| Author |
Message |
    
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:20 pm: | |
Tell me if I am nuts but is this for real. It seems too sketchy with no pix of the head stock but I think it "might" be a 1959 Gibson Les Paul.
Old guitar , make an offer
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Reply to: sale-420757508@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-09-12, 3:32PM CDT
A friend of my dad's passed away recently and gave this to our family. We would love to keep it, but have no use for it. I know it is old, I have pictures of him playing it back in the early 60's before I was born.
It says "les paul model" in hand writing and has a gibson logo on the front. and it and is marked 91242 on the back.
The case is very worn, but included. Please see pictures. If I don't get an offer, I will take it to guitar center on Friday, but I would rather see it go to somebody that would use it.
I have no idea what it is worth, please give me your best price you would pay. I can give you more pictures if you like.
Willing to show between 6-10 at night. I work in the daytime.
The serial number actually reads 9 1242. I know some of you are great with serial numbers so let me know if this rings a bell.
http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/msg/420757508.ht ml
Location: saint cloud
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 420757508 |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 6:47 pm: | |
I thought there might be something fishy....
The ad was gone 10 minutes after I posted this. The link still seems to work but the guitar is not on Craigslist anymore! |
Peterdryan
Username: Peterdryan
Registered: 6-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:45 pm: | |
He updated the listing to say he got a fair offer and that it was sold.
If that's for real, I doubt he got a fair offer but call me cynical. |
Chucke99
Username: Chucke99
Registered: 2-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:24 pm: | |
On Seattle CraigsList, a couple months ago, a guy posted a 1974 Fender Stratocaster for $500. It was in a town about 60 miles from where I work, so too far to drive for it. So I called the number in the ad and told him the guitar was worth easily $1500 and to raise his price. I would have done the same for the guy with the LP above. It's one thing to get a deal on a guitar for even a couple thousand (say buy for $200 and sell for $2000) -- or to snag a minty Scruggs late at night for $1,500. But to knowingly give someone a couple grand for a guitar you know is worth $200K or up? I don't know if I could do it. I hope the guy got a good deal for it (if it was real). Heck, if he had brought it to GC, they wouldn't have known what it was and probably would have given him $500 in store credit for it.
-Chuck |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:33 am: | |
Call me cynical but the whole story sounds traditional cheat. Only seeing the guitar or good pictures of it could make me think otherwise. And pictures could be fake not to mention the guitar itself. Is my expertise good enough to examine genuineness? Is it possible that somebody would sell to me a guitar worth 300 for 2K because I think it is worth 20K or more. No, I am not that greedy but somebody else could be and cheaters know how to utilize greedy people.
Juha |
Sixvsix
Username: Sixvsix
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:37 am: | |
If that was a real 59 then it was a nice find for someone. If it was a fake then it was a good'n. Have a browse over at the Les Paul Forum and see if it surfaces.
six |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:28 am: | |
That guitar is from 1991, day 242 (What's that? Late August, early September? Just look on the calender...)
What this guy did, is: he removed digit 2 and 3.
I'll try to upload a picture:
Ginger |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:42 am: | |
No, I'm talking from the back of my neck now.
The formula is:
YDDDYRRR
So it is a 1992, the day is unknown, all what's left of it is a 1.
What's odd, is that they used an inked stamp, like Samick does.
Normally these numbers are hammered in the wood.
At least in my '94 DC they are.
Maybe indeed totally fake...
Ginger |
Lespaul
Username: Lespaul
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 8:05 am: | |
Ginger,
You are waaaaay of. Take another google at Gibson serials.........
P@ul |
Guitarwhisperer
Username: Guitarwhisperer
Registered: 6-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 8:28 am: | |
Looks like a Customn Shop Historic Aged to me. That's a Custom Shop Serial number, they have that space in them.That's why he didn't have the whole headstock pictured, 'cuz they put the custom shop logo on the base of the headstock. Definitely NOT vintage by any means. They come from the factory old looking. |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:21 am: | |
I read up a little on Gibson Serials and it said in 1959 they used a 9 XXXX number and a 9XXXXX number as production numbers were higher. They also used Stamped Ink for serials back then. Due to the poor photos and short duration it was on Craigslist, I would be very surprised if it was a true listing. Maybe it was somebody just trying to see what kind of reaction people would have. But according to my reading of the Gibson serials, the number sequence would have made this a true 1959!
Peter... I could never find the listing saying it was updated and he received a "fair" offer. Where did you see that? This listing disappeared in the time it took me to post this over on ICW. It looks like you can't even see it today by using the link I posted. I was hoping you all could see this guitar. I wish I had saved the photos that were there. |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:29 am: | |
By the way Chucke99...
I agree with what you said above. I actually tried to email the lister to tell them it looked like a 1959 right after I posted this original message above. But because the listing had been removed, my email bounced back to my computer undelivered. This seemed way different from when I found my Maxxas MX3 for $350 from the original owner who "needed cash quick". I bought that with the intention of flipping it for $1000 or more after doing a little research but because I love the sound, feel and playability of the guitar, it has found a perminant home in my small collection of good guitars now. I can be happy in my little find knowing it will only go up in value. But to take advantage on this type of scale would almost be criminal. |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 9:59 am: | |
Paul, you're probably right. I should have read the Gibson Support on Serial Numbers more thoroughly, but I had too little time.
But after some reading, I think it's a REISSUE:
"Gibson Custom
1952-1960 Les Paul, Explorer, Flying V, and Futura reissues (since late 1992):
M YRRR or MYRRRR
M is the model year being reissued
Y is the production year
RRR(R) indicates the guitar's place production for that year. NOTE: This number includes all models for a particular reissue year - so, for example, a 1958 Reissue serial number may include '58 Reissue LP Standard and '58 Explorer production.
Example: 7 5123 is the 123rd 1957 reissue model produced in 2005."
So, the one on Craigslist is probably:
the 242nd 1959 reissue model produced in 2001.
Another possibility is a Les Paul Classic from 1999 with covered humbuckers, if I read this well:
"There are always exceptions to these rules, the two listed below are worth noting:
Les Paul Classic: This model features an ink stamped serial number with no "MADE IN USA" (just as we used on the original 1952-1960 Les Pauls). Most will be 5 to 6 digits in length, but the earliest examples feature 4 digit serial numbers. There should be a space after the 1st digit with the 4 and 5 digit serial numbers, and no space with the 6 digit numbers.
The 1st digit indicates the year of manufacture for the 4 & 5 digit serial numbers, these were used from 1989-1999. The 1st and 2nd indicate the year of manufacture for the 6 digit serial numbers which we've been using since 2000.
Examples -
9 xxx = 1989 (4 digit number beginning with "9" used only in 1989)
0 xxxx = 1990
9 xxxx = 1999
00xxxx = 2000
05xxxx = 2005
Those beginning with "94":
In 1994, Gibson's Centennial year, many instruments have a serial number that begins with "94" for the year, with the remaining 6 digits indicating the ranking number."
The story about the 1960 picture is BS (IMO).
Ginger |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:49 am: | |
Funny part is that the seller said:
"A friend of my dad's passed away recently and gave this to our family. We would love to keep it, but have no use for it. I know it is old, I have pictures of him playing it back in the early 60's before I was born."
Was that part of the scam? (If there was a scam) I dunno... just seems weird to me. I wish it were true, I would likely have driven the 45 miles just to see it and play it! (I don't have a spare 100 to 200K just sitting around unfortunatly but it would have been fun just holding one of them. |
Chucke99
Username: Chucke99
Registered: 2-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 11:08 am: | |
Give the seller the benefit of the doubt on the picture. I could be an authentic picture but not the same guitar. It could be that the dad sold the old guitar years ago and recently bought the newer model and still had the old case. I've seen enough "Antiques Roadshow" episodes to know that after a few years have passed, family stories about the origin and age of objects can be completely unreliable. On the flip side, let's hope a naive buyer didn't pay the seller $10K for this guitar, hoping he was getting a $200K guitar, when in fact it's worth about $3K.
-Chuck |
Lespaul
Username: Lespaul
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 12:03 pm: | |
Now, that's more like it, Ginger! 
P@ul |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
Ginger...
Did you save any of the other photos. (You have the serial number one above). Since the listing I posted is no longer viewable, I thought maybe you could add them to this thread. It would be worth having the photos for others to see. |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 4:06 pm: | |
To Lofapco,
Actually I didn't until I read your question. I just tried and they're still there, so now I have them on my hard disk.
IF this guitar was a real (not a reissue) 1959 Les Paul Cherry Sunburst the value DOES NOT stop at $20,000.- but then we could be talking 6 figures.
That's not a player, that's a pension fund!
Ginger |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 4:08 pm: | |
Ginger |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:14 pm: | |
Your right Ginger...
The listing is working again. This is too weird. I tried a few times last night and didn't get anything. I tried again just now and "poof" the listing is back. It still is not available for sale on Craigslist (Minneapolis) anymore though... to bad.
Paul |
Fox
Username: Fox
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:20 pm: | |
Ginger (and other interested)
Although those Gibby serial numbers are truly quite easily read from 1977 onwards, there are of course deviations fom "the rule", as Ginger explained some.. Here's a couple more for your interest..
Custom Shop serials can also be in the following form.. CS YXXX where y =last number of year built.
Also some historic, Classics, reissues and some limiteds have "strange" numbers, eg. Centennials, take for example Centennial LE Flying V:s, 1894 9 to number 1994 9 ink stamped...
If we have a look at the serials before 1977 they usually must be "decoded" using various souces available, only those from latter part of the year 1975, 1976 and the first part of 1977 can be dated immediately, the first 2 numbers of then used 8-digit serial give away the year built, thus: first two digits 99 = 1975, 00 = 1976 and 06 = 1977..
Thar particular guitar in question.. Hard to say..Not revamped Classic, but might be a reissue.. if so, there is R9 "hidden" in control cavity, switch well or in pickup routs.. |
Dave_g
Username: Dave_g
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 6:40 pm: | |
Crappy pictures, but that looks like a Lifton case !(original for 1959) |
Sixvsix
Username: Sixvsix
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 10:36 pm: | |
I saved and had a good look at the pictures last night and that does look like a Lifton case Dave. However those cases are easily obtained these days.
The top has that old eastern maple look to it too as was common on a lot of bursts back then. I've had a good look through "The Beauty of the Burst" and my Mac Yasuda vintage guitar books but this one doesn't show. In fact 9 1228 in TBotB looks very close to this 9 1242 guitar in terms of colour and flame.
You're right though Dave. They are grim pics so it could be anything and I have seen some class replicas in my time too and I'm not talking about Tokais and Greco's so who knows.
Even if it had all the right bits on I would be a little shy of this one.
six |
Bluesmeister
Username: Bluesmeister
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 1:08 am: | |
On a guitar that's close to 50 years old, I'd expect to see some corrosion on the metal parts. Check out the screws that attach the tuners, clean as a whistle. I'm with Ginger, I think it's a re-issue. |
Harry
Username: Harry
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 2:12 am: | |
I´ve sent a mail to the seller about this guitar yesterday morning. Until now I´ve had no reply.
There must be a couple original bursts hidden in some closets, in the atticks, that were "sleepers" for maybe 30 years or more. This particular one might be such a sleeper and maybe it wasn´t used that much. That could explain why it looks like it does, mounting screws included.
Funny thing: we all know that from time to time one might pop up that´s really authentic. Maybe this could be one. Yet we try to prove immediately that "this can´t be true" by guessing and being suspicious. And that´s only because "relics" -not in the last place made by Gibson- can look so confusingly genuine that we will have our doubts when maybe "the real McCoy" surfaces.
If this one would have popped up say 20 years ago nobody would have come across the thought to play detective the way we do now (or should I say: HAVE to do now, to prevent us from being cheated) in this thread....
Harry |
Gemberbier
Username: Gemberbier
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 3:50 am: | |
Indeed HAVE TO. Because IF the guitar is genuine, we're talking the price of a HOUSE, not a second hand car.
Ginger |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:09 am: | |
Hm, why does this picture look like edited/artificial/... in my eyes? Somebody who has a good image editing program should examine it.
Still suspicious
Juha |
Fox
Username: Fox
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 7:34 am: | |
Juha, what seems to be "the problem" there? I can not pinpoint any trouble spots there.. The wear on the upper peghead is quite usual..Otherwise ev'rything seems to be OK, those two additional mahogany splints are usual on those older Pauls, they did not even try to match those.. What comes to the "wear and corrosion" in the metal parts, it is quite hard to tell from those pictures, it seems to be OK also.. The body has faded accordingly to other 1959 LP specimens, as far as I can tell.. |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 8:43 am: | |
Could be poor quality of the camera used but it should not cause the picture look like layered. Look at the edges of the lighter red. My eyes say it has been added on the picture of the headstock and then the digits have been added on it. The picture looks three-dimensional in a way it should not. Comparing to the guitar, if it even exists, would solve this but other questions of its genuineness would remain. Anybody happened to think that the other pics could be taken from Internet, then perhaps edited, meaning somebody else somewhere has a genuine (guitar and a) case.
Even if this guitar proves itself to be genuine it is better to be prepared for scam/fraud/feint etc when money and Internet are involved.
Juha |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 8:47 am: | |
And some people like to cheat just for fun not for money.
Juha |
Fox
Username: Fox
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 9:12 am: | |
But hey, the headstock on those guitars was really made that way, I mean with the "centre section" and those additional wood splints on both sides.. it is not unusual for differing densities/quality of those extra splints to fade different way, so to produce colour differencies on the back of the headstock..
Those old narrow necks without those widening pieces were usen as such on the Melody Maker line, btw... |
Bobzilla
Username: Bobzilla
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 9:26 am: | |
If real, the guitar is worth $300,000. Easy. |
Lofapco
Username: Lofapco
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 9:33 am: | |
Harry keep us posted if the owner responds to your email. I tried also but the message came back undeliverable. I assumed because the listing had disappeared. Every time I click on my original link listed in the first post, I get different things happening. Today for some reason it is not working again. I am glad Ginger was able to get the photos for all to see. It is a nice looking guitar. I just wish they had better quality and more photos posted. It would help to clear up some of the questions posted here. I agree about what you said about being able to check for authenticity (probably spelled wrong). The internet works both ways! People can use it to scam and others can use it to verify. What did we do before Al Gore invented it???  |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 9:38 am: | |
Fox,
I didn't say anything about big G's way of making headstocks. I wrote about the possibility of fake picture. Please, read it again and try to look at the picture with new eyes.
Probably it is tempting for a Gibby fan to think: Wow, one of them was found again. So it is possible that also I will find one. 
Juha |
Fox
Username: Fox
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 10:17 am: | |
Juha, no way I was meaning to offend or "split hairs"..
I thought that you was referring to the obvious color differences in the headstock, considering the quality/size of the photo I can not make any "for sure" analysis based on that.. (Vähän selvänäkijän uni) (translate: Like a clairvoyant's dream) Normal fleaBay quality, that picture..
But let's wait for additional info. |
Chucke99
Username: Chucke99
Registered: 2-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:08 am: | |
The problem with analyzing the Craigslist pictures is that, when you upload to Craigslist, their site resizes the original photo, so you get compression on top of the usual JPG compression. If you enlarge the picture with the serial number, you can see what I mean. There are obviously larger squares in the image that have additional pixelation inside them. While it looks to me like a number may have been blocked out between the 9 and the 1, I can't find any exact spot on the image where the covering bits would have been copied from.
-Chucke "C.S.I." 99 |
Bobzilla
Username: Bobzilla
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 11:35 am: | |
The seller probaly committed suicide after he found out he sold an original '59 LP for $500 and he got 900 e-mails telling him it's worth several hundred thousand. Wait,... so as not to offend anyone... the seller is probably under heavy sedation in an old folks home... for reasons indicated. That's why his e-mail is disconnected. I tried too and got a message back that it's not working (e-mail.) The photos are still there though. |
Talajuha
Username: Talajuha
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 1:31 pm: | |
"The problem with analyzing the Craigslist pictures is that, when you upload to Craigslist, their site resizes the original photo, so you get compression on top of the usual JPG compression."
Then Ginger compressed the pictures again before uploading to ICW. But there is not "usual JPG compression". To not go too far from the original topic I suggest following link for those interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
As an example pic from Graigslist
Juha |
Chucke99
Username: Chucke99
Registered: 2-2007
| | Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 3:52 pm: | |
To be more accurate: When Craigslist resizes, the photo is "resampled", not compressed. JPG compression is known as "lossy compression" meaning that, upon reconstitution, there are errors in the restoration. If there was once a solid field of color in the picture, for example, JPG will result in there being anomalies in that solid color. A compression method such as GIF does not lose the original color information.
The end result is that JPG's are, by definition, filled with errors. If you resample/resize an image on top of that, any manipulation of the file done to the JPG is just going to get lost in the resampling of the image done during reduction.
|