Historic guitar reissues

[jads57]

1950's Style and Flair and 2017 technology? Funny that in the 1950's futuristic designs were all the rage(Flying V, Futura, Explorer,etc.) with the advent of Space Exploration. And nowadays looking back fondly on the Good Old Days is now the trend.

[powerwagonjohn]

I have a original 1956 ES-225T in great condition, almost perfect. I played a reissue ES-225TD last year at a guitar store. The guitars felt and played exactly the same. The look of the reissue was that of a new guitar and not a well preserved 60 year old guitar. I have to say the reissue is a very good lob of capturing the vibe of my vintage 225.
Thanks John

[Herbie]

Thanks for the great discussion!

The reason I made the original post is that I recently bought a 1959 ES-225TD online from a dealer. Part of the deal was that I traded a 1956 ES-225T (and some $$). I had absolutely no reason to distrust the reputable dealer, but the new guitar was in pristine, almost like-new condition: the build quality was better than the 1956, and the pickups sounded noticeably better, the finish was unblemished, and I wondered whether it might be a reissue. I've never seen one of those so I don't really know how closely they resemble the originals, but the marketing says that they're accurate reproductions.

Long and short, I sent pics to Gibson, and they wrote back immediately that the instrument is the real thing, and naturally I'm very happy with the guitar, and the dealer I bought it from (Mike and Mike's Guitar Bar in Seattle.)

But the whole thing started this train of thought. I have owned and bought and sold many old guitars over the years, and I would have thought I'd be pretty confident about something like this, but the repros are really good. The build quality and pickup winding can out 50s the 50s guitars, and after a few years the repros even pick up the patina of age and mojo.

I certainly don't think there is counterfeiting on the part of Gibson, but I do think that once you start putting old serial numbers in new guitars there is room for some confusion, especially as the new ones age. After all, the whole old-looking guitar thing is partly about creating such confusion.
Maybe it's more obvious than it seems, as I say, I don't really have any experience with the reissues.

Tom

I don't understand the 'putting out old serial numbers' thing, at least my LP ri's have their modern day serial no's. F ex Gibson does not always do logic things but their customer service answers always to the questions about serial numbers.

Personally I am only happy that f. ex Gibson makes old models so I can afford a 1956 model Les Paul.

Too heavy relicing is a bit childish to my (guitar-) conservative eye but when those guitars are sold second hand You don't know is it normal wear or factory wear.

[ThatRhythmMan]

The '59 ES-175 reissues I've seen have serial numbers that resemble the numbers seen on 50s Gibsons, starting with a letter A followed by a number, but do not actually match what a real '59 would have.

Of course we all know that Gibson has recycled some serial numbers multiple times in their history.

[Herbie]

The '59 ES-175 reissues I've seen have serial numbers that resemble the numbers seen on 50s Gibsons, starting with a letter A followed by a number, but do not actually match what a real '59 would have.

Of course we all know that Gibson has recycled some serial numbers multiple times in their history.

Ha! I did not know! But I come from the Les Paul world which started some deacades later than yhe first Gibson archtops got their serial numbers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

On the point of outright fraud, I dont believe anyone would think one of the reissues would pass for an original. Theres way to many red flags for the vast majority of buyers/players to be fooled. I would think anyone spending a large amount of cash for a vintage or supposed vintage guitar would do their homework before laying out big bucks!! Bob

Last point you made is the best. And the others are very strong as well. Modern Gibson "reissues" are so filled with hokum that only the most purblind would think they're actually getting a simulacrum of a 50s guitar. This is marketing, not building. How many things wrong does Gibson get on guitars they themselves once built once upon a time?!

Hell, they're marketing "50s Tribute" SGs. Show any of us a picture of the guitar they're paying "tribute" to ... can't do it. There ain't a single 50s SG.

Obvious ploy is obvious.

[Hammertone]

Last point you made is the best. And the others are very strong as well. Modern Gibson "reissues" are so filled with hokum that only the most purblind would think they're actually getting a simulacrum of a 50s guitar. This is marketing, not building. How many things wrong does Gibson get on guitars they themselves once built once upon a time?!
Hell, they're marketing "50s Tribute" SGs. Show any of us a picture of the guitar they're paying "tribute" to ... can't do it. There ain't a single 50s SG. Obvious ploy is obvious.

Good rant, but they are actually building some really excellent guitars IMO, not just marketing them.

[HeyNow]

You are very late to the convo. It's been beaten to death on forums like mylespaul.com and lespaulforum.com

These guys pore over the minutiae obsessively.

Gibson has not been making accurate re-issues. They've made great strides in the past 3-5 years, but they are still very far off.

Their re-issues are easily identified from the real thing with a quick glance. Also, Gibson will never be able to fully replicate much of the construction of the earlier guitars due to new regulations.

There has been a whole cottage industry of boutique builders building more accurate replicas for decades but very very few of them have fooled buyers.

[Papawooly]

As far as the reissues I have, they are made to look new (no "aged" binding or buckle-rash screw holes etc...) but I believe they are made to sound correct:

My 34 reissue L5 has a very mid-rangy tone and has cutting power in a combo, but sounds out of place when playing by itself which is probably what it is supposed to do. It is designed to be a rythym instrument in a big-band setting.

My Bozeman L7-C is x-braced, big and beefy, wonderful clear flat-top tone tone alone, and overpowers most guitars it meets in a combo setting. Excellent guitar for solo chord melody, just a tremendous guitar. Again, sounds like it was designed.

Finally we have the Epi Imperial Series 39 Emperor reissue. It sounds like a bigger version of the L5, midrangy, but with cutting power in spades. When I 1st bought it, my friend was strumming it and thought I got ripped-off as it had a thin tone compared to my sweet Guild D-25. Then we played an acoustic set, with 2 other guitars and a bass... the Emperor dominated. Cutting power was the design goal for this instrument and it delivers.

I don't see the point in buying designer jeans embedded with fake mud, and I also don't see the point in buying guitars with fake stress, or faded binding material, but if some people love it, more power to you!

[jads57]

So to all you Vintage Gibson Experts, who claim they don't make accurate reissues due to legal or wood issues,etc.

My first ? to you is how many actual 1950's Gibsons have you owned, or recently played at length?

2nd ? : Which Les paul at this point (Sunburst Mostly) have they not digitally analyzed down to the actual wear from owners ?

3rd ? : Which new reissues have you at least played at length or gigged with?

So for me the answer to these ?'s is I've owned every type of 1950's vintage Les Paul sans a Sunburst but 2 different 1958 Gold Tops, one with a dark back and neck and the other a more common natural mahogany color back and neck ( Both very different from each other)
I've also owned 1958 ES-355TDC Mono, 1968 ES-335TD Sunburst, 1962 Byrdland, 1969 Byrdland, 1974 Les Paul Custom Historic '54 Re issue as well as the 1974 LP Std Gold Top version with P90's.

Conclusion: After owning and gigging with both old and new reissues 1958 Gold Top, ES-345TD and multiple Gibson CS guitars (Pat Martino,Johnny A.) The newer Gibson are far more consistant better instruments in every way! The only 2 vintage guitars I would say were exceptional were one the "58 Gold Tops and the '58 ES-355 TDC Mono. Which I sold being young and stupid!

So now you chime in with your experience please!

[floatingpickup]

So to all you Vintage Gibson Experts, who claim they don't make accurate reissues due to legal or wood issues,etc.

My first ? to you is how many actual 1950's Gibsons have you owned, or recently played at length?

2nd ? : Which Les paul at this point (Sunburst Mostly) have they not digitally analyzed down to the actual wear from owners ?

3rd ? : Which new reissues have you at least played at length or gigged with?

So for me the answer to these ?'s is I've owned every type of 1950's vintage Les Paul sans a Sunburst but 2 different 1958 Gold Tops, one with a dark back and neck and the other a more common natural mahogany color back and neck ( Both very different from each other)
I've also owned 1958 ES-355TDC Mono, 1968 ES-335TD Sunburst, 1962 Byrdland, 1969 Byrdland, 1974 Les Paul Custom Historic '54 Re issue as well as the 1974 LP Std Gold Top version with P90's.

Conclusion: After owning and gigging with both old and new reissues 1958 Gold Top, ES-345TD and multiple Gibson CS guitars (Pat Martino,Johnny A.) The newer Gibson are far more consistant better instruments in every way! The only 2 vintage guitars I would say were exceptional were one the "58 Gold Tops and the '58 ES-355 TDC Mono. Which I sold being young and stupid!

So now you chime in with your experience please!

I think Gibson is building great guitars these days and I like the VOS reissues a lot. To me, they look, feel and sound very much like the old ones. I currently have eight Gibson archtops ranging from 1947 to 2013 and I have owned several others in the past. I gig with all my guitars. I am very impressed with the consistency and quality of the new ones that I have owned.
Keith

[HeyNow]

So to all you Vintage Gibson Experts, who claim they don't make accurate reissues due to legal or wood issues,etc.

My first ? to you is how many actual 1950's Gibsons have you owned, or recently played at length?

2nd ? : Which Les paul at this point (Sunburst Mostly) have they not digitally analyzed down to the actual wear from owners ?

3rd ? : Which new reissues have you at least played at length or gigged with?

So for me the answer to these ?'s is I've owned every type of 1950's vintage Les Paul sans a Sunburst but 2 different 1958 Gold Tops, one with a dark back and neck and the other a more common natural mahogany color back and neck ( Both very different from each other)
I've also owned 1958 ES-355TDC Mono, 1968 ES-335TD Sunburst, 1962 Byrdland, 1969 Byrdland, 1974 Les Paul Custom Historic '54 Re issue as well as the 1974 LP Std Gold Top version with P90's.

Conclusion: After owning and gigging with both old and new reissues 1958 Gold Top, ES-345TD and multiple Gibson CS guitars (Pat Martino,Johnny A.) The newer Gibson are far more consistant better instruments in every way! The only 2 vintage guitars I would say were exceptional were one the "58 Gold Tops and the '58 ES-355 TDC Mono. Which I sold being young and stupid!

So now you chime in with your experience please!

#1 - countless, own several early-mid 60s semis, hollows - same construction as their 50s counterparts
#2 - most
#3 - many, owned R9 and R7

None of this, except question #2, has any bearing on how accurate a re-issue is.


#2 is moot, however, since even if Gibson did the most extensive analysis, they have not chosen to accurately recreate based on those analyses. Wood (old growth, Brazilian), alloy mix e.g. tailpiece and pickup magnets, pickup cover shape, pickup ring shape and material, bobbin shape/material, pickup bobbin wire, nitro mix, capacitors, inlay material, binding material, type of glue, neck profile are all historically inaccurate to some degree.


2 years ago Gibson modified their nitro mix to be more accurate, but only on their $8k+ True Historic series.


Gibson started using hide glue on the neck joint in 2013.

On their CC series, they try to replicate a specific Burst, but the top hardly ever looks similar.


Your "consistant better" does not equate to accurate.

[Dennis D]

As far as the reissues I have, they are made to look new (no "aged" binding or buckle-rash screw holes etc...) but I believe they are made to sound correct:

My 34 reissue L5 has a very mid-rangy tone and has cutting power in a combo, but sounds out of place when playing by itself which is probably what it is supposed to do. It is designed to be a rythym instrument in a big-band setting.

I can speak about an L-5 R/I because I owned one ( and still really regret selling it ). I have to doubt it was designed to be a rhythm instrument. I have to think it was designed to sound like all the current L-5's - which it does - -with the look of a '30's L-5. But I'd always heard the originals - the acoustic L-5's - were cannons, while all of these latest L-5's -acoustics included - I know have very little acoustic volume.

I have to believe this ' similar sound but low volume ' characteristic is intentional.

[icr]

First owners know they are fake. Second owners think they are real.

[Hammertone]

I can speak about an L-5 R/I because I owned one (and still really regret selling it ). I have to doubt it was designed to be a rhythm instrument. I have to think it was designed to sound like all the current L-5's - which it does - -with the look of a '30's L-5. But I'd always heard the originals - the acoustic L-5's - were cannons, while all of these latest L-5's -acoustics included - I know have very little acoustic volume. I have to believe this ' similar sound but low volume ' characteristic is intentional.

There are significant differences between Gibson's acoustic carved top "historic reissues" and their electric solid/semi/laminated "historic reissues." From a performance point of view, the solid/semi/laminated reissues are generally superb instruments. I've played many and own a few of them. I've also played all of the originals on which they are based. They are historically close enough for most people, and Gibson has been generally been very smart in its management of year-over-year changes to maintain interest among its key market segments and motivate them to loosen their purse-strings.

Carved acoustic instruments are another matter entirely. Gibson has not tried to make these archtops perform like the long-gone originals on which they were based, but has produced some instruments that generally resemble the originals (reissues of the Super 400 and the 16" L-5 in particular); these look great but do not sound anything like the originals. This doesn't really matter to most of their consumers, who have very little experience with the real thing. I agree with the suggestion that this was intentional, probably because it would be costly for Gibson to pay for the skilled labour (acquired or subcontracted) required to make these instruments perform similarly to their historic antecendants. Gibson has chosen to not incur those costs, and at the same time limited the costs associated with warranty claims.

The L-7C is simply an outlier - it was not a "historic reissue" so much as an amalgam of features and models from 1934-1951 - it's a "what if" model as opposed to a "it was" model. My personal belief is that the sole point of making it was to prove that Gibson was capable of making an excellent acoustic archtop based on its past designs. This was probably a point of concern to only a tiny group of people in Bozeman, led by Ren Ferguson, and was probably a skunkworks operation, given that these instruments seem to appear for the most part without labels (if anyone does have one of these with a label, please post a photo of the label), in cases without Gibson badging.

[jads57]

To Hey Now early to mid 1960's ES-335 series varied a lot in feel especially neck shapes and widths starting late 1965.

All of the points 1-3 definitely relate if we are comparing apples to apples scenario. Easy for many people to criticize something you never have owned or rarely played.

Most real Sunburst Les Pauls since that's your expertise, did not have very figured tops. Also since they were built by hand they varied more than the consistancy of newer Gibsons or Fenders for that matter. Mostly due to CNC technology.

Another point is that not all Les Pauls or any particular Gibson or Fender were actually the "Holy Grail" people claim them to be. Actually many Les Pauls were not really that great to begin with.

As far as original plastic rings, analine dye, old growth wood, etc. REALLY? I'll give you the quality of the wood matters, but the rest has little bearing on having to be 100% accurate to sound great! If that were the case refrets, changed tuners, pick up mods should ruin the guitars tone. And although I'm not a huge fan Jimmy Page has not only done that but thinned the necks as well?

My main point is I bought used guitars when I was young because I preferred them to the 1970's models But for several years most larger guitar companies are making consistant excellent guitars on a larger basis. I play them not to collect but to use them as a Pro guitar player.

[HeyNow]

To Hey Now early to mid 1960's ES-335 series varied a lot in feel especially neck shapes and widths starting late 1965.

Yes, the neck carve varied - even within guitars built in the same week. I wrote the 'construction' is the same. They were built the same way with the same materials until the pickup bobbin wire changed.

All of the points 1-3 definitely relate if we are comparing apples to apples scenario. Easy for many people to criticize something you never have owned or rarely played.

I can tell you a 4 cylinder car is different from a 6 cylinder car without owning or driving either. No criticism.

Most real Sunburst Les Pauls since that's your expertise, did not have very figured tops. Also since they were built by hand they varied more than the consistancy of newer Gibsons or Fenders for that matter. Mostly due to CNC technology.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the CC series. Gibson tried to replicate specific Les Pauls like Peter Green's. Their recreation looks nothing like the real thing. The aging, flame/figure, and finish color are way off.

Another point is that not all Les Pauls or any particular Gibson or Fender were actually the "Holy Grail" people claim them to be. Actually many Les Pauls were not really that great to begin with.

I don't disagree

As far as original plastic rings, analine dye, old growth wood, etc. REALLY? I'll give you the quality of the wood matters, but the rest has little bearing on having to be 100% accurate to sound great!

The OP inquired about "small details that differentiate these instruments from the originals". I never made a statement on what changes matter to tone. Just what is different in a reissue vs original. The differences are not subtle.

My main point is I bought used guitars when I was young because I preferred them to the 1970's models But for several years most larger guitar companies are making consistant excellent guitars on a larger basis. I play them not to collect but to use them as a Pro guitar player.

Gibson and Fender have definitely improved their guitars over recent years. Still, in my experience, builders other than Gibson have been more accurate in legacy Gibson products. Throbak pickups, for example, are quite different than Burstbuckers or Classic 57s. The Gibson pickups today do not use the same materials/construction as PAFs while Throbaks are very accurate.

[jads57]

I appreciate your due dilligance to detail but again I think you might be misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. The new Gibsons are overall better than the Vintage counterparts when it comes to use as a tool to make music.

Being 60 years old and a guitar nut since I was 17, I've played,gigged,etc. many of the originals as well as newer replicas. And again the newer Historics (Not All) are better playing, sounding and consistant from one to the next.

If Historic accuracy is important only due to collectors criteria, then these tools (guitars) would not have much relevance as actual musical instruments. And while I can credit the Collector craze for companies to reissue their instruments, there comes a point when it ceases to make $$ sense for either musician or manufacterer to make them.

As far as Throbak pickups the ones I've played are excellent just as Sheptone, Wolfetone,Fralin,Lollar, Manluis, etc. But the new MHS Gibson pickups are equal to all of those and as accurate tonally wise. I find the asking $ price at near $500 a pair for Throbaks a bit outrageous just as Timbuckers, Tom Holmes, etc.

Bottom line here: Are we playing or gigging with these tools or just using them as aquisitions to show off to our freinds?

[lawson-stone]

As far as Throbak pickups the ones I've played are excellent just as Sheptone, Wolfetone,Fralin,Lollar, Manluis, etc. But the new MHS Gibson pickups are equal to all of those and as accurate tonally wise. I find the asking $ price at near $500 a pair for Throbaks a bit outrageous just as Timbuckers, Tom Holmes, etc.

Bottom line here: Are we playing or gigging with these tools or just using them as aquisitions to show off to our freinds?

Is it even possible currently to buy a set of the new MHS Gibson pickups? I have only seen for sale pickups taken off of new guitars. I hear they are great, but so far, haven't had any way to try them out.

[jads57]

I'm not sure they are commecially available yet. There is set of Gold MHS pickups for sale at The Gear Page parts,misc Emporium at the moment.

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/in...r-set.1821692/

[HeyNow]

I appreciate your due dilligance to detail but again I think you might be misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. The new Gibsons are overall better than the Vintage counterparts when it comes to use as a tool to make music.

Being 60 years old and a guitar nut since I was 17, I've played,gigged,etc. many of the originals as well as newer replicas. And again the newer Historics (Not All) are better playing, sounding and consistant from one to the next.

If Historic accuracy is important only due to collectors criteria, then these tools (guitars) would not have much relevance as actual musical instruments. And while I can credit the Collector craze for companies to reissue their instruments, there comes a point when it ceases to make $$ sense for either musician or manufacterer to make them.

As far as Throbak pickups the ones I've played are excellent just as Sheptone, Wolfetone,Fralin,Lollar, Manluis, etc. But the new MHS Gibson pickups are equal to all of those and as accurate tonally wise. I find the asking $ price at near $500 a pair for Throbaks a bit outrageous just as Timbuckers, Tom Holmes, etc.

Bottom line here: Are we playing or gigging with these tools or just using them as aquisitions to show off to our freinds?

I'm not misunderstanding your point. I just think it's tangential at best to the OP's question and to my reply.

You address "all you Vintage Gibson Experts, who claim they don't make accurate reissues due to legal or wood issues,etc." then go onto another point that isn't about how accurate a reissue is or ethics of a historic reissue.

You prefer newer guitars. That's fine. I'm not arguing for or against that.

I'll take a small luthier built Gibson clone over any Gibson made in the past 50 years, but that's besides the point.

[HeyNow]

Also I agree $500 is pricey for Throbak's. I've always paid about $300-350 for used pairs. I've owned many sets of early patent number pickups and Throbak is on the mark (so I sold my loose pat number pickups). I'm not the only one who agrees - many dealers I've talked to concur. These guys sell PAFs and say just get some Throbak's.

I was not impressed by Timbuckers, Holmes, or Wolfetone.

I have a set of 2014 Custombuckers that sound amazing - Tele on steroids. Regardless, not going to fool anyone that they are PAFs, as far as the OP's question.

[Bluedawg]

I appreciate your due dilligance to detail but again I think you might be misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. The new Gibsons are overall better than the Vintage counterparts when it comes to use as a tool to make music.

Being 60 years old and a guitar nut since I was 17, I've played,gigged,etc. many of the originals as well as newer replicas. And again the newer Historics (Not All) are better playing, sounding and consistant from one to the next.

If Historic accuracy is important only due to collectors criteria, then these tools (guitars) would not have much relevance as actual musical instruments. And while I can credit the Collector craze for companies to reissue their instruments, there comes a point when it ceases to make $$ sense for either musician or manufacterer to make them.

As far as Throbak pickups the ones I've played are excellent just as Sheptone, Wolfetone,Fralin,Lollar, Manluis, etc. But the new MHS Gibson pickups are equal to all of those and as accurate tonally wise. I find the asking $ price at near $500 a pair for Throbaks a bit outrageous just as Timbuckers, Tom Holmes, etc.

Bottom line here: Are we playing or gigging with these tools or just using them as aquisitions to show off to our freinds?

Many of us who can afford to buy these guitars now and then are too busy working day jobs to gig ...

so ... yeah ... we're just showing them off to our friends on TGP and jazzguitar.be

[jads57]

Hey Now, again what bothers me most is most of the "So Called Experts" can't tie their own shoelaces when it comes to actually playing guitar or music for that matter. I've attended Vintage Guitar shows where "Stock Trades" are the only consideration. And that's fine for investors, but from a musicians perspective please don't act as though these fine points of detail make the instrument superior in any way.

Even Eric Clapton,Jeff Beck, Michael Bloomfield etc. don't care about the past when it comes to instruments of their choosing. It's only the people who use them as a bragging point of great tone. In fact E.C. originally was inspired to buy a 1954-55 Gold Top that was pictured on Freddie King's Hideaway record.


I conceed your an expert on detail of history, but to what avail if it's not to make better music?

[ThatRhythmMan]

Is it even possible currently to buy a set of the new MHS Gibson pickups? I have only seen for sale pickups taken off of new guitars. I hear they are great, but so far, haven't had any way to try them out.

Lawson,

I'm pretty sure new sets are not available from Gibson.

I bought one that was taken out of an ES Les Paul to
put in my 2003 Tal and it's a fantastic pickup for that guitar. It's a night and day change. The original pickup was really lacking something to my ear. The MHS brought it to life.