Gibson Guitars old catalogs

[Stringswinger]

@ Tony and K,

Your pickups are pre T-top patent sticker pickups used from 1963 through 1966. They are almost identical to late PAF's except for the insulating material on the wire. The Late PAF's used purple enamel wire whereas, the early patent stickers used orange poly wire. BTW, early PAF's had long magnets, late PAF's had short magnets.

Some patent sticker pickups made in early 1963 had the purple wire, but you guys would have to remove the covers on your pickups to find out if your pickups were left over early 63's (unlikely in any case).

Gibson often used their parts haphazardly, so it is possible to find PAF's (or early 63's) installed in guitars made after 1962.

My advice; enjoy those superb 345's and leave them unmolested. Those pickups you have are worth over $1,000 each and clearly you could sell the pickups and sell the guitars with 57 classics for more money than selling the guitars alone will bring. But it would be bad guitar karma to do so.

[pilotony]

@ Tony and K,

Your pickups are pre T-top patent sticker pickups used from 1963 through 1966. They are almost identical to late PAF's except for the insulating material on the wire. The Late PAF's used purple enamel wire whereas, the early patent stickers used orange poly wire. BTW, early PAF's had long magnets, late PAF's had short magnets.

Some patent sticker pickups made in early 1963 had the purple wire, but you guys would have to remove the covers on your pickups to find out if your pickups were left over early 63's (unlikely in any case).

Gibson often used their parts haphazardly, so it is possible to find PAF's (or early 63's) installed in guitars made after 1962.

My advice; enjoy those superb 345's and leave them unmolested. Those pickups you have are worth over $1,000 each and clearly you could sell the pickups and sell the guitars with 57 classics for more money than selling the guitars alone will bring. But it would be bad guitar karma to do so.

Thanks for the information. My 345 is and will remain totally unmolested. I've owned it for 52 years and frankly, it is more than a guitar--it's been a treasured companion. I'm sure many of our friends here have similar experiences.

The last time it left my house was in May, 1989, when I played at a local coffee house. I play it on average a few times a week. People debate Gibson quality control and business decisions and other issues with company management, which I am sure will be satisfactorily resolved. That notwithstanding, I owe Gibson a lot more than the $500 or so dollars I paid for that guitar.

Thanks again for the expert advice.

Tony D.

[Stringswinger]

Thanks for the information. My 345 is and will remain totally unmolested. I've owned it for 52 years and frankly, it is more than a guitar--it's been a treasured companion. I'm sure many of our friends here have similar experiences.

The last time it left my house was in May, 1989, when I played at a local coffee house. I play it on average a few times a week. People debate Gibson quality control and business decisions and other issues with company management, which I am sure will be satisfactorily resolved. That notwithstanding, I owe Gibson a lot more than the $500 or so dollars I paid for that guitar.

Thanks again for the expert advice.

Tony D.

I know that I sometimes come off as a Gibson Fanboy (OK, perhaps that is often the case, look at my avatar!), but I too owe Gibson for the sublime joy I have had playing guitars made by that iconic company.

I am team Gibson till the end!

[rpjazzguitar]

When I was a teenager in mid 60s Brooklyn, the jazz guys I knew played Gibsons and wanted D'Angelicos.

People respected Guild, but nobody wanted one.

Gretsch was seen as somehow odd, with the painted on F holes. I found out later that Gretsch was actually a Brooklyn company at the time and the designs were well thought out. I remembering thinking that they were garish and a proper guitar looked like an L5.

Fender was considered a brand for country music, which was dismissed by the Brooklyn jazz snobs.

Ampeg was the amp of choice, with the kids playing Gemini's and the pros playing Jets with JBLs. I still have my Reverberocket and use it regularly.

I saw the Fender amp catalog at the time and remembering wishing I could afford a Fender amp. For some reason, maybe because it was true, Ampegs were thought to be cheaper, but still good.

Nobody I knew wanted Gibson amps.

I knew one guy who played a Gold Top Les Paul through a small Fender amp, probably a Princeton. Sounded great.

The teens mostly wanted the red ES 335 TDC, iirc the model correctly.

[pilotony]

When I was a teenager in mid 60s Brooklyn, the jazz guys I knew played Gibsons and wanted D'Angelicos.

People respected Guild, but nobody wanted one.

Gretsch was seen as somehow odd, with the painted on F holes. I found out later that Gretsch was actually a Brooklyn company at the time and the designs were well thought out. I remembering thinking that they were garish and a proper guitar looked like an L5.

Fender was considered a brand for country music, which was dismissed by the Brooklyn jazz snobs.

Ampeg was the amp of choice, with the kids playing Gemini's and the pros playing Jets with JBLs. I still have my Reverberocket and use it regularly.

I saw the Fender amp catalog at the time and remembering wishing I could afford a Fender amp. For some reason, maybe because it was true, Ampegs were thought to be cheaper, but still good.

Nobody I knew wanted Gibson amps.

I knew one guy who played a Gold Top Les Paul through a small Fender amp, probably a Princeton. Sounded great.

The teens mostly wanted the red ES 335 TDC, iirc the model correctly.

Obviously, a guy from my old neighborhood. Gravesend maybe?

Tony D.

[Stringswinger]

When I was a teenager in mid 60s Brooklyn, the jazz guys I knew played Gibsons and wanted D'Angelicos.

People respected Guild, but nobody wanted one.

Gretsch was seen as somehow odd, with the painted on F holes. I found out later that Gretsch was actually a Brooklyn company at the time and the designs were well thought out. I remembering thinking that they were garish and a proper guitar looked like an L5.

Fender was considered a brand for country music, which was dismissed by the Brooklyn jazz snobs.

Ampeg was the amp of choice, with the kids playing Gemini's and the pros playing Jets with JBLs. I still have my Reverberocket and use it regularly.

I saw the Fender amp catalog at the time and remembering wishing I could afford a Fender amp. For some reason, maybe because it was true, Ampegs were thought to be cheaper, but still good.

Nobody I knew wanted Gibson amps.

I knew one guy who played a Gold Top Les Paul through a small Fender amp, probably a Princeton. Sounded great.

The teens mostly wanted the red ES 335 TDC, iirc the model correctly.

When I was a teenager in mid 70's Manhattan, I had a Gibson archtop (ES-175) and wanted an L-5 and any D'Angelico. By my mid 50's, I had done well enough in life to have several Gibson archtops including an L-5 and several genuine D'Angelicos. And they are still the guitars I want to play. IIRC, the other teen guitarists wanted Les Pauls and Strats.

[citizenk74]

@ Tony and K,

Your pickups are pre T-top patent sticker pickups used from 1963 through 1966. They are almost identical to late PAF's except for the insulating material on the wire. The Late PAF's used purple enamel wire whereas, the early patent stickers used orange poly wire. BTW, early PAF's had long magnets, late PAF's had short magnets.

Some patent sticker pickups made in early 1963 had the purple wire, but you guys would have to remove the covers on your pickups to find out if your pickups were left over early 63's (unlikely in any case).

Gibson often used their parts haphazardly, so it is possible to find PAF's (or early 63's) installed in guitars made after 1962.

My advice; enjoy those superb 345's and leave them unmolested. Those pickups you have are worth over $1,000 each and clearly you could sell the pickups and sell the guitars with 57 classics for more money than selling the guitars alone will bring. But it would be bad guitar karma to do so.

Stringswinger: Let me join Tony in thanking you for your expert knowledge. My 345 will remain unmolested and in one piece while I'm around. I wouldn't dream of parting it out. I've done 99.999% of its lifetime playing (it was unplayable when I bought it from the original owner [badly cut nut], in tune with flatwounds and hang tags). When I'm gone, I hope it goes to a player. Its many voices deserve to be heard and enjoyed.

[pilotony]

When I was a teenager in mid 70's Manhattan, I had a Gibson archtop (ES-175) and wanted an L-5 and any D'Angelico. By my mid 50's, I had done well enough in life to have several Gibson archtops including an L-5 and several genuine D'Angelicos. And they are still the guitars I want to play. IIRC, the other teen guitarists wanted Les Pauls and Strats.

You have excellent taste in guitars along with in-depth technical knowledge that you are always willing to share. Very few of my guitar playing teenage friends (surf rock, Beatles, etc.) continued playing into adulthood. You knew what you wanted and you worked at it.

Tony D.

[jazzjames]

All this talk of "Gibson quality" (or the lack of it...) on the forum really started me thinking about how much I disagree with that. Every Gibson guitar I've owned has been "THE guitar" for me until I got one better. My first guitar was a single pickup, no-name, strat wannabe from a dept store that I got cheated when I bought it used for $35 in 1983. When I turned 16 (1984) my parents sold my alto sax and got me a used Les Paul XR-2 with a flat-top and mini humbuckers. I loved that guitar! It survived tons of garage bands and I used it onstage to open up for Molly Hatchet, Bachman Turner Overdrive, and Helix (in 1986 I think).

I played that guitar until I got a Joe Pass Epiphone (made in Korea) that I was never happy with. Then I got a 1989 Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion II in 1992 ($850.). I played Jazz on that guitar until I got an ES-175 in 2010 ($2400.). I owned a few other brands but they really didn't make me happy. I had a lower line Ibanez Pat Metheny and it was fine until I tried a 2008 175. I've played the 175 (and still own it with no intention to sell it...) until I got my 1949 Epiphone Blackstone which I just sold for ($1800) to get a 2012 L-5 Wes a month ago. Something about Gibson guitars make me inspired. The necks feel like I want, the designs are classic, and they feel right to me.

I think great Gibson guitar quality is one of the reasons WHY Gibson is having a difficult time: There are great playing and great sounding Gibsons of every era available on the used market. Gibson's biggest competitor is themselves, USED. I have always bought my Gibsons used (and in MINT condition). One of these days I want a Les Paul special double cut in TV yellow and an old ES-125T non-cutaway because I've always thought they were dreamy...but I have my dream guitar now and it took 30 years to get it!

Thanks for reading. I just needed to get that out...

[wmachine]

The 1966 catalog was a parade of dreams. It was the best of them all.

I also had the price list. That's how I knew the 330 wasn't as good as the 335 and that the Johnny Smith was the best of them all. The retail prices told the whole story.

I was looking at that beautiful Johnny Smith every night but playing a stupid 1964 Firebird V I got cheap from the kid across the street. I'd love to have that bird back.

Attachment 51572

I wore out my copy of that '66 Catalog, but it was pretty much etched into my permanent memory. And though I'm much more rock oriented than jazz, that catalog is the basis of my recently fulfilled collection of Gibsons.
I think it is important to note the historical significance of catalogs (and magazines) of that era. They were pretty much *the* way we knew about offerings from the likes of Gibson. I was a "have not" in those days. For me, reality was a used department store variation. But a desire was born then that never left.

[Stringswinger]

All this talk of "Gibson quality" (or the lack of it...) on the forum really started me thinking about how much I disagree with that. Every Gibson guitar I've owned has been "THE guitar" for me until I got one better. My first guitar was a single pickup, no-name, strat wannabe from a dept store that I got cheated when I bought it used for $35 in 1983. When I turned 16 (1984) my parents sold my alto sax and got me a used Les Paul XR-2 with a flat-top and mini humbuckers. I loved that guitar! It survived tons of garage bands and I used it onstage to open up for Molly Hatchet, Bachman Turner Overdrive, and Helix (in 1986 I think).

I played that guitar until I got a Joe Pass Epiphone (made in Korea) that I was never happy with. Then I got a 1989 Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion II in 1992 ($850.). I played Jazz on that guitar until I got an ES-175 in 2010 ($2400.). I owned a few other brands but they really didn't make me happy. I had a lower line Ibanez Pat Metheny and it was fine until I tried a 2008 175. I've played the 175 (and still own it with no intention to sell it...) until I got my 1949 Epiphone Blackstone which I just sold for ($1800) to get a 2012 L-5 Wes a month ago. Something about Gibson guitars make me inspired. The necks feel like I want, the designs are classic, and they feel right to me.

I think great Gibson guitar quality is one of the reasons WHY Gibson is having a difficult time: There are great playing and great sounding Gibsons of every era available on the used market. Gibson's biggest competitor is themselves, USED. I have always bought my Gibsons used (and in MINT condition). One of these days I want a Les Paul special double cut in TV yellow and an old ES-125T non-cutaway because I've always thought they were dreamy...but I have my dream guitar now and it took 30 years to get it!

Thanks for reading. I just needed to get that out...

Dude, an L-5 and a 175? The guitars of Joe and Wes. You are set!

[Marty Grass]

I wore out my copy of that '66 Catalog, but it was pretty much etched into my permanent memory. And though I'm much more rock oriented than jazz, that catalog is the basis of my recently fulfilled collection of Gibsons.
I think it is important to note the historical significance of catalogs (and magazines) of that era. They were pretty much *the* way we knew about offerings from the likes of Gibson. I was a "have not" in those days. For me, reality was a used department store variation. But a desire was born then that never left.

Anyone looking through that catalog realized he was a "have not". It was only recently that I recognized that I have some unfinished business with the semi-hollows. They're the sweet spot for me emotionally.

Despite maturation and wisdom, I'm a sucker for those cherry and ebony finishes. I could have easily gone the other way toward the 175 and L-5, but I was into rock and blues. Those archtops were just not on the radar until a few years later. By that time, that Freudian stage of guitar fixation had already done its work.

[wmachine]

......
Despite maturation and wisdom, .........that Freudian stage of guitar fixation had already done its work.

This is why I cannot be totally objective with my equipment choices. But I'm not apologetic or the least bit regretful to myself. I'm not delusional about what I want/have and am quite happy with my choices, and I'm extremely grateful to be able to indulge. Besides, it is not like I have junk just because of a trade name.

[gcb]

+1 to what Pilotony and Stringswinger stated. The rewards I got and keep getting from my Gibsons largely exceed the cost paid for them. And the same goes to the Martin flat tops I owned (still own one), as well as to my USA Fender basses.