Which Beatle's guitar should I get?

[pohatu771]

Cookieman, what's the reason for all the Photoshop blur tool?

[Red 333]

Whew...... that wore me out

 

 

Sorry.

[cookieman15061]

Sorry.

ha ha ha

[cookieman15061]

Cookieman' date=' what's the reason for all the Photoshop blur tool?[/quote']

It was a poor attempt at clouds.

[bluelake07]

That IS a "Les Paul!" A '64 (SG) "Les Paul." ;>)

 

CB

 

Not if Wiki is correct:

 

In 1960, Gibson experienced a decline in electric guitar sales due to their high prices and strong competition from Fender's comparable but much lighter double-cutaway design: The Stratocaster. In response, Gibson modified the Les Paul line. This 1961 issue Les Paul guitar was thinner and much lighter than the earlier models, with two sharply pointed cut-aways and a vibrato system. However, the redesign was done without Les Paul's knowledge. When the musician saw the guitar, he asked Gibson to remove his name from the instrument and parted ways with the company. Although this separation occurred in 1960, Gibson had a surplus stock of "Les Paul" logos and truss rod covers, and so continued to use the Les Paul name until 1963. At that point, the SG guitar's name was finally changed to "SG", which stood simply for Solid Guitar.

 

George Harrison's was, as you said, a '64.

[charlie brown]

Well, you may (technically) be right...I thought they were still called Les Paul's, until about late 64 or 65?! But, maybe not?

I had a friend, that had a '64 SG "Les Paul," so...I just assumed they were made as "Les Paul" SG's at least that long?

His might have been actually made in '63...and he just thought it was a '64, because he bought it new, in '64. Who knows(?)...I know it

did have the "Les Paul" signature on the truss rod cover, back then. Even so...the only thing that changed, was no "les Paul"

on the TRC. They didn't change spec's, until 66-67, with a different neck joint, an the "batwing" pickguard.

 

Anyway...Sorry, for the confusion....

 

CB

[bluelake07]

and i have alwayssssss wanted to full rosewood tele like george's those are just too fine' date=' i guess im gonna have to build one from warmoth.com or somthin cause i dont think they make them any more[/quote']

 

The rosewood Tele looks great, but this from Guitar Player makes me wonder whether it would be worthwhile to own.

 

Rosewood. This highly prized tonewood is seen frequently in fretboards, and in the backs and sides of many quality flat-top acoustics, but rarely in solidbody electrics. One notable exception was the Rosewood Telecaster that Fender produced sporadically between 1969 and 1972 and was played by George Harrison. Rosewood makes for a very heavy and overly bright-sounding guitar—and an expensive one, too—that is typically more of interest for looks and novelty factor than for tone.

[EpiphonePlayer]

Well if you have a guitar store near your house you should stop by and see if the have any of those guitars, and if they do just play them or ask if you can play them and see which one fits your style best.

[pohatu771]

I'm considering getting a Trans Red Hofner Contemporary Violin bass... with the Cherry Casino I already have, this one-off Texan, this red Rickenbacker 360-12, and a handful of other guitars (including a cherry Les Paul, of course), I'm going to start a Beatle tribute band using all red instruments.

[Guest]

I disagree:

 

http://www.hofner.com/gab/en/phpshop/43/page' date='shop.product_details/flypage,shop.zupf_flypage/product_id,264/category_id,24 [/quote']

 

Oh, that guitar is poo. I have an original one and apart from the pickups it's complete junk, the worst excuse for an electric guitar I've ever played. Build quality is hopeless, I've played better Squier bullet strats. If it didn't have sentimental value I'd sell mine at a flea market for $50.

 

Maybe they make them a little better now but frankly it would be hard to make them worse.

[pohatu771]

Oh' date=' that guitar is poo. I have an original one and apart from the pickups it's complete junk, the worst excuse for an electric guitar I've ever played. Build quality is hopeless, I've played better Squier bullet strats. If it didn't have sentimental value I'd sell mine at a flea market for $50.

 

Maybe they make them a little better now but frankly it would be hard to make them worse.[/quote']

Original, as in 50s? It's no secret they weren't top-quality. They were cheap, and that's why The Beatles played so many of them.

[Guest]

Original' date=' as in 50s? It's no secret they weren't top-quality. They were cheap, and that's why The Beatles played so many of them.[/quote']

 

Mine's a '61. And yeah it is such a heap of rubbish. Has required extensive repairs ever since I got it just to stop it from literally falling apart. Still plays terribly even after several professional setups and plenty of re-work to make it more playable. Looks good hanging on a wall, but when you put your fingers on it the illusion that it's a worthwhile instrument is brutally shattered.