1960 Les Paul ‘Burst’ Restoration

ourmaninthenorth

TA22GT said:

:

jumping@shadows said:

 


And the big reveal:

 

@jumping@shadows ;

Absolutely love your work and knowledge. Fantastic guitar!

Genuine question:  What's going on with the neck pickup location in relation to the fingerboard end?

I know the ring is not screwed down.

 It's not just the gap, it appears that the pickup ring sits quite low compared to the end of the neck.

The only thing I can think of is maybe the neck angle on a 60 LPC is different to a 59 Burst? I'm not nit-picking as I am genuinely interested!  

That's a good question Brian. 

Maybe Yukki's built the wood under the fingerboard up a couple of mils to get more of a 59ish fatter feeling neck. 

TA22GT

    Quote:  @ourmaninthenorth ;
  
"That's a good question Brian. 

Maybe Yukki's built the wood under the fingerboard up a couple of mils to get more of a 59ish fatter feeling neck. "

I did wonder that too Phil! 

If the custom had a slim 60's neck and the neck wasn't removed the only way to get girth would be to go Up the way. Especially as a new fingerboard was being fitted.

I'm sure Yuki will explain.

fretfinder

He explained earlier in the thread (Edit: actually it was in a comment on instagram.) that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

TA22GT

fretfinder said:

He explained earlier in the thread that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

Ohh!!     Must have forgot when I read it first. Thank you.

clarkefan

Three-ColourSunburst said:

It seems we are not going to find out the final cost of this guitar, taking into account the value of the donor instruments, the cost of the work and so on, but I was a little taken aback to see that 1960 customs seem to go for around $50,000 for a battered one and approaching $60,000 for one in good condition. This suggest that had this guitar just been refinished back to its original colour it would still  have been worth serious money, and it was hardly a basket case for which restoration was not a practical option.

Does anyone have any idea what the original would have been worth after a simple refinish? Would the fact it had a maple top have made it more valuable than a standard custom, given that the faithful believe the maple top on a 'real' Les Paul makes a significant contribution to the sound of the instrument? I would guess for some a Custom that sounded like a real Les Paul would have been the ultimate guitar!

Refinished guitars from that era are *seriously* marked down, half the price typically, if that helps.

roberty

jumping@shadows said:

roberty said:

This just popped up on my Facebook feed

Is this person talking bollocks?

People will do anything for attention

edit: this looks to be the OP photo

WTF is this about?! I shall be messaging this chap   

Soz mate. Let me know if you need help tracking him down

I'd be curious to hear his explanation

ourmaninthenorth

fretfinder said:

He explained earlier in the thread that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

I've just re-read it from the start and can't see where he says that. 

stephen.wood125

Stunning craftsmanship there, all aspects are outstanding. Personally I like it before, and I love it after. 

Marvellous, thanks for sharing.

robgilmo

ourmaninthenorth said:

jumping@shadows said:

 


And the big reveal:

Is this the finished article Yukki, or are you going to put some ageing on it? 

Patina is in the wood, not in the finish. Thats a refin, , the wood is older than me and it shows, why make the finish look as old as the wood underneath it? I think it looks great.

jumping@shadows

ourmaninthenorth said:

fretfinder said:

He explained earlier in the thread that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

I've just re-read it from the start and can't see where he says that. 

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 spec.

 

TA22GT

Thank you for the explanation and the superb pics!

ourmaninthenorth

TA22GT said:

Thank you for the explanation and the superb pics!

Hear Hear. 

ourmaninthenorth

robgilmo said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

jumping@shadows said:

 


And the big reveal:

Is this the finished article Yukki, or are you going to put some ageing on it? 

Patina is in the wood, not in the finish. Thats a refin, , the wood is older than me and it shows, why make the finish look as old as the wood underneath it? I think it looks great.

It was a question addressed directly to Yukki. 

fretfinder

ourmaninthenorth said:

fretfinder said:

He explained earlier in the thread that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

I've just re-read it from the start and can't see where he says that. 

It must have been on instagram that I saw the comment then.  

ourmaninthenorth

fretfinder said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

fretfinder said:

He explained earlier in the thread that he’d put a 2mm shim under the new fingerboard. 

I've just re-read it from the start and can't see where he says that. 

It must have been on instagram that I saw the comment then.  

I've only just figured out how to sign in here...

Zoolooter

As a matter of interest, what sort of value would you put on it? 

jumping@shadows

ourmaninthenorth said:

robgilmo said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

jumping@shadows said:

 


And the big reveal:

Is this the finished article Yukki, or are you going to put some ageing on it? 

Patina is in the wood, not in the finish. Thats a refin, , the wood is older than me and it shows, why make the finish look as old as the wood underneath it? I think it looks great.

It was a question addressed directly to Yukki. 

I will indeed be adding weather checking throughout, and light play wear which I’ll add to over the weeks/months for a coherent ‘played but loved’ look  

danishbacon

I'll chime in as it's an open discussion, right?

The Custom uderwent 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.

The new owner clearly has some serious talent and sensibility (not to mention balls) in undertaking such substantial revival projects. From a craftsmanship standpoint, it is commendable. Whether the guitar had its justice done or not is really not up to the public forum to decide. It's his guitar. It reminded me of an anecdotal incident where a historic Motorsport racer crashed a vintage multimillion testarosa during an event. Half cried foul on the notion of racing these cars, saying these are meant for historic show. The other half set their feet down and announced that these cars were meant for racing and this is exactly what they were doing. 

What I do feel uneasy about is how this guitar has been shown outside of this forum, on Instagram. It has been unveiled as a 'burst' with an interesting past and a 'third route'. The wording used on various posts, to those not familiar with this particular thread alludes to this having left the factory as a burst, something it most definitely did not. It is, in my laymans opinion a conversion into a burst and not a restoration. It might have started it's life as the embryo of a burst but from gibson, burst it did not. I will concede that by definition, the concept of restoration is subjective:

1. The restoration of something material to its proper or original condition

That being said, most people might consider a restoration to involve the material return its original condition as it left the factory, and it left the factory as a Custom. 

I appreciate that given the very unique nature of the instrument it is difficult to even describe it without writing a few paragraphs so calling it a 'burst' can be tempting. 

This only matters if there is ever an intention to sell the piece.

To end on a quote by Big Hern, 'its just a guitar'

Three-ColourSunburst

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? 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'.

danishbacon said:

most people might consider a restoration to involve the material return its original condition as it left the factory, and it left the factory as a Custom.

Agreed.

danishbacon said:

What I do feel uneasy about is how this guitar has been shown outside of this forum, on Instagram. It has been unveiled as a 'burst' with an interesting past and a 'third route'. The wording used on various posts, to those not familiar with this particular thread alludes to this having left the factory as a burst, something it most definitely did not.

I see what you mean...

1960 Les Paul Standard serial 0 9300. Happy Burst Day To Meee..

When I received this about 2 years ago it seemed an impossible, preposterous task to even attempt what I had in mind, and I put it aside for a long time as the job was so challenging.  It landed weighing 10.3lbs with a nut width of under 41mm and an ultra slim shaved neck, middle pickup route and LP Custom body binding and fretboard.. Today it weighs exactly 9lbs, the original neck is a perfect medium ‘59 shape with a correct 43mm nut, the original flame maple top is near invisibly plugged and blended, and the LPC cosmetics just a vague memory.

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?

danishbacon

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? 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'.

danishbacon said:

most people might consider a restoration to involve the material return its original condition as it left the factory, and it left the factory as a Custom.

Agreed.

danishbacon said:

What I do feel uneasy about is how this guitar has been shown outside of this forum, on Instagram. It has been unveiled as a 'burst' with an interesting past and a 'third route'. The wording used on various posts, to those not familiar with this particular thread alludes to this having left the factory as a burst, something it most definitely did not.

i see what you mean...

1960 Les Paul Standard serial 0 9300. Happy Burst Day To Meee..

When I received this about 2 years ago it seemed an impossible, preposterous task to even attempt what I had in mind, and I put it aside for a long time as the job was so challenging.  It landed weighing 10.3lbs with a nut width of under 41mm and an ultra slim shaved neck, middle pickup route and LP Custom body binding and fretboard.. Today it weighs exactly 9lbs, the original neck is a perfect medium ‘59 shape with a correct 43mm nut, the original flame maple top is near invisibly plugged and blended, and the LPC cosmetics just a vague memory.

I don't doubt that the OP really does view his conversion job as being a 'real' burst. I also have one, but unfortunately, 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?

Point taken. I suppose I disconsidered a class of collectors / players in the middle tier - those willing to and able to enjoy a refinished guitar. I know that a refinished will be a deal-breaker for some who wish to own a factory original but not for everyone else who can afford. The modifications done to this old Custom would class it in a different tier alltogether and I'm not entirely sure what exactly that would be. There is something to be said for this one sticking to its 'custom' nomenclature.