Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Les Pauls' started by Xrun Morzov, Sep 28, 2015.
Yes, all retops: Jr's, Specials, 52's & 53's
can you point out the jr and special conversions in the pic?
What makes them different with regards to the finished product?
That's heartbreaking. The wood and the bursts don't look much like late 50's to me, either.
LOL you do realize that all that classic rock of the 60s and 70s was recorded on bursts which were barely 10 years old, right?
So Jimmy Page's burst was not "aged/dried 50 years to perfection" in the 1970s?
Are you honestly trying to tell us those guitars are greater now that they are owned 40 years later by a bunch of corksniffing hoarders?
Old wood is old wood. I'd prefer any conversion not to require a re-top, but if a 50 year old guitar is re-topped with 50 year old maple, by an experienced luthier, using all the traditional techniques, then its old wood.
If you read my post in #139 I said the panorama feature on my phone distorts. All of the tops are very 50's looking and can be linked to a top in BOB, Burst Believers, Tone Man etc. Here are just a few in the batch so you can see the actual grain. You just don't like conversions which is fine. To say the wood doesn't look like late 50's is pure BS.
I don't see the resemblance. The maple looks quilted and the spray patterns are nothing like a vintage Gibson. I see a few clownbursts in there too.
It's not possible that twelve vintage Les Pauls legitimately all needed new tops at the same time. To me, it's vandalism. Just leaving your mark on something. It doesn't make the guitars more valuable, desirable, or beautiful. So why do it?
I like alot of the original 52-53 tops...even the three piece and off center ones. There is a certain character they have that most newer ones don't. In general, I would take an original top even if it had to be gold topped over a veneer...but I would prefer a veneer over a retop as I would pass on those or a jr conversion. I realize all have the potential be great and there seems to be a market but to me the point of a conversion is taking original 50s Maple capped LP wood but upgraded with PAFs and an ABR. in that way, if you add vintage parts, it is esentially all orginal 50s parts and wood...that is why the retops and the Jr conversions don't do it for me as conversions...too much added wood....JMHo.
I still would love to hear boggie's take on jr. converdions vs LP standard conversions.
Why does this stuff akways turn into a quasi religous war?
I don't understand why someone who is obsessed with old wood, etc., would slap on a veneer for cosmetic purposes. If -- if -- you're going to invest serious cash in the idea that old wood has great value, it's contradictory to slap on a layer of glue and a pointless veneer. There are a lot of conversions I like a lot, but this one -- reset neck, veneered top -- does not appeal to me at all. I'd much rather have a 3-piece plaintop than a fake (veneer) burst.
I've just finished restoring, converting and painting this one piece top '56, which was a total basket case deemed beyond restoration by several luthiers, and it's turned out beyond killer, despite the non traditional top IMO. Most would have argued a gold top/solid finish or veneer was the only way to go, but I love the top personally
love the top.. Nice work brother... What work did you do?
This was a total rebuild- the back was chewed up from crude weight relief holes, and the headstock was held on with putty and aluminium pins, so I put a 12mm old Honduran mahogany cap on the back, and grafted on a '58 ES 175 headstock at the 2nd fret to keep it all period wood- came out great, and has a real old burst vibe to it IMO.
Great stuff. You can tell a lot about a shop from both the quality and quantity. If I wasn't a half hour from Dave, Jim would get my business without a doubt.
Great read, very educating. Thanks all.
Wow, that has come out great Y!
Seems like you've been getting this restored for ages but it absolutely looks like it's going to be worth the wait.
Did you leave the crown inlay on the 175 headstock?
Thanks Rob it took so long as it sat with a luthier for over a year untouched, and I wasn't able to find anyone else wiling to take it on- only took me three months once I worked up the nerve to do it myself
I did leave the crown yes, and think it both looks cool and is a worthy testament to the journey it's been though- I might start a thread in the luthiers section once it's all together..
Here's the '56 all assembled:
It's 8.75lbs, ridiculously resonant and has all those subtle and not so subtle magic qualities only found in old wood, and I couldn't be happier!
I'm not the least bit religious but am toying with the serial number 9 1144 in reference to John 11 verse 44- the tale of Lazarus
I would put a 56 number on it. Just me but I always prefer to have the year if known on a refin even conversions.
Do you have those pups out of phase by any chance?
Beautiful guitar - outstanding work bringing what sounded like a basket case back to life.
in the discussion about turning Jnr's and re-topping goldtops ealier in this thread - I think I have to agree with those who'd rather see a top notch job like this done, rather than veneers or retops.
Someone infered = whats wrong with turning a Jnr into a burst? well for me it just takes one more pre1960 Gibson les paul away from a price I can afford into what would have to go for 10 grand+.. way out of my price range..
Each to their own I guess... [still cant get over how awesome this top looks ]