Gibson Guitar Board: 1980s SG ?? - Gibson Guitar Board

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1980s SG ?? Have I been conned ?

#1 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:00 AM

Hey Guys,

I did post this on the ID and info page but noticed more activity here and it is pretty urgent.

I bought a Gibson SG from a guy who said it was from 1980,and played on a special album recorded in 1980 but the serial number is 81506519 , I checked the numbers on the pots and they are 71-137 on 2 pots and the other 2 pots have 70-035 on them.

Can somebody please confirm my suspicions that this is actually from 1986 because I have very limited knowledge about guitars.

I attached photos on the other section of the forum and cant add any here ?? http://forum.gibson....bson-sg-dating/

If somebody can help I would be incredibly grateful.

Thanks !

Guitarchump.

#2 User is online   rct 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 31-March 11
  • LocationSouthern New Jersey

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:04 AM

I am by no means an expert, but the headstock and inlays look terrible to me. Good luck with it, someone will definitely help you out in here.

rct

#3 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:16 AM

View Postrct, on 20 November 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I am by no means an expert, but the headstock and inlays look terrible to me. Good luck with it, someone will definitely help you out in here.

rct


Wow really ?

#4 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:43 AM

Looks like a typical 80s model to me. The serial number definitely places it in 1986. A couple of the things they did in the years following this are to sculpt the horns better, more like the early 60s ones. Also they moved the output jack from the side to it's original location on the front. I've got the 1984 catalog somewhere and the one pictured looks just like yours. If I can dig it out I'll post a pic.

#5 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:44 AM

Actually I found it online. The 1984 has rectangular inlays, typical of 70s/early 80s. Yours must have gone through the inlay change but not the jack and horn change.




Posted Image

Posted Image

#6 User is offline   charlie brown 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15010
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:55 AM

View Postksdaddy, on 20 November 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Actually I found it online. The 1984 has rectangular inlays, typical of 70s/early 80s. Yours must have gone through the inlay change but not the jack and horn change.

Posted Image



THIS makes me "Crazy!" Yeah, there's some side beveling, again, but NONE,
in the inner area between the tip of the "horns" and the neck! And NO horn
tapering, at all! [cursing] [cursing] [cursing] ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

It's exactly why I never looked at SG's, later than '69 on. The beveling
and tapering became less and less. [-X But, that's just Me! [tongue] :rolleyes:

CB

#7 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:00 AM

Yeah, but look at how they make them NOW. I just got a 2004 Standard and it's like frickin' art. Even the Fadeds are sculpted very nicely.

#8 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:02 AM

2002 I meant, sorry. Here's a crappy pic:

Would you believe this is a 2 piece body? Whoever matched the pieces up deserves a free pizza on Friday.



Posted Image

#9 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:03 AM

View Postksdaddy, on 20 November 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Yeah, but look at how they make them NOW. I just got a 2004 Standard and it's like frickin' art. Even the Fadeds are sculpted very nicely.


So is the consensus that at least it's a genuine 1986 Gibson ? ...a fake would be adding much insult to injury.

#10 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostGuitarChump, on 20 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

So is the consensus that at least it's a genuine 1986 Gibson ? ...a fake would be adding much insult to injury.


Yes, it's an '86, made on the 150th day of 1986 and it was the 19th one stamped that day (not completed, just stamped). Made in Nashville (actually their ONLY plant at the time). Not Chinese. Look closer on the pots, you may find a different number than the 70-***. Look for one beginning with 137 or 304. It might be stamped around the rim of the can.

#11 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:11 AM

View Postksdaddy, on 20 November 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Yes, it's an '86, made on the 150th day of 1986 and it was the 19th one stamped that day (not completed, just stamped). Made in Nashville (actually their ONLY plant at the time). Not Chinese. Look closer on the pots, you may find a different number than the 70-***. Look for one beginning with 137 or 304. It might be stamped around the rim of the can.


Ok thanks, I could definitely see no other numbers on the pots, the numbers I did see were very difficult to make out as they were faded. Just out of interest, what's a typical value for a 1986 SG ?

#12 User is offline   charlie brown 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15010
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:14 AM

Well, compared to the new "Original," the '61 Reissue, and the new 2013 "Standard,"
the beveling was still "conservative." and, horn tapering was still non-existent.
However, lots of people really don't care, one way or the other. So...whatever works,
for them. I'm a self-proclaimed "Nut" about such details...so, please...take that into
consideration. [biggrin]

I LOVE the beveling, and horn tapering on my SG's. But, ALL were purchased wihin
this past year's time. And, after not owning an SG, since 1968!

CB

#13 User is offline   ksdaddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 4401
  • Joined: 28-December 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:17 AM

Absolutely no clue, sorry. I went SG shopping a while back and they're all over the place, from $400-500 for a recent Faded, to the $650 I paid for my 02 Standard, which I feel was undervalued by a couple hundred.... I did see some late 70s/early 80s "The SG" models going in the $800 range and there was one beat to crap 1975 that sold for $550 or so (shoulda grabbed that just because). Once you get back into 1970 territory all hell breaks loose. People think they're worth thousands. I had a 1970 Standard and a '63 Junior and while they were nice guitars, they weren't worth the price of a good used car like people think they are.

If you held a gun to my head and asked me to make out a price tag for your guitar I would be thinking in the $700-800 range. You'd have to saw it in half for it to be worth LESS than that but if I were to spend more than that, I'd want a newer one with the "old school" revisions they eventually made.

My two cents and barely worth that much.

#14 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:20 AM

View Postksdaddy, on 20 November 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Absolutely no clue, sorry. I went SG shopping a while back and they're all over the place, from $400-500 for a recent Faded, to the $650 I paid for my 02 Standard, which I feel was undervalued by a couple hundred.... I did see some late 70s/early 80s "The SG" models going in the $800 range and there was one beat to crap 1975 that sold for $550 or so (shoulda grabbed that just because). Once you get back into 1970 territory all hell breaks loose. People think they're worth thousands. I had a 1970 Standard and a '63 Junior and while they were nice guitars, they weren't worth the price of a good used car like people think they are.

If you held a gun to my head and asked me to make out a price tag for your guitar I would be thinking in the $700-800 range. You'd have to saw it in half for it to be worth LESS than that but if I were to spend more than that, I'd want a newer one with the "old school" revisions they eventually made.

My two cents and barely worth that much.



Ok thanks for your help. Time to ask why I was not told the truth by the seller.

#15 User is online   rct 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 31-March 11
  • LocationSouthern New Jersey

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:23 AM

View PostGuitarChump, on 20 November 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Wow really ?


The stock inlay looks off, but I guess not alarmingly so.

The inlays though, I guess it is the camera angle, or they are just that way, just a little more not straight than the usual not straight I guess.

rct

#16 User is offline   GuitarChump 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 20-November 13

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:28 AM

View Postrct, on 20 November 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

The stock inlay looks off, but I guess not alarmingly so.

The inlays though, I guess it is the camera angle, or they are just that way, just a little more not straight than the usual not straight I guess.

rct


Well I appreciate your input, I'll take it to a guitar tech tomorrow for a close up check.

#17 User is offline   capmaster 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 18-May 12
  • Locationnear Munich, Upper Bavaria, Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:33 AM

Would have liked to see the back of the peghead, but to me there seems nothing wrong with it except the poorly positioned thread for the control cover.
DVCVNT VOLENTEM FATA NOLENTEM TRAHVNT
(The Fates lead the willing and drag those who are unwilling.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

#18 User is offline   capmaster 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 18-May 12
  • Locationnear Munich, Upper Bavaria, Germany

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:35 AM

View Postcharlie brown, on 20 November 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

THIS makes me "Crazy!" Yeah, there's some side beveling, again, but NONE,
in the inner area between the tip of the "horns" and the neck! And NO horn
tapering, at all! [cursing] [cursing] [cursing] ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

It's exactly why I never looked at SG's, later than '69 on. The beveling
and tapering became less and less. [-X But, that's just Me! [tongue] :rolleyes:

CB

Think they just wanted to make them less neck-heavy.
DVCVNT VOLENTEM FATA NOLENTEM TRAHVNT
(The Fates lead the willing and drag those who are unwilling.)
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

#19 User is offline   charlie brown 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15010
  • Joined: 16-June 08

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:56 AM

View Postcapmaster, on 20 November 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Think they just wanted to make them less neck-heavy.


[biggrin] I hear that, a LOT! BUT...NONE, of the SG's I've ever owned,
in the '60's, or currently, have ever been "neck heavy!" Am
I just "lucky," that way? I tried out several, of each of the
models I (now) own, in the store, and NONE of them, were "neck
heavy," either. So...??? [rolleyes] :unsure:

CB

#20 User is online   rct 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 31-March 11
  • LocationSouthern New Jersey

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:11 PM

View Postcharlie brown, on 20 November 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

[biggrin] I hear that, a LOT! BUT...NONE, of the SG's I've ever owned,
in the '60's, or currently, have ever been "neck heavy!" Am
I just "lucky," that way? I tried out several, of each of the
models I (now) own, in the store, and NONE of them, were "neck
heavy," either. So...??? [rolleyes] :unsure:

CB


I think that "neck heavy" is left over from when a single Grover machine weighed as much as all six do today, and there actually were "neck heavy" guitars. I even had a tele that was "neck heavy", but it was because I put decent machines on it. And so then it got written in the 90's only once on the HCGF by a guy that never once in his life gigged or owned an SG and BAM!!!! has been repeated literally tens of thousands of times.

rct

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users