1953 Gibson Les Paul Standard Goldtop guitar factory converted in 1959/1960 to "Burst." Photo intense!!!

[Oranjeaap]

Care to humor me? You're making an inference....you should explain yourself.

My opinion (!) is that there is too much of a "could be" vibe.

We are to believe this was all done in 1959-1960, by Gibson, because a guy says "the lacquer looks right" as ultimate evidence?
I mean, that really is the only thing right? The neck, the body, the parts might all be legit, might all be period correct, but how do we know they werent put together 5 years ago? Because you, the guy that also happens to be the seller(!), says the lacquer looks correct?

If the seller was some unknown, small timer, dealer, wouldn't you also say "yeah right, keep on dreaming"?

You are obviously not just "some guy", I have great respect for your knowledge and contributions,and if you say you think it's all legit, I 100% believe you.
I'm not saying there is any malicious intent, so please don't read this as a personal attack, or as an accusation of anything, and therefor please don't feel the need to defend yourself.

But unless you have additional information you are not sharing, for me this might just aswell be a recently put together parts guitar. And how much would that sell for? (Just wondering, I don't even know)

 

[Roberteaux]

That's not the point, now is it?

Personally, I would say that Eric has explained himself to our satisfaction... and that you are now in the process of belaboring a point that was already well-made.

Regardless of the comparisons that have been made and the apparent confusion some suffered while reading the ad, Eric has indeed made the composition of this instrument and its history quite clear to those who aren't merely looking to split hairs for the sake of disputatious discourse.

Eric is a widely-respected, uncommonly knowledgeable individual, and he's an honest man.

Therefore, for you to insinuate that he's trying to rip somebody off or otherwise commit fraud here is probably almost as insulting to the staff as it must be to Eric himself.

You're out of this thread.

--R

 

[jwinger]

Personally, I would say that Eric has explained himself to our satisfaction... and that you are now in the process of belaboring a point that was already well-made.

Regardless of the comparisons that have been made and the apparent confusion some suffered while reading the ad, Eric has indeed made the composition of this instrument and its history quite clear to those who aren't merely looking to split hairs for the sake of disputatious discourse.

Eric is a widely-respected, uncommonly knowledgeable individual, and he's an honest man.

Therefore, for you to insinuate that he's trying to rip somebody off or otherwise commit fraud here is probably almost as insulting to the staff as it must be to Eric himself.

You're out of this thread.

--R

Agree everything was crystal clear in the advert to me. Not sure at the problem was at all?!!

 

[filtersweep]

That certainly escalated quickly.

I’d hate to let some of you near the classic car market.

Anyone actually interested in this guitar should be grown-up enough to perform their own due diligence.

 

[eric ernest]

You are obviously not just "some guy", I have great respect for your knowledge and contributions,and if you say you think it's all legit, I 100% believe you.

But unless you have additional information you are not sharing, for me this might just as well be a recently put together parts guitar.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Translated: I don't doubt you, but I doubt you...

You either have the skill set to understand what is going on with this guitar, or you don't.

But the paint is in-arguably one of the single most difficult thing to fake on a vintage Les Paul.

...and then there's the "you've never held it issue."

If the seller was some unknown, small timer, dealer, wouldn't you also say "yeah right, keep on dreaming"?

No. I'd be buying it.

 

[Truth011]

Eric was the fretboard shimmed? It looks like it may have been by the pics.

 

[eric ernest]

Eric was the fretboard shimmed? It looks like it may have been by the pics.

It's hard to tell....looks like it. But because the end of the fingerboard and PU rout is covered with the original red Ditzler buffing compound, I can't say for sure.

...and I'm not cleaning that off!

 

[Cozmik Cowboy]

Looking at the spec sheet on Reverb, I might have called it a "1953-'59/'60 Gibson factory partsPaul" - but I see absolutely nothing that would lead me to suspect any chicanery on the part of Eric (nor, of course, would I expect any).

As I think the perceived mojo assigned to one year LP as opposed to the years just before and after is bit silly, I would probably try to haggle a bit - if I even had money for strings.......

So, I'll just say, since I can't buy it, I hope you get asking price; good luck with the sale, Eric - that thing is purdy dern near perfection! I love GTs - except for the "gold" part.

 

[eric ernest]

I love GTs - except for the "gold" part.

My "player" Les Paul is a modded '52 "Goldtop," so I get it.

 

[Cozmik Cowboy]

My "player" Les Paul is a modded '52 "Goldtop," so I get it.

First guy I did sound for professionally gigged a '52 or early '53 with the top sanded clean & tung oiled, an ES-330 style trapeze tailpiece, and an ABR (I think off a Dove; no wood hogged out under it, anyway) with nylon saddles; best LP I've ever encountered!

 

[LtDave32]

That's damn nice, Eric. Beautiful and rare item.

Best of luck with the sale, my friend.

 

[sws1]

It's hard to tell....looks like it. But because the end of the fingerboard and PU rout is covered with the original red Ditzler buffing compound, I can't say for sure.

...and I'm not cleaning that off!

Do you have a pic of that stuff...on the guitar? Just yesterday, I was just discussing various things I've seen in cavities, and it was suggested that maybe it was compound. Had no idea it was red. Maybe that's what I was referring too..

 

[eric ernest]

Do you have a pic of that stuff...on the guitar? .

Text sent....

 

[sws1]

Text sent....

Thanks.

 

[Brek]

The paint and the neck are spot on 1960. The inlays are pre-1961....but also not early 50's.

Additionally, the no wire ABR-1, and the stoptail is actually the short break 1959 bottom mold seam.

Here's a good side by side to illustrate the transparency of the early 50's inlays versus later ones. With the SG model in 1961, Gibson resumed the more trasparent inlays.

Imma gunna use that goldtop for my carve ‘aimed for’ carve. Sublime.

 

[( . )( . )]

Thanks for sharing a beautiful guitar...it’s still out of my price range, but not so much that it makes me feel like I’d never be able to acquire something similar. The red on the back looks exactly like my 59 Junior DC. Good luck with the the sale.

 

[LocoTex]

Thanks for sharing a beautiful guitar...it’s still out of my price range, but not so much that it makes me feel like I’d never be able to acquire something similar. The red on the back looks exactly like my 59 Junior DC. Good luck with the the sale.

Yep, the red on the back is magnificent!

 

[Patek]

Is there no documentation from 1959/1960 to show it was sent to them for the work? Has this been verified by Gibson according to their records (if any) ?

I’d say without that it’s just a well educated guess from a reputable source. Who in their right mind would gamble $100k on this alone?

I’d say it was worth the sum of its verified parts. In my opinion

 

[eric ernest]

Is there no documentation from 1959/1960 to show it was sent to them for the work? Has this been verified by Gibson according to their records (if any) ?

I verified it.

I am more than qualified than anyone at Gibson to sign-off on what it is.

Who in their right mind would gamble $100k on this alone?

Someone who trusts my skill set.

 

[brentrocks]

Eric, did you buy this or just take pics of it?

edit. I think I figured it out. Just saw the reverb ad. Very cool piece. GLWYS!!!!