1959 Gibson Les Paul - Are These Worth Hundreds Of Thousands Of Pounds?

[goldtop0]

1950s ≠ early Seventies.

Gibson Norlin-era guitars (and CBS-era Fenders) were produced under the sway of corporate bean-counters who were tasked with maintaining profit margins and shareholder dividends during a period of high consumer demand and rapidly expanding production.

That wasn't the case during the "golden era".

Blame the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show in '64 for this.
'65/66 the changes in production for both companies........not great, all history now.

 

[S. Weiger]

Believe what you want, but some were extraordinary, as noted, and some were not. Some had "50's wiring".

It has nothing to to with what I believe, but with the testimony from workers that was actually there in the 1950's.
Were you?

 

[GlassSnuff]

I didn't start working in a factory until 1963. What's your experience?

 

[GlassSnuff]

Blame the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show in '64 for this.
'65/66 the changes in production for both companies........not great, all history now.

What do you think changed in Gibson production in the mid-sixties?

 

[S. Weiger]

I didn't start working in a factory until 1963. What's your experience?

Listen, I don't wanna argue with you, I know what I've read about Gibson and that's what I believe in. Over and out!

 

[poor man's burst]

You have to remember there was no quality control back then, just highly skilled workers who took pride in their work.

Do you pretend that if an employee during the "Golden Age" ('50s-early '60s) at de end of the assembly line would have noticed a flaw or a defect, he/she wouldn't have signaled it or send the instrument back to in the assembly line to correct it, which IMO, can be considered as some kind of quality check, although not as formal as it can be by now in the industry?
How come some instruments of the same era with a minor flaw were stamped "2" and sold cheaper as well as some instruments with a more serious defect were stamped "BG" (bargain) if there was not some kind of quality check?
At which date did Gibson employees stop taking pride of their work?

 

[goldtop0]

What do you think changed in Gibson production in the mid-sixties?

The nut width on some models, ES especially, a general change of specs across the range of instruments.

 

[GlassSnuff]

Do you pretend that if an employee during the "Golden Age" ('50s-early '60s) at de end of the assembly line would have noticed a flaw or a defect, he/she wouldn't have signaled it or send the instrument back to in the assembly line to correct it, which IMO, can be considered as some kind of quality check, although not as formal as it can be by now in the industry?
How come some instruments of the same era with a minor flaw were stamped "2" and sold cheaper as well as some instruments with a more serious defect were stamped "BG" (bargain) if there was not some kind of quality check?
At which date did Gibson employees stop taking pride of their work?

Someone has to fix this forum, because being cut off from the thread to post an answer is absurd.

I'm not pretending anything. You've been here long enough you should know that a 2 on a Gibson does not mean there's a flaw. You should also know that Gibson didn't have an assembly line. They had groups of skilled workers. Each group was responsible for producing the guitars in one order and each was given a booklet of serial numbers. That's why you can't date Gibsons by serial numbers. It was a very different environment than say Paul Reed Smith, were they do have an assembly line, each worker has one job, and as a guitar enters the next work station, the worker inspects what was done at the previous station.

My original comment was in support of a comment that not all LPs were the same. I was trying to express the idea that back then, no one expected them to all be the same. They were handcrafted musical instruments, not mass produced commodities.

 

[GlassSnuff]

The nut width on some models, ES especially, a general change of specs across the range of instruments.

Yeah, that's definitely a sign of the company going downhill.

 

[poor man's burst]

Someone has to fix this forum, because being cut off from the thread to post an answer is absurd.

I'm not pretending anything. You've been here long enough you should know that a 2 on a Gibson does not mean there's a flaw. You should also know that Gibson didn't have an assembly line. They had groups of skilled workers. Each group was responsible for producing the guitars in one order and each was given a booklet of serial numbers. That's why you can't date Gibsons by serial numbers. It was a very different environment than say Paul Reed Smith, were they do have an assembly line, each worker has one job, and as a guitar enters the next work station, the worker inspects what was done at the previous station.

My original comment was in support of a comment that not all LPs were the same. I was trying to express the idea that back then, no one expected them to all be the same. They were handcrafted musical instruments, not mass produced commodities.

I didn't say there is a flaw. I said there is a "minor flaw".
What meant the "2" then?

 

[GlassSnuff]

Back then, it often meant the guitar had been sold (or given) to some VIP touring the factory and it was marked 2 to prevent full value resale. There's lots of mentions here that people get them later and can find nothing wrong. Most of the time Gibson simply destroyed bad guitars and wrote them off. These practices were frowned upon by the folks at Harvard Business School, but it allowed Gibson to proclaim, "Only a Gibson is Good Enough".

 

[Frutiger]

Bringing this back to the top, not because of whether I think Bursts are worth it or not (they are imo) but because I find the conversation around the factory practices fascinating and the more we understand that, the more we understand the instruments we all love. My observations from my relatively short time (25 years) of collecting and being obsessed with these things:

Gibson did have a final check at the end of the process but I Agree with GlassSnuff that I wouldn't call this 'QC' as we know it now.

The people working there were undoubtedly skilled and took pride in their work but they also almost certainly turned up to work hung over, or dragged themselves in while sick so they could get paid, and they made mistakes. Gibson were a factory, making guitars mattered and ensuring that as many went out the door as possible was paramount. I'm not convinced that Gibson destroyed that many guitars, I think they got them out the door by whatever means possible (I'm sure they wrote off some, but in the main I think they tried to salvage everything they could). I'll give some examples. Again, I'm a whipper snapper at this, there are plenty here with waaaay more experience than me, as usual YMMV etc.

With guitars from the 30s that stuff is all over the place - they were clearly figuring it out on the fly. You see bridge plates in the wrong place, the roughest braces known to mankind, not enough glue, too much glue, you see Kalamazoo/Cromwell/Robison/RKs with L-00 pickguards/tuners and vice versa, you see odd woods used and some of the weirdest shit ever like paper shims inside neck pockets. Then there's the whole 'top over dovetail' thing.

In the 40s due to the war you see even more mismatched wood - two piece necks, hog tops, maple back and sides, maple sides with hog backs, hog sides with maple backs, boxwood bridges and fretboards etc. etc. I've seen a couple of Banners where the script logo was applied wrong, painted over and then a new one applied, rather than it being removed - obviously someone caught the mistake but it was 'fixed' in the easiest way possible and sent out the door.

These are earlier periods but with the 50s/60s specifically:

I have a 1961 DC Junior (LP style) where the neck has been fitted at the wrong angle, it's too shallow to the point where it's taken a lot of messing with to get it to play so the strings don't hit the pickup. They sent that out the door.
I also have a blonde 175 where whoever was routing for the logo and crown inlays misplaced the jig and both are lower on the headstock than they should be. Honest mistake, no harm done, get it out the door.
A friend owns a minty 64 335 where the stop tail studs and bridge were drilled half an inch too close to the bridge pickup. It would have been impossible to fit the bridge with the pickup ring attached. Someone spotted the mistake, so they moved the bridge to the correct position, filled the wrongly drilled bridge holes (they put bushings in the stoptail holes), stuck a B7 and a Custom Made plaque on it and got it out the door.

Then there's the unofficial Gibson mantra of 'there's nothing black paint can't fix'.

I think I've seen three or four ES-3XX guitars with diamonds on the horns where someone either went through the top ply during white wood, or went through the finish during final polish so they painted diamonds on there, clear coated over it and sent them out.
I have one of the 11 blonde 1961 Switchmasters they made and it has a factory heel stinger, again there must have been a wood flaw or something so they painted over it in black. There are plenty of heel stinger guitar out there (and a 58 Explorer with a triangle 'stinger' either side of the neck joint).
There's Tom Wittrock's Burst that has the router slip in the bridge cavity, they fixed it, painted the guitar black and sent it out.
The factory black/refin DC Junior that Rick H has also has a bit router slip in the control cavity, it went out like that.
Has anyone seen the Johnny Smith that TR Crandall have/had? It's got a factory STAR painted on it, I presume there was a wood flaw uncovered when carving the top so rather than junking the guitar they broke out the black paint.

I'm also certain I remember a 59 ES-355 where all the tuner holes had been drilled incorrectly, so they were plugged, the face repainted, the back veneered and then a stinger painted over it. I seem to recall this was found after the guitar suffered a break. Does anyone else remember that one?

Again, the above is purely one person's experience. I think by today's standards none of the above guitars would have made it out of the factory, not even at knocked down prices.

So although there was a final check of the instruments, far more stuff went out than went back. I think there were no formal checks during production, mistakes certainly happened and they got fixed when they were caught in the easiest way possible to make a saleable instrument. And that brings me onto my final thing (sorry, long post) - I've been thinking for a while now that I've seen enough of these 'factory mistake' guitars that didn't receive a 2 and enough guitars with a 2 that seem to have nothing wrong with them that the 2 does not mean factory second. I would go as far as to say I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a factory second. I think they rectified their mistakes as best they could and got things out to dealers "that's not a mistake, that's a feature".

What do the rest of you think?

 

[bern1]

I believe the issues of quality control at a lot of factories in the western world in the mid sixties and into the 70’s have to do with the following, in no particular order:

First is the incredible post WWII economic expansion that saw better jobs and more leisure for almost all the people.

Second would be the post war youth expansion across the western world.

This is how you get to the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan show, after which everybody wanted to play guitar.

It is no surprise that around 1965 Gibson and Fender (just to name the two bigs), were struggling to keep the factory output up with the number of orders coming in. It was not a quick adjustment. The factories and assembly methods were dated then and it was virtually impossible to keep up.

Proof is that into the late 70’s (and into the 80’s) you could not, in most cases, buy a new Fender or Gibson that was as good as the ones made prior to 1965. Thus the vintage guitar craze began.

As mentioned, it wasn’t just guitars but this is a guitar forum, so I won’t continue with the parallels. Suffice to say, many different kinds of pre 1965 manufactured objects seem to have cachet within their milieu compared to their later counterparts.

Today, the manufacturing problem is practically non existent. Anybody anywhere in the world can buy a relatively inexpensive guitar that will play and sound great. Anything top of the line is mostly just superb.