- Aug 19, 2008
- Reaction score
Ok to the first point. I thought it confusing when I read it.
I get that a lot.
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.
I think the problem with the sale was that ...(according to RazzleDazzle's firsthand..., ah....second hand ???? ,getting confused here, ......account)
...Detlef sold him...
"a refinished '58 burst (that later on turns out to be a refinished '58 Goldtop within 1 minute of Eric Ernest looking at it)"
,that's how we learned about this transaction and to me it seemed perfectly believable. I believe explanations (albeit faulty) were given, such as that the serial number on the replaced neck was fake (Eric instead it was legit and outside the Burst-range) and according to Eric the guitar was sold at or close to a refin Goldtop price (I shudder thinking about what that means at Guitarpoint) , hence Eric's pointing out that RD didn't take a bath on the guitar.
One interpretation would be that it didn't really matter that much to the seller, not enough to pursue ironclad evidence even if he could have. Karl Allaut and Alex Conti are just one phonecall away, both those guys could have pictures predating anything shown here and IMHO also would have known whether the Burst was refinished when they got it because they weren't as ignorant about this stuff back then as some want us to believe.
Plus evidence constantly gets reinterpreted, just think of Eric's current interpretation that the DW/ Zebra PAFs point towards it being a '59 since they weren't swapped. Well, earlier Eric said this:
Here is the Alex Conti Burst in question. Does this look like brown pore filler under red pore filler? ............ But the fact that it WAS refinished prior to 1975, had a removed Bigsby, Grovers, and pickups swapped with a reverse ('59?) Zebra....Hum....smoking gun?
I could of course be misunderstanding this quote but it sounds to me that Eric barely stopped short of using the "swapped" Zebra PU as circumstantial evidence that the guitar was doctored to appear a '59 (and therefore a Burst ) via the Pus.
I don't think you always get prime documentation on expensive refinished guitars as they are usually considered "player grade", I know that sounds asinine at 6 figures (or close to) and what you get isn't always as thorough as it should be. I criticized Norm's recently in a thread for selling a conversion as something he couldn't prove it was. It still happens even though it shouldn't