Sometimes you see a guitar ....

Reinhard

and you just

This is a 55/58 conversion for sale on another forum

guidothepimmp

what happened to the floyd?? ?

(ducks and runs for cover,,, ) ?

just kidding, thatsure is a looker..

Norman86

that IS nice! wow!!

shaunf

Stunning!

singemonkey

Very lucky to find a matched, centre-seam, 2 piece top under there. Or was it re-topped?

Malkav

Knowing what kind of price that guitar would probably fetch I don't really think that top looks THAT great...

Just my opinion though, I've seen nicer tops than that and I think the photograph itself makes that guitar look quite a bit better than it would in person under normal light.

IceCreamMan

every time i see my strat i drool like ?

i hang it up on a wall mount in my bar area and it winks at me as i walk past ....then i skeem to myslef i am one lucky mofo to own such a thing of beauty.

sorry i just had to say it

singemonkey

Chad Adam Browne wrote: Knowing what kind of price that guitar would probably fetch I don't really think that top looks THAT great...

Just my opinion though, I've seen nicer tops than that and I think the photograph itself makes that guitar look quite a bit better than it would in person under normal light.

Chad, because these guitars were all painted gold, underneath the paint they were typically 3 piece, mismatched tops (for e.g., flame, plain, birdseye all on one top - a little bit messy) or 2 piece but not centre-seamed (the join was off centre). And the 2 piece tops might also very well be mismatched (plain/flame mix). When they made them they were never anticipating that anyone would strip them to the wood-grain. So it is a rare treat to find one that does have a matched centre-seam with flames.

Bear in mind that, even if the top is original, even if it goes for a lot of money for an LP, it won't go for a fraction of what a sunburst, humbucker LP - that started off life as a sunburst, 'bucker LP - will go for. So it can be a great way to get a '50s 'burst without paying for a '50s 'burst ?

And a top like this one will appeal to a lot of people. Not even all '59 sunburst LPs had figuring. Some were total plain Janes - although that was more common on '58s. And these broad stripes certainly have their fans.

@Reinhard: any word on whether the top's original?

Malkav

singemonkey wrote:
Chad Adam Browne wrote: Knowing what kind of price that guitar would probably fetch I don't really think that top looks THAT great...

Just my opinion though, I've seen nicer tops than that and I think the photograph itself makes that guitar look quite a bit better than it would in person under normal light.
Chad, because these guitars were all painted gold, underneath the paint they were typically 3 piece, mismatched tops (for e.g., flame, plain, birdseye all on one top - a little bit messy) or 2 piece but not centre-seamed (the join was off centre). And the 2 piece tops might also very well be mismatched (plain/flame mix). When they made them they were never anticipating that anyone would strip them to the wood-grain. So it is a rare treat to find one that does have a matched centre-seam with flames.

Bear in mind that, even if the top is original, even if it goes for a lot of money for an LP, it won't go for a fraction of what a sunburst, humbucker LP - that started off life as a sunburst, 'bucker LP - will go for. So it can be a great way to get a '50s 'burst without paying for a '50s 'burst ?

And a top like this one will appeal to a lot of people. Not even all '59 sunburst LPs had figuring. Some were total plain Janes - although that was more common on '58s. And these broad stripes certainly have their fans.

@Reinhard: any word on whether the top's original?

So essentially it's like a lucky dip, and still not worth the money just cause it's old ?

singemonkey

Chad Adam Browne wrote:
So essentially it's like a lucky dip, and still not worth the money just cause it's old ?

Stripping the tops of '50s gold-tops is a lucky dip. That's correct. Not worth the money just cos it's old? I don't think so. Apart from the fact that the original LPs were among the best ever made (although I'd be very skeptical that all were better than any of the much more numerous replicas that have been made since), they're still frighteningly rare. So while the guitar may be more valuable as an all-original '55 gold-top with P90s, that may change. The mystique of '50s LPs is such that they are guaranteed to increase in value above inflation for the foreseeable future - even if they've been extensively modified.

So if a modified one is all you can afford, it's certainly still worth the money - even though it will never command the insane prices of an all original, near mint, flame top 'burst. And that's mostly just 'cos it's old (although really because it's from a certain period in Gibson's history when they made their most desirable guitars).

I mean, people in the early '80s must have wondered what they were doing when the forked over $5,000 for a good 'burst. They probably feel more assured now that they can go for upwards of $450,000 ?

Reinhard

I have no idea whether this is a retop. The top actually reminds me of one of my favourites in Beauty of the burst. In this case the seller is asking 16500 dollars. It seems a bit steep as the guitar does not have PAFs, but then again I'm not in the loop when it comes to conversion prices.
It's a stunning piece though, would love to play it. The guy is selling another conversion for about 14k (goldtop).

singemonkey

Well, I've certainly seen conversions going for more. And I've seen trashed modified guitars going for around the same. Sounds like a very fair price. What do PAFs go for? Like $4,000 for a pair? ?

Reinhard

Yeh 4k sounds about right. I guess it all depends on how many parts are 50's parts.I"ll have to check the listing again.

Malkav

singemonkey wrote: I mean, people in the early '80s must have wondered what they were doing when the forked over $5,000 for a good 'burst. They probably feel more assured now that they can go for upwards of $450,000 ?

I don't subscribe to the philosophy that guitars should be worth more because they're old, I also don't believe the stories of older guitars being better than newer ones. If you get a custom made LP style guitar from a custom luthier you would probably end up getting something better than an old anything really at around about the same price or less ($4k or more - seen some go up to $17k) All your paying for in this case is the name on the headstock, guitar design and quality has gone up with technology and a guitar made with really high spec everything (wood, pickups etc) in this day and age is probably a more than equal rival to any of the old les', SGs etc.

I've played lots of old strats and les pauls (2 original goldtops), at one point an old strat that was worth about R200k (60s model of some form) and I don't really understand why the price is so high. Yes you could hear that the wood was top quality and the guitar had it's own "vibe" but it's nothing I would consider warranting of that kind of price. You'd be hard pressed to really explain the difference between that one and a contemporary custom shop in the R50k kind of price range, except that the older one had a whole ton of "vintage" apointments that made playing it more uncomfortable. I do agree that they're good guitars and definitely better than things in the R5k - R25k range (most of the time) but they're really not the holy grail of guitar that most fanboys make them out to be.

The pickups don't necessarily sound better cause that's subjective, the electronic wire isn't necessarily higher quality, it's actually most likely inferior to the kinds of wire you get today. The frets will have been replaced by now if it was ever a guitar worth playing so depending on the luthiers job the playability may or may not be crap, and the frets themselves may or may not be cheap metal. If the guitar doesn't look like it's been played (as in scuffed up) then it's probably a crap one anyway as back in those days the ones that got left in music stores and come out these days without a scratch were normally the ones that didn't sound good enough to warrant buying in that era.

The big argument is wood quality and this is always the naggy one, realistically just cause it's old doesn't make it better here as QC was lower, these days I've seen some luthiers go as far as to get their wood scanned to be sure that there are no knots or other problems. The grading of wood is more standard as well these days and realistically though wood may improve with age I'm pretty sure it does reach a point where the pores aren't going to open up much more and the difference in tone vs age becomes negligible.

The other big argument I'm always hearing is that they used Honduran mahogany which you can't get anymore, for anyone interested this is false, you can get it but it's damn expensive. Suhr use it for their Guthrie Govan signature model and Decibel guitars recently used it for their Javelin DB1 model. Also Honduran mahogany is a close relative to our African mahogany, however African mahogany isn't as favoured because it tends to grow into being a denser wood, Honduran is very light and porous because of the location it's grown in's climate.

I don't mean for this to start some sort of flame war but honestly the prices wanted for vintage instruments are completely unjustified from a quality perspective, people are simply paying this much as investments and for the bragging rights. They are by no means "better" guitars than modern custom instruments and therefore their price is unjustifiable to me. It really is just fanboyism to it's highest degree, and I want no part of it ?

Bob-Dubery

Chad Adam Browne wrote:
I don't mean for this to start some sort of flame war but honestly the prices wanted for vintage instruments are completely unjustified from a quality perspective, people are simply paying this much as investments and for the bragging rights. They are by no means "better" guitars than modern custom instruments and therefore their price is unjustifiable to me. It really is just fanboyism to it's highest degree, and I want no part of it ?

I think there's a bit more justification with acoustic guitars because of the effect of the aging of the wood on tone. Probably for archtops as well. Usually though that tone comes with some dings, some wear and tear. Hugh Cumming has a couple of nice 40-ish year old Martins with great tone. But they don't look like new guitars and at least one of them (possibly both) has a t-bar in the neck instead of an adjustable truss rod. They're guaranteed to need a neck reset at some point - but they do sound good. There is a school of thought though that says that flat tops don't keep on getting better, they peak and then decline.

But you're right - the price these old instruments command is about scarcity value more than utility and quality. It's like stamp collecting - the valuable stamps aren't valuable because they're in any way better, but because there's not many of them.

Some people will pay for that scarcity. Some people will pay that money for an old guitar because they're investing. George Gruhn has figures that show that in the long run vintage guitars have performed very well as investments.

Bob-Dubery

Chad Adam Browne wrote: The other big argument I'm always hearing is that they used Honduran mahogany which you can't get anymore, for anyone interested this is false, you can get it but it's damn expensive. Suhr use it for their Guthrie Govan signature model and Decibel guitars recently used it for their Javelin DB1 model. Also Honduran mahogany is a close relative to our African mahogany, however African mahogany isn't as favoured because it tends to grow into being a denser wood, Honduran is very light and porous because of the location it's grown in's climate.

With acoustic guitars it's Brazilian rosewood that is supposed to be the holy grail. You can't get an objective take on this. Some say that it's a load of hooey, that Brazilian doesn't sound any better than the East Indian you usually get these days and that it's a myth that's been put around by people who have got an interest in driving up the price of old guitars that have Brazilian rosewood. The flip side of the argument is that OF COURSE those guys would say that - they don't have any Brazilian rosewood.

To a lesser degree there's a buzz about Adirondack spruce which is supposed to be tonally superior to the Sitka that is in common use now.

Of course it's a subjective thing. Several guys with big reputations as acoustic players use guitars that are not that old or that don't have the supposedly magical woods. They still get a good sound. As usual you have to find the tone that works for you.

singemonkey

There's no flame war Chad. I think only fanatics will argue that all '50s LPs are better than luthier made LPs. Even a number of production replica LPs will be as good as some of the originals. I think a great Gibson R9 or a great Tokai, or a great Navigator will beat a mediocre '59 LP. And statistically guitars that good by those manufacturers will exist. And yes, Honduran mahogany is still available in reduced quantity (especially considering the vastly increased demand).

The main reason those '50s LPs and '50s-'60s Strats are so valuable is that those are the guitars that started it all. And no more are being made until someone invents a time-machine. Simple as that. They were well made (by hand to a much larger extent than today), generally very consistent (despite being production, not luthier custom models) and by chance the choices made and the materials available to those manufacturers produced an immensely rich sound which couldn't be duplicated using considerably cheaper substitutes.

But if you're buying a guitar for the best tone, you can get a fantastic luthier like Gil Sharon (who apparently discards LP bodies and starts over if they fail his initial tap-test) to make you 10 sunburst replicas for less than the price of one original and choose the best one. But history and collector's value count in a different way. And that's why these guitars cost what they do.

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote: The main reason those '50s LPs and '50s-'60s Strats are so valuable is that those are the guitars that started it all. And no more are being made until someone invents a time-machine. Simple as that. They were well made (by hand to a much larger extent than today), generally very consistent (despite being production, not luthier custom models)

I'm unconvinced. Modern manufacturing techniques should be much more consistent. Necks, bodies, bridges and almost every other component can be manufactured with a high degree of consistency these days.

Necks on old Martins are quite INconsistent. The guys making them had a set of maximum and minimum dimensions - no bigger than the first, no smaller than the second and as long as you made 'em like that they were acceptable. There's also a fair number of old Martins with the bridge mis-positioned by 3mm which throws the intonation out. Though you could argue that they were CONSISTENTLY 3 mm out.

Reinhard

What these old guitars have in their favour is the wood has been properly dried, the nitro laquer has cured fully, some argue the hide glue leads to a better neck joint and the lack of plastisizer (sp?) leads to a very nice and hard finish when cured. All this leads to a very resonant piece of wood. Also there is something about those old pickups that the modern guys are chasing, but just not nailing.
I also don't buy the"it still looks new so it probably sounds crap" argument. Today just like back then, someone buys a guitar, gives up on it and it ends up under a bed or in a cupboard. Do all vintage guitars sound like a heavenly choir, most certainly not, but that can be said for any manufacturer.
I guess the same goes for vintage amps, do they sound better than modern amps?
I recently played a 69 strat back to back with my strat (which I consider to be a good one). The vintage strat "ruined" my strat for me, there is a warmness/smoothness in those old pups or wood that I havent heard in a modern strat. I'm not a Fender fan, but that 69 would change my mind. It also happened to be in excellent condition, go figure.
I have a vintagee 335 body, with a replacement modern neck, but that thing rings like a bell and the patent number pickups have a smoothness I haven't heard in a modern pickup. Maybe it's all in my head, but the forum members who have played the 335 seemed to dig it.
Keep in mind, if you run a vintage guitar through a POS amp or a bunch of effects you're probably not going to hear anything special compared to a new guitar.

Malkav

X-rated Bob wrote: I think there's a bit more justification with acoustic guitars because of the effect of the aging of the wood on tone. Probably for archtops as well. Usually though that tone comes with some dings, some wear and tear. Hugh Cumming has a couple of nice 40-ish year old Martins with great tone. But they don't look like new guitars and at least one of them (possibly both) has a t-bar in the neck instead of an adjustable truss rod. They're guaranteed to need a neck reset at some point - but they do sound good. There is a school of thought though that says that flat tops don't keep on getting better, they peak and then decline.

This I can agree to, my argument was mainly from an electric perspective ?

singemonkey wrote: But if you're buying a guitar for the best tone, you can get a fantastic luthier like Gil Sharon (who apparently discards LP bodies and starts over if they fail his initial tap-test) to make you 10 sunburst replicas for less than the price of one original and choose the best one. But history and collector's value count in a different way. And that's why these guitars cost what they do.

This I agree to as well, I just have no sense of nostalgia when it comes down to it ?

Reinhard wrote: What these old guitars have in their favour is the wood has been properly dried, the nitro laquer has cured fully, some argue the hide glue leads to a better neck joint and the lack of plastisizer (sp?) leads to a very nice and hard finish when cured. All this leads to a very resonant piece of wood. Also there is something about those old pickups that the modern guys are chasing, but just not nailing.

Wood quality wise if you purchase a piece from a reputable seller and it's advertised as being correctly dried then it probably is. The nitro lacquer thing is just a question of age, to my knowledge it's still quite a common finish and most likely done more consistently these days allowing the wood to resonate better from the get go. With regards to the pickups, age plays a factor as sweat plays a part in smoothing out a pickups response as it slightly corrodes it, also the original pafs had a specific kind of wire that was "special" somehow. Recently PRS bought a bunch of pickup winding machines from Gibson that still had some of this wire and they've manufactured pickups from it that currently I know they fit to their Al Di Meola signature, more on that here:

These things started fetching about $600 a pickup from the day they were released.

Reinhard wrote: I also don't buy the"it still looks new so it probably sounds crap" argument. Today just like back then, someone buys a guitar, gives up on it and it ends up under a bed or in a cupboard.

This probably isn't always the case though, I'd imagine most of these guitars come with an interesting story but I'm sure when the vintage market started booming the ones that lay under beds soon came out and are probably very very highly priced anyway making them a bit more unobtainable. I'm just assuming that if scoring one of these is considered a luck then that luck probably started running very thin around 1998 ?

Reinhard wrote: Keep in mind, if you run a vintage guitar through a POS amp or a bunch of effects you're probably not going to hear anything special compared to a new guitar.

I realise this, didn't run them through effects. Just valve amps and certain solid states (JC120) ?

It's totally up to the collector if they'd like to buy these things for these prices, I just don't believe it can be argued that modern guitars are inferior to these which is something I've heard far too often. I believe that the reverse of this is most likely the truth, as technology and manufacturing methods have improved, I believe that the modern luthiers who are taking advantage of the added levels of precision that CNC machines can provide in the right aspects and then doing the hand work on the parts that need that special touch are pretty much churning out some of the best guitars that can be imagined these days and some of the tops I've seen are absolutely to die for, like straight out of a guitarists wet dream ?