59 Conversion - I dare say a healthy discussion will follow

BigPaulie

impmann said:

The more you look, the more wrong it appears. 

The solder on the back of the pickups is shiny and new, and in odd places - and doesn’t line up with the covers. The pole piece screws are very shiny…

Its a bitsa and I’m struggling to see what’s left of it that’s “old”. Old wood *perhaps* but even that is questionable.

if the identification of this guitar hinges on a set of inlays… which could have been rescued from an old Les Paul…. I think only a fool would spend fortunes here.

My thoughts exactly.

The pickups look far too new to be 50s PAFs.

impmann

guitars4you said:

historyisjunk said:

Like most people here I'm struggling with this a bit. I can understand why luthier/restorers make these because they are so oddly valuable, but in the process this hasn't just been repaired & refinished it seems to have had some of the wood replaced, or covered up.
Philistine probably, but i'd rather it had been refinished gold again & made into a '53 '54 alike with humbuckers, as these had already been fitted. It would sound just as good & there would be more of it left. And no need for the serial nunber B/S.

makes sense 

Would be far more honest, tbh.

Y'see its really a fake. Yes they claim some of the wood is from a 1950-something Gibson but now its all been sanded back, altered, steamed off and refinished it could just be reclaimed wood from a school workbench (yes, it could - when I was a kid there was a local school that had mahogany workbenches more than an inch thick and school was built in 1932). Even giving it all the benefits of the doubt, the top (and its a thick one) is not legit - its not old wood. Most of the woodworking and finishing was done by a bloke in a workshop not by Gibson, its got a fake serial number and even the much-lauded pickups are suspect at best (even they say "probably"... which is auction speak for suspect at best). Some of the hardware could be 1950s, but thats not *that* hard to find...

Yet, here it is being passed off as a late 50s Gibson... bits of it *might* be but not all of it. Therefore its not what it purports to be, therefore its a fake. 

Take away the emotive "1950s Gibson" stuff, the "luthier" stuff, the "old wood" stuff and the marketing fluff - its a guitar of dubious origin, with no real provenance other than some pics of a totally different looking guitar that features some inlays that we are all aware can be removed from one neck and fitted to another, plus those pics aren't categorical proof it was a 1950s Les Paul, it was just an old modded one (could have been late 60s) - there are no build pics to prove what it was, therefore passing it off as anything other than a Les Paul replica that might contain some original parts and wood is not on. 

I'm sure others have different opinions but this is exactly where these "conversions" become so murky and cloudy, its bordering on deception. And £20k+... daft. End of.

RaymondLin

It was a 52 or 53, I don’t see a problem of them changing it to a 59 spec, it’s your guitar, you can burn it if you want but I stop at the serial, that but is forgery.  That is dishonest. 

No, you are only kidding yourself if you buy it and think you own a burst, and if you bought it didn’t know it was a conversion and was informed it was a burst then it’s a fraud and deception surely.

TeleMaster

Future rock and roll revivalists will look at the bastardisation of perfectly good early 50's Les Paul's and scream WHYYYYYYY???????

ICBM

TeleMaster said:

Future rock and roll revivalists will look at the bastardisation of perfectly good early 50's Les Paul's and scream WHYYYYYYY???????

It’s not so bad if they’ve already been routed for humbuckers, as many have been. The damage is already done.

The one I will never understand is in a thread somewhere here… a respected luthier converting a probably unique, factory-made maple-capped 3-pickup Custom - albeit with some issues, but restorable - into a fake Standard. That’s destroying history.

guitars4you

TeleMaster said:

Future rock and roll revivalists will look at the bastardisation of perfectly good early 50's Les Paul's and scream WHYYYYYYY???????

I suppose two sides to this - In the 50's, 60's and even early 70's such guitars were just a tool of the trade - They had no 'vintage value' at this stage - Despite all the 'mojo' we throw at such guitars today, they are not all good, so not unusual to see 'mods' carried out as required - Can't recall the full details now, but a while ago on FB someone posted the video of the lovely old lady who had owned an early 50's gold top from new - One owner from new but has had various mods carried out on it - So at the time such changes were not really 'bastardisation' - But I know you are not implying bastardisation at such more 'subtle changes'

Furthermore, some conversions have been carried out to badly damaged/deformed early 50's gold tops that are no longer original in anyway, shape or form - You can argue that 'rebuilds' could have been carried out to an 'original' refurbishment rather than 59 conversion - But you could argue the same for a ZZ Top style Model T Ford

I'm not against players grade guitars and sometimes such guitars can perform better than original examples - I missed out a number of years ago on a 59 LP Special - headstock break - crap black refin - But played an absolute treat and was barely over 1K at the time - I dismissed it at the time as I wanted a clean example, but still played like this 'players grade example' - But this 59 Conversion has little going for it

I can accept broken headstock repairs will sometimes need a new facia + logo and even a new serial number following major repair work etc - But use the original number and as others have mentioned through out this posting such changes on this model imply more of a 'fake' than 'original' 

Johnnyseven

Why is it that modifying these old 50s Goldtops with other parts from other guitars is acceptable to sell as a Gibson but putting a Fender neck on a Fender body (that it wasn't attached to in the Fender factory) and selling as a Fender isn't ok?

This isn't a snipe about selling rules on this forum by the way, just wondering why in general one seems to be ok but the other isn't.

Supportact

I can't get my head around the fact that people change the serial numbers on a guitar.  Surely the point of a serial number is that it's a unique number and helps to identify that guitar. 

I would generally assume on that basis that any guitar with an altered or replaced serial number is probably a fake or stolen,  but here it seems to have been done as some kind of upgrade?  Aside from creating doubt for future owners/buyers in years to come,  it just seems really pointless.  

PhilKing

I have a 50's conversion that was done back in the 60's or 70's.  Everything on it in the wood is as it came, other than a block of maple that was inlaid to fit the Stop and tailpiece.  The workmanship is amazing, there are no gaps and you can really only tell if you look at it really closely.  The burst is more Fender style than Gibson, but it has aged naturally and has checked and faded.  Nothing else was changed, other than the pickups.  The headstock has the lower placed Gibson, which is I guess why this was changed on the one in the OP.  The 52 and early 53 Les Pauls didn't have serial numbers (mine doesn't either).  Also I am guessing they did the Bigsby holes because you have the holes from the original wrap under tailpiece in the edge of the guitar.

Here are some shots of mine to show some of the details

The original tailpiece holes

The original 3 piece top.  Where the block is inlaid you can just see that the seam has mowed to be in line with the edge of the bridge, where going under the tailpiece it is about an inch from the edge

This shows the lower Gibson on the headstock.  I forgot to mention that it has reissue tuners, as the old ones had totally gone.

richardhomer

dazzajl said:

richardhomer said:

Like people who decide to have plastic surgery to look like someone else…

Exactly!!

Unless it’s to look like me, of course

‘Before’ or ‘After’?

historyisjunk

TeleMaster said:

Future rock and roll revivalists will look at the bastardisation of perfectly good early 50's Les Paul's and scream WHYYYYYYY???????

I would think so too. I agree with ICBM about them when they have already been routed for humbuckers, often a long time ago you can't actually "un-do" it, but I think it's sad if original P90 guitars are still being converted.
I suppose it's possible that the market, or fashion, will change & people will start converting some of these back to Goldtops, which is as close as you can get to "un-doing". I wonder how they will be described then? 

Hindsight inevitably brings sadnesses, even in relation to inanimate objects like these. I am sure I remember Ash from Oil City saying he used to pull out genuine PAFs for DiMarzio's back in the 70's (apologies if that's a faulty recollection on my part). I also read that under CBS, managers just gave away some specimen examples of the old guitars as they probably didn't see any value in them.
Try finding a decent MG Magnette or MK1 Mondeo now (both banger racing favourites...) & so on & so on.

impmann

historyisjunk said:

TeleMaster said:

Future rock and roll revivalists will look at the bastardisation of perfectly good early 50's Les Paul's and scream WHYYYYYYY???????

I would think so too. I agree with ICBM about them when they have already been routed for humbuckers, often a long time ago you can't actually "un-do" it, but I think it's sad if original P90 guitars are still being converted.
I suppose it's possible that the market, or fashion, will change & people will start converting some of these back to Goldtops, which is as close as you can get to "un-doing". I wonder how they will be described then? 

Hindsight inevitably brings sadnesses, even in relation to inanimate objects like these. I am sure I remember Ash from Oil City saying he used to pull out genuine PAFs for DiMarzio's back in the 70's (apologies if that's a faulty recollection on my part). I also read that under CBS, managers just gave away some specimen examples of the old guitars as they probably didn't see any value in them.
Try finding a decent MG Magnette or MK1 Mondeo now (both banger racing favourites...) & so on & so on.

Why can't you undo it?

Wez is creating an Old Black replica out of a humbucker equipped Les Paul. If you are blocking up a humbucker conversion and then refinishing in gold (and ageing it accordingly) isn't that an honest restoration...?

Oh and fwiw - I once stripped a set of Pat No humbuckers from a mid 60s SG to fit EMGs for a customer when I worked in a shop in the early 90s. When asked what he wanted done with the old pickups he said "do what you like, they squeal with the gain I use so they're f*cking useless".... so I sold em to a mate. For £150 the pair... :-)

Collings

Another one here that they have had in for a bit.

https://www.expressmusic.co.uk/products.asp?code=332736&name=pre-owned-gibson-1952-les-paul-58-conversion-inc-case

WezV

yup, i'm fighting the evil conversions by doing the reverse  .  it's going from a full size humbucker LP to a P-90 neck/mini_hum bridge... but will get pretty close to 53 spec along the way


 

ICBM

You *can*, but I honestly don't really see the point - unless you're doing something like WezV is.

Once you've cut wood away, you can never put it back in a way that makes it anything other than a different sort of conversion - the damage is done, from an originality/value point of view - so you may as well go with the most valuable/desirable option. Given that there are a vanishingly small number of real 50s Standards available on the market, and none at sensible prices, I can understand why you would choose that. Just don't start with a guitar which *can* be restored properly to original.

guitars4you

Collings said:

Another one here that they have had in for a bit.

https://www.expressmusic.co.uk/products.asp?code=332736&name=pre-owned-gibson-1952-les-paul-58-conversion-inc-case

noticed that one the other day - very vague info within the sales description - Note 'made up 58' serial number as well

UnclePsychosis

If I was going to spend £25k on a guitar that wasn't a '59 burst then it definitely wouldn't be this one. 

UnclePsychosis

@WezV tell me about that scratch plate. Is that Ramona Flowers? 

WezV

UnclePsychosis said:

@WezV tell me about that scratch plate. Is that Ramona Flowers? 

Yes, it wont be on the final guitar.   It's one i made a few years back.  I need to make a plain version for this old black replica, but using this one for mockups till i do

ChrisCox1994

Looks like my 90s standard with a few vintage correct changes, yaaawwwwn