1960 Les Paul ‘Burst’ Restoration

Iamnobody

Three-ColourSunburst said:

danishbacon said:

The Custom underwent a (and I believe there is some degree of collective consensus on this) hideous makeover prior to its recent facelift. re this stage the fiddle has already been fiddled with so any sense of originality has been thrown out the window. It's fair game and collectors looking for originality wouldn't touch it.

This is the main point I don't understand about this conversion. It wasn't a hacked up basket case or shell, all that had been changed was the finish. Does this mean that any refinished guitar should be considered to be of no historical interest or value and fair game for any sort of modification or conversion the owner fancies? 

Yes of course it’s fair game. It’s only a guitar.

Only one person owns this guitar (although judging by some of the comments you wouldn’t think so!) and he also happens to have the skills to make any sort of modification or conversion he wants. 

I’m not sure if your question was rhetorical but hopefully you’ll find the answer above it wasn’t.

Three-ColourSunburst

Iamnobody said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

This is the main point I don't understand about this conversion. It wasn't a hacked up basket case or shell, all that had been changed was the finish. Does this mean that any refinished guitar should be considered to be of no historical interest or value and fair game for any sort of modification or conversion the owner fancies? 

Yes of course it’s fair game. It’s only a guitar.

Maybe, but from my perspective if you have something old, valuable and increasingly rare, then one has some sort of obligation to preserve it in as close a possible state to how it left the factory, and usually doing this is what preserves its value, both monetary and historical. For example, if I had a refinished but otherwise original 57 Strat I wouldn't think 'Oh, this is a refin and so game for anything, so I will route it out for humbuckers and fit a Floyd to it', even if plenty of people did exactly that in the past. 

impmann

Basically it’s a bitsa - grandfather’s axe and will always be a mongrel.

Not my cup of tea (I genuinely cannot see the attraction of sunburst late 50s Les Pauls - and no, I don’t want convincing that I’m ‘wrong’) and personally I don’t see what would have been the issue in refinishing it black, as then it would have been a “restoration “ as opposed to a “recreation “.

But it’s not my guitar - and frankly I don’t care. My concern about all this is to do with the long term future for this guitar - if it ever gets sold, the real story is likely to be forgotten following a few changes of hands. It then ‘becomes’ a restoration rather than a remodelling job and a potential future purchaser could be (inadvertently or otherwise) hoodwinked into thinking its a refinished/repaired “real” burst.
Bearung this in mind, it sits uncomfortably with me - especially as we have rules regarding “fake” partcasters. The basic premise of this is that a subsequent purchaser could be mislead into thinking they have bought the real thing.
I’m certainly not accusing anyone here of such activity - and I am in awe of the craftsmanship used to create this. I can’t help thinking that rather than do things like this, the OPs talent could be better used building “new” guitars - there is a *lot* of old mahogany and rosewood tied up in the “brown” antique furniture that dealers cannot shift right now. Then the best of all worlds could be created - desirable guitars from recycled quality wood. The only downside would be that you couldn’t use the Gibson name on the headstock... but in all other ways it could be as good.
Just a thought. :-)

DrBob

Is there a thread about this running on another platform that I’m missing out on or am I really not paying attention ? That line about adding 2mm of mahogany under the Fretboard to put the neck thickness back and how it went from 41 back to 43mm at the nut ? 

paganskins

I’d like to know how adding extra wood to the neck and the back of the body has made it lighter by 1lb? 

GoldenEraGuitars

“impmann said:

Basically it’s a bitsa...

Bearung this in mind, it sits uncomfortably with me - especially as we have rules regarding “fake” partcasters. The basic premise of this is that a subsequent purchaser could be mislead into thinking they have bought the real thing.

I’m certainly not accusing anyone here of such activity - and I am in awe of the craftsmanship used to create this. I can’t help thinking that rather than do things like this, the OPs talent could be better used building “new” guitars.

The only downside would be that you couldn’t use the Gibson name on the headstock...”


I didn’t manage to quote this annoyingly so a copy and past had to suffice.

First and foremost, the issue with partcasters is they are very easily passed off as Fenders and I’m not terribly sure why players put “Fender” on their non fender guitars. What’s the point? But this particular guitar is nothing to do with someone taking a Harley Benton LP and rebranding it as a Gibson. It’s a Gibson which has been altered using Gibson parts. So, while it’s s bit of a “mongrel” it’s hardly a Chinese neck, US body and used Squier Affinity pickups. 

To be perfectly frank, anyone with the coin to buy this will more than likely have a keen eye. And you can still see the where the binding has been replaced. It’s not totally invisible but it’s a bloody good job never the less and I applaud the skill involved. 

The OP seems to make a rather good living repairing vintage Gibson’s and selling them on. Why would he want to become another boutique les Paul replica builder? As I’ve gathered in my involvement in the music world so far it seems that a LP replica is a much harder sell than a Strat or Tele copy. 

@DrBob check out Playergradevintage on Instagram. 

Ossyrocks

DrBob said:

Is there a thread about this running on another platform that I’m missing out on or am I really not paying attention ? That line about adding 2mm of mahogany under the Fretboard to put the neck thickness back and how it went from 41 back to 43mm at the nut ? 

It was on Instagram.

DrBob

Thanks chaps both wis’d !

Skipped

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I don't doubt that the OP really does view his conversion job as being a 'real' burst. (For example, the title to this thread is "1960 Les Paul 'Burst' Restoration", rather than "1960 Les Paul Burst 'Restoration' "). In fact, I am in a similar position to the OP because, due a cruel twist of fate at the timber yard, the mahogany that should have been used to make a burst was instead used to make a sideboard. Perhaps I should also get it 'restored' so I too can have a burst. After all, what really counts is how old the wood is, right?

Doesn't make sense.

1. The OP is not saying his view is as you suggest in your first sentence.The guitar is a 1960 Gibson Les Paul with a maple cap.

2. If you were to spend a few years looking at LPF or MLPF I am sure you would encounter the odd poster who refers to his Historic Gibson Les Paul as a "Burst". That is clearly delusion. But the delusional state is only limited to the pretence that his instrument  is "a vintage guitar". Then we have the Replica owner who has asked a seriously talented luthier to build a replica guitar but not to put the name of the seriously talented luthier on the headstock. This is a more serious level of delusion. The Replica owner is not just pretending he is playing a 60 year old guitar. He is also pretending he is playing a Gibson. No Replica Owner  has ever attempted to explain why they have not asked the builder to put the builder's name on the headstock. This behaviour is surely worthy of academic study/research.

The OP seems to be a very grounded individual and clearly understands what his guitar is - a 1960 Gibson Les Paul with a maple cap.

3. What would be the point of ruining your perfectly good sideboard when your posting history makes it clear that you have no understanding of tone woods?  Just pop down to "Wickes" or "Homebabse" and ask them for the materials for your interesting  project.

danishbacon

Skipped said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I don't doubt that the OP really does view his conversion job as being a 'real' burst. (For example, the title to this thread is "1960 Les Paul 'Burst' Restoration", rather than "1960 Les Paul Burst 'Restoration' "). In fact, I am in a similar position to the OP because, due a cruel twist of fate at the timber yard, the mahogany that should have been used to make a burst was instead used to make a sideboard. Perhaps I should also get it 'restored' so I too can have a burst. After all, what really counts is how old the wood is, right?

Doesn't make sense.

1. The OP is not saying his view is as you suggest in your first sentence.The guitar is a 1960 Gibson Les Paul with a maple cap.

2.The OP seems to be a very grounded individual and clearly understands what his guitar is - a 1960 Gibson Les Paul with a maple cap. 

The OP refers to it as a 1960 Les Paul standard.

poopot

Three-ColourSunburst said:

This is the main point I don't understand about this conversion. It wasn't a hacked up basket case or shell, all that had been changed was the finish. Does this mean that any refinished guitar should be considered to be of no historical interest or value and fair game for any sort of modification or conversion the owner fancies? It is only in its present state - different finish to how it left the factory, reshaped neck, routed out, new wood added, binding removed, different fingerboard, a Frankenstein combination of three different guitars - that 'any sense of originality has been thrown out the window'. 

Mate... what the actual f&@k does it matter to you?

Its not your guitar, I suspect that after your constant trolling and even if you had the money, it will never be your guitar!...

As for historical interest... It has none... its a guitar... it wasn't played at the signing of the Magna Carter, it wasn't played by big dave hasslehof when the wall came down... Its not been seen at the Poll tax riots... Its a lump of wood that makes guitar sounds.

It is now a much better looking lump of wood than when it was "Originally Refinished" and the craftsmanship that has gone into it should be held in very high regard indeed...

Now, taking it a step further, If Yukki decides now to add active pickups, a Floyd,  paint the guitar pink and add maybe some fake fur to the headstock... ITS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN HIM....

Stop trolling the thread, stop trying to find an argument where there isn't one to be had... You are exactly the type of poster that is bringing this forum down... In addition, Its my one year anniversary on this site and congratulations, you have become the first and only person on my ignore list....

Skipped

danishbacon said:

The OP refers to it as a 1960 Les Paul standard.

This is not an ebay listing designed to deceive. The guitar has been carefully described and the word Restoration has been used several times.

I think the use of that word is reasonable.

You may be wary of the explanation, but a better one has not been offered.

If you jumped in a time machine now and headed for Kalamazoo........the modest "production line" of Les Paul Custom models would not be difficult for you to spot. Not at all. The mahogany bodies with the carved top would clearly be Les Paul depth pieces.

Impossible to confuse with the nearby  busier "production line" of mahogany bodies topped with a bookmatched flame maple cap.

What should we call this second area of labour intensive  guitar building?

Les Paul Standard production?

60/60 Conversion would be a  clumsy term and not making much sense.

peteri

Before this descends too far I’ll chime in. 

I have a Yuuki 53 to 59 conversion. 

I also have an all original 54 Goldtop and 64 SG (so basically bracketing the 59 era)

as those who have played it here will attest it’s an amazing instrument that sits squarely in that company the 54 a little more woody the 64 a little more angry. 

I am am fully aware of what it is - and it’s a pleasure to own it, it’s lovely to look at and mmmm to play. 

Its also the the best way for me as someone who works and saves to buy these things to get a Twin PAF Les Paul. 

Conversions are well respected and valid, I am concerned frankly that the lure of the burst means Goldtops are sacrificed to this, but if (big if) they are genuine husks then why not?

Oh oh and my conversion (by Yuuki) has a serial number which clearly shows what it is, as does the headstock which reads Gibson. People don’t sand Fender off a Strat when they change the pickups after all (serial number is 531959j 

Three-ColourSunburst

poopot said:

As for historical interest... It has none... its a guitar...

If that were true 59 Les Pauls wouldn't be 'worth' well over £100,000, and a whole lot more if someone famous had owned it.

poopot

Three-ColourSunburst said:

poopot said:

As for historical interest... It has none... its a guitar...

If that were true 59 Les Pauls wouldn't be 'worth' well over £100,000, and a whole lot more if someone famous had owned it.

Nope... my point is still valid...

the only reason and it really is the only only reason they command those prices is because folk are muggy enough to pay that...

its a guitar... not a historical icon...

back on ignore now!

Brize

jumping@shadows said:

I did indeed add ~2mm of quarter sawn mahogany under the fretboard, with a tapered binding to add thickness and width and bring the shaved original neck back to ‘59 2012 spec.

Just pulling your leg Yuuki.

CloudNine

@jumping@shadows   Amazing work fella. Not sure why people are getting worked up, do what the hell you like with it, it's yours. I personally couldn't care if you did a full conversion to Dusk Tiger.

Three-ColourSunburst

Skipped said:

The guitar has been carefully described and the word Restoration has been used several times. I think the use of that word is reasonable.

However 'reasonable' you might think the use of that word is, 'conversion' or even 'fabrication' would be much more accurate terms.

Skipped said:

If you jumped in a time machine now and headed for Kalamazoo........the modest "production line" of Les Paul Custom models would not be difficult for you to spot. Not at all. The mahogany bodies with the carved top would clearly be Les Paul depth pieces. Impossible to confuse with the nearby  busier "production line" of mahogany bodies topped with a bookmatched flame maple cap.  What should we call this second area of labour intensive  guitar building? Les Paul Standard production?

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. That this can legitimately be called a standard because on the production line a standard body could not be confused with one for a custom? If so, how about the area where they routed out the body for the custom binding, routed out the body for three pickups and associated wiring, fitted the custom neck with its different headstock binding and inlay, fitted the custom ebony fingerboard, sprayed it black and added the custom hardware? The Custom production area perhaps?

Skipped

poopot said:

its a guitar... not a historical icon...

I agree. A collector would not want to buy a refinished guitar that is not collector grade.

It is a musical insrument.

Let's imagine the guitar had been refinished aged black.

And was then shown to Joe Bonamassa.

Joe would plug the guitar in. 5 minutes later, Joe Bonamassa would say:

"That isn't a 1960 Les Paul Custom"

A 1960 Les Paul Custom is a known quantity. The most important element of the specification of a 1960 Les Paul Custom is not the paint. It is the Mahogany body.

TA22GT

I can't believe that this thread has turned in to a "what's it worth" and a "It's a fake thread" and "it could mislead someone further down the line" 
   
Well it's all over the internet!! It's there forever and anybody buying anything like this will have half a brain. 

The other half of the brain keeps digging a hole for themselves. Please, and respectfully, just stop digging you have made your point....constantly!