Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

L5Larry

Members
  • Posts

    4,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

L5Larry last won the day on October 31 2011

L5Larry had the most liked content!

Reputation

205 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    St. Louis, Missouri

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have a 2000 built, Custom Shop, "Historic Series", Factory Mono, Stop-tail 345. This is my "go-to" guitar for pretty much anything/everything non-jazz. I play it through an early original (1974ish) Music Man "Sixty-Five" hybrid tube amp (with master volume), with NO pedals. I have tried this guitar through the Roland SS amps I use for jazz, and was not satisfied with the results. As this is my third ES-3XX guitar (had a 320 and 335 prior to the 345), I can tell you there is no inherent design/build flaw in the 345 to make the high strings sound thin. Here's a few things to try to see if your setup might be affecting your sound: There have been many explanations written around the www about why you can’t just jump the signal wires together on a stereo 345. As I have never owned a “stereo” guitar, I have no personal experience with this other than reading the schematics. Comparing the Gibson wiring diagrams of the stereo vs. mono versions of the 345 (http://www.gibson.com/Support/Schematics.aspx), it shows that it’s not just the output jack that is the difference, there is a completely different signal path and wiring order. As this conversion from stereo to mono is a MAJOR re-wire, which involves gutting the guitar, let’s look at some other things first. The first thing I would do is to run this guitar true stereo. This will require a TRS to two TS ¼” breakout cable similar to what was originally furnished with the guitar from the factory. This type cable is made by “Hosa” for TRS effects loops, and available at stores such as GC. Run this “splitter” cable to two separate amps, not different channels of the same amp, or two inputs of the same amp channel, as there are “phase” issues here, same as just jumping the wires at the guitar jack. I would also plug in each side of the splitter cable individually. Check your results to see which, if any, of these tests might solve your problem. If so, you have “phase” issues at work here. I have read that the “phase” problems of using a stereo 345 in mono can be solved by flipping one of the magnets in one of the pickups. This is way above my pay grade, but the technical info is out there if you need it. IF… the true-stereo test does not identify the problem, I would look next at pickup height adjustment on the treble side. Too low is bad, AND too high is bad. Again technical research and trial and error is needed here. And then there is always string gauge to consider. Of course 8’s or 9’s will sound thinner than 10’s or 11’s, but a “balanced” set should be, well, balanced. I use 11’s or 12’s on my 345, but then I like piano wires on all my guitars (14’s on my jazzboxes). I really think the “phase” issues are going to be your problem.
  2. Generally speaking... YES. This is the first indication that something is out of whack. Further detailed inspection is necessary. You'll want to check for neck bow and truss rod adjustment, and the neck joint itself.
  3. Although other polymers used in guitar making have their own unique aging properties, the most prevalent being shrinkage and brittleness, I have only ever seen the off-gassing effect from the mock tortoise shell celluloid pickguards.
  4. The title certainly implies "Les Paul", but there has been some really nice non-LP photos posted, so here's a couple more. Both built in the Nashville Custom Shop..... A James Hutchins signed "Historic" L-5CES from 1990: From the small batch of "Historic" ES-345's built in 2000:
  5. It's my understanding that the "A" serial numbers (in this case A07047) are only used on the "Historic" series guitars, and that "standard production models" would have the standard (eight-digit) serial number (stamped on the back of the headstock). The fact that the SN is ONLY on the paper label, and not on the back of the headstock, also leads me to this conclusion. An "A" number 345 without any headstock stamping would be historically correct for a '59. Have we seen photos of the ACTUAL guitar in question?
  6. Yes, but...... If that's the case, the "Made In USA" shouldn't be there either. The mystery here is why one and not the other on the headstock.
  7. At the right price, these are great little guitars. I had those "Melody Maker" pickups in an '70ish ES-320 (full hollow thinline) and loved them for their unique sound and versatility, some really great tones by messing with the tone knob. The original Melody Makers are also a great and affordable platform for mods and experiments. During the early 70's, those guitars were almost giveaways, and many got re-routed for humbuckers, and every other mod you can think of. I've even seen one with body horns cut off, turning the body shape into somewhat of a "teardrop", for high register access for slide playing. It is probably somewhat rare to see one in as close to original condition as this. As for the bridge, that is what is/was known as a "Leo Quan Badass" bridge. It was the first replacement bridge with adjustable intonation to fit the large mounting posts of the Gibson fixed intonation "lightning bolt" style bridge. Edit: Of "rockstars", I think it was Leslie West of "Mountain" that was a known player of MM's.
  8. A30569 is listed as an EB-2 bass, stamped on July 13, 1959. A32285 is listed as an ES-335, stamped on January 4, 1960. So, roughly 1716 instruments built in 6 months, 286 per month. A30724 would be 155 into that run, or about half way into the next production month. So,... it is safe to say that the guitar with the serial number A30724 was "stamped" during early August 1959.
  9. The "A" numbers are fully documented, in fact in 6 month intervals. The partial number you posted is from mid-1959. A full number would yield more information.
  10. Les Paul Standards from this era generally sell for about $2000. I have my '75 insured for $2500.
  11. I don't remember the Standard being available in Goldtop in 1976, But the serial number decal and TRC font are '76 Standard correct, as are others things such as the "Nashville" bridge, maple neck, etc. Obviously the tuning machines have been changed, and most likely the control knobs. The case is also period correct. I've seen many 75/76 factory "Standards" with "Deluxe" SN decals (I own one), but I've never seen a "Deluxe" with a "Standard" SN decal. Therefore I have no reason to doubt that this guitar left the factory as a "Standard", but as a Goldtop Standard... I'm not sure.
  12. The "A" number reissues were the highest level of "Historic Series" guitars when they were built. Unfortunately there is no code to the SN (that I know of), so it is no help in putting a mfg date to the guitar, or year/model being recreated. From the SN, photos, and the shop tag info, I see no reason to doubt the information you have. Along with the COA, the paperwork with the guitar would have originally included a warranty pamphlet, on the back of which would be a "Pre-Pack Checklist". This would included the date of final inspection and release for shipment. This date is generally regarded as the "born on" date of these guitars. During Gibson's "Golden Years", hollow body guitars did not have the serial number stamped on the back of the headstock, it was ONLY listed on the paper label glued inside the guitar, so this feature is one of the "historically accurate" features of this reissue.
  13. This is a good example for discussion of "cause and effect". The "effect" is finish cracks, but the "cause" is not paint failure or climate extremes, or the entire guitar would look like this. The "cause" is stress, or structural movement in the weak spot of the thin area of the control cavity routing. So what caused the "cause? The first thing I would check would be the case lid to see if simply closing the case is putting undue pressure on the knobs. Another thing that would cause this would be trauma, as if the knobs got banged on something at some time (the damage might not show up until much later). Short of damage or trauma caused by use or neglect, a 6 month old guitar should NOT show finish damage of this nature, but..... If you're happy with the guitar in all other respects, I would just live with it. You never know what a "replacement" guitar is going to look/play/sound like, as all instruments are a little different. Many people even like the "checked" look on LP tops, and even pay premium for the "aged" look.
  14. I have a 1975 Les Paul Standard in tobacco sunburst, which I bought new in early '76. I have never found a reason, or need, to replace it!
  15. There is no structural concern with a proper and professional repair, but.... Personally, I would never knowingly buy a guitar that I knew had had MAJOR structural repair. As a "buyer" there are just too many options. From '71 through '75 Gibson built about 13,000 ES-335's, surely there are more than a few on the market that have not been busted up and glued back together.
×
×
  • Create New...