• 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!

Burst Pic of the Week: 9 0286 Teaser photo!

JTinFL

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
370
...shape of the horn...

I'm far from an expert - but yeah, that horn just felt funny to me. Maybe it's the cutaway and the angle it takes upwards to the horn. I dunno, it just doesn't look right.
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
re: my own comments, all i'm basically saying is the top wood on that guitar does not, to my eye, have teh visual characteristic's i would ordinarily associate w/ a Burst..... in terms of figure, and also in terms of the matching of the 2 halves-
also- the color does not look right to me..
who know's-maybe the rest of the guitar attached to that top is a Burst, but that ain't no Burst top from where "i" sit--

Tom, come on.. you cant seriously be 'surprised' that this top would meet with this kind of reaction, can you?? not sure how YOU - of all people - ie., after seeing and owning so many actual Bursts - would not immediately find the visual appearance of this top to be a huge 'red flag' :hmm

CG, it's no big surprise after I saw the full face portrait that was found and potsed after my intial post. The first photo didn't alarm me, and frankly the second one wasn't a sure thing for me. I woulkd likely have a stronger reaction in person, and maybe even if the top wood were correct.

But until people read posts like yours and J45's post [nice one Kerry :applaude] they won't see and learn what they can learn here now.
And I'm still learning. Bursts look so much different "in hand", my prefered method of checking one out.

And to that end, it would be fun to see this one. :hmm
 

dazzaman

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
63
That pic was also in a magazine that I glanced at (but didn't buy) in a newsagent, called something like 'The Gibson Guitar'. It had a couple of pages on various models, then a feature on two collections, one of which was Phil Brodie's. Unless I am mistaken, I seem to recall his saying he bought this guitar in Texas.

I did buy the magazine, though not for that particular article. It may well be (and sounds like) this article is identical to the one in Guitar and Bass magazine. Phil Brodie also says in the article that he was offered other guitars including some which had a flamed maple veneer glued over the original maple cap.
Given the various other comments in this thread, particularly the mention of Scott Lentz, I wonder if he was genuinely taken in or if he actually knows exactly what the instrument really is but is passing it off as genuine to readers and listeners.
 

Black58

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
10,139
And the BIG picture:

9%200286%20detail.JPG

The topcarve looks a little weird.
The tailpiece/knob placement looks a little weird.
The inlays look a little weird.
The bridge saddles look a little weird.
The figure looks a little weird.
The headstock "mustache" looks a little weird.
The knob pointers look a little weird.
The neck-set/radius looks a little weird.

This "'Burst" looks a little weird! :ganz

:hmm
 

Luke_martin

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
36
Hey guys! I’d like to resurrect this thread if possible.

A friend of mine bought this infamous “Brodie” burst years ago from the man himself. He’s not really into guitars anymore and was thinking about selling it, so he asked me to look at it and shed some light on it...

I'm nowhere near the expertise level of some of you guys, so I think it might be nice to do this here and together and end the story of "Brodie Burts" once and for all;)

I'll upload as many pics as I can and share some of my thoughts as well.

Thx

-Lukas

4d0f96be-f636-40b0-96a4-3e757c82a563.JPG

15a36d81-5208-4a28-a7ae-466b99adb0f1.JPG

bc955c88-ee5f-45e4-b5fb-9d9829708ca8.JPG

c4ec4783-63a7-45c5-9e28-94b0f2e3197c.JPG

de9991fb-c436-4229-b10a-84e33dc2ecbc.JPG
 
Last edited:

Luke_martin

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
36
Some of the giveaways I've noticed:

- the control cavity looks way off
- top carve kinda flat, not as deep and pronounced
- logo placement is too low
- pickup rings are replicas
- it weighs 4.9kg
- lower ABR-1 post was moved back prior to lacquering
- shape of the horn looks off
- plastic cavity covers are not original
- pickguard is not original
- steel abr-1 posts

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:

DutchRay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2015
Messages
872
Some of the giveaways I've noticed:

- the control cavity looks way off
- top carve kinda flat, not as deep and pronounced
- logo placement is too low
- pickup rings are replicas
- it weighs 4.9kg
- lower ABR-1 post was moved back prior to lacquering
- shape of the horn looks off
- plastic cavity covers are not original
- pickguard is not original
- steel abr-1 posts

What are your thoughts?
The logo is not only in the wrong place, it itself is wrong. The N doesn't look anything like my three 50's Gibson's
 

S. Weiger

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
1,744
The logo is not only in the wrong place, it itself is wrong. The N doesn't look anything like my three 50's Gibson's
The "G" is wrong too.
And no red spray whatsoever on the bridge p.u. cavity back wall.
And truss rod cavity also looks wrong.
PAF decals looks wrong, to me at least. <-- EDIT: On closer inspection, they seem ok.
BTW, one of the bumble bees has a broken wire..
 
Last edited:

sws1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
2,846
That was my first thought given the small switch cavity route. But the inlays look way off so I dunno if it's even that.

Yes - I didn't list all the things that aren't original/correct which could have been changed/swapped for whatever reason. e.g., new fretboard or a reneck. But the switch cavity don't lie.
 

G650

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2022
Messages
74
Yes - I didn't list all the things that aren't original/correct which could have been changed/swapped for whatever reason. e.g., new fretboard or a reneck. But the switch cavity don't lie.

No doubt.
 

Luke_martin

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
36
Guys, thanks for your input. Now that we all know what this thing is not, can we dig a little deeper?

At best it could have started as a 1957 gold top husk that was refinised, had the fretboard, binding, frets and holly veneer replaced.

Could be a complete replica, but why would the builder overlooked such a huge thing as is the switch cavity?
 
Top