Burst Pic of the Week: 9 0286 Teaser photo!

[sweiger]

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?

1) They don't know any better.
2) They know, but don't have the proper routing tools.
3) They don't care. Maybe they just wanted to build a good(?) replica without the intention to decieve?

 

[GastonG]

the real 9 0286 : http://www.burstserial.com/index.php?/category/906

I took the picture of that burst in Montreal in the late 80's or early 90's when there was a hole on the top.


The other Julio's pix is the same burst restored.

Gaston

 

[sws1]

IMO - It's not even a conversion.

 

[Luke_martin]

IMO - It's not even a conversion.

Most likely. The only thing that puzzles me is the weight and switch cavity. If someone was making a replica that was about to be intentionally sold as a burst, I think he would choose lighter wood and would make the switch cavity right...

 

[G650]

I think a lot of these end up being 3) in the above list, and then someone else tries to pass them off as real.

 

[latestarter]

It’s not a Gibson …of any era.

Most likely. The only thing that puzzles me is the weight and switch cavity. If someone was making a replica that was about to be intentionally sold as a burst, I think he would choose lighter wood and would make the switch cavity right...

Do you know it was intentionally built to be sold as such? I'm not aware of its journey, but often the story of these, ah, unusual guitars, gets twisted along the way, often to try and pin some authentic aspect.

Real bursts in the 9 to 10lb range exist. Richrath's for eg.

Agree with the consensus that it is not a conversion, for all the reasons described. The filler around the "shrunken" inlays is also another head-scratcher. I suppose someone may have re-filled the gaps at a later stage, but the routes for the inlays are not the work of Gibson.

Thanks for posting the (excellent) photos and seeking input. There's always some risk with that, but ultimately we're all better off for it.

 

[sweiger]

It’s not a Gibson …of any era.



Agree with the consensus that it is not a conversion, for all the reasons described. The filler around the "shrunken" inlays is also another head-scratcher. I suppose someone may have re-filled the gaps at a later stage, but the routes for the inlays are not the work of Gibson.

Good eyes, latestarter.