-
A friend is interested in a 66 BK and asked me to check on it. I've never played one.
All stock except a repro pickguard.
Some finish touchup on the back of the neck, otherwise checked and minor dings here and there.
Asking price is $3,250
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by Flyin' Brian; 10-24-2012 at 05:55 PM.
-
10-24-2012 05:51 PM
-
the control knobs have been changed, should be black w/silver inserts.
can't tell if that's a crack by the jack or just finish flaking/checking.
probably about a $2500 guitar, maybe a bit less
-
It's just the finish.
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
It says custom on it but it looks to me like a standard with a custom truss rod cover. The custom has the bow tie inlays with MOP notes on the headstock instead of the crown and all gold plated hardware. I forget which one had the higher value. I would tend to agree with wintermoon on the price. There are a few on eBay that are higher.
-
I agree that $3,250 sounds like a lot. These guitar play great and sound great. They're classic Gibson archtops in every sense, but their appearance always put a lot of people off and suppressed the price.
-
I agree about the looks. And it certainly is a standard no matter what the truss rod cover says.
I find it interesting that Gbase has some pretty high prices for some of these but they tend to be older and probably have PAF pickups.
-
I forgot about the older ones having PAFs. That'll definintely boost the price. I sold a 61 Byrdland with 2 PAFs. For about $6500. Believe it or not, the two PAFs alone were worth more than the rest of the guitar.
-
Is the neck really narrow or is it an optical illusion?
-
Cool, Gibson Bks are one of the most misunderstood archtop guitar designs ever! According to Jim Bastian, who runs the ‘Gibson Barney Kessel pages’ (http://www.jazzguitarhardball.com/jim_bastian_012.htm), it’s a “cartoon-modern design”. Btw., Jim is a fine musician and one of those decent human beings that deserve to be called “jazz guitarists”.
Cartoonish because of that double Florentine cutaway shape on a full-hollow-body guitar, the flashy red sunburst finish after 1964 , the Super-400-style elongated headstock – which can make them a bit head-heavy, lacking the counterweight of the Super 400’s massive brass tailpiece. The funny fact that the later BKs have the neck-to-body junction at 17th fret, but still no more than 20frets…
Yep, it’s a REGULAR model and should be a bit more affordable compared with the not so frequent BK CUSTOM models, that show more bling – and a two-piece maple neck with mahogany strip, compared to the one-piece Honduran mahogany neck of the BK-Rs. Many BK-Rs came originally with the CUSTOM truss rod cover. Oh well, customizing has always been a personal thing, like paradise…
The knobs aren’t original. It should sport the bonnet knobs with silver reflector metalcap, though some BK-Rs seem to have been ordered with the gold reflector caps of the BK-Cs. The bonnet knobs of the first BK version (laminated spruce top, long neck heel) showed a more shallow post hole – if I remember correctly.
Check the pick-ups and control pots, if they are original. It is sad that most of the early BKs at one time (not so long ago) were“shell guitars”, their PAF and patent-numbered pick-ups transplanted into LesPaul and ES-335 guitars. I’ve never understood this for the neck pick-up, because the BKs had a narrow spacing neck PAF (46mm), which was used only for the L-5CES, the Super 400CES, the Byrdland and the ES-350T.
The last years we see some dealers trying to push the original or OEM vintage market prices in Europe too, like the stock market - the usual European lag of a few years. Frankly, as a European all that original vintage vibe isn’t easy to understand: if a spare part is vintage correct and made to the original vintage specifications (or even better), what’s wrong with it? No singleStradivari or Guarneri is known to exist in exactly the same (original) condition as it was when it left the master’s workshop for the first time. Being musical tools, they had to be modified over the centuries: new necks, new bassbars, refinishing etc..
As for the actual prices of BKs, your best guide is to follow BK auctions over some time, or you can have a look here: http://vintage-guitars.blogspot.de/2005/10/gibson-barney-kessel.html.
If you are a guitar PLAYER, liking fingerstyle, and are'nt used to slim necks like violins or mandolins, I’d first check out the nut width of this BK. Like with all vintage guitars, there are always exceptions to be found, but in my own experience the following list of Gibson neck width at the nut in the 1960s is applicable to 90% (not considering other important factors like neck taper and profile, frets, even scale length):
Early1960s: 1 11/16 “ (42,9mm)
Late 1964 to mid 1965: 1 5/8’’ is usually 1 21/32’’ (42,1mm)
1966 to mid 1969: 1 9/16’’ (39,7mm)Last edited by Ol' Fret; 10-25-2012 at 06:32 AM.
-
>>I agree that $3,250 sounds like a lot.
there's a BK regular in london where the asking price is £3950 - that's pounds, not dollars or euros. It's been on their wall for some time...very nice guitar, but it's not a L5.
-
I would love to have this guitar. They look a touch strange but they are absolutely gorgeous! I never ever have the money when things like this come along but man, I wish I did. Best of luck with your sale
-
Didn't Barney Kessel reject this guitar and not want his name to be associated with it?
-
Blue Book of Guitar Values (2012) lists the following range (I'm guessing it would fall somewhere in here):
VG+ (80%): $1950
Exc (90%): $2550
b_goat
-
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
I know that was true of the Kay BK model, not sure about this one...
b_goat
-
I believe it's true about this as well. I thought the Kay was a pretty cool guitar (although it's been 35 years since I played one). Originally Posted by b_goat
-
I think $3250 is a reasonable price. They are great playing and sounding guitars. A full size vintage gibson archtop for that price is a deal. I have s 1963 bk and really dig it. I have neen offered considerably more for mine. I do think yhey are bit odd looking but people do notice it more than my other archtops. As far as being headstock heavey I have not noticed a problem. I believe they stopped production in 1977 and have never produced reproductions which may tend to increase the value.
-
fwiw, I bought this guitar. Not anywhere the 2012 asking price.
Thought I might post here since I had a hard time finding much information on these guitars.
The neck is actually very fat in the hand. Comfortable shoulders when gripped. Has the same depths in the center of curve as my '66 ES-345 but the carve makes it feel much more substantial.
The EQ on this guitar seems to be: 10 bass/low-mid, 7.5 mid, 8.5 highs. Notes on the 6th, 5th strings are HUGE. Might need to step down from the 12 ga strings.
Original later patent no's. Looks like covers never unsoldered. The neck pickup is much quieter than the bridge pickup. The bridge PU screams but not harsh at all. Usually, I've found bridge PUs too bright and tinny so I only use them if I'm playing rock in a cranked amp. This bridge PU is pretty fat even in a clean amp.
Dry, acoustic-ish tone when plugged in. Notes strummed in a chord stay separate instead of merging even with reverb. I consider the tight chords in "Moonlight in Vermont" to sound "wet".
Intonates amazingly well up and down the fretboard.
Not particularly loud acoustically but has a big sound. Probably 5/10 sustain, but I don't expect a hollowbody to sustain too much.
The witch hat knobs were in the case, along with the original wooden bridge
Overall, a very cool guitar
-
Those Kessels are good instruments, provided they have survived in good shape. And why shouldn't they be. After all, the difference in design between Gibsons 17" plywood archtops (ES150, long scale ES350, Tal Farlow, Barney Kessel) is not big except for cosmetics. The difference in sound between two Farlows (especially from two different times) may be bigger than between a Farlow and a Kessel (especially from the same year).
It's true that Barney Kessel didn't like this guitar. However, it's hard to figure if it is because he really did find it badly playing for his needs, because he didn't like its looks or because he had other disagreements with Gibson for other reasons (which he apparently had when the endorsement contract ran). Whatever, he often expressed strong opinions on many subjects. It's a fact that he was so p***** off with Gibson that he had the "Gibson" headstock logo covered/sprayed over on his old faithful 350 for the rest of his career. After the Gibson endorsement deal ran out, he more than once stressed that he was not payed or sponsored by anyone to use any specific gear but had bought what he used for his own money. He often referred to the 350 as he also did to strings when somebody in an interview asked him which strings he used (which he reluctantly revealed as he stressed that it was a personal choice). It seems safe to conclude that he got fed up with endorsements deals.
-
I've read in 2 articles that Barney didn't have much, if any, input on the design of the guitar. Gibson had already built the guitar.
This article mentions a prototype that was delivered to a customer before Barney signed his endorsement deal:
http://www.vintageguitar.com/1882/gi...xperimental-2/
-
Update, and again, just for those who stumble upon this in search of info on these guitars. The boominess has gone away, the guitar is a less peaky, and is generally more well-balanced.
I'm assuming this guitar was in need of hydration. It came from SoCal...and traveled through some harsh cold weather. I've kept it in a small closet with all my other guitars. The humidifier keeps the closet at 50-60% humidity.
Each time I brought the guitar out in the past few weeks, the tuning of the guitar was very sharp across all strings. I don't think it's the cold (that closet doesn't get cold), and none of the other guitars have been going as sharp, if at all, so I assume the sharpness is the neck absorbing moisture.
Very different guitar now.Last edited by HeyNow; 02-27-2014 at 06:23 PM.
-
Clearly subjective input, but I never understood why people say the BK is ugly. I think its actually a quite stylish and 60s looking piece. :-)
-
I agree completely. I also like the L-O-N-G reach up on the second octave... kinda like a 330 or 335 with a couple less frets. I wouldn't mind having one! Originally Posted by Phil in London
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos