1969 Les Paul Goldtop: Pics & Questions

[CharmedLifePcks]

Hello, All:

 

Several months ago I lucked into a 1969 Les Paul Goldtop. I’m mainly an acoustic player, so I bought it as an investment to repair and resell.

 

As you see from the pics, the logo is messed up, but I’ve been told by someone in the know to leave it be if I plan on selling the instrument, since this is a very distinct feature specific only to 1969 Goldtop models. Apparently, as the story goes, the shiny white stuff where the logo should be is actually mother of pearl, and on certain 69s that have seen a lot of mileage (as this guitar has) the logo paint or decal or whatever it is flakes off because it is hard to glue anything to mother of pearl.

 

Have any of you on this Board ever encountered this in a 1969 Goldtop? I was also advised to not fix this feature but to leave it as it, since a potential buyer would find this more valuable as a cool thing related to only this model.

 

The guitar comes in the original factory case, which appears to be in very good condition. It’s a “players” instrument, as you can tell by the pics of the back of the guitar. The OE tuning gears and pots were removed, but they were in the case, so we can restore it to original condition more or less. This instrument is not for sale at this time. I have to put it in for repairs, and won’t know till after that where I stand with it.

There is a small crack extending down from the top of the headstock. This can best be seen on the shot from the rear. Serial Number begins with 891---.

 

No volute, no “Made in USA” stamp, but it does have both a three-piece neck and the three-piece “pancake” body typical of the mid- to late-1969 models. The pot date codes last four digits are 6-9-3-4, which puts it right in line with the other features of this series.

 

Anyway, I appreciate anyone with the expertise or experience as it relates to the weird logo issue on this guitar. Thanks in advance.

 

Also, thanks to ksdaddy and pippy for helping me upload these images for all to see. Pippy, I had the Photobucket thing down except for the Ctrl-V command. Once I got that, it was easy. Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rct]

Can't see these pictures you are talking about.

 

That's a second year Deluxe, I think 68 was the first year for them.

 

It has mini humbuckers that they wanted to use up from Epiphone, so that's what they did. That 69 is the first year of maple necks, and the first year of "pancake" bodies. I don't remember when the volute appeared, it was somewhere around then.

 

The original Deluxes didn't have a dot over the small letter I in Gibson. Is that what you are talking about? If so, it was never there, they fixed it probably by 70, 71 at the latest.

 

If that isn't what you mean, and you mean that that the actual inlay is coming up and out, then I'd be concerned about a crack in the (essentially) laminate pieces of neck wood. If a crack followed along the seam starting at the top, it could have caused the Gibson inlay to loosen or pop out in spots, and that would sound like some kind of impact happened. If no damage around it, then the crack as you call it needs to be stopped, a repairman can do that but might not be able to get it finished such that it is invisible.

 

I'm going from memory here, and I might have missed a date or two by a year. You have a great guitar there, a pretty great example of Gibson in big changes time. I'd keep it as is and play it. I say the crack at the top might be of serious concern, but only because I can't see the logo to see if it is just missing the dot of the I or not.

 

Good luck with it!

 

rct

[CharmedLifePcks]

Can't see these pictures you are talking about.

 

That's a second year Deluxe, I think 68 was the first year for them.

 

It has mini humbuckers that they wanted to use up from Epiphone, so that's what they did. That 69 is the first year of maple necks, and the first year of "pancake" bodies. I don't remember when the volute appeared, it was somewhere around then.

 

The original Deluxes didn't have a dot over the small letter I in Gibson. Is that what you are talking about? If so, it was never there, they fixed it probably by 70, 71 at the latest.

 

If that isn't what you mean, and you mean that that the actual inlay is coming up and out, then I'd be concerned about a crack in the (essentially) laminate pieces of neck wood. If a crack followed along the seam starting at the top, it could have caused the Gibson inlay to loosen or pop out in spots, and that would sound like some kind of impact happened. If no damage around it, then the crack as you call it needs to be stopped, a repairman can do that but might not be able to get it finished such that it is invisible.

 

I'm going from memory here, and I might have missed a date or two by a year. You have a great guitar there, a pretty great example of Gibson in big changes time. I'd keep it as is and play it. I say the crack at the top might be of serious concern, but only because I can't see the logo to see if it is just missing the dot of the I or not.

 

Good luck with it!

 

rct

 

RCT, thanks, that's a very perceptive comment you made. Yes, that makes sense, that the crack may have caused the logo to disintegrate and eventually flake off.

 

I'll look at getting the crack repaired and see where that leaves us.

 

So sorry about the pics. As I'm looking at my original post, I see two pics. Not sure why you can't see them. I'll keep trying to post pics. Beyond frustrating. Thanks again.

[pippy]

...COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW TO ADD PICS TO THIS POST. I HAVE A PHOTOBUCKET ALBUM PREPARED BUT CAN'T SEEM TO ADD PICS FROM THERE TO HERE. THANK YOU.

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

Nice guitar. I'd like to see the other snaps. To which end;

 

As you already have a Photobucket account you are 99% of the way there.

All you need to do is click on the IMG dialogue box which will then (briefly) say 'copied' and you control-V (or Apple equivalent) to paste the picture in your post.

A quick scan through this post might help;

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/11005-sticky-how-to-post-photos/

 

...and here is where to find the IMG box on your P'bucket page;

 

Good luck!

 

P.

[ksdaddy]

Link to his album

 

 

[rct]

Ok Charmedlife417, I see the pictures today.

 

First and foremost, I am not a luthier, but I play one on the internet.

 

I am, however, a guy that has been around guitars since 1971. I've heard and seen everything ever uttered about guitars, and I remember most all of it. I used to say on usenet, and I recently said in this forum, that when it comes to history of the three big American guitar makers, I am never wrong. Take that with a grain of salt, as I have mis-remembered on occasion, and I usually say that just to piss people off.

 

So, all of that said...

 

As you see from the pics, the logo is messed up, but I’ve been told by someone in the know to leave it be if I plan on selling the instrument, since this is a very distinct feature specific only to 1969 Goldtop models. Apparently, as the story goes, the shiny white stuff where the logo should be is actually mother of pearl, and on certain 69s that have seen a lot of mileage (as this guitar has) the logo paint or decal or whatever it is flakes off because it is hard to glue anything to mother of pearl...

 

...Have any of you on this Board ever encountered this in a 1969 Goldtop? I was also advised to not fix this feature but to leave it as it, since a potential buyer would find this more valuable as a cool thing related to only this model.

 

No. And it isn't cool at all, to me.

 

I'ma hafta call BS on this. I have zero recollection of this being a thing, at all. For starters, I do not believe at all that "mother of pearl" was being used as late as 1969. Pearloid, a plasticized celluloid, was in use long before then, and to my memory was exclusively used on American guitars before I was born in 1960. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. We called it MOP, but in the 70s we started calling it Mother of Toilet Seat as pre-internet people slowly were made aware that there really wasn't any actual Mother Of Pearl on their guitars. Hopefully more knowledgable people will step in here and either school both of us or reinforce my recollections.

 

There is a small crack extending down from the top of the headstock. This can best be seen on the shot from the rear. Serial Number begins with 891---.

 

Yes, there is. That's where the "wing" if you will, was glued onto the edge of the headstock. THAT part isn't unusual, I have seen that much worserer on guitars from all decades. Not a lot mind you, but enough to recollect it. That happened very early in that guitars life, the glue join was not good there, and it separated, possibly started by a good whack on the stock, a guy like me playing cymbals for instance.

 

This part is what I think happened:

 

It got worse, the stresses on either side of it caused by the strings pulling on it, put a bit of twist on it, if you can imagine the strings on the other side being thicker but farther way they provided less pull on their side. The three skinny stings on the same side pulled more. That flex first caused the lacquer to come off, followed not long after by the entire piece of logo pearloid pushing out.

 

The repair is awful, in my opinion. Even worse is the story you were told, in my opinion. If you consider the point of view of a seller, there is no good way to tell a guitar buyer that the de-lam on the headstock pushed the logo out, and this is what they replaced it with. I'm not being mean, and I could be entirely wrong, but that's how I see it. The de-lam of that glue joint was the first problem, the logo was caused by the de-lam, and there is no good way to say it.

 

...Several months ago I lucked into a 1969 Les Paul Goldtop. I’m mainly an acoustic player, so I bought it as an investment to repair and resell...

 

...Anyway, I appreciate anyone with the expertise or experience as it relates to the weird logo issue on this guitar. Thanks in advance.

 

I hope you didn't pay a lot. Seriously. I don't even know how much a lot is, but I don't dabble in vintage guitars for good reasons. I think, and I'm not a luthier, so remember that, I think the glue joint repair is complicated only by the serial number being there. So while we're on that, the serial looks extremely crooked to my tired eyes on this crummy laptop. So it could not be crooked and just looks that way to me, could just be terribly crooked, a bad day at Gibson, or it could be that someone attempted to fix that de-lam long ago, filled it in, and re stamped it. I also could be not seeing it right, it could be crooked like it was supposed to be, and I'm in left field entirely. I hope I am actually, I don't want to be right about such a thing.

 

Personally I wish I had been with you when you went to look at it. I would have cautioned you to run far away unless it was super cheap. As an investment you have some work to do, and them some 'splainin to do Lucy. I don't see a serious investor looking lightly at that, not one that knows how these things are done. I'm not sure how you'd replace that logo, our hosts would have to help you do that. I'm not sure how you would explain that, because people that know guitars know they don't, usually, just fall out for no reason.

 

So good luck with it. I hope you can fix it and do something about that logo.

 

If someone comes along and completely contradicts anything I've said I'll be happy! It is early here, well, I'm working nights and not sleeping well. So if I'm just cranky and not remembering right, I'm always glad to be refreshed!

 

Thanks for the exercise in Deluxe history. There's one of the new ones at GC in this town and I'm going to take a whack at it this weekend. Your guitar and story are making it a little more exciting.

 

rct

[CharmedLifePcks]

Ok Charmedlife417, I see the pictures today.

 

First and foremost, I am not a luthier, but I play one on the internet.

 

I am, however, a guy that has been around guitars since 1971. I've heard and seen everything ever uttered about guitars, and I remember most all of it. I used to say on usenet, and I recently said in this forum, that when it comes to history of the three big American guitar makers, I am never wrong. Take that with a grain of salt, as I have mis-remembered on occasion, and I usually say that just to piss people off.

 

So, all of that said...

 

 

 

No. And it isn't cool at all, to me.

 

I'ma hafta call BS on this. I have zero recollection of this being a thing, at all. For starters, I do not believe at all that "mother of pearl" was being used as late as 1969. Pearloid, a plasticized celluloid, was in use long before then, and to my memory was exclusively used on American guitars before I was born in 1960. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. We called it MOP, but in the 70s we started calling it Mother of Toilet Seat as pre-internet people slowly were made aware that there really wasn't any actual Mother Of Pearl on their guitars. Hopefully more knowledgable people will step in here and either school both of us or reinforce my recollections.

 

 

 

Yes, there is. That's where the "wing" if you will, was glued onto the edge of the headstock. THAT part isn't unusual, I have seen that much worserer on guitars from all decades. Not a lot mind you, but enough to recollect it. That happened very early in that guitars life, the glue join was not good there, and it separated, possibly started by a good whack on the stock, a guy like me playing cymbals for instance.

 

This part is what I think happened:

 

It got worse, the stresses on either side of it caused by the strings pulling on it, put a bit of twist on it, if you can imagine the strings on the other side being thicker but farther way they provided less pull on their side. The three skinny stings on the same side pulled more. That flex first caused the lacquer to come off, followed not long after by the entire piece of logo pearloid pushing out.

 

The repair is awful, in my opinion. Even worse is the story you were told, in my opinion. If you consider the point of view of a seller, there is no good way to tell a guitar buyer that the de-lam on the headstock pushed the logo out, and this is what they replaced it with. I'm not being mean, and I could be entirely wrong, but that's how I see it. The de-lam of that glue joint was the first problem, the logo was caused by the de-lam, and there is no good way to say it.

 

 

 

I hope you didn't pay a lot. Seriously. I don't even know how much a lot is, but I don't dabble in vintage guitars for good reasons. I think, and I'm not a luthier, so remember that, I think the glue joint repair is complicated only by the serial number being there. So while we're on that, the serial looks extremely crooked to my tired eyes on this crummy laptop. So it could not be crooked and just looks that way to me, could just be terribly crooked, a bad day at Gibson, or it could be that someone attempted to fix that de-lam long ago, filled it in, and re stamped it. I also could be not seeing it right, it could be crooked like it was supposed to be, and I'm in left field entirely. I hope I am actually, I don't want to be right about such a thing.

 

Personally I wish I had been with you when you went to look at it. I would have cautioned you to run far away unless it was super cheap. As an investment you have some work to do, and them some 'splainin to do Lucy. I don't see a serious investor looking lightly at that, not one that knows how these things are done. I'm not sure how you'd replace that logo, our hosts would have to help you do that. I'm not sure how you would explain that, because people that know guitars know they don't, usually, just fall out for no reason.

 

So good luck with it. I hope you can fix it and do something about that logo.

 

If someone comes along and completely contradicts anything I've said I'll be happy! It is early here, well, I'm working nights and not sleeping well. So if I'm just cranky and not remembering right, I'm always glad to be refreshed!

 

Thanks for the exercise in Deluxe history. There's one of the new ones at GC in this town and I'm going to take a whack at it this weekend. Your guitar and story are making it a little more exciting.

 

rct

 

RCT, relax, my friend, I have never lost money on a vintage purchase, and won't lose money on this one either. I bought it right. At the very least I can flip it without touching it and probably make about $500. Not to worry.

 

I did not go into this thing on a fluke. I first saw this guitar in May, then walked away for three months. I did a TON of research on Goldtops in general and this guitar in specific. You sound extremely knowledgeable about guitars, probably more than me, but perhaps you're not aware of how rare 1969 Goldtops are. They just don't come up that often. Right now there are a total of about three on E-Bay (that's for the whole country).

 

Yes, this one is beat up, and yes, it needs work, but I could probably sell the body alone (without the neck or headstock) for the price of what I paid for it. And if I do lose a little -- which is unlikely -- this is just a little side business for me and it's playtime. I have a great full-time job, so not to worry.

 

I do appreciate your input and concern. I'll keep you posted.

 

Thanks Much.

[rct]

I hope it works out, and I hope you can maybe get it repaired? I'd like to hear about the logo fix, that would be interesting.

 

I've just been around them a long time, and they were the main thing in my life up until I started having a life as an adult, and they've been with me since, with very few times I didn't have a house full.

 

I do know an original Deluxe is getting harder to find. I remember the ones I was around, used, borrowed, because I never owned one. I could be persuaded to try out the new ones, but I would not ever put money into a vintage one, that just isn't my thing.

 

Good luck with it, I hope it goes great for you.

 

rct

[CharmedLifePcks]

I hope it works out, and I hope you can maybe get it repaired? I'd like to hear about the logo fix, that would be interesting.

 

I've just been around them a long time, and they were the main thing in my life up until I started having a life as an adult, and they've been with me since, with very few times I didn't have a house full.

 

I do know an original Deluxe is getting harder to find. I remember the ones I was around, used, borrowed, because I never owned one. I could be persuaded to try out the new ones, but I would not ever put money into a vintage one, that just isn't my thing.

 

Good luck with it, I hope it goes great for you.

 

rct

 

Not a problem, RCT. I really appreciate your concern and input. I'll keep you and the Board in the loop as I go through the process. I'm scheduled to see the luthier tomorrow.

 

I've talked to at least two other players on a different board who had this exact same thing happen to the logos on their '69 Deluxes. Apparently, it's not that uncommon. The question to me is, if I'm planning on selling the guitar (which I am), is it worth paying to fix the headstock and logo or just letting it be the next owner's problem? That, of course, comes down to price. I did notice that there are a bunch of inexpensive Gibson logo decals on Ebay that might match the 1969 Deluxe one. It might be fixable for a reasonable price.

 

I'll keep you posted. Thanks Much.

 

CL