Incredible Story: Rare Gibson LP Guitar Found in the UK

MentalSharps

I think it's pretty awesome the care and interest Bonamassa has in guitars, and the heritage aspect. Reminds me of people like Scorsese who contribute significantly to restoration efforts of old films and preserving the heritage. It seems like rock music could do with quite a few more of these types.

I feel it's so much better that it's Bonamassa owning one of these than some hedge fund manager, or popstar acting on the advice of a financial adviser about music related investments.

You could argue that it's only because of people like him "mythologising" that the values are inflated in the first place, but its not a zero-sum game, the value is not being taken from somewhere else, it's creating new value in the history and culture of electric guitar within the wider culture.  

Adamski

He also really respects the vintage gear he collects. Calls himself a custodian of their history, which I like. He plays most too and sees them as tools. It’s worth going to his shows just to see the vintage gear on show, getting a second life in the hands of, let’s be fair, a great player. 

I think the entire reason he gets any stick is the suit and shades look on stage, which seems arrogant, yet actually comes from two places - his love of old blues men who used to dress similar and that he has some stage anxieties. The man in the shades is a persona. If you watch his normal jeans and T shirt interviews, he’s very down to earth.  Like others have said, he is pulling other artists up with him and making his success theirs, which is very commendable 

crunchman

Hattigol said:

Mike says in the video that the seller believed it to be worth around £5k. I suspect there are a lot of dealers who would have simply said, 'I'll give you £5k' and milked the situation for all they could.

Credit to him for letting them know what it was actually worth. And I have little doubt he has made a tidy sum on it - I'm no expert but I think that's how retail works?

He's probably sold it on consignment and will get a percentage as a commission.  It will still be a sizable sum of money though.

SteveRobinson

Skipped said:

ElectricXII said:

Yawn. Another completely unobtainable guitar which has no relevance to 99.99% of players. I'm a Gibson player, but I have zero interest in these mythologised 50s LPs. 

Your view of these guitars is your personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

But they are not mythologised.

So why* is it worth so much?

The guitar is a wreck, is unplayable and has intrinsic value AS A GUITAR less than a modern Custom Shop reissue.



*it's the investment potential and the mythologisation helps in that regard.

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

I think it was more like their reputation was created in the 70's. 

The demand for Gibson to reintroduce the Gibson Les Paul (in 1968) all came in the mid sixties from guitarists who had somehow managed to play a fifties Les Paul for a few moments.

I can give you a categorical 100% guarantee that this demand, in the mid 1960s, was not created by Internet driven mythology.

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

I think it was more like their reputation was created in the 70's. 

The demand for Gibson to reintroduce the Gibson Les Paul (in 1968) all came in the mid sixties from guitarists who had somehow managed to play a fifties Les Paul for a few moments.

I can give you a categorical 100% guarantee that this demand, in the mid 1960s, was not created by Internet driven mythology.

And the bit where they only made in such small amount due to low demand, then dropped and replaced by something else doesn't tell you something?

 People always want what they can't have, so when those artists used the LP in 68, demand for them went up and then they were brought back and they were turds, pancake body etc.  Which reinforced the myth that the 58-60 were better.  They were, AT THE TIME.  At that time they were better than those being made in the 70's.  We know why, cost cutting and whatnot.  Trying to scale up production etc.

Are they better than the guitars made today?  I revert back to my bet, double blind test 50 Burst vs 50 Modern LP.  

Again - Human Engineering, Progress, Intelligence?

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

And the bit where they only made in such small amount due to low demand, then dropped and replaced by something else doesn't tell you something?

I don't see how this supports your argument.

Unless you are saying that the "left over bodies" that were used to make the '68 Les Pauls were "left over" because they were "a bit heavy". 

If you are talking about the 50s guitars, the 'Bursts were not very cool in 1958 becasue the maple was supposed to be on the back of a fine guitar.....not the front. But that changed when Clapton,Bloomfield, Green, Richards, Gibbons, many others, actually plugged one in. And then decided that they had something special,  without any input from Twitter or anyone else.

What happened in the 70's, when people picked up a Les Paul Deluxe and said: "Oh......." was something else entirely. The reputation of the golden era guitars was created organically. Word of mouth. Player to player.

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

And the bit where they only made in such small amount due to low demand, then dropped and replaced by something else doesn't tell you something?

I don't see how this supports your argument.

Unless you are saying that the "left over bodies" that were used to make the '68 Les Pauls were "left over" because they were "a bit heavy". 

If you are talking about the 50s guitars, the 'Bursts were not very cool in 1958 becasue the maple was supposed to be on the back of a fine guitar.....not the front. But that changed when Clapton,Bloomfield, Green, Richards, Gibbons, many others, actually plugged one in. And then decided that they had something special,  without any input from Twitter or anyone else.

What happened in the 70's, when people picked up a Les Paul Deluxe and said: "Oh......." was something else entirely. The reputation of the golden era guitars was created organically. Word of mouth. Player to player.

My argument is simple - 58-60 are NOT the pinnacle of guitar making, anyone who implies that needs to have their brain reassessed, for reasons already given.  This is regardless even of the turds made in the 70's, but what was made in the Norlin era is what caused this myth, it wasn't when they were in production between 58-60.  The fact that they didn't sell that many. and then got discontinued tells me everything i need to know what people thought about them at the time during their run.  

lustycourtier

Musicman20 said:

There is no reason they can't make these now at the current USA Standard level. I have two Gibson guitars but personally the company direction is just vomit. 

Do you own any, or played any across the various price points? 

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

My argument is simple - 58-60 are NOT the pinnacle of guitar making, anyone who implies that needs to have their brain reassessed, for reasons already given.  This is regardless even of the turds made in the 70's, but what was made in the Norlin era is what caused this myth, it wasn't when they were in production between 58-60.  The fact that they didn't sell that many. and then got discontinued tells me everything i need to know what people thought about them at the time during their run.  

But we were discussing your claim that "a myth came about and that myth continued."

A myth is a widely held but false belief.

You haven't told us what created the demand, from players, in the mid sixties for the return of the Les Paul in 1968.

We seem to have agreed that it was not:
 Twitter
 Guitar Forums
 The Internet.
 Guitarist Magazine

Mad Men Advertising Agency

Reverb
 Ebay

So what was it?

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

My argument is simple - 58-60 are NOT the pinnacle of guitar making, anyone who implies that needs to have their brain reassessed, for reasons already given.  This is regardless even of the turds made in the 70's, but what was made in the Norlin era is what caused this myth, it wasn't when they were in production between 58-60.  The fact that they didn't sell that many. and then got discontinued tells me everything i need to know what people thought about them at the time during their run.  

But we were discussing your claim that "a myth came about and that myth continued."

A myth is a widely held but false belief.

You haven't told us what created the demand, from players, in the mid sixties for the return of the Les Paul in 1968.

We seem to have agreed that it was not:
 Twitter
 Guitar Forums
 The Internet.
 Guitarist Magazine

Mad Men Advertising Agency

Reverb
 Ebay

So what was it?

We both know the history, there are countless videos and tales about it, I don't need to retell it nor you need reminded of it.  I call it a myth, you call it what happened.  Guitarists picked one up (take your pick of a name), wrote music, and performed with it, people want to emulate their heroes.

Rinse and repeat, this happens with everything else, it doesn't need the internet, all you need is see them in person or a magazine or TV.  They were around back then.

The myth is that they are some special guitars made in a way that no modern guitars can match.  BS.  Absolute BS.  If you are happy to spend that money or want an old guitar, fine, your money, do what you want.  They are however not better guitars than modern LP.

guitars4you

RaymondLin said:

Skipped said:

ElectricXII said:

Yawn. Another completely unobtainable guitar which has no relevance to 99.99% of players. I'm a Gibson player, but I have zero interest in these mythologised 50s LPs. 

Your view of these guitars is your personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

But they are not mythologised.

Their reputation was created in the early 1960s.

By musicians urging other musicians to get hold of these guitars. Because they were perfect for the music that was emerging. And they were built by craftsmen.

There was no internet, no guitar magazines, no "marketing", no hype,  just word of mouth recommendation from player to player.

The reputation is undiminished.

Why would it be?

 I think it was more like their reputation was created in the 70's.  When these were in production, they didn't sell many.  So bad they were dropped then the SG came out to replace it to stir sales.

Nobody wanted them when they were new, less than 2000 made.

Objectively speaking.

 The turd of the 70's made these look good.  That's the truth.  That's where the myth came about and that myth continued. 

The idea that modern guitars cannot be made to the same standard as 60 years ago is an insult to human engineering, progress and intelligence.  That's like we peaked between 58-60.  I do not believe that and anyone who does, need their brain checked.  Essentially that's what they are implying.  We put a man on the moon, we have robots on Mars and remote control them.  We can make guitars better than the 60's.  

The ONLY argument people make is that the wood is better...define better, measure it for me, you can't.  Plus if you do 100 double blind test, put 50 burst vs 50 modern LP, blindfold, played, listen.  I bet my Gibson that you cannot pick out all 50 out of 100 correctly.

 They are man-made objects, they can be made again many times over.  They are worth only what someone want to pay for it, i do not dispute that part but I don't think, and there is no reason for that they are better, for that you are saying that somehow, these guitar techniques were lost...despite they keep saying they have all the original machines, wiring machines etc etc.

A mix of I agree and disagree in there as far as I'm concerned - I've numbered my points below - But in both above and below then many points are inter-mingled in many ways

1) Agree the LP we know from the late 50's was not popular at the time - But one day, a man from Surrey, reading a comic, plugged one into a Marshall combo and created a legendary voice, that neither was ever designed for - Yet the race was now on to replicate this new tone and find appropriate the  'tools' to do likewise - A man who would later run for the highest office in the USA acquired two of them - But disliked one of them and sold it to a man who played in a band that was named after a German hot air balloon - The demand for such guitars meant Gibson took notice and re-introduced the line - But the new 'accountant' led bean counters, from a corporate machine called CMI, 'reduced' the guitars attributes/qualities 

2) It was during the late 60's and early 70's when the term 'better'  was first used to describe the 50's models - And that was based on a comparison of the day between the 50's models and the 70's models - This in turn created the 'vintage market' - Even when I started full time in 1978, the phrase vintage existed for a product that was barely 20 years old 

3) I agree we can't define better - Personally I think the term should be 'preferable' - But equally this is about taste and opinion, about old v new and neither is right or wrong when it comes to your own taste - But can we make them today like we use to - The more anal you are about the vintage detail, then the more you realise that Gibson have yet to make an accurate historic replica - Yet the demand for all the R7, R8, R9 etc replicas is big business - And I agree there are many many fine examples of these replicas - I think today, when you look at many other boutique, custom built, high end guitars, then in many ways the golden era of guitar building is with us today, be it replicas or new models, with or without vintage based influences - Today, many such replicas will allow us to play, perform and enjoy such guitars for many many years 

4)  I believe it is more preferable to carry out your own blind fold test, rather than listen to someone else carry one out in front of you - That way your own feel, touch, response etc is in your own hands and also your that human contact to offer a better and personal evaluation - But as I mentioned above any conclusion from such a test is all about your own preference for any such guitar - Not better 

5) And maybe the big one within any conclusion - The owner of the guitar in question paid £50 for it in the mid late 60's - I think Bernie M said he paid around £100/110 for The Beast a few years later - I recall them costing £2000 around 1978 - I know there are many FB members who can offer some good financial advice - But if I'd have purchased one in 1978 and accept today it could/would fetch at least £175K for an original example, then that is not a bad investment - Yet how much more pleasure the guitar would offer me, as against looking at an annual statement of my new increased funds - The R8's and R9's are great guitars - I've sold them and whilst I've only ever played 4 or 5 original 59 LP's (including Greenie) I would admit that the 'playable' aspect of many replicas is more preferable to me than an original - For whatever reason that is - But the R8/R9 replicas today are ten a penny - And that is not meant to be an insult to many of us who own them - It is a fact of todays successful market place and consumer demand - As such they don't have the history, nostalgia, mojo or whatever term you can use to talk about an original example - Are they worth or aren't they worth it - They may well not be for many of us, but we are not the consumers for such vintage guitars - There are many collectable items available today, were the later version has been improved upon in many many ways - Does this mean the original old designed versions should be dumped as no longer valid - Or do we just accept there is a market for both old and new, to some buyers/owners - As a tool to do the job, then a £5/10K LP replica will do the job for any/many pro based player - But for some and probably easier to accept/appreciate if your funds allow you to participate in the vintage world, that there is some magical 'mojo' (agree a non-definable word in this case) in many such old guitars that is not in a new replica 

Musicman20

lustycourtier said:

Musicman20 said:

There is no reason they can't make these now at the current USA Standard level. I have two Gibson guitars but personally the company direction is just vomit. 

Do you own any, or played any across the various price points? 

Currently own:

SG Standard - 2017 (I believe) picked up in a crazy sale. It's a nice looking thing, sounds decent, but I wouldn't pay the current prices. It doesn't feel like the quality is up there with the Fenders and Musicman guitars and basses I own. Feels fragile. it's unique in my collection.

LP Tribute - 2017 - bought new in another crazy sale. Again, sounds decent, looks nice, it has better QC than some of the much more expensive LPs.

Both of those were well under £1k.

I've tried Custom Shop Gibson guitars and been very underwhelmed and disappointed with the paint finish, fret ends and rough binding.  Sound great, poor QC.

I remember one lovely looking 335 which had one of the worst paint jobs I've experienced! I did not buy that one.

I've tried a few standards - nothing mindblowing. I've tried 2 Thunderbird basses and again concluded they felt and looked pretty shoddy considering the prices.

crunchman

SteveRobinson said:

Skipped said:

ElectricXII said:

Yawn. Another completely unobtainable guitar which has no relevance to 99.99% of players. I'm a Gibson player, but I have zero interest in these mythologised 50s LPs. 

Your view of these guitars is your personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

But they are not mythologised.

So why* is it worth so much?

The guitar is a wreck, is unplayable and has intrinsic value AS A GUITAR less than a modern Custom Shop reissue.



*it's the investment potential and the mythologisation helps in that regard.

The guitar is not a wreck.  The wood is sound, and the issues are all fixable.

Once it is fixed, it has 60 year old Honduras mahogany, which you can't find on a modern CS reissue.  It also has a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard, which you can't buy on a modern reissue.

How much difference the aged wood will make I can't be certain, but if you can find a good old one, then most people who have played them seem to agree that they are better than the modern CS guitars.

I don't think they are £100k or more better, but if I had the choice of an original or a modern reissue I'd go for original.

Obviously the ridiculous valuations we see now are because they are collectable, but it's wrong to say that a modern CS is inherently a better guitar than an original.

Hattigol

I agree wholeheartedly with @RaymondLin There is absolutely no objective basis upon which it can be said that 50s technology produced a product which a) was better than can be produced now or b) cannot now be replicated.

But equally, people are free to spend their money how they want and it can't be argued that vintage hasn't been a solid investment.

People do, for whatever reason, seem to believe old = good. It amazes me that previously derided 70s Strats are now fetching bigger and bigger prices. Why? Do people honestly believe objectively that a 70s Strat is better than a modern one? There may be the odd good one but in percentage terms, the chances of a modern one being a better quality guitar must be hugely higher.

With apologies if Mr Elson is reading this, I actually think it is pretty hard to find a poor quality modern guitar these days...

Each to their own.

Skipped

RaymondLin said

We both know the history, there are countless videos and tales about it, I don't need to retell it nor you need reminded of it.  I call it a myth, you call it what happened.  Guitarists picked one up (take your pick of a name), wrote music, and performed with it, people want to emulate their heroes.

Rinse and repeat, this happens with everything else, it doesn't need the internet, all you need is see them in person or a magazine or TV.  They were around back then.

The myth is that they are some special guitars made in a way that no modern guitars can match.  BS.  Absolute BS.  If you are happy to spend that money or want an old guitar, fine, your money, do what you want.  They are however not better guitars than modern LP.

You are avoiding the question and moving onto an argument that no one has made. (About our ability to make a world class guitar in 2022).

So I will answer the question.

The reputation of the 50s guitars was not created in the 70s when people played their first Norlin.

 It was created by the famous players already mentioned, without hype or marketing,  It was created by other players who were somehow  able to  play a 50s Les Paul, in the mid sixties, and who wanted what they could not buy, and who then begged Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul.

If you had been working at Gibson, in 1967, you would have answered the phone, and then told the caller: "You think you want that Les Paul that impressed you. But you don't. You are suffering from widely held but false belief in a mythologised guitar"

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said

We both know the history, there are countless videos and tales about it, I don't need to retell it nor you need reminded of it.  I call it a myth, you call it what happened.  Guitarists picked one up (take your pick of a name), wrote music, and performed with it, people want to emulate their heroes.

Rinse and repeat, this happens with everything else, it doesn't need the internet, all you need is see them in person or a magazine or TV.  They were around back then.

The myth is that they are some special guitars made in a way that no modern guitars can match.  BS.  Absolute BS.  If you are happy to spend that money or want an old guitar, fine, your money, do what you want.  They are however not better guitars than modern LP.

You are avoiding the question and moving onto an argument that no one has made. (About our ability to make a world class guitar in 2022).

So I will answer the question.

The reputation of the 50s guitars was not created in the 70s when people played their first Norlin.

 It was created by the famous players already mentioned, without hype or marketing,  It was created by other players who were somehow  able to  play a 50s Les Paul, in the mid sixties, and who wanted what they could not buy, and who then begged Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul.

If you had been working at Gibson, in 1967, you would have answered the phone, and then told the caller: "You think you want that Les Paul that impressed you. But you don't. You are suffering from widely held but false belief in a mythologised guitar"

So you are basically arguing over the diffference between 68 and 70? Is that it?  Is the guitar between 68-69 the quality of 58-60? I never heard anyone mention that before!

yes, I believe that the reputation of the 58-60 grew in the 70's due to all those turds, without the internet, words travel slower, and the worst the QC got in the 70's the more elevated the burst era got and the bigger the myth became.  

Had I been working in 67, I would have answered the phone with "You can't buy that guitar, you can buy this SG instead, they don't make the LP anymore because nobody bought them!"

crunchman

Hattigol said:

I agree wholeheartedly with @RaymondLin There is absolutely no objective basis upon which it can be said that 50s technology produced a product which a) was better than can be produced now or b) cannot now be replicated.

But equally, people are free to spend their money how they want and it can't be argued that vintage hasn't been a solid investment.

People do, for whatever reason, seem to believe old = good. It amazes me that previously derided 70s Strats are now fetching bigger and bigger prices. Why? Do people honestly believe objectively that a 70s Strat is better than a modern one? There may be the odd good one but in percentage terms, the chances of a modern one being a better quality guitar must be hugely higher.

With apologies if Mr Elson is reading this, I actually think it is pretty hard to find a poor quality modern guitar these days...

Each to their own.

It is getting harder and harder for guitar makers to find high quality wood - especially in the quantities that the big makes like Gibson need.  They don't use the original Honduras mahogany anymore, and they can't legally export anything with Brazilian rosewood to large parts of the world, even if they had any Braz.

From memory, you are in the "wood doesn't make any difference" camp in the threads on that topic, but for those of us who do know that wood is important, the wood a guitar is made from does matter.

You do make a valid point about 70s Fenders.  A modern one made of a decent piece of alder is likely to be a much superior guitar than the average 70s one.  On the other hand, I've played pre-CBS Fenders where I couldn't believe how light they felt.  The wood on those was superb, and they were incredibly responsive to play.

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

So you are basically arguing over the diffference between 68 and 70? Is that it?  Is the guitar between 68-69 the quality of 58-60? I never heard anyone mention that before!

No.  Are you sure you are on the right thread.

Until you can tell us which guitars created the demand - in the mid sixties - for Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul, in 1968, we will make little progress.

Here is a clue.

The time machine had not been invented in 1967.

The players asking Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul were not being influenced by  disappointment with their 1974 Les Paul Deluxe.

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

So you are basically arguing over the diffference between 68 and 70? Is that it?  Is the guitar between 68-69 the quality of 58-60? I never heard anyone mention that before!

No.  Are you sure you are on the right thread.

Until you can tell us which guitars created the demand - in the mid sixties - for Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul, in 1968, we will make little progress.

Here is a clue.

The time machine had not been invented in 1967.

The players asking Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul were not being influenced by  disappointment with their 1974 Les Paul Deluxe.

I already said,  'Guitarists picked one up (take your pick of a name), wrote music, and performed with it, people want to emulate their heroes.'

Then Gibson decided to listen and put them back out on the market again, but they were not the same, without the internet, they tried them in the shop in person, found them to be crap, but the used one hanging in the window made in the 50's is better.

BAM !