Possible 58-59 Les Paul No Serial No.

[Rikky R]

It appears you now agree with me that it would be very difficult for someone to use the courts to take the guitar away from the present owner.[/QUOTE]

I think this is so. I don't think the OP has anything to worry about.

 

[Rikky R]

A Question for Rikky:

In your research, have you come across anything indicating that an insurance claim was filed and/or paid out for the stolen guitar? That's where it might get interesting...

Nothing on this, I'm afraid.

 

[Skerries1]

It appears you now agree with me that it would be very difficult for someone to use the courts to take the guitar away from the present owner.

I think this is so. I don't think the OP has anything to worry about.

Respectfully, I don't agree. This is all speculation, of course. But the big issue is whether the original OP is the recognized owner of the guitar and if he/she wishes, could sell the guitar. The knowledge that this is potentially a stolen guitar will make it very difficult to optimize a sale on.
Also, the courts almost consistently side with the team that is willing to spend enough on the case. The OP could be tied up in legal expenses for a long period without a sure outcome. Thats why I would not agree they have nothing to worry about.
The best option for the OP would be to reach out to the Bolan estate and display an act of good faith to come to an agreement of some kind.

 

[fullspectrum]

When was the last we heard from the OP?

 

[chasenblues]

When was the last we heard from the OP?

In this thread 11-12-15,Post #229,
His last post activity on the forum was 12-03-15.

 

[ajory72]

If I were him I'd be living with the guitar in a cave somewhere in South Wales by now. In fact I'd spray it red and write Fender on the headstock !

 

[Cookie-boy]

The best option for the OP would be to reach out to the Bolan estate and display an act of good faith to come to an agreement of some kind.

You're kidding, right?

 

[andreww]

Respectfully, I don't agree. This is all speculation, of course. But the big issue is whether the original OP is the recognized owner of the guitar and if he/she wishes, could sell the guitar. The knowledge that this is potentially a stolen guitar will make it very difficult to optimize a sale on.
Also, the courts almost consistently side with the team that is willing to spend enough on the case. The OP could be tied up in legal expenses for a long period without a sure outcome. Thats why I would not agree they have nothing to worry about.
The best option for the OP would be to reach out to the Bolan estate and display an act of good faith to come to an agreement of some kind.

I agree. Whether or not you feel that Bolan's estate has any claim to the guitar is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a very valuable piece of property that was last seen when it was reported stolen. At this point there is simply too much risk involved to get anywhere near its value. In fact, now that it is out there, I'd have a hard time giving you $25k for that guitar simply because at some point the guitar could be taken from me with no compensation, and me having to pay lawyers to fight it. No thanks.

This is essentially a "hot" guitar and until an action is launched and decided, it always will be a "hot" guitar.

 

[eric ernest]

FREE on the job training. Message admins for details. Act TODAY!

 

[Cookie-boy]

I agree. Whether or not you feel that Bolan's estate has any claim to the guitar is irrelevant. The fact is that it is a very valuable piece of property that was last seen when it was reported stolen. At this point there is simply too much risk involved to get anywhere near its value. In fact, now that it is out there, I'd have a hard time giving you $25k for that guitar simply because at some point the guitar could be taken from me with no compensation, and me having to pay lawyers to fight it. No thanks.

This is essentially a "hot" guitar and until an action is launched and decided, it always will be a "hot" guitar.

Where's your proof it's a "hot" guitar?

 

[2manyGuitars]

 

[Midnight Blues]

^

That's not.

Of course that's my opinion and YMMV.

 

[uburoibob]

Complete aside, but great avatar of George with that chopped Watkins Rapier!

 

[andreww]

Where's your proof it's a "hot" guitar?

I don't have proof that it is or isn't hot. I think there is enough evidence to say that it was stolen from a van at a recording studio, so I have no doubt that a police report was filed.

That aside, we are talking about a large amount of money here, and I'm sure if the guitar was stolen, Bolan would have told that story to many people. Those peoples testimonies could be used. Just saying, that without a police report there are still ways to determine ownership.

On the other side, the guitar would be traced back through its owners tho the person that got the guitar from Marc. How credible is his story? Does he even have one?

Lots of ways to skin a cat here.

 

[fullspectrum]

I would keep it and play it. Pass it on to your son/daughter. Forget the monetary value, this thread, this forum and all the "legal advice" given here. Your big mistake was not acquiring the guitar but posting it on a public forum. Well... at least now you know there is like a 85-90% probability that it's Bolans guitar. Time to sail off into the sunset riding a white swan.

 

[ajay]

With no serial number, there is no case. If You were trying to sell a Colt .45 that belonged to Billy The Kid, it wouldn't sell for a high price in a million years, even if it was in the possession of his ancestors. Without a serial number, it is impossible to prove that it was Marc's guitar in a court of law.

Now, outside of a court of law, I think that We are nearly all agreed that it was Marc's Les Paul. In my opinion, the Ringo guitar doesn't hold a candle to the collector value of this guitar. Not only was it Marc's favorite guitar, and with his own bare hands he sanded it down and stained it an Orange color that he felt was perfect for him.
Then, Gibson made 500 copies of this very guitar. This was not even remotely considered with Ringo's guitar. If Gibson felt strongly enough about the historic value of this guitar to make 500 copies, which all sold, this is a very special Les Paul indeed. I know that MANY of You will disagree with this, but I think that this guitar, as it sits, is EASILY worth $100,000. If a common Fine '59 goes for up to $750,000, this guitar is a CINCH to be worth $100,000, or more. I base my belief solely upon Gibson's belief that this historic instrument was important enough to put out 500 copies, and COPIES sold for $5000 or twice that for the special 100 that were the DeLuxe Editions. Disagree all that You want, but this is a VERY important guitar, and it is irreplaceable at any cost. Now go ahead and beat me up. You can hammer on me, but You won't change my belief of this Les Paul's importance. I WANT IT!

 

[yeti]

Without a serial number, it is impossible to prove that it was Marc's guitar in a court of law.

Another MLPF junior lawyer squad factoid.

 

[utedog]

A simple google search on Legislation Uk shows the following in relation to Statute of Limitations (basically 6 years):
3 Time limit in case of successive conversions and extinction of title of owner of converted goods.

(1)Where any cause of action in respect of the conversion of a chattel has accrued to any person and, before he recovers possession of the chattel, a further conversion takes place, no action shall be brought in respect of the further conversion after the expiration of six years from the accrual of the cause of action in respect of the original conversion.
(2)Where any such cause of action has accrued to any person and the period prescribed for bringing that action has expired and he has not during that period recovered possession of the chattel, the title of that person to the chattel shall be extinguished.

4 Special time limit in case of theft.

(1)The right of any person from whom a chattel is stolen to bring an action in respect of the theft shall not be subject to the time limits under sections 2 and 3(1) of this Act, but if his title to the chattel is extinguished under section 3(2) of this Act he may not bring an action in respect of a theft preceding the loss of his title, unless the theft in question preceded the conversion from which time began to run for the purposes of section 3(2).
(2)Subsection (1) above shall apply to any conversion related to the theft of a chattel as it applies to the theft of a chattel; and, except as provided below, every conversion following the theft of a chattel before the person from whom it is stolen recovers possession of it shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as related to the theft.If anyone purchases the stolen chattel in good faith neither the purchase nor any conversion following it shall be regarded as related to the theft.
(3)Any cause of action accruing in respect of the theft or any conversion related to the theft of a chattel to any person from whom the chattel is stolen shall be disregarded for the purpose of applying section 3(1) or (2) of this Act to his case.
(4)Where in any action brought in respect of the conversion of a chattel it is proved that the chattel was stolen from the plaintiff or anyone through whom he claims it shall be presumed that any conversion following the theft is related to the theft unless the contrary is shown.
(5)In this section “theft” includes—
(a)any conduct outside England and Wales which would be theft if committed in England and Wales; and
[F1(b)obtaining any chattel (in England and Wales or elsewhere) by—
(i)blackmail (within the meaning of section 21 of the Theft Act 1968), or
(ii)fraud (within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006);]and references in this section to a chattel being “stolen” shall be construed accordingly.

So in summary even if Marc himself were alive he couldn't lay any charges on anyone for stealing or possessing the item and would not have a claim of Ownership on it.

I've loved reading this thread all the way through this morning, If the OP did want to sell and if it is MB's missing guitar, perhaps a reasonable option would be to offer MB's heirs the first option of purchase. I personally would keep it, it's a hell of a story.
My guesses:
1. MB had the original neck put back on before it was stolen, or whoever stole it put a neck on to replicate the neck in the grassy knoll photo.
2. There was a 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll!!
3.The burst pic is a fake, the guitar stand looks wrong and the edge of the guitar looks photoshopped around the bottom.
utedog

 

[Rikky R]

A long time ago I made the assumption, in print, that he had either done the finish himself or got someone to do it for him. But there is no conclusive evidence that Marc did any work on the guitar when he first got it. As time has gone on I have found it less and less believable that he would have done it himself (Marc wasn't a practical, hands-on guy). Having spent a lot of money getting a Les Paul in the first place (at a time when he wasn't that well off) I also feel he would not have taken a risk with a drastic alteration to the front. I currently feel the likeliest explanation is that the previous owner did it at the same time they took the Bigsby off.

Unfortunately, one person still alive who could easily settle this question refused to answer my questions, partly because I am told he has had some bad experiences with T Rex fans over the years. A second person is on my research list to find and he should be able to confirm.

At a tangent, I've always been intrigued by what the original owner thought when he saw Marc on British television about a year after he sold the Les Paul. That must've been a bit of a shock!

 

[NimrodPiles]

Lots of hot air and armchair experts here, to be expected I suppose.

Cookie-Boy, amongst a few others here, knows what is what and what is not.

He was there.

Thanks for the 'amuse bouche' Cookster.

However, it amazes me, that we have one member of the 'Peanut Gallery' from page one in this thread, asking all kind of prurient questions, as if he knows what he is actually talking about when discussing 'Bursts' who has started a thread backstage asking if a $200 tube amp is a good buy.

This gentleman has never played through a tube amp before and when disappointed, he wonders if he should go back to his Marshall Valvestate...

This is a chap passing opinions in a vintage guitar thread.

Someone who has never played a guitar through a new, let alone a vintage tube amp.... who has the temerity to question the bone fides of an apparently somewhat altered vintage guitar, or it's owner, as if he is in a position of knowledge or experience of the whys and wherefores of vintage guitar manufacture in the 50s.

And now pontificating on whether there was/was not a Police report... good grief!

We are doomed.