pippy

Superb! I LOVE that you have used Klusons! And Rabs! Fantastic stuff yet again. I'm really looking forward to seeing this one progress. It's a bit odd; although I know it will be great to see the finished article it's (IMO) more fascinating watching the whole process unfold bit by bit and step by step. It will almost be a shame when it's all over... Thanks for the enlightenment! Pip.

Nice to see you have managed get back to the build side after all the succession of hurdles that have been in your way for such a long time. That's coming along swimmingly, Rabs. There really is nothing like having a fixed deadline to meet to get one's arse into gear! Looking forward to the progression of this! Pip.

I agree 100%. Pip.

If I didn't like my Historics exactly the way there already were I'd never have bought them to begin with. Crazy idea. But then again; living in London I have a vast pool to choose from. Pip.

...and I'll second that, Black Dog! Your description matches my own observations of the Antiquities and I think you have posted a very succinct, very accurate appraisal. I've not tried out a pair of Seth Lovers by way of comparison but I'm happy with what I've got. Pip.

As to what I would recommend it all depends on what music you wish to play. Innards are easy enough. I have regular CTS 500k audio-taper pots and regular .022mF PIO caps wired-up '50s style in all my Les Pauls. It's simply how I like them. Pickups? For British Blues Boom stuff my preference is for regular Gibson '57 Classics. For songs which needs more oopmh I actually like the oft-derided 496R + 500T ceramic pairing. I also have a matched set of the highly regarded Seymour Duncan Antiquities in one LP which are great once dialled-in but there's a very narrow window between them being absolutely 'On Song' and completely 'Off Colour'. But, then again, it could just be me. Perhaps I just need more practice with them. If you don't particularly like the BBs in your Historic you should check out (if you have not already done so) the 57 Classics. I've heard many Boutique PAF clones but to my ear the 57s still sound closer to what I think of as the archetypal Les Paul / PAF sound. Good luck and keep us informed of how you go. Pip.

Yep. I agree, too. You have obviously gone in to this in some detail so swap away. After all; it's just a guitar - not a Faberge egg. Pip.

We must have had the same art teacher!............ It was a point which was hammered home to we students so forcefully way back then that my subconcious probably took over as I typed... Pip.

Both of the above. I really couldn't possibly agree more with both points raised. I'm sure the OP knows what he is doing and if he really cannot dial-in the guitar with the hardware he has to hand then by all means swap them out but if it's just a case of the p'ups being too bright then I would have thought judicious use of the volume and tone control(s) would be sufficient in the treble-taming stakes. As far as what the original 'bursts sounded like? I won't post it yet again but I heartily recommend the April 2008 edition of ToneQuestReport to anyone curious enough to get an insight into the independent evaluation of six all-original '59s and how they sound. The evaluation was extremely thorough and well-conducted. The conclusion was that there is not one Absolute, Definitive tone. Les Pauls vary. They did so back then(*) and they still do today. Here are just a couple of quotes from the text to give you a general idea; "We all agreed that if we had heard (......) on a recording 'blind' we would incorrectly assume that we were listening to a semi-hollow body guitar...". "...a thin, penetrating and incredibly powerful treble presence far more likely to be associated with a vintage Telecaster...". So there you have it. A 1959 Les Paul sounds like an ES-335. Or, perhaps, an old Telecaster... Pip. (*) Without getting in to the interminable 'Do solid-body guitars improve with age?' argument

Funnily enough before I became a photographer I was a graphic designer and the 'Fugitive' nature of paints and inks was very firmly rammed-home to us as students so I am familiar with the concept. It's not even that much different in colour photography and, in the earliest days (although to a lesser extent), black'n'white photography. Additionally photographic papers also 'yellow' in much the same way as your clear-coat ambers on an instrument. The great breakthrough in Fine Art as far as blue (specifically Ultramarine) is concerned was when Renaissance artists started to use finely ground lapis lazuli. Being a semi-precious stone it meant that using Blue was unbelievably expensive which is why it is most often seen only on very important works. The colour most prone to the 'fugitive' effect is, of course, red. If you live near any scrap car merchant's yards have a look at the older red ones! The poor permanence of many red pigments is also why all those '58 - early '60 dye-based Les Paul Standards have faded so much and the late 1960 newly-formulated 'tomato-soup' pigment-based Standards much less so. As far as the purple guitar - and especially the clear coat - is concerned I'd very much advise talking to a specialist as to which formula will work best. I don't know if all this is old hat to you but keeping things really simple; Yellow (in the additive colour context) is a Primary Colour; i.e. not a result of a mixture of colours. Purple is a Secondary Colour; i.e. a mixture of two Primary Colours (here, obviously, Red and Blue). On the Additive Colour colour-wheel Purple is the 'Opposite Colour' to Yellow. As noted both Red and Blue are prone to fading. Making things worse; when a Primary is mixed with its opposite colour Secondary the result is a Tertiary and a tertiary colour will always be a variation of Brown. If the Purple stain fades over time and, concurrently, the clear-coat 'Yellows' the resulting finish might not be quite what you had hoped for initially. Best of luck! Pip.

As well as the blue changing the binding has also gone very amber. Did you give it a clear coat over the dye? It looks like the clear coat is adding even further yellowing tinge to the fading blue hue. Blue painted guitars can change in hue over time but the factors involved in this subsequent change will depend on many different factors. Here's my 2011 Lake Placid Blue Strat just after I bought it; The guitar has been kept out of its case 24 / 7 / 365 in the eight years since I brought it home. I don't have a recently taken picture to post but believe me; it looks exactly the same today. Although its never been hidden from daylight it has also never been gigged in smoky bars for the last 40 years and I think the gentle life its endured has meant there's little going on to make it change colour. For a bit of fun and just by way of comparison here's what the p'up routs looked like on my (previous owner) stripped-finish 1964 Lake Placid Blue Strat way back in 1980; I believe recent Fender LPB instruments are given a less-saturated and slightly more 'green-ish' paint job because most original LPB Fenders have 'greened' a bit over time and so Fender think this is what most modern buyers would expect to receive. If you google 'Original Lake Placid Blue Fender' just see what the variation in colours is like! In 1982 I had my '64 refin'd in genuine DuPont (Fender used DuPont paint) LPB by an automotive paint-sprayer (it was used on General Motor cars in the '50s and '60s) and the DuPont LPB was exactly the same hue as that seen in the cavities. The sprayer - who was also the bassist in a band I used to play with from time to time - said that the new polymers which were used by DuPont meant that the finish was unlikely to change over time. When I sold it in 2004 the colour was exactly as it was after it came back from the paint shop. Doesn't prove anything but I just thought I'd throw it out there FWIW. Pip.

To be fair, Ian, the OP mentions in post #7 that he is merely being curious and is not unhappy with his guitar. FWIW it looks like genuine seashell to me. It would be the environmentalists' choice, too; no need for making yet more nasty non-biodegradable man-made plastics which end up in fishes' stomachs!... You never know; perhaps Gibson employees are encouraged to go beach-combing for pretty 'vacated' oyster shells when they go for a day out to the seaside. I've done it myself. Very satisfying! Pip.

Age-old problem; been discussed here many a time. Wrap plain, unbleached cotton around the areas which come into contact with the guitar. Old t-shirt strips are usually just fine. Doesn't look 100% professional, of course, but it does the job. Pip.

Pretty much the same.

'Minus Man' seems to be the perfect description of his personality. A male hominid in form but completely lacking in anything remotely Manly. Like a Vintage Burgundy but without the wine. Empty. A Void. Vacuous. And they do say that empty vessels make the most noise...... "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"......as Wild Bill 212 was always fond of saying. Hope no-one minds but I'm just going to 'plus' everyone up each time I log in. Pip.

I wouldn't touch it. If you refinish it not only would it cost a considerable amount to do properly it would also, in all likelihood, devalue the instrument. There's also the very real possibility that it would not sound the same after a re-fin. This. It would cross my mind but then the thought would be dismissed instantly. Pip.

All I can say is that in the UK you can get them - they're in stock now - in either colour for the same price as they were selling for when this thread was started. Pip.

Look closely at the Stop-bar / bridge (aka 'McCarty Bridge') unit on these guitars and you will see that it is 'compensated' - i.e. there is a raised and staggered line - a set of six bars like a simplistic lightning bolt shape - running across the topmost surface of the unit which follows, roughly, the shape which a set of individual saddles would describe on an ABR-1. Hence it runs from slightly 'nearer-the-frets' at the high 'E' to 'further-from-the-frets' at the low 'E'. The G is further back than the D just as it would be on an adjustable bridge which is important for players using an unwound G - which, on an SG, would be almost all of us. The original McCarty bridge, OTOH, was designed with no such ridge nor even an angled top surface so the whole unit had to be bolted on at an angle to the frets to get intonation in the right ballpark. Both types of bridges are adjustable as an entire unit by using the grub-screws seen just behind the fixing bolts which can vary the distance the bridge rests from the bolt-axis. This is necessary to allow the use of different gauges of strings - i.e. a set of Extra-Light strings would need a different overall nut-to-bridge/saddle length than Medium gauge or Heavy gauge etc. Furthermore going forward on one grub-screw whilst back on the other will alter the angle of the entire unit relative to the frets so, for instance, users of Light-Top Heavy-Bottom sets can also get good intonation. Looking forward to the NGD pics! Pip.

Well found, Black Dog! I can hardly believe the tenon question hadn't been raised before.............usually one of the first things mentioned. Tim Plains (AKA R9) who posted reply #3 in the link was the guy to ask if you had a question on Historics. Really knew his stuff. Had an amazing assortment of reissues. Hope he's doing very well! Pip.

I forgot to say don't forget to look in the control cavity for an 'R' stamp. I don't know if the '68s even had one but if there is one there then it's definitely a reissue. Probably... Pip.

Taking these points in order; First-off I'm sorry to hear that you are, as your login name suggests, unwell. A Get Well Soon from here. It sounds like you have a good, sensible relationship with Bob. If I were in your position I'd ask him politely to explain the various subtle differences which mark-out a reissue from the regular Custom. I've tried to check this out myself but, as you may have read earlier, didn't get anywhere with any degree of certainty. Models can change spec from year to year and the '68 Custom and reissue have both been around far too long to make spotting one from the other a simple business.What I found to be most surprising is that it's almost certain that some regular Customs don't have the CS prefix. Can't explain that one at all but there are too many out there to ignore this 'fact'(?). The model code! One of the first questions I would put to Bob would be to ask if the reissues had nickel or chrome hardware. If it was always nickel then it looks like you may have a regular Custom - assuming all hardware is original - as I believe the last two letters (CH) denote Chrome Hardware. As I said in an earlier post one incontestable reissue I found had NH (nickel hardware) as the last two letters. If the reissues sometimes had chrome hardware as well then this is probably another dead end. The ABR-1. Most unusual to see one on a regular Custom IMX. Again; this is something I would try to clear through talking with Bob. The waterslide. I was (very!) surprised to see that the reissues also have a waterslide so one of my early 'indicators' is wholly wrong. The Custom Shop has used many different designs over the years. Ask Bob if the 2005 CS Customs of both types used the same - or differing - designs. It's a long shot but, hey, you never know! Sorry I can't be of more help. If you DO get any luck through talking with Bob please do let us know. Pip.

Hmmm...... I'm not getting anywhere terribly fast here, I'm sorry to say. I've tried checking out the Gibson peghead logo for any differences but no joy as open 'b' and 'o' were used for all instruments concerned. I then tried to find out whether the '68 SilverBurst reissues had nickel or chrome hardware. This might have started to get me somewhere... As you say in your opening post your own Custom has the model code LPC-SLBCH1. Unless I miss my guess this translates as Les Paul Custom SilverBurst Chrome Hardware 1 (i.e. not a "2nd"). One particular '68RI I was looking which had the model code appended and it read (..)LPC68VOASBNH1. My guess is that translates as Les Paul Custom '68 Vintage Original Antique SilverBurst Nickel Hardware 1. I've no way of knowing whether this is accurate info but it's proving difficult to discover exactly what is what since the Custom Shop took over all LPC manufacture in 2004(?). Chrome finish instead of nickel isn't much to go on. It could be that the CS had some overlap in materials/body-blanks/fittings over the years and used whatever seemed to be 'right' at the time? Certainly the lack of a CS prefix in the serial number is confusing as is the ABR-1 but there seem to be dozens of non-R-I - yet still with '68-style appointments and no CS prefix - LP Customs out there. In the end I think the best you can do purely in pragmatic terms - unless someone with more information and/or expertise comes to your aid (and I hope that they do) - is accept the word you were given by Gibson. If you ever wish to sell then by all means point out the more correct Historical detail on your instrument but without an Historic COA and with no R-I back-up notice coming from Gibson I can't see how it could truly be described as a '68 reissue with any accuracy nor conviction. If you do get anywhere further with this please pop back and let us know. Pip. EDIT : That could well be the explanation, Scales! By Golly I think you've cracked it! Pip.

Well Hold the Front Page and Drop the Dead Donkey... Earlier I wrote; I've checked-out quite a few SilverBurst Customs online and all have one or other version of the Custom Shop wateslide - including the '68 reissues. I then checked out any '68 reissue I could find and they, too, all had a waterslide including the 'True Historic' versions. Why? The '52-'60 Les Paul reissues dropped this practice in 1995. All the Customs I mentioned in my earlier post do have narrow binding so that doesn't get us anywhere nearer the truth of the matter. I'm beginning to be more persuaded that the OP does indeed have a '68 reissue despite what Gibson CS are saying. Detailed pictures might help (?) but the Nashville / ABR-1 anomaly would, in itself, be hard to explain away. Pip.

There are two answers (at least!) to this question. A Custom Shop service has (pretty much) always been one of Gibson's offerings. Famous and/or wealthy players have been able to request special one-off versions since at least the 1920's. AFAIK the present Custom Shop evolved from Gibson's Historic Division which was - without a doubt - set up in 1993. This is why attempts to make recreations of the '59 'burst earlier than '93 are, nowadays, referred to as 'Pre-Historics' - as in before the official 'Historic Collection' project was up and running. These earliest Historic Division reissues had a waterslide placed on the rear of the peghead / neck-join area but this practice was abolished after a few years to make the rear aspect of the reissues more historically correct / attractive to prospective buyers. Here's a snap of the waterslide on my 1993 R9 (according to the serial number it is the 131st official '59 reissue made); With regard to the Les Pauls IMX the earlier pre-Historic Division attempts were, undeniably, fine instruments but I much prefer the later post '93 instruments. YMMV. Pip.

"Whatever the **** it was called in 1968..."... Are you trying to be an arse? Of course it's a Les Paul Custom you idiot. What the OP is trying to find out is if it's a 'regular' Custom or a reissue of the 1968 Custom. As far as the 1968 Gibson Les Paul range is concerned I suggest you do some serious homework. As, indeed, will I regarding the specific details of the binding on the Custom. Pip.