Identification and value?

[seastar9]

My stepfather has a red and white Gibson SG Junior, with the number 590015 stamped into the back of the neck. Can anyone tell us exactly what year it is from, and what its value might be? Thanks!

[GLR]

My stepfather has a red and white Gibson SG Junior, with the number 590015 stamped into the back of the neck. Can anyone tell us exactly what year it is from, and what its value might be? Thanks!

 

Made in 1955 according to this site: http://guitardaterproject.org/gibson.aspx

 

I'm not sure what it might be worth though.

[JimR56]

Made in 1955 according to this site: http://guitardaterproject.org/gibson.aspx

 

1. Very basic knowledge: the various SG models didn't appear until 1961.

2. Clearly, that website is pretty useless.

 

Unfortunately, Gibson's serial numbering system was a mess back in the era when this guitar was made (1961-1971). This particular serial number looks to be later ('74-'75), so something seems to be off here.

 

Photos are always good.

[GLR]

1. Very basic knowledge: the various SG models didn't appear until 1961.

2. Clearly, that website is pretty useless.

 

Unfortunately, Gibson's serial numbering system was a mess back in the era when this guitar was made (1961-1971). This particular serial number looks to be later ('74-'75), so something seems to be off here.

 

Photos are always good.

 

1. Just trying to help.

2. "Basic" according to whom? I certainly didn't know the SG's didn't arrive 'til '61.

3. That web site, while muffing this one, properly identified my Melody Maker, confirmed by the vintage department of Guitar Center, Hollywood.

 

Nobody's perfect. Well, except maybe you.

[JimR56]

1. Just trying to help.

Cool, but you weren't really helping anybody, were you? I mean, in the era we're living in, mis-information is a huge (HUGE) problem. Ebay, wikipedia, you see it everywhere. People don't take the time to learn what they're trying to teach to others. I guess I've become sensitive about this (maybe too sensitive), but it's hard for me to apologize for that. I am sorry, though, if I hurt your feelings.

 

2. "Basic" according to whom? I certainly didn't know the SG's didn't arrive 'til '61.

I'd say this is pretty basic Gibson knowledge, and I would think most vintage enthusiasts would agree.

 

3. That web site, while muffing this one, properly identified my Melody Maker, confirmed by the vintage department of Guitar Center, Hollywood.

There are better sources of information out there, both online and in books. A site that's going to "muff" like that is unreliable, not to be trusted, and with better sources out there, I'd say it's basically useless.

 

Nobody's perfect. Well, except maybe you.

:) Ha. I certainly know that I'm not, but I'm kind of proud to have taken this stuff seriously for some time (a few decades) and have some acquired some knowledge. Seriously, I'd advise you to do some reading if you want to try to help people with info like this.

[JimR56]

Forgot to add this link for you...

 

Gibson collecting info

[GLR]

Cool, but you weren't really helping anybody, were you? I mean, in the era we're living in, mis-information is a huge (HUGE) problem. Ebay, wikipedia, you see it everywhere. People don't take the time to learn what they're trying to teach to others. I guess I've become sensitive about this (maybe too sensitive), but it's hard for me to apologize for that. I am sorry, though, if I hurt your feelings.

 

 

I'd say this is pretty basic Gibson knowledge, and I would think most vintage enthusiasts would agree.

 

 

There are better sources of information out there, both online and in books. A site that's going to "muff" like that is unreliable, not to be trusted, and with better sources out there, I'd say it's basically useless.

 

 

:) Ha. I certainly know that I'm not, but I'm kind of proud to have taken this stuff seriously for some time (a few decades) and have some acquired some knowledge. Seriously, I'd advise you to do some reading if you want to try to help people with info like this.

 

1. I wasn't trying to 'teach' anything was I? No. I don't know if you're sensitive or not. I know something else, though.

 

2. Basic knowledge to a "vintage enthusiast". We can agree. Of the three people in this thread, two of us are certainly NOT 'vintage enthusiasts'. There goes your 'common knowledge' comment, eh?

 

3. Perhaps there are better sources. That website CLEARLY states a disclaimer on the left margin that there could be error.

 

Anyway, as I stated, I was only trying to help the guy. I wasn't definitive, because I recognize I don't know enough to be definitive. That's why I posted 'according to this site'.

 

A different person might have followed up with "hey, you know, that site is mistaken". Or maybe, "you guys, just to be helpful, the SGs didn't come out 'til '61".

 

OR a person could reply as you did. No sweat. I'm not a teacher nor am I a 'vintage enthusiast'. I just like Gibson guitars and tried to help the guy. That post had been sitting there unanswered for a week. You being so helpful and all, where were you? And when I speak absolutely you can bet I have 'done some reading' (but then I didn't speak that way here), otherwise I wouldn't speak that way, but in either case, I'd certainly approach the conversation differently than you. I'm not here to prove anything. To each his own.

[JimR56]

If someone stopped you on the street and asked for directions to a place that was unfamiliar to you, would you take a guess knowing that you might be sending them on a wild goose chase, or would you say "sorry, can't help you", and keep moving?

 

Again, I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I told you I was sensitive to what I see as a problem with the online culture of mis-information. I even said "maybe too sensitive" (read between the lines if you need to). I could have been nicer about it. You probably shouldn't have tried to help. Neither of us is perfect.

 

I don't visit here every day. Sometimes questions go unanswered for awhile. Many times, I don't know the answers to the questions, and I keep moving. Cheers.

[GLR]

If someone stopped you on the street and asked for directions to a place that was unfamiliar to you, would you take a guess knowing that you might be sending them on a wild goose chase, or would you say "sorry, can't help you", and keep moving?

 

Again, I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I told you I was sensitive to what I see as a problem with the online culture of mis-information. I even said "maybe too sensitive" (read between the lines if you need to). I could have been nicer about it. You probably shouldn't have tried to help. Neither of us is perfect.

 

I don't visit here every day. Sometimes questions go unanswered for awhile. Many times, I don't know the answers to the questions, and I keep moving. Cheers.

 

And yet you've been back ever day to 'discuss this'? Oookay man.

 

If someone stopped and asked me for help and I had a map on hand but didn't know for sure I'd say EXACTLY what I said here -- according to 'this'. I wonder, do you prowl other forums unearthing this dangerous mis-information you profess to loath, or do you just do it here? I bet I know the answer...

 

Again, that site is certainly not worthless. It pegged my 59 melody maker - confirmed by the vintage department for Guitar Center in Hollywood. You're asserting that the free world should know that SGs didn't start until 61 is bogus. Certainly those with extended knowledge of Gibson guitars would know.

 

In your never-ending quest for protection of the unwashed from mis-information, did you take the time to send a message to the developers of the site you bashed so quickly as they kindly asked people to do if they found a bug? I'm going to bet you didn't, did you? Nah...because that's not what it's really about. You know it. I know it. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

[JimR56]

And yet you've been back ever day to 'discuss this'? Oookay man.

I visit here sporadically. Periodically, I might check in here several days in a row, but not every day of the year. Is that difficult to understand?

 

You're asserting that the free world should know that SGs didn't start until 61 is bogus.

I didn't say that, did I? (hint: no, I didn't)

 

Certainly those with extended knowledge of Gibson guitars would know.

Generally, those are the people who come here to offer info and help. People who don't know much about Gibson guitars generally come here to ask questions.

 

In your never-ending quest for protection of the unwashed from mis-information, did you take the time to send a message to the developers of the site you bashed so quickly as they kindly asked people to do if they found a bug?

No, I didn't. I've seen sites like that, which are flawed and dispensable. The process of identifying vintage Gibsons is too complex to be automated like that, and as I said, there are other (reliable) sources of information. I think that website is a waste of time.

 

I'm going to bet you didn't, did you? Nah...because that's not what it's really about. You know it. I know it. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I have no idea what you're getting at, and wow- I thought I had issues. At least I admitted it, and apologized.

 

We see things differently, and apparently the lack of respect here is mutual. That's okay. Good luck to you.

[GLR]

I visit here sporadically. Periodically, I might check in here several days in a row, but not every day of the year. Is that difficult to understand?

 

 

I didn't say that, did I? (hint: no, I didn't)

 

 

Generally, those are the people who come here to offer info and help. People who don't know much about Gibson guitars generally come here to ask questions.

 

 

No, I didn't. I've seen sites like that, which are flawed and dispensable. The process of identifying vintage Gibsons is too complex to be automated like that, and as I said, there are other (reliable) sources of information. I think that website is a waste of time.

 

 

I have no idea what you're getting at, and wow- I thought I had issues. At least I admitted it, and apologized.

 

We see things differently, and apparently the lack of respect here is mutual. That's okay. Good luck to you.

 

Consistency is key sir. People come here to ask questions. One does not have to be an expert to attempt to help, or does one? Perhaps I shouldn't teach my neighbor's kid the circle of 5ths because I'm certainly not Eric Clapton? There is a prerequisite on offering to help? Alllrighty then...

 

You were a jerk in your initial response. You as much as confessed it by apologizing and rambling on about defending the internet from misinformation, and yet you chose NOT to offer your own expertise on the very website you said was doling out the misinformation.

 

What you said about the SGs was that it was "basic knowledge". Then you later qualified that statement to apply to the 'experts'. Is it expert knowledge or is it basic knowledge?

 

You could have been far less arrogant...there are a thousand better ways to respond if you're really interested in not being a jerk...but I'm a member of enough web forums to know one when I see one.

 

Your occasional attendance here has seen you drop by now for several days in a row to do nothing more than defend your own arrogant posts. You may be a regular poster soon!

 

Once again, I wasn't trying to teach or mislead or misinform...only trying to help, and I certainly don't feel that defending that tendency to you is necessary.

 

There are lots of posts here where people are seeking information. In the interest of defending the web from all this bogusness, it would appear you have your work cut out for you. There's a website that might appreciate your glorious input too.

[Cam in alberta]

Jim56 gives good info.

GLR ,you've learned a few things already.

 

1.SG's started in '61

2.The dater project is a misleading .

No need to get bent out of shape.

Don't atttack the teacher.

[JimR56]

Cam, thanks. I appreciate that.

[GLR]

Jim56 gives good info.

GLR ,you've learned a few things already.

 

1.SG's started in '61

2.The dater project is a misleading .

No need to get bent out of shape.

Don't atttack the teacher.

 

His information was good. His presentation lacks decorum. In defense of his 'attitude' he indicates his desire to protect the web from misinformation - a valid an noble cause to be sure - however rather than offer constructive criticism which that site's developers clearly asked for while acknowledging the difficulty of the task, he chose instead to deem it worthless. I would imagine he plays guitar. I would imagine he makes mistakes. I'm certain he doesn't deem himself 'worthless'. Get my point? This is a man with a very high opinion of himself...in my most humble opinion.

 

He has offered them nothing in his quite noble quest. In fact there's a good bet he has not entered a single serial number into their system. And yet he feels comfortable denouncing their effort. This is not someone I'd be comfortable with as a teacher.

 

And lets make sure we're clear. I'm not attacking him. I'm calling him out. By the way, have YOU used that site at all? If so, what were your results? If not, then what, exactly, are you defending, other than a blowhard who needs a bit of sensitivity training?

[JimR56]

 

I know this will probably fail, but let me make another effort to explain one of the things you're not getting. In my opinion, it's simply a waste of time to try to create software which automates the task of identifying Gibson guitars. It's too complex a task. I don't hate those people for trying it, I just think it's a waste of time, and I also think that there will be quite a few people (potentially) who will form false beliefs based on the info they get there. Like I said (I think), I've seen attempts at this before, and I've seen people post here about it. It makes no sense to me based on the fact that there are other, better ways of getting the info you seek.

 

In closing, maybe it really is time to relax. I apologized for my end of the problem here.

[GLR]

 

I know this will probably fail, but let me make another effort to explain one of the things you're not getting. In my opinion, it's simply a waste of time to try to create software which automates the task of identifying Gibson guitars. It's too complex a task. I don't hate those people for trying it, I just think it's a waste of time, and I also think that there will be quite a few people (potentially) who will form false beliefs based on the info they get there. Like I said (I think), I've seen attempts at this before, and I've seen people post here about it. It makes no sense to me based on the fact that there are other, better ways of getting the info you seek.

 

In closing, maybe it really is time to relax. I apologized for my end of the problem here.

 

I totally agree that it is extremely difficult to determine information about a guitar based on the serial number because I've struggled to do it with my Melody Maker, but, as I've stated, that site got it right in my case, and this was confirmed by the Vintage people at Guitar Center Hollywood. In fact, I tried 2 serial numbers there. One was right, and the one in this thread was wrong. That's 50%. I wonder, if we took, say, 50 serial numbers from all eras and tried them there, what the rate of success would be. Would it be any more or less accurate than taking someone's word for it in a pawn shop? It may be your opinion that developing software to HELP a person identify what they have is a worthless quest. You may even know people that agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that those sites exist, and I for one appreciate the effort, especially because as a QA guy I know it is a tall order. I may submit to you that your quest to rid the web of misinformation is equally fool-hearty for similar reasons. Keep in mind that what you're doing, right now, on your computer, was once deemed impossible. :unsure:

 

If you REALLY want to help, then perhaps a kind note to the guys at that website (something that doesn't refer to their site as 'clearly worthless', for example), informing them that the first number isn't always the year identifier, which appears to be how this particular guitar was misidentified, would be in order? I'm assuming you guessed that's what happened? I mean, you didn't offer a why, you just labeled it worthless and essentially accused me of being a part of the 'misinformation' problem. As I have said, they clearly ask for people to report bugs and state that the only way they become more accurate is by getting quality feedback. You have some knowledge. Why not share it as opposed to, well, doing this?

 

You may be offended by misinformation. I certainly didn't appreciate your comments as I was only trying to help. I try to be helpful, you know? Think about how great it would be if someone developed a program that was 90% accurate or even more. If there are people who can do the research and figure it out +/- X percentage, then code can be written to reproduce that. How much time would that save, and wouldn't you (of all people) be grateful for the effort somebody took to make it happen in the name of quality information? Of course you would.

 

Remember, going to the moon was an impossible task before Kennedy challenged American's to do it. Heck man, getting more than 9 gigs on a hard drive was unheard of in 1990. Impossible is a very limiting word. In fact, I was teaching a guy beginner guitar (even though I'm not an expert - please don't chastise me for trying to help him) a while back. He simply couldn't catch a "C" chord, as many of us may remember. He said, and I quote, "this is impossible for me to do!" I told him to use his right hand and place his ring finger on the "A" string if that's what he had to do, and that one day it would go there on its own as if by magic. Guess what? Eh, you know the answer...

 

I appreciate your apology for your part, even though you started with "I know this will probably fail". Heh...its okay man. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. My grandpa still can't use a VCR, and his Dad never believed we went to the moon either.