100% on board with you. Beautiful guitar, awesome story, the SN though…. Would have been cooler to have the original 52-54 SN because it adds more validity to the story
Agreed 110%. The original serial number, if known, tells you all you need to know. It's a conversion, it's NOT a genuine 1959 Standard. This "new" serial number brands it a fake, a deception. I own a Collector's Choice Les Paul. It has its own unique serial number which starts "CC" and looks nothing like a 59 series serial number. It's ultimate value comes down to what it is, not what it's trying to be.
As soon as somebody changes the serial number it becomes an issue to me. It was already a good (according to those who have seen it) 50s LP modified to up to 59 spec, surely that's good enough for anybody who isn't going to claim it's a real 59. Yes I have played one and even with my limited knowledge at the time it was simply fantastic (saw it played most Saturday nights in a local pub) and now it lives with Mike McCready
Well the only one who has a true say about what should be done to this guitar is the owner himself, we can go back and forth about what we think it should be done to this guitar but it’s not out money so not our loss. These guitars have gonw so much in value that it’s not affordable for 99% of guitar players and I’m sure the owner didn’t want to sit around for 10 years till somebody seems interested enough to drop that amount of money
From a collectors stance, it's sad to see the first production year of Les Pauls get changed in any way. However guitars are tools, and ultimatley the conversion was done beautifully and authentically. The serial number however, that makes it a pure, unadultered counterfiet, not 'in my opinion' or anything, it seems small, however, that takes this from 'conversion' to 'fake.' There is absolutely no reason to change a serial number unless you are trying to decieve. I don't care about documentation, what if this is left as a family heirloom and the story gets lost and it's mistaken for a real burst? That's not OK in my mind.
I agree with all you said about this instrument, including being bothered by the serial number. Putting that number on the guitar makes it a counterfeit. Perhaps not in the same league as a Chibson, but still a counterfeit. Having the provenance of the documentation helps, but that is paper that could be separated from the instrument at some point. Bad form to whomever put the serial number on it.
I have a similar story, own an old 50s Goldtop that had been stripped of all hardware, i had it re-topped and refinished as the original top was totally knackered, although the body is African mahogany, Brazillian board etc, i've had to put repro parts on it, looks just like a 58 but i tell everyone what it is and wouldn't change the serial number.
6:50 When bought in 1989, "At this time it did NOT bear a serial number..." That means the SN was added later and is fake. Get rid of the SN and use letter punches in the pickup cavities to indicate that it is NOT a real '59. Let the auction determine the resultant value of the guitar with those mods.
I’m in two minds. First, the artifice of a 59 serial number is right on the edge of deception, regardless of how open the vendor is about it. On the other hand, why should I or anyone care about what someone else wants to do to THEIR guitar? Some people are far too precious about (other peoples’) old guitars.
I think the issue is the serial number is really only of value when it comes to identification. A new top? Sure, that's aesthetic. A new veneer? Again, changes the look. Pickups are all taste. But the main reason someone would look to a serial number is in a situation like this, where someone would want to buy a guitar and that is veering into deception. Like how you're allowed to modify a car as much as you like, but if you start messing with the plates or VIN that's Not OK.
Why would anyone care? It has documentation explaining everything. It’s a hunk of wood, not a magical object. People identify as all sorts of things and the same people complaining here bat not an eye. Carry on dear LP Owner. Carry on.
If it looks good & it sounds good, then nothing else should matter. Ben, if it isn't any inconvenience to you, please keep us posted on how much it ends up selling for? 🙏 Cheers..
No one is trying to hide the changes including the serial number so it is what it is. It has it’s own story for everyone to see. The real question is what is worth to you with the changes. At the right price I’d love to own it !!
I’m good with it. Because it mentions the serial number in the the documentation. And as long as the paper work goes with it and not presented as something it’s not ,great. As in the automotive word documentation is the key.
The serial number: If the neck is honestly from 1959, then the 59-serial is acceptable, as long as its part in the guitar's story is documented. I'd say that the guitar's life has been adequately documented to say it is worth the price tag.
Had a friend have a prs SE tremonti recarved and repainted to US spec, along with tremonti pickups, and a new headstock decal, because he wanted the US model but couldn't afford it. Saved himself a grand (CDN) all done and said, which after all the time to do so, could have just saved that money to acquire an original. This reminds me of that guitar.
Gary builds some amazing LP replicas and I have had a couple in my hands and one in particular that I have worked on and played many times that belongs to a close friend. The fact that he did the conversion makes this guitar that much cooler and more "legit" IMO. *BUT* the serial number bit I don't care for personally, but as long as it is documented and not trying to be passed off as something it is not then ok.
It is great to hear endorsements like that for the luthier.. personally I don't think I could ever be persuaded to replace something as significant as the whole top of a significant vintage guitar for nothing other than aesthetic reasons.. that being said, the customer wanted it and went to the right person for the job..
Seems to be and looks amazing. It probably is. But yeah the only problem for me is that serial number. It should have an extra mark or something that shows that it’s not an actual 59. Only because of the crazy prices that they sell for. But where this one comes with the entire history of the guitar and while it is pretending to be something that it isn’t. It’s not telling lies or trying to deceive. I’d love to have it! I’d play it every single day and love every single second of it
I agree about the serial number being wrong. Also, unless a guitar is a wreck - and some early '50s examples I've seen have been - leave well alone. I'd love a 1953/4 Gold Top more than a '59 burst. Yes, I'm odd!
I actually think about this quite a bit. My view is if the neck & body are the same it’s the same guitar. But that mainly applies to bolt on & my abilities. If there’s replaced wood, then it’s not the same guitar, just a new guitar with old wood. The serial number might be on the wrong side of the law. But I’m no expert by all means.
There was a luthier who made pretty much exact replicas of 58/59/60 Les Pauls who inlaid a small magnet in the underside of the top between the tailpiece and strap button before gluing it to the body so it couldn't be passed off as genuine
If a person wants to mimic a particular guitar just for giggles, I don’t see anything wrong with mimicking the serial number and every other small detail as well. In that case, the right thing to do would be to ensure it isn’t passed off as original. My question is whether the serial number is authentic to the new headstock, or is essentially a copy of another guitar out in the world.
Having read all the comments, (currently 93), aren't certain people missing the point! What we have before us is a musical instrument, all that matters is, it sounds good and plays well, as an instrument that is the be all and end all! Any mystique you want to attach to a serial number or its provenance are merely semantics, for people chasing money! It is first and foremost a musical instrument, it was, literally, made to be played, nothing else matters!
I’d like you to have a look at my early-1970’s Gibson Les Paul gold top if you want to see an instrument with history and a story. It has tales to tell. I bought it in Manchester in 1980 and have never come across anything like it.
I'm with you. THere's NO reason to change the serial unless at one point a bit of trickery was planned. Some "upgrades" like the top I question. But if the tone and feel are improved that's really the answer isn't it?
The owner is entitled to mod the guitar any way he/she chooses.... EXCEPT for putting a S/N on it that it is not entitled to bear. That’s bang out of order!
Lots of questions to ask about this guitar. It may have the early 50's neck to body angle ? The current "bumble bee" caps from Gibson are reproductions. These repro caps when taken from "historic" LP and cut open turn out to be a 'generic ' caps inside the bumble bee casing. The real cork sniffer would want to know if Urea Formaldehyde glue was used to glue the new top to the body. And of course the serial number from the later period which I don't like at all. It's sort of like the guys in Belarus that build very convincing new relic LP and use a Gibson logo. Why ?
Frankly wouldn't be put off by the S/N. It's what's inside that counts, and it's that it's a genuine, amazing guitar that counts. Then again, I'm personally not a vintage guitar player. My main guitar is an ESP eclipse that's just a few years old, and my little bit of "ooh look it's aged" is that the binding has yellowed all the way around a tiny bit. I do care about a guitar being the actual brand, or at least something I trust, but other than that, A serial number not being 100% correct because of a headstock change wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Also, aren't there markings inside of the guitar that still show it's true age? That, for me at least, would matter infinitely more than the replaced S/N. A guitar is all about how it sounds, how it plays, how it feels... and the *story* is a really nice added bonus. Whether that's your own of playing for years, or inheriting another's legacy, vintage guitars - as someone who doesn't own any, so what do I know? - are about the story more than any specific detail.
I'm interested in the weight of the guitar, supposedly the early 1950's Les Paul guitars were incredibly light - around 8 pounds! I wonder what the lightest solid body Les Paul from that era weighed..? Like the Theseus, which still had its original frame, this guitar still has the body and neck wood - including fretboard, it's "husk" except for the maple cap. I prefer seeing these guitars restored to original spec, with their P-90 pickups and wraparound tailpiece intact. It's the tailpiece that made them difficult to play, so that should be changed if it's a player, although I suppose it devalues the guitar as a collector to do that. Some of the most valuable collector guitars weren't good players, why they remained in such good shape, while the ones that look thrashed from being played so much - those are the players, but worth less as a collector item.
The weights of 50's Les Pauls average between 8 - 9.5lbs. I own an all original '53 that is just over 9 lbs. Les Paul Customs from the 50's however can weigh up over 10lbs in some cases. It's a myth to say that any era of Les Paul's were all a certain weight. Every year has a pretty good range of weights. But they do tend to be lighter on average than most guitars made from the Norlin era onward. That is why chambering became a thing. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the lightest Les Pauls tend to be from '60 due to the smaller neck size. A '58 is likely to weigh more. Those earlier 50's necks can be fairly beefy.
Does the serial number go with that guitar? If so, leave it there and ensure the documents stay with it. If not, sand it off and advise it's vintage but not that it's original, because it isn't.
Indeed, It's provenance makes it's value. Is there any ways Gibson themselves could appraise it and maybe adopt the serial number for their records or give it a period relative new number? Probably not? ......
I'm in agreeance with everyone as well. Great guitar, great story, but the serial number crosses the line. It's just very confusing cuz if you're going to be up front about it, why change/add the serial at all? It's commendable that the sellers have been very clear regarding the conversion and I get wanting a guitar to fit the intended image down to the fine details, but the second it leaves your own purview all it takes is to throw that letter away and few would be the wiser.
The serial number change is definitely a dodgy practice, like why? It would have been a cool guitar absent the serial number or with the original number, seems to be more a monitory value thing rather than a cool guitar thing.
Your 'Ship of Theseus' analogy , i've often wondered that about World War 2 warbirds, by the time its restored just about nothing from the original aircraft is left... glad guitars are somewhat simpler , however, the back story is what makes it, the history, its life as it were, its like collecting classic cars and bikes, same thing, the back story , its history, thats the ticket.
For me, if you replace parts bit by bit over time, such that there's always the guitar there, then it's OK. With this one though, I'm not so sure. It has most of the original body, most of the original neck, and virtually everything else changed. And as almost everyone else is saying, the serial number is the deal breaker. It's like they've taken an old Ford Mustang body, fitted a load of non-standard parts and engine, then slapped a Shelby badge on it.
When they put the new serial number on, it would have been easy to add another character (C for conversion, #, *, !) to make it obvious it's not an attempt to trick someone in the future. But I would play the #*! out of it myself.
The object looks like a guitar. I am not a brand or model purist. If it plays it is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. To me the serial number is inconsequential. I would love to have it. Alas, above my means.
Interesting history that adds to its appeal my opinion, I like other comments, would lose the serial number as that smacks of someone trying to pass it off as something it isnt
I’m right there with you on the serial number. That screams that it was intended to be a fake, not a conversion. As far as I’m concerned if you intended it to be a documented conversion you don’t mess with the serial number. I get wanting to convert the gold top. From what I understand, those super early ones aren’t great as players.
I think the changed SN only becomes a problem when it ends up in the hands of someone selling it as a real '59. Intentionally or not. The fact its been done facilitates that issue being possible. BUT - this is what someone chose to do with THEIR own property right. And I cannot find an issue with what someone chooses to do with their own stuff. I hate that.
I think the issue is that it's not legal. The instrument may be yours, but the serial number associated with it belongs to the company that built it. They keep records with it, and it serves its purpose by keeping track of the model, year and specs.
@@nonolaporte3195 Your right I get it, But lets say someone did it, commissioned it whatever and it was THEIR guitar which they had no intention of ever letting go. And they enjoyed it that much more with a period correct serial number. Surely that's upto them. I would personally never mess with, forge or alter a serial number. I just believe in people doing whatever they like to their own stuff sort of thing. It will have had impact on the value and raise many questions/issues at some point. But that was their choice.
If it wasn't in rough enough to fix, I think it was worth more original but it's pretty cool either way.. I just am not liking the wrong serial number on it..
A friend of mine (luthier) got an Les Paul to do a sun burst refinish which ends up in putting a new top on the guitar because the "original" burst was put on some veneer!? Nobody knows what's happen before but it was assumed that someone want's a quick sunburst on his original gold top so things happen...?
I don't mind the serial, they didn't have a consistent serial system anyway... if that's what they did and they documented it, it's legit enough, it's a retro-mod, it's not a modern repro, it's not a burst.
In my opinion sometimes these repros or replicas have some inconsistences regard the relic and this is why I mostly disagree with that kind of "fake relic". In this case: I can't see any dings on the top and no wear and tear on the top or wear on the right arm rest area, no nitro wear on the back of the neck, as I can see in the video the nitro checking only appears only on the top etc... The guitar looks fantastic, looks like a "heavily" or very well played old guitar: it has nitro checking, some scratches, dings all around, etc but no dings on the top (?¿?), no neck wear (?¿?¿), no arm wear (?¿?¿), no pickguard wear (?¿?), etc ... Please, do not misundertand me, the guitar loos georgeus but ...
I think you should get back to the relic job Les Paul, you were working on about a week and a half ago. So we can see you do or at least show the top. Thanks.
I can understand why an early 50s gold top might be refurbished. Those gold tops, start to look green. I’d have kept it as a gold top. Are those pick ups original? I’d have thought that guitar would have had P90s.
It's all about how the guitar is presented. if it's presented as being authentic (when it's not), then it's a "fake" or "counterfit", and the serial number is just part of "faking it". If it's presented as a lovingly executed reproduction, then that's just what it is - a reproduction - like a reproduction of a great work of art. I own three reproductions from custom shops in China. One is a reproduction mid 80's MIJ Fender Bass special, the second is a 70's Fender XII electric 12 string, and the third is a reproduction 57 Moderne. As authentic reproductions, all have period correct headstock markings, including serial numbers. All are new builds, not mods or "partscasters" made from old parts. They are all marketed and sold as new (not original). Original versions of these if they exist and can be found are thousands of dollars, but each of mine was in the $400 to $500 range. I could probably never afford the real thing. I am interested in them as instruments, not as collector pieces.
The serial number doesn't need changing (or adding if that's what happened). Otherwise, yes a really interesting guitar. It somehow looks more authentic than a modern repro.
ide personally rather have an early p90 gold top all beat up and grungy they make a conversion bridge that makes them excellent players! my holy grail would be a 1954-1955 les paul custom with the alnico neck pup...even a reissue would be great..lol
Its messed up but when you said the maple top had been replaced in my opinion its now just a very good. Possibly better than most reissue of a 59. Jell only thing original is just the mahogany body. Right even if neck and fretboard is original its just a better and closer than most reissue.
I would say that putting a later serial number to match the customisation that was done, is about the equivalent of having it made in China very well and then pretending it's a real 59, for it to be a 59 the serial number should be late 58 to early 60, this guitars serial number is it's true ID, if it did not have one, then that is it's true ID. P.S. I don't have the money for a 59 or any early Gibson and I do actually think that they do over charge for a lot of the modern stuff. I tend to buy very well made Japanese guitars regardless of what it says on the headstock, I have a Les Paul made under liscence from Gibson by FGN who also made a lot of the Fender Stratocasters and other models for a while and now make most of the high end Ibanez guitars. At the end of the day it's not who made it or what it is, it's how it feels and how it sounds to you.
Unfortunately in the letter he said it didn't have a serial number... Would definitely be that much more amazing if there was at least a reference to the original SN.
What gets me is…..there was no serial number so they have added one. Is the number they have added a serial number of a legitimate 59LP ? If so does that not call people to question the original guitar / risk having 2 guitars with the same number. All to wrong for me, to me it no longer matters what this guitar started life as, there is so much on the guitar that is now ‘new’ that it is ultimately a fake, it pretending to be something it is not. It is not the same as buying a reissue that comes with the certificate and the serial number can be traced to a new build.
The issue with a number of the early LP's is that they were almost unplayable due to the neck angle and the original tailpiece. Also, a lot of the early ones were routed for humbuckers. Conversions are not uncommon and I have no issue with that, made the guitar playable instead of a wall hanger. But I agree with regards to the SN, should have kept the original to make it obvious that it's a conversion.
@@jamesduffin9417 Of course, but I'm answering to OP's comment that "the owner should have kept the original to make it obvious that it's a conversion." There was no original to begin with and there should be no serial number AT ALL on that guitar
@@jaungiga I didn't see that. That would indicate that it was an early LP. the early ones did not have SN's. It that case, I can see using some sort of SN on the head, but personally I would mark the control cavity to make it obvious it's a conversion.
Also, and this is my ignorance so I apologise, but what makes a '59 Les Paul so sought after compared to others? To me, a Les Paul is a Les Paul, the only difference I see in any of them are how many pick ups it has and which type
I would normally advocate putting the original serial number back on it, but I suppose you can't do that if there wasn't one at the point where its history began to be recorded.
I feel the same about the serial number. I think if i had this made for myself I would love to pretend its the real deal but youre still potentially doing something dangerous, I think I would put things in the cavity saying what it was and also change the serial number in some way, maybe some letters in there or something. the "9" at the beginning is pretty cool.
The story is awesome and wants to be shared. Even with all the updates and changed on it. The serial number makes it suspicious though. Earlier serial number for 52 or 53 would make more sense to me. That it is documented does make it priceless due to the history.
Is the serial number original to the..did you say replaced headstock? I'm guessing the neck at the very least was replaced...if they went through the job of re-topping a guitar. Seems overkill to me. The only thing left original is the body....not much else. Then it becomes what? A well done Mod Shop collection piece? I saw some original PAFs going for $22K (USD) on Reverb. Stunning price. But does that mean putting those in a $1200 Standard automatically makes that guitar a $23.2K guitar? Nice looking. But I wouldn't sell it as a '53. I'd sell it as a '59 Mod tribute.
I think the original should just have been left alone! Be interesting to see what state it was actually in before the work started. In my mind the sheer number of changes devalue the instrument and take the heart and soul out of it. Still looks good though, but might as well be a Murphy Labs instrument for me.
I'm ok with all of it cept the Serial change. That turns it from a lovingly done conversion into a counterfeit attempt even if that's not the intent. That said, I would rather own the 50s gold top I think. Peace
These guitars when they were built, they were tools in the hands of people who played. These people modified to their tastes. If it's already been done, and you like it, it's worth what you want to spend
Send it to Trogly, I reckon it could be a fun collaboration and if anyone will have an opinion on a Les Paul it's him :)... as for myself, I'd have left the serial number in tact
100% on board with you. Beautiful guitar, awesome story, the SN though…. Would have been cooler to have the original 52-54 SN because it adds more validity to the story
Agreed 110%. The original serial number, if known, tells you all you need to know. It's a conversion, it's NOT a genuine 1959 Standard. This "new" serial number brands it a fake, a deception. I own a Collector's Choice Les Paul. It has its own unique serial number which starts "CC" and looks nothing like a 59 series serial number. It's ultimate value comes down to what it is, not what it's trying to be.
As soon as somebody changes the serial number it becomes an issue to me.
It was already a good (according to those who have seen it) 50s LP modified to up to 59 spec, surely that's good enough for anybody who isn't going to claim it's a real 59.
Yes I have played one and even with my limited knowledge at the time it was simply fantastic (saw it played most Saturday nights in a local pub) and now it lives with Mike McCready
Well the only one who has a true say about what should be done to this guitar is the owner himself, we can go back and forth about what we think it should be done to this guitar but it’s not out money so not our loss. These guitars have gonw so much in value that it’s not affordable for 99% of guitar players and I’m sure the owner didn’t want to sit around for 10 years till somebody seems interested enough to drop that amount of money
From a collectors stance, it's sad to see the first production year of Les Pauls get changed in any way. However guitars are tools, and ultimatley the conversion was done beautifully and authentically. The serial number however, that makes it a pure, unadultered counterfiet, not 'in my opinion' or anything, it seems small, however, that takes this from 'conversion' to 'fake.' There is absolutely no reason to change a serial number unless you are trying to decieve. I don't care about documentation, what if this is left as a family heirloom and the story gets lost and it's mistaken for a real burst? That's not OK in my mind.
I agree with all you said about this instrument, including being bothered by the serial number. Putting that number on the guitar makes it a counterfeit. Perhaps not in the same league as a Chibson, but still a counterfeit. Having the provenance of the documentation helps, but that is paper that could be separated from the instrument at some point. Bad form to whomever put the serial number on it.
Reminds me of Trigger’s broom in only fools and horses 😂
I have a similar story, own an old 50s Goldtop that had been stripped of all hardware, i had it re-topped and refinished as the original top was totally knackered, although the body is African mahogany, Brazillian board etc, i've had to put repro parts on it, looks just like a 58 but i tell everyone what it is and wouldn't change the serial number.
6:50 When bought in 1989, "At this time it did NOT bear a serial number..." That means the SN was added later and is fake. Get rid of the SN and use letter punches in the pickup cavities to indicate that it is NOT a real '59. Let the auction determine the resultant value of the guitar with those mods.
I like the way you think.
My thoughts exactly - thank you!
I had a friend in college, 1974, owned an all original1952 Goldtop. He let me play it from tome to time, something I will always remember.
I’m in two minds. First, the artifice of a 59 serial number is right on the edge of deception, regardless of how open the vendor is about it.
On the other hand, why should I or anyone care about what someone else wants to do to THEIR guitar? Some people are far too precious about (other peoples’) old guitars.
I think the issue is the serial number is really only of value when it comes to identification. A new top? Sure, that's aesthetic. A new veneer? Again, changes the look. Pickups are all taste. But the main reason someone would look to a serial number is in a situation like this, where someone would want to buy a guitar and that is veering into deception. Like how you're allowed to modify a car as much as you like, but if you start messing with the plates or VIN that's Not OK.
Why would anyone care?
It has documentation explaining everything.
It’s a hunk of wood, not a magical object.
People identify as all sorts of things and the same people complaining here bat not an eye.
Carry on dear LP Owner. Carry on.
If it looks good & it sounds good, then nothing else should matter. Ben, if it isn't any inconvenience to you, please keep us posted on how much it ends up selling for? 🙏
Cheers..
No one is trying to hide the changes including the serial number so it is what it is. It has it’s own story for everyone to see. The real question is what is worth to you with the changes. At the right price I’d love to own it !!
An early 50s gold top would be a dream guitar for me, so I’m not crazy about the refits but the serial number is definitely a bridge too far.
I’m good with it. Because it mentions the serial number in the the documentation. And as long as the paper work goes with it and not presented as something it’s not ,great. As in the automotive word documentation is the key.
The serial number: If the neck is honestly from 1959, then the 59-serial is acceptable, as long as its part in the guitar's story is documented.
I'd say that the guitar's life has been adequately documented to say it is worth the price tag.
Had a friend have a prs SE tremonti recarved and repainted to US spec, along with tremonti pickups, and a new headstock decal, because he wanted the US model but couldn't afford it. Saved himself a grand (CDN) all done and said, which after all the time to do so, could have just saved that money to acquire an original. This reminds me of that guitar.
I guessed that was going to be the issue as soon as you said “there’s one issue“.And I quite agree.
You're absolutely spot on.
Gary builds some amazing LP replicas and I have had a couple in my hands and one in particular that I have worked on and played many times that belongs to a close friend. The fact that he did the conversion makes this guitar that much cooler and more "legit" IMO. *BUT* the serial number bit I don't care for personally, but as long as it is documented and not trying to be passed off as something it is not then ok.
It is great to hear endorsements like that for the luthier.. personally I don't think I could ever be persuaded to replace something as significant as the whole top of a significant vintage guitar for nothing other than aesthetic reasons.. that being said, the customer wanted it and went to the right person for the job..
Seems to be and looks amazing. It probably is. But yeah the only problem for me is that serial number. It should have an extra mark or something that shows that it’s not an actual 59. Only because of the crazy prices that they sell for. But where this one comes with the entire history of the guitar and while it is pretending to be something that it isn’t. It’s not telling lies or trying to deceive. I’d love to have it! I’d play it every single day and love every single second of it
I agree about the serial number being wrong. Also, unless a guitar is a wreck - and some early '50s examples I've seen have been - leave well alone. I'd love a 1953/4 Gold Top more than a '59 burst. Yes, I'm odd!
I actually think about this quite a bit. My view is if the neck & body are the same it’s the same guitar. But that mainly applies to bolt on & my abilities.
If there’s replaced wood, then it’s not the same guitar, just a new guitar with old wood.
The serial number might be on the wrong side of the law. But I’m no expert by all means.
If your a collector then the serial number really matters and would raise questions.
If you want a nice vintage guitar then it don't matter.
There was a luthier who made pretty much exact replicas of 58/59/60 Les Pauls who inlaid a small magnet in the underside of the top between the tailpiece and strap button before gluing it to the body so it couldn't be passed off as genuine
If plays great, sounds great, and it’s stable … that’s is what mattered. Al the rest is just icing!
If a person wants to mimic a particular guitar just for giggles, I don’t see anything wrong with mimicking the serial number and every other small detail as well. In that case, the right thing to do would be to ensure it isn’t passed off as original.
My question is whether the serial number is authentic to the new headstock, or is essentially a copy of another guitar out in the world.
I would have preferred the original serial but of course all the documentation is absolutely necessary too.
My friend has a 52-53 Gibson LP Goldtop prototype - no serial number. It's the best playing Gibson I've ever played. The neck is unbelievable.
Having read all the comments, (currently 93), aren't certain people missing the point!
What we have before us is a musical instrument, all that matters is, it sounds good and plays well, as an instrument that is the be all and end all!
Any mystique you want to attach to a serial number or its provenance are merely semantics, for people chasing money!
It is first and foremost a musical instrument, it was, literally, made to be played, nothing else matters!
I’d like you to have a look at my early-1970’s Gibson Les Paul gold top if you want to see an instrument with history and a story. It has tales to tell. I bought it in Manchester in 1980 and have never come across anything like it.
I'm with you. THere's NO reason to change the serial unless at one point a bit of trickery was planned. Some "upgrades" like the top I question. But if the tone and feel are improved that's really the answer isn't it?
The owner is entitled to mod the guitar any way he/she chooses.... EXCEPT for putting a S/N on it that it is not entitled to bear. That’s bang out of order!
Lots of questions to ask about this guitar. It may have the early 50's neck to body angle ? The current "bumble bee" caps from Gibson are reproductions. These repro caps when taken from "historic" LP and cut open turn out to be a 'generic ' caps inside the bumble bee casing.
The real cork sniffer would want to know if Urea Formaldehyde glue was used to glue the new top to the body. And of course the serial number from the later period which I don't like at all. It's sort of like the guys in Belarus that build very convincing new relic LP and use a Gibson logo. Why ?
Frankly wouldn't be put off by the S/N. It's what's inside that counts, and it's that it's a genuine, amazing guitar that counts.
Then again, I'm personally not a vintage guitar player. My main guitar is an ESP eclipse that's just a few years old, and my little bit of "ooh look it's aged" is that the binding has yellowed all the way around a tiny bit. I do care about a guitar being the actual brand, or at least something I trust, but other than that, A serial number not being 100% correct because of a headstock change wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Also, aren't there markings inside of the guitar that still show it's true age? That, for me at least, would matter infinitely more than the replaced S/N.
A guitar is all about how it sounds, how it plays, how it feels... and the *story* is a really nice added bonus. Whether that's your own of playing for years, or inheriting another's legacy, vintage guitars - as someone who doesn't own any, so what do I know? - are about the story more than any specific detail.
I'm interested in the weight of the guitar, supposedly the early 1950's Les Paul guitars were incredibly light - around 8 pounds! I wonder what the lightest solid body Les Paul from that era weighed..? Like the Theseus, which still had its original frame, this guitar still has the body and neck wood - including fretboard, it's "husk" except for the maple cap. I prefer seeing these guitars restored to original spec, with their P-90 pickups and wraparound tailpiece intact. It's the tailpiece that made them difficult to play, so that should be changed if it's a player, although I suppose it devalues the guitar as a collector to do that. Some of the most valuable collector guitars weren't good players, why they remained in such good shape, while the ones that look thrashed from being played so much - those are the players, but worth less as a collector item.
The weights of 50's Les Pauls average between 8 - 9.5lbs. I own an all original '53 that is just over 9 lbs. Les Paul Customs from the 50's however can weigh up over 10lbs in some cases. It's a myth to say that any era of Les Paul's were all a certain weight. Every year has a pretty good range of weights. But they do tend to be lighter on average than most guitars made from the Norlin era onward. That is why chambering became a thing.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the lightest Les Pauls tend to be from '60 due to the smaller neck size. A '58 is likely to weigh more. Those earlier 50's necks can be fairly beefy.
Dude, your intro was MacBeth-worthy. I like it.
Does the serial number go with that guitar? If so, leave it there and ensure the documents stay with it. If not, sand it off and advise it's vintage but not that it's original, because it isn't.
Indeed, It's provenance makes it's value. Is there any ways Gibson themselves could appraise it and maybe adopt the serial number for their records or give it a period relative new number? Probably not? ......
sail on; the journey is worth the destination.
I'm in agreeance with everyone as well. Great guitar, great story, but the serial number crosses the line. It's just very confusing cuz if you're going to be up front about it, why change/add the serial at all? It's commendable that the sellers have been very clear regarding the conversion and I get wanting a guitar to fit the intended image down to the fine details, but the second it leaves your own purview all it takes is to throw that letter away and few would be the wiser.
The serial number change is definitely a dodgy practice, like why? It would have been a cool guitar absent the serial number or with the original number, seems to be more a monitory value thing rather than a cool guitar thing.
The answers you seek can be found in Terry Pratchet's The Fifth Elephant, when the King discusses his father's axe... damn cool guitar anyhow.
Your 'Ship of Theseus' analogy , i've often wondered that about World War 2 warbirds, by the time its restored just about nothing from the original aircraft is left... glad guitars are somewhat simpler , however, the back story is what makes it, the history, its life as it were, its like collecting classic cars and bikes, same thing, the back story , its history, thats the ticket.
For me, if you replace parts bit by bit over time, such that there's always the guitar there, then it's OK. With this one though, I'm not so sure. It has most of the original body, most of the original neck, and virtually everything else changed. And as almost everyone else is saying, the serial number is the deal breaker. It's like they've taken an old Ford Mustang body, fitted a load of non-standard parts and engine, then slapped a Shelby badge on it.
Every guitar is special
I'd suggest folks check out KDH's video on Ed Roman. This reminds me of his criminal handiwork.
When they put the new serial number on, it would have been easy to add another character (C for conversion, #, *, !) to make it obvious it's not an attempt to trick someone in the future. But I would play the #*! out of it myself.
The object looks like a guitar. I am not a brand or model purist. If it plays it is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. To me the serial number is inconsequential. I would love to have it. Alas, above my means.
Interesting history that adds to its appeal my opinion, I like other comments, would lose the serial number as that smacks of someone trying to pass it off as something it isnt
I’m right there with you on the serial number. That screams that it was intended to be a fake, not a conversion. As far as I’m concerned if you intended it to be a documented conversion you don’t mess with the serial number.
I get wanting to convert the gold top. From what I understand, those super early ones aren’t great as players.
I think the changed SN only becomes a problem when it ends up in the hands of someone selling it as a real '59. Intentionally or not. The fact its been done facilitates that issue being possible. BUT - this is what someone chose to do with THEIR own property right. And I cannot find an issue with what someone chooses to do with their own stuff. I hate that.
I think the issue is that it's not legal. The instrument may be yours, but the serial number associated with it belongs to the company that built it. They keep records with it, and it serves its purpose by keeping track of the model, year and specs.
@@nonolaporte3195 Your right I get it, But lets say someone did it, commissioned it whatever and it was THEIR guitar which they had no intention of ever letting go. And they enjoyed it that much more with a period correct serial number. Surely that's upto them. I would personally never mess with, forge or alter a serial number. I just believe in people doing whatever they like to their own stuff sort of thing. It will have had impact on the value and raise many questions/issues at some point. But that was their choice.
🔊On vintage motorcycles the original frame and engine numbers represent the real value, the same should count for 🎸
If it wasn't in rough enough to fix, I think it was worth more original but it's pretty cool either way.. I just am not liking the wrong serial number on it..
I'm in various minds, but am tending towards it being a great story. Great guitar with a great story.
A friend of mine (luthier) got an Les Paul to do a sun burst refinish which ends up in putting a new top on the guitar because the "original" burst was put on some veneer!? Nobody knows what's happen before but it was assumed that someone want's a quick sunburst on his original gold top so things happen...?
Learning the history of the guitar changed my initial, knee-jerk, negative opinion to an entirely positive one and the guitar became fascinating...
my opinion is he should have left it as an all original early 50s goldtop.
Good story, refurbish by all means but please don't change the serial number. I'm with you on this.
the serial number is the only thing that bothers me. i know a guy who did the same thing to another 52 with a flamy one piece top. nice looking guitar
It depends on when the conversion was done, I'm thinking.
I don't mind the serial, they didn't have a consistent serial system anyway... if that's what they did and they documented it, it's legit enough, it's a retro-mod, it's not a modern repro, it's not a burst.
In my opinion sometimes these repros or replicas have some inconsistences regard the relic and this is why I mostly disagree with that kind of "fake relic". In this case: I can't see any dings on the top and no wear and tear on the top or wear on the right arm rest area, no nitro wear on the back of the neck, as I can see in the video the nitro checking only appears only on the top etc... The guitar looks fantastic, looks like a "heavily" or very well played old guitar: it has nitro checking, some scratches, dings all around, etc but no dings on the top (?¿?), no neck wear (?¿?¿), no arm wear (?¿?¿), no pickguard wear (?¿?), etc ...
Please, do not misundertand me, the guitar loos georgeus but ...
That's awesome, would be a heck of a addition to anyone's collection
were you thinking along the line of Triggers brush in fools and horses
If anyone is confused with the ship of Theseus reference, it's basically Trigger's brush 😁
I Agree, Once you alter the serial # you enter in the realm of counterfeit.
I think you should get back to the relic job Les Paul, you were working on about a week and a half ago. So we can see you do or at least show the top. Thanks.
I can understand why an early 50s gold top might be refurbished. Those gold tops, start to look green. I’d have kept it as a gold top. Are those pick ups original? I’d have thought that guitar would have had P90s.
It's all about how the guitar is presented. if it's presented as being authentic (when it's not), then it's a "fake" or "counterfit", and the serial number is just part of "faking it". If it's presented as a lovingly executed reproduction, then that's just what it is - a reproduction - like a reproduction of a great work of art. I own three reproductions from custom shops in China. One is a reproduction mid 80's MIJ Fender Bass special, the second is a 70's Fender XII electric 12 string, and the third is a reproduction 57 Moderne. As authentic reproductions, all have period correct headstock markings, including serial numbers. All are new builds, not mods or "partscasters" made from old parts. They are all marketed and sold as new (not original). Original versions of these if they exist and can be found are thousands of dollars, but each of mine was in the $400 to $500 range. I could probably never afford the real thing. I am interested in them as instruments, not as collector pieces.
Going to love this series.
Love your videos. What a stunning guitar.
The serial number doesn't need changing (or adding if that's what happened). Otherwise, yes a really interesting guitar. It somehow looks more authentic than a modern repro.
ide personally rather have an early p90 gold top all beat up and grungy they make a conversion bridge that makes them excellent players! my holy grail would be a 1954-1955 les paul custom with the alnico neck pup...even a reissue would be great..lol
Its messed up but when you said the maple top had been replaced in my opinion its now just a very good. Possibly better than most reissue of a 59. Jell only thing original is just the mahogany body. Right even if neck and fretboard is original its just a better and closer than most reissue.
I would say that putting a later serial number to match the customisation that was done, is about the equivalent of having it made in China very well and then pretending it's a real 59, for it to be a 59 the serial number should be late 58 to early 60, this guitars serial number is it's true ID, if it did not have one, then that is it's true ID. P.S. I don't have the money for a 59 or any early Gibson and I do actually think that they do over charge for a lot of the modern stuff. I tend to buy very well made Japanese guitars regardless of what it says on the headstock, I have a Les Paul made under liscence from Gibson by FGN who also made a lot of the Fender Stratocasters and other models for a while and now make most of the high end Ibanez guitars. At the end of the day it's not who made it or what it is, it's how it feels and how it sounds to you.
Yeah, the S/N is an issue with me. The odds of someone getting away with selling it as a 59 is slim but still.
Unfortunately in the letter he said it didn't have a serial number... Would definitely be that much more amazing if there was at least a reference to the original SN.
Great job on them making a 100% authentic Chibson 👍🏼
The goal of any builder should be to create something that will someday have a story of its own to tell. I believe if you do this the $$$ will follow.
What gets me is…..there was no serial number so they have added one. Is the number they have added a serial number of a legitimate 59LP ? If so does that not call people to question the original guitar / risk having 2 guitars with the same number. All to wrong for me, to me it no longer matters what this guitar started life as, there is so much on the guitar that is now ‘new’ that it is ultimately a fake, it pretending to be something it is not. It is not the same as buying a reissue that comes with the certificate and the serial number can be traced to a new build.
The issue with a number of the early LP's is that they were almost unplayable due to the neck angle and the original tailpiece. Also, a lot of the early ones were routed for humbuckers. Conversions are not uncommon and I have no issue with that, made the guitar playable instead of a wall hanger. But I agree with regards to the SN, should have kept the original to make it obvious that it's a conversion.
The previous owner states in his letter (6:50) that the instrument did not bear a serial number prior to being "converted" into a '59 standard
@@jaungiga but that paperwork could easily be lost or separated from the guitar and then someone could think they are buying something they aren’t
@@jamesduffin9417 Of course, but I'm answering to OP's comment that "the owner should have kept the original to make it obvious that it's a conversion." There was no original to begin with and there should be no serial number AT ALL on that guitar
@@jaungiga thanks I’ve now got it! I misinterpreted your original comment.
@@jaungiga I didn't see that. That would indicate that it was an early LP. the early ones did not have SN's. It that case, I can see using some sort of SN on the head, but personally I would mark the control cavity to make it obvious it's a conversion.
Also, and this is my ignorance so I apologise, but what makes a '59 Les Paul so sought after compared to others? To me, a Les Paul is a Les Paul, the only difference I see in any of them are how many pick ups it has and which type
Came across a similar les paul. R8 converted to a r9. New top, new binding, shaved neck, new nitro finish. Looked good from far but was far from good
I would normally advocate putting the original serial number back on it, but I suppose you can't do that if there wasn't one at the point where its history began to be recorded.
I feel the same about the serial number. I think if i had this made for myself I would love to pretend its the real deal but youre still potentially doing something dangerous, I think I would put things in the cavity saying what it was and also change the serial number in some way, maybe some letters in there or something. the "9" at the beginning is pretty cool.
At the end of the day does it make music? Is the story that important. Can you love it for what it is?
I don't have a problem with any of the changes other than the serial number. Serial numbers should not be changed.
The story is awesome and wants to be shared. Even with all the updates and changed on it. The serial number makes it suspicious though. Earlier serial number for 52 or 53 would make more sense to me. That it is documented does make it priceless due to the history.
The serial number change is a no no. Either put the original SN on it or nothing. Otherwise, it's quite nice.
Does anyone know much about old hofner guitars? I have my grandfathers which I know very little about apart from it being possibly late 50's.
As long as the documentation is there I don't mind about the SN. Am actually more curious how a retop can be done! Ben? :-)
If the serial number is not already on any other instrument, then it's fine. If not I would say it should be illegal to reuse a SN.
"The sustain, listen to it" -- in other words, another video about a guitar without a note played, great.
Great guitar But the but serial number is issue .
Some body may try to sell that as a 59 Les Paul . by loosing the paper work..
Is the serial number original to the..did you say replaced headstock? I'm guessing the neck at the very least was replaced...if they went through the job of re-topping a guitar. Seems overkill to me. The only thing left original is the body....not much else. Then it becomes what? A well done Mod Shop collection piece?
I saw some original PAFs going for $22K (USD) on Reverb. Stunning price. But does that mean putting those in a $1200 Standard automatically makes that guitar a $23.2K guitar?
Nice looking. But I wouldn't sell it as a '53. I'd sell it as a '59 Mod tribute.
Is it more or less? Definitely Les!
I think the original should just have been left alone! Be interesting to see what state it was actually in before the work started. In my mind the sheer number of changes devalue the instrument and take the heart and soul out of it. Still looks good though, but might as well be a Murphy Labs instrument for me.
I'm ok with all of it cept the Serial change. That turns it from a lovingly done conversion into a counterfeit attempt even if that's not the intent. That said, I would rather own the 50s gold top I think.
Peace
These guitars when they were built, they were tools in the hands of people who played. These people modified to their tastes. If it's already been done, and you like it, it's worth what you want to spend
Send it to Trogly, I reckon it could be a fun collaboration and if anyone will have an opinion on a Les Paul it's him :)... as for myself, I'd have left the serial number in tact
I do mis what’s on the bench and other young luthiers learning and making it in the trade and such .
.
Except for the serial number I think it adds to the guitars story