79' Sg

motorboy29

motorboy29

New member
So, theres on at a guitar shop near me in good condition cherry red varnished, (like angus') for 1200$ is this a good price (not original pups)
 
Re: 79' Sg

... you can get a brand new one for the same price... If the '79 has a certain appeal to you, go you for it. Personally, I like my gear new so I'd use that $$ on a virgin SG...
 
Re: 79' Sg

Seems a bit much for a '79 especially non-original but if it is a really hot guitar who knows. Hmm check gbase.com and see what dealers are getting for them in case I missed the mark.
 
Re: 79' Sg

chopstherocker said:
Stay clear of 70's guitars, they all stunk in some way or another. And $1200 for a '79? I'd go new or used for that price, but nothing older than the mid 80's (once again, low quality)
Click to expand...

o_0? I've really liked all the 70s gibson's I've played?

http://cowtownguitars.com/itemtest2.php?invno=gsg57&itemtop=includes/gibsonitemtop.txt
http://cowtownguitars.com/itemtest2.php?invno=gsg65&itemtop=includes/gibsonitemtop.txt

Unless you're talking 1200 in like, canadian, nah.
 
Re: 79' Sg

chopstherocker said:
Stay clear of 70's guitars, they all stunk in some way or another. And $1200 for a '79? I'd go new or used for that price, but nothing older than the mid 80's (once again, low quality)
Click to expand...

Typical uninformed Internet drivel. Blanket statements like this are meaningless.
 
Re: 79' Sg

chopstherocker said:
Stay clear of 70's guitars, they all stunk in some way or another.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. I owned two 70s Gibsons and two 70s Fenders that were great guitars. Played plenty of other great ones too.
 
Re: 79' Sg

I was never crazy about the block inlays and the lack of beveling inside the horns, next to the neck. You can probably get them for less than a $1000.00 easily. There's a ebony one with white pickguard for $899 at Gbase.com

If the guitar feels and sounds good and you can get a decent price, go for it.
 
Re: 79' Sg

I hate the 90 degree neck joints on most of the 70's SGs. That and the funky front-routed guards....yuck. You can certainly do better that $1200.
 
Re: 79' Sg

I got a '74 SG for 900. Yeah there are a couple of imperfections but only as far as looks are concerned. Soundwise it's one of the best guitars I've ever heard and played.
 
Re: 79' Sg

chopstherocker said:
Stay clear of 70's guitars, they all stunk in some way or another. And $1200 for a '79? I'd go new or used for that price, but nothing older than the mid 80's (once again, low quality)
Click to expand...
That is some bad information there, chief. That "all Norlins are bad" talk isn't anywhere close to true. Although I personally don't like many of the "features" of 70's Gibsons, there are plenty of people that do. I've played plenty that are 'fine' but nothing I'd fork out over a grand for. If people think they're getting a "vintage" guitar from the 70's- fine, the only reason you're even thinking of forking out that much bank is because it's a 1970's Gibson. As far as my opinion goes, Gibson's stuff got much better in the 90s than the 80's guitars I've owned and played.
 
Re: 79' Sg

Trilogy said:
There is a general understanding among guitarists, at least all the one's I've known and talked to, that the 70's (off the rack) Gibsons and Fenders were "not as well built" as earlier ones.

Hence, not worth anything remotely close to $1200 clams.:smokin:
Click to expand...

In your opinion only. As I said before, blanket statements like this are meaningless.

A guitar is worth what someone will pay for it. If it delivers the goods, it's worth it.
 
Re: 79' Sg

Not meaningless at all, unless you don't value your own words. To you the value of a '59 Les Paul is $1000, you just stated as much. Good luck trying to find one for that though.

That '79 SG might be worth $1200. I don't know, I haven't played it. But you can't just say out-of-hand that it's not.

I like Dumble amps just fine.
 
Re: 79' Sg

Trilogy said:
A 1959 Les Paul guitar is worth, to ME, no more than $1000 (I'm not a LP guy). So that means the value of a '59 Paul is $1000??
Click to expand...


If that's true, I'll take two or three! :banana: :banana:
 
Re: 79' Sg

Tell me what makes "not being the best made instruments" in the context of the time in which they were built?

I don't really care what someone says- tell me exactly why the 70's Gibson "features" constitute "not being the best made instruments?"

Not to slight anyone, but I seem to recall Bill didn't leave Gibson of his own volition. And it's not as if his innovations at Gibson set the guitar world on fire.

Again, I'm not a fan of 70's Gibsons, just because the "features" do not appeal to me, not because the instruments are of inferior quality.
 
Re: 79' Sg

I'm not asking to have you quote Bill Lawrence, I'm looking for you to back up your statement:
The '70s Gibsons most definetly have the reputation of not being the best made instruments.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to get on you or insult you or anything. I was just wondering how you determined this.

If you say, thicker binding in the cutaway- how is that necessarily a detriment to the guitar

If you say a wider headstock- ugly, but doesn't decrease from the quality of the guitar

If you say a volute- can be uncomfortable, but doesn't make it bad quality

If you say the headstock angle- doesn't subtract from the quality

If you say multi piece body, top and necks- laminated wood is stronger than non laminated wood.

If you say neck tenon- they still make them that way

If you say thick finish with too much plasticizer- It can be tacky, I don't like the feel, but it doesn't make a bad guitar

If you say impressed serial numbers or serial numbers on decals...

If you say built in Nashville instead of Kalamazoo...

If you say heavier woods- that's what everyone in the industry was doing at the time- "Mass + Brass= Sustain"

If you say gaudy body shapes with odd pickups... they were trying something new- so it flopped?

I have yet to see anything inherently bad about 70's Gibsons, other than they're undesirable to me. Being undesirable and being of poor quality are entirely different things. You'll find more broken headstocks on 50's and 60's Gibsons because of the lack of a volute, a one piece neck and the headstock angle.

Another thing about Bill's quotes... remember what was happening with Fender in the early 80's.
 
Re: 79' Sg

$1200 for a '79 SG seems a trifle steep to me. I think mine are somewhere around the $700-800 mark and that even may be a little high. They're great guitars in my opinion but they don't seem to have the value of a Les Paul from the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top