Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

proving not a gibson


RONNIERRR

Recommended Posts

I recently bought a gold top lp from Lovies .com and have since totally redone the guitar all nickel sd pg'd tone pro bridge and tail piece cts caps, luxe bees 50's wiringbut im getting a lot of flack from the guitar claiming to be fake which just well really infuriates me! serial #031633IMG_0626.jpg36 need help with it to prove its real just the normal gibson card and nothing factoryIMG_1755_1.jpg any help wold be great thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The serial number would suggest she's a Gibson Les Paul Classic made in 2003.

 

To allow for safe confirmation, some pictures of the original tailpiece, bridge, pickups and electronic parts should be included, too. Some pics of the pickup cavities would also be of help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 2003 light burst LP Classic. The serial number is consistent with a Classic, but there are a couple of inconsistencies. First of all, along with "Classic" on the TRC, mine also has "Les Paul Classic" instead of "Les Paul Model" on the headstock. The other thing is the color of the fretboard inlays. They seem much whiter than mine. The inlays on the Classics made back then were "aged" and have a greenish tint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to provide straight on pictures of both front and back of the headstock and body

 

No angle artistic pictures.

 

Also take the back cover off the control. Panel and take care a clear close up there too.

And a close up of the bridge and tom

 

 

Also helpful is a close up of the truss rod. (remove the cover..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the serial number not 03163336?....................eusa_think.gif...................

 

As Cap says; this is consistent with a 2003 guitar.

 

Anyhow;

 

...The serial number is consistent with a Classic, but there are a couple of inconsistencies. First of all, along with "Classic" on the TRC, mine also has "Les Paul Classic" instead of "Les Paul Model" on the headstock. The other thing is the color of the fretboard inlays. They seem much whiter than mine. The inlays on the Classics made back then were "aged" and have a greenish tint...

Usually, tx-ogre, but not always.

 

There are numerous instances of later-period 1960 Classics getting the regular Les Paul MODEL silkscreen which was, of course, the usual version used on all early (up to c. mid-'95) 1960 Classics. Rumour has it that if the LP CLASSIC silkscreen was out of stock the prod. line used whatever was to hand. Furthermore not all the later examples had the strongly coloured inlays.

 

Pip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the serial number not 03163336?....................eusa_think.gif...................

 

As Cap says; this is consistent with a 2003 guitar.

 

Anyhow;

 

 

Usually, tx-ogre, but not always.

 

There are numerous instances of later-period 1960 Classics getting the regular Les Paul MODEL silkscreen which was, of course, the usual version used on all early (up to c. mid-'95) 1960 Classics. Rumour has it that if the LP CLASSIC silkscreen was out of stock the prod. line used whatever was to hand. Furthermore not all the later examples had the strongly coloured inlays.

 

Pip

 

Based on the serial number, it appears to be a 2003 Classic. Perhaps the later model year (post 2003) Classics had the different "Model" headstock silkscreen and different color fretboard inlays, but my 2003 Classic (purchased new in 2003, serial #035067) had the features I noted. I remember when I was researching the Classics, the critics complained about the "Les Paul Classic" on the headstocks and especially the greenish inlays. I could be wrong, but I'm sure these were the only features available in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Like all things Gibson it's not as simple as saying 1 year has xyz while another has ABC. Very haphazard in reality. Your guitars were built 4000 appart and could easily have different coloured inlays and a different silk screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the serial number, it appears to be a 2003 Classic...

I might be mistaken, tx-ogre, but the post is slightly mixed up in terms of text / images but if you remove the first image you get;

 

...serial #03163336...need help with it to prove its real...

It would be good if the OP lets us know the right number!

 

msp_smile.gif

 

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be mistaken, tx-ogre, but the post is slightly mixed up in terms of text / images but if you remove the first image you get;

 

 

It would be good if the OP lets us know the right number!

 

msp_smile.gif

 

 

Pip.

 

The OP indicated the serial number is 031633. As Capmaster first indicated, that is a serial number for a 2003 Les Paul Classic. If that serial number is correct, the OP's concerns about the guitar being a fake could be true based on the inconsistencies. I assumed OP replaced the TRC since he had already replaced the pups, hardware and electronics. It will be interesting to see if the OP provides any additional info or pics. Now my curiosity is piqued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP indicated the serial number is 031633. As Capmaster first indicated, that is a serial number for a 2003 Les Paul Classic...

I could, of course, be wrong tx-ogre but I think you are not seeing - or have 'passed-by' - the '36' at the edge of the first picture which, I believe (and I could be wrong!), is part of the serial number.

This would mean that the serial number would be not "03 1633" but "03163336" which, as chance would have it, will also date the guitar to 2003 - hence Cap's post.

 

msp_smile.gif

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could, of course, be wrong tx-ogre but I think you are not seeing - or have 'passed-by' - the '36' at the edge of the first picture which, I believe (and I could be wrong!), is part of the serial number.

This would mean that the serial number would be not "03 1633" but "03163336" which, as chance would have it, will also date the guitar to 2003 - hence Cap's post.

 

msp_smile.gif

 

Pip.

 

I'm not sure what number you are referring to. I only see two photos: the first one of the front of the headstock and the second one of the body. I don't see any photos of the back of the headstock or with serial numbers. Perhaps the photo you are referring to does is not displaying on my iPad. I'm just going by the six-digit serial number provided by the OP, which is consistent with a 2003 Classic.

 

Edit: Never mind . My bad. I just saw the 36 in the text between the two photos. If the serial number is actually 8 digits, then it's a 2003 non-Classic model. I'm going to logoff now and indulge in a vodka martini or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what number you are referring to. I only see two photos: the first one of the front of the headstock and the second one of the body. I don't see any photos of the back of the headstock or with serial numbers. Perhaps the photo you are referring to does is not displaying on my iPad. I'm just going by the six-digit serial number provided by the OP, which is consistent with a 2003 Classic. 😀

 

He inserted the photo amidst the serial number. The first six digits are before the picture, the last two 36 after at the start of the next line of text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were a Classic would it not have uncovered pickups? (even though I guess its a common mod to cover them).

 

If it was a Classic, it would have come stock with the 496R/500T open coil set and an ABR-1 bridge. I still have them in mine. But Op indicated that he swapped out pups for some SD's, the bridge and tail piece, and much of the wiring and electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a Classic, it would have come stock with the 496R/500T open coil set and an ABR-1 bridge. I still have them in mine. But Op indicated that he swapped out pups for some SD's, the bridge and tail piece, and much of the wiring and electronics.

Yeah I re-read it after I posted that which is why I then deleted it.. and I had nothing else useful to say... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I re-read it after I posted that which is why I then deleted it.. and I had nothing else useful to say... :unsure:

 

No worries. I fell victim to the same thing. I hate it when that happens. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...