Earliest R0 "HISTORIC" Pics WANTED!

[lpcust]

I did notice that the carve is different than any of my other guitars. Its WAY different than my 2008 R0. I haven't spent enough time with the new 95 to tell where the differences are yet.
Do you have any pics of 0 5008? I'd love to see them!
This thread has existed about 9 months now. quote)

I've been planning to have some prints digitized since this thread began :wah
I'm glad you've discovered as much as you have about these rare beasts. I really would have liked to have kept mine.
I'll get the ball rolling on pics and I'll also find the Murphy quote. :jim

 

[hungry808]

Being on the hunt...got this email.

Not the first time I heard of a '95 R0 round here. I must be looking/hunting in the wrong places. Id' like to see some proof. This would be the place if ever...

Anyone here, there, or anywhere ever owned a 93-94-or 95 "Historic R0"? As emailer claims. 2003-2005s do not count (how does Gibson handle the different years anyway? Ex: between a 97 & a 2007.. lets say 0 7145?)

They must not have made very many? 15 years R0's in existance? Surely there must be a photographic proof this email from a LPF member could not provide. Photos are "necessary", in this day and age imho.

Or, throw in the mix, who has seen one for sale in the last 15 years? Photos vs rumors. 10+ years of Ebay. The advent of GBASE. I've searched LPF data banks to no avail :hmm . Really would like to see one. More the merrier. show me. thanks in advance, nothing kinky ok? maybe a $ reward for each photo?

Hi. This is my R0. Not 93' or 94' but 95' 0 5009
She is so beautiful. Everytime I play her, I feel so happy. She is so hot!

 

[Matt Beal]

I have #0 6005

I'm sure there are earlier ones out there, but here are a couple of early '96s:

#0 6007

#0 6009

 

[Matt Beal]

I'm sure there are earlier ones out there, but here are a couple of early '96s:

#0 6007

#0 6009

I have 0 6005

 

[Anand Mahangoe]

See post below

 

[Anand Mahangoe]

Hi !
I have recently bought my Les Paul which was sold as a 1991 Gibson Les Paul Classic Plus because the Vintage Guitar shop owner saw 2 potentiometers from 1990 and 2 from 1991.
The S/N : 0 3228 , BUT a completely different font as used on the Classics and of course :
Hoe can a guitar from 1990 get 1991 potentiometers or vice versa .…. So my Guitar tech told me to buy it immediately ….. I already loved the color so sound and playability he would adjust…. Guitar played terrible when I bought it : strings had a very low action
After 2 weeks of research and contacting Gibson and stuff :

- S/N font matches the ones used for the R8, R9, R0 built before the Historic period started in late 1993….. the so called Pre Historic designed by Tom Murphyand a period in which there were lots of experiments with names in the cavity , logos and stuf….and NOT matching the Classics built in that period .

- vintage logo

- No Classic in the cavity , only ‘Amber’ and a strange looking signature from probably the builder ?

- the Mahogany body is RED instead of the brown which the classics have with this Amber color…….

- and some more little differences which most people would not even notice as I have found only one other old ad I which the Amber Les Paul with the same font and logo and Red back was sold as a Classic Plus from 1990…..which it is not

Anyhow, my guitar tech has a 1992 Classic plus and his brother a 1993 Classic and he played some more classics but mine does sound nor feel anything like those …..

here are some pics :

and a video :

 

[DANELECTRO]

From the 1993 Historic Reissue catalog...