Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!
In my experience even GFS uses much better pot metal and various other metals than Chibson. There's different grades of pot metal and I've never had any of them affect signal transmission. Mostly effects playability and longevity. If it plays good, stays in tune, then it's fine.
The tail piece being screwed all the way down is normal and you can adjust the break angle to suit your playing. I top wrap my strings anyway to where the break angle is almost straight across. Almost to where the strings pop out of the saddle slots.
The bridge, how much space is left between...
I did find a few with all 4 being rounded. I'm not sure they were dedicated to one way or another at the time by the looks of these pics. But check this out. Pertains to this very thing. http://www.latesixtieslespauls.com/common.asp
Ok I see what you're saying now. Yeah that's quite the difference but I'd have to go through my old catalogue and see if there was any cavity variance back then. Gibson did change things up occasionally using what they had on hand vs build consistency.
Most definitely agree. I was just responding to the claim that TM supposedly refinished it.. And having no proof. I wouldn't pay a premium for something like that. Then again, I don't know what the seller is even asking????
That's one hell of a fake if it is. It checks all the boxes as being legit to me(for not being able to actually hold and see it). I guess it comes down to what he's asking for. And I wouldn't pay the premium if there's no proof this was dealt with by TM.