# Thoughts on 59' burst.



## srv33 (Mar 2, 2009)

Okay, just thought Id throw this up cause I need to know. The 59 burst can go for about a mil today if sold. I know how its a great guitar and all the best players used them blah blah blah blah blah. But no guitar is worth that much in my mind. I feel like it has been a concious effort by gibson and other people to raise this guitars value as a way of benefitting themselves. I would not be complaining if they were around 200 000, thats understandable. But i feel like they are riding on pure intangible qualities in terms of price. Just my two cents, have your say cause I want to hear it.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

My say is this:

something's monetary value is only worth what someone will pay for it.

I can't see myself paying over $4K for a guitar (before taxes/shipping)... and the only time I plan on spending over say $2K is when I order a Sherman.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

srv33 said:


> I would not be complaining if they were around 200 000, thats understandable.


Really??? That doesn't seems unreasonable to you? Do you have 200k to spend on a guitar?

Bottom line, the people who _do_ have 200k to drop on a guitar are likely the same people who can potentially spend 7 figures on one as well. Is a Picasso or Van Gogh worth over $100 million? Who cares. Some people have indicated that they are, because they've spent that much on them. I, personally, don't have that kind of money, nor will I ever.


----------



## srv33 (Mar 2, 2009)

The only reason I said it would be reasonable is because other famous guitars from that era go for around that sometimes. I DO NOT ever plan on spending much more than 3k for an axe.


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

If I have not already mentioned it, this book is a must read...truly fascinating history of the guitar gods, their guitars, the vintage guitar market-history & future, fake vintage guitars, etc.

I am seeing lots of indications that the vintage bubble has burst. There are some incredible vintage guitars shaking loose, for much less than they were a year ago.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I don't really care because I have set my personal guitar spending limit at $900,000.

I will never be able to afford a 59 Burst.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

rhh7 said:


> If I have not already mentioned it, this book is a must read...truly fascinating history of the guitar gods, their guitars, the vintage guitar market-history & future, fake vintage guitars, etc.
> 
> I am seeing lots of indications that the vintage bubble has burst. There are some incredible vintage guitars shaking loose, for much less than they were a year ago.


I saw this book in the bookstore and leafed through it for a while. Seems interesting. I'll probably pick it up soon.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

rhh7 said:


> If I have not already mentioned it, this book is a must read...truly fascinating history of the guitar gods, their guitars, the vintage guitar market-history & future, fake vintage guitars, etc.
> 
> I am seeing lots of indications that the vintage bubble has burst. There are some incredible vintage guitars shaking loose, for much less than they were a year ago.


I'm reading it right now, it's a fascinating read in many ways--a lot of stuff I already know in some parts as well--but sometimes put together differently.

If I somehow was given or inherited a 58-60 Burst I would sell it--even if I only got 200,000 for it--pay off some bills, and buy a few guitars and some other gear--and still have money left over.

I would play it a bit--just to say I did, and hope the mystique didn't make me keep it. But can you imagine the level of insurance you'd need on one of those? I'd be afraid to take it out of the house if it cost that much.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

In some cases, it'd have the equivalent value of the house you're in! that'd be weird "my guitar is worth 10 times as much as my car's sticker price" lol


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

zontar said:


> I'm reading it right now, it's a fascinating read in many ways--a lot of stuff I already know in some parts as well--but sometimes put together differently.
> 
> If I somehow was given or inherited a 58-60 Burst I would sell it--even if I only got 200,000 for it--pay off some bills, and buy a few guitars and some other gear--and still have money left over.
> 
> I would play it a bit--just to say I did, and hope the mystique didn't make me keep it. But can you imagine the level of insurance you'd need on one of those? I'd be afraid to take it out of the house if it cost that much.


Know a young fella here at work inherited his Dad's '59 burst and '62 Deluxe....keeps them under the bed just in case......nice nest egg.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Budda said:


> In some cases, it'd have the equivalent value of the house you're in! that'd be weird "my guitar is worth 10 times as much as my car's sticker price" lol


For $300 or $400 worth of stuff....


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

You're wrong on pricing. The high end of the market was under $500K, never $1 million. My buddy has a 9.8 condition 59 plaintop that would be about 300K because of the incredible condition. Unlike say vintage 50's goldtops which have lost almost 2/3'rd of their high value, bursts are bursts and while the market may be down, those prices have not fallen as much as other vintage stuff like old Strats.

Obviously these guitars are not for the average bloke. There are conversions out there from $12K to $40K. There are quality replicas out there from $5K-25K. You can get there tone wise with those but you don't get the glory claim of saying you own a true burst.

I just spent $2K on a set of PAF's for my Guitar Clinic replica. That might be the final step in my recreating burst magic at a much more affordable price. The Clinic is made from the same woods as a real burst. And no matter what, without the right woods, you just can't get the same tone.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

It's all about being a collectors item.

What makes a painting worth $10 Mil? etc.

Who played the guitar, its history. The most expensive burst I've heard of was the Green/Moore burst. Clapton's Strat (Blackie) went for something like $800K, didn't it?

If you're in the league where money means nothing, then you can collect art, guitars, Ferraris, whatever.

And sure, you can get into a burst for $200K. Here's a '58 for $200 http://www.ganzlerincorporated.com/inventory1.html

But you won't likely buy Page's Les Paul, or Gibbons', or Bloomfield's, etc if they ever come up for sale.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

It is only worth what someone will pay for it. If everyone decided to get out of "collecting", the product is worthless. I could never understand the "collector" thing with some objects. Guitars are meant to be played, other wise they are just art. Cars are meant to be driven, etc.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Guitars are no different than anything else, once they cross over into the "collectable" column. This is what these guitars are now. They are a collectable. They crossed the playing stage a long time ago. So as mentioned here on a few posts, those type items are and always will be market drive. Meaning, what is someone willing to pay for it? How badly do "you" have to own it over the other guy that wants to own it? This is where the value comes from. Buying items like that always carry a little risk as well. The item may lose value if for some reason people don't see them as a have to have item anymore. Chances of that happening on this particular guitar are slim and same goes for art items by famous painters etc.

I would suggest to you that anyone paying 200K or more for a guitar is not planning on playing it. So therefore, it is really not even in the musicians realm anymore. It's moved on to an antique, like a piece of furniture.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I would suggest to you that anyone paying 200K or more for a guitar is not planning on playing it.


I think you are completely wrong on that. Only a player would drop that kind of money on a guitar. A wealthy player but a player never the less. And rich musicians own them and play them for sure. Maybe they don't take them on the road but to think they are all locked away is not true at all.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Soldano16 said:


> I think you are completely wrong on that. Only a player would drop that kind of money on a guitar. A wealthy player but a player never the less. And rich musicians own them and play them for sure. Maybe they don't take them on the road but to think they are all locked away is not true at all.


At that kind of money it can only be two things (if you are sane) and that is for a collection or an investment. There is simply no other reason to spend that kind of money on it, rich, poor or indifferent.


----------



## ssdeluxe (Mar 29, 2007)

Soldano16 said:


> You're wrong on pricing. The high end of the market was under $500K, never $1 million. My buddy has a 9.8 condition 59 plaintop that would be about 300K because of the incredible condition. Unlike say vintage 50's goldtops which have lost almost 2/3'rd of their high value, bursts are bursts and while the market may be down, those prices have not fallen as much as other vintage stuff like old Strats.
> 
> Obviously these guitars are not for the average bloke. There are conversions out there from $12K to $40K. There are quality replicas out there from $5K-25K. You can get there tone wise with those but you don't get the glory claim of saying you own a true burst.
> 
> I just spent $2K on a set of PAF's for my Guitar Clinic replica. That might be the final step in my recreating burst magic at a much more affordable price. The Clinic is made from the same woods as a real burst. And no matter what, without the right woods, you just can't get the same tone.


well said, +1 for me ! and a heck of guitar (i've had 4 of those gc's over the years)

I will say this, as an instrument, there is something there, very few "burst clones" get that "dbl tone" thing where when you bend you feel the harmonics change, almost dbl themsleves. I' ve played a cpl 59's that were nothing too special besides one heck of an investment.

its incredible to think some people thought to buy these for 5-8 g's in the 80's were totally insane !!!!


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I think once all the baby boomers start to die off, so too will the lust & demand for these icons of the '60's that represent everything glorious about their youth...old muscle cars, guitars, rock & roll, etc.


I suspect that book was published by someone pushing an agenda, to try & drive up the value of old Les Pauls...."the million dollar les paul"?? come on already....the most hype I hear comes from people who already own several, who are well off financially, and are well connected. ( ie: investors )

real players who own bursts tend to lay low


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

I think the mere fact that this book is published means that the peak in the market has come and gone.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

rhh7 said:


> I think the mere fact that this book is published means that the peak in the market has come and gone.


Downturns in the economy always make collectable items more available at lower prices .


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

rhh7 said:


> I think the mere fact that this book is published means that the peak in the market has come and gone.


Probably--it sure seems that way.

Still it's a good read, and it does question the devotion people have to the guitar and does ask about collectors vs players, so it does try to cover more than just one side of things.

But there's no denying that some of those Bursts are nice eyecandy--and so are other guitars before and after.


----------



## Kestral (Apr 19, 2007)

A guitar (or any item) is worth what someone else will pay for it. If someone wants to buy a 59 Les Paul for $1 million and they can afford it and it makes them happy, cool. For some people, it has a special meaning to them and even though I don't share that point of view, I honor their choice.

For me, I would just play a reissue and be happy.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

washburned said:


> Know a young fella here at work inherited his Dad's '59 burst and '62 Deluxe....keeps them under the bed just in case......nice nest egg.


They didn't make Deluxe's until 1968.



Soldano16 said:


> I think you are completely wrong on that. Only a player would drop that kind of money on a guitar. A wealthy player but a player never the less. And rich musicians own them and play them for sure. Maybe they don't take them on the road but to think they are all locked away is not true at all.





GuitarsCanada said:


> At that kind of money it can only be two things (if you are sane) and that is for a collection or an investment. There is simply no other reason to spend that kind of money on it, rich, poor or indifferent.


I think you're both right.

If you're a rich rock star then dropping $200,000 on a Les Paul may not be that big a deal (though still a big deal none-the-less).

However, I've seen a number of guys who have a couple of bursts, and I don't think they're seeing the outside of their house anytime soon.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 3, 2007)

rhh7 said:


> If I have not already mentioned it, this book is a must read...truly fascinating history of the guitar gods, their guitars, the vintage guitar market-history & future, fake vintage guitars, etc.
> 
> I am seeing lots of indications that the vintage bubble has burst. There are some incredible vintage guitars shaking loose, for much less than they were a year ago.



Ooh, thanks for that, I wasn't aware of that one.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Soldano16 said:


> I think you are completely wrong on that. Only a player would drop that kind of money on a guitar. A wealthy player but a player never the less. And rich musicians own them and play them for sure. Maybe they don't take them on the road but to think they are all locked away is not true at all.


Sorry, but I think you're wrong. Most of the big name guitars sold for ridiculous money at auction end up as museum pieces somewhere. 

Although, I do know that David Gilmore has and plays strat #001. He bought it from one of his techs


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2009)

The whole game revolves around making the rest of the monkeys believe you have something they can't possibly have without great sacrifice because its unlike anything they'll ever find elsewhere, which is baloney ! If I had guitars like this I would certainly go around telling people that my antiquities are sonically superior and that great joy can only be acquired from strumming these and these only. Now on the other hand, if you go around telling folks that these are simply old blocks of wood that don't play so great and sound pretty average, the jig is up. Times are good and there's too much money out there.


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

There are many "things" that are valued at ridiculous prices (relatively speaking).

Cars that are worth 6, 8 or 10 million becuase they are rare and have history.

Artwork of all kinds...

Old antique furniture, Americana, etc etc.

Heck I know a lot of guys who collect vintage model engines, and some of these are selling for many thousands if you have a rare model of a certain maker.

I am sure there are other guitars that play/sound as "good" as a 58/59/60 Les Paul. However, right now, they dont have the aura or mystique that these old LP's do and probably wont.

WHen anything gets "worth" that kind of crazy money, it is never again just a guitar, or a chair, or a painting. It becomes something entirely different.

I was crazy nervous handling/playing a guy's 56' LP Junior a few years ago when I had the chance. I dont even know what I would feel like if I ever had the opportunity to hold and play a real burst... it would probably be very surreal. 

But in the end, man, it is just a guitar, built buy human hands like so many others.... 

AJC


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

ajcoholic said:


> But in the end, man, it is just a guitar, built buy human hands like so many others....


+1.

And I'm pretty sure that not every one of them is a an outstanding example of Les Paul tone. Not that the owner will ever admit to it.


----------



## Evilmusician (Apr 13, 2007)

Guys remember to ,just cuz its a 200 -500k guitar doesn't make it a good player!


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Evilmusician said:


> Guys remember to ,just cuz its a 200 -500k guitar doesn't make it a good player!


Ya and you can't just take it to any tech for a setup either.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> At that kind of money it can only be two things (if you are sane) and that is for a collection or an investment. There is simply no other reason to spend that kind of money on it, rich, poor or indifferent.


You obviously haven't spent time with the burst owners on the Les Paul Forum.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Soldano16 said:


> You obviously haven't spent time with the burst owners on the Les Paul Forum.


Clearly. But I would use the analogy of cars as well. You can buy a 2009 model and it's going to get you where you need to go. Or you can go to Barrett jackson and spend $400,000 on one. it's going to get you where you want to go as well. Exactly the same thing here. It's just the sake of ownership and thats all. Now, I will admit that I have chased items as well. I have spent my fair share on Rockman equipment, which rises in value every year. I also paid a good buck for my Heritage Gary Moore because I wanted that guitar. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. For guitars and me, that would be in the 4K tops range.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

As an investment, I guess if you've got the money, go for it. A guitar like this won't likely ever drop in value, and you can look at it on the wall and show all your friends. I think collecting guitars and amps is bullshit IMHO. Like many have pointed out these rarely see action once they've "crossed the line". If you want to see some of this craziness in action, check out the Fender Discusion Page. Thread after thread of guys looking for speakers and components that will likely sound like ass/don't function, just to bring their lofty prizes up to original condition. These guys are knowingly/zealously putting dead caps in an amp just because they're original parts. I have somewhat more time for those that insist that their vintage prizes offer a sonic/tonal experience that simply can't be had with new production gear. I don't really buy it from a strictly technical standpoint, but then again I believe in the ears and intuition of good musicians. Meaning that some players can elicit sounds from their equipment/gear that others can't, simply because it's *theirs'*. I think the overwhelming difference is the build quality of yesteryears instruments. I have an old Fender amp and it sounds much, much better to me than it's reissue sibbling. It's not really voodoo...... it's made of solid pine, is hand wired, has ANOS preamp tubes, a new Weber speaker and was recently re-capped. I also believe that the "mojo" people attribute to this stuff is the aging process. When resistors and capacitors get old they begin to drift from their specified ratings. Not all at the same time or to the same degree, but it can affect the sound. At a point it can lend a pleasant mushy/warmth that newer gear can't. Though eventually to be played and enjoyed these parts will need to be replaced. My $0.02..... a beautiful playable guitar on a wall or an amp behind glass isn't art, it's a shame!

Shawn.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> They didn't make Deluxe's until 1968.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops...didn't clarify enough; the '62 deluxe is the amp, not the guitar


----------



## JHarasym (Mar 27, 2007)

I can't help remarking that the whole collecting thing (art, cars, guitars...whatever) that drives prices into the stratosphere shows some people have too much money and not enough humanity. Sure the capitalist system (I'm a business owner, not a Communist) generates wealth like no other and has produced a relatively high average standard of living, but come on, there are mentally ill people living on the street for lack of public funding. The wealthy are the first to squeal when governments try to raise taxes to help those on the bottom rung (no doubt it's worse in the US). 
Sorry to be kkjwpw, but I had to rant.


----------



## GuitarSkater (Nov 17, 2008)

i would buy 1 if i had enough omeny.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The value of a guitar such as a 59 Les Paul has almost nothing to do with it's value as an instrument. It's all about collectors and supply and demand.

It's worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.


You can get a guitar that will play, sound and look as good for less than $2000 (often a _lot_ less).


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> For guitars and me, that would be in the 4K tops range.


That's cool but that's a personal issue.

There is no question that overall, as an instrument, you can't beat a 58-60 LP. Don't know if you have played one or several. You can certainly get the tone with good conversions and replicas cause the woods are the same but those guitars are definitely way more than 4K. I've seen $25K replicas and $45 conversions. 

If you have the ears (and are lucky enough to get exposure to excellent vintage guitars) you will hear a difference that is truly seductive. I play an $8K replica that kills the 5 Gibson historics I've owned. Not 1/2 a $milllion but some big bucks for a guitar that's not even a Gibson.

Sometimes you get lucky but usually if you want the top ladder of tone, you have to pay. And unlike Strats, that were churned out by the tens of thousands over many more years of production from early 50's to mid 60's CBS takeover, bursts didn't last 3 years and were about 1,700 guitars total - less now.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> You can get a guitar that will play, sound and look as good for less than $2000 (often a _lot_ less).


I'm sure you've played a bunch of the real deals and your opinion is based on personal experience- right?

And that's why classical players/orchestras pay millions for a Stradivarius - right?

Everyone is nuts.9kkhhd


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I've played quite a few exceptional guitars in my day. And how old they were and what brand name they had on the headstock had little to do with it. The build quality and materials used are what matters. As I said in my earlier post some aspects of aging contribute to the "mojo" factor. To suggest that a certain level of tonal quality can no longer be achieved in guitars today is bogus. There is huge money to be made perpetuating these myths, but I suspect as some have mentioned that this foolishness is winding down somewhat. I love vintage gear for the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Build quality, tone wood quality and the purity of many of these early designs are the most important factors from a strictly tonal perspective. I'll agree that the best guitars will cost big bucks. Regardless of whether they're new productions or vintage pieces, no guitar is worth the cost of an average house IMHO.

Shawn


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

what kills me is they originally stopped making them for lack of interest...for what, almost 10 years?


the LP must be the biggest selling guitar in their whole lineup since about 1970....that's 30 years of nonstop demand, and they are still churning them out!!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Soldano16 said:


> I'm sure you've played a bunch of the real deals and your opinion is based on personal experience- right?
> 
> And that's why classical players/orchestras pay millions for a Stradivarius - right?
> 
> Everyone is nuts.9kkhhd


I have played many vintage guitars and have owned a couple, yes.

I haven't played a 59, but I have played quite a few from that era. Some were great. Others were average.


Musicians want to believe that throwing money at an instrument will somehow make them sound and play like the greats. I hate to break it to you but it ain't necessarily so.

You want to rationalize an expensive guitar that's up to you, but don't for a minute think that you can't get an excellent guitar from a modern mass production facility.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone spending however much they want on a guitar. It's their cash. The concept of diminishing returns is very much in evidence in this context however.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

I have a '69 Les Paul. It has a very different feel to it than my 2008 Les Paul. That said, I think the 2008 is a better guitar (for various reasons).

Anyway, I attribute most of the 'different feel' to 40 years of wear and 40 years of drying out. I suspect that in another 39 years my 2008 will have a similar feel to that of my '69 today, and possibly still be a better guitar to boot (for various reasons).

Then again, in another 40 years I may be able to trade my '69 in on a small house.

Then again, maybe not.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

washburned said:


> Oops...didn't clarify enough; the '62 deluxe is the amp, not the guitar


Ah! kqoct


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Musicians want to believe that throwing money at an instrument will somehow make them sound and play like the greats. I hate to break it to you but it ain't necessarily so.


But in most cases, a better instrument sounds better and that's what this is all about. It's only a question of how much improvement for how many dollars.



> You want to rationalize an expensive guitar that's up to you, but don't for a minute think that you can't get an excellent guitar from a modern mass production facility.


You can get a very nice playing and looking Gibson Historic Les Paul but you cannot get a truly vintage sounding Les Paul from Gibson. The historics are nice guitars but certainly don't have the real goods compared to top end replicas, conversions and real deals.

Maybe the nice looks of the historic inspire you over a 59 or maybe you like how it feels over a 59 but when all is said and done and one listens to what the guitars sound like, it's very clear who wins.




> There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone spending however much they want on a guitar. It's their cash. The concept of diminishing returns is very much in evidence in this context however.


Of course. I never argue that. But to say there's no difference, to say today's Gibson product is as good as a 59 burst, to say today's Gibsons sound like the old ones is either bad ears or lack of experience with 50's Les Pauls and other vintage Gibsons.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

bolero said:


> what kills me is they originally stopped making them for lack of interest...for what, almost 10 years?


The original shaped LP's did NOT sell well and were replaced with the SG/LP's starting in 61. That lasted a few years but then Les Paul was getting his divorce from Mary Ford and didn't want to resign the endorsement with Gibson until after the divorce.

First original shaped LP came back out in 1968. Gibson reacted pretty quick. Les Pauls didn't really start showing up big in rock until the later sixties and by 68, they had LP shaped guitars out again.

The very very first 1968 GT's like this one that I owned (absolutely killer guitar), didn't even say Les Paul on the headstock but had the crown inlay.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Soldano16 said:


> Of course. I never argue that. But to say there's no difference, to say today's Gibson product is as good as a 59 burst, to say today's Gibsons sound like the old ones is either bad ears or lack of experience with 50's Les Pauls and other vintage Gibsons.


There is clearly a difference between 50's LPs and todays. Whether one is better than the other is a matter of opinion.


bad ears



good one.


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Sorry, but I think you're wrong. Most of the big name guitars sold for ridiculous money at auction end up as museum pieces somewhere.
> 
> Although, I do know that David Gilmore has and plays strat #001. He bought it from one of his techs


While that strat is one of the first couple dozen Fender didnt do consecutive serial numbers back in the day. They had neck plates in a bin, there was no method for taking one out of the bin....when a neck needed to be bolted on the guys just grabbed a plate and slapped the guitar together.

David's #1 is not the first strat ever made. The first dozen or so didnt have serial numbers.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> There is clearly a difference between 50's LPs and todays. Whether one is better than the other is a matter of opinion.


Of course. I just don't understand when people say they are the same or "just as good". They are different. If you play metal, maybe a reissue works better.

But if you're chasing the subtle types of tones you hear in all the great 60's LP players like Clapton, Page, Beck, Bloomfield, Green, Duane and Dickey, you're hearing the old LP's. Replicas, conversions and real deals sound like that. Today's Gibson's don't quite get there.


----------



## ssdeluxe (Mar 29, 2007)

Soldano16 said:


> Of course. I just don't understand when people say they are the same or "just as good". They are different. If you play metal, maybe a reissue works better.
> 
> But if you're chasing the subtle types of tones you hear in all the great 60's LP players like Clapton, Page, Beck, Bloomfield, Green, Duane and Dickey, you're hearing the old LP's. Replicas, conversions and real deals sound like that. Today's Gibson's don't quite get there.




I agree, it takes specific effort to hear all that nuance, and for some its very important, and other folks hear any les paul and say "that's it", there most definately is a diff. imho. Also, though, and particularly with gibson, every so often...probably around 1 in 100 is just a "super ringer", and while maybe not exactly the vintage tone, I know I've let go some absolutely fab newer gibbys'....but again....not the same.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Soldano16 said:


> I think you are completely wrong on that. Only a player would drop that kind of money on a guitar. A wealthy player but a player never the less. And rich musicians own them and play them for sure. Maybe they don't take them on the road but to think they are all locked away is not true at all.


I'm not totally in agreement with you here. Yes, there are some wealthy musicians who dole out the cash for a burst but I have aquaintances who own them who are not players at all...the ownership of such a thing as a 58/59/60 burst has become as much a status symbol to some wealthy collectors.


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

A very rich client of mine just bought a 1957 goldtop. It is in a glass case in his basement...he doesnt play guitar.

I have played the guitar....it is only OK. But to this guy it is a piece of art.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I have a nice LP too....to me it is a work of art....but it is a work of art I play hard & put to bed wet!!!


sdsre


good point, as far as objects of desire they are not limited to gtr players...and when some damn fool writes a book called " the million dollar les paul " it sure doesn't do much to keep them out of the public eye..now we have to compete with wealthy people who don't even ****ing play!! yes I'm bitter


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

If I remember correctly the former 2nd in command (not sure if he's the CEO now... can't remember the guys name) of Microsoft is an avid collector of famous drum kits, yet can't play drums worth a shit.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

nonreverb said:


> I'm not totally in agreement with you here. Yes, there are some wealthy musicians who dole out the cash for a burst but I have aquaintances who own them who are not players at all...the ownership of such a thing as a 58/59/60 burst has become as much a status symbol to some wealthy collectors.


I stand corrected. A vintage LP just seems like such an odd thing to own if you don't play guitar.

All the people I know with vintage gear are serious tone hounds, not glass case guys.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ssdeluxe said:


> I agree, it takes specific effort to hear all that nuance, and for some its very important, and other folks hear any les paul and say "that's it", there most definately is a diff. imho. Also, though, and particularly with gibson, every so often...probably around 1 in 100 is just a "super ringer", and while maybe not exactly the vintage tone, I know I've let go some absolutely fab newer gibbys'....but again....not the same.



I agree.

This also means that some new models will sound and play BETTER than some vintage models and vice versa. Just because a guitar is old doesn't mean it's a great guitar.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This also means that some new models will sound and play BETTER than some vintage models and vice versa.


Your statement is correct buy incomplete. Yes - The best historics will sound better than the worst vintage. But that doesn't say much for historics, does it?

Compare the best to the best and it's no contest.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 3, 2007)

bolero said:


> good point, as far as objects of desire they are not limited to gtr players...and when some damn fool writes a book called " the million dollar les paul " it sure doesn't do much to keep them out of the public eye..now we have to compete with wealthy people who don't even ****ing play!! yes I'm bitter


Tony Bacon is hardly a "damn fool", as a look at some of his other books will demonstrate, and I suspect his book will mainly be of interest to players, not collectors. 

We all know most of us will never get our hands on a real 'burst, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to read about them.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 3, 2007)

screamingdaisy said:


> If I remember correctly the former 2nd in command (not sure if he's the CEO now... can't remember the guys name) of Microsoft is an avid collector of famous drum kits, yet can't play drums worth a shit.


Now collecting drum kits..._that _I just don't get!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Soldano16 said:


> Your statement is correct buy incomplete. Yes - The best historics will sound better than the worst vintage. But that doesn't say much for historics, does it?
> 
> Compare the best to the best and it's no contest.


No, I think you're misinterpreting my statement. I said nothing about historics or the "best of the new being better than the worst of the old".


I've played Les Paul Studios that played and sounded better than some vintage LPs.

Gibsons are very inconsistant in my opinion and always were. Try five and you may find one that really stands out. That seems to have always been the case and in a sense that is a part of their appeal.

No contest? You're entitled to your opinion as we all are.


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

Just to add to this, back in the mid 90's I knew a guy named Mike Deutschman, he was the guy who turned me on to PRS guitars. Anyway, he had a 1963 Gibson Les Paul with genuine 1959 pickups in it. He let me try it out once and the tone and sustain was just unbelievable. I was sitting there with a grin on my face as I was playing it. It almost seemed like the sustain was a part of you in a sense. If you've ever been lucky enough to play, or even own one, you'll know what I mean. I once offered (half seriously) to sell him all of my guitars for that one Les Paul. He just laughed. :smile:


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

JHarasym said:


> I can't help remarking that the whole collecting thing (art, cars, guitars...whatever) that drives prices into the stratosphere shows some people have too much money and not enough humanity. Sure the capitalist system (I'm a business owner, not a Communist) generates wealth like no other and has produced a relatively high average standard of living, but come on, there are mentally ill people living on the street for lack of public funding. The wealthy are the first to squeal when governments try to raise taxes to help those on the bottom rung (no doubt it's worse in the US).
> Sorry to be kkjwpw, but I had to rant.


I agree, but don't tell me to where or how to spend my money. I can buy a Les Paul and burn it if I want, (wouldn't that drive up the price!). 

Get the funding to those that need it. It's there spend it in the right place. Make the government accountable to the people. I don't care which party. They just want your votes then when they are in the house do little to upset the civil service. They spend our money like water. kkjwpw I shoulda said don't get me started.

The closest thing to vintage I have is a 68 Tele.


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

JHarasym said:


> I can't help remarking that the whole collecting thing (art, cars, guitars...whatever) that drives prices into the stratosphere shows some people have too much money and not enough humanity. Sure the capitalist system (I'm a business owner, not a Communist) generates wealth like no other and has produced a relatively high average standard of living, but come on, there are mentally ill people living on the street for lack of public funding. The wealthy are the first to squeal when governments try to raise taxes to help those on the bottom rung (no doubt it's worse in the US).
> Sorry to be kkjwpw, but I had to rant.


I have to reply to this one as this defeatist us vs. them mindset is troubling to me.

Middle and lower classes bitch just as much about taxes, it is not the fault of the wealthy if they don't know how to work safes around taxation. I dont consider myself wealty....white collar perhaps but I am not a rich man. I do, however, have friends and clients that I would label very wealthy. They are as good hearted as any lower or middle class people I know. 

The notion that the wealthy have no humanity is silly.

If a person chooses to collect something more power to them. I collect comics (have about 15 000 at this time) and original Sam Park paintings...which dont come cheaply. I cannot draw comics or paint Italian scenes...i collect these because I choose to. That some people may not be able to afford to do so doesnt bother me in the slightest AND my humanity is intact.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 3, 2007)

Archer said:


> The notion that the wealthy have no humanity is silly.


As a former colleague of mine liked to say, "The rich have rights too!"


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

Rich or poor it's nice to have money. My friends grandmother used to say that.


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

Milkman said:


> No, I think you're misinterpreting my statement. I said nothing about historics or the "best of the new being better than the worst of the old".
> 
> 
> I've played Les Paul Studios that played and sounded better than some vintage LPs.
> ...


That's the case with most all brands. I've played 60's strats that really sucked.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

Kenmac said:


> Just to add to this, back in the mid 90's I knew a guy named Mike Deutschman, he was the guy who turned me on to PRS guitars. Anyway, he had a 1963 Gibson Les Paul with genuine 1959 pickups in it. He let me try it out once and the tone and sustain was just unbelievable. I was sitting there with a grin on my face as I was playing it. It almost seemed like the sustain was a part of you in a sense. If you've ever been lucky enough to play, or even own one, you'll know what I mean. I once offered (half seriously) to sell him all of my guitars for that one Les Paul. He just laughed. :smile:


They didn't make Les Pauls in 1963.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

screamingdaisy said:


> They didn't make Les Pauls in 1963.


then he has a real collectable on his hands. kksjur


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> They didn't make Les Pauls in 1963.


Actually, they did make the SG "Les Paul" up to and including part of '63...


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> They didn't make Les Pauls in 1963.


Actually...Gibson changed the body style to the model we all know as the SG,
but it had "Les Paul" on the headstock or trussrod cover for a few years. I believe the body change had it had something to do with Les Paul's impending divorce with Mary Ford and the fact the original body type did not sell well. I could be wrong though...


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

nonreverb said:


> Actually, they did make the SG "Les Paul" up to and including part of '63...


kqoct You beat me to it!


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

One cannot, in a sensible way, compare a 61, 62 or 63 'Les Paul' with models that came before or after. Different animals entirely.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

Archer said:


> One cannot, in a sensible way, compare a 61, 62 or 63 'Les Paul' with models that came before or after. Different animals entirely.


I was in no way comparing the Les Paul to an SG. I just stated that Gibson indeed made SGs' that had "Les Paul" on the headstock. I do know the differences' between the two.


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

I had a 63 SG that didn't say Les Paul on it. I didn't like it. IT was sold for $350 a LONG time ago.

Les took his name off because he didn't like what they had done.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Tycho said:


> Tony Bacon is hardly a "damn fool", as a look at some of his other books will demonstrate, and I suspect his book will mainly be of interest to players, not collectors.
> 
> We all know most of us will never get our hands on a real 'burst, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to read about them.


Agreed.

It was a fun book to read.

And I mentioned a reason earlier in the thread that is dealt with in Bacon's book as a reason not to get into buying these things--the cost of insurance. One Burst owner says it costs him $7500 a year in insurance. You may be able to get it for less--but for me, that's reason to not buy one.

You could get some nice guitars every year instead of spending the $7500 on insurance.

I hope none of my guitars ever get real expensive or valuable--unless I was planning to sell it. (Or maybe for the benefit of my heirs after I die.)


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> Actually, they did make the SG "Les Paul" up to and including part of '63...


They made an SG shaped "Les Paul" in 1961. 

In 1961 it was renamed the "SG", but they kept putting Les Paul nameplates on it until they ran out in 1963. If the date Kenmac gave is accurate, then he had an SG with a Les Paul nameplate on it, not a Les Paul.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Man, I never even considered insurance......$7500!! ...a year!! Has anyone in this thread given serious thought as to what distinguishes these guitars from others technically speaking. Looks and history aside, it's made out of wood, plastic, and metal. This leaves the design, quality of materials and quality of construction. I'm wondering what kinds of specs/technical info is cited in the book regarding this kind of veneration and pricing. My understanding is that the fret size was increased and of course the switch from P90's to humbuckers. My issue is not really about rich folks paying six figures for a guitar, so much as the notion that these guitars are special for something other than their beauty and rarity.

Shawn :smile:


----------



## elindso (Aug 29, 2006)

The good ones are godly. They aren't all good ones though. Some were dogs.

My friends older brother had a 60 335 that was red. My brother remembers it as the nicest guitar he ever played. I don't think it was that great. I think my Les Paul is nicer, it's a 96. 

What am I trying to say you may ask?

The date it was made doesn't always make it great. To collectors though the date is all important.

Peter Green didn't like his 59 (58?). He bought it to sound like Clapton.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> They made an SG shaped "Les Paul" in 1961.
> 
> In 1961 it was renamed the "SG", but they kept putting Les Paul nameplates on it until they ran out in 1963. If the date Kenmac gave is accurate, then he had an SG with a Les Paul nameplate on it, not a Les Paul.


Perhaps he was not aware of the difference...


----------



## Tycho (Jan 3, 2007)

zontar said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It was a fun book to read.
> 
> And I mentioned a reason earlier in the thread that is dealt with in Bacon's book as a reason not to get into buying these things--the cost of insurance. One Burst owner says it costs him $7500 a year in insurance. You may be able to get it for less--but for me, that's reason to not buy one.


I was talking about that today with my SO. (She also plays.) I said that having a 'burst would actually be a big hassle for us normal people. You'd either have to store it offsite in some secure spot or have a really good security set-up in your house to protect it.

And one can only imagine what the insurer would say if you mentioned that you were thinking of taking it out to a few gigs....


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

I am in Toronto this weekend, so I just picked up the book at CHapters. Looks like an interesting read. Plus I have a bunch of Tony BAcon's books, and like his writing.

AJC


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> Perhaps he was not aware of the difference...


I'm interested in hearing whether this "1963" guitar was Les Paul shaped or SG shaped...

Considering the topic I'm assuming it was Les Paul shaped... hence my comment.


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

screamingdaisy said:


> I'm interested in hearing whether this "1963" guitar was Les Paul shaped or SG shaped...
> 
> Considering the topic I'm assuming it was Les Paul shaped... hence my comment.


I think he was probably misinformed about the year as it was definitely *not* an SG, it was a Les Paul but the thing is, it had genuine 1959 pickups in it and it was originally a goldtop that was (naturally) worn down a lot from playing. If I knew where he was now I'd get him to sign up here and possibly post some photos of the guitar if he still has it, but I haven't seen him since around 1995 or so. (Hey, signatures are back!) :smile:


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

Kenmac said:


> I think he was probably misinformed about the year as it was definitely *not* an SG, it was a Les Paul but the thing is, it had genuine 1959 pickups in it and it was originally a goldtop that was (naturally) worn down a lot from playing. If I knew where he was now I'd get him to sign up here and possibly post some photos of the guitar if he still has it, but I haven't seen him since around 1995 or so. (Hey, signatures are back!) :smile:


If it was a 60s LP it could've been 68 or 69 as that's when they started making them again. But it's just conjecture at this point since we can't really ask him.

Either way, the only thing that really matters is that it sounded great. The rest really isn't that important.

sdsre


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

If he wasnt sure of the year how can it be sure that the pickups were out of a 59?

And not all vintage PAF pickups were great. They set the benchmark for inconsistency.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

mario said:


> I believe the body change had it had something to do with Les Paul's impending divorce with Mary Ford and the fact the original body type did not sell well.


You are mixing 2 events.

1) original LP style did not sell and was gone by 1961

2) pending divorce meant LP was not willing to renew endorsement deal and thus no "Les Paul Model"'s on headstocks from I think '63 until 1968.

VERY VERY interesting fact is that when the original LP style was brought back in 1968, the first few hundred did not say "Les Paul model" on the headstock but had the crown inlay, like my old '68 below. Yet before the end of 1968 the "Les Paul model" silkscreen was back on the goldtops.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Archer said:


> One cannot, in a sensible way, compare a 61, 62 or 63 'Les Paul' with models that came before or after. Different animals entirely.


In the early 70's I played in a band and the fellow used a '61. Not exactly a Les Paul but you do have the classic Brazilian rosewood fretboard, mahogany body and PAF's so the sound was VERY classic vintage Gibson.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Soldano16 said:


> You are mixing 2 events.
> 
> 1) original LP style did not sell and was gone by 1961
> 
> ...


....and also had the narrow headstock and one piece neck too....very nice guitar! I have a friend who has a '68 with the crown inlay but not near the shape that that one's inlofu


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> Man, I never even considered insurance......$7500!! ...a year!! Has anyone in this thread given serious thought as to what distinguishes these guitars from others technically speaking. Looks and history aside, it's made out of wood, plastic, and metal. This leaves the design, quality of materials and quality of construction. I'm wondering what kinds of specs/technical info is cited in the book regarding this kind of veneration and pricing. My understanding is that the fret size was increased and of course the switch from P90's to humbuckers. My issue is not really about rich folks paying six figures for a guitar, so much as the notion that these guitars are special for something other than their beauty and rarity.
> 
> Shawn :smile:


Get into the world of replicas if you want to understand what makes a vintage Les Paul sound like a vintage Les Paul. Here's my story.

In the mid 90's I started really getting into gear. Probably because, as a Les Paul lover, the Historics had come out and if anyone remembers the tops on those first historics - they were incredible.

So I would buy Vintage Guitar magazine and study prices even though I was very broke at the time - divorce.

One day I'm looking at an ad from a well known dealer and I see a Les Paul replica for sale for $3,500.

I was 110% stunned. $3,500? for a Les Paul not made by Gibson? It made NO sense at all. Then I started looking at his other items for sale. He was mostly VERY expensive Gibson and Martin acoustics. As I'm looking, it all starts to make sense.

People aren't buying replicas at $3,500 just because they look pretty. I realized these guitars must be made with fine woods as great sounding instruments and THAT's why someone pays so much for those guitars.

Very shortly after that a fine replica crossed my path and replicas are what I've played since except for a '56 goldtop and '68 goldtop that I had for a while.

Truly great instruments need great woods and excellent craftsmanship. They certainly don't need to say Gibson on them to be great. 

Some replicas go for $25,000 US. You can't find a good used one for less than $5K - more than a used Gibson 59 historic

It's in the woods and the builder. in the 50's Gibson had stunning tone woods and maser builders. It can be replicated. Here's the scoop on my Guitar Clinic replica.



> Guitar Clinic was a store in Hamilton Ontario Canada. They had a few bursts in for repairs and spec'd them out..even x-rayed them. They made 27 copies in the early 90's. with correct woods and shapes. 70 year old Honduran Mahogany , old growth BRW, Eastern Maple


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

nonreverb said:


> ....and also had the narrow headstock and one piece neck too....very nice guitar! I have a friend who has a '68 with the crown inlay but not near the shape that that one's inlofu


And they had a long tenon.

This one was routed for humbuckers and then someone sent it back to Gibson for them to put back P-90's and do a refin. When they did that, they put in some 50's P-90's. So it's NOT original finish. But it rocked.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

Even if original Les Pauls were worth $10.00 there are only 1700 or so. At any price your chances of owning one are relatively small. For the majority of owners it's not the price, it's the guitar itself and most would not sell theirs for any price.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Soldano16 said:


> Get into the world of replicas if you want to understand what makes a vintage Les Paul sound like a vintage Les Paul. Here's my story.
> 
> In the mid 90's I started really getting into gear. Probably because, as a Les Paul lover, the Historics had come out and if anyone remembers the tops on those first historics - they were incredible.
> 
> ...


There's nothing here I'll disagree with. I just wanted it understood that one can only ask so much of wood, metal and plastic. I love a well made instrument (I consider amps an instrument too) as much as the fondest collector. The only difference is, I play them and don't fall apart if they get scuffed up kjdr. I'm a big fan of the old archtops. When I look at the prices for these guitars they're very high, but still generally within the realm of aquisition. I feel the craftsmanship on a select Byrdland, Super 400 or ES-175 for example, is as good as Gibsons get. I can't back this up with anything more than my opinion. It's not measurable, it's my taste. If there were only a handful of these guitars you can bet they'd be fetching the crazy money as well. Nice pic by the way.

Shawn :smile:


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

Soldano16 said:


> It's in the woods and the builder. in the 50's Gibson had stunning tone woods and maser builders.


But the Les Paul wasn't a premier line. It didn't even sell that well. The best woods went into other guitars. 

You don't waste your most talented luthiers screwing pickups into blocks of wood when you have valuable archtops to build.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

screamingdaisy said:


> But the Les Paul wasn't a premier line. It didn't even sell that well. The best woods went into other guitars.
> 
> You don't waste your most talented luthiers screwing pickups into blocks of wood when you have valuable archtops to build.


The overall levels of woods and craftsmanship at Gibson were so high back then that even medium quality for them was top notch. Pick up any cheap 50's Gibson and if it's been taken care of, it's usually somewhat incredible.

My buddy has a 59 that is in 9.8 condition. Just holding it, you know it's a work of art. It's incredible. The craftsmanship is amazing. Even the cheapest Ferrari has a certain level of quality.

My bass player used to build $6,000 acoustics. He sold about 150 of them so he must know something about tone and fine guitars. He picked up my 1964 Gibson B-25 acoustic - a low end, almost or maybe even student model guitar. He said the guitar is as good as any $6,000 acoustic in the way it sounded and projected. He was amazed.


----------

