-
HAWT!!!
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
08-12-2016 04:00 AM
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
Yes it looks gorgeous on the foto. I hoped this would be the one for me, but as it turned out it isn't. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
HAWT!!!
-
why so, if I may ask? Originally Posted by JazzNote
-
It would need some fretwork, Steve detected a clued grain crack on the back, some overspray in different areas and he is sure the guitar has had some work done on the inside. 12k might be okay for a GJS in perfect playing condition, without crack or overspray but in this case i find it too much. Also his description of the guitar's sound and the comparison with a 76 GJS makes it likely not to be what i'm looking for. Probably i'm on the right track if i keep looking for a 70's GJS. Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
One will turn up!
-
Originally Posted by JazzNote
agreed, too much $$$ for one like that.
-
The top crusher varitone part of the tailpiece was dropped in the early 70s, so the tailpiece doesn't have a hole at the bottom for the adjustment. Probably no bad thing, but hole has some historical and visual appeal.
-
I have a couple of comments, and I don't mean to insult anyone's opinion.
As a young tadpole, I wanted someday to have a Gibson JS. I got the Gibson catalog every time it came out, and the JS was the ultimate, at least until the Citations arrived. My teacher had a natural GJS. I saw it as the ultimate.
Many years later I was in a position to get one. By that time Heritage had been building their version for some time. I asked two independent and honest luthiers who used to build the GJS and who have done work on the HJS if the extra money for the GJS was worth it. They both spoke admirably of the Gibson, and thinking about the guitar brought back memories leading to stories. But both also said that the Heritage version is generally its equal. They emphasized that each individual instrument has to be judged alone because of the variability in wood and work quality. Bracing and tuning depended on the guy who worked on the guitar, each having subtle yet distinct approaches.
There was a reason that Johnny broke off with Gibson, and it related to quality. It was probably the same reason he did this with Heritage after about a decade. Others may know more about that.
I've never bought a GJS. I have nothing negative to say about the model, only highly positive things really. And I've never bought a '59 Les Paul either. IMO, people often pay the higher amounts for the collectible value or for sentimental reasons, not because they can't get a comparable practical instrument at a lower price. I understand that the extra cost is well worth it for some. I'm just not in that camp.
The last GJS I know of left Gibson in December, 1991.
https://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-jo...990-cherry-red
-
collectible value, sentimental value, and--wait for it.......
resale value
-
true, but oftentimes one has to be willing to wait for that one individual to step up to pay the price you have in mind. Originally Posted by wintermoon
collectible value, sentimental value, and--wait for it.......
resale value
As an example, I've seen the GJS Mark just posted on the net for at least 2 years. Maybe longer. Gorgeous guitar but that's a lot of increased "sentimental" or other value over the price of that guitar when sold new.
https://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-jo...990-cherry-red
-
yeah, well that nutjob has barely sold any guitars in that time span. if you attach an insane price to something it usually collects dust. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
and I call him a nutjob because I was selling an L-5 once and all he did was berate me via email about my price being unrealistic and to contact him when it became realistic.
then I noticed he was selling a similar vintage L-5 in the same condition for double what I was asking.
btw, my guitar sold that week for the full asking price, and 5 yrs later he still has his for sale...
-
Known this side of the pond as a twat. Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Originally Posted by plasticpigeon
hah, has a slightly different meaning on this side....
-
Probably not!
-
I second Wintermoon. This sellers prices are ridiculous, and I respectfully informed him of that in person when checking out a GJS recently . And by the way - the guitar had major fingerboard re- planning nearly down to side markers. His asking prices should not be viewed as market value of these instruments - or even close !
Perhaps in the Archtop renaissance period of the early 90's could anyone expect to get something close in $'s .....maybe . All one has to do is look at duration times on market to quickly realize there is no interest at these price points.
Unfortunately , I suspect many of these owners bought at the peak, or still think the asking price is market value. In either case - they just sit - and will continue to do so.
Asian Archtop production has really changed the value proposition for the general population of Archtop enthusiast. Of course us true die hards still know where the best guitars were made and we pursue them passionately - thank goodness.
-
yeah Steve, I know who this seller is, and out of his big inventory of guitars all I've ever seen him sell is a D'Angelico hat.
a wealthy man who obviously doesn't need to sell anything, but if a pigeon comes along...
well maybe not a plasticpigeon....
Last edited by wintermoon; 08-12-2016 at 02:07 PM.
-
Style value, too. Originally Posted by wintermoon
collectible value, sentimental value, and--wait for it.......
resale value
-
Jazznote, for $12K, Gary Dick of Classic Guitars is your man.
-
another wealthy guy that doesn't care if he sells anything [though he does] Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
but I've talked to him @ guitar shows over the yrs and even bought a reasonably priced guitar from him once.
@ least he doesn't seem to be an arse...
-
His stuff is collectable and vintage, and he does seem to be putting together the largest collection of 1950s Gibson archtops, but I've seen what look like very nice guitars from eras that aren't so collectable such as late 60s and early 70s for competative prices. Glad to hear he isn't an arse too.
-
Thanks Jabs! Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
If i spend so much money on a used guitar i need to know that i could sell it for a similar price as i paid. I have closely watched his JS guitars again and again for the past few months, but i doubt that i could resell any one of them without suffering a considerable loss. I also want to have a good chance to be able to love the guitar i'm buying, something which is hard to imagine for an instrument which i feel to be overpriced.
-
Guitar prices and housing prices are similar in many ways. They seem like it's great when they are high because, as the owner, I feel like I have wealth. In the US, the equity in one's home is far and away the greatest portion of most people's net worths (not infrequently it is the total of Americans' net worths, as we tend to be very poor at saving, investing or living within our means). For guitar enthusiasts, the resale value of our instruments is likewise important; many of us buy and sell guitars a lot. The problem is that we have an unrealistic belief that guitars never lose value, sort of like the way gold hoarders believe the same thing about gold even though that is disproven over and over and over. So we end up "selling" a guitar that sits for months and years waiting for a buyer because it is overpriced, but we are determined not to lose money on it. It's a two edged sword.
-
So that's why there are so many used L5's on the market that are priced nearly as high as new ones. Thanks, I always wondered why that was. Originally Posted by Cunamara
-
I recently acquired this 1979 JS locally, in almost perfect condition, for a reasonable price. After getting Mark Erlewine to straighten the neck and even out the frets, it sounds and plays like a dream, sooo smooth. The neck is a large wide D profile, which takes a little work to play, but it’s well worth the effort in beautiful acoustic tone. Yes the neck extension is that big solid block, which gives extra sustain to the high range. The spruce top has a nice even grain with no blemishes, while the back is very plain without flames, but has some interesting patterns nonetheless. The fingers tailpiece is original, with the longest finger on the big E, which apparently was reversed on later models. All the MOP inlays are well made & intact. The neck is slightly shorter than the L5C and the body is less deep. I had a 1969 SB JS at one point, for a few years, I can state that other than the tailpiece & trussrod cover (and finish) the two guitars were identical. best regards, jt
-
Congrats on the beautiful JS. I would love to have that shape neck on my JS. The necks on these guitars were very inconsistent. The one you describe is how I think Johnny wanted them to be. Enjoy!
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos