It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Great work @jumping@shadows!
(formerly miserneil)
Here’s the latest going out- ‘59 ES225 and ‘56/59 Burst conversion
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
It pains me to see all these 1950s P90 Goldtops turned into yet more fake "bursts".
Not a criticism of your work btw, it just strikes me as sad that a restored real '56 is probably worth less than turning it into a fake '59.
I too am not knocking your work - it looks first rate, and far better than anything I could achieve.
The ‘pecking order’ of vintage Les Pauls is well established with Bursts firmly at the top, and what I do reflects that demand with those who might otherwise spend their funds on clunky, plasticky and inaccurate True Historic ‘58-‘60 reissues choosing to buy a genuine ‘50s Les Paul with completely authentic looks, sound and feel instead
Also, from a purely logical stance, if you wanted a vintage P90 Goldtop you could just go and buy one with some planning and diligence, while for the vast majority a real PAF Les Paul is way out of budget, and as my all guitars are thoroughly ‘pre buggered’, any sadness should be reserved for that initial trauma rather than my resurrection decades later :-)
But I hope you will forgive me if I respond as one of very few Conversion owners here.
It is not a fake 'Burst. It is a Conversion.
Among members of LPF there are several 'Burst owners who also own a Conversion. I very much doubt that they walk into a small gig saying "I've brought my Fake 'Burst".
A 'Burst is a 50s Gibson Les Paul with Humbucker routes and PAF pickups.
And so is a Conversion.
It is "the same guitar".
Why would it not be?
The 'Burst owners on LPF say that their Conversions give 99% of what their 'Bursts offer.
Multliple 'Burst owner Tom Wittrock says that his Conversion is his favourite guitar.
Dave Johnson and Scott Lentz are very talented. I am sure that jumping@shadows is too.
If you put them in a time machine and transported them to Kalamazoo, they would be hired to build 50s Les Pauls.
The colour is not important.
Anyone that thinks a Conversion owner has ever handed over big money to buy a colour has never owned a Conversion.
I would have still have bought my Conversion if it was Gold Top. Or stripped finish. The only way I can prove that to you is by stripping the finish on my Conversion.
Never say never.
I hope that jumping@shadows has a Conversion lined up which is gold top. Aged gold top is tricky to get right but I am sure he can do it.
If people are fighting to buy the finished guitar....that might make a point about the motivation to buy a Conversion. We may then be discussing why someone wants a Humbucker Les Paul and not a P90 Les Paul.
Thousands of original trapeze gold tops (the most common Conversion candidate) are safe with both collectors and players and are in no danger whatsoever since Joe Glaser came up with his non invasive tailpiece mod.
All of Les Paul's personal working guitars were heavily modified 50's Les Pauls.
They were all "Conversions".
Finally.....until recently I had only seen Fake 'Burst (for Conversion) used on LPF AND MLPF. I realised that the term was being chucked out by the Replica owners.
Funny.
Just giving my point of view.
If the clients bring guitars to you have you ever had a dog... we all know old doesn't mean good...just the same as there are some great R series guitars out there and they're not all 'clunky' .. and do you advise the client that it's not a great guitar to start with ( in your opinion of course ) and that converting it won't necessarily turn it into a great guitar..? Or would you say that your conversions turn ordinary guitars into great guitars..? Do you offer a similar service to Historic Makeovers where you will age and improve modern guitars or is it all conversions you do.
I suppose my question is does your work only improve the look and feel of the guitar or does it improve the tone as well.
A good current example is a ‘53 conversion I’m working on which has had a neck shave, severe headstock oversanding and multiple refins leaving the top rather flat.
The owner wants is a ‘59 spec flame top with chunkier neck so I’ve added a 2mm Mahogany shim under the board with tapered binding to add some extra width, and will be veneering the top after an extensive recarve to really accent the curves.
From there I’ll rebuild the headstock to correct ‘50s profile and raise the logo as per late ‘50s, then set about refinishing to a greened/honey sunburst with light ageing.
All hardware choices will be made according to the desired sound- so SS bridge posts if it’s not snappy enough, steel/brass saddles again to tweak clarity/brightness, the pot values chosen for maximum clarity in the neck position or even attenuate treble in the bridge; I’ll select PAFs for clarity and articulation for the neck/fatness and midrange at the bridge with appropriate magnet swaps etc, to build a coherent and unified instrument, where every aspect is optimised, far beyond anything else I’ve encountered elsewhere imho.
I do refinish modern ‘R’ series guitars too, yes, and have told owners I didn’t think it was worth the expense and bother, but executed the task to the best of my abilities regardless
If you’re able to totally rebuild/hone a guitar with focus and experience then you’ll end up with a superior end result, and I’ve not had anything that wasn’t a stellar guitar on completion, regardless of how lowly the starting point.
I'm slightly confused as to why you would tell owners of R series guitars that you didn't think it was worth the expense and bother if you've not had anything that wasn't a stellar guitar on completion...surely it is worth the expense and bother then..?
How do you choose the pick ups to go into these guitars... because from what I've read it's the original PAF's that really set late 50's gibsons apart... are they modern pick ups you put in and how do you choose them for each particular guitar..?
You clearly do very good work but these questions have been bugging me..
Re the reissues- they just don’t excite me at all- when you’ve spent 20 odd years around originals, all I can see is the shortcomings, and yes while they are greatly improved with a proper nitro finish, and expert set up/tweaks, I still would not personally bother- rather take that £4500-£7500 and buy a tatty ‘64 SG Std, ‘50s LP Special or ‘67/‘69 Goldtop/Custom and get the genuine article with all the sonic and aesthetic treasure they offer.
As for choosing pickups, I select them by tone in the guitar itself- some are inherently bright so benefit from a higher resistance and darker magnet choice, or may have a softer midrange so the reverse would work, so while all are in the spectrum PAFs occupied, they’re not just randomly fitted with no concern for performance as they have been since introduced in ‘57.
Some will think that his comment helps the discussion and some will feel irritation.
That is how it works when the topic is (slightly) controversial.
Here is what he said.
Posting on LPF he said that, in his opinion the earliest Gibson Les Pauls.......the earliest Gold Tops......had the best sounding wood.