ES with no serial number on headstock

[Guitbucket]

Hi,

 

Anybody feel like looking at the attached PDF and speculating on the ES in the photos? It appears to be a red ES-330 or 335. There's no serial number stamped into the headstock ( I contact Gibson and they said this is not unheard of) but there is one on the orange sticker in the F-hole. The guy who owns it can't make out the first number though.

 

The guy who owns it originally said it was a 1966, now he thinks it's a 1959 and he plans on trying to sell it for $14,000.

 

Any idas on the guitar would be appreciated. Won't hold you to it, it's not mine anyway. Just curious.

 

Did they have black tophat knobs in the 50's?

 

Thanks,

 

 

Brian

ES-335.pdf

[JimR56]

330's and 335's are quite different. You can learn more here:

 

http://home.provide.net/~cfh/gibson.html

[L5Larry]

It appears to be a red ES-330 or 335.

A 330 and a 335 are EASILY distinguishable from each other, even in photos. Which is it, it makes a HUGE difference in the value of the instrument.

 

There's no serial number stamped into the headstock ( I contact Gibson and they said this is not unheard of) but there is one on the orange sticker in the F-hole.

The earliest 3XX's had the serial number only written in the orange label, no peghead stamp.

 

The guy who owns it can't make out the first number though.

This could be because the first "number" is probably the letter "A". Gibson used the "A" series serial numbers from early '47 up until early 1961. The "A" series numbers are fully documented and the manufacturing date of an "A" series guitar can be determined within a couple of months.

 

The guy who owns it originally said it was a 1966, now he thinks it's a 1959

He could be right, and this is VERY easy to determine and verify.

 

Did they have black tophat knobs in the 50's?

Yes.

 

A full set of detailed photos could verify the above info.

[L5Larry]

OK, I just figured out to view ALL the photos.

 

This is a 335, and definitively NOT a '59 (Wrong knobs, wrong fingerboard inlays, wrong tailpiece, wrong tuners).

 

This looks to be a late 60's model (double ring tuners, orange label, witch hat knobs) and has possibly been refinished (no serial number impressed on the back of the headstock, and the photos make it look like a red sparkle paint job instead of the standard cherry red stain).

 

The seller can hope and dream all he wants about having a '59, he doesn't.

[retrorod]

I agree with the above , It does not have dot inlays on the fingerboard....not a '59. I would stear clear of this guitar, especially if the owner is assuming and un-assuming and VERY hopefull and un-knowledgeable(sp)?.....and wants a great deal of money for it. Jes' Sayin'

 

 

[Guitbucket]

Thanks for the responses, everybody. The lure of this guitar has worn off. I'm thinking clearly again.

[dougg330]

The block markers and thinner cutaway horns mean it's for sure not a '59. Most likely a later 60's model, looking at the skinny neck width at the nut. And the nut looks like it got hit with the red paint when this guit was refinished. Hard to tell from the photos, but I'll bet it's not a great refin job. The refin could also explain the lack of serial number on the back of the headstock - might be there and just be covered by new paint. But if it plays great and sounds great.... You just have to get it for a good price, I guess.

[L5Larry]

The block markers and thinner cutaway horns mean it's for sure not a '59. Most likely a later 60's model, looking at the skinny neck width at the nut. And the nut looks like it got hit with the red paint when this guit was refinished. Hard to tell from the photos, but I'll bet it's not a great refin job. The refin could also explain the lack of serial number on the back of the headstock - might be there and just be covered by new paint.

 

Didn't I say all this a couple of weeks ago in post #4?

[retrorod]

.....and didn't I agree with him six hours after that in post #5????