Closer to a Burst: Conversion or Max Baranet?

[Luca79]

I'm in the market for the closest thing to a real Burst within a more reasonable budget.
Between a conversion and a Max, both with real PAF's, what would be your choice?
I know each guitar should be evaluated by its own merits, but having at least a guideline would be helpful.
Thank you all.

 

[jb_abides]

Depends: what type of conversion, specifically i.e. was a neck reset involved, etc.?

Devils in the details:
-- old growth might win out, what wood was used on the Max?
-- which has the best resonance and produces the best sound matched with the PAFs?
-- what neck do you prefer?
-- and so on...

I know -- not really answering above -- OK, I'd lean conversion assuming it was a really good one!

 

[jimmi]

Conversion. Same factory, same materials, same people making it. Only real difference is someone else routed the pickup cavities and added a finish.

A Replica is made by someone else, isn’t a Gibson, different materials, different process completely made by someone else.

 

[Wilko]

'55 (ABR) and later conversion. No need to reset neck or change bridge post mountings.

No difference from Burst. as mentioned--same factory, people, wood, parts. it IS a burst

 

[Burst_in2_flames]

IME, the old mahogany is where a lot of the tone comes from, all else being equal. +1 on conversion.

 

[ppgf]

i’ll just leave this here…

 

[c_wester]

I think the Max are not very close at all.

Get a conversion!

And try before you splurge.

 

[sws1]

Buy a real Gibson, or an inspired-by ala Gustavson, not a fake.

 

[jimmi]

'55 (ABR) and later conversion. No need to reset neck or change bridge post mountings.

No difference from Burst. as mentioned--same factory, people, wood, parts. it IS a burst

Actually I would posit even ‘54 or late ‘53, some of which had good neck angles are great. I have played a bunch and own a couple. Agree though, once they have to steam off the neck then you are starting to edge away from the point of a conversion

 

[brandtkronholm]

I’ve played about ten conversions and all but one were hugely disappointing. The neck shapes were utterly wrong, save one that was close. All of the ‘Burst finishes on the maple tops were wrong. All but one were sonically duds.

The one good sounding one was the one with a re-shaped neck profile and it didn’t even have PAFs. It was a late 1953, so no neck reset was needed. It had T-tops. It was converted in the early ‘70s. The ‘Burst pattern on the top was completely wrong, but nevertheless looked really cool. It had ‘70s Ibanez Artist energy.

My .02: Skip the replicas and the conversions. Get a new reissue. Really. The new Gibson reissues, like the Brazilian board reissues, are amazing instruments. Get one of those.

I know, I’m crazy for saying it.

 

[ppgf]

I think the Max are not very close at all.

Get a conversion!

And try before you splurge.

max built different gtrs for different ppl. he absolutely had the ability to make a tits on burst.

he would eliminate the widow’s peak in the control cavity or leave the points on the headstock sharp, as a tell.

there are several other fingerprints that max would utilise in order to keep the gtrs out of unscrupulous seller’s profit margins,

 

[jimmi]

I’ve played about ten conversions and all but one were hugely disappointing. The neck shapes were utterly wrong, save one that was close. All of the ‘Burst finishes on the maple tops were wrong. All but one were sonically duds.

The one good sounding one was the one with a re-shaped neck profile and it didn’t even have PAFs. It was a late 1953, so no neck reset was needed. It had T-tops. It was converted in the early ‘70s. The ‘Burst pattern on the top was completely wrong, but nevertheless looked really cool. It had ‘70s Ibanez Artist energy.

My .02: Skip the replicas and the conversions. Get a new reissue. Really. The new Gibson reissues, like the Brazilian board reissues, are amazing instruments. Get one of those.

I know, I’m crazy for saying it.

Totally not my experience at all. I have a played a bunch of bursts (over 50) and several conversions. I own both conversions and original 50s LPs. Neck shapes are all similar. None of course are the same but all fall in a similar range. I have a ‘54 that is pretty much the same as a friend of mine’s ‘59. Differences to a reissue? Sure but I don’t think outside of the thin R0s the necks that Gibson does, the reissue shapes have been correct for burst era guitars. Gotten much closer in the last few years but the reissues up through 2017 or so were not that close.

I will concede that some don’t have finishes that are accurate. But you can send it to Kip Elder or someone equivalent and have a better more accurate finish that most reissues Some have not been done well but that is in the hand of the luthier. A well done conversion with vintage 50s parts would take someone with an experienced eye to spot and are the same experience as any other 50s LP.

 

[ppgf]

I’ve played about ten conversions and all but one were hugely disappointing. The neck shapes were utterly wrong, save one that was close. All of the ‘Burst finishes on the maple tops were wrong. All but one were sonically duds.

The one good sounding one was the one with a re-shaped neck profile and it didn’t even have PAFs. It was a late 1953, so no neck reset was needed. It had T-tops. It was converted in the early ‘70s. The ‘Burst pattern on the top was completely wrong, but nevertheless looked really cool. It had ‘70s Ibanez Artist energy.

My .02: Skip the replicas and the conversions. Get a new reissue. Really. The new Gibson reissues, like the Brazilian board reissues, are amazing instruments. Get one of those.

I know, I’m crazy for saying it.

my 2024 braz “59 murf lab sample size (2 gtrs) has been consistently remarkable.

 

[brandtkronholm]

Totally not my experience at all. I have a played a bunch of bursts (over 50) and several conversions. I own both conversions and original 50s LPs. Neck shapes are all similar. None of course are the same but all fall in a similar range. I have a ‘54 that is pretty much the same as a friend of mine’s ‘59. Differences to a reissue? Sure but I don’t think outside of the thin R0s the necks that Gibson does, the reissue shapes have been correct for burst era guitars. Gotten much closer in the last few years but the reissues up through 2017 or so were not that close.

I will concede that some don’t have finishes that are accurate. But you can send it to Kip Elder or someone equivalent and have a better more accurate finish that most reissues Some have not been done well but that is in the hand of the luthier. A well done conversion with vintage 50s parts would take someone with an experienced eye to spot and are the same experience as any other 50s LP.

Awesome!
Despite the objective fact that ‘Bursts pretty much rule, so much of it is subjective.

Of the few P90 ‘50s gold tops I (briefly) owned way back in the ‘90s, I recall that their necks were uncomfortably colossal, and one had the sharpest “V” shape I’ve ever encountered. Other gold tops that I’ve played, but did not own, had more comfortable necks, but they were all very different from any of the ‘Bursts I’ve played. Even among ‘Bursts, I’ve encountered a wide variety of neck profiles, but there were none that corresponded to the early ‘50s necks in my experience. The ‘Burst necks, while different, were all pretty comfy if not magical.

Admittedly, my expectations are always extremely high when I encounter a conversion. Those that have a new/replaced maple top have all been horrible disappointments.

To the OP’s question: Conversion - you gotta try it first. I know nothing about replicas. The new reissues are spectacular.

 

[jimmi]

my 2024 braz “59 murf lab sample size (2 gtrs) has been consistently remarkable.

The last few years of reissues I have played have been quality guitars. I even bought a couple. Even the USA line are good quality instruments. Huge step up from the late 70s and (the special runs like the Leo’s, Guitar Traders etc aside) 80s. That isn’t the same as replicating the experience from a burst or other 50s era Gibson.

 

[jimmi]

Awesome!
Despite the objective fact that ‘Bursts pretty much rule, so much of it is subjective.

Of the few P90 ‘50s gold tops I (briefly) owned way back in the ‘90s, I recall that their necks were uncomfortably colossal, and one had the sharpest “V” shape I’ve ever encountered. Other gold tops that I’ve played, but did not own, had more comfortable necks, but they were all very different from any of the ‘Bursts I’ve played. Even among ‘Bursts, I’ve encountered a wide variety of neck profiles, but there were none that corresponded to the early ‘50s necks in my experience. The ‘Burst necks, while different, were all pretty comfy if not magical.

Admittedly, my expectations are always extremely high when I encounter a conversion. Those that have a new/replaced maple top have all been horrible disappointments.

To the OP’s question: Conversion - you gotta try it first. I know nothing about replicas. The new reissues are spectacular.

I think you need to try any guitar. Not all bursts are great. Most are very good but they may not have qualities you are looking for.

I have not actually played any with replaced tops so I can’t really comment on them. To me…while allowing there can always be a great instrument from anywhere, they have lost a lot once you replace that much wood. I have a couple of conversions. Both have original tops. Both have the same qualities and sound you find in a burst. The necks are very comfortable. I have played some “badly “ converted guitars and have the same issue as any poorly maintained guitar.

I agree that the newer reissues have gotten a lot closer as long as you keep it to the wood itself. I don’t like the pickups and electronics. The only replica PAFs I have found really close use the NoS wire and cost nearly as much as a good set of PAT#s which is what I swapped into my reissues.

Disagree with you on the necks but not worth arguing over. I have not played a lot of ‘52s. Some are a little thicker some have a little more shoulder . There are some ‘59s that are actually relatively thin. I played Joe’s “snakebite” and it is a lot closer to a V2 ‘R0 neck than a r9 reissue neck…fairly thin for a ‘59. I have a ‘55 and it is very similar.

In the end, your last advice is great. Play it and see if it speaks to you. No need in spending big money for something you hate to play just to own “x” guitar. Also…there are more than one out there so be patient.

 

[brandtkronholm]

I think you need to try any guitar. Not all bursts are great. Most are very good but they may not have qualities you are looking for.

I have not actually played any with replaced tops so I can’t really comment on them. To me…while allowing there can always be a great instrument from anywhere, they have lost a lot once you replace that much wood. I have a couple of conversions. Both have original tops. Both have the same qualities and sound you find in a burst. The necks are very comfortable. I have played some “badly “ converted guitars and have the same issue as any poorly maintained guitar.

I agree that the newer reissues have gotten a lot closer as long as you keep it to the wood itself. I don’t like the pickups and electronics. The only replica PAFs I have found really close use the NoS wire and cost nearly as much as a good set of PAT#s which is what I swapped into my reissues.

Disagree with you on the necks but not worth arguing over. I have not played a lot of ‘52s. Some are a little thicker some have a little more shoulder . There are some ‘59s that are actually relatively thin. I played Joe’s “snakebite” and it is a lot closer to a V2 ‘R0 neck than a r9 reissue neck…fairly thin for a ‘59. I have a ‘55 and it is very similar.

In the end, your last advice is great. Play it and see if it speaks to you. No need in spending big money for something you hate to play just to own “x” guitar. Also…there are more than one out there so be patient.

I like it.

Pickups and guts: I’m spoiled with PAFs, Luxe bumblebees, and ‘50s wiring in my 1995 R9. The stock pots are great, I love them.

I own two other PAF Gibsons, a 1960 Byrdland and a 1959 ES345. I have a 2022 EDS1275. I feel a little sheepish saying it, but the new Gibson reissues are just as good, maybe up to the “mojo”.

I’m really impressed with the new pickups and guts in the Gibson reissues, especially over the past few years. The post-Covid stuff has been just amazing. In fact, for the past decade or more, the Gibson reissue/custom shop guitars have been just as good as any vintage Gibson I’ve played on that same time span.

So, skip the conversions, pass on the replicas. The new custom shop Gibson Les Pauls are the business.

 

[jimmi]

I like it.

Pickups and guts: I’m spoiled with PAFs, Luxe bumblebees, and ‘50s wiring in my 1995 R9. The stock pots are great, I love them.

I own two other PAF Gibsons, a 1960 Byrdland and a 1959 ES345. I have a 2022 EDS1275. I feel a little sheepish saying it, but the new Gibson reissues are just as good, maybe up to the “mojo”.

I’m really impressed with the new pickups and guts in the Gibson reissues, especially over the past few years. The post-Covid stuff has been just amazing. In fact, for the past decade or more, the Gibson reissue/custom shop guitars have been just as good as any vintage Gibson I’ve played on that same time span.

So, skip the conversions, pass on the replicas. The new custom shop Gibson Les Pauls are the business.

I really don’t like the custom buckers. To the point I wouldn’t play the guitar that I bought plugged in until I replaced them (with Pat#s). The neck was horribly muddy. Part of it is the weak A3 magnets which I generally don’t like even in the very few vintage pickups I have found them in. I really like strong A4s or A5s. Pots in the reissues still have the wrong taper and read too low. I replaced those with pots that read closer to 600…my 50s LPs read mid 600s-high 700s.

The closest reissue to my vintage LPs I have plugged in is actually an ‘82 Leo’s Special reissue. It has Pat#s but is fantastic. Even has a top carbevtgat is closer to the 50s LPs (modern reissues still don’t have the recurve right around the edge of the top). Still not the same package as a Burst or other 50s Lp but definitely better than any stock modern reissue I have run across.

Like I said…great guitars but different. Hard to beat an actual 50s Lp with vintage parts and electronics for the sound, feel and look of a 50s LP. Finish and slightly larger routes are just different jewelry. Additionally, no matter how good the copy is, it is still a copy.

 

[brandtkronholm]

I really don’t like the custom buckers. To the point I wouldn’t play the guitar that I bought plugged in until I replaced them (with Pat#s). The neck was horribly muddy. Part of it is the weak A3 magnets which I generally don’t like even in the very few vintage pickups I have found them in. I really like strong A4s or A5s. Pots in the reissues still have the wrong taper and read too low. I replaced those with pots that read closer to 600…my 50s LPs read mid 600s-high 700s.

The closest reissue to my vintage LPs I have plugged in is actually an ‘82 Leo’s Special reissue. It has Pat#s but is fantastic. Even has a top carbevtgat is closer to the 50s LPs (modern reissues still don’t have the recurve right around the edge of the top). Still not the same package as a Burst or other 50s Lp but definitely better than any stock modern reissue I have run across.

Like I said…great guitars but different. Hard to beat an actual 50s Lp with vintage parts and electronics for the sound, feel and look of a 50s LP. Finish and slightly larger routes are just different jewelry. Additionally, no matter how good the copy is, it is still a copy.

Yes! The taper on my 2022 EDS1275 is taking some time for me to learn! It isn’t like my Byrdland nor my ES345 and is very different than that of my 1995 R9. I confess that I really like the linear (that’s what I was told it was) taper of the pots in my R9. The logarithmic (audio) taper of the Byrdland and ES345 are not as dramatic as on my EDS1275.

 

[jimmi]

Yes! The taper on my 2022 EDS1275 is taking some time for me to learn! It isn’t like my Byrdland nor my ES345 and is very different than that of my 1995 R9. I confess that I really like the linear (that’s what I was told it was) taper of the pots in my R9. The logarithmic (audio) taper of the Byrdland and ES345 are not as dramatic as on my EDS1275.

Just curious. What year bursts have you played? And what year are your Byrdland and ES345?