Did covid-19 increase the value of the 1960 60th Anniversary LP?

[JoeC]

ThroBak uses USA made magnets , which the foreign made and imported are not up to spec as the vintage era magnets used by Gibson . Which certainly makes a difference . Besides the old growth wood used by Gibson in the Golden Era it comes down to the vintage PAF's and also the plastisizers used in the modern formula of the Nitro that Gibson Custom finishes the instruments with, but with the finishes being so thin the wood resonates and vibrates and sings in my hands in the neck and the body and you can feel it very easily . Not that I can tell a difference between Brazilian rosewood boards versus East Indian rosewood boards , as I have 2 -2018 Brazilian board R9's and I can't hear a difference . I believe that Gibson Custom since 2018 and forward are making the best Les Paul's since the Golden Era . Everything is perfect to my ears and my feel , as I have been playing Les Paul's since 1977 .

Agreed

 

[JoeC]

Not crazy. Not 100% accepted, but not crazy. I have been fortunate enough in my life to meet many knowledgeable individuals in the guitar world. One of them, James "Hutch" Hutchins, of Gibson fame, felt the difference was in the magnets themselves. Apparently the magnets used in 59 bursts are no longer made. The other, George Gruhn, feels the differences are more subtle and include wood densities. He does not discount Hutch's opinions.

Edit--although I know (knew) both men well, I never spoke to them at the same time. Hutch died before I met George who moved in as a neighbor in around 2008.

Edit #2--George does not feel that Brazilian (as a species) gives superior tone to other Rosewoods but does feel that old growth trees give superior tones vs farmed trees. He told me that he thinks East Indian Rosewood sounds as good as Brazilian. He also thinks that although Madagascar Rosewood LOOKS more like Brazilian, it does not sound as good as EIR. In addition, he does not feel like Brazilian Rosewood will be exported again in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

George also does not disagree (it is a fact) that the magnets used in PAFs are no longer available. I was for a while under the belief that the components are somehow banned as environmentally unfriendly or toxic--but George Gruhn tells me that this is not true--it is just that no one makes that style anymore. Apparently they could be made, but no one is currently making them.

Very interesting, thanks for info. II know they are a difference in magnets but cannot imagine why they wouldnt reproduce the original specs there. Cost most likely. The Book also discusses how magnets age and playing makes them change over time. Again, will Custom Buckers be more comparable in 5-10 years?

 

[El Gringo]

Very interesting, thanks for info. II know they are a difference in magnets but cannot imagine why they wouldnt reproduce the original specs there. Cost most likely. The Book also discusses how magnets age and playing makes them change over time. Again, will Custom Buckers be more comparable in 5-10 years?

Custom Buckers are okay , but on the vanilla /bland side . They are not in the same ball park or universe as are Vintage PAF's . Cost is most certainly the reason why most pickup makers use magnets made overseas .

 

[Big Daddy Class]

Very interesting, thanks for info. II know they are a difference in magnets but cannot imagine why they wouldnt reproduce the original specs there. Cost most likely. The Book also discusses how magnets age and playing makes them change over time. Again, will Custom Buckers be more comparable in 5-10 years?

Apparently, the magnets used in PAFs simply are not manufactured anymore. I had once heard it is due to toxicity of the components but I have also been told by knowledgeable people that is not true-just supply and demand. Early electric guitars were made using components from other industries. As those industries changed so did the available components--so although they could be made today--they are simply not made anymore. That is the story I heard (from people that know) and I have no reason to not believe them. Although Gibson and the other PU manufacturers are a big part of what we do and discuss, they are actually pretty small players in the world of magnets (apparently) and cannot justify a big order of custom made ones (I have been told) so they use what is available. Guessing if they really wanted to (and the stories I have been told are true) they could have them made at a large cost. Also possible that they magnets are not the secret ingredient that some believe.

@JPP-1 --George is a fairly straight shooting guy who rarely sugar coats anything. He is a firm believer in repeat business and has been selling guitars now for 51 years, frequently to the same people over and over. Although he is a vintage guitar dealer, he also sells new guitars and I would not call him a "Salesman" in the sense that he would change what he thinks to make a sale. He believes (says it all the time) that new good wood is better than old mediocre wood. He believes that old, good wood is best. (when Martin custom made him 50 guitars last year for his 50th year in business--he specified and hand selected 140 year old Mahogany be used in the backs, necks, and sides. I have one. I am a believer!) As he points out frequently, when he started selling "Vintage" guitars in 1970, 1959 and 1960 Les Pauls were only 10-11 years old. He claims he got his start and made his reputation because guitars being made at that time (early 1970s) were simply "not very good" and professional musicians did not want to play them, not on records and not on stage. He very firmly believes that guitars made today are better than those that were made in the 1970s, but not as good as the late 50s. If it were just the mellowing of the wood and the magnets--1970s guitars would be better today than current models and that is simply not the case (in his opinion nor mine). He thinks that the "Burst tones" are a combination of all of the factors (craftsmanship, components, and the density of the woods) and not simply any one thing. Hutch believed it was the magnets. (I did not know Seth Lover but I have read that he believed modern pickups were every bit as good as PAFs and that we are all being silly--but again I only read that he said that)

 

[JPP-1]

Apparently, the magnets used in PAFs simply are not manufactured anymore. I had once heard it is due to toxicity of the components but I have also been told by knowledgeable people that is not true-just supply and demand. Early electric guitars were made using components from other industries. As those industries changed so did the available components--so although they could be made today--they are simply not made anymore. That is the story I heard (from people that know) and I have no reason to not believe them. Although Gibson and the other PU manufacturers are a big part of what we do and discuss, they are actually pretty small players in the world of magnets (apparently) and cannot justify a big order of custom made ones (I have been told) so they use what is available. Guessing if they really wanted to (and the stories I have been told are true) they could have them made at a large cost. Also possible that they magnets are not the secret ingredient that some believe.

@JPP-1 --George is a fairly straight shooting guy who rarely sugar coats anything. He is a firm believer in repeat business and has been selling guitars now for 51 years, frequently to the same people over and over. Although he is a vintage guitar dealer, he also sells new guitars and I would not call him a "Salesman" in the sense that he would change what he thinks to make a sale. He believes (says it all the time) that new good wood is better than old mediocre wood. He believes that old, good wood is best. (when Martin custom made him 50 guitars last year for his 50th year in business--he specified and hand selected 140 year old Mahogany be used in the backs, necks, and sides. I have one. I am a believer!) As he points out frequently, when he started selling "Vintage" guitars in 1970, 1959 and 1960 Les Pauls were only 10-11 years old. He claims he got his start and made his reputation because guitars being made at that time (early 1970s) were simply "not very good" and professional musicians did not want to play them, not on records and not on stage. He very firmly believes that guitars made today are better than those that were made in the 1970s, but not as good as the late 50s. If it were just the mellowing of the wood and the magnets--1970s guitars would be better today than current models and that is simply not the case (in his opinion nor mine). He thinks that the "Burst tones" are a combination of all of the factors (craftsmanship, components, and the density of the woods) and not simply any one thing. Hutch believed it was the magnets. (I did not know Seth Lover but I have read that he believed modern pickups were every bit as good as PAFs and that we are all being silly--but again I only read that he said that)

I have no doubt as to George’s integrity as a vintage guitar dealer. I’m sure he is well respected for good reason.

However, density of wood is correlated to weight. All things being equal, a denser piece of wood will be heavier and vice versa. Likewise, the same species of wood of the same weight should have relatively similar densities. That’s physics. Not a self serving opinion or speculation. I guess that would make Norlins particularly dense and most current and 50s Les Pauls less dense.

Anyway, I love vintage guitars. Their coolness factor, and with some, rarity, make them the only collectible ”art” I own. I own several vintage Gibsons including a pristine beautiful sounding 62 SG. I also bought a replica built by a well known vintage guitar luthier made form 100+ year old growth mahogany and similarly ancient hard rock maple. I tend to frown on replicas but this luthier‘s work rarely comes up for sale so I bought it, it’s a great Les Paul. I slightly prefer it to a few of my Historics but a couple of my Historics are equally “good”.


Bottom line, give me a room full of well worn Historics with boutique PAFs and a few vintage guitars thrown in and I’d bet a Porsche that no one would able to consistently pick out the old wood from the new. Most people have a hard time discerning an SG from an LP from a 335 blindfolded. Yet they can hear the age of a piece of wood. If people feel good with their beliefs, bona fortuna I say. However if they find it necessary to push those beliefs on the rest of us, I’m going to have to push back.

Btw, I’m a big Martin fan, I have several custom shop Martins myself, your Hog sounds like a helluva guitar. Enjoy it in good health.

 

[Big Daddy Class]

I have no doubt as to George’s integrity as a vintage guitar dealer. I’m sure he is well respected for good reason.

However, density of wood is correlated to weight. All things being equal, a denser piece of wood will be heavier and vice versa. Likewise, the same species of wood of the same weight should have relatively similar densities. That’s physics. Not a self serving opinion or speculation. I guess that would make Norlins particularly dense and most current and 50s Les Pauls less dense.

Anyway, I love vintage guitars. Their coolness factor, and with some, rarity, make them the only collectible ”art” I own. I own several vintage Gibsons including a pristine beautiful sounding 62 SG. I also bought a replica built by a well known vintage guitar luthier made form 100+ year old growth mahogany and similarly ancient hard rock maple. I tend to frown on replicas but this luthier‘s work rarely comes up for sale so I bought it, it’s a great Les Paul. I slightly prefer it to a few of my Historics but a couple of my Historics are equally “good”.


Bottom line, give me a room full of well worn Historics with boutique PAFs and a few vintage guitars thrown in and I’d bet a Porsche that no one would able to consistently pick out the old wood from the new. Most people have a hard time discerning an SG from an LP from a 335 blindfolded. Yet they can hear the age of a piece of wood. If people feel good with their beliefs, bona fortuna I say. However if they find it necessary to push those beliefs on the rest of us, I’m going to have to push back.

Btw, I’m a big Martin fan, I have several custom shop Martins myself, your Hog sounds like a helluva guitar. Enjoy it in good health.

I tend to agree with everything you say. I think you can (kind of) correlate the tones from the different woods in LPs by comparing them to acoustics (to a degree). There is no doubt that one can hear the differences in the different Martins of different constructions. Although electrics (obvously) have different features, it seems implausible to me that we could all agree that different constructions of acoustics sound TOTALLY different but have little effect on electrics-- it must. Further--I have played late 50s customs (all mahogany) along side same year Standards. They do not sound exactly the same. Further proof that the Maple makes a difference (since that is really the only difference). I am a believer that the wood DOES make a difference but am skeptical it is the only difference.

As far as the weight goes, I agree in principle but there are some subtleties. I think there is a sweet spot of density of the wood. Wood can be too dense as well as not dense enough. If we switch gears and talk about pianos--Steinway demands that their soundboards contain around 10 growth rings per inch (8-12). They reject more than that as well as less than that. The soundboard of a piano is functionally the same thing as the top on an acoustic. I counted the lines on my Adirondac Spruce top on my Gruhn's Martin and found it to be (on the average, varies by spot) around 11 lines per inch. I do not think that is a coincidence. My 17 year old has a far less expensive Martin that has more like 15 lines per inch. If you measure by tapping (only way I can think of), the Gruhn's Martin has a fare more lively top than the "cheaper" (still a very nice guitar) Martin (HJ-28) and that sound is clear in the tones. I am using those facts (150 years of experience by Steinway, shockingly similar parameters by Martin) as evidence that wood CAN be too dense to sound its best--so I feel that must be considered as well. In addition, Maple seems to sound great at its Densest, where as for Mahogany we tend to prize "light". Mahogany grows its best on slopes with good drainage, whereas the same tree from the same seed batch grown at the bottoms of hills in standing water is far more dense and not as prized. So when talking about "density" I would hypothesize that there is a "sweet spot" of density and that more dense is not always better.

So to sum up all that--I hope it makes sense--I am positive that wood has SOMETHING to do with it or else 1950s Customs would sound like 1950s Standards. I do not think that MORE dense is always better. I do not know the secret sauce of Les Pauls but think it is likely a complex combo of several factors.

Hutch thought it was the magnets. Hutch knew more about building Les Pauls than functionally any human ever (debatable but he has to be squarely near the top of the list), since he did it so long and so well in both Kalamzoo and Nashville for literally his whole life!

 

[JoeC]

Your 2018 Brazilian is essentially the same guitar as the 2019. (Don’t let the guy trying to sell is 2019 Brazilian for 30k lmfao convince you otherwise) If you put Luxe Bees paper and oil caps along with the vintage style pots in your 2018 Brazilian. (A 60 dollar upgrade). Viola! For all sonic intents and purposes, your 2018 Brazilian is now a 60th Anniversary Brazilian. Even the inlays on the 2019 Brazilian board Les Pauls are not tinted exactly as they are on the 2018 version

Thanks JPP - I missed this response earlier. I agree my 2018 is the same as anniversary minus what you said. I was looking to change the pots and capacitor out. Where can I get those? I know you prefer the boutique pick-ups, but what are your thoughts on the umpotted v. potted. I can feel a sight difference on the attack/response but may be imagining.

 

[JPP-1]

Thanks JPP - I missed this response earlier. I agree my 2018 is the same as anniversary minus what you said. I was looking to change the pots and capacitor out. Where can I get those? I know you prefer the boutique pick-ups, but what are your thoughts on the umpotted v. potted. I can feel a sight difference on the attack/response but may be imagining.

Hey Joe,

It is my understanding that these are the caps Gibson currently uses. They are genuine paper and oil bumble bee caps. https://luxe-radio.com/collections/bumble-bees

The pots Gibson uses I believe are vintage style / taper CTS pots which should be widely available. VIP pots are also a good option.

My 60th Anniversary is a Wildwood spec with Wildwood Custombuckers which I believe are underwound. Honestly, I couldn‘t tell much of a difference tone wise. As mentioned, I think many of the potted Custombuckers were so lightly potted calling them potted is a misnomer. I switched the magnets in the custombuckers of my TH59 and the wax was so minimal it appeared to be just between the top of the pickup and the cover. Perhaps there are some Custombuckers more heavily potted.

That said, as a general rule, I can definitely hear a difference between unpotted pickups and heavily potted pickups as the unpotted ones tend to sound more clear and open. However, what you may be hearing from your 18 and 20 could be difference in Pot ohms. I changed out the pots in my TH59 to “550k” VIP pots and it sounded more clear and open.
.

 

[JPP-1]

I tend to agree with everything you say. I think you can (kind of) correlate the tones from the different woods in LPs by comparing them to acoustics (to a degree). There is no doubt that one can hear the differences in the different Martins of different constructions. Although electrics (obvously) have different features, it seems implausible to me that we could all agree that different constructions of acoustics sound TOTALLY different but have little effect on electrics-- it must. Further--I have played late 50s customs (all mahogany) along side same year Standards. They do not sound exactly the same. Further proof that the Maple makes a difference (since that is really the only difference). I am a believer that the wood DOES make a difference but am skeptical it is the only difference.

As far as the weight goes, I agree in principle but there are some subtleties. I think there is a sweet spot of density of the wood. Wood can be too dense as well as not dense enough. If we switch gears and talk about pianos--Steinway demands that their soundboards contain around 10 growth rings per inch (8-12). They reject more than that as well as less than that. The soundboard of a piano is functionally the same thing as the top on an acoustic. I counted the lines on my Adirondac Spruce top on my Gruhn's Martin and found it to be (on the average, varies by spot) around 11 lines per inch. I do not think that is a coincidence. My 17 year old has a far less expensive Martin that has more like 15 lines per inch. If you measure by tapping (only way I can think of), the Gruhn's Martin has a fare more lively top than the "cheaper" (still a very nice guitar) Martin (HJ-28) and that sound is clear in the tones. I am using those facts (150 years of experience by Steinway, shockingly similar parameters by Martin) as evidence that wood CAN be too dense to sound its best--so I feel that must be considered as well. In addition, Maple seems to sound great at its Densest, where as for Mahogany we tend to prize "light". Mahogany grows its best on slopes with good drainage, whereas the same tree from the same seed batch grown at the bottoms of hills in standing water is far more dense and not as prized. So when talking about "density" I would hypothesize that there is a "sweet spot" of density and that more dense is not always better.

So to sum up all that--I hope it makes sense--I am positive that wood has SOMETHING to do with it or else 1950s Customs would sound like 1950s Standards. I do not think that MORE dense is always better. I do not know the secret sauce of Les Pauls but think it is likely a complex combo of several factors.

Hutch thought it was the magnets. Hutch knew more about building Les Pauls than functionally any human ever (debatable but he has to be squarely near the top of the list), since he did it so long and so well in both Kalamzoo and Nashville for literally his whole life!

I agree 100% with you that the wood is a vital factor in the tone of a guitar, both acoustic and electric. What I don’t believe is that old wood has some magic tonal properties not found in the wood used today.

Just out of curiosity, you mention that your son’s Martin has 15 growth rings per inch versus yours which has 11 growth rings per inch. Wouldn’t that make the wood on your son’s Martin older?

“Steinway demands that their soundboards contain around 10 growth rings per inch (8-12). They reject more than that as well as less than that. The soundboard of a piano is functionally the same thing as the top on an acoustic. I counted the lines on my Adirondac Spruce top on my Gruhn's Martin and found it to be (on the average, varies by spot) around 11 lines per inch. I do not think that is a coincidence. My 17 year old has a far less expensive Martin that has more like 15 lines per inch.”

 

[JoeC]

Hey Joe,

It is my understanding that these are the caps Gibson currently uses. They are genuine paper and oil bumble bee caps. https://luxe-radio.com/collections/bumble-bees

The pots Gibson uses I believe are vintage style / taper CTS pots which should be widely available. VIP pots are also a good option.

My 60th Anniversary is a Wildwood spec with Wildwood Custombuckers which I believe are underwound. Honestly, I couldn‘t tell much of a difference tone wise. As mentioned, I think many of the potted Custombuckers were so lightly potted calling them potted is a misnomer. I switched the magnets in the custombuckers of my TH59 and the wax was so minimal it appeared to be just between the top of the pickup and the cover. Perhaps there are some Custombuckers more heavily potted.

That said, as a general rule, I can definitely hear a difference between unpotted pickups and heavily potted pickups as the unpotted ones tend to sound more clear and open. However, what you may be hearing from your 18 and 20 could be difference in Pot ohms. I changed out the pots in my TH59 to “550k” VIP pots and it sounded more clear and open.
.

Thank You, great conversations. Yes, I was under the belief that my 2018 was "lightly' Potted. I called Gibson and some guy said no potted is potted. But compared to my 2014 there was a huge difference. Tapping the metal cover with a pick makes deep noises on my 18 and 20. but not the 14.

In regards to the woods. I can get behind good new wood is better than old bad wood. Maple caps is different than solid mahogany. Does Braz make a difference over Indian, maybe in some guitars or depending on the quality of the Indian? The guitar is the sum of its parts and craftsmanship. The magnet component also makes sense and maybe it is factor. Not true nitrocellulose maybe...

I still believe true aging and playing make a difference and as Big Daddy said "mellowing"

So if we now have new good wood with proper density and high quality craftsmanship is there....

I hope that at least some of the 2018 CS and on compare to the originals some day!

 

[Big Daddy Class]

I agree 100% with you that the wood is a vital factor in the tone of a guitar, both acoustic and electric. What I don’t believe is that old wood has some magic tonal properties not found in the wood used today.

Just out of curiosity, you mention that your son’s Martin has 15 growth rings per inch versus yours which has 11 growth rings per inch. Wouldn’t that make the wood on your son’s Martin older?

“Steinway demands that their soundboards contain around 10 growth rings per inch (8-12). They reject more than that as well as less than that. The soundboard of a piano is functionally the same thing as the top on an acoustic. I counted the lines on my Adirondac Spruce top on my Gruhn's Martin and found it to be (on the average, varies by spot) around 11 lines per inch. I do not think that is a coincidence. My 17 year old has a far less expensive Martin that has more like 15 lines per inch.”

Theoretically DENSER but even that is an "ish". Not necessarily older and it is a different species. My Gruhn's Martin is Adirondack Spruce and our HJ-28 is Sitka (like our Steinway Model M soundboard). What that means is that it did not grow as fast per year. Slower growth per year SHOULD yield denser wood--but Steinway does not want too dense. My point was not that it is older but that (at least to Steinway) there is a minimum rings per inch as well as a maximum (12)--the spruce can be too dense (for a Grand piano soundboard)! We also know Mahogany can be too dense. I do not know (or think) that maple can be too dense. Again I will reiterate that the soundboard on a Steinway is not fundamentally different that an acoustic guitar top--they are functionally the exact same thing--and Steinway has been doing it longer than any of the guitar companies that we discuss. So maybe they know a thing or 2 about it? No real idea how that translates--just that it is a "thing" for pianos and could be for guitars. These discussions tell me that the "special sauce" is multifactoral and that we will likely never come up with one "it".

 

[Big Daddy Class]

Theoretically DENSER but even that is an "ish". Not necessarily older and it is a different species. My Gruhn's Martin is Adirondack Spruce and our HJ-28 is Sitka (like our Steinway Model M soundboard). What that means is that it did not grow as fast per year. Slower growth per year SHOULD yield denser wood--but Steinway does not want too dense. My point was not that it is older but that (at least to Steinway) there is a minimum rings per inch as well as a maximum (12)--the spruce can be too dense (for a Grand piano soundboard)! We also know Mahogany can be too dense. I do not know (or think) that maple can be too dense. Again I will reiterate that the soundboard on a Steinway is not fundamentally different that an acoustic guitar top--they are functionally the exact same thing--and Steinway has been doing it longer than any of the guitar companies that we discuss. So maybe they know a thing or 2 about it? No real idea how that translates--just that it is a "thing" for pianos and could be for guitars. These discussions tell me that the "special sauce" is multifactoral and that we will likely never come up with one "it".

Does Braz make a difference over Indian, maybe in some guitars or depending on the quality of the Indian?

My only pause about Brazillian Rosewood on a Les Paul is that you are really only talking about the fretboard. A fairly small amount of wood--although in a pretty important spot. Again I go back to acoustics and the sound difference in EIR vs Brazilian is quite small. Madagascar Rosewood (which LOOKS more like Brazilian) sounds inferior to EIR. Cocobolo and the other related woods also do not sound as good (to me) as E.I.R. I THINK Brazilian sounds the best but that could be that I want it to, since those are the most prized and the most $$. I can also surmise that if the Brazilian board changes the tone vs EIR--then so too must Ebony, Ebonite, and the others. I will point to the fact that if you go back to the pre-ban times--companies like Martin (again back to acoustics) that had piles and piles of Brazilian Rosewood did NOT use it on the fretboards (or at least not most of the time). If extrapolating similarities between the 2, it seems to reason to me that if Brazilian causes better sound then companies like Martin would have theoretically used it more.

Of course there is always the fact that many of us want certain features "because that is how it was done in the Golden Age", even occasionally at the expense of tone. Some will be butt hurt by me saying that but I feel like it is true! So it is possible that Martin fretboards were made with Ebony at the expense of "better Brazilian tone" for that reason?

I am unclear if I there were 50's LPs with identical constructions and similar electrics but with Ebony fretboards instead of Brazilian (meaning a Standard with Ebony or a Custom with Brazilian? Likely they exist but getting them in the same room together would be unlikely. Best I have come up with in that dept is a 57 custom played at the same time as a 60 burst Standard (with factory Bigsby) and a 57 Goldtop--all with PAFs (which varied pretty wildly). 2 of those guitars had Brazilian and the custom had Ebony. (For the record the 57 Goldtop sounded best to my ears.) It was "only" $97k as well! I do not recall the price of the Custom. The 60 Standard was $325k but has since been lowered to $275k and is still available if any of you tycoons wish to buy it.

Edit--The 60 Standard at Gruhn's (with factory Bigsby) sold today for the asking price of $275k.

 

[El Gringo]

Hey Joe,

It is my understanding that these are the caps Gibson currently uses. They are genuine paper and oil bumble bee caps. https://luxe-radio.com/collections/bumble-bees

The pots Gibson uses I believe are vintage style / taper CTS pots which should be widely available. VIP pots are also a good option.

My 60th Anniversary is a Wildwood spec with Wildwood Custombuckers which I believe are underwound. Honestly, I couldn‘t tell much of a difference tone wise. As mentioned, I think many of the potted Custombuckers were so lightly potted calling them potted is a misnomer. I switched the magnets in the custombuckers of my TH59 and the wax was so minimal it appeared to be just between the top of the pickup and the cover. Perhaps there are some Custombuckers more heavily potted.

That said, as a general rule, I can definitely hear a difference between unpotted pickups and heavily potted pickups as the unpotted ones tend to sound more clear and open. However, what you may be hearing from your 18 and 20 could be difference in Pot ohms. I changed out the pots in my TH59 to “550k” VIP pots and it sounded more clear and open.
. I am curious about what type of magnet you switched over to ? A2 or A5 ? How do the Custombuckers sound now ? Better right ?

I am curious what type of magnet you switched over to ? A2 or A5 ? How do the Custombuckers sound now ? Better right ?

 

[JPP-1]

I actually liked a couple of coarse A2s I got and an UO coarse A5. But these particular A2s were great very organic.

 

[Big Daddy Class]

As an interesting (to me) aside, I was watching you tube yesterday and a video popped up about PAFs and magnets. (tracking cookies know what I have typed and they send us content about that). There was a guy comparing real PAFs with new ones and swapping magnets. He reported that he thought the new vs old magnets were fairly similar but that the old ones sounded "1%" better (his words). It is my belief that if old magnets are 1% better, and hot hide glue is .5% (made that up), and a Brazilian board is 1% better (referencing discussion above), and caps are 4%......pretty soon you have a guitar that is 20-30% better and THAT is the "secret sauce". Not one detail as many of us are seeking.

Here is the video as a citation for what I am saying. I have no affiliation with this person and am neither endorsing nor debunking what he is saying. Just an FYI

 

[El Gringo]

I actually liked a couple of coarse A2s I got and an UO coarse A5. But these particular A2s were great very organic.

Very cool , as I just knew the dynamic would change big time with the magnet switch .

 

[Musicman]

No.

 

[6L6]

The lukewarm reception of the Murphy Lab guitars so far might be a bigger factor in the rise in values of the Anniversary models IMO.

 

[El Gringo]

The lukewarm reception of the Murphy Lab guitars so far might be a bigger factor in the rise in values of the Anniversary models IMO.

Hard to tell as it's still very early to really judge .

 

[Big Daddy Class]

As an interesting (to me) aside, Carter's Vintage in Nashville has one of Tom Murphy's personal guitars for sale. It is a Gold Top custom shop model. It is NOT Murphy aged. Apparently he likes his guitars mint. No one but me seems to find that amusing.