LarryUK Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 https://wildwoodguitars.com/product/R960101/standard-historic-1959-les-paul-gloss-2/?cat_id=32 I've just been looking on Wildwood and this is a Custom shop Les Paul. Look at the finishing on this horn. Look how bad the moulding edge is. It's used and they want $5100. No wonder Gibson are in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Can you post the thing which you see as a problem, Larry? I can't see anything too terrible there at all............ Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 They missed a little spot with the scraping but I doubt the models from 59 were done much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 understanding how labor intensive and meticulous the binding work is, a little cosmetic flaw like that, I could live with it since it looks pretty good otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I think I see what Larry is talking about. Looks like when they were scrapping the binding they chipped bit of the nitro between the binding and wood, just a little bit. It wouldn't be deal breaker for me, that's a sweet looking Lester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merciful-evans Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I cant see it either. An I collected my new glasses this morning too. I suppose my guitars must look dreadful close up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Nice looking guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I'm no expert - but blaming the manufacturer for something like this on a USED guitar is dicey. Unless you can prove previous owners weren't responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I still can't see anything which would give me a headache. There's a TINY chip(?) which might well have been done in the two years since it was finished and the usual small amount of aniline dye-bleed but other than that? I think it's absolutely stunning. 'Board could be darker, I suppose, but I could live with the guitar just as-is if I was forced to do so... Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 If you read the description the guitar was damaged and repaired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly campbell Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Although I would not pay that price for it ...I still have to say it is a beautiful guitar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 If you read the description the guitar was damaged and repaired Ah! I was looking for a description but didn't see it as it was posted after the factory blurb - which I didn't bother reading. Well spotted, Black Dog! All Is Explained! Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dh2087 Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 sick guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Ah! I was looking for a description but didn't see it as it was posted after the factory blurb - which I didn't bother reading. Well spotted, Black Dog! All Is Explained! Pip. That's because I'm way too familiar with the WW website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drog Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 This is how Gibson guitars get bad internet press, everyone thinks it's QC issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merciful-evans Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I suppose the former owner removed & replaced the pickguard then? It looks new with that sticker on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I think I'd rather have another Martin acoustic, a used Firebird VII and maybe have enough cash left over for a used Explorer than just the one Les Paul, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I think I'd rather have another Martin acoustic, a used Firebird VII and maybe have enough cash left over for a used Explorer than just the one Les Paul, though. ...even more change left for a nice hooker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drog Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I suppose the former owner removed & replaced the pickguard then? It looks new with that sticker on it. It says it's a USED 2016 model right in the heading? Also, and I quote from the write up "What a gorgeous Les Paul! It is in excellent condition with only a professionally repaired ding on the horn. You can see some slight discoloration with the repair but it is smooth to the touch. The guitar includes the original hardshell case and COA." Many people keep that sticker, use a different pick guard or like myself take it off altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I suppose the former owner removed & replaced the pickguard then? It looks new with that sticker on it. Strangely, I think some people may leave them on. Although, mine was a "cling" type sticker with no adhesive. I saved it and it can be put back on. I'll bet WW has a whole box full of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I think I'd rather have another Martin acoustic, a used Firebird VII and maybe have enough cash left over for a used Explorer than just the one Les Paul, though. Whilst I do fully understand the "3 Good is preferable to 1 Great" approach I, personally, would go for the 1 Great option. Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherJ Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 https://wildwoodguitars.com/product/R960101/standard-historic-1959-les-paul-gloss-2/?cat_id=32 I've just been looking on Wildwood and this is a Custom shop Les Paul. Look at the finishing on this horn. Look how bad the moulding edge is. It's used and they want $5100. No wonder Gibson are in trouble. Although I have personally seen Custom Shop "moulding" that was botched like that at the factory, the listing states it is used and there was a repair done. $5100 is way too much to pay for a guitar with such a bad repair, but I suppose it beats $6500 new from the factory with improperly scraped binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherJ Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 This is how Gibson guitars get bad internet press, everyone thinks it's QC issues No, Gibson gets a bad rep because they have real QC issues. It seems totally plausible because Gibson and the custom shop produce guitars with improperly scraped binding (among other issues) far too often. That is why it is often first assumed that such issues are factory flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 No offence Larry, but I don't understand why you posted this claiming it's the fault of Gibson when it states that the guitar is both used and had a repair done to the horn? If you intend to buy a guitar to play it then you will mark it in some way eventually anyway, unless you plan to keep them in an air tight display? Even playing them at home will normally result in some sort of minor wear over time and if you're gigging be prepared for much worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherJ Posted May 13, 2018 Share Posted May 13, 2018 They missed a little spot with the scraping but I doubt the models from 59 were done much better. It's been established the guitar is used. However your statement is confounding to me. Why is poor present-day factory QC excusable because back in the day the factory QC might have been poor? Makes no sense to me. Also, the QC in 1959 is demonstrably better. I think you might be equating the oft-touted differences between samples of original 59 bursts with QC problems. The variability of things like neck carve, pickup wind, and body shape are not QC issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.