True Historic? Or Possible Repurposed Gold Finger?

[freebyrd 69]

From my limited experience with the historic line, it seems there isn't much of a difference from a practical point of view. One has nicer features and gets a bit of extra attention than the other. However, I do agree there is a difference in the quality of tone and sustain. It's marginal, but noticeable to my ears and hands. Others will disagree and that's cool. As far as the CC line goes, to me it's nothing more than a true historic with specific appointments to play upon nostalgia. I'm learning the "labels" are sometimes used as simple marketing gimmicks to give the illusion of value. They're not responsible for selling an actual "Donna" per say, but rather the idea of "Donna".

There is a marginal difference between tone and sustain between ANY two guitars.

 

[lowmach]

True historics have a wet sanded finish, different plastics, and pup covers right? Maybe all aged Collector Choice guitars have the wet sanded treatment? Who knows, but it has to be from the same run.

Proud CC 36 owner here! I'll use this thread as an excuse to share more pictures. 8)

My Goldfinger in the sun:

I was very fortunate to meet Charlie and visit with the original Goldfinger. What an incredible guy and Les Paul. Here is my CC next to the original.

 

[rich85]

Look how inaccurate yours is. The strings are clearly top wrapped on the original.

Heh heh

Side by side, Gibson did a nice job. The gold is pretty damn close. Nice guitar!

 

[Roshy Boy]

Very nice looking CC.

Much, much nicer than the rebranded and more relic'd version

 

[lowmach]

Thanks guys!

The weight and neck shape are ever so close. Even the grain patten on the fingerboard matched well. Wish they sounded the same. 8)

Oh and another indicator would be the dot over the I in the gibson logo. Goldfinger has a low logo and a high dot.