Different vintage Gibsons, different value

[Windmills Optional]

I happened to be channel surfing last night and came across Antiques Roadshow just as this woman was getting a 1952 ES-295 that had belonged to her father appraised.

 

Here's the clip.

 

After saying this guitar was in almost perfect condition for its vintage, the appraiser valued it at around $8,000 which is, of course, quite a hefty sum and not one I'd be ready to part with for the instrument. Still, I had expected him to come up with a figure many times that, looking at what some of the '50s era Les Pauls might go for, for example. So my question to any of you is why might this particular 60-year old guitar be less valuable than some other models of the same vintage/condition might be? I say this having never played an ES-295 and knowing nothing about its reputation. Sure looked beautiful, though.

 

(All this got me thinking about the thread about guitars as investments. Interesting to hear the woman say the guitar was priceless to her because it was her father's.)

[jdgm]

Superb condition, beautiful; I've always coveted one. That said it's just a gold-painted 175 really. They come up on eBay for much less. But it's the Scotty Moore connection which makes it so rock 'n' roll.

 

As to why semis don't fetch as much as solids, many reasons; Gibson solidbodies initially soared in value because of the huge reputation of the 58-59 Les Pauls and the 60s white rock/blues players who took them up (Bloomfield, Clapton, Green, Page), plus a solid is louder, more versatile (?) - but an original D'Aquisto semi, especially a late one, might now set you back a 6-figure sum.