Refinished 59 Les Paul on reverb anyone?

Eartrumpet

Just looks like a modern reissue with the refin to my unschooled eye

https://reverb.com/item/29397798-1959-gibson-les-paul-standard-sunburst-paulette-vintage-lp?fbclid=IwAR3C7Krn-mh6ZL5eyzP5g78jVi8r1-faxlimrR_Duq-nVHMfrj4GasW4vRs

sweepy

Just enough of the PAF sticker missing and i may be wrong but the truss rod cover is too near the nut for a 59, who knows, i would rather buy another house with that money

ICBM

Headstock shape is wrong.

If that’s a real ‘59 Les Paul then I’m the real Jimi Hendrix.

victorludorum

ICBM said:

Headstock shape is wrong.

If that’s a real ‘59 Les Paul then I’m the real Jimi Hendrix.

Did you really 'kiss that guy'?

roberty

victorludorum said:

ICBM said:

Headstock shape is wrong.

If that’s a real ‘59 Les Paul then I’m the real Jimi Hendrix.

Did you really 'kiss that guy'?

If a 2006 turned into a '59

Danielsguitars

I know what you mean about the headstock shape but there's an awful lot of little things that look good and not easy to replicate, the back cavity looks right and the wiring channel too, I've had the pickups and backplates off a real 58 to look at that bit
Also the tailpiece looks like it's in the right place

I'd love to check out that headstock shape and see if it's really off

ICBM

Danielsguitars said:

Also the tailpiece looks like it's in the right place

... but the bridge doesn’t. It looks like an overdone attempt at the ‘straighter’ 50s angle.

I know they were hand made and there’s a lot of minor variation, but it just doesn’t look right.

Danielsguitars

ICBM said:

Danielsguitars said:

Also the tailpiece looks like it's in the right place

... but the bridge doesn’t. It looks like an overdone attempt at the ‘straighter’ 50s angle.

I know they were hand made and there’s a lot of minor variation, but it just doesn’t look right.

Bridge looks ok to me, quite often they look much straighter than others, I think it's the tailpiece that allows it, I know that looks similar to how mine have turned out before because I angle my tailpiece, I think they look better than straight 

Just had a flick through botb book, loads similar imo

ICBM

The 50s ones were set straighter because they were intended for flatwound strings originally, which intonate more evenly than roundwounds - but even so that one looks overly straight. I could be wrong though...

The headstock shape looks very off, it’s much too flared - and as sweepy said the truss rod cover is too close to the nut. The bridge is also very high for a 50s one - they do also vary a bit, but when you’ve got so many things that are at or beyond the ends of the normal range it really does just end up looking wrong.

Danielsguitars

ICBM said:

The 50s ones were set straighter because they were intended for flatwound strings originally, which intonate more evenly than roundwounds - but even so that one looks overly straight. I could be wrong though...

The headstock shape looks very off, it’s much too flared - and as sweepy said the truss rod cover is too close to the nut. The bridge is also very high for a 50s one - they do also vary a bit, but when you’ve got so many things that are at or beyond the ends of the normal range it really does just end up looking wrong.

The 58 I looked at has a very high bridge and the tailpiece is raised a fair amount to take pressure off and clear the back, Still sounds and plays great, alot of them seem to have higher bridges than I'd like personally

I do think they were all different anyway, be interesting to check that headstock with another one

cj73

roberty said:

victorludorum said:

ICBM said:

Headstock shape is wrong.

If that’s a real ‘59 Les Paul then I’m the real Jimi Hendrix.

Did you really 'kiss that guy'?

If a 2006 turned into a '59

If 6 was 9

TeleMaster

Looks alright to me in principle. And the refinisher is world reknowned

Seziertisch

sweepy said:

Just enough of the PAF sticker missing and i may be wrong but the truss rod cover is too near the nut for a 59, who knows, i would rather buy another house with that money

Honey, I sold the house!

Adey

Postage cost seems very reasonable...

I know when I'm buying extraordinarily expensive guitars, I always do it without actually seeing it up close, or have an independent expert look it over for me, and because of this I will always be happy to pay an extra £45.72 to have my £150,000 instrument "popped in the post". Nice....

monoamine

Mr Jager is certianly reputable and a reasonable person to vouch for this being a genuine 59, but Ihere is no mention of a letter or signed document.

The checking is obviously wrong but that is going to be artificial aging as part of the refinish.

What worries me more is the lack of 'drill-bit' chew out from the control cavity. It is a bit mis-shapen at the upper left edge but it would normally have a pronounced bite mark made from the way they routed the floor of the cavity at an angle, which there doesn't seem to be.....

Danielsguitars

monoamine said:

Mr Jager is certianly reputable and a reasonable person to vouch for this being a genuine 59, but Ihere is no mention of a letter or signed document.

The checking is obviously wrong but that is going to be artificial aging as part of the refinish.

What worries me more is the lack of 'drill-bit' chew out from the control cavity. It is a bit mis-shapen at the upper left edge but it would normally have a pronounced bite mark made from the way they routed the floor of the cavity at an angle, which there doesn't seem to be.....

The chew mark is there but you need to see it from a different angle, I've also seen pictures of cavity's that are virtually intact so anything goes imo with what and how they did it

Adey

Why would someone feel the need to cut the corners off the pickup legs? Surely they fitted in routed out holes when it was built.

Does chopping the corners off make them fit just that bit better? Why go to the bother though?

I can only think that originally it didn't have that magical 59 tone, and clipping the corners has allowed the tone to develop better in the pickup cavity, before being released through the legendary wood of tonefullness.

Or is that tosh?

ICBM

Adey said:

Why would someone feel the need to cut the corners off the pickup legs? Surely they fitted in routed out holes when it was built.

Does chopping the corners off make them fit just that bit better? Why go to the bother though?

Because they've been in a guitar with smaller recesses.

Adey

Ah yes. I re-read the listing and it does sort of say "bitsa"

ICBM

Adey said:

Ah yes. I re-read the listing and it does sort of say "bitsa"

Very much. I'm still of the opinion that the headstock shape is too flared to be original, but if Danielsguitars is right about the body it could even be re-necked - in fact, the dark line at the join between the neck and the back of the body looks suspiciously not right.

To be honest I don't care even slightly, and I wouldn't even if the asking price wasn't more than half what my house is worth - it's just an interesting armchair detective story...

Seziertisch

ICBM said:

Adey said:

Ah yes. I re-read the listing and it does sort of say "bitsa"

Very much. I'm still of the opinion that the headstock shape is too flared to be original, but if Danielsguitars is right about the body it could even be re-necked - in fact, the dark line at the join between the neck and the back of the body looks suspiciously not right.

To be honest I don't care even slightly, and I wouldn't even if the asking price wasn't more than half what my house is worth - it's just an interesting armchair detective story...

There are quite a few 59s in various states and of various provenances for sale on Reverb.

It would seem that the number of people who a. have that much money and b. are into guitars and c. would consider spending that much money on a guitar a sensible thing to do is pretty small.