Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

pippy

All Access
  • Posts

    13,346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

Everything posted by pippy

  1. If the dimensions for saddle adjustment front-to-back are the same as the existing bridge - and they should be - why would that help matters? Did you suggest the (far, far less costly) saddle-swap method? If so why did the store not go ahead with this simple and inexpensive solution which would not involve the purchase of a whole new bridge? Something's not right here. Pip.
  2. What makes you think it will be rct's first million?... I mean to say; the man drinks Cristal! Pip.
  3. You know, that's not as stupid an idea as it sounds. GET THAT STUFF WRITTEN UP ALL OFFICIAL-LIKE AND HEAD DOWN TO THE PATENTS OFFICE ASAP!!!!!!!!!!! Pip. EDIT : FWIW when I first saw the title I thought you were announcing an impending visit to Scotland. True!
  4. So now you know your solution. Out of curiosity I've just checked my LPs (all of which have ABR-1's) and in each case if the A saddle isn't butting up against the rear of the bridge it can only be 1/4 of a turn shy. Never noticed that before. Mind you; mine all intonate correctly so I've not needed to 'fix' anythhng down there. This relative lack of latitude might possibly explain why Gibson felt it necessary to introduce the 'Nashville' with it's greater travel allowance. Pip. EDIT : Again and just out of curiosity; it would be an interesting academic exercise to compare exact nut-to-bridge-post measurements on original '50s LPs with the re-issues...
  5. But were you able to nail pitch 100% with the saddle flipped? If so then, as suggested earlier, the simplest, quickest and cheapest option by far would be simply to buy an un-notched saddle and mark the groove in the necessary place yourself. Pip.
  6. I'd flip the saddle just to see how much 'off-centre' it can be. I suspect that the slight difference would be insignificant when you are actually playing the (very pretty) thing. Strange that it's out at all, though... Pip.
  7. It looks like it. Just after the release of the near-universally condemned vid-clip where Watsisname kicked-off on his threatening little rant the new CEO of Gibson hastily released a second clip in order to try to quell the uproar which duly followed-on from the first. He mentioned, pointedly, that Gibson would be exploring other paths and licensing other Gibson-approved companies in 'Partnerships' whereby they would be allowed to manufacture Gibson-designed products was one such path. Pip.
  8. Wow! That really is a FINE looking instrument. For c. $100 you got an absolute bargain, Sparky! Many congrats! Pip.
  9. I know what you mean, KB! I was about the only male in our family tree who didn't play practically from birth. Then, one day, an uncle (after whom I'n named) left me his set of clubs when he could no longer play and myself along with a couple of mates would, once a month or so, traipse around a local public course and endanger the local fauna. By the time I had been playing for a few years my fairway irons, my approach shots and my putting were all pretty-ok but my driving? 'Haphazard' is far too kind a word. The point came when I could manage somewhere like 10 - 12 holes in par (or under) but I'd be just as likely to take 10 strokes at all the rest! Still; a good afternooon out for all. Fortunately neither of my playing buddies was ever going to be in the Tiger Woods mould skill-wise and none of us took things too seriously nor considered that 'winning' was even remotely important. We really did have a hoot. I still have those clubs. To give an idea of how 'vintage' they are I can admit that the woods are all of the laminated-wood construction method... Pip.
  10. Hi, Greenie, and welcome to the forum! Many congrats on scoring a really nice looking 'hog topped LP. Relatively speaking they are a fairly scarce version. Play Long and Prosper with her! Pip.
  11. Wow, Twang! Did you lose THAT many balls!?!? Pip.
  12. It's definitely real. No dot on the 'i' and closed 'b' and 'o' are a typical characteristic of the Gibson p'head logo from those days. Pip.
  13. Well, truth be told, I'm a bit lost for words. Congratulations! I sincerely hope you will love your new (old) guitar and I wish you many long years together! Can't really throw any light on the mods nor think of anything else to say. Pip.
  14. You overestimate my abilities / programs, Bill. I can't. Pip.
  15. Hi and welcome to the forum. I'm not sure if it's just me but your pictures cannot be seen/opened. Ideally you should open an account with a third-party picture hosting site - I use postimage - and you might get some more helpful replies. Pip.
  16. Hi Jordan. According to Ian C. Bishop's book "The Gibson Guitar from 1950" (published way back in 1977) the approximate serial number range is as follows (I quote directly from the volume); "1971 : 635001-765000. 1972 : 765001-897000. In 1973 the number 999999 was reached again and this time they returned to 000001 and this is the series that is in use at present; therefore 1973 : 897000-999999 and 000001-031000..." One fairly important caveat is that Mr. Bishop has been known to be mistaken over a few things through the years but, putting that small detail aside, as the serial number info from which he must have sourced his numbers was actually very recent when his text was written and as it matches in with your pot codes I'd say there's not much doubt about it being a 1973 example. Probably...... Pip.
  17. Thanks so very much for reminding me (us?) of this episode, jaxson. He was a fascinating, entertaining and wonderfully complex character and utterly peerless in his craft. Sad to hear of his demise. RIP, Ginger, and thanks for everything. Pip.
  18. Judging by what you have described in this post - liking the '90's - early '00 LP's and, particularly, the above quote about your preference for a slim neck profile I'd strongly suggest you keep an eye out for an early '1960 Classic'. They were first released in 1989 and up until around 1993/94 had, IMX, the skinniest necks used on a Les Paul. As well as the skinny neck shape the build quality was second to none and the appointments were half-way between the Standard of the day and the early '59 / '60 reissues. They really are very fine instruments. I have an early one ('91) and a slightly later one ('95) and whilst the latter has the regular slim '60s profile neck the earlier one has a neck which is wand-like. It might also have slightly less 'shoulder' to add to the feeling of it being 'wand-like'. Here are the thicknesses (first and 12th fret) by way of illustration; '91 = 0.747" (19.0mm) - 0.849" (21.6mm). '95 = 0.823" (20.9mm) - 0.895" (22.7mm). Pip.
  19. Oh, my Sainted Aunt, it's you again. I should have remembered. No-one here "Frankened another vintage Gibson." Can you not accept that as being the reality? Someone 40 years ago modified a recently made guitar to mirror what they wanted it to sound like. It was not a "vintage" guitar in any sense barring that it was made in one particular year. If we were to compile a list of the very greatest guitarists in the history of rock those who modified their instruments to better suit their individual tastes the list would include most everybody you could mention from Clapton, Hendrix, B.B. King, Gilmour, Page and, of course, the master tinkerer himself, Les Paul who couldn't let anything stay 'stock'. Do you consider any of these folks to be "..some arsehole..." because they modified their guitar? Every day here on this forum folks are asking about modifying Gibson guitars. Are they all "arseholes" as well? "Ok, I'll wager I'll buy 10 of them today." I'll wager you don't. Snaps of all ten with proof of purchase by midnight tomorrow? $1,000 to me if you don't. Let me know. Actually don't bother. Pip.
  20. Oh, not really Hector. For a start the modifications were almost certainly carried out in 'period' so whilst one way of looking at it today is that it's a modified/ruined c. 40-y-o guitar back then it was just another bog-standard Les Paul DeLuxe which was modded to the tonal taste(s) of the owner. It's not even as though it was anything terribly special in its day; it was the cheapest in the range - the 'entry-level' Les Paul. Between 1971 and 1979 alone (the only years I have numbers for) Gibson churned out over 35,000 of the things. This also explains why the Reverb valuation actually puts them below most of the current LP range; they really are nothing to get all precious about. It's not because they are bad guitars; in general thay are not! It's just that they are just too commonly found to command the knowledgeable 'vintage' marketeers. One which has been modified to such an extent? Unless the buyer is after a kitsch '70s kick then it really is best to avoid this example. IMO once again. Pip.
  21. The only difference (TRC apart) between the Standard and the DeLuxe was the type of pickup installed and of course the body of this one would have had to be routed to accept the larger body of the full-size humbuckers. The p'ups on the one shown look like they were made by DiMarzio and are most probably his 'Super Distortions'. I'd agree with Steve when he said "These are not the 'droids you are looking for". There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with DiMarzio p'ups - I have a pair myself as it happens - but the guitar in question has had too many mod's to make it (IMO) even remotely appealing. I, too, would vote 'Pass'. Pip.
  22. I could very well be mistaken, pauloqs, but if it's the one I'm thinking about the story behind that guitar is quite odd - and explains why it is in almost new condition. I'm a bit vague about the details but this is sort-of what I remember; Dylan had it (when it was new) and, after one particular gig somehow it was left behind in a 'plane. The record company didn't respond to the calls from the aircraft owners(was the bill unpayed?) so the pilot / pilot's company kept the guitar as 'payment in kind'. It was forgotten about and remained (unplayed) with the pilot(?) until someone, somehow, put the pieces of the jigsaw together and, after it was verified as being bona-fide, was sold at auction just a year or two ago. I'll try to find out more later on... Pip. EDIT : Here' a link to the one I'm thinking about - and the 'particular gig' (which, embarassingly, I had totally forgotten) was the famous 'Dylan Goes Electric!' Newport folk festival.........; https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/experts-bob-dylans-long-lost-newport-folk-festival-electric-guitar-found-in-new-jersey-243268/
  23. In that same picture the other guitar is the ex-Jerry Garcia owned 1979 Doug Irwin crafted 'Tiger' which AFAIK is still owned by Jim Irsay. I had never knowingly heard of Jim Irsay - who I believe owns the Indianapolis Colts(?) - until around four months ago when he was the winning bidder on David Gilmour's legendary 'Black Strat'. I had, as it happens, read quite a bit about his collection previously but didn't put the numbers together until I was re-reading a rather sumptuously printed & bound coffee-table book called 'The Collections' (published by Guitar Afficionado Magazine) and there he is with (amongst other droolworthy instrumentss) the ex J.-G. 'Tiger', an ex-George Harrison Gibson SG; an ex-Elvis Presley Martin D-18........well, I'm sure you get the idea. Apparently, though, he is not just some wealthy git who makes a habit of collecting important guitars of the extremely famous; he's absolutely passionate about everything to do with these things as well as being, seemingly, a very competent player himself and who can count several world-famous guitarists - Steven Stills for example - as jamming buddies and good friends. He seems to be an all-round good bloke who appreciates that he is just the temporary custodian of these important instruments so good luck to him. Not that it matters but he paid $957,000 for 'Tiger' in 2002. In June of this year the 'Black Strat', as we know, cost him quite a bit more(*) Pip. * $3,975,000 (including buyer's premium).
  24. 'Kin'Ell! As the others have already said really glad you got out of the episode to tell the tale! Look after yourself; this life most likely ain't a rehearsal for some other time! I entered the '60s in July and so far so good. Old age might be overrated(?) but one thing's for sure; to reach Old age is better than to not reach Old age...... Pip.
  25. Judging by my ball-park guess of an exposure time of between 1 and 2 seconds the traces where the light-source moves (as opposed to those frames where the light-beams are seen) would suggest a fairly slow moving source with twin light-sources. I'm absolutely baffled but night-vision specs being worn by three individuals has always seemed (to me) to be the original source but, if so, why on earth they are hanging around so close to the central reservation of a motorway? Looking at the first in the latest series of pics posted by m-e, it shows that one of the light sources is an emitter because the light beams consolidate at one point and head upwards. The movement of the light-pairings is too slow to be a vehicule but what else / why would anything else be there in the first place never mind being so slow-moving? Very interesting! Pip.
×
×
  • Create New...