1960 Les Paul ‘Burst’ Restoration

Philly_Q

I'm not sure what I think about the conversion from Custom to Standard.... if it was a new guitar I'd think do whatever the hell you like, it's your guitar, but after 60 years it seems different somehow.  Perhaps it shouldn't, it's still just some bits of wood, plastic and metal.

Such considerations aside, I do really enjoy seeing the work in progress pictures.  It's amazing how that maple plug in the centre just vanishes on the finished guitar. And the work around the front and back binding... wow.  

WezV

Brize said:

WezV said:

The thread you previously linked to suggests otherwise. 

I think it goes without saying that any authenticator would need to actually have the guitar in their hands.

The point stands.  Authentication will be based on speculation and opinion regardless of whether its photos or hands on experience

goldtop

Everyone's going to see different things in these sorts of projects, reflecting their own biases and preferences. For me, it's gone from being a quite interesting guitar to a very desirable guitar. Better yet, it's been thoroughly and openly documented, and that shows the love and care that's gone into it.

I'm pretty sure that in years to come, (well, now even) being able to say that your guitar was a well-documented Yuuki restoration will be A Good Thing.

Brize

WezV said:

The point stands.  Authentication will be based on speculation and opinion regardless of whether its photos or hands on experience

Really? Guys who are prepared to drop £50k+ on a guitar are worried about what armchair experts on the internet think?

Danielsguitars

Brize said:

customkits said:

IMO a  custom is and always will be a full carved top mahogany body.

The amount of maple-topped Customs out there will probably out-number the solid mahogany guitars by a ratio of more than 100 to 1. 

I don't care about numbers the vintage ones were always mahogany and it's tonally different, a custom for me is solid mahogany, well I'll have to put a mahogany cap on one i make because getting light weight timber that thick is bloody impossible for me

thermionic

This guitar is always going to be an oddity and a mystery that will never be solved - which makes the question of what the "right" thing to do almost impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. Whatever you do to it, anybody could easily argue that you should have done the opposite.

However, reading about the tiny details of mid-20th century guitar manufacture and the clues they give is fascinating. And also, seeing the remarkable craftsmanship that has gone into this work is hugely entertaining.

WezV

Brize said:

WezV said:

The point stands.  Authentication will be based on speculation and opinion regardless of whether its photos or hands on experience

Really? Guys who are prepared to drop £50k+ on a guitar are worried about what armchair experts on the internet think?

You are missing my point, but I don't want to get drawn into an argument over it.  

Why does this non standard  guitar exist?   No expert in the world (armchair or not) can tell you that without that all important factory provenance.  It will be pure speculation, whoever is telling the story.

A non-standard spec instrument without factory provenance will always divide opinions, even the opinions of actual experts who get to see the guitar in the flesh (those experts do sometimes disagree you know).   It  will always make it a different proposition to a standard spec instrument, and many will consider it to be more risky because of that

terada

Stunning workmanship @jumping@shadows .

Quick question, what were your thoughts on blocking up the third pickup gap - would it have been possible to block just the gap rather than enlarging it and then refilling it, or would that be a bad idea?

sweepy

Lovely job and have a good holiday after selling that middle PAF

Brize

WezV said:

You are missing my point, but I don't want to get drawn into an argument over it.  

Why does this non standard  guitar exist?   No expert in the world (armchair or not) can tell you that without that all important factory provenance.  It will be pure speculation, whoever is telling the story.

A non-standard spec instrument without factory provenance will always divide opinions, even the opinions of actual experts who get to see the guitar in the flesh (those experts do sometimes disagree you know).   It  will always make it a different proposition to a standard spec instrument, and many will consider it to be more risky because of that

There's no argument old chap - it's just a discussion and I don't have a horse in this race.

I think it's pretty well established that Gibson made a number of one-off guitars that deviate from the standard specs of the day. Those guitars will rightly attract additional scrutiny but I've always found it fascinating that the real experts do quickly reach a consensus on vintage Gibson guitars based on chew marks and various other tell-tale signs. The only guitar I can recall that really split opinion was the Peter Svensson Explorer but the truth outed on that eventually.

JayGee

I don’t have any problems at all with this, the sheer wierdness and the amount of work that had previously been done make the idea of originality utterly moot. It’s not what I would have done, I’m a sucker for weird old guitars, love the idea of  factory curiosities, actually own and play a 3 pickup LP Custom-a-like, and, perhaps uniquely find the whole ‘burst worship thing just a little overcooked, so, while the argument that it’s actually a bastardised ‘burst that’s been returned to what it actually should have been is entirely reasonable I think I’d probably have gone with a minimal tidy-up, refin to the “original” black, and a tasteful aging job. Or maybe I’d have it as a Goldtop Standard just as a perverse (and probably unique) reversal of the normal trajectory... :-)

That’s no more “right” than what @jumping@shadows has chosen to do though, and since it’s not my guitar (or time, effort, and love) I’ll restrict myself to observing that it’s a beautiful thing in its own right, a huge improvement over the previous remodelling efforts, and a terrific showpiece for his skills...

Three-ColourSunburst

If only there was a guitar-related version of this song.

Winny_Pooh

I wonder what aliens 500 years in the future will make of this thread. 

They'd probably be relieved that we nuked ourselves out of existence.

JayGee

JayGee said:

I don’t have any problems at all with this, the sheer wierdness and the amount of work that had previously been done make the idea of originality utterly moot. It’s not what I would have done, I’m a sucker for weird old guitars, love the idea of  factory curiosities, actually own and play a 3 pickup LP Custom-a-like, and, perhaps uniquely find the whole ‘burst worship thing just a little overcooked, so, while the argument that it’s actually a bastardised ‘burst that’s been returned to what it actually should have been is entirely reasonable I think I’d probably have gone with a minimal tidy-up, refin to the “original” black, and a tasteful aging job. Or maybe I’d have it as a Goldtop Standard just as a perverse (and probably unique) reversal of the normal trajectory... :-)

That’s no more “right” than what @jumping@shadows has chosen to do though, and since it’s not my guitar (or time, effort, and love) I’ll restrict myself to observing that it’s a beautiful thing in its own right, a huge improvement over the previous remodelling efforts, and a terrific showpiece for his skills...

 ...and just to make it absolutely clear that (in spite of the fact it’s probably not what I’d have chosen to do) I’m not in the negative camp I’ve just been back to “Wow” the original post. :-)

danny_777

I've got two views on this:

1) WOW. Incredible work - finishing, replacing binding, etc. Great details and clearly a very talented luthier.

2) I also, however, agree that the overall project is quite a shame - it has destroyed what appeared to be an interesting historical anomaly to dress it up as something much more common, but more valuable (were it original). As far as I could see, there wasn't much wrong with it barring the refinish - it was and is a 1960 Les Paul Custom (regardless of what the pieces of wood were 'intended' to be when Gibson picked them off the shelf) which has been stripped, routed, cut up and modified 60 years later so that it looks like a Standard. 

So very mixed feelings here, but I can't help but feel that we've lost a really interesting piece.

impmann

What about the SG used as a donor for the fingerboard?????

I’n sure it’s *very* nice. But it’s still a sunburst and has a flame top - therefore not as cool as a LPC... ;-)

Zodiac51

Lovely guitar, your work is sublime.

earwighoney

An incredible standard of luthiery.  

@jumping@shadows do you make your 'own' guitars?  Not just conversions but ones from scratch?  

Three-ColourSunburst

So, to make this an ultra-rare maple-topped Les Paul Custom, a 61 SG and a 59 Melody Maker all bit the dust. Can't help thinking that, given the obviously superlative skills on show here, all three could conceivably have been restored to original spec, no matter what shape they were in.

Was it all worth it? I guess that depends in part what the finished article is worth. Anyone have an idea as to what the final bill might have been? I have seen 50-grand mentioned, but surely that can't be right. Can it?

WezV

Three-ColourSunburst said:

So, to make this an ultra-rare maple-topped Les Paul Custom, a 61 SG and a 59 Melody Maker all bit the dust. Can't help thinking that, given the obviously superlative skills on show here, all three could conceivably have been restored to original spec, no matter what shape they were in.

Given the skill on show, I would assume the restoration of the other guitars was not possible and/or cost effective.