Max weight for a R9?

[Phatfrank]

Hi guys! I've put in an offer for a beautiful 2003 R9, I haven't seen the guitar in the flesh but from pictures she's just my cup of tea; heavy wear and lots of mojo. The seller bought it from a guy who picked it up (used) some years ago in the States, so apart from the serial /COA he doesn't know a lot about it. In this regard I have 2 questions I was hoping "The Oracle that is LPF" could help me with;

1 - Did Gibson do a factory "heavy aged" look in '03? COA not signed by Murphy, btw. And serial not in the braz-range. If it is in fact "aged" and not real wear, it does look a bit rough (which I like, I might add)

2 - What is the max weight of a R9? Seller quotes "about 4.5 kg" - which is pretty much 10 lbs. I've had 4 R9s and still have a CC R9 and none have been close to this weight. Not a deal breaker for me, but seller does not have a digital weight and I suspect he's off by at least half a pound.

Attached a pic for those interested

Thanks!

 

[AA00475Bassman]

Lots of vibe I like it's not Ace over flamed , once again weigh is subjective.

I believe sound & how it plays defines guitar .

 

[kuwahara80]

It has a refret, also. Maybe it really got played a lot and that is natural aging.
Cool looking guitar!

 

[MikeSlub]

That guitar has been played! 2003 was a good year. Fret job isn't good - look at those rough ends! 10 lbs. would be unusually heavy.

 

[Phatfrank]

That guitar has been played! 2003 was a good year. Fret job isn't good - look at those rough ends! 10 lbs. would be unusually heavy.

Both frets and nut need some attention, yes. And thanks on input on weight - Pretty much what I thought.

 

[Tim Plains]

I remember seeing a 9.7 lb Pearly Gates R9, so not out of the realm.

 

[DANELECTRO]

I'm not sure that Murphy was aging any guitars for Gibson in 2003, and the "factory aging" process didn't exist at the time. I have my doubts that the wear is all natural. The 2003 lacquer has plasticizers in it which resist checking, although it can still check with extreme temperatures. My guess is that the long check lines were done with a razor. Also, in the relfelctions on the bass-side of the top there appears to be spider web checking, which would be an indication of CO2 or liquid nitrogen freezing.

Regarding the weight, and R9 above 9 lbs is somewhat uncommon, and I'd say anything above 9.5 lbs would be very rare.

I've owned two 2003 R9s (one was 8.2 lbs and the other 8.9 lbs) and I still own the 2003 BRW R7 which I bought new, and all three are great guitars. Its a cool looking guitar, so if you don't mind the heft and the aging floats your boat, go for it.

 

[Cranknfrank]

Both frets and nut need some attention, yes. And thanks on input on weight - Pretty much what I thought.

You might be able to get by with a fret dressing......but if not......a fret job will run you around $400. You might want to address the frets in your negotiations.

 

[Dr. Green]

10 lbs is not a good number for a Historic ..... has bad ring to it

to put it in perspective I had a historic reissue with real ebony board 57 custom black beauty which was 8.2 lb

 

[Keefoman]

I don’t think weight should put you off. It’s how it sounds and feels that matters. It looks great by the way.

 

[Dr. Green]

I don’t think weight should put you off. It’s how it sounds and feels that matters. It looks great by the way.

curious ..... at what weight would even you yourself say its "too much " ?

 

[Keefoman]

curious ..... at what weight would even you yourself say its "too much " ?

I really don’t know, but I can say that I have never owned, or even tried a guitar that is so heavy that I have thought that I can’t handle it. My heaviest guitar today is my R8 which is about 4.3 kg. (A little less than the 10lbs.) Never thought of it as an especially heavy guitar.

 

[corpse]

To me that looks like a heavy age circa 2010-2013- Music Zoo had a bunch- or it is home-done; those look like OTPG rings the way they are bent so someone wanted an old looking finish. I bet it's a '13 and like the weight, the seller has the SN wrong (very easy to do and innocent enough). No way a legit Historic is #10 and that one pic looks legit.
I love that look- I could wake up next to that any day.

 

[Drayve85]

Natural or not? That is a damn-fine looking Les Paul. Must be a good player if some of the wear is natural.

 

[axeman565758]

10 lbs is crazy.....no way that's correct...tell him not to stand on the scale while holding the guitar....just the guitar by itself....!!!!
No Murphy painted/aged R9's in '03 that I'm aware of. I'd try to obtain a little more info....and definitely do not pay extra for the aging if it's a home made job..!

 

[Phatfrank]

Thanks for all the input. The COA is correct for a 2003, so fairly sure it’s legit. It looks like the seller will accept my lowball offer so hopefully I’ll get more answers soon.

 

[El Gringo]

That guitar has been played! 2003 was a good year. Fret job isn't good - look at those rough ends! 10 lbs. would be unusually heavy.

You have a very good eye

 

[Phatfrank]

Thanks again for sound advice, the seller got a higher bid so I’ll let this one pass. Good looking guitar, but the need for fretwork and that weight just makes this a no-brainer