Theory On Gifted To Artist Guitars

[UsernameSteven]

I wonder... I have seen 60's guitars with no serial number and only an ink stamped name in soundhole. Theory ,/ question: Perhaps did Gibson omit numbers and labels on guitars given to musicians as the intention would be to see these guitars "endorsed by use" of the artist? Maybe they didnt want them to just be sold off after being gifted?

[j45nick]

Can you give a specific example?

 

I'm not aware of this practice, but others may be.

[QuestionMark]

Considering that Vintage Guitar Magazine never mentioned such a practice, nor has a number of books I’ve read on Gibson or Epiphone or vintage guitars...it’s doubtful such a practice took place. Certainly, someone would have documented it or made such much sought after such instruments. Artist endorsements or companies getting artists to play their instruments, however, has been a long time marketing practice by manufacturers.

 

QM aka “Jazzman”. Jeff

[Leonard McCoy]

If they were prototyping the specs for an artist model, sure. But otherwise, I can't imagine.

[j45nick]

If they were prototyping the specs for an artist model, sure. But otherwise, I can't imagine.

 

 

Now that makes sense. There has always been the question "what happens to prototypes that didn't make the final cut?"

 

Maybe they go out the back door in the dead of night, or the artist keeps them. Some may have been cut up by the builder. Either way, that could explain how an un-numbered, unlabeled guitar gets into circulation. The problem then becomes how to determine the provenance.

 

Without verification from the artist, or someone who built it and knew the back-story, provenance would be an uphill battle.

[62burst]

There was a photo of a Gibson acoustic floating around that was stamped on the center back brace "Not for Resale", or some such. Could've been one that went to the NAMM show, or a prototype. If Big G doesn't want it being retailed, they'll usually stamp it, like these Les Paul photos:

 

https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?198196-quot-Not-for-resale-quot-stamp

[slimt]

I owned a not for resale stamped on the center back strip L1 from 1990 from The Bozeman plant It was a Namm show guitar and not given to anyone in popularity. Burned on the back of the headstock was prototype .the lable serial number was prototype .

[Tekboy]

I wonder... I have seen 60's guitars with no serial number and only an ink stamped name in soundhole. Theory ,/ question: Perhaps did Gibson omit numbers and labels on guitars given to musicians as the intention would be to see these guitars "endorsed by use" of the artist? Maybe they didnt want them to just be sold off after being gifted?

 

I was told that my guitar was one of these, but it does have a Serial Number. Apocryphal at best, I guess. :)

[Boyd]

I don't understand how stamping something on a guitar could prevent someone from selling it. Surely that would require some kind of written agreement. And if a famous artist's guitar did have such a stamp, wouldn't that make it even more valuable if it were sold?

[j45nick]

I don't understand how stamping something on a guitar could prevent someone from selling it. Surely that would require some kind of written agreement. And if a famous artist's guitar did have such a stamp, wouldn't that make it even more valuable if it were sold?

 

You would think so. Like you say, every guitar gets into the marketplace sooner or later.