dem00n Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 am i the ONLY one here who hopes the Pawn Stars guys lose their *** on this? those guys have been hangin people over a barrel since day one. then these sharks land a TV show that shows just how greedy they are. so they ponied up 98K? and they might make a profit? no... i hope they get their asses handed to them. Mary Ford's voice been known to bring tears to my eyes. she owned several guitars. goldtops, archtops, SG's etc... this was one of hers no doubt. but for these dicks to hawk it off as THE Mary Ford SG of all time.... makes me ill if i think about it too much. so i won't. They arent ripping people off, they are making money off lazy people. Thats what pawn shops do, if your lazy or need quick cash you go to a pawn shop and sell your ****. Did you read the post by Les Pauls family made on MLP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 $100,000.00 Buy it now for $200,000.00 Rick and boys be living large with the BIN option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 am i the ONLY one here who hopes the Pawn Stars guys lose their *** on this? .... Maybe. If you read the post from the nephew's wife over on MLP, the Pawn Stars gave them three times the money they had been offered after a year of hawking it around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-poland Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm sorry I dont believe any of the story, from the guitars being owned and played by her to the reason of why their selling them. They are shoveling loads of stuff I aint buying. No COA means No Money. If we use their proof, I have 3 LPs that Les Paul used to own but gave them to me and I really want the world to enjoy them. I will post pictures as soon as I find one beat up enough to look like a used gtr..... j/k I would just like to say is personally in my dealings with people I don't go around thinking everyone that I come in contact with is a crook unless their reputation precedes them! so what do you know of the sellers reputation ? we all would like a little insight if you have any! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Somewhere a fool will soon be separated from his money Perhaps not. The bidding seems to have stopped at 100 cake and the reserve is NOT met! I just got through reading some of the MLP. It appears this guitar may not be what some thought, and there MAY be some doubt. There is chatter that the serial# puts the guitar at '63, as opposed to '61. Gibson shipping ledger shows a white LP Custom with the same serial# shipping April 19th. That may prove significant to some. It puts the guitar being shipped weeks after the announcement of Les' and Mary's separation, which most agree would have been at least a month before allowing for printing time of the rag. So, if this is true, that pretty much puts the guitar out of Les' hands. So, perhaps also this may mean that rather than being THE SG that some might have been hoping for, if anything, might be just a guitar that Mary happened to own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 . I just want to point out the family never claimed it was the guitar in any photos or album covers. They claimed it was Mary's guitar. It was sold as Mary Ford's guitar. On the MLP thread, the nephew's wife posted on pg4 - "I had been in contact with guitar experts from around the United States over the period of at least a year and we kept running into the same issue over and over again!! NO ONE BELIEVED US!!! Even with the documents! They kept asking for photos of Mary playing it, we couldn't find any. So with that being said, we thought taking it to Pawn Stars was our only hope in getting a decent amount for something that has been hiding in home for over 30 years with only close friends and family aware of existence." She has since posted more photos of the nephew with Les etc. It's accepted that this was a guitar owned by Mary Ford. However, on eBay the Pawn Shop is claiming the guitar is "Mary Ford's Personal 1961 Gibson SG Les Paul Custom Electric Guitar"; and that date is generating a lot of controversy and comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not inferring that the family is not being truthful. Or that they haven't been. But I think in regards to what it is worth, or what someone may want to pay for it, the association might have a big impact. HOW MUCH association. As in, if this was a guitar Mary gigged with often, or had used a lot, or had actually been the guitar seen in some photos, etc. THAT guitar might be worth (to some) an amount like 100k or more. But on the other hand, if it had been a guitar that Mary never used, or played only once, or bought for someone, etc. THAT guitar may only be worth to (to some)...I don't know, maybe 25-35k? I think the REAL interest, and why so much discussion, has to do with the mystery surrounding it. AND the mystery of what PAWN STARS knows about it and does not divulge in the listing. What I think is odd here, is that with something supposedly worth so much, a seller is likely to want to give as much info as possible in how it was determined the guitar is what it is. But in this case, it seems from the very beginning that both the show AND the listing seem to be lacking, particularly in personal statements. The EBAY add tells nothing of HOW they know for sure it is what it is. If I was to guess, I think the chatter from the family, as well as the digging by some is revealing that the guitar is more likely worth what they have been told in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Well said Stein. I too believe that there is somewhat of a reputation factor going here. Gold and Silver Pawn is a reputable business in the real world. I think they've researched it and priced it at what other reputable vintage instrument dealers would have likewise priced it at. They're in the business to make money and in the end they will. This guitar could have easily been put up by Christies or Southerby's or any other auction house. It'll sell. Only question is for how much will it sell. If they buyer is satisfied with it. I'm sure he or she will enjoy it for what it is until they're ready to part with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS1976 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgE4kNSU74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not inferring that the family is not being truthful. Or that they haven't been. .... I never thought so Stein. Just some additional info for those not up on the whole story. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Another thing I thing I may see that is a problem is that it has been described as a '61 but now is (most likely?) a '63. That right there is enough to make a serious buyer hold off on writing the check. And, since it really has not been truly established or proven to be a '61, when everything about it points to it being a '63 it might bring into question the credibility of the appraisals. I truly mean no disrespect, but if it IS a '63, then you have to kinda question the guy who says he added a screw to the pickgaurd. So, perhaps the guy who worked on it is mistaken, or the family mistaken calling it a '61. But perhaps a lesson here in that if you just divulge EVERYTHING you know up front, then the questions get asked before rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Well, another bid. It seems as though at least one wants it for this price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S t e v e Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 mary who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No one following this? I would think this to be one of the most interesting things going on in the guitar world. It has all the elements for guitar collecting drama-provenence, famous people, guitar dating, dealers, and the smell of wrongdoing. This is like the Perry Mason episode of vintage guitars! It is difficult to not come off as disrespectful to the family, and it should be said that the dealers involved are a separate entity. But the actions of the dealers both pose some serious issues, and it brings up a lot of questions that cause the guitar to have some serious issues. More so than the '61 vs '63 confusion, it is looking like it is more than a mistake. The first thing a dealer would do is determine the year, right? I am no expert, but before you can confirm the 'authenticity' of any claims, you would FIRST determine the authenticity of the guitar. Besides the obvious of CHECKING THE SERIAL#, you would also check to see if the features/construction matched. Well, turns out this guitar is easily and obviously a '63. Any simple check or attempt to date would come up '63, not '61. And, it seems THIS guitar has been around the block to various dealers. Mistake? How would that be? But dating it as a '61, THAT'S a problem. It raises questions. Not just the credibility of competence in being able to catch a '63 from a '61, but of honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarHeelKid Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I saw that too! The History Channel is doing some awesome stuff these days, lotsa good shows. That guitar and the candy with it were AMAZING! I bet that fetches hundreds of thousands at auction, easily. Maybe even a half-mil or better! SG's rule!! You think that guy was really Les Paul's nephew? Les would kick his asss for pawning that guitar off so cheap! Drugs maybe?lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Just to add some fuel to the fire, I just checked the COWTOWN website, the guitar shop owned by "Jesse", (the 'expert' who appraised this particular guitar. Cowtown website show they have a few vintage Gibson's in stock, some from '63, '63, and a number of others that are specific years ranging from '52 to '66. They also advertise, "FREE APPRAISALS". I think it is safe to assume they knew this was a 1963 LP/SG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRIDER Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think it is safe to assume they knew this was a 1963 LP/SG. I am just curious how/why you think it's a 1963 and not a 1961. I'm not saying your wrong...Just curious! I did see that it sold for $110,000. The pawn shop made a quick $20k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-poland Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 On the off topic, who designed the LP: I think everyone is telling the truth. Firstly, EVERYTHING about it is the same as Gibsons before it, EXCEPT for the solid body. Apart from that, there is not a feature or detail that wasn't already designed and used on previous Gibsons. In fact, even the choice of woods. So, when it comes to Mr.LP's version, that he designed every thing on it, perhaps from HIS point of view he did. The color, the bridge, etc. And being given samples for approval, he might think of himself as designing it. And, after all, he DID come up with the solid-body concept. He brought them the idea years before, which they did NOT do at the time. I can see where he could think of all this as himself being the designer. So, while Mr. LP might have viewed Gibson as finally building something he had asked for, and perhaps even thought they were using his idea, SOMEBODY had to engineer it to build it. Somebody had to choose the woods, the features, size, scale, pups, etc. Gibson brought him finished samples. It is clear that Mr. LP was not present for that, and he even states himself they brought him finished guitars for approval. I agree they built it according to his original concept and all Les did was a let them use his name/endorsement!per his approval! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I am just curious how/why you think it's a 1963 and not a 1961. I'm not saying your wrong...Just curious! I did see that it sold for $110,000. The pawn shop made a quick $20k Serial#. Serial#'s for 1961 are 5 digits pressed in the wood, and in some rare cases, may be ink stamped. There were no wood-pressed 6 digit serial#s in 1961. There are publications available that give a range of serial#s for early SG/LP models, and it is easy to look them up and determine the year based on serial# as they are pretty consistent. The serial# for this guitar matches published results that put it at 1963. So THATS the basics anyone can do (if you choose to look it up or have publications of your own). But if you want to get MORE sure, Gibson shows a guitar of this model and color with this serial# shipping on 4-(13?)-63, so there is a record that matches. Some of what I have read from others more experienced have said there are differences in the neck heel-'61 being smaller and later ones being rounder and fatter with more of a smooth transition. So, if a guy wanted to PRETEND it was a '61, maybe a prototype or something, he would have to make a real stretch to have to explain how a guitar which first comes up as a '63, and them explain why it would have these details and why it would have the serial# it does. And this glove don't fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.