Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

JimR56

All Access
  • Posts

    1,352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JimR56

  1. Hannu, here is a 1975 model that was sold by Elderly Instruments: http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/40U-4483.htm Note how closely the rear view of this example resembles the your guitar: ... and note how the top finish in particular matches the color of the back, while yours looks different: You can also see what the original vol/tone knobs looked like, as well as the pickguard (I like your new one better anyway). I think it is possible that the top was refinished on your guitar. One possibility is that the old pickguard decomposed (this is a common thing, where they break down chemically and release a nasty gas that can cause oxidation of metal plating) and damaged the original finish of your guitar. It might also explain some of the oxidation on metal parts that you described earlier.
  2. If the serial number on the back of the head is not a decal, but stamped, this would suggest (along with the fact that you have a match with the number on the label) that the number itself is legit, and the guitar may date slightly earlier ('73 to '75-ish). It still isn't clear to me why an orange label was used (and possibly placed over a Norlin label), but if it was done by Gibson, then that is a bit of a relief.
  3. Hannu, I would not try to remove the paper under the orange label. I still think it appears to be the corner of a Norlin label. Here is what they look like: It appears to be "aged" at the corner, but the small dark spot you see where it emerges right at the edge of your orange label looks like the corner of the dark triangular field in which the "Gibson Inc." lettering appears.
  4. Except that Gibson wasn't using the orange labels at that time. They went to the Norlin label circa 1971. Also, there should be a serial number on the back of the headstock (they used a decal rather than an impressed stamp at that time). If it's gone, this is another red flag, I would think.
  5. I've always had this thing about subtle differences in the shapes of guitar bodies, headstocks, etc. I didn't study it in order to try to become an expert, I just have this obsession with it. I guess it stems from being a purist. I don't like it when Gibson makes changes to classic designs. That's what really puzzles me too. I also don't get the "DMW" at the top of the label.
  6. You're very welcome, and I'm just relieved that you're not upset at me for telling you. :) Your attitude is very healthy, by the way. Enjoying the guitar as a musical tool is what it's all about, and like I said, it's still a beautiful guitar. First of all, your serial number would indicate 1964, if it was legit. The problem is, it doesn't appear to be legit. Somebody seems to have pasted that label in at a later date. The corner of another label (underneath the orange one) is visible at the upper left. It appears to be the corner of a rectangular label- a Norlin label, which would be correct for a 1970's instrument. It's surprising that this corner was left visible, especially if someone was trying to be deceitful (the usual reason for pasting an orange label into a guitar that was made later). I suppose that the orange label could be carefully removed by someone expert in dealing with paper... I don't know. Is there no serial number on the back of the headstock? Based on the headstock and the cutaway shape (and the bridge and tailpiece), my present guess is that we're looking at perhaps a 1975 to 1977 example here.
  7. Hannu, thanks for providing the extra photos. I hope this won't shock or disappoint you too much (it's still a nice guitar), but your Super 400 was not made in 1964. The previous owner misled you and/or the store you bought it from. I actually knew the moment I saw your initial photo that the guitar was made later, but I wanted to see a few things (headstock, label, etc) more clearly. Here is a list of things to consider: 1. The headstock shape is wrong for the 1960's. It conforms to the shape and design that was used in the 1970's. 2. The cutaway shape is also wrong for a 60's venetian cut. Yours also conforms to the 70's type. 3. Your bridge base (ebony with pearl inlays) is the type that first appeared on Super 400's in 1973-74. 4. Your tailpiece lacks the hole for the "varitone" control. This tailpiece design appeared in 1975. 5. Your vol/tone knobs are not correct for 1964. 6. Perhaps most troubling of all, there appears to be a Norlin label under the orange label in your guitar. Here is a headstock comparison (1960's / 1970's): Note the subtle difference in the shape of the "center dip" at the top of the headstock; and also the difference in spacing between the vertical pieces of pearl in the split diamond inlay. Your guitar has a 70's headstock. Here is a cutaway comparison (1969 / 1970's): The difference is subtle, but it's there if you compare closely. This is mentioned by Tom Van Hoose in his book. Again, I hope this isn't too big a shock, but this sort of thing happens in the guitar world. She's still a beauty.
  8. Hannu, there are several things about your guitar that puzzle me. I'd like to help you if possible, and I think I can offer some info, but I would really need to see more photos. Can you please post photos of: the headstock, close up the back of the neck and headstock the label Any additional photos would be great. It's a beautiful guitar, so I hope you won't mind showing it off with more photos. :)
  9. Factory Order Numbers with a Letter, 1952 to 1961. This letter preceeds the batch number within the Factory Order Number (FON), and denotes the year of manufacturer. Remember, the batch number is the first 4 digits of the FON, followed by a 1 or 2 digit sequence number (within the batch). This letter should be before the FON batch number. This was used on archtop models (ink stamped inside treble F-hole) and on flat top models (ink stamped on the neck block), from 1952 to 1961: Year Letter ---- ------ 1952 Z 1953 Y 1954 X 1955 W 1956 V 1957 U 1958 T 1959 S 1960 R 1961 Q
  10. I paid a lot for mine, but there was a premium to pay for the relative rarity of it being a '62, and having a cherry finish. Anyway, I've seen some nice ones from the '63-'69 years sell for far less. There was a nice clean '66 (cherry) that sold on ebay recently for under $5K. Red, thanks for those shipping numbers.
  11. You're correct, and I'm impressed to find someone who knows this. Wow. Do you have the totals for the other years in the original 1960's run? I've been wondering about Sheraton shipping totals in general, and I knew they were rare, but I didn't expect the number to be that low. I talked about it (particularly in terms of cherry being a relatively rare finish) in this thread, which any Sheraton lover should enjoy: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=11411759#post11411759
  12. I don't think that's an original Sheraton. Looks like an Elitist or a 90's reissue. The headstock shape is the best indicator of what issue any Sheraton is. I can't really see this one clearly, but it looks like the Elitist type.
  13. Doc, in that second photo, the body of the Riviera looks considerably longer than that of the Sheraton. It doesn't seem to be an optical illusion, and this has me quite surprised and a bit puzzled. If there is really that much difference in body size, it would seem that one or the other is likely way off the original specs (the two ought to have the same sized body), and I wonder which one it is? I've seen quite a few body variations over the years on post-1970 Asian Epi semis, which usually show up in the shape of the horns/cutaways, or the contour of the waist, but I've never seen a photo like this showing two guitars with bodies that differ so much (apparently) in length.
  14. Not really. If you want to talk about "traditional", you should remember that floating pickups were around for quite awhile before humbucking pickups were available. A more "traditional" choice would be one of the DeArmond pickup models. These could be attached without having to be permanently mounted to a pickguard. A humbucker is certainly another option, and might still be preferable, depending on what type of tone someone is looking for.
  15. I'll put it another way. I think the appearance of the dotneck 335 has become iconic over time. I don't believe that most people prefer the appearance of a dotneck over a 355 based on the simpler aesthetics, I think they want the icon (which really had its genesis in the early features I mentioned, with the dots just sort of coming along with the package). I suspect that a lot of people who saw the 355 as unaffordable might have used the 335's "elegant simplicity" as a less than sincere feelgood stance. Just my opinion. By the way, I think the above photo would have a lot more style without Richards in it. Just show me the guitar.
  16. I wasn't really thinking much about "bling", although I'm sure it's part of the equation. I actually prefer some bling, all else being equal. I know that some folks prefer a simpler look, but in the case of dotneck 335's, there's a long history and tradition of those being more in demand not for the relative aesthetic simplicity of their appearance, but because the originals from '58 to '61 (although they happened to have dots) were desired for other features (paf's, bigger necks, stop tails, mickey mouse ears, etc). 1920's Lloyd Loar L5's had dots too, but I don't think people crave them for the dots.
  17. To be perfectly honest, I think the main reason (though price may also be a factor) in this day and age is hero worship. Eric Clapton used a 335, and thus millions of young players think that a 335 is the only way to go for a semi-hollow Gibson. In today's culture, the relative importance and legacy of 335-user Clapton surpasses the 355-user legacies of B.B. King, Freddy King, Chuck Berry, etc. Of course, I'm simplifying here. There have been other famous players who have used these two models, but Clapton is the biggest influence on sales. Ironically, Clapton idolized the 355 players I just mentioned. Another factor used to be stereo vs mono, but in more recent years, mono 355's have been much easier to come by, so that has evened things out a bit, and should have allowed more people to consider a 355 (stereo guitars never having been very popular or successful in general).
  18. You were correct here. It looks like the 1993-1994 Nashville USA Collection Sheraton: http://www.epiphonewiki.com/index.php?title=Sheraton#Nashville_USA_Collection_Sheraton Of course, it's also possible that it was custom-ordered around that same time, with slight differences from the standard Nashville specs. None of the Sheratons in question here are vintage 60's models. As RTH pointed out in post #14, there have been many many versions made since production ceased in Kalamazoo. The best place to begin when trying to identify a version is the headstock shape and design (and of course the pickups). It's kind of amazing that a site like the one linked in post #2 (dolphinmusic), who devote themselves to identifying specific gear used by a famous player, can get it so wrong. The '63-'69 headstocks are easily distinguished from the Nashville USA or the Elitist headstocks, if one is really paying attention to details. Someone asked about photos of original 60's Sheratons. There are dozens of images here: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=11411759
  19. I honestly don't even know what the price difference is for new models, but there's no doubt that vintage 335's have been pricier for many years. The popularity and the fanbase and the preference (the "premium" put on 335's) is largely about "lore" (dotnecks with paf's, Clapton having played a 335, etc etc). I'll bet the vast majority of 335 owners have never tried a 345 or a 355. And I'm not saying that 335's aren't great guitars, or that varitones and stereo wiring are necessarily great features. I just think it's mostly driven by "I want what he has" (like you mentioned in your first post... people don't think creatively or individually). Even since I got my '62 Epi Sheraton (even before, actually), I've been tempted to tell people to be a little different and get a Riviera or a Sheraton with mini-hb's. Very under-appreciated guitars, imo.
  20. "Action" is something that's adjustable. Also, even within a single model category, playability/feel can vary from one guitar to another (from 335 to 335, from 345 to 345, etc.), so don't make assumptions based on small sample sizes. Compare apples to apples, if possible. L5Larry's comparison of a 345 with a stop tailpiece vs his 335 with a trapeze tailpiece is not something you can base anything on really (in terms of choosing one model over the other). Most semi-hollow players do prefer stop tailpieces over trapezes though, so that's something to think about.
  21. Yes, and it has a narrow neck, and it has a Byrdland tailpiece, and Clapton said it was a Byrdland.
  22. I think we have to look at the evidence in its entirety, and analyze everything carefully. When I said to Larry earlier that "photos can fool you sometimes", it didn't even occur to me that some of the photos here definitely look distorted to me. Maybe Big Kahune can offer an opinion on this based on any technical knowledge he may have (since he's the one who did such a nice job with the captured screenshots). I suspect that there's a horizontal "stretching" effect that took place when the video images were converted to jpegs. Maybe some of you have flatscreen tv's like ours (made by Vizio), where you can choose different viewing modes. In one mode, you get a more realistic image in terms of scale and dimension, but the image is much narrower on the screen. In the other mode, you get a full screen image, but there is some distortion (stretched horizontally) in scale and dimension. I'm not knowledgeable about flatscreen technology, but maybe somebody here can explain it better. Now, look at these photos again: To my eyes, the guitar does not look nearly as deep here as it did in the photo that Larry brought up in questioning the depth of the guitar. In these photos, it looks very much like Byrdland depth. Okay, even without a consensus on whether the depth is correct, I'm not sure why it makes more sense to start talking about a custom L5. Why? Because this guitar (that Clapton said was a Byrdland) still has: 1. A Byrdland tailpiece. 2. A narrow neck 3. A short scale, with the pickups closer together than on an L5. The totality of the evidence is still strongly (I'd say overwhelmingly) in favor of a custom or modified Byrdland.
  23. As I mentioned earlier, this debate has taken place on numerous internet discussion forums. I was browsing a few of them again yesterday, and saw the following statement at a site called "Totally Guitars": "Hank Byrdlands biography states EC owned a custom Byrdland" I don't know who "Hank Byrdland" is, but maybe this could be a lead for more info about the origin of this guitar. I don't own the Hank Garland bio, but if anybody does, perhaps there's something to be gleaned there.
×
×
  • Create New...