Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    The pickgurad looks wrong too. There is a screw in the top which I cannot find replicated on any ES-175 pics from 49 to 56.
    It could be that the pick guard mount came away from the plastic so it was screwed into place but it's another little red flag this guitar has.

    So neck is not original,
    Tail piece is not original
    Pickguard is not original or has been altered.
    Finish not original

    Does this seem about right?

    Other possibilities.

    Guitar is not an 51?
    Guitar was not blonde?

    These aren't accusations just questions I'm throwing out.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    From a couple of photos, nothing else, I think the finish has been oversprayed. The headstock has what looks like some runs. I see no evidence of a sunburst being stripped, though. The f holes look clean and original, and it's really, really difficult to remove the sunburst spray from those. 6k British Pounds seems a hefty markup over 10 years, but I don't really keep up with the market. Being refinished wouldn't bother me, because I'm not a collector, and it actually improves the playability in many cases. I wouldn't pay that much for it in any condition, however. But of course I'm not the one considering buying it.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    What I find strange is that, if the finish is original and in great condition, you'd expect it to have spent a lot of time in that case with the very clean interior, and not to have been played much. But on the other hand, the tailpiece has been changed and it looks as if the guard has been anchored to the support strut with a screw in the top, as you say. That's ok, it's old and repairs are understandable - but not really compatible with a case queen instrument, which would tend to be unmolested and unrepaired.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Franz 1997
    What I find strange is that, if the finish is original and in great condition, you'd expect it to have spent a lot of time in that case with the very clean interior, and not to have been played much. But on the other hand, the tailpiece has been changed and it looks as if the guard has been anchored to the support strut with a screw in the top, as you say. That's ok, it's old and repairs are understandable - but not really compatible with a case queen instrument, which would tend to be unmolested and unrepaired.
    Including the wear marks in the open fret positions on the fretboard.

    Not sure how long it takes to achieve those divots but I would have though it to take more playing, than some parts of the lacquer suggest.

    What about some of the tuners being stamped and some not?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    From a couple of photos, nothing else, I think the finish has been oversprayed. The headstock has what looks like some runs. I see no evidence of a sunburst being stripped, though. The f holes look clean and original, and it's really, really difficult to remove the sunburst spray from those. 6k British Pounds seems a hefty markup over 10 years, but I don't really keep up with the market. Being refinished wouldn't bother me, because I'm not a collector, and it actually improves the playability in many cases. I wouldn't pay that much for it in any condition, however. But of course I'm not the one considering buying it.
    Some people think the older nitro improves the sound because the top has more chance to breath (vibrate) due to the minute fractures and cracks in the finish.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Some people think the older nitro improves the sound because the top has more chance to breath (vibrate) due to the minute fractures and cracks in the finish.
    Seeing as John D'Angelico and Jimmy D'Aquisto routinely refinished older D'Angelicos, I guess they did not share that opinion.

    And neither do I. IMO, it is a good thing to protect the wood.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    "Being refinished wouldn't bother me, because I'm not a collector, and it actually improves the playability in many cases"

    ? That's a new one on me

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    I don't think someone screwed the original pickguard on (or up). I think that's the wrong pickguard - it looks too big and sits wrong. The original should sit right against the side of the neck below the fingerboard without any gap, and it should extend from well clear of the bridge to just below the 2nd from last fret. The one on the guitar being considered is skewed, goes back to the bridge, and is showing a fair amount of space between it and the end of the neck. I doubt that the bridge is that far forward from proper scale length, and the guard's location relative to the controls seems to confirm this impression. I couldn't find any pics of the exact same year and model 175, but here are three '49s all of which conform to my memory -

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_1949-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_2-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_3-jpg

    Compare them to the one under discussion:

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_wrong-jpg

    I'm also a bit concerned that the board seems to end closer to the last fret than it does on other 175s from '49-52. I've seen later ones with that spacing - the CC model from the '70s had the last fret that close to the end of the board. But I don't recall and can't find examples of it in a '49-52 anywhere. Here's a '79 CC for comparison:

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175cc-jpg

    To me, it seems far from immaculate and grossly overpriced.
    Attached Images Attached Images Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_wrong-jpg 

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    I may stand alone on this point of view, but with the talented luthiers around today (Campellone, Borys, Holst etc), why risk significant $$$ on vintage (with the potential inherent issues that age brings) when newer great guitars can be had?

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    All the tuners look the same to me. The angle makes the reflections a little different on some, but zooming in, they all look pretty much the same to me.

    that's a new one on me
    If the finish is worn off the neck, playability can suffer, and the wood can be affected. Respraying it is a logical way to address that. The finish on the body doesn't affect playability, until the wood is affected, which could affect the tone. To me, if the finish is worn off, badly checked, or missing, that lowers the value, and a competent refinish would raise it from what it was in poor condition. But again, I'm not a collector, just a barely competent player, and not in the market for something like this. But if I were, I would pay more for a refinished guitar than I would for one that had badly worn or missing finish, because I wouldn't want to have to pay for someone to do the refinish, and wait for it to be done.

    I agree with Helios - you can get a newer Campellone (or a brand new one if you're willing to wait) for less money, and have a much better instrument.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
    I don't think someone screwed the original pickguard on (or up). I think that's the wrong pickguard - it looks too big and sits wrong. The original should sit right against the side of the neck below the fingerboard without any gap, and it should extend from well clear of the bridge to just below the 2nd from last fret. The one on the guitar being considered is skewed, goes back to the bridge, and is showing a fair amount of space between it and the end of the neck. I doubt that the bridge is that far forward from proper scale length, and the guard's location relative to the controls seems to confirm this impression. I couldn't find any pics of the exact same year and model 175, but here are three '49s all of which conform to my memory -

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_1949-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_2-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_3-jpg

    Compare them to the one under discussion:

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175_guard_wrong-jpg

    I'm also a bit concerned that the board seems to end closer to the last fret than it does on other 175s from '49-52. I've seen later ones with that spacing - the CC model from the '70s had the last fret that close to the end of the board. But I don't recall and can't find examples of it in a '49-52 anywhere. Here's a '79 CC for comparison:

    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-175cc-jpg

    To me, it seems far from immaculate and grossly overpriced.
    I think the pickguard could be the right one and it could be just the angle, especially if it has warped a bit and is now a little higher than it might have been, it;s certainly the right type of 5 ply guard with a wide bevel and the pin to the neck is also right even though it is not perhaps well positioned. THe tortoiseshell guard in one of the other pics is definitely a replacement. The screw through the guard is wrong though. I agree about the extra fret or whatever. THe guitar might be nice but from a collectors point of view it is a bit all over the place.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Serial numbers were on the back of Gibson headstocks since at least the 1930s.

    I think it's a re-necked refin.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    All the tuners look the same to me. The angle makes the reflections a little different on some, but zooming in, they all look pretty much the same to me.


    If the finish is worn off the neck, playability can suffer, and the wood can be affected. Respraying it is a logical way to address that. The finish on the body doesn't affect playability, until the wood is affected, which could affect the tone. To me, if the finish is worn off, badly checked, or missing, that lowers the value, and a competent refinish would raise it from what it was in poor condition. But again, I'm not a collector, just a barely competent player, and not in the market for something like this. But if I were, I would pay more for a refinished guitar than I would for one that had badly worn or missing finish, because I wouldn't want to have to pay for someone to do the refinish, and wait for it to be done.

    I agree with Helios - you can get a newer Campellone (or a brand new one if you're willing to wait) for less money, and have a much better instrument.
    I never bought the theory that worn neck finish affects the wood. the natural oils from your hands impregnates the wood enough to prevent issues.
    I've never seen a guitar w/worn neck finish become unstable, and I've seen more than my share of vintage guitars. As for me I'd never refinish a neck just because the finish was worn unless the wood was gouged or similarly compromised.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by helios
    I may stand alone on this point of view, but with the talented luthiers around today (Campellone, Borys, Holst etc), why risk significant $$$ on vintage (with the potential inherent issues that age brings) when newer great guitars can be had?
    I totally agree that buying vintage guitars is a nightmare and hence why I avoid. That's why I'm not even close to being an expert. When I say vintage, I mean guitars pre 1970 but that's relative to my age, not what the market considers vintage i.e an 1980 fender being a vintage guitar.

    Shops in the UK and I assume the US are no signifier or authenticity. Gruhn being a stand out operation in this regard.
    It seems a lot of sellers both private and professional are straight up dodgy. Maybe it's the desperation of the game, or the type of people it attracts.

    I even double checked the authenticity of the1961 Guild JSA I bought from a long term London shop, as I wouldn't trust them more than I have to.
    The seller has what he claims is an original D'angelico that isn't advertised and will sell it to me for £40k. It doesn't come with any providence and so I wont be buying. Too easy to forge that guitar and at that price, it's worth it.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    All the tuners look the same to me. The angle makes the reflections a little different on some, but zooming in, they all look pretty much the same to me.


    If the finish is worn off the neck, playability can suffer, and the wood can be affected. Respraying it is a logical way to address that. The finish on the body doesn't affect playability, until the wood is affected, which could affect the tone. To me, if the finish is worn off, badly checked, or missing, that lowers the value, and a competent refinish would raise it from what it was in poor condition. But again, I'm not a collector, just a barely competent player, and not in the market for something like this. But if I were, I would pay more for a refinished guitar than I would for one that had badly worn or missing finish, because I wouldn't want to have to pay for someone to do the refinish, and wait for it to be done.

    I agree with Helios - you can get a newer Campellone (or a brand new one if you're willing to wait) for less money, and have a much better instrument.
    I'm not entirely convinced a new guitar sounds the same or as good (define good) as an old one with that kinda wispy, airy, old mans voice to the sound board.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Thoughts? Yup, I won't be here but I wonder how many of the Asian Gibson wanna be gits will be here in 50+ years :-)

    Oh, if the neck being replaced on a Strad violin doesn't make it a throw away, why should it be an issue on a Gibson?

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    I guess the ultimate question is, do you want an awesome player's guitar, or a collectable antique?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Greentone
    I think it's a re-necked refin.
    That goes along with my concern about the proximity of the last fret to the fingerboard. If it’s a replacement, it would be a later style neck. What’s puzzling me if that’s the case is why the frets are in the wrong place, especially if plasticpigeon is right that the guard is correct. Unless the necks are different lengths and the bridges are in different positions on the top to preserve the scale length, the only difference between necks with the wider span from last fret to end and those with the narrower span should be the length of that span. The frets and bridges should be located identically. If not, they’re not interchangeable and that guitar may not play and/or sound as fine as it should.

    If the necks are slightly different lengths and the bridges are in different positions on 175s with different board ends, I wonder if the bracing is different too.

    None of these issues means it’s not a good guitar - it may play and sound fabulous. But there’s a burden of proof there, since it could also be a dog. A replacement neck is no big deal, and a 70 year old guitar will attract its share of odds and mods. But presenting it as close to perfect and asking top dollar seem to be a bit of a stretch.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    This is what you need!


  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sgosnell
    All the tuners look the same to me. The angle makes the reflections a little different on some, but zooming in, they all look pretty much the same to me.


    If the finish is worn off the neck, playability can suffer, and the wood can be affected. Respraying it is a logical way to address that. The finish on the body doesn't affect playability, until the wood is affected, which could affect the tone. To me, if the finish is worn off, badly checked, or missing, that lowers the value, and a competent refinish would raise it from what it was in poor condition. But again, I'm not a collector, just a barely competent player, and not in the market for something like this. But if I were, I would pay more for a refinished guitar than I would for one that had badly worn or missing finish, because I wouldn't want to have to pay for someone to do the refinish, and wait for it to be done.

    I agree with Helios - you can get a newer Campellone (or a brand new one if you're willing to wait) for less money, and have a much better instrument.
    No one who knows the old guitars well, or at least has a passion for them, would agree with your statement about refinishing, they simply are worth less, even if a refin makes the neck play better, which I would dispute. Most people like necks that have some of the sticky finish knocked off them, in fact many manufacturers now either sand down the finish, or put oil on them instead- or just seal them and leave them with no finish at all!

    Without getting into the age old argument about vintage versus current guitars, vintage ones are just different. Some better, some not, but the old ones evoke a period that is long gone, and that is of value to some. I think they play differently as well, and the pickups are different. On the other hand, high end Gibson arch tops were professional instruments back then, and are often pretty banged up or altered in some ways, and we have to make allowances for that- unlike Fenders which were often bought for kids and quickly forgotten. A D'Angellico refinished by D'Angellico- I think I could get past that!

    And this is from someone who owns (and loves) both a Campellone and a Borys. Plus I believe the OP already owns a Campellone?

    On this one, definitely there are some red flags, to me I would expect at least a bit of checking or small dings, and the finish surface seems a bit off in it's texture. That also seems like a crazy price to me, but I am no expert on that.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    A ‘51 would have had skinny frets. Those look like jumbo frets to me. A better picture could indicate whether or not it has been refretted. It seems strange that a guitar that has a refret, a changed pickguard and tailpiece, and other obvious signs of use, has a pristine light natural finish.
    Keith

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Sound
    I guess the ultimate question is, do you want an awesome player's guitar, or a collectable antique?
    At £6k ($8,2864) I'd want it to be a collectable one. I hope it plays like shit. The last thing you want is to fall in love with something you can almost never play.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
    That goes along with my concern about the proximity of the last fret to the fingerboard. If it’s a replacement, it would be a later style neck. What’s puzzling me if that’s the case is why the frets are in the wrong place, especially if plasticpigeon is right that the guard is correct. Unless the necks are different lengths and the bridges are in different positions on the top to preserve the scale length, the only difference between necks with the wider span from last fret to end and those with the narrower span should be the length of that span. The frets and bridges should be located identically. If not, they’re not interchangeable and that guitar may not play and/or sound as fine as it should.

    If the necks are slightly different lengths and the bridges are in different positions on 175s with different board ends, I wonder if the bracing is different too.

    None of these issues means it’s not a good guitar - it may play and sound fabulous. But there’s a burden of proof there, since it could also be a dog. A replacement neck is no big deal, and a 70 year old guitar will attract its share of odds and mods. But presenting it as close to perfect and asking top dollar seem to be a bit of a stretch.
    The seller seems genuinely unaware and a nice guy. His trust was in a guitar shop in London.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Way too expensive even if dead stock

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermoon
    Way too expensive even if dead stock
    I think a fair condition 51 sunburst sold in the uk recently for £4k. I would expect an exceptionally nice blonde to go for £4500.