Incredible Story: Rare Gibson LP Guitar Found in the UK

RaymondLin

downbytheriver said:

I do think there are some rather extraordinary opinions being expressed in this thread - nothing wrong with that as long you respect different views. 

I find it hard to think that the reputation of the burst was established at any time other than pre-68. What happened in the 70s only happened because of what happened pre-68. 

Also to say that nothing could be made in the 50s that couldn’t be made today misses a rather large point - not only were guitars made differently then, but if you are convinced that’s true let’s drop back a couple of hundred years and by the same argument make me a Stradivarius. Good luck 

You do know that they did the whole Stradivarius thing in a blind test, your argument don't stack up when people try to prove it.  They did the tests, twice, by different people, in different years, it failed, both times.

2014
https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article

2017
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

It is also clear to me that Pre-68 the reputation of the LP was that it was a failed product.  The damn thing got canceled, then replaced with a different model in the catalog to take it's place.  If that is not proof that it wasn't a hit pre-68, I don't know what is.  

mark123

RaymondLin said:

downbytheriver said:

I do think there are some rather extraordinary opinions being expressed in this thread - nothing wrong with that as long you respect different views. 

I find it hard to think that the reputation of the burst was established at any time other than pre-68. What happened in the 70s only happened because of what happened pre-68. 

Also to say that nothing could be made in the 50s that couldn’t be made today misses a rather large point - not only were guitars made differently then, but if you are convinced that’s true let’s drop back a couple of hundred years and by the same argument make me a Stradivarius. Good luck 

You do know that they did the whole Stradivarius thing in a blind test, your argument failed, twice.  They did the tests, twice, by different people, in different years.

2014
https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article

2017
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

I would love Joe Bonammassa blindfolded experiment and someone A/B   a few 50s les pauls against some modern ones with quality pick ups installed.

downbytheriver

It is also clear to me that Pre-68 the reputation of the LP was that it was a failed product.  The damn thing got canceled, then replaced with a different model in the catalog to take it's place.  If that is not proof that it wasn't a hit pre-68, I don't know what is.  

You have found two articles that suit your argument on Strads. Congratulations. It’s not the overwhelming opinion that you seem to think it’s is.

As for your repeatedly stated position that the Burst was a failed product and nothing more pre-68… 

The Burst reputation was built post 1960 and pre-68. That’s indisputable. It’s the reason that Gibson started making them again. 

Collectible prices are driven by two things only. Desirability and rarity. If you don’t desire something, that’s great for you but it doesn’t convey the right to tell everyone else that they’re wrong. Not that they are listening of course. 

26.2

Many bald men fighting over a comb.

RaymondLin

downbytheriver said:

It is also clear to me that Pre-68 the reputation of the LP was that it was a failed product.  The damn thing got canceled, then replaced with a different model in the catalog to take it's place.  If that is not proof that it wasn't a hit pre-68, I don't know what is.  

You have found two articles that suit your argument on Strads. Congratulations. It’s not the overwhelming opinion that you seem to think it’s is.

As for your repeatedly stated position that the Burst was a failed product and nothing more pre-68… 

The Burst reputation was built post 1960 and pre-68. That’s indisputable. It’s the reason that Gibson started making them again. 

Collectible prices are driven by two things only. Desirability and rarity. If you don’t desire something, that’s great for you but it doesn’t convey the right to tell everyone else that they’re wrong. Not that they are listening of course. 

I didn't find 2 articles to suit me, I tried to be fair so simply googled "Stradivarius blind test", and there is no bias in those search words, I didn't say which way it would go, then I posted the top 2 links results, didn't even go down and picked my favourites.  You can do the same and it will result in the same.

Feel free to try find me 3 articles, from sites such as those, using unbiased search words, not your bedroom tester, and make it a 3-2 win for your side?  I think that's perfectly fair.

I really struggle to understand how a product, any product, seemingly amazing, everybody loved...from a company the size of Gibson, only sold in low 4 digits (less than 2000), worldwide in 3 years count as desired.  It certainly wasn't at the time.  If it was, it would have sold more, it would have stayed in the catalog.  it's reputation came after it was discontinued, I am not disputing that part but they were not a hit during their production run.  Your opinion is your opinion but opinions don't change facts

1 - It sold in low numbers in 3 years
2 - It got cancelled
3 - It then got replaced

And then some guitarist call Eric and his friends played them and consumers wanted what their heroes used, but because they were not made anymore it creates the same psychological thing that still exists today. Limited numbers drives demand, you know that, I know that. I don’t dispute that. There are basically 2 different topics here

1 - what happened whey they were being made

They were not desirable enough, at least not enough to be kept on the catalog

2 - what happened AFTER does not change the FACTS that it was removed from the catalog.  It failed right up until 1968 when it was brought back and stayed on the catalog.

The bursts' desirability came from not of their physical nature but the limited numbers and that a bunch of people in the 60's to 70's played them and recorded with them on famous records.  The artist makes the guitar.  70's guitars are generally considered as crap, but people want Adam Jones' Silverburst.   I bet you, had there been more wood left from that fireplace or furniture or whatnot which Brian May made his guitar out of, those log would fetch 6 figures too just because.

downbytheriver

Fine. I can’t argue with this. Actually, that’s not true, I just can’t be bothered to argue with it. 

Yes it’s a failed product. Everybody else is just wrong. What a load of crap the 50s burst is. You can tell because the 70s ones were crap. 

By the way, your two articles refer to the same test. Did you even read them? 

Blaendulais

Brize said:

mark123 said:

Firstly i'm not on a Atb wich hunt,he was hohnest andbopen with her ,so why the secrecy over the price he bought it for ? if he gave her a fair amount e.g 70k then no problem ,but to not disclose the amount seems a bit strange.

Could you please upload a copy of your payslip or tax return so that we can pry into your financial affairs?

Totally not the same mate. You just cant let it go sometimes can you  .

Philly_Q

Why is everyone getting so worked up?  

guitars4you

mark123 said:

Well the pitchforks are well and truly out for me can i just clarify a few points.
1. I have never accused atb  of anything .

2. Just a genuine question wondering how much the lady got,which has turned me into public enemy no1.

3. I'll mind my own business and not come back to this thread.

Mark - Please join in - Hope this doesn't sound patronising - I have no pitch forks flying  towards you - I passed a comment, admittedly under your name, but also referring to other comments/posts previous to yours, that there is an implication, that Mike/ATB has either been un-economical with the truth, and/or not disclosed his fees/purchase price and/or capitalism should not be allowed - I stand by my post - But I have no pitch fork

But in this instance Mike/ATB has been very upfront about the whole process and I don't see why he should disclose his fees - I have a number of guitars on my web site - Purchased from many different sources, including a few from various FB members - I don't show my cost price - As long as I offer a fair product at a fair price with a fair service and consumers accept it, than surely all is hunky dory 

Brize

mark123 said:

Brize said:

mark123 said:

Firstly i'm not on a Atb wich hunt,he was hohnest andbopen with her ,so why the secrecy over the price he bought it for ? if he gave her a fair amount e.g 70k then no problem ,but to not disclose the amount seems a bit strange.

Could you please upload a copy of your payslip or tax return so that we can pry into your financial affairs?

oooooooooohh..... touched a nerve ?

Not at all - I don't have any skin in this game. It's your nerves that seem jangled by not being privy to the details of a private financial transaction.

Brize

Blaendulais said:

Totally not the same mate.

Please do explain how the details of a transaction between a guitar dealer and one of their vendors or consignors should be any more in the public domain than your or my salary.

RaymondLin

Cost prices are seldom shown from businesses. 

The contract of sale is between 2 parties, especially between to private individuals, it's not anyone else's business, and not your business to know about the transaction or its details.  They can reveal as much or as little of it as they want.  3rd parties have no right to ask for more.  ATB is not a publicly-traded company, they do not need to disclose their financial records to its shareholders or us.

Why ATB telling us the tale? PR.

But how much they want to tell, their decision, we can believe it, or not, we can speculate, we can ask but we have no right to expect an answer.

The only other person who know the answer is the taxman.

Offset

Philly_Q said:

Why is everyone getting so worked up?  

I dunno, but I'm equally perplexed as to why some feel Mike @ ATB should reveal what he paid for the wretched guitar.  It's no-one's business but his, and from everything that's been said on this thread it seems like everyone came out of this three-way transaction happy.

impmann

I just watched the video…

it was last played in 1970
it has been refretted 
it needs a refret 
it’s had the pickups rewound
the bridge posts are snapped 
the Bigsby has extensive wear and is missing the arm
they “don’t know” if it works
its filthy yet it’s been inside a case

Im sorry… but in 1967 when it was allegedly purchased for £50, it was seven years old. When retired it was 10.
Conveniently, it’s a serial number that hasn’t been registered before (even in Gibson’s log?) but there are bursts either side of the number.
Am i the only one suspicious about it? 

Hattigol

impmann said:

I just watched the video…

it was last played in 1970
it has been refretted 
it needs a refret 
it’s had the pickups rewound
the bridge posts are snapped 
the Bigsby has extensive wear and is missing the arm
they “don’t know” if it works
its filthy yet it’s been inside a case

Im sorry… but in 1967 when it was allegedly purchased for £50, it was seven years old. When retired it was 10.
Conveniently, it’s a serial number that hasn’t been registered before (even in Gibson’s log?) but there are bursts either side of the number.
Am i the only one suspicious about it? 

Yes.

RaymondLin

I am feeling very Victor Meldew today but am still trying to find the incredible part of the story...

A random nobody buys a Les Paul in 67 after seeing Clapton play one (probably would be bought a Strat instead had Clapton played a Strat on stage).

Isn’t that almost every story of every young guitarist ever told on planet earth?

How is that a great story? It’s the most generic, boring one that we all have. Or is it the story of the Antique Roadshow-esq part where he paid only £50? But that was the market price back then. It’s the same story as someone getting a bitcoin for £20 10 years ago too?

Am I missing something?

Plus, yet another Burst surfaces, only log books for like 800 or so but we have like almost 2000 known ones.  I dunno, i am feeling very Meldew!

Philly_Q

impmann said:

Conveniently, it’s a serial number that hasn’t been registered before (even in Gibson’s log?) but there are bursts either side of the number.

I think he said the serial number hadn't been "circulated" - which I took to mean it hadn't spent decades travelling around the world from collector to collector.   That just seemed consistent with it being in the hands of a single owner.

Brize

RaymondLin said:

How is that a great story? It’s the most generic, boring one that we all have. Or is it the story of the Antique Roadshow-esq part where he paid only £50? But that was the market price back then. It’s the same story as someone getting a bitcoin for £20 10 years ago too?

Am I missing something?

What you're missing is the novelty of it having surfaced in the UK.

Brize

impmann said:

Conveniently, it’s a serial number that hasn’t been registered before (even in Gibson’s log?)

The 1959-1960 shipping ledger has been missing from Gibson's archives for many years, so this guitar is a piece of history that no one knew existed.

IvisonGuitars

impmann said:

I just watched the video…

it was last played in 1970
it has been refretted 
it needs a refret 
it’s had the pickups rewound
the bridge posts are snapped 
the Bigsby has extensive wear and is missing the arm
they “don’t know” if it works
its filthy yet it’s been inside a case

Im sorry… but in 1967 when it was allegedly purchased for £50, it was seven years old. When retired it was 10.
Conveniently, it’s a serial number that hasn’t been registered before (even in Gibson’s log?) but there are bursts either side of the number.
Am i the only one suspicious about it? 

I think you are, I've inspected this guitar at length and it's exactly what it is claimed to be.