LarryUK Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Ebay This guitar says it has provenance, but it's a custom head with a standard body? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 First thought: Even IF it is absolutly what it claims to be, it would not have any value to speak of because of it. I mean, an actual 54' or so Gold top that was modified THAT much would bring very, very little money. I mean, nearly every detail of an origonal that would increase it's cost has been taken out. It would literally be worth the same as an average, used, LP. I can't say it does or doesn't have "provenence", but if it does like it says in the ad, why not state what it is? Doesn't mean much to just say it does, does it? The ad eludes to the fact it has been played by someone famous or semi-famous. A little odd that the info isn't exactly all there. If you are going to sell a guitar with the idea it would bring more money as a result, I don't see the advantage of making a potential buyer have to dig for the info when you could just put it there in the ad. Makes me tend to believe the statements might be serving to exaggerate. As far as I can tell, the guitar has been on a couple records and a couple tours. Sum up: if there is something about this guitar that would raise the values from 1-2,000 pounds (dollars, whatever) to an amount like 75,000, I can't see what it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelinguy Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Are they really going to send that thing in the mail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codename Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I checked out the McCartney video and it does look like the same guitar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4ys4auEDfY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTimeConcealmentX91 Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 comment deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyBillyBob1 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Awful video but what a great song!! I've never heard this before but I have just listened to it like three times and it got better every time. What album is this fom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Looks like the same guitar to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I think the headstock's been grafted on there or something. There's some Frankenstein deal going on with the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I think the headstock's been grafted on there or something. There's some Frankenstein deal going on with the neck. Yup. There's some Frankenstein stuff going on with every single part of that instrument. It looks like the same guitar as shown in the snaps with the exception of the TP-6 tailpiece - the guitar shown in the two 'live' snaps has a regular stop-tail. Pardon me for not checking out the video clips. It might really once have belonged to Eric Stewart (of 10CC). But what, exactly, IS the guitar? It's claimed to be a '54. Why? The peghead has been grafted on. The peghead has a NUMBER which would date it (the peghead only) from '54 if it's a genuine Gibson peghead from a 1954 Custom. Personally, I have serious reservations that the p'h ever saw the insides of Parson's Street. It looks nothing like any other real early '54 peghead I've ever seen. For starters the radius of the edges are far too rounded. The Gibson logo isn't quite the right shape; especially the roundness of the top of the G. There is remarkably little discolouration of the binding and no chips, dents, dings in the finish for a 60-y-o guitar which has seen all the stages of the world. Anything else date it to '54? Not a single thing. As I'm sure we all know in '54 the Les Paul Standard had two P-90s and a McCarty (one-piece) Stop-Tail/Bridge unit. Co-incidentally this latter area has disappeared from the guitar in question and the former area now sports a pair of "original '50s PAFs". Handy. It has had absolutely all of it's hardware changed - not one single thing I can see from studying the dozen snaps dates from '54. It has had it's bodywork destroyed. It has had a 'new' peghead grafted-on. It has been changed from Gold-Top (if it was ever a G-T that is) to Ebony. I could possibly be convinced that it was, at one point, a real Gibson Les Paul, but I'd need a hell of a lot of convincing and especially about that extremely dubious-looking peghead. I might even be persuaded that most - and perhaps all - of the later add-ons are genuine Gibson fare, but whoever thought they could ask £75,000 / $120,000 for that mongrel needs their head examined. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Yup. There's some Frankenstein stuff going on with every single part of that instrument. It looks like the same guitar as shown in the snaps with the exception of the TP-6 tailpiece. But what, exactly, IS the guitar? It's claimed to be a '54. Why? The peghead has been grafted on. The peghead has a NUMBER which would date it (the peghead only) from '54 if it's a genuine Gibson peghead from a 1954 Custom. Personally, I have serious reservations that the p'h ever saw the insides of Parson's Street. It looks nothing like any other real early '54 peghead I've ever seen. For starters the radius of the edges are far too rounded. The Gibson logo isn't quite the right shape; especially the roundness of the top of the G. There is remarkably little discolouration of the binding and no chips, dents, dings in the finish for a 60-y-o guitar which has seen all the stages of the world. Anything else date it to '54? Not a single thing. As I'm sure we all know in '54 the Les Paul Standard had two P-90s and a McCarty (one-piece) Stop-Tail/Bridge unit. Co-incidentally this latter area has disappeared from the guitar in question and the former area now sports a pair of "original '50s PAFs". Handy. It has had absolutely all of it's hardware changed - not one single thing I can see from studying the dozen snaps dates from '54. It has had it's bodywork destroyed. It has had a 'new' peghead grafted-on. It has been changed from Gold-Top (if it was ever a G-T that is) to Ebony. I could possibly be convinced that it was, at one point, a real Gibson Les Paul, but I'd need a hell of a lot of convincing and especially about that extremely dubious-looking peghead. I might even be persuaded that most - and perhaps all - of the later add-ons are genuine Gibson fare, but whoever thought they could ask £75,000 / $120,000 for that mongrel needs their head examined. P. These are all good points, and I think accurate as well. One GOOD question worth asking before even bothering with the question of which parts are genuine and which are not, is what WOULD be the value if they were? The actual answer is, nothing. OR, very little. Or, more clearly: an actual '54 butchered and altered that much doesn't have any value that is more than a copy. A single origonal P90 would be worth more (in monatary terms). I think, the only thing worth exploring, would be the pups. That is, the exploring the "provenence" and origonality of the guitar MIGHT bring credibility or not to the pup's being genuine or not. And to tell the truth, they look kinda fresh to be actual 50's PAF. And, being there is not what looks like an origonal piece of hardware, and the age of the guitar, it would seem more unlikely than likely. I am not saying yay or nay. But a couple things are clear: The seller claims it has a provenence, but doesn't say what it is. And a guitar that has been played on a few tours or a few records does not equate to having any "extra" value because it has. And the price asked is so far out of justification regardless of anything that it MIGHT be, there is no real serious consideration as to matter. If the asking price was more like the value of a heavily modded '54 with origonal PAF's that has been played on a couple tours and a couple records, THEN it might matter to determine if it is worth 500 dollars or 5000 dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazzboy Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Doesn't look really to me. I think it be a late 70's early 80's Les Paul that used to have Kahler Tremolo system in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTimeConcealmentX91 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Shaky Fakey! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The guitar for sale has very distinctive grain on the fingerboard. This is not present in the pictures of the guitar being played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The guitar for sale has very distinctive grain on the fingerboard. This is not present in the pictures of the guitar being played. After a bit more of a search it's clear that it really is (or was) Eric Stewart's guitar. I think it's just the lighting that makes the wood-grain appear different, Farns. The guitar in the ad is undoubtedly the same one as shown on E-S's official website. This authenticity gives the guitar more Brownie Points and, to a collector, more value but I still don't know what, exactly, it is. Perhaps Mr. Stewart was told it was a '54 when he bought it and has believed that to be the case to this day? For sure the guitar has been like that since at least the start of the 1980s Muddying the waters further, on his own website, strangely enough, the guitar is described as a '58 Custom; http://www.ericstewa...arge/gu04xl.jpg Custom-ised, yes; but, with those traps and single-ply binding?...... The neck-heel is very small for a '50s LP. The peghead break-angle also appears to be the 'shallow' type from the Norlin days. I'd love to get hold of it in real life. It's beginning to get rather intriguing! Anyway, on a lighter note, a bit of music. Here's the 'Feel The Benefit (pt. 3) Live' clip. Solo starts at around 4:30; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv-xvubiB0g As it happens the solo from this track - the studio version - was one of the first that really made me think 'Holy Crap!' with regards the tone when I was young. Heard on a good system he 'scream' at 11:18 is still enough to raise the hairs on the back of my neck... Enjoy (solo starts at 9:13); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HcxhcSlTc4 P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.