For myself - to spend a lot of money on a cosmetic makeover isn't justified (with a small change in tone - possibly). As for resale value on a Makeover- time will tell.Right, and also per the post I made
That wasn't claimed, quoting myself: "And Gibson ain't correct on that detail anyway as the originals used urea formaldehyde."
The point ADP and I are making is the most current and accurate Historics to date are not period correct on what could be seen as a fairly major point. In spirit modern hide glue is better than titebond, sure.
Somewhat agree about doing a Makeover, it's hard to justify on balance. If you feel the whole experience will really improve an otherwise great guitar, awesome. I'm not of that mindset. It's about cosmetics (big deal considering what was covered up), feel, and getting the neck dialed in. Also worth noting, the resale of HM guitars holds and could increase an older/used guitar as they're a brand unto themselves, so it's not like setting your money on fire or anything if you're not totally jazzed about the end product.
A stock 90's historic Les Paul is reselling more than the original price (and they don't even sound that good). Go figure..