FS - 1961 Gibson SG Special - Original Vintage - Collectors Grade

ourmaninthenorth

If it's as lightly played as claimed, and appears,almost zero fade, why would it need a refret? 

If this was sold by George from his private collection, and subsequently by Matt as original frets, I'd be very interested to hear or see any rebuttal material to the contrary. 

DrSpock

I don’t think it was from his private collection. There’s a video of him with it for sale in his shop on YouTube.

ourmaninthenorth

DrSpock said:

I don’t think it was from his private collection. There’s a video of him with it for sale in his shop on YouTube.

I've seen it. 

Although that guitar doesn't appear to have the distinctive mark on the top horn... OP - is it the same ? 

The OP refers to the guitar being in George's "collection", semantics whether it's his private collection or stock collection. The fact is if he ( George or indeed Matt )  doesn't refer to this instrument as having been re-fretted,specifically, I'd  merely like to see some substantive material from the re-fret brigade as to why they think it has been. 

The OP specifically makes the point that that fret wear is minimal, and no re-fret has taken place. I doubt that's coming off the top of his head. 

DrSpock

It’s an old video for one but I think it’s the same. I’m not bothered if it’s refretted, there’s no way you can prove the strings are original or any other part to be honest. 

andrewaward

People are referring to the fact the neck has lost its nibs - so likely refret.

johnl

Strangefan said:

johnl said:

Looks lovely - that definitely has had a refret at some point though hasn't it?

Citation please  

The frets are over the binding - I'm certainly not an expert on early SGs but a quick google at some other contemporary examples showed binding over the fret ends as you would expect. I'm not trying to derail the thread at all, was really asking out of idle curiosity if that was normal.

ellangus

Oh my days!

FatPete

Lovely. Whereabouts are you?

Gassage

Holy fuck

WezV

ourmaninthenorth said:

If it's as lightly played as claimed, and appears,almost zero fade, why would it need a refret? 

If this was sold by George from his private collection, and subsequently by Matt as original frets, I'd be very interested to hear or see any rebuttal material to the contrary. 

The frets seem to go over the binding.  could be misleading pics, so a close up may be required if they don'tactually go over .

If they do go over the binding its certainly not a standard feature one would expect to see on any bound gibson  (except for some in recent years). 
Usually it is a sign of re-fret   

The burden of proof would be on the seller to prove it was original.  If its come from Gruhn and sold as original frets i would expect him to have provided the evidence.   I am a firm believer that "the factory sometimes did that" with many odd features, but without evidence to the contrary this has to be viewed as a re-fret. 



its very easy to look at loads of other 61 SG's to show that this is an unusual feature and needs further explanation

This standard shows full nibs
https://www.vintageandrare.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-SG-1961-Polaris-White-57318#prettyPhoto

These specials show minimal nibs, but the frets don;t go over the binding
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Gibson-1961-SG-Special-Slant-Bridge-Used-Electric-Guitar-FREE-Shipping-/173244323891
https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/25669-vintage-vault-1961-gibson-sg-special

Amazing pics of a clean 62 here which show the frets ending at the binding
http://truevintageguitar.com/inventory/1962-gibson-sg-special/#wpexLightboxGallery[]/3/

WezV

I would still love to own it though, and a re-fret would not bother me at all 

DrSpock

Wouldn’t bother me either but I wouldnt pay £6750 for one with one. £5.5k is more realistic given the other 61s and Standards available.

WezV

DrSpock said:

Wouldn’t bother me either but I wouldnt pay £6750 for one with one. £5.5k is more realistic given the other 61s and Standards available.

He can ask what he wants.

the non-standard feature has been called out.  I assume any buyer at this price range will do their own research and make their own decision

i would be very interested to hear if any vintage experts would consider this an original fretjob

ourmaninthenorth

WezV said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

If it's as lightly played as claimed, and appears,almost zero fade, why would it need a refret? 

If this was sold by George from his private collection, and subsequently by Matt as original frets, I'd be very interested to hear or see any rebuttal material to the contrary. 

The frets seem to go over the binding.  could be misleading pics, so a close up may be required if they don'tactually go over .

If they do go over the binding its certainly not a standard feature one would expect to see on any bound gibson  (except for some in recent years). 
Usually it is a sign of re-fret   

The burden of proof would be on the seller to prove it was original.  If its come from Gruhn and sold as original frets i would expect him to have provided the evidence.   I am a firm believer that "the factory sometimes did that" with many odd features, but without evidence to the contrary this has to be viewed as a re-fret. 



its very easy to look at loads of other 61 SG's to show that this is an unusual feature and needs further explanation

This standard shows full nibs
https://www.vintageandrare.com/product/Gibson-Les-Paul-SG-1961-Polaris-White-57318#prettyPhoto

These specials show minimal nibs, but the frets don;t go over the binding
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Gibson-1961-SG-Special-Slant-Bridge-Used-Electric-Guitar-FREE-Shipping-/173244323891
https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/25669-vintage-vault-1961-gibson-sg-special

Amazing pics of a clean 62 here which show the frets ending at the binding
http://truevintageguitar.com/inventory/1962-gibson-sg-special/#wpexLightboxGallery[]/3/

That's a very considered post Wez.

Hence my continual use of the conjunction...if...

I agree it's odd that they go over the binding, but as you know, anything's possible with Gibson from this era. 

If I were looking at it cold, I'd say re-fret too, but the OP is somewhat adamant that there's been no re-fret.

There is minimal colour fade, somewhat suggestive that this guitar hasn't seen much of the light of day...ergo my earlier point why re-fret a guitar with such minimal use. 

 Couple this with it's dealer provenance, and considering that the very first question I'd ask would be..."tell me about the frets" , leads me to believe that the OP has something to convince him that this guitar hasn't been worked on. I don't know what that is material is to be honest. But I'd be really interested to see it, hence why I'm not leaping to the the re-fret conclusion. 

Brize

WezV said:

i would be very interested to hear if any vintage experts would consider this an original fretjob

I can think of one that might...

WezV

There are still a few issues with that

*if it is a  refret you then need to consider if the finish is original... for all the points you raised

*if it’s not a refret then you have to prove this every time it’s sold


Now I have seen nibs of all different sizes, but never seen them go over.  

This style of fretwork requires totally different tools and processes.  It’s not something that could be done accidentally on a Friday afternoon special.  I would need some very convincing evidence to believe it was not a refret.  

ourmaninthenorth

If it's the same guitar as Gruhn is demonstrating in the youtube video, as previously suggested, He states the finish is original..."the guitar looks almost new..."

So if we have an original finish guitar in such new like condition, doesn't it beg the question..it certainly does to me...why would it need a re-fret? 

WezV

If Gruhn provided some convincing evidence that for a short period in 61 Gibson abandoned their usual fretting techniques and tried something different, I would believe him.  

If the the seller or potential buyer has that, all is good.

without it, it has to be considered, and valued as, a refret.... on the evidence we have in the pics

ourmaninthenorth

I personally owe the OP an apology...and I'll mind my own business after this. I'm speaking for myself, no-one else. 

I'm not comfortable, regardless how interesting and informed the conversation may be, in discussing this guitar in the context of a sale thread. I'm certainly not going to comment on someone else's price. 

Continued best wishes with your sale OP, apologies for commenting further than I intended. 

fretfinder

DrSpock said:

Wouldn’t bother me either but I wouldnt pay £6750 for one with one. £5.5k is more realistic given the other 61s and Standards available.

ATB Guitars have one on their website, a ‘64, up for £4K but now on hold. I enquired about it recently and could have had it for £3.5k but decided against it in the end, due to a tiny crack around the tuners.

The condition on this ‘61 example sets it apart I guess, and the OP can set his own price accordingly, of course.