My latest ‘50s Les Paul conversion project- eye popping original flame top!

TA22GT

Waiting for the "are you gonna put a sticker over the serial number to confuse origin" 

Post an opinion yeah or nay but don't try to enforce your opinion. Jeez!

jumping@shadows

Thanks for the more measured and adult contributions all- this stuff isn’t life and death, and this guitar has been a partless husk since the ‘90s, had the back stripped with a radial sander, what does indeed look like a Varitone fitted with both chokes between the controls, a slew of holes from unknown bridges and a tummy tuck, and not that I need approval from anyone what I do with the guitars I buy and work on, this is absolute fair game- it would be a wholly unoriginal, refinished and rebuilt example of the least desirable trapeze iteration of the LP Goldtop, or the most impressive original centre seam flame top Burst conversion ever seen, taking full advantage of the totally compromised condition/originality and the exceptional gift of the original maple cap- pretty easy decision for me  

@p90fool here’s a NOS, never assembled ‘69 LP Custom I found salvaged from Kalamazoo as you see it in the first pictures- I also chose to permanently modify this, rather than preserve the state Gibson left it in 50 odd years ago, routing late ‘50s correct humbucker routes and hand carving a deep dish ‘50s top carve, with a vintage correct piano black finish.  

Any objections??








  

John_A

p90fool said:

Ok, I may be rude, but this is not John Birch in the 1970s hacking up common-as-muck ten year old Strats - as much as that now makes us wince - this is 2018 and someone has come on here seeking praise for routing out a pretty well intact 1953 Les Paul, effectively doing more damage to it than it's seen in its first 65 years, purely to make money. 

Yes I'm rude, but I'm nowhere near as rude as that. 

The difference is he's being 'rude' to a piece of wood with no feelings, you're being rude to a human being!

chris78

I can understand the point. I’m a tele man and in this months G&B, there was a broadcaster that ATB sold for £65k. Absolute dream of an unmolested classic. If someone put a humbucker in the neck of that, I’d be silently sobbing to myself. Having said that, I wouldn’t have thought twice about changing the blend wiring.

This for me is different though. It’s a battered guitar and as soon as it’s restored, it’s not original anymore. 53s weren’t a great design and were improved in the 50s until Gibson got it right with 55-59, depending on what camp youre in. I really don’t see the difference if it’s restored to 59 or 53 spec. It’s not an original guitar. The only original thing was the paint, which needed refinishing anyway and the routs, which are useless without pickups and wiring.

This isn’t molesting a vintage guitar, it’s a knackered guitar that’ll be made useable, albeit in different vintage spec.

Bridgehouse

chris78 said:

I can understand the point. I’m a tele man and in this months G&B, there was a broadcaster that ATB sold for £65k. Absolute dream of an unmolested classic. If someone put a humbucker in the neck of that, I’d be silently sobbing to myself. Having said that, I wouldn’t have thought twice about changing the blend wiring.

This for me is different though. It’s a battered guitar and as soon as it’s restored, it’s not original anymore. 53s weren’t a great design and were improved in the 50s until Gibson got it right with 55-59, depending on what camp youre in. I really don’t see the difference if it’s restored to 59 or 53 spec. It’s not an original guitar. The only original thing was the paint, which needed refinishing anyway and the routs, which are useless without pickups and wiring.

This isn’t molesting a vintage guitar, it’s a knackered guitar that’ll be made useable, albeit in different vintage spec.

The paint wasn’t original - OP said it was refinished with rattle cans.

jumping@shadows

John_A said:

p90fool said:

Ok, I may be rude, but this is not John Birch in the 1970s hacking up common-as-muck ten year old Strats - as much as that now makes us wince - this is 2018 and someone has come on here seeking praise for routing out a pretty well intact 1953 Les Paul, effectively doing more damage to it than it's seen in its first 65 years, purely to make money. 

Yes I'm rude, but I'm nowhere near as rude as that. 

The difference is he's being 'rude' to a piece of wood with no feelings, you're being rude to a human being!

I appreciate the support man, but my feelings are unscathed and I’m just sharing my excitement on an exceptional find, not seeking any approval for what I do, which I’m very secure in  

TA22GT

@chris78 ;;
 
"I can understand the point. I’m a tele man and in this months G&B, there was a broadcaster that ATB sold for £65k. Absolute dream of an unmolested classic. If someone put a humbucker in the neck of that, I’d be silently sobbing to myself. Having said that, I wouldn’t have thought twice about changing the blend wiring."

My mate got to play that guitar. He is a Tele man through and through and he said it was an absolute cracker!

Gagaryn

p90fool said:

jumping@shadows said:

And let the games begin! 

No need for that.

The Rules. 

This is a forum, not a courtroom. We don’t want to write rules any more than you want to read them. Help us keep the rules simple by keeping to the rules. 

1. Don’t be a dick. This is the most important rule. Every other rule is just this one in more detail. 
   
2. Don’t be nasty. That means being personally and deliberately insulting, aggressive or vindictive towards any other member or group...

PVO_Dave

Rule 1 well and truly broken in this thread. 

Hope @jumping@shadows continues to share build progress in here, found his instagram and followed just in case he decides it's not worth being called names over. 

Strat_a_tat_tat

If this was restored with P90s - but with a sunburst finish... what sort of money would it be worth. Just curious.

WezV

I'm shocked by the response.  There are always decisions to make with any repair or restoration.  Any time there is a decision, there will be an opposing viewpoint.   No need to be rude about it

The closest this guitar could ever be to factory original is a restoration of wood and finish with old but not original parts.  I am sure it would look, sound and play bang on... but that would still not make it an original.  The problem is it could then be used to deceive someone into thinking it was all original, something we are usually dead against here.   The history of this particular guitar would be lost to the restoration

A well documented conversion with identifiable top like this can never be sold as an original no matter how good the conversion or how close to original it looks sounds or plays.     In many ways, its a more honest guitar at the end of it.    Its story is being well documented.

I totally understand the draw of that top. 

 . 

jumping@shadows

Any other forum would ban @p90fool for that casual outburst, but I suspect as he’s so happy to spout it for all to see, the reflex vitriol is always on a hair trigger, and he’s not someone who’s opinion is of any value to me 

TTony

Inappropriate comments (call them rude, call them insulting, call them dumb, whatever) removed.

Discussion &  debate are fine and no-one expects everyone to agree with everything. 

Name-calling insults are not appropriate, I'd really hoped people realised that by now.

sweepy

What a dull place this would be if we all felt the same, not a Les Paul fan but I’ll be following the hopeful restoration thread with great interest 

jpfamps

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

earwighoney

jpfamps said:

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

This thread doesn't have as many insults as the one about the Archers though....

jpfamps

earwighoney said:

jpfamps said:

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

This thread doesn't have as many insults as the one about the Archers though....

I missed that one.

Can I qualify that by saying I'm not a fan of the Archers, or is that likely to drag the tone of this thread down even further?

jumping@shadows

jpfamps said:

earwighoney said:

jpfamps said:

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

This thread doesn't have as many insults as the one about the Archers though....

I missed that one.

Can I qualify that by saying I'm not a fan of the Archers, or is that likely to drag the tone of this thread down even further?

Contributions from Mr Cooke usually raises the EQ I’ve found..

jpfamps

jumping@shadows said:

jpfamps said:

earwighoney said:

jpfamps said:

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

This thread doesn't have as many insults as the one about the Archers though....

I missed that one.

Can I qualify that by saying I'm not a fan of the Archers, or is that likely to drag the tone of this thread down even further?

Contributions from Mr Cooke usually raises the EQ I’ve found..

Dr Cooke to you............

jumping@shadows

jpfamps said:

jumping@shadows said:

jpfamps said:

earwighoney said:

jpfamps said:

I've seen less insults in a Brexit thread!!

This thread doesn't have as many insults as the one about the Archers though....

I missed that one.

Can I qualify that by saying I'm not a fan of the Archers, or is that likely to drag the tone of this thread down even further?

Contributions from Mr Cooke usually raises the EQ I’ve found..

Dr Cooke to you............

I didn’t want to litter my comment with the word search of your numerous qualifications Dr