know many will disagree but that' how I see it.
At this point they've done several double-blind tests of leading soloists and found that they prefer modern violins to Strads. One Strad even came in last.
So it isn't that no one can build a better instrument. There are legitimate reasons for placing a high value on vintage instruments but it isn't because they are objectively better in terms of playability and sound.
Original Les Pauls were produced in small numbers from 1952 to 1961. Initially, demand was low and they were marketed to older jazz players with money to afford them. Production ended when, in 1961, Gibson redesigned the Les Paul to feature a "double cutaway" body, which became the Gibson SG. Because of high demand, Gibson resumed production of Les Paul Standards in 1968. When the rockers (Keith Richards had a '59 burst, for example) began using them, demand had increased. There are few original Les Pauls (yrs. '52 to '61) in existence, so they are currently valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Beautiful! Thanks for posting! But I'll take my 2014 Cherry burst and keep my house. lol
I agree but only to a point.
Gibson has made incremental changes that are still argued about today; long vs medium vs short neck tenon, finishes, wood species, hide glue vs yellow glue, ect. Things driving these changes are usually around commercial or manufacturing considerations and are incremental.
The use of manufacturing technology has also incrementally improved Gibson's quality. Carving and routing bodies using CNC equipment yields more consistent guitars for the finishers to craft.
The thing is, there is still a lot of had work in making a guitar. Hand work leads to a lot of variation, both good and bad.
In the end, what someone ends up liking in a Les Paul is largely subjective. It's more of an emotional decision than a logical one.