Not sure how much it really matter's in the case of this particular guitar in its current state because of all the other stuff that has been changed/fixed.I'm assuming we at least agree it's a 1958-59 Gibson Les Paul Standard, with all the changes etc and let's say we are only talking about just the body, no hardware included....also ignore any possible pedigree
How much would it be worth on the open market now?
30 grand probably is a bit high? It's a tough one in my mind, as these things probably rarely come on the open market, making it hard to judge. 30g's is the price I thought it'd go for as once whole could top at 100 grand? [not including any provenance of course]How much would an "Old Wood" if confirmed as a 59 LP body, Be worth?
Edit..Just saw your guess, 30 G's?
Wow a lot higher than i would have guessed.
There is no statute of limitations in the UK on stolen items (especially if they can be considered artistic). There are a few loop holes,but none that clearly apply here. The estate family would have a pretty good leg to stand on, but needs to prove that the guitar was indeed owned by his dad and then misappropriated.
True enough for New York, but this guitar is in England and was (allegedly) stolen in England. It's my understanding that England has no statute of limitation on an action to recover stolen goods (what used to be called replevin); BUT in order for the goods to be considered "stolen" in the eyes of the law then the theft has to have been reported to the police, and the window for that closes after 10 years.I asked my attorney when I was there today. The Statute of Limitations (in New York anyway) is 7 years, and that's IF the police even kept the report on file that long, which he said is doubtful. I think the OP and his Dad have no worries with this one, and especially if someone else had possession in the meantime. I would really love to have that guitar just for the mojo. Put on some Leopardskin tights and some make-up and jam away on that sucker!
You know, you can still put on those leopardskin tights!I asked my attorney when I was there today. The Statute of Limitations (in New York anyway) is 7 years, and that's IF the police even kept the report on file that long, which he said is doubtful. I think the OP and his Dad have no worries with this one, and especially if someone else had possession in the meantime. I would really love to have that guitar just for the mojo. Put on some Leopardskin tights and some make-up and jam away on that sucker!
No doubt.I know from my research that Marc would never have let that first Les Paul go carelessly out of his possession. He still cared about it. It's not difficult to imagine why. Think of what happened to him creatively and career-wise when it came into his life, fortuitously, in 1970.
Legal proof of what? I think there is a misunderstanding here. My previous post does not address the issue of 'legal proof' since I am not primarily concerned with the debate over the identity of the OP's Les Paul. My focus is only the actuality of how and when Marc's Les Paul left him - a historical question - and no court would be interested in that question unless the guitar it was discussing had been proved to be the same guitar. Then it could tackle issues about how such an instrument had become separated from its original owner.Rikky R wrote
But would a court accept that as legal proof?
Or would a court require a police report that clearly identifies this guitar? Would a court need to see Marc's bill of sale that also clearly shows him being the original and legal owner of this particular guitar?
Photographs, anecdotal stories, interviews, whatever, might be enough to convince me, maybe enough to convince a collector, but they probably don't meet the threshold of legal proof that would convince a judge in a courtroom.