Incredible Story: Rare Gibson LP Guitar Found in the UK

guitars4you

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.

Agree it is hard to find a poor quality modern guitar today

But IMO it is not about saying old is better than new - I know many guitar players do say this - And it probably stems from the 70's when there was some truth in it - But be it a 50's or 70's guitar I think it is more about preference and whatever 'mojo' represents - That itself can't be explained via words alone - I think it is a distorted term to say old is better - But I see no 'old school mojo history' in a new R8 - Or indeed PRS and I'm a big fan of them - In part as there are tens of thousands of them out there, but that is not a wrong situation - But there is something about old that is still interesting/desirable 

In truth I own a few old guitars - But prefer to play my 'new guitars' - I see one having a use as a tool to do a job - I see the other as having some history and a story that goes with it that does not exist with new

Interesting slant on this - I own an original Epi Coronet - Neil from @IvisonGuitars borrowed my original guitar, to measure all the dimensions to build his own Filmore replica - Months later when I played his replica I instantly thought his guitar played better than mine - Not looks, not tone, as they are the same/similar - If I was actually gigging/recording as an artist, then I'd probably favour using an Ivison - But to enjoy owning it, playing it on a fairly regular basis and been able to talk about it as a 'piece of history' and everything that goes with such a clean original guitar then the Epi wins - Plus whilst I've owned it, maybe 4/5 years now, it has gone up in value by at least 1K - Granted that is part of the reason I purchased it - But equally I purchased it as I like it in many ways - But as a day to day tool to do a professional job then the Ivison would probably win 

victorludorum

Didn't Clapton get one because of Freddie King, and then everyone else piled in because of Eric?

longjaw

£50 in 1967 equates to £671.99 now.

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

p.s. when people only part quote sections of my posts, it means they agree with everything else i said.  I take that you agreed with like 99% what i had posted.

No. It is to focus your attention on the sub-topic.

You wanted to divert to a discussion about the ability of guitar companies to make a world class guitar in 2022. No one is disputing that.

It seems you accept that players in the mid sixties were clamouring for Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul (because you don't have much choice.).

 But you are finding it hard to admit that the players, in 1965 or 1967, who wanted the Gibson Les Paul to return, in 1968,  were influenced in their desire by playing/encountering a particular guitar model  from an 11 year production run. And the name of that guitar was......? And the 11 year production run was.......?

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

p.s. when people only part quote sections of my posts, it means they agree with everything else i said.  I take that you agreed with like 99% what i had posted.

No. It is to focus your attention on the sub-topic.

You wanted to divert to a discussion about the ability of guitar companies to make a world class guitar in 2022. No one is disputing that.

It seems you accept that players in the mid sixties were clamouring for Gibson to bring back the Gibson Les Paul (because you don't have much choice.).

 But you are finding it hard to admit that the players, in 1965 or 1967, who wanted the Gibson Les Paul to return, in 1968,  were influenced in their desire by playing/encountering a particular guitar model  from an 11 year production run. And the name of that guitar was......? And the 11 year production run was.......?

You know the answer to that.

And MY POINT WAS THAT THEY WERE SHIT WHEN THEY RETURNED!  Which made people want the 50's one more, and that reinforced the idea that the 50's ones are magical.

impmann

If you *want* a late 50s Gibson, nothing else will do. Not even if you rationally play something else that sounds as good and plays the same. Thats just because "its a 50s Gibson".

Genuinely, I've played one of the most famous bursts in the world (Greenie)- and I thought it was underwhelming, if I'm honest. I know a few others who have had the same experience of the same guitar. It doesn't take away from the incredible music played on it by the incredible previous owners - but equally, if they hadn't have played that guitar they'd still have been incredible. The guitar does not make the player, but the opposite *IS* true.

And that is where mythology starts - there's a lot of BS and myth about that particular instrument. Genuinely, the neck pickup *is* a bit different and the mid position is obviously but I'm not sure you couldn't recreate it with some clever reverse engineering. What you can't necessarily recreate is the feel (and wear) on the original guitar - and as I said, that particular guitar didn't feel that great. But because its this particular guitar I've also witnessed folks have near religious experiences just being in the same room as it... so who's right? None of us. Its opinion.

So to justify a six-figure sum for a "wreck" of a late 50s Gibson... well, you can't rationally, can you? Its a hunk of wood and wires. The justification is because purely of what it is, what it was and what it can be in a great player's hands (although JoBo probably would sound just the same with a reissue, he gets inspiration from those old guitar associations, stories and 'mojo' - does that make him play differently? Maybe... maybe just in his head).

Thing is, I'm not a fan of "bursts" - I think they're pretty horrid looking IMHO and a Les Paul looks so much more classy in black as a LPC or Gold, pref with P90s as a standard. So my viewpoint is skewed by that possibly - and I can't justify in my head the extra money over a good reissue for 'the real thing'. But others don't share that point of view... and if they've got the money to purchase their dream, I say do it. And in this case, at least this guitar is likely to get played, looked after and others will get enjoyment from hearing JoBo play it. Far better than it sitting under a bed somewhere or in a vault being treated as an 'asset'.

Its an emotive subject, and a lot of it is about whether or not you buy into the argument about old guitars being "better" in some way. But hey, live and let live - if someone wants to spend a fortune on a late 50s Les Paul for whatever reason, who are we to criticise *really*.

guitars4you

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"

Butting in here a bit - The first demand/interest for such guitars did stem in the 60's - Pinpoint The Bluesbreaker album as a strong influence - Not 100% to this album or indeed EC, but a big influence - This started the trend - At this point in time Gibson did not make any LP's, as it was mentioned earlier, they had effectively been deemed as  a product that did not sell in sufficient quantities, to justify their place in the catalogue - Take into account that all factory runs back then are low compared with today

But the reputation for 'older models'  was greatly increased when Gibson increased production numbers, created new variations of the same model, ie type 3 SG's, changed the 335 to trapeze etc so by the time the 70's kicked in and many manufacturing details/features had been changed, the demand for what we now know as 'vintage' kicked in - Even though they were barely 10 years old back then - The term then was that both vintage and old is better than new and probably valid in many ways - Both terms have stuck with us today - But I agree with others that not all old guitars are better - I think we are in a golden era today of building - Be it the likes of Suhr, Anderson, PRS, boutique/custom builders and a host of Custom Shop replicas - I think todays build are in the main far more consistent than in the past - But equally there are so many of the new guitars/replicas and as such they don't have the 'mojo/nostalgia/history' of the past - IMO the term should be about 'preferable' rather than 'better' 

Also add to the above, the whole demand for guitars had increased as the 60's moved on and the 70's began - Look at Gibson's shipping numbers alone for confirmation of this - So more and more players were wanting to buy any guitar - Not all wanted old, but with more players out there, the demand for old also increased accordingly

Two interesting points - That whatever myth EC helped to create with the LP - He soon moved on from the LP - It was a short lived guitar in his own history - I know Beano was stolen, but a) he had access to Andy Summers LP and could have acquired another if so desired - And regarding Fender Guitars, especially the Strat - Today we have all this magical mojo/interest in a Pre-CBS 57 or 62 Strat - Yet you look through the old black and white clips of musical history back then and a Strat barely makes any appearance, especially once Buddy Holy had died - It wasn't until Jimi arrived that strong interest in the Strat arrived - Jimi never played an old guitar - They were all new, of the day, when he played/recorded with them 

bertie

looking back over 2 pages  -   I think the possibly use of  "mythical"  could be better replaced with "mystical"  for as has been said,  the former describes something that definitely never happened,  the latter something that is "unknown"  a "mystery"  !! 

So the wonder of why a 58-60 is so amazing, is more mystical than mythical .    IMHO   

RaymondLin

guitars4you said:

Butting in here a bit - The first demand/interest for such guitars did stem in the 60's - Pinpoint The Bluesbreaker album as a strong influence - Not 100% to this album or indeed EC, but a big influence - This started the trend - At this point in time Gibson did not make any LP's, as it was mentioned earlier, they had effectively been deemed as  a product that did not sell in sufficient quantities, to justify their place in the catalogue - Take into account that all factory runs back then are low compared with today

But the reputation for 'older models'  was greatly increased when Gibson increased production numbers, created new variations of the same model, ie type 3 SG's, changed the 335 to trapeze etc so by the time the 70's kicked in and many manufacturing details/features had been changed, the demand for what we now know as 'vintage' kicked in - Even though they were barely 10 years old back then - The term then was that both vintage and old is better than new and probably valid in many ways - Both terms have stuck with us today - But I agree with others that not all old guitars are better - I think we are in a golden era today of building - Be it the likes of Suhr, Anderson, PRS, boutique/custom builders and a host of Custom Shop replicas - I think todays build are in the main far more consistent than in the past - But equally there are so many of the new guitars/replicas and as such they don't have the 'mojo/nostalgia/history' of the past - IMO the term should be about 'preferable' rather than 'better' 

Also add to the above, the whole demand for guitars had increased as the 60's moved on and the 70's began - Look at Gibson's shipping numbers alone for confirmation of this - So more and more players were wanting to buy any guitar - Not all wanted old, but with more players out there, the demand for old also increased accordingly

Two interesting points - That whatever myth EC helped to create with the LP - He soon moved on from the LP - It was a short lived guitar in his own history - I know Beano was stolen, but a) he had access to Andy Summers LP and could have acquired another if so desired - And regarding Fender Guitars, especially the Strat - Today we have all this magical mojo/interest in a Pre-CBS 57 or 62 Strat - Yet you look through the old black and white clips of musical history back then and a Strat barely makes any appearance, especially once Buddy Holy had died - It wasn't until Jimi arrived that strong interest in the Strat arrived - Jimi never played an old guitar - They were all new, of the day, when he played/recorded with them 

I think EC and co would have and does sound good no matter what they played.  It just happened that they picked those guitars then, i mean there wasn't that many to choose from to begin with.

Maradona's shirt from 1986 WC sold for £6mil, he was a great player not because of some magical property of that shirt, he was just a great footballer (despite that cheating part).  He would have still been as talented with another shirt.  That shirt is worth that much due to the history.  A burst belonged to EC or Green or Page is worth that much due to it's history.  Another football shirt from 1986 won't be worth the same as Maradona's one because it's also made in 1986...the idea that another guitar with no association to any of our heroes can fetch silly amount just baffles me.  I understand having something with a connection with historical significance, but the price rising because simply because of the same batch is strange, more strange to think it's somehow better too.

newi123

When talking about values people always make the mistake of trying to value this as a guitar - `it doesn`t play better than xxxxx` which is probably very, very true. But whoever is buying this, or indeed any vintage guitar is not buying a guitar, they are buying an antique, and it`s priced as such based purely on supply and demand.

You could have the conversation about anything - `my oak furniture land table works just as well as that Louis XVI table - `GTO engineering can build me a 250 GTO replica that`s better than the real thing for £4m, why would I buy a real one for £25m?`

In each case the value bares virtually no relationship to how it functions in its original role.

So is a 59 Les Paul the pinnacle of excellence, the best guitar ever etc etc etc? - who knows! I`ll certainly never play one. But in the great scheme of values that question is totally moot.

impmann

guitars4you said:

Today we have all this magical mojo/interest in a Pre-CBS 57 or 62 Strat - Yet you look through the old black and white clips of musical history back then and a Strat barely makes any appearance, especially once Buddy Holy had died - It wasn't until Jimi arrived that strong interest in the Strat arrived - Jimi never played an old guitar - They were all new, of the day, when he played/recorded with them 

Not sure thats 100% true as you had the Hank Marvin wannabes... I was still selling red Strats to them in the early 90s as old men!!

RaymondLin

Sure, the antique angle is certainly valid, but listen to any of these advocate of vintage guitar, they will almost all say they are better than modern ones, or tones that are not found in modern ones, etc etc etc.

With antique they don't talk about "this table makes my coffee taste nicer"

Skipped

RaymondLin said:

And MY POINT WAS THAT THEY WERE SHIT WHEN THEY RETURNED!  Which made people want the 50's one more, and that reinforced the idea that the 50's ones are magical.

That is debatable. My '68 Les Paul did not completely satisfy me. But it was not shit. Let's get some more opinions on that.

The fifties Les Pauls  that created  the demand for the '68 Les Paul were not shit. They were very desirable. But the players who managed to play a 50's Les Paul, and who then wanted Gibson to bring back the Les Paul , were probably thinking that Ted McCarty did a great job, and wondering if there would be another era like that.

If one of them joins the thread you can say to them. "YES YOU WANTED ONE. BUT WHEN THEY WENT INTO PRODUCTION THEY WERE SHIT. THEY WERE NOTHING LIKE THE 50s LES PAULS THAT MADE YOU WANT TO TRY A '68."

And they will reply. "Stop shouting. I didn't buy the'68 becasue it was a bit heavy. Maybe it was those left over bodies. LOL. And you are right...... the 50's guitars are  great. Joe Bonamassa knows guitars......"

RaymondLin

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

And MY POINT WAS THAT THEY WERE SHIT WHEN THEY RETURNED!  Which made people want the 50's one more, and that reinforced the idea that the 50's ones are magical.

That is debatable. My '68 Les Paul did not completely satisfy me. But it was not shit. Let's get some more opinions on that.

The fifties Les Pauls  that created  the demand for the '68 Les Paul were not shit. They were very desirable. But the players who managed to play a 50's Les Paul, and who then wanted Gibson to bring back the Les Paul , were probably thinking that Ted McCarty did a great job, and wondering if there would be another era like that.

If one of them joins the thread you can say to them. "YES YOU WANTED ONE. BUT WHEN THEY WENT INTO PRODUCTION THEY WERE SHIT. THEY WERE NOTHING LIKE THE 50s LES PAULS THAT MADE YOU WANT TO TRY A '68."

And they will reply. "Stop shouting. I didn't buy the'68 becasue it was a bit heavy. Maybe it was those left over bodies. LOL. And you are right...... the 50's guitars are  great. Joe Bonamassa knows guitars......"

The fifties LP did not create the demand for 68 LP.  EC and other guitar players used those guitars created the demand.  Had those guitar players used a coat hanger, consumers, aka sheep (and i am one of them) who would buy everything our heroes play, would have demanded more coat hangers. 

The fifties guitars themselves did not create the demand, the fact that they disappeared off the catalog tells you everything you needed to know.  That they were not in demand.  They were in demand not because they were the best thing ever, they were in demand because some young up and coming guitar hero played one and it sounded good and we, the public want to immitate.  

stonevibe

I think new fangled Fenders just looked more "modern" in the late '50s and so Les Paul looked pretty dated back then. Well, in comparison to those darn Fenders... 

PhilKing

The real problem was that Gibson didn't actually bring back the 50's Les Pauls.   The Deluxe never existed in the 50's, as the mini-humbuckers were left over from the Epiphone stock, and the Custom was released with 2 pickups (which was an improvement in my opinion), but had a maple capped pancake body (after mid-70).  They also added the volute to strengthen the neck, changed the headstock width and angle and other differences (the humbuckers were T-Tops, which are different sounding to PAF's).  I have played and sold many 70's Les Pauls (I worked in music retail in the early to mid 70's), and used to own a 72 Les Paul Custom that, in hidsight, was one of the best Les Paul Custom's that I've played.  It also wasn't very heavy, unlike some of them.

That is why aftermarket pickups became popular, and why a lot of deluxe's were routed out for humbuckers.   Also, the Cherry Sunburst was pretty extreme, as it was much more 60's based, with a bright red.

They still sold a lot of them, but they didn't look like the ones that Page, Green and others were using.  Until the good quality Japanese copies started to come in, Norlin (who owned Gibson at the time), never thought about going back to the original styling.  Some big American stores (like Guitar Trader), were able to get them to make limited runs of more accurate guitars, but Gibson's own attempts were based on the wrong models (the 72 reissues were a Standard with P-90's, a Les Paul Custom with P-90 & Staple and a Les Paul Special, none of which were in great demand at the time).

With Fenders at the time, the pre-CBS guitars were always better feeling than the CBS versions, though some of the 60's ones were alright.  

guitars4you

impmann said:

guitars4you said:

Today we have all this magical mojo/interest in a Pre-CBS 57 or 62 Strat - Yet you look through the old black and white clips of musical history back then and a Strat barely makes any appearance, especially once Buddy Holy had died - It wasn't until Jimi arrived that strong interest in the Strat arrived - Jimi never played an old guitar - They were all new, of the day, when he played/recorded with them 

Not sure thats 100% true as you had the Hank Marvin wannabes... I was still selling red Strats to them in the early 90s as old men!!

100% correct and stupid of me to ignore HM's influence on this - What the reverse of this is by the early 60's HM had moved to Burns, so can equally say his early days of a Strat were the late 50's - I know he has been 100% a Strat man later on, but there was that period when he was a Burns man - But thanks for pointing a big error on my part

guitars4you

RaymondLin said:

Skipped said:

RaymondLin said:

And MY POINT WAS THAT THEY WERE SHIT WHEN THEY RETURNED!  Which made people want the 50's one more, and that reinforced the idea that the 50's ones are magical.

That is debatable. My '68 Les Paul did not completely satisfy me. But it was not shit. Let's get some more opinions on that.

The fifties Les Pauls  that created  the demand for the '68 Les Paul were not shit. They were very desirable. But the players who managed to play a 50's Les Paul, and who then wanted Gibson to bring back the Les Paul , were probably thinking that Ted McCarty did a great job, and wondering if there would be another era like that.

If one of them joins the thread you can say to them. "YES YOU WANTED ONE. BUT WHEN THEY WENT INTO PRODUCTION THEY WERE SHIT. THEY WERE NOTHING LIKE THE 50s LES PAULS THAT MADE YOU WANT TO TRY A '68."

And they will reply. "Stop shouting. I didn't buy the'68 becasue it was a bit heavy. Maybe it was those left over bodies. LOL. And you are right...... the 50's guitars are  great. Joe Bonamassa knows guitars......"

The fifties LP did not create the demand for 68 LP.  EC and other guitar players used those guitars created the demand.  Had those guitar players used a coat hanger, consumers, aka sheep (and i am one of them) who would buy everything our heroes play, would have demanded more coat hangers. 

The fifties guitars themselves did not create the demand, the fact that they disappeared off the catalog tells you everything you needed to know.  That they were not in demand.  They were in demand not because they were the best thing ever, they were in demand because some young up and coming guitar hero played one and it sounded good and we, the public want to immitate.  

The additional point to look at is this

Whatever virtues we have bestowed on the Bluesbreaker album, at the time it was an 'underground' album and live act - Small bars + clubs as well - We had to wait a few years later for the likes of Pete Green - Remember that in the late 60's the record sales of Fleetwood Mac eclipsed those of The Beatles and The Stones combined - Then a touch later for Kossoff, Jimmy and even Bad Company to show the Burst LP to a 'wider main stream audience' - By then the whole industry had moved up a gear - stadium rock/festivals and a far larger customer base of guitar players - So a case to be said that Pete, Jimmy, Paul and Mike created a larger market place, for the Burst, to a main stream audience, than EC's initial yet important impact

Add to this the very small availability of USA gear in the UK - I've spoke for many years now to key players in the music trade who worked behind the counter in the late 60's and early 70's - Like Ken Archard, ex Top Gear/Denmark Street, Dixie Kidd and Keith Woodcock - In the early 60's we were still under a war time embargo for USA goods, so the number of Bursts that ever arrived in the UK was very small - they would tell you that to see such a guitar in the shop was a rare event - Importers of the day like Selmer's struggled to get many Gibson Guitars into the UK and to the dealers - So by the time customers wanted to get a burst there was little choice available - This reflects in the ATB customer paying £50 around 67 for his LP, and Bernie Marsden paying over double that only 3/4 years later 

Looking back, it is hard to believe that when Gibson brought back the LP, we had no figured maple top bursts - Gold Top + Black were the major players - In fact we didn't get a flame top burst for many many years later - For a short while in the USA, 'vintage pioneer' dealers like Guitar Trader and Jimmy Wallace commissioned a small run of such guitars - Not really replicas as we know today, but more akin to a figured top Burst then a gold top or ebony Custom - Add to this the changes Gibson applied like maple necks, pan cake bodies and you can see why some players wanted an 'old burst' - Yet only a few existed in the UK - So the reason we had such demand is varied 

guitars4you

PhilKing said:

The real problem was that Gibson didn't actually bring back the 50's Les Pauls.   The Deluxe never existed in the 50's, as the mini-humbuckers were left over from the Epiphone stock, and the Custom was released with 2 pickups (which was an improvement in my opinion), but had a maple capped pancake body (after mid-70).  They also added the volute to strengthen the neck, changed the headstock width and angle and other differences (the humbuckers were T-Tops, which are different sounding to PAF's).  I have played and sold many 70's Les Pauls (I worked in music retail in the early to mid 70's), and used to own a 72 Les Paul Custom that, in hidsight, was one of the best Les Paul Custom's that I've played.  It also wasn't very heavy, unlike some of them.

That is why aftermarket pickups became popular, and why a lot of deluxe's were routed out for humbuckers.   Also, the Cherry Sunburst was pretty extreme, as it was much more 60's based, with a bright red.

They still sold a lot of them, but they didn't look like the ones that Page, Green and others were using.  Until the good quality Japanese copies started to come in, Norlin (who owned Gibson at the time), never thought about going back to the original styling.  Some big American stores (like Guitar Trader), were able to get them to make limited runs of more accurate guitars, but Gibson's own attempts were based on the wrong models (the 72 reissues were a Standard with P-90's, a Les Paul Custom with P-90 & Staple and a Les Paul Special, none of which were in great demand at the time).

With Fenders at the time, the pre-CBS guitars were always better feeling than the CBS versions, though some of the 60's ones were alright.  

So true and in many ways you've said what I think I've been trying to say but somehow didn't - As I just posted above, it makes you wonder why Gibson never produced a 'current' version/interpretation of a 59 burst  in the late 60's early 70's - Yes I know the demand was poor in 1959, but by this time, Pete, Jimmy, Paul and Mike Ralph's were big influences on a growing market place, along with the likes of USA dealers like Guitar Trader - We had to wait till the mid 70's to get a sunburst Std and that was a plain top version with the wrong 'tomato soup burst' - They obviously did not read the market place and probably did not listen to the dealers and customers back then - Maybe they had supply and or cost issues in getting such a guitar ready for the dealers - I wasn't around back then, so can only guess - So yes the influence of the players came into play, plus what was on the dealers wall, or should I say what wasn't on the dealers wall

You started before me Phil - Can you remember any/many 59 Burst in your days on the shop wall 

guitars4you

@PhilKing - I love the whole social history side and changes to the shops + changes to popular music during all the 50's and 60's

What we now know as 'Rock Shops' or even dedicated guitar shops just did not exist - Many were old family business, with brass, woodwind, violins, sheet music and run by old guys like my Granddad - All dressed in old style suits like Macmillan - My dad tells me the story that when all the 'beat group' era started like the Beatles etc, my Granddad said it won't last, they can't even play properly - Such shops catered for the old school 'dance musicians' - Equally my dad tells the story when he was pro on the Mecca Circuit and working for Ray McVay - He told Granddad to come and see the band as it was so modern and fun etc, so Granddad turned up and left 10 mins later in disgust - Dad (sax player) was lying on his back in sexual positions etc and Granddad said I did not teach you to play so you could prostitute your art

You had forward thinking guys like Lee Andertons dad - Pete - Who was a young lad/drummer in a 'rock band' who wanted to drive the business away from a dance band shop to something more modern so years ahead of his time - You had the Denmark St shops and new kids on the block like Keith Woodcock with the Carlsbro shops, JSG, Dixie at Dandelion - But so many old school shops who would have a few European f-hole arch top guitars and a couple of old school drum kits - So any Gibson was rare

Then you look at Gibson and all the promo material was aimed at a few Jazz players - Yet shipping totals for this 'endorsees' is poor/low - Johnny Smith, Barney Kessel etc - The Les Paul was never designed to do back then what the likes of Slash do to it today - So we were surrounded by old school ideas 

I recall an old 'history of rock n roll' documentary - And white Christian America did not want this rebellious 'black' influenced music that the kids wanted - by the late 50's they thought they had nipped it in the bud - Elvis joined the army - Buddy Holly had died - Little Richard had gone to God, Jerry Lee was now disgraced - Everything went white, clean cut Bobbyy this and Bobby that - Then the presenters stands on a beach by the Atlantic and finishes the documentary saying that just over the pond, in a small bar in Liverpool 4 lads changed music for ever - This time there was no stopping it 

But all the shops were still old school - So getting hold of such gear was scarce - Denmark St/Shaftesbury Ave was so influential in all of this and changing the face of music shops - Staffed by young 'rock star' hippies - And these shops sold used gear as well as new 

I dare say we'll never know, but would be interesting to know how many 58/59/60 LP's ever made it back in the day