# Gibson Les Paul Deluxe 1968



## David's gas station (Jul 26, 2020)

What do you think? Looks like a real players.





登录 Facebook


登录 Facebook，与好友、家人和认识的人分享和建立联系。




www.facebook.com


----------



## Johnny6String (Aug 27, 2018)

David's gas station said:


> What do you think? Looks like a real players.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could be wrong but don’t think Gibson was using pancake body construction in ‘68 yet.
Case looks more 70’s to me too, of coarse may not be original case.
Deluxe also would have had mini hums as well, but lots have been routed over the years.
I would guess this could be an early 70’s standard.
All guess work from the pics though, like I said could be wrong.
Johnny


----------



## Permanent Waves (Jun 2, 2020)

The case is a Gen 2 Chainsaw case (mid-70's?) and probably not original. The pancake body and no dot on the i point it to post-69. If it was originally a Deluxe, it was routed for humbuckers like mine was. Serials are confusing - few records exist and many were re-used, so usually the best you can pinpoint is 71-74.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Someone loved it a lot, whatever it is. Don't we pay huge bucks for a relic job like that these days? 3K for an early 70's LP with mojo doesn't seem out of line to me. I get that it is somewhat beat looking, would want an in hand inspection and play through, but otherwise....


----------



## fernieite (Oct 30, 2006)

Looks cool. Definitely not a 68 though.

Early deluxes were gold tops. Cherry sunburst was an option first in 1971, I think; and tobacco like this was perhaps even later. (1972?)

I would think this should have a volute and a made in USA stamp, but I can't make it out.

Pot dates, if original, would be very helpful in dating this one.

Wouldn't it be cool if it was modded with actual PAFs or early pat number humbuckers?! 
( I suppose it could be a rare 1970s factory humbuckered Deluxe though)


----------



## pckpat (Aug 19, 2009)

Some good info on this site. 1968 Les Paul and 1969 Les Paul Serial Number Information


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Could be the angle of the photos, but it looks like a big (i.e. early 70s paddle) headstock. The closed “b” and “o” in the logo also indicate 70s.


----------



## David's gas station (Jul 26, 2020)

I'm actually not in the market for a Les Paul, but it looks like a guitar with mojo if someone here looking for one. Like twenty years ago i had an old goldtop deluxe and i never been able to tell if it was a 69 or 70. It have like a soft volute and serialhad overlap in these years... i wish i kept it. But it helps me pay my University debt.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

100% NOT a 68. 3 piece neck, fat headstock, pancake body. You'd have to really love that guitar to pay 3k for it.
Although, no breaks/repairs to speak of, people spend way more than that on a relic Fender. I'd be curious to know what pickups are in ther. If they are period T-tops, it's worth a look.


----------



## Permanent Waves (Jun 2, 2020)

Well, it sold... I am curious if he got the full amount he was asking. Mine's a 74 (pot codes 73) in Cherry sunburst in better cosmetic shape, but with 2 extensive headstock repairs (last one 25 years ago). I'd never sell it, but I'm curious how much it's worth. One thing is for sure, those guitars have a lot of Mojo.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Permanent Waves said:


> Well, it sold... I am curious if he got the full amount he was asking. Mine's a 74 (pot codes 73) in Cherry sunburst in better cosmetic shape, but with 2 extensive headstock repairs (last one 25 years ago). I'd never sell it, but I'm curious how much it's worth. One thing is for sure, those guitars have a lot of Mojo.


I'd be interested in knowing what it sold for as well...hope the buyer knew it wasnt a 68 and paid accordingly.

FWIW, Im not usually a lowballer, I considered offerring him 2200-ish...too many qualities I dont desire about that one and the condition looked...risky. I might have gone higher if I could check it out locally.
But it had a coolness to it that intrigued me.


----------

