cynic Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Some things are just better off being thrown awayLinky
mathman Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 $2900????? I was looking at my highschool yearbook and got some old wood. What do you think it's worth?
Toadroller Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Oops, decimal point in the wrong spot. That's $29,000.Dang, did it again. $290.Shoot if I'm a fumble fingers. $29.Shipping is $2,500.Arghh! this keyboard!
Never2Late Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I don't get it - I've seen Greg at BCR resurrect 'worse', with excellent aesthetics/sound/quality results. Are 1954 Les Pauls that plentiful on the market that they don't need restoration? If its a 'money' thing, I can tell you that there are worse things to throw money at. Just ask Elliot Spitzer. Personally, I'd rather restore something like this than spend a long weekend in Vegas.
cmatthes Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I think it's just that this one will become a money pit rather quickly. Very easy to put more money into a project or restoration than it will ever be worth, and this one is getting pretty close with whatever happened with that neck/fingerboard.
Never2Late Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I think it's just that this one will become a money pit rather quickly. Very easy to put more money into a project or restoration than it will ever be worth, and this one is getting pretty close with whatever happened with that neck/fingerboard.This is done all the time with vintage cars - if you want nice things, you have to pay the piper.
cmatthes Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I completely understand the concept, just don't personally think it's a good idea to throw good money after bad.Why spend $5-$7k for a guitar that will be worth $3k, tops, and may play like crap?
Never2Late Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I completely understand the concept, just don't personally think it's a good idea to throw good money after bad.Why spend $5-$7k for a guitar that will be worth $3k, tops, and may play like crap?Just curious, as I'm no expert on vintage Gibsons, but wouldn't a good Luthier shop know 'what to do' to make this thing sing perfectly again, or are old guitar necks more-finicky to make right once they've sustained damage compared to a newer neck? I see a broken headstock, but with the benefit of the original wood retained and re-assembled as part of the repair. To someone like Greg, this would be preferable versus having to find a donor headstock/neck from another lost-cause '54 and manufacturing a jigsaw puzzle on the bench prior to re-assembly. With the value of 59' Pauls well-known, I would think that 1950s-era Gibson restoration projects are 'old hat' in that community and technical pitfalls well-researched.
Steve Haynie Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 This one would be OK for someone with repair skills and parts on hand. There is a reason the guitar in the auction has been stripped of its parts. If it was that great to being with someone would have kept it whole. Then there are those of us who see a stripped Hamer and want to pay/restore it thinking it will be wonderful.
murkat Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I completely understand the concept, just don't personally think it's a good idea to throw good money after bad.Why spend $5-$7k for a guitar that will be worth $3k, tops, and may play like crap?Just curious, as I'm no expert on vintage Gibsons, but wouldn't a good Luthier shop know 'what to do' to make this thing sing perfectly again, or are old guitar necks more-finicky to make right once they've sustained damage compared to a newer neck? I see a broken headstock, but with the benefit of the original wood retained and re-assembled as part of the repair. To someone like Greg, this would be preferable versus having to find a donor headstock/neck from another lost-cause '54 and manufacturing a jigsaw puzzle on the bench prior to re-assembly. With the value of 59' Pauls well-known, I would think that 1950s-era Gibson restoration projects are 'old hat' in that community and technical pitfalls well-researched.yes.the neck is at least two different pieces, not even a scarf joint. And a broken Headstock and then some.a required re neck to make it even close to tonesome.still a money pit. But for the guy who needs it...Brent been down that road a few times already...Does something always turn out to an individuals expectations with a huge expense?
cynic Posted June 12, 2012 Author Posted June 12, 2012 Just curious, as I'm no expert on vintage Gibsons...A new neck, new fretboard, new hardware, new electronics and new finish put on a $3000+ piece of old wood doesn't make a vintage anything.
dgstandard Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Then there are those of us who see any stripped/broken/beaten Hamer 4-digit and want to pay to have it restored it thinking it will be wonderful. +1000
Bennyboy-UK Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I believe we could describe this LP as:"proper-fucked"That is all.
mkadowaki Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 A guy on the Les Paul Forum bought it. He has the hardware and plans to do the work himself. He said he likes the finish and prolly won't refin it. Brings his costs down quite a bit.
tbonesullivan Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 still, the price for that is excessive for something that beat to hell. It's essentially paying $5000 for a body, but you've also gotta do the work to get the old neck off.I mean, maybe if they put a bunch of splines into the neck it might be worth it, but I still don't see who would have bothered doig such a crappy repair job on it. Was it that hard to put in a scarf joint? Also not sure why they wouldn't just take off the whole fretboard.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.