BigAlTheBird
Guest
Seems hard to believe at that price.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160019715815&fromMakeTrack=true
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160019715815&fromMakeTrack=true
Is this really a 52 Gibby?
- Thread starter BigAlTheBird
- Start date
kneadmomunny
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
it looks real, but why is there no place to put a bridge? or a tailpiece? obviously there is a trapeze tp, but where does the bridge go?
it is kinda cool though....
it looks real, but why is there no place to put a bridge? or a tailpiece? obviously there is a trapeze tp, but where does the bridge go?
it is kinda cool though....
The Golden Boy
Fleecy Sweaterologist
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
On the 52-53 LPs, the trapeze TP IS the bridge. Most often you'll see them with the strings wrapped UNDER because the neck set angle makes it impossible to play them over the top. There is a period picture of Les with one with the strings wrapped over. Either he had the neck reset, or he milled down the bridge so it would fit low enough on the body. A lot of the 52/53 LPs don't have s/n, and a lot of things check out nicely- like the Gibson logo location.
Too many questions about this particular guitar. A 1950s Gibson for less than a grand? I doubt it. There's that whole "we believe this to be..." thing. If the guy had somewhat verifiable proof he'd be asking a hell of a lot more.
On the 52-53 LPs, the trapeze TP IS the bridge. Most often you'll see them with the strings wrapped UNDER because the neck set angle makes it impossible to play them over the top. There is a period picture of Les with one with the strings wrapped over. Either he had the neck reset, or he milled down the bridge so it would fit low enough on the body. A lot of the 52/53 LPs don't have s/n, and a lot of things check out nicely- like the Gibson logo location.
Too many questions about this particular guitar. A 1950s Gibson for less than a grand? I doubt it. There's that whole "we believe this to be..." thing. If the guy had somewhat verifiable proof he'd be asking a hell of a lot more.
Last edited:
BigAlTheBird
Guest
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
I don't understand. Another LP (a 56 I believe) was listed for $100,000. It was perfect, but even so. This one is selling for $830. What gives?
I don't understand. Another LP (a 56 I believe) was listed for $100,000. It was perfect, but even so. This one is selling for $830. What gives?
Voxman
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
IT`S not selling for $830,i don`t see a "buy it now"
And the headstock joint crack.............ohhhhh
But,one detail that makes it rare is the gibson logo.From 1952-1968 the dot of the i was
not joined to the g. The joined dot is rare on 1952 guitars.
IT`S not selling for $830,i don`t see a "buy it now"
And the headstock joint crack.............ohhhhh
But,one detail that makes it rare is the gibson logo.From 1952-1968 the dot of the i was
not joined to the g. The joined dot is rare on 1952 guitars.
Last edited:
marvar
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
Since it has been refinished, it's value has been DRAMATICALLY reduced. Also since the seller has decided to sell the original parts separately, it will never be an original, unless you can gather all the correct parts, NEVER NEVER refinish a vintage guitar, I think the seller has realized that he screwed up, and it trying to compensate for it by selling it in pieces to recoup his investment- personally, I'd pass on this one.
Since it has been refinished, it's value has been DRAMATICALLY reduced. Also since the seller has decided to sell the original parts separately, it will never be an original, unless you can gather all the correct parts, NEVER NEVER refinish a vintage guitar, I think the seller has realized that he screwed up, and it trying to compensate for it by selling it in pieces to recoup his investment- personally, I'd pass on this one.
Last edited:
JB_From_Hell
Jomo's Nimions
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
You'd pass on a vintage Lester for around a grand? Who gives a crap about the investment.... you could have a '52 LP as your beater, gigging guitar!
captain cavman
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
The truss rod cover location looks weird to me . Don't know if it's due to shooting angle but it seems there's a too big gap between nut & TRC.
The truss rod cover location looks weird to me . Don't know if it's due to shooting angle but it seems there's a too big gap between nut & TRC.
Voxman
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
There`s a lot of things that indicates that this is a original from 1952.
The gibson logo as mentioned,17 degrees headstock angle,the fact that it`s not stamped with a serial number or "made in usa".
The truss rod cover is located right. To me it seem like the headstock got itself a bad refinish around the logos.
But who knows,everything is possible when it comes to fraud
There`s a lot of things that indicates that this is a original from 1952.
The gibson logo as mentioned,17 degrees headstock angle,the fact that it`s not stamped with a serial number or "made in usa".
The truss rod cover is located right. To me it seem like the headstock got itself a bad refinish around the logos.
But who knows,everything is possible when it comes to fraud
bryvincent
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
actually that feature is common to LPs from '52 to i think mid or late '59(?). the Later LPs('60) have the TRC closer to the nut.
marvar
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
Hey, I qualified my statement by saying-"personally". That means that I wouldn't buy it, I didn't say for anyone else not to buy it. I just wouldn't put any money in it. I consider all my guitars as investments, as well as tools. I've been down the vintage road before, and maybe I'm sort of a snob when it comes to vintage stuff- I want it as close to original as possible. A 52 LP is THE holy grail as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't conceive of one as a 'beater'.
Even not using the original parts, it's still gonna cost a few hundred more to get it into playing condition.
You'd pass on a vintage Lester for around a grand? Who gives a crap about the investment.... you could have a '52 LP as your beater, gigging guitar!
Hey, I qualified my statement by saying-"personally". That means that I wouldn't buy it, I didn't say for anyone else not to buy it. I just wouldn't put any money in it. I consider all my guitars as investments, as well as tools. I've been down the vintage road before, and maybe I'm sort of a snob when it comes to vintage stuff- I want it as close to original as possible. A 52 LP is THE holy grail as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't conceive of one as a 'beater'.
Even not using the original parts, it's still gonna cost a few hundred more to get it into playing condition.
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
If that's old wood period, it's worth 1k easily. Refinish it and play the heck out of that thing, it's a beatiful guitar, even if it's not complete!
If that's old wood period, it's worth 1k easily. Refinish it and play the heck out of that thing, it's a beatiful guitar, even if it's not complete!
54stratlover
New member
Re: Is this really a 52 Gibby?
The headstock doesn't look like a 50's sized headstock. I may be wrong. I seems more like a late 60's early 70's headstock. the headstock pitch looks right though. it would be interesting to see a profile where one could gauge the pitch of the neck. the 52 has a different (more shallow) pitch, due to the bridge they were using. the fretboard looks right though. I am sceptical about the price. a 52 should be going for more. the 52 conversions are pretty pricey. wait till closer to the end of the auction and see if the price goes up. I know the vintage crowd over at the LPF will be all over it if it is the real deal.
The headstock doesn't look like a 50's sized headstock. I may be wrong. I seems more like a late 60's early 70's headstock. the headstock pitch looks right though. it would be interesting to see a profile where one could gauge the pitch of the neck. the 52 has a different (more shallow) pitch, due to the bridge they were using. the fretboard looks right though. I am sceptical about the price. a 52 should be going for more. the 52 conversions are pretty pricey. wait till closer to the end of the auction and see if the price goes up. I know the vintage crowd over at the LPF will be all over it if it is the real deal.
54stratlover
New member
Similar threads
