So you think you have a vintage Gibson?

MikeM

Here's a really cool way to test!!!

Norman86

Now THAT is a cool way to test!

Though i dont know anyone always carrying around UV lights in their cars to test the paints on their guitars! lol!

I wonder whats in the paint though that makes it UV reactive?!
Even the dot inlays are UV reactive?!
Its really interesting!

singemonkey

Yeah. Presumably the different finish. They mix nitro-cellulose with polyurethane now to make it more wear resistant. The celluloid inlays are probably made up with different plastics now too?

MikeM

singemonkey wrote: Yeah. Presumably the different finish. They mix nitro-cellulose with polyurethane now to make it more wear resistant. The celluloid inlays are probably made up with different plastics now too?

Yep completely different material. You can actually buy nos inlays ?

singemonkey

MikeM wrote:
singemonkey wrote: Yeah. Presumably the different finish. They mix nitro-cellulose with polyurethane now to make it more wear resistant. The celluloid inlays are probably made up with different plastics now too?
Yep completely different material. You can actually buy nos inlays ?

Vintage correctness gets silly, IMO, when people duplicate cost-cutting measures from the originals. Les Pauls were relatively cheap in Gibson's '50s line up, so they used celluloid instead of real mother-of-pearl, and rosewood fretboards instead of ebony. If I were getting an LP custom made, for example, I'd be sure to get an ebony board ad MOP inlays.

Actually, even the mahogany neck was a cost-saving. Their flagship guitar, the L5, had a three piece maple neck. But since that will alter the sound and feel of the LP a bit, I'd stick with mahogany (although most '70s LPs, like Zakk Wylde's and Randy Rhoads's LPs had maple necks and no one's complaining about the sounds that those guys made).

DonovanB

Isn't it that some manufacturers happened across some good features BECAUSE of the cost saving?

singemonkey

Donovan Banks wrote: Isn't it that some manufacturers happened across some good features BECAUSE of the cost saving?

Could be. People often prefer rosewood to ebony now days. But it's difficult to distinguish, I think, between a good feature and one that's just revered because it's how it happened to be done.

IceCreamMan

i have to ask cos i am ignorante , which of the 2 is fake?

singemonkey

IceCreamMan wrote: i have to ask cos i am ignorante , which of the 2 is fake?

Haha! Hooboy. Imagine I said that the historics were fake? The storm would not be made of water ?

First comparison is an original '57 Junior (made in '57) and a Gibson reproduction '57 Junior (historic, made in 2006).

The second is between a 2002 Gibson reproduction '57 Les Paul Standard Goldtop, and a Gibson 1969 Goldtop (not really comparing apples with apples, but anyway).

So in the first comparison, the original '57's black 'burst colouring is transparent under UV and disappears. Also the inlays reflect the UV and are shiny white. The '06 historic, on the other hand, you can still see the black, and the inlays aren't as reflective.

In the second, the '69 goldtop back's finish reflects yellow under UV, while the '02 historic's doesn't.

So the original vintage (now generously considered to be 1952 - 1968/9) reflect UV differently to the replicas that Gibson makes today. So using this method, you'd avoid being taken in by someone trying to sell you a reproduction as an original vintage guitar. (although, frankly, a vintage model that had been refinished and had the inlays replaced, or the fretboard replaced, would be tricky and there are other techniques).

vic

singemonkey wrote: Yeah. Presumably the different finish. They mix nitro-cellulose with polyurethane now to make it more wear resistant. The celluloid inlays are probably made up with different plastics now too?

What you see in the pics is chemistry of ageing at work. To put it simple...the vintage guitars would have looked exactly the same as the modern ones under UV light (so-called black light) in '57 or '69 respectively.
The nitrocellulose lacquer and certain plastics contain stabilisers and plasticisers which undergo photo degradation and migration over time with the result that the finish does not absorb UV light anymore and thus appear almost white/colourless instead of dark blue under UV light.
As you say it's an excellent way to check if a vintage guitar has been refinished, or partly refinished.....if it has, those areas will appear dark blue under a "black light".

singemonkey

Cool. Wouldn't have thought of that, Vic.

IceCreamMan

singemonkey wrote:
IceCreamMan wrote: i have to ask cos i am ignorante , which of the 2 is fake?
Haha! Hooboy. Imagine I said that the historics were fake? The storm would not be made of water ?

First comparison is an original '57 Junior (made in '57) and a Gibson reproduction '57 Junior (historic, made in 2006).

The second is between a 2002 Gibson reproduction '57 Les Paul Standard Goldtop, and a Gibson 1969 Goldtop (not really comparing apples with apples, but anyway).

So in the first comparison, the original '57's black 'burst colouring is transparent under UV and disappears. Also the inlays reflect the UV and are shiny white. The '06 historic, on the other hand, you can still see the black, and the inlays aren't as reflective.

In the second, the '69 goldtop back's finish reflects yellow under UV, while the '02 historic's doesn't.

So the original vintage (now generously considered to be 1952 - 1968/9) reflect UV differently to the replicas that Gibson makes today. So using this method, you'd avoid being taken in by someone trying to sell you a reproduction as an original vintage guitar. (although, frankly, a vintage model that had been refinished and had the inlays replaced, or the fretboard replaced, would be tricky and there are other techniques).

Thanks ....aha i see i used incorrect terminology.

But mighty thanks for taking time to explain to me

killafo

Buying a UV light....brb, ?. Kewl Test.