• 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!

1966 “Torpedo Joe” Les Paul owned by Billy Gibbons (photos)

sws1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
2,668
full2.jpg

rear.jpg

head.jpg

REARhead.jpg

Gibbons2.jpg
 

CDaughtry

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner and Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
12,644
There's nothing about that guitar that looks like Gibson had anything to do with it. Of course...YMMV.:jim
 

AA00475Bassman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
3,372
Doesn't Billy Gibbons also claim he owns a Modern ?

With all the custom guitars Gibbon's has been photoed with I take little stake in this photo & claims made in reference to photoed guitar !
 

Cream Fan

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,695
And the cutaway looks totally wrong. Why would Gibson go out of their way to do a rounded off horn like that?
 

AlienVintage

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
313
All the oddball features only make me more certain it is genuine. The combination of all the little details, when you look at it closely in these photos. The weird round cutaway included. I believe it is a genuine Gibson custom order from circa 1966/1967. It looks like Billy Gibbons believes so, too.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,294
Nope, as presented. Not in logs.
Toggle cavity rout, REALLY?
Armrest and engraving?, Ah no, and no.
How'd they make and sell a LES PAUL without Les's royalty renewed? 1968 not 66. Also I was told by several dealers in 70's they could NOT order a Les Paul until 68.
Pickguard and headstock rear long turd thingy,:bigal WTF??
Heal Cap? Headstock shape? Some sharp corners and edges there too.
Flat top?

This is just the kinda thing BG would design in '06 not '66. It doesn't look 66 at all.
 
Last edited:

jrgtr42

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,144
There's nothing about that guitar that looks like Gibson had anything to do with it. Of course...YMMV.:jim

I'm with you (and I'm not a quarter the expert you are) - so many things are close, but no cigar.
Maybe it was a replica built for him... by someone who'd only seen a long-distance photo of a Les Paul...
But I doubt that thing ever saw the inside of a Gibson factory.
 

Rich R

In the Zone/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
4,998
Completely wrong headstock, wrong position markers, wrong body, wrong cutaway, etc. Pretty simple: 'taint a Gibson Les Paul. It was made in someone's workshop.

It reminds me of a time my best bud and I were pawnshopping in Denver, back in the day. One place had a "Strat" that looked like it was made in a special ed shop class. The neck was literally a 2 x 4, and the logo was made out of those sticky individual letters, among other features. We started a discussion with the counter guy about its "qualities" (I would've paid $25 just to have it as a conversation piece), and he looks at us earnestly and says "well, what makes this NOT a Strat?" :spabout
 

Garincha

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
377
And what do you base that on? :hmm

Did Gibson even do Custom Orders of that extent (practically every part of that guitar is unique and has nothing to do with origin Gibson parts) in the 60s/70s?

This looks like some kind of a practical joke by BG, just like his so called Moderne.
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
Did Gibson even do Custom Orders of that extent (practically every part of that guitar is unique and has nothing to do with origin Gibson parts) in the 60s/70s?

This looks like some kind of a practical joke by BG, just like his so called Moderne.

Gibson had done custom orders for decades by then.
But as Big Al pointed out, they didn't have [at that time] a contract with Les and would not have made a custom designed Les Paul then.
 

Tarcisioo

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
385
Gibson had done custom orders for decades by then.
But as Big Al pointed out, they didn't have [at that time] a contract with Les and would not have made a custom designed Les Paul then.

Maybe that's why they changed the body shape and all other stuff? Not that I believe in that, just food for thought.

I remember reading somewhere way back in time about a 1966 Les Paul, I guess it was supposed to be a factory leftover... Happened to Explorers in 63 right?
 
Top