It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
Instagram
(formerly customkits)
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.
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
Instagram
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?
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.
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...
They'd probably be relieved that we nuked ourselves out of existence.
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.
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... ;-)
@jumping@shadows do you make your 'own' guitars? Not just conversions but ones from scratch?
Instagram