It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The CC's from 2013/2014 are possibly the ones to give your consideration to as I think they were taking a little more time and effort over them - the Custom Shop was soon churning them out, and I'm sure any potential superior quality dwindled as a result.
Ironically, some of the 2012 CC's are deemed the most collectible runs in spite of the fact that they may have laminate fingerboards. For some reason, the collector's choose to see past this possibility for such models but will beat you down for this very reason if it's just a regular 2012 CS LP!
I'm open to the possibility of snagging a "Greg Martin" should one become available.
As an aside, "Skinnerburst" wasn't a CC - it was an artist run, and so immediately (particularly if signed) will attract a higher relative value.
They still lose a chunk if bought from new, though.
My reason for asking is i've seen a rather nice STP burst for sale at a decent price and I'm wondering wether to use the money I have allocated for a 50's Les Paul junior on the STP burst instead.
I just need to find one now!
Hands-up, I'm no expert here and someone who is may wish to correct me. However, my thoughts . . .
I guess the Artist designation can occur if there is (obviously) a very strong artist connection to a specific guitar, particularly if they can get that artist involved in the process and, for the icing on the cake, get the artist to sign a limited number of the run (aged + signed = top dollar). Skinnerburst was a great recent example, and Pearly Gates was also another serious example.
That's not stopped artist runs happening where the artist hasn't really been involved, or only on the periphery.
The CC series casts a wider net across all historical LP's, and leaves Gibson not having to worry about artist involvement and the like (the owner might be an anonymous collector, so little to be gained in that regard). However, there have been some CC's which have "reproduced" artists guitars so I guess it comes down to what Gibson think they can get most buck for, or how inclined a famous owner is to get involved and actually put their name to the run.
Hope that helps, or doesn't add to the confusion!
The fadeds generally feel and sound livelier and more organic than guitars with grain filler and a thicker nitro finish.
None of the fadeds I own exhibit that very annoying thing where you play some notes on the fretboard and they just go "plink". All the notes on my fadeds ring out clearly with good sustain all across the fretboard.
The fadeds are more responsive to upgrades and tweaks. When I tweak them I actually hear the differences, and don't wonder if I'm imagining it or not. That, and their original price points, made them really good candidates for upgrades and such if you like that sort of thing.
The historics were really nice guitars, but at two or three times the price, they didn't give me more than the fadeds did, and sometimes actually less.
But then I also currently own a Gretsch Panther with a poly finish, and it's a lovely guitar. Every bit as good as the fadeds, and actually more versatile. Very different thing, though, so...
All just IMHO. No guarantees implied. Whatever works for you works for you but might not work for the next guy.
You're very welcome. I'm not planning on selling any time soon, but these do still come up on Ebay and Gumtree from time to time.
I'm not knocking the historics at all, btw - my experience was just a little bit different from the relatively small selection of guitars I've owned and could compare.