• 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!

S. Weiger

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
1,744
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?
 
Last edited:

Luke_martin

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
36
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

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2022
Messages
74
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
4,173
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.
 

S. Weiger

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
1,744
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.
 
Top