George Jamieson Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 The fellow who sold me this guitar said it is a Japanese copy of an old Gibson student model, ES-125T 3/4. I don't believe that. However, it is not a "regulation" Gibson either. Looks like it was made from real Gibson parts, but mismatched. The body is definitely from the ES-125T 3/4... the only body Gibson made in that size and style. The neck, however, is "wrong". It has the pre-war script logo, which was discontinued at least 9 years before the small-body guitar was made. Plus, the logo is inlaid, not stencilled, and there's binding around the fingerboard and headstock... much more deluxe than anything made for the ES-125 line. And, it's full-sized, 21 frets, 24 3/4" scale. The stock model had 19 frets, 22 3/4" scale, post-war gold logo stencilled on, unbound. The back of the headstock also shows two pencil lines, probably put there to align holes for tuners. Somebody put a lacquer finish on the neck without sanding the lines away. My best guess: The body was discontinued by 1970, for lousy sales. The neck would have been headed for the discard bin because of the pencil marks and the "out of date" logo. Both components were intended to be scrapped, but someone in the factory (Kalamazoo, most likely) decided to make himself a guitar instead. The construction and intonation are very good. Whoever made it knew his stuff. The pickup and bridge look to be stock. The control knobs are off-spec (look like early Magnatone or Rickenbacker) and the tuners are sealed, with the word "Japan" stamped on each. No serial number. Something that might be a factory order number in ink inside the body. I believe the maker would have taken the guitar home quietly and kept it in the house. If anyone asked, he would say it's a Japanese copy, to deflect other questions. The person who sold it to me said it came from an estate sale. Probably means the maker has passed on, leaving the guitar as a bit of a puzzle (and a gift) to the next generation. His family would have repeated the "Japanese copy" story to the person who bought it from them and re-sold it to me. Anybody know of other guitars that might have been made like this? Anybody know of ways to track down when it was made, and possibly by whom? Thanks in advance. George Jamieson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR56 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 First of all, very interesting post. If you weren't already quite knowledgeable about Gibson guitars, you obviously did a lot of homework. My first reaction is to reserve some doubt that the neck was made by Gibson. Two reasons... First, the headstock logo is very well done, but I'm not convinced (yet) that it's legit. There are SO many fakes out there, that I always begin with a little skepticism in cases like this. Pre-war instruments are not my forte, so I'm admitting right now that I could be wrong, but I have tried to research this (not just today, but in previous threads about pre-war Gibsons). I'm not able to find anything that matches that script exactly. I would love to be corrected, because I'm always eager to learn more. At any rate, I would expect the letters to be thicker on a script of that style, like these: The other red flag for me is the shape of the neck behind the nut. The "volute", if you will. Again, it could just be my lack of experience with pre-war guitars in general, but I don't think I've ever seen that particular shape on a Gibson. For reference, here's a photo of some random old Gibson necks: If the guitar was assembled by a Gibson employee (a phenomenon I'm well aware of), I suppose it's possible that the neck could have been a custom design. This is an interesting puzzle, and a very interesting guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Interesting! Any marks inside the body, to indicate Gibson? How about the P90 pickup? Is it Gibson? The neck is definitely not Gibson as near as I can tell...It being bound, is quite strange for a 'budget' Gibson and like Jim, the volute is very unusual. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jamieson Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 Good catch to see the differences in the neck and headstock. I am no expert, but I can't recall seeing a photo of a script logo as thin as mine. The volute is unusual, and there is no other decoration on the neck to mark it as "special" No headstock inlay, no fancy position markers. Could well be a neck made by someone copying the pre-war style. A puzzle: If this neck was made in the 60s or 70s, why would a knockoff company copy an older logo? "Retro" hadn't become popular yet. Maybe the fellow who made the guitar just banged out his version of an older logo, on a neck that was lying around, ready to be scrapped. Or maybe he took a blank and put his own touches on it. What the heck, none of his bosses were going to see the guitar anyway, so he could "adjust" the style as much as he wanted. More questions to ponder. The guitar itself is fun to play... the mystery is a bonus. GJ First of all, very interesting post. If you weren't already quite knowledgeable about Gibson guitars, you obviously did a lot of homework. My first reaction is to reserve some doubt that the neck was made by Gibson. Two reasons... First, the headstock logo is very well done, but I'm not convinced (yet) that it's legit. There are SO many fakes out there, that I always begin with a little skepticism in cases like this. Pre-war instruments are not my forte, so I'm admitting right now that I could be wrong, but I have tried to research this (not just today, but in previous threads about pre-war Gibsons). I'm not able to find anything that matches that script exactly. I would love to be corrected, because I'm always eager to learn more. At any rate, I would expect the letters to be thicker on a script of that style, like these: The other red flag for me is the shape of the neck behind the nut. The "volute", if you will. Again, it could just be my lack of experience with pre-war guitars in general, but I don't think I've ever seen that particular shape on a Gibson. For reference, here's a photo of some random old Gibson necks: If the guitar was assembled by a Gibson employee (a phenomenon I'm well aware of), I suppose it's possible that the neck could have been a custom design. This is an interesting puzzle, and a very interesting guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jamieson Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 First of all, very interesting post. If you weren't already quite knowledgeable about Gibson guitars, you obviously did a lot of homework. My first reaction is to reserve some doubt that the neck was made by Gibson. Two reasons... First, the headstock logo is very well done, but I'm not convinced (yet) that it's legit. There are SO many fakes out there, that I always begin with a little skepticism in cases like this. Pre-war instruments are not my forte, so I'm admitting right now that I could be wrong, but I have tried to research this (not just today, but in previous threads about pre-war Gibsons). I'm not able to find anything that matches that script exactly. I would love to be corrected, because I'm always eager to learn more. At any rate, I would expect the letters to be thicker on a script of that style, like these: The other red flag for me is the shape of the neck behind the nut. The "volute", if you will. Again, it could just be my lack of experience with pre-war guitars in general, but I don't think I've ever seen that particular shape on a Gibson. For reference, here's a photo of some random old Gibson necks: If the guitar was assembled by a Gibson employee (a phenomenon I'm well aware of), I suppose it's possible that the neck could have been a custom design. This is an interesting puzzle, and a very interesting guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jamieson Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 Thanks Rod: The only mark inside the body is the number 10714 stamped in blue-black ink. I presume it's a Gibson body because I don't know of any other company that made a body of those dimensions, and the finish is what I'd call "textbook Gibson sunburst". If somebody were to make that body from scratch, he or she would need a jig of some kind, to shape the moistened maple laminate, no? A jig would be complicated, not something you fabricate just to make one or two guitars. Again I'm nagged by the notion that no imitator would spend time or money to copy a guitar that had failed in the marketplace. I think the guy who made this guitar got his hands on a real body, somehow. Left-field possibility, he got the jig or jigs, because the company might have been scrapping those too. I plead ignorance about identifying pickups. From the outside I can't tell the brand. I've owned two genuine Gibsons with "authentic" P-90s, but I couldn't pass a test if you asked how I know they're the real deal. To be fair, the seller said the pickup was a Seymour Duncan, but I don't know to confirm that. Can you give me advice about this? The pickup is flush-mounted, far as I can tell. The neck remains a mystery. Did the maker of this guitar just "freelance" a neck from a blank laying around the shop? Would there have been a company making inaccurate copies of old Gibson necks, sometime around the late 60s or early 70s, when I imagine this guitar was put together? The binding, the inlaid logo (inaccurate though it is), and the full size... all tell me the neck was either made in advance for a different kind of instrument, or made for this body, by someone who had chosen to make it bigger and "fancier" than the stock model. This is more fun than a crossword puzzle or Soduku. Thanks for taking time to think about it. George J quote name='retrorod' timestamp='1317946998' post='1020404'] Interesting! Any marks inside the body, to indicate Gibson? How about the P90 pickup? Is it Gibson? The neck is definitely not Gibson as near as I can tell...It being bound, is quite strange for a 'budget' Gibson and like Jim, the volute is very unusual. Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR56 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I had sort of assumed that the neck from the original ES125T 3/4 was damaged beyond repair, and somebody married this odd neck to it. That would seem more likely to me than somebody piecing this together at the Gibson factory as an experiment (in other words, I doubt that this neck and this body began life together). Especially since this neck does not really appear to be a legit Gibson part. It is a little odd that the pickguard, vol/tone knobs, and perhaps the pickup are not original. It could be that somebody wanted to use the P90 and the knobs on another guitar, but the pickguard would have been less "in demand" for use on other guitars. More pondering required... :) For reference, here's an orignal 1957 ES125T 3/4: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jamieson Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 Thanks Jim: Your theory sounds more likely than mine. Let me add a guess: By the time the original neck was damaged, Gibson might have removed the guitar and its components out of its catalogue, including the list of parts it would sell to repair shops. That would mean little chance of finding an accurate replacement. For some reason the owner was willing to remove the knobs and possibly the pickup, and replace them with non-spec parts. Maybe the original tuners too, if they survived the damage to the neck. The puzzle that likely has no solution: Where did the neck come from? Did the owner buy it from a local repair shop? Would it be cheaper or easier to get something like this made up, compared to ordering a non-spec replacement neck from Gibson? Was the owner a luthier himself, who made the neck in his own shop? If so, he did a good job with everything except the pencil lines and the accuracy of the logo. A general kind of puzzle: If the owner was willing to strip the parts and turn it into a Franken-guitar, I would expect it to look like a beater after a couple of decades. But this guitar is in very good condition. One ding in the body -- on the edge about 2 inches from the screw that attaches the pickguard. The rest of the finish is as good as 40-year-old nitro can get. A couple of stress lines where the pickup screws enter the body, some very mild checking, but otherwise immaculate. This instrument is a closet treasure, in that respect. More questions for you: What do you see about the pickguard that makes you think it's not original? Something about the pickup position? I don't know where the pickup is located on the stock model. On my guitar the forward edge of the pickup (next to the end of the fingerboard) is 4 1/4 inches from the top edge of the body (at the neck joint). I know the bridge of my guitar is farther away from the neck, to accommodate a regulation scale of 24 3/4 inches. I measure 6 inches from the bottom of the body (where the tailpiece is attached) to the trailing edge of the bridge (closest to the end of the body). Do you have access to that stock model to compare measurements? And, is there an easy way to tell if the pickup is from Gibson or Seymour Duncan? I can wait until the next time the guitar goes to the shop, but that would be at least several months away. Thanks again for your info and help. George J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 I don't see pencil lines on the back of the headstock. What I do see is a scarf joint, possibly two. We can be sure the neck is not Gibson, but what is it? To me, it very much LOOKS like a Japanese neck, and to me it also appears like what Tokai used to make in the shape (narrow and tall). But, I am not aware of what Japanese copies that would have been made with a Gibson logo. Just a guess, but the sharpness of the "volute" suggest more of what we see in 80's manufacture, and the scarf joint, as well as the possible presence of a second joint toward the top of the headstock suggest tooling and manufacture to make the neck-another hint toward late 70's/early eighties. I could be totally wrong, but I don't know that there a lot of Japanese copies that would have the Gibson logo. I believe they had more respect and better laws. But, there ARE a lot of Korean guitars made with logos. What I don't think is as much of a mystery, is why someone would do that. In the 70's/80's that Gibson would not have been worth much, and the short scale would have been seen as a bummer. A long scale would have been extremely cool, and the small body would/might have been seen as a real cool idea. It is not too much of a stretch to wonder why someone would create that guitar from parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR56 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 George, my doubt regarding the originality of your pickguard has to do with the material it's made from. Yours appears to be 2 or 3-ply black and white plastic. What I would expect to see is the mottled reddish/amber material (similar to tortoise shell), as shown in the photo of the 1957 model that I posted. This material also appeared on the example shown in my 1966 Gibson catalog. Regarding the location of your pickup, it looks correct. Don't forget that your neck is longer (with two extra frets) than the original neck. I'm not a pickup expert either. Yours looks very much like a Gibson P90 to me, but I'm sure that there are clones that would fool most people. I would expect that an expert could indeed tell you for certain once they remove it and have a look inside. Getting back to the script logo, as I said above I think it's actually pretty well done. I've seen a number of fake Gibsons made in Asia that were similar in this respect. Not quite accurate enough to fool a trained eye, but still pretty impressive. I don't think you mentioned when you bought this guitar, but I would have guessed that this neck was built later than you're suggesting, and possibly in Asia somewhere. Just a gut feeling, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jamieson Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 Hi again Jim: I don't have a lot of experience with scarf joints. If there's veneer around the headstock it is very good -- especially on the top of the headstock, looking likd end grain all across the contours. And the lines have a reddish tinge... is that common in scarf joints? I guess you can find fake replacement necks of all types, if you know where to shop. I'll take your best guess about the age of the neck. The binding is lighter in colour -- white or pale mint green, compared to yellowed binding around the body of the guitar. I bought this a few weeks ago. The seller said he got it at an estate sale. He said the family told him they bought it approx 1997 at a music store in Arizona. The seller didn't mention anything about the previous owner doing any alterations, so I assume it was more or less in its present state in 1997. The neck transplant, we assume, was sometime before that, but no details about when. It is easy to imagine somebody owning an inexpensive "junior" guitar, and being prepared to "upgrade" the neck to regulation size. Even with the longer neck, the bridge had to move to make a 24 3/4 scale. The trailing edge of my bridge is almost touching the volume knob. On the stock model there's a larger gap. The re-positioning was done very well. The bridge is pinned with tiny philips-tip screws and the intonation is excellent, as long as I stay with a wound G string. Both the bridge and the neck installation are the work of a skilled craftsman. The pickguard is 2-ply black-and-white. Soon as I asked about it I realized all the other pictures I've seen of regulation Gibsons of this type are fitted with tortoise-style guards. No idea what would have happened to the original. A lot of them did get removed for one reason or other. Still do, I imagine. Thanks again for your thoughts. I believe I know more about this guitar's origins now... even though I won't solve some of the riddles. cheers, George J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.