Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Les Pauls' started by eric ernest, Jun 20, 2018.
So, it was a GT, a 58 or a 59?
More I read these threads, less I understand LOL!
The "Law Of 1959" clearly states that: All guitars and parts from the 1955 to 1964 era that cannot be exactly dated, shall be linked to the 1959 Les Paul.
Since the earliest photos show a modified and refinished guitar, the pickups have already been unsoldered. You have to take the pickups out to repaint it. And taking the covers off means a soldering iron too. The guitar had already been modified heavily at that point, so it would be tough to draw any conclusions from that evidence.
Perhaps...But double cream and Zebra PAFS do not appear earlier than 1959.
I think there is a single example of a ‘59 Goldtop floating around.
I think I mentioned that. Does it have Zebra/ DW pickups? Does it matter? Is the pope infallible when he puts his hat on?
Eric, do the Pots match a ‘59 date?
In the end does it probably doesn’t matter that imho. It is a 50s Original PAF guitar that has had at least 4 refinishings but likely started out as a burst. All the parts are vintage (except for the pickup rings??...can’t remember if those had been replaced with real ones).
I think the objective evidence of the toggle route supports a guitar being a burst as I am not aware of an original PAF Goldtop, even in 58, with that route. They seem to appear about the time they started PAFs in 57 and disappear with the final Goldtops in 58 (overlapping with the early bursts). It has the longer tenon. So it is between mid 58 when they started only doing bursts (with an odd special order color here and there) and mid 60 when they shortened the tenon at minimum putting it in a very sweet range.
I think the there are questions though that had to be delt with that weren’t which was the issue that started all of this. The serial number, the pore filler and the plastics needed to be mentioned and explained (and will need to be again if sold again) and were not disclosed or explained. So IMHO Eric did everyone a favor by doing due diligence on these issues that evidently were ignored and just assumed to have been vetted in the past.
There was a lot of going back and forth so I might have missed it. Still leaves open the posssibilty of an original ‘59 Goldtop that came with white bobbin PAFs and would explain the pore filler. If there is one (59 Goldtop) there could be a second....and it could have white bobbin PAFs.
It's had too much monkeying to rely on that....and yes, it does have real M-69 rings.
Exactly! Werner's obsession over the whole thing is quite odd. It apparently matters WAY more to him than it does me.
I'm not obsessed with anything, I am annoyed that you claim to know everything about everything but that's nothing new. In this case you're simply ignoring my questions as to how you can support any of your claims regarding what could and could not have happened to this guitar 45 years ago. You didn't tell me how you know any of the things you claim to know, except that you know them firsthand. By your (purposefully limited) definition of firsthand information you must have been there seeing folks sporting vintage guitars and NOT swapping PAFs in the fatherland at age 10. My firsthand information on the other hand is dismissed as "second hand info" as if that'd make it any less valid as it relates to my argument that anybody, including Alex Conti or Karl Allaut could have likely installed the Zebra/DW PAFs.
To make the claims you make regarding this guitar...
...with the conflicts of interest you have as you'd potentially benefit from it being sold as a '59 Burst is something I honestly wouldn't have expected of you. After all the porcelain that got smashed on this and the other forum over this guitar, I am astonished to witness the ease with which you rewrite your own account of this guitar, circumstantial evidence not withstanding. Obsessed? Nah....just holding my nose because this doesn't pass the smell test.
Ok, we finally got to the bottom of it.
So you think I’m profiteering off it being a ‘59.
Would you like to explain to me how a Les Paul could be worth more as a ‘59 than a ‘58 once it has been refinished?
While you're at it, please also clarify in detail the price difference between a '58 and a '59 Les Paul.
Not sure I would spend more or less if this guitar were a proven 58 vs 59 vs even an early 60.
Really Goldtop to burst is really the only major difference for this one given everything considered.
Again, as per usual you're reading my posts very selectively. Plus you can loose your psychologist-condescending tone, "we" didn't get to the bottom of anything. You can profiteer as much as you like as far as I'm concerned. Why would I care?
I didn't accuse you of profiteering, I simply find your dismissal of my concerns and firsthand account arrogant in a sort of "I'm infallible" kind of way, I find the reasoning behind your revised story of this guitar to be unconvincing, and I pointed out your conflict of interest when re-writing it.
IMHO as the owner/ seller of this guitar you shouldn't use your standing as a known expert to re-write the guitar's history in your favor even if you could prove it with facts which you can't. If you believe that it's a Burst, a '59 no less, go get a written appraisal by someone other than yourself, it's pretty simple. Don't post pictures of the guitar now identifying it as a "59 Burst without impartial verification. Some people take your pictures as gospeltruth but am I just supposed to believe your "they didn't do that in Germany back then" hypothesis when I know for a fact that these things happened?
To answer your questions let's first look at the transformation from Burst to Goldtop to Burst again. IIRC RD suffered a loss in the transaction paying refin-Burst money for a refin-Goldtop.
What's the price difference between a refin Burst and a refin GT? 50%? Some people claimed it didn't matter on a guitar refinished half a dozen times. I know that opinions do differ and some think that a refin-Burst is worth more than a Goldtop.
So now the guitar is for sale by you at refin-Burst pricing, more than an all original PAF Goldtop, so you clearly thinks it's worth more as a Burst and you are standing to benefit from it. Good for you, just do yourself a favor and have an independent appraisal done, there should be someone trustworthy out there who can look at your supporting claims and, if convinced, put his signature to it, right?
Now the refinished '58 vs '59 thing. I'm old enough to remember when the '58 Gibson Les Paul Sunburst was king. Plenty of references of the time point to this. Rick Nielsen even mentioned it somewhere, Tokai sold their LoveRock models as an opportunity to own a "58 Les Paul Sunburst" for 1,300 DM. I saw the ads, I guess that makes it a firsthand account but I'm not so sure anymore since I didn't actually write the ad, lol.
Anyway, somewhere along the line the 59ers took off in terms of value vs the '58 and '60.
There may actually be good reasons for this. The '59 combines the most desirable features, neck profile, taller frets, blahblahblah, you know the drill.
Now you ask whether the year matters after a refin, hmmm, let's see. (Keep in mind that logic plays a very minor part in this but...).
Assuming the guitar is a legit late '50s Gibson Les Paul Standard I'd say it affects price because a refinished '59 Burst will be an entry-level '59 Burst, the year everyone pays the most for, it'll continue to sell as a '59 Burst in the future, so yes, a refin '59 will command a higher price, if for no other reason than if it's legit, a Burst is all it could have ever been, while a '58 ...well you know, someone might suggest it's a Goldtop, it happens.
If I am at all being dismissive, it's because you have not seen the guitar, seen any detailed shots of the guitar, paperwork, were not part of the deal, or negotiations (two separate deals), yet you presume to be well educated on all facets of this particular guitar. In fact, most of what you KNOW was supplied by me. There's an awful lot more to the story, but I'm not going to share intimate details about a deal that involve my customer. That's no ones business. I will however share what I can.
I provide clear written documentation on difficult to discern guitars like this as my profession. I've outed many a fake Burst...both before someone closed a deal and after someone mistakenly purchased one.
Would Gruhn's, Rumbleseat, Norm's, Carter's, or any other vintage dealer get an additional written opinion in matters such as this? No.
If they wanted to make sure they did not miss something during their assessment....they would get informal assistance. In fact, I've helped out two of those I just listed on super squirrely pieces. Prevented one of them from making a half a million dollar boo-boo. Big deal for me? No. Somebody else would have stepped up.
On balance, I provide more detailed documentation on high-end instruments than most of my colleagues.
He did not.
I won't speak for what Gregory paid, that's HIS business. I did not give Gregory one dime less than his asking price the first day I saw it, even though I thought it was most likely a Goldtop...and it had some bogus parts. If I wanted to beat Gregory up on the price I could have...many would have. That's not my ethos. I guess no good deed goes unpunished...eh, Werner? Lol!
I did however sink another $25K ABOVE what Gregory paid (including correct parts and the refinish) because I thought the guitar would benefit enormously from a proper restoration.
I also did my due diligence on vetting the guitar which took many months. Again, what is the benefit for me? I knew going in that I was not going to "make money" on this guitar, only go sideways...at best.
I thought it would be a "fun" project....It has been.
So what's the PRICE difference? You never answered that question.
If you cannot quantify the difference in value between a '58, '59, and a "60, you cannot justify it.
The "magic 9" theory only applies if you are selling a guitar....and even then buyer also has to believe that.
In my mind the only potentially desirable feature is the possible presence of Zebra's and double cream PAFs. It ends there. (and the only possible negative would be someones dislike of Clownburst) If I were offered a '58 with double blacks, and a '59 with double blacks, and a '60 with double blacks, I'm going to pay more for one that I "like" the best.
Frets? non issue. Neck profile? Are there bad ones I'm unaware of? I've never played a Burst and thought the neck was somehow "less"....or "more," only properly set up guitars and improperly set up guitars.
I have bought and sold these types of guitars for decades and I never paid more for a Gibson because it was a "59," and I never was hoping to pay LESS because it was a "58 or '60.
Now, can you argue a "59 LP is cooler? Perhaps. Charging MORE for it is another matter.
Refinished? Come on....
I never presumed to be well educated on this or any other guitar, never claimed to be, why should you justify your being dismissive with my relative ignorance regarding this guitar when I never claimed otherwise. I don't give a f#@k about any facets of this guitar so you can't justify your stance with that. Not most of what I know was supplied by you, all of it was, so what? It speaks for itself. First it's a Goldtop with legit serial number sold as a Burst by a crook who just happens to not charge refin-Burst money for it, now it's a Burst owned by someone famous (haha) with a phony number and pickups that prove it's a..., excuse me "point towards it being a" '59 burst and it's for sale at entry-level Burst money. Your pic doesn't seem to be ambivalent at all, it's a '59 Burst, hear ye, hear ye.
What I care about is that your initial assessment of the guitar being a Goldtop fueled a shitstorm across two forums and now that the story changed you talk about Detlef's "sins of omission" and stuff. How about your "sin" of being wrong and arrogant about it?
How about an apology, Eric? Turns out Detlef was right about it being a Burst, so were others.
As far as your other questions go I might be inclined to address them once you tell me why exactly your pronouncements about Germany and its vintage guitar habits from 45 years ago are "firsthand".
Detlef had years to vet the guitar and didn't....and what paperwork he DID supply with the guitar was inadequate at best. I ended up doing his job. I was certainly not finished researching the guitar by the time the story hit.
I never made much of an issue of it possibly being a Goldtop. If it was that big a deal I would have passed on the guitar. The "shitstorm" is mostly people like you stirring the pot.
Fake Marshall? Yeah, there you go. That's the real shitstorm, that's where Gregory got burned.
I don’t have the guitar for sale. You might have confused my post for one of Eric’s. In the original thread on the other forum, I was all for at least entertaining the idea this could have been a gold top. However, as Rev Willie pointed out in that thread, the toggle route isn’t correct for any original PAF 50s goldtop (excluding the single 59 that we are aware of) that we have examples of. So it is pretty unlikely that it was an original Goldtop.
Alternatives are that it isn’t a 50s Gibson. This guitar has a pretty well known history going back to the early 70s excluding a picture of the original finish. I have seen it in person as have many others and it is a 50s LP. The original thread’s pictures and other documentation including a spread in a couple German publications support this as well.
The last alternative is that it was a converted goldtop that predates the step toggle route but none of those I have been able to see were PAF guitars from the factory and that would be incrediblely easy to spot.
So, a 50s LP that came with PAFs and lacks a step as far as we know falls after the last 58 goldtops. The tenon isn’t right for mid 60 or later so we know the likely range of the guitar
As to the 58 vs 59 value....I agree with you that I like always liked the 58s I have played (on average) better. That said, there are few distinguishing characteristics that separate the two years. The neck profile (which I have found to somewhat variable as several 58s I have played have had rather thin necks and none have really approached the “R8” neck) has beeen altered through sanding from the many refinishings this guitar has had. Otherwise, anything else you wanted to change you could as the electronics have been in and out. The guitar’s history would probably offset any small perceived price difference between the two years.
I am not really arguing that it could be proven to be a 59 (although since we cannot prove the year between a mid 58-early 60 there were more 59s making it slightly more favorable) but in the end I don’t see the advantage of saying one year over the other.
I used your post only to illustrate an opinion that differs from mine. My opinion, as stated is that once refinished, there shouldn't be a price difference. I took the part of your post as example of someone who does think that a refinished Burst is worth more than a refinished Goldtop. The point being that opinions on this differ. That's what I wanted to illustrate with your route as example, nothing more. I didn't for a moment think you were the seller. If I gave you or anyone that impression I appreciate the chance to clear up the confusion.
All good and well but hardly new information. Why wasn't this argument used to bolster the case of Detlef being correct in the first place?
I never said I liked '58s better, only that back then for many a "'58 Les Paul Sunburst model" was the ultimate, '59ers and 60's included since they were basically the same guitar but '58 was the first year. Does it matter? No, except to illustrate that things have changed and they might change again (with all that talk about '60's being the best sounding ones according to some) but at this point '59ers command the highest prices by no small degree and I presume the same holds true for an entry-level issues Burst. And a "proven" '59 refin with a replacement neck and false number couldn't have been anything but a Burst while a '58 with false number and replaced neck could be suspected to be a Goldtop, as has happened here. Eric's picture captioning it as a '59 will undoubtedly be used as future proof that it is a '59 entry-level Burst.
Ok to the first point. I thought it confusing when I read it.
To the second, I think the problem with the previous sale was that there was no explanation provided to the buyer concerning the issues raised in the thread and no explanation provided as to why it was most likely an original burst. In fact, it may be that everyone had taken it on faith considering it was a guitar with know history but the absence of a picture of it’s original finish, I think a more thorough investigation should and now has been done.
As to this guitar, I would not pay a dimes difference if it were proven a 59 over the other two years. In fact I wouldn’t pay a difference regardless of year based on the year itself. Best guitar of several as far as feel and how it spoke to me? That is a different question.
Oh, it's all a big misunderstanding then?
Classic EE, I'm sure Detlef, Joe, etc feel the same way, I'm clearly the bad guy here.