Author |
Message |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 4:10 am: | |
I have the possibility to buy this -79 Ibanez archtop. The seller, who seems to be a real honest man, claims that the label inside the guitar says “FA 800 BS” with the serial “1-798242”, which I suppose should be I798242. The Swedish importer have always placed a sticker on the back of the headstock containing the month and year the guitar was delivered. This sticker says 4/79 which contradicts the letter I in the serial. The current owner bought it second hand in 1980. Now to my questions: Was the FA-800 ever made with a pickup? Has anyone seen a serial number in the format n-nnnnnn? How does the FA800 or if it is a FA510 compare to the GB’s neck wise? Are these guitars rare birds? What would the current market price be? John, you seem to be an expert on these old archtops. The seller sent me these lousy pics taken with his grandchild’s mobile phone. Maybe they can be of help identifying the guitar. To me it seams like a FA 510 but the seller claims that the label clearly says FA 800 BS. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks /Bjorn |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 5:47 am: | |
I have never seen a n-nnnnnn serial number for an Ibanez guitar built between 1978-1985. I think it's an I and the sticker is not correct. Ginger |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 2:10 pm: | |
Thanks Ginger I have been comparing the pics with the old catalogue images I can find and I can’t get the data to match. It’s a pity. I don’t want to get suspicious. I only want to buy it for a reasonable price and put it along this family. Always wanted a L5-style old Ibanez.
|
Wildfield
Username: Wildfield
Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 3:29 pm: | |
Geez Louise!!! That's quite a collection!!! I can see how the FA800 in question (or whatever it is) would make a fine addition. Good luck and thanks for posting the photos. |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 4:12 pm: | |
Callistab, The guitar in the picture is NOT a FA800BS, but a FA510BS. It has one floating PU. The headstock inlay of the FA800BS is different: http://www.t3-kundenserver.de/htmlpages/redasys/_core/databases/t_meinl-uploads/ 1978_gesamt.pdf And it's from September 1979, whatever that sticker may say. Ginger |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 8:53 am: | |
Wildfield: Thanks, I sure love my babies. A small but nice collection if I may say so. On the top of my wish list is getting a GB20 closely followed by a 2461/FA500/FA510 or FA800. Prefer blonds . Ginger: I agree, the headstock inlays weighs heavier than the label. I guess that the label must have been exchanged against an invalid one sometime along the way. I have the feeling the seller can be trusted and can’t really figure out why anyone would want to make a FA510 appear as a FA800. Was the FA800 a much more expensive guitar? /Bjorn |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 5:56 pm: | |
Well, the FA800 has a CARVED SOLID SPRUCE top. and the FA510 has a arched (probably not even solid) spruce top. Hand carved tops make the difference between a mediocre jazz guitar and a top guitar: a Gibson L4CES is more expensive than a ES-175. If it would have been a real FA800 with an added floating pickup, it would have been acoustically better. Yes, I think it was a bit more expensive: a pickup is not so expensive as a hand carved top. Let's check... I found: in 1978 the FA800 was $810.- and the FA510 was $750.- http://www.ibanezrules.com/catalogs/price/1978/August-Electric/p03.jpg Ginger |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 4:12 am: | |
Thanks Ginger, not that much of a difference in price. I did some emailing with an ICW member in Holland who was advertising his FA 800 NT -79 here a while ago. Apparently the headstock inlays changed between the years 78 and 79 and his serial number on the sticker actually has the format C-NNNNNN. /Bjorn |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 4:43 am: | |
If it's a FA800, this would mean that the pickup and the potmeter on the pickguard are NOT original. As a collector I'd perhaps be happier if it was an all original FA510. But as a player I expect the FA800 to be a better acoustic guitar UNPLUGGED. Plugged in there is NO advantage to a solid top. It will cause more feedback problems, So you'll be forced to play at a lower volume. If you play in a big band it's better if can use all the amplification you want/need in order to be heard. Ginger |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 7:17 am: | |
I definitely agree and would prefer it to have been a FA510. I play these guitars amplified. I’m also guessing that a solid top would be more sensitive to dry environments and therefore be more prone to cracks. Really just guessing I consider myself to be a player more than a collector, especially after having seen pics of some the collections owned by members of this fantastic forum. Sure like to take good care of fantastic and beautiful guitars tough. /Bjorn |
Sabeking
Username: Sabeking
Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 8:23 pm: | |
Callistabb, What are your guitars from left to right in the above picture? |
Callistabb
Username: Callistabb
Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 4:26 am: | |
Left to right: GB10 (K79), GB10(A79), GB10 (A83) and GB200 (F00) /Bjorn |
Sabeking
Username: Sabeking
Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 7:06 am: | |
Thanks Bjorn. The GB200 looks a bit bigger than the GB10's. I am sure you are proud of your babies... Stacey |