Does this back look original?

[gibpicker]

Following up on my LG-3 thread from last night, just want to make sure that my luthier and I aren't crazy. Does the back on this early 50s LG-3 look original? To us it looks much newer than the mahogany on the sides, is striped like a sapele/khaya/sipo type wood, and there's no center strip down the inside of the back (and no sign one was ever there). The finish on the back is also a satin, open pore type finish...don't think there would really be a way to have an open pore finish on a guitar that had already had pores filled, right?

Pictures here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/K1C8D735L2UdEzzQ6

Edited May 19, 2022 by gibpicker

[zombywoof]

Based on your earlier post the fabric side supports alone say the guitar was built in the early-1950s.  The other thing I could not hep but notice is that there is quite a gap between the finger brace without the painters tape and the X brace.  But unless somebody moved or replaced it you would have to  lay that one squarely on Kalamazoo's doorstep.

As to the back I do not have a good enough eye to determine between mahogany, sapele and such.  But I have never seen a finish on the back of a Gibson which looks like that on yours.  During this period Gibson was shooting PPG/Forbes lacquer which is the same stuff auto manufacturers were using.  They applied it in very thick even coats because within the first year alone it would lose half its thickness as it dried. 

So, while I cannot make a call as to whether the back is the original or not it does look like if it is somebody has done something rather nasty to it such as stripped and refinished.  The absence of the center back strip though I have no answer for.  But I have owned an old Gibson which looked like a glue pot had exploded in it.    mean it was just slathered all over the back.  After my luthier had cleaned it up though you would never know a drop had been there. 

This is one of those things though need to check in with a luthier, preferably one who knows their way around Gibsons.  It is the kind of call I would not be comfortable making based solely on photos.

[gibpicker]

2 minutes ago, zombywoof said:

Based on your earlier post the fabric side supports alone say the guitar was built in the early-1950s.  The other thing I could not hep but notice is that there is quite a gap between the finger brace without the painters tape and the X brace.  But unless somebody moved or replaced it you would have to  lay that one squarely on Kalamazoo's doorstep.

As to the back I do not have a good enough eye to determine between mahogany, sapele and such.  But I have never seen a finish on the back of a Gibson which looks like that on yours.  During this period Gibson was shooting PPG/Forbes lacquer which is the same stuff auto manufacturers were using.  They applied it in very thick even coats because within the first year alone it would lose half its thickness as it dried. 

So, while I cannot make a call as to whether the back is the original or not it does look like if it is somebody has done something rather nasty to it such as stripped and refinished.  The absence of the center back strip though I have no answer for.  But I have owned an old Gibson which looked like a glue pot had exploded in it.    mean it was just slathered all over the back.  After my luthier had cleaned it up though you would never know a drop had been there. 

This is one of those things though need to check in with a luthier, preferably one who knows their way around Gibsons.  It is the kind of call I would not be comfortable making based solely on photos.

Thanks, Zomby. I swung by my luthier's shop earlier today for him to take a quick look, he was sure that the back was a replacement. Just wanted to get some additional thoughts here. The wood on the inside looks as new as the wood on the outside, so unless someone refinished the inside of the back (seems really unlikely) I just don't see how it could be original.

The seller is adamant that he won't provide any sort of refund, doesn't believe the back is a replacement, etc. The guitar sounds pretty darn good so I wouldn't mind keeping it. And while I try not to think about resale value on a guitar, I'd take a pretty big hit if I ever sold this guitar and advertised it as having a replaced back. So just trying to figure out how I want to proceed.

[j45nick]

15 minutes ago, gibpicker said:

Thanks, Zomby. I swung by my luthier's shop earlier today for him to take a quick look, he was sure that the back was a replacement. Just wanted to get some additional thoughts here. The wood on the inside looks as new as the wood on the outside, so unless someone refinished the inside of the back (seems really unlikely) I just don't see how it could be original.

The seller is adamant that he won't provide any sort of refund, doesn't believe the back is a replacement, etc. The guitar sounds pretty darn good so I wouldn't mind keeping it. And while I try not to think about resale value on a guitar, I'd take a pretty big hit if I ever sold this guitar and advertised it as having a replaced back. So just trying to figure out how I want to proceed.

You could say "opinions differ on the originality of the back." At the very least, as ZW says, the back has been re-finished. By the way, there should be no finish on the inside of the back of any Gibson flat top I have seen. High-end archtops yes, flat tops no.

My gut reaction is that the back has been replaced. The back and side woods should essentially look the same.

[gibpicker]

23 minutes ago, j45nick said:

You could say "opinions differ on the originality of the back." At the very least, as ZW says, the back has been re-finished. By the way, there should be no finish on the inside of the back of any Gibson flat top I have seen. High-end archtops yes, flat tops no.

My gut reaction is that the back has been replaced. The back and side woods should essentially look the same.

Yeah that was another thought, the back and sides look quite different. Uploaded a couple side pics to the album to illustrate that. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Dave F]

Not all LG3's had a center strip. I don't know the rhyme or reason or when and when not for it. The darkness near the edge of the back near the neck is a sign of the back being sanded down or stripped and refinished which could explain the open pores.

Here's a video John Thomas made showing his Banner LG1, LG2 and LG3. The LG1 is the only one with a center strip. All three are x-braced.