Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
gtrplayr1976

1991 Les Paul Standard RI ? R9 ?

Recommended Posts

Ok folks I have a question, or questions. I have been looking at a 1991 Les Paul standard. It looks like a 59, feels like a 59. Has PAF stickers on the pups , ink stamped serial # 1 3431 (or 3134). Stamped in the bridge pup cavity is reissue. Is this an R9 ?, or something else? What would be an average selling price ?..It has a beautiful top, but has some wear. thanks in advance.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics. would make things more interesting and easier for opinions or help.

Also, check the serial number closely.

It doesn't seem to jive with the code.

According to the code, "1 3431" would be a "`61 made in `93".

 

Maybe that "1" is a "7", making it an R7.

 

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Support/SerialNumberSearch/

 

"Gibson Custom

 

1952-1960 Les Paul, Explorer, Flying V, and Futura reissues (since late 1992):

M YRRR or MYRRRR

M is the model year being reissued

Y is the production year

RRR® indicates the guitar's place production for that year. NOTE: This number includes all models for a particular reissue year - so, for example, a 1958 Reissue serial number may include '58 Reissue LP Standard and '58 Explorer production.

 

Example: 7 5123 is the 123rd 1957 reissue model produced in 2005."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has just been said, that serial number doesn't tie up with the regular system for '59 re-issues. AFAIK all R9s go 9 XXXX or 9 XXXXX.

 

The 'Historic Division' re-issue proper started production in 1993. There were re-issues made before this date, of course, but generally only to special order. It may be that there were certain anomalies with these instruments.

 

That number WOULD match a 1991 Les Paul '1960 Classic', however. The only thing is you say the instrument has 'Reissue' stamped in the pup cavity. This is also confusing as the re-issues are normally stamped in the control cavity.

 

Whilst I'm not suggesting the following is definitely the case here, it's worth bearing in mind that the early '1960 Classic' guitars were very similar to the re-issues proper and many unscrupulous dealers 'modified' some Classics to closer resemble these as they brought in double the money.....

 

Check the font of the serial number. The re-issues have a fine typeface and the Classics have one somewhat thicker as seen below.

 

The guitar in the centre is a '59 re-issue. The others are a 1991 '1960 Classic' (left, starting 1 XXXX) and a 1995 '1960 Classic' (5 XXXX).

 

Gangofthreeserials.jpg

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has just been said, that serial number doesn't tie up with the regular system for '59 re-issues. AFAIK all R9s go 9 XXXX or 9 XXXXX.

 

That number WOULD match a 1991 Les Paul '1960 Classic', however. The only thing is you say the instrument has 'Reissue' stamped in the pup cavity. This is also confusing as the re-issues are normally stamped in the control cavity.

 

P.

 

This is SOME info I have found so far.

 

Reissues: Early Les Paul reissues produced between the late 1970s and 1993

should have an inked-on serial number on the back of the headstock. The first

number should indicate the last year of the production. For example, 8 0358

would be a 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has just been said, that serial number doesn't tie up with the regular system for '59 re-issues. AFAIK all R9s go 9 XXXX or 9 XXXXX.

 

The 'Historic Division' re-issue proper started production in 1993. There were re-issues made before this date, of course, but generally only to special order. It may be that there were certain anomalies with these instruments.

 

That number WOULD match a 1991 Les Paul '1960 Classic', however. The only thing is you say the instrument has 'Reissue' stamped in the pup cavity. This is also confusing as the re-issues are normally stamped in the control cavity.

 

Whilst I'm not suggesting the following is definitely the case here, it's worth bearing in mind that the early '1960 Classic' guitars were very similar to the re-issues proper and many unscrupulous dealers 'modified' some Classics to closer resemble these as they brought in double the money.....

 

Check the font of the serial number. The re-issues have a fine typeface and the Classics have one somewhat thicker as seen below.

 

The guitar in the centre is a '59 re-issue. The others are a 1991 '1960 Classic' (left, starting 1 XXXX) and a 1995 '1960 Classic' (5 XXXX).

 

Gangofthreeserials.jpg

 

P.

 

Very good info. A big help. It definitely has the finer font as the center LP. And since it has the reissue stamp. It does also have the yellowed inlay. The pups have PAF stickers which someone mentioned may be very early 57 classics ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good info. A big help. It definitely has the finer font as the center LP. And since it has the reissue stamp. It does also have the yellowed inlay. The pups have PAF stickers which someone mentioned may be very early 57 classics ?

Thanks for the info re: the earlier date-system. I've learned something new today!

 

And just to clear up a small point in the interests of pedantry; that's my '95 R0 - not my R9 - hence the 0 5XXX serial number. Apologies for any confusion!

 

If 'yours' has the finer font then 'all seems well' and it would appear to be a genuine re-issue. The '57 Classics do have a PAF sticker on the base so that's fine too.

 

As far as value goes it's hard to tell. Early Historics here in the UK are generally not much below - and sometimes higher than - new 'Custom Shop' instruments. They were built in much smaller numbers by the standards of recent Custom Shop instruments and the quality was, some say, commensurately better. My R0 in the snap is rumoured to be (according to one knowledgeable member over on LPF) one of only approximately 14-18 '60 re-issues made by the Historic Division that year.

 

As a guide price I paid £3,000 ($4,631) for my '93 'Historic Division' R9 some 18 months ago. Value varies, of course, from country to country and guitar to guitar and is dependent on a vast range of details.

 

Keep us posted!

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only photo I can get to load. The others are too big ,and I don't have software to resize them. I will keep looking.

 

IMG_0049.jpg

 

 

I could well be wrong, of course, but solely judging from that photograph of the serial number my guess - and it really IS only a guess - would be it's a 1960 Classic.

 

Here is the snap I was looking for earlier but couldn't find;

 

Rear-2.jpg

 

This time it IS my '93 R9 (on the left) and the '91 1960 Classic.

 

See how much smaller the numbers are on the R9 compared with the Classic. Also the Classic's numbers are slightly curvier and there is a greater difference in 'weight' between the thicker- and thinner parts of the typeface.

The typeface on 'yours' is identical to the Classic.

 

I don't know everything about the so-called 'Pre-Historics' (those re-issues made prior to '93) and It could well be that they used the 'Classic' typeface for these instruments. All I suggest is a bit of caution.

 

Try to get a photograph of the front " Les Paul MODEL " silkscreen.

 

The re-issues (again, since '93) have more space between the letters of the " M O D E L " part in comparison with the Classic's;

 

Front.jpg

 

This typeface anomaly could also be different on the pre-1993 Historics; but the more things start to look like the 1960 Classic features the greater would be my own suspicions.

 

Try to get a snap of the inside of the neck pup cavity. Re-issues should have a long-tenon - which projects into the cavity and is clearly seen - whereas the Classic range had a small-tenon.

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could well be wrong, of course, but solely judging from that photograph of the serial number my guess - and it really IS only a guess - would be it's a 1960 Classic.

 

Here is the snap I was looking for earlier but couldn't find;

 

Rear-2.jpg

 

This time it IS my '93 R9 (on the left) and the '91 1960 Classic.

 

See how much smaller the numbers are on the R9 compared with the Classic. Also the Classic's numbers are slightly curvier and there is a greater difference in 'weight' between the thicker- and thinner parts of the typeface.

The typeface on 'yours' is identical to the Classic.

 

I don't know everything about the so-called 'Pre-Historics' (those re-issues made prior to '93) and It could well be that they used the 'Classic' typeface for these instruments. All I suggest is a bit of caution.

 

Try to get a photograph of the front " Les Paul MODEL " silkscreen.

 

The re-issues (again, since '93) have more space between the letters of the " M O D E L " part in comparison with the Classic's;

 

Front.jpg

 

This typeface anomaly could also be different on the pre-1993 Historics; but the more things start to look like the 1960 Classic features the greater would be my own suspicions.

 

Try to get a snap of the inside of the neck pup cavity. Re-issues should have a long-tenon - which projects into the cavity and is clearly seen - whereas the Classic range had a small-tenon.

 

P.

 

I see your points here ,but from other info I've found the long tenon didn't come about until late 93. anything from 1983-early 93 had the short tenon, and some were reissues. This one does have reissue stamped in the bridge pup cavity. I also understand that when the classics came out they were very similar to the reissues at the time, so much so that some shady dealers were swapping a few parts to sell them at the higher RI price. The neck didn't really seem as slim as a 60s , but I may be wrong. thanks for all the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your points here ,but from other info I've found the long tenon didn't come about until late 93. anything from 1983-early 93 had the short tenon, and some were reissues. This one does have reissue stamped in the bridge pup cavity. I also understand that when the classics came out they were very similar to the reissues at the time, so much so that some shady dealers were swapping a few parts to sell them at the higher RI price. The neck didn't really seem as slim as a 60s , but I may be wrong. thanks for all the help.

 

Ok. All that info seems to confirm it is, after all, an early Re-issue and not a Classic.

 

Two things about 'yours' that do point to it being a re-issue are, firstly, the top; the Classics pre- circa '94/5 were almost always plain-tops. Secondly, if my '91 is anything to go by, the necks of these early Classics were wand-slim; even slimmer than the '60s style. My '95, in contrast, has the regular '60s profile and is noticeably beefier that the earlier example.

 

Good luck in getting her!

 

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. All that info seems to confirm it is, after all, an early Re-issue and not a Classic.

 

Two things about 'yours' that do point to it being a re-issue are, firstly, the top; the Classics pre- circa '94/5 were almost always plain-tops. Secondly, if my '91 is anything to go by, the necks of these early Classics were wand-slim; even slimmer than the '60s style. My '95, in contrast, has the regular '60s profile and is noticeably beefier that the earlier example.

 

Good luck in getting her!

 

P.

 

Thanks P...I think the owner still thinks it's an R9 ,so it probably won't happen. I'll keep my goldtop :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...