Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Is this 'the real deal'? Vintage Les Paul (early 60's)


rog666

Recommended Posts

Hey guys!

 

Yes, I'm relatively new here, especially when it comes down to Les Pauls (I own an SG and I love that thing).

Someone not that far away from me is offering this supposedly early 60's Gibson Les Paul. Is this the real deal? I have no idea what to pay attention to, to be honest. It does seem pretty old. Any info is welcome, also about its value!

 

Info: Serial nr.# 80011

 

Pics:

post-76432-014680200 1455541370_thumb.jpg

post-76432-084902700 1455541377_thumb.jpg

post-76432-042597100 1455541399_thumb.jpg

post-76432-014784100 1455541431_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to the Forums!

 

First of all, there are no early-60s Les Pauls. No guitar has been built in that form, between 1960 and 1968.

 

I am afraid, this guitar is a fake. It has a modern, genuine-looking silk-screened logo on the headstock, but many other details suggest it's not a Gibson-made instrument.

 

Best wishes... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot Bence! Your info is highly appreciated; at this moment people are bidding 900 Euro for this piece, luckily I can let it go now [biggrin]

Do you happen to know a good internet source for this type of specialist info concerning Les Pauls? I'd sure love to know what to pay attention to next time :rolleyes:

 

Again, thanks a bunch!!!

Rogier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Rogier!

 

As there are many kinds of fakes, it is hard to come up with a general guideline. A specialist? The best, and most reliable people are all here at the Forums. If I was in doubt, I would turn to guys here (as You did).

 

The guitar You have posted is a fake. Here is why:

 

- All the hardware (tuning pegs, bridge, tailpiece, even the tailpiece's bolts) are wrong.

- Gibson Les Pauls that have bound necks and bodies, have mother-of-pearl "Gibson" logo. Silk-screened logo is used on Studios - which don't have bindings at all.

- Serial number is of wrong format and font size.

 

What I can recommend is, to inspect a genuine Gibson. Look for the details. Whenever You find a guitar which has different features, post it to the "ID" section of the Forums.

 

Also, if You find out someone is selling a fake, report it! Otherwise, someone might end up with a very expensive garbage!

 

Best wishes... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually there were some production runs in 1960, if you check the Gigson Les Paul book by Tony Back and Paul Day, there might not have been any solid colors, only sunburst, I'll have to double check that. Slagging sales on the model and Gibson's desire to redesign the guitar to what is now the SG stopped production after 1960.

 

In the following few years, a divorce with Les and his wife Mary Ford led Les to request Gibson drop his name from the guitar altogether on advice of his attorney and of course to help limit the exposure to financial obligations to his now "Ex" wife, as part of the settlement.

 

it's also well known that Les also didn't like the SG, and didn't really want his name imparted on it.

 

So it is possible that A: it's something AFTER 1968 when production was restarted on the Les Paul, (perhaps something in the Norlin years), or, B: as Bence says, it's probably, counterfeit.

 

it would also be likely that the parts as they are today, would not all be original if it was in fact authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Ray!

 

If it was a Norlin, it should still have MOP "Gibson" logo, as on this 1968 Goldtop:

 

original.jpg

 

Not like this, (as seen on the guitar in question):

 

LPSM6SECH1-Features-Headstock-Angle.jpg

 

This latter logo type belongs to un-bound Les Pauls, like the Studio.

 

Also, a 1961 Les Paul should have a stamped serial number, while the '68-'75 models an impressed number with larger font size.

 

Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI..

 

I just found my book. took look at the reference section and it's clear the serial number on this guitar, does not jive at all.

 

80,011

 

which puts it int he range of 1962 thru 1963 (71,000~99,000) when these would be out of production.

 

clearly, it's not what they say it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Ray & Bence!

I (and probably more people) have reported the ad. The guy now states in the advert that it is indeed a 'reliced' Studio (and all biddings are withdrawn;-))

 

So great to know this forum is here, I salute you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's still full of sh** rog,

 

Although there were studios with bindings, there were not a lot of them. I will have to reference my LP book, (just about everything you'd need to know about the Paul's evolution up to the time of print, is in that book),

 

All that aside, the serial number alone is the sketchy part... The gibson fomrula for that serial number still puts it in the build years where les pauls were not made. (I think some customs maybe were made in 62... but I believe not a lot of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy now states in the advert that it is indeed a 'reliced' Studio

 

 

So after checking, it's not that either.

 

From 1984 to 1987 Gibson did release the Studio Standard and the Studio Custom (Gold hardware), these would have a bound neck and body and dot inlays. (The example in the photo has crown inlays)

 

Crown in lays were added as a marketing pitch to up the cosmetics to studios in 1990 but they would also not have bound neck/body as the one in the photo.

 

Also note that the Studio Standard and Studio Customs were out of production by 1987 which is three years prior to Gibson opting for Crown Inlays on the "Studio" model.

 

So he's still not even close to coming clean.

 

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) This guitar is NOT a Gibson.

 

2) Web sites or resources for "How to spot a fake Gibson" could also be called "How to build a better fake Gibson".

 

This very forum used to be visited by many looking to gain info by those looking to build fake Gibsons with the goal of "updating" the details to fool more people. There was, for a long time, an unwritten rule around here we would tell you if it is fake or real, but wouldn't tell how we knew, for that very reason. I still adhere to that.

 

Some of the details have been shared already, but there are more. This guitar will never be able to be made into something that someone could not spot as a fake.

 

Again, regardless of what model and when Gibson did this or that, THIS guitar was not made by Gibson and never will be a Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stein, We've all been to these sites, and to be honest with you those sites are vague and you are often still left to your own conclusions anyway. While they give you reasonable things to look at, it's a case by case situation, I guess the best rule of thumb is: you're in doubt, walk away.

 

That said, you know how we all get our hair up when this happens. I don't know where this came from either, (prob a jap made epi that was modified with a $2.00 logo as Bence eludes to)

 

But the history I've provided speaks for itself and stated as such based on the information I had on hand. IMHO It is exactly when "Gibson did this or that" as well as traceable things like serial numbers and records of the build years for those #s that substantiates the sellers previous and recent claim as pure bull sh*t...

 

So what's the worse that happens?

 

we can validate something as "not!" and someone gets to take a walk on a potential bad purchase. I certainly don't mind researching, I love a good mystery!

 

/KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stein, We've all been to these sites, and to be honest with you those sites are vague and you are often still left to your own conclusions anyway. While they give you reasonable things to look at, it's a case by case situation, I guess the best rule of thumb is: you're in doubt, walk away.

 

That said, you know how we all get our hair up when this happens. I don't know where this came from either, (prob a jap made epi that was modified with a $2.00 logo as Bence eludes to)

 

But the history I've provided speaks for itself and stated as such based on the information I had on hand. IMHO It is exactly when "Gibson did this or that" as well as traceable things like serial numbers and records of the build years for those #s that substantiates the sellers previous and recent claim as pure bull sh*t...

 

So what's the worse that happens?

 

we can validate something as "not!" and someone gets to take a walk on a potential bad purchase. I certainly don't mind researching, I love a good mystery!

 

/KB

I definitely wasn't referring to the info about the serial# and production times as being wrong to post. That's public knowledge, anyway. History.

 

What I meant to say, regarding when Gibson did what, is regarding "studio" with binding of silk-screened logo, none of that matters as THIS guitar wasn't made by Gibson anyway.

 

Mostly making the point, to be VERY clear, this guitar is NOT a Gibson, with apologies that I choose not to disclose how exactly I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Stein

 

I read ya.

 

I know that there's been debates here before on the disclosure or non-disclosure of details, in the event that the thread was posted by a troll looking to fell his way around.

 

so for sure I was only posting what any one who can read, can see if they are able check the Tony Bacon publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Stein

 

I read ya.

 

I know that there's been debates here before on the disclosure or non-disclosure of details, in the event that the thread was posted by a troll looking to fell his way around.

 

so for sure I was only posting what any one who can read, can see if they are able check the Tony Bacon publication.

It's sometimes hard to tell the "troll" from those seeking not to get taken, but in the end it doesn't matter, as a "troll" can still read and look for info.

 

One reason I keep on the "Don't share" bandwagon, is that there WAS a time when counterfeiters were making changes due to the very things said on this place and others. It's a cat and mouse thing. "We" share info about details on how to spot a fake, and they correct them on the next batch/production of counterfeits. I and others were witness to that.

 

That goes from a single guy who makes changes to a single guitar, or where to sell and how to photograph it, to actual production where changes are made to details on the guitars built and sold to people in the business of selling fakes.

 

True story. Not even exaggerating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Pointless debate. Think of it: a real hell-bent counterfeiter with a little thinking and some investment will be able to craft a perfect 1960 fake. Doesn't He?

 

Those who are looking for details here are dilettantes who will always fail.

 

Then there are the people who will buy anything.

 

Bence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

Pointless debate. Think of it: a real hell-bent counterfeiter with a little thinking and some investment will be able to craft a perfect 1960 fake. Doesn't He?

 

Those who are looking for details here are dilettantes who will always fail.

 

Then there are the people who will buy anything.

 

Bence.

I didn't think it was a debate. Just another thread sharing experiences.

 

It's actually an interesting subject. There aren't right or wrongs here, except when about the subject of those doing fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, of course not.

 

What I meant is, it's really up the counterfeiter's intellectual abilities what He will end up with. Those who have to ask for details here...well...not good enough. They never will be. So, it's needless to worry about how much information we share.

 

From the budget of $6000 one can craft a really convincing fake 1960 burst, and only Gibson or Gruhns will tell it's not what it is. All info is out there. But those who have been here testing us lately, didn't do their homework. I remember those guys, they gave me a healthy laugh.

 

Bence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

 

Then there are the people who will buy anything.

 

Bence.

There are lots of clueless potential buyers, and they deserve our protection I think. Lots of details can't be judged with common sense only. Therefore I'm glad about those who ask here for informations from experienced forumites. We won't manage to stop all the fraud on the web but may help making people aware who want to be safe.

 

Then there are those who don't realize that usually what looks to good to be true is just that. If they don't ask here, we can't be of help. :(

 

Finally there are those wannabees buying counterfeits on purpose... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...