GIBSON ES-335 ES-345 ES-355
RSS

Real Life Scary Stuff

October 24th, 2014 • Uncategorized3 Comments »
This "first rack" 345 was recently  on Ebay and it was right in my wheelhouse.

This “first rack” 345 was recently on Ebay and it was right in my wheelhouse.

It’s almost Halloween and time to do something scary. What shall we do…haunted house? Scary carved pumpkins? Norlin Gibsons? How about a post on how to adjust a sideways trem? That’s plenty scary. But, no, let’s talk about Ebay scams. The potential loss of around $13000 ought to get your attention. Recently, I was the high bidder on a 1959 ES-345 on Ebay. There were red flags from the get go but I consider myself to be be relatively savvy when it comes to spotting a scam. The seller had a zero feedback rating. That, in and of itself, does not scare me at all. I’ve bought at least 3 or 4 guitars from zero feedback sellers without issue. I’ve also bid on a few that turned out to be scams but I only lost money once and learned a valuable lesson from that experience. The guitar appeared to be a “first rack” 345 which are very desirable among 345 aficionados and players alike. They usually have huge necks and often have double white or zebra PAF’s. The photos looked good and the description was credible so I saw no reason not to bid on it. Here’s a link. Ebay has made it a lot less scary by doing something they should have done from day one: Guarantee the sale to be legit. Now, if you pay using Paypal, they do just that and they should.  After all, they collect almost 3% on every transaction. They make a boatload of money and the least they can do is offer some protection and they do. Good for them. That makes it a little less scary.

So, I win the auction and set up to pay using Paypal. I had sent the seller an message on Ebay asking if we could ship it using my Fedex account and included my email address so we could correspond outside of Ebay. Then it started. Cue the scary music. “Can you pay me by bank wire? I don’t take Paypal.” The email even included links to sites like Paypalsucks and IhatePaypal or some such silliness. I pay by wire all the time but I also knew that Ebay won’t protect me if I do that. So, I emailed back and said I needed more proof that the seller has the guitar in hand before I send a wire. I got a few more photos but they were clearly from the same batch of photos that appeared on Ebay. I wanted some new ones and maybe a “hostage” photo (A photo with today’s newspaper). “Sorry, I’m traveling in the UK and I don’t have access to the guitar right now…” More scary music goes here. Then I get another email that looks just like an Ebay invoice with the bank wire information on it. There were two problems with that email. One, Ebay doesn’t send invoices with bank wire information on them and two, the headers showed that the email came from somewhere other than Ebay. What? More scary music? I explained to the seller that I’d usually be happy to send a wire but that the zero feedback and lack of new photos was causing me some concern. So, what does the seller do? He (or she) mocks up a new feedback page showing 1300 positives. All the sales were for video game supplies and none were guitar related. That’s another red flag. Seller had also changed the user name slightly which I probably wasn’t supposed to notice. It’s kind of funny how the once very polite seller starts getting indignant at this point. How dare I impugn his honesty (gasp). So, I got on the phone to Ebay customer service (8 minutes on hold-not that scary) and explained the situation to someone-probably in Bangalore but at least it was a human being. Don’t get me started on outsourcing American jobs. Ebay said “Why don’t you just pay using Paypal?” When I fully explained the email trail, they transferred me to another department and they were very helpful-explaining that Ebay doesn’t send invoices outside of Ebay messages and that they would never include bank wire information.

So, the lesson here is simple. If something seems too good to be true, don’t immediately assume it is not true. But make damn sure it is true before you send any money no matter what the feedback. Google the seller. Make sure he exists in the location he says the item is located. Call the bank and explain the situation to them if you still aren’t sure. Use Paypal when you can-you aren’t paying the fees, the seller is and their protection program actually works. There’s some red tape but at least you have some recourse. Send a wire and you are out of luck if the item never shows up. And don’t expect much out of the local police if it ever comes to that. I have a long ugly story I can tell about that.

This is what I got in the email. Looks legit but it isn't. Ebay never includes wire information.

This is what I got in the email with some redactions. Looks legit but it isn’t. Ebay never includes wire information.

 

Bargain Bin, Part 2

October 23rd, 2014 • ES 335, ES 345, ES 355No Comments »
Who buys a fat neck dot for under $15K? Smart, savvy buyers, that's who. A re-neck kills the vintage value but can get you a great guitar for a reasonable cost

Who buys a fat neck dot for under $15K? Smart, savvy buyers, that’s who. A re-neck kills the vintage value but can get you a great guitar for a reasonable cost

OK, so I covered the usual stuff-refinishes, repairs, holes and changed parts. Most of you probably knew most of what I pointed out. But there are other elements that can put a guitar into the bargain bin that aren’t as obvious. Re-necks are not uncommon and when done correctly can give you a guitar every bit as good as an original at around half the price. I have two good examples of this. One was a 61 dot neck that I bought that had a bad neck break. Everything else was pretty much stock; the repair was ugly but stable on the typically flat profile neck. I sold the guitar as is and the next buyer had a luthier make a new neck for it using the 59 profile which is, of course, much more popular these days. In fact, the only reason a 60 or 61 costs any less than a 59 is the neck. Everything else is pretty much the same unless you want to talk about short magnets (mid to late 61) vs long magnets. I took back the 61 with its new neck in trade and sold it for about half the price of an equivalent big neck dot marker 335. I think that was a pretty good score. The buyer got the equivalent of a 59 dot for the price of a renecked 61. Great player too. The other example was a 64 that was done at Gibson a few years ago It was re-necked when I got it using the Memphis fat neck. To be honest, I don’t like that particular profile-the shoulders are way too big and the neck feels clunky to me. But, plenty of players love it and that neck on a 64 was pretty appealing especially at half the price. In the first case the buyer saved around $10,000 and in the second, around $7000. Each one played and sounded like a completely stock vintage guitar.

Another way to save a bunch of money requires a bit more of a leap of faith. These guitars are not broken, refinished nor do they have changed parts. They are guitars that have altered serial numbers. This sends up a big fat red flag to many buyers because most guitars with altered serial numbers have probably been stolen at some point. I’m not going to make a moral judgement here because there are factors that you just cannot know. For example, I bought a 64 ES-335 (the one in the photo in the last post) from a Canadian gentleman who bought the guitar used (from a music store) in 1966 and the serial number was partially defaced when he got it. It may have been stolen or it may have been altered to avoid Customs in some way. But he had the guitar for nearly 50 years and I had no doubt that he was telling the truth about its origin. That guitar sold at a very large discount. The only problem will be when the current owner is ready to sell it and he has to make all the same explanations I had to make. It makes it harder to sell for sure and it pretty much kills any collector value. I have a 60 right now that has black marker inside the f-holes and a repro label. That could mean that someone was trying to cover the serial and the FON. Or not. I’ve seen black paint in the f-holes a few times over the years with the serial number fully intact.  Most thieves aren’t even aware that there is a FON in there. Many owners don’t even know about it. I’ve also seen plenty of ES’s that the label has fallen out of.  It still calls the guitar into question and that question has to be priced in. It is worth noting that the seller wasn’t aware that the label was a repro and I considered returning it because of that. But it’s a great guitar and you just price it into the mix. It’s a slippery slope for sure and I’m always more than a little hesitant to accept any guitar that has a serial number issue.

One more road into the bargain bin and that is excessive wear. The Fender people are at an advantage here because their guitars are solid and bolt together. An abused, road hard and put away wet ES-335 can have all sorts of hidden issues like deteriorated glue and delamination. As long as the guitar isn’t literally falling apart, excessive wear shouldn’t affect the tone or, as long as the frets, the nut and the bridge are good, the playability. I don’t like a lot of neck wear but some folks aren’t bothered by it. Just make sure the neck isn’t twisted or backbowed and that the top or back isn’t separating from the sides. Oh, and look at the neck join. There should be no space between the heel and the body. The lacquer may be broken but no gaps. A true beater can play like a dream and save you $5000-$10000 on a high end 335 from 58 to 64.

This 61 dot was played hard and was pretty beat up but it sold for under $12K. Still, it had no issues other than wear and two tine mystery holes behind the tailpiece.

This 61 dot was played hard and was pretty beat up but it sold for under $12K. Still, it had no issues other than wear and two tiny mystery holes behind the tailpiece.

Bargain Bin, Part 1

October 19th, 2014 • ES 330, ES 335, ES 345, ES 3553 Comments »
This candy apple red dot neck 62 is still one of the best playing 335's I've ever had. Top five for sure out of around 400 of 'em. You could probably find one for around $10K if you're patient. IfI'm recalling correctly, it had no other issues.

This candy apple red dot neck 62 is still one of the best playing 335’s I’ve ever had. Top five for sure out of around 400 of ‘em. You could probably find one for around $10K if you’re patient. If I’m recalling correctly, it had no other issues other than the refinish-maybe a changed part or two.

I get asked this all the time. “How do I get a “Golden Era” player without breaking the bank, upsetting my wife and raiding my child’s college savings?”

There are a few ways-some obvious and some not so obvious. Some will get you a great player but a lousy investment (which is sometimes just fine). Some will get you a beat up piece of crap that sounds and plays horribly. The key word here is “player”.  “Player” doesn’t mean a piece of crap. It means just what it says and that infers a guitar you can actually play (and sound good doing so). Typically, when a guitar goes up for sale in a public marketplace like Ebay or Craigslist, the seller describes it in such a way as to get you to buy it. That often means not disclosing stuff that will stop you from doing so. The lie of omission is rampant so ask a lot of questions. If the seller doesn’t know the answer, get lots of photos and prepare to pass on the guitar. There are certain issues that drop the price drastically and most of you are probably aware of them. The good news is that many of them have nothing-and I mean nothing-to do with how the guitar plays or sounds.

The best way to get a great guitar for cheap is to buy one thats been refinished. That generally cuts the price in half and, unless somebody dumps a vat of poly on the guitar, has little or no effect on the tone. A bad refinish sounds the same as a good one most of the time. You can argue that poly finishes don’t “breathe” and affect the tone of the guitar. I’ll stay out of that for now. Also,  I almost never see poly finishes on refinished 335’s. The next big price cutter is a repair. Any repair. Headstock breaks are good for 50% off in most cases and are often stable and a non issue. I would suggest that you get a lot of photos and show them to your local luthier because a bad repair will affect the playability and possibly the tone of your prospective purchase. The little “smile” crack that is typical is not generally that big an issue. They are relatively easy to repair and often completely stable. You know-the old “glue is stronger than the wood” theory. A headstock that has been broken off and reattached requires a little more scrutiny. I stay away from them but some are quite stable. The best repair? If you can get a good enough deal, get a guitar with a repaired hole somewhere. I recently got a great player for a great price because it had a repaired hole from a mini switch. I also had a dot neck a while back that had a small repair under the pick guard that was as good a player as any $40000 dot. Unless you pulled the guard, it looked just as good, too. It probably saved the buyer $10000 or more. Tuner holes and removed Bigsby holes can save you thousands and don’t affect anything. Changed tuners don’t have much to do with tone and often are an improvement in tuning stability (another story).  These are the obvious ones but there are other things that can save you a ton but might not make you happy.

Changed parts are a good way to save a buck and you can always replace them when you feel like it down the road. A repro ABR-1 sounds the same as an original. A Tone Pros or other aftermarket bridge might sound even better. A repro tailpiece will make no difference in tone nor will changed tuners. Knobs and other plastic is strictly cosmetic but they still can have a big effect on the price. It’s pretty easy to negotiate $1000 off a 58-60 missing its long guard because everybody knows that $1000 is about what they cost. Missing PAFs should really knock down the price of an early example but expect to pay $4000 or more to replace them if you don’t like the pickups that are in the guitar. Most folks don’t care much if a guitar has a vintage correct bridge, tailpiece or plastic as opposed to the actual originals. You couldn’t possibly prove they weren’t original unless the wear patterns are wildly different between components (again, another story). But when the pickups are replaced and the solder broken, folks get concerned. Again, a broken solder joint won’t affect the tone or the playability but it will affect the investment value of the guitar. But you wanted a player, so don’t worry about the investment value. Next, we’ll look at some things to avoid and some not so obvious ways to save a buck or two.

This all original 64 stop tail was a big bargain. No changed parts, no refine, no breaks. I'll tell you why next post.

This all original 64 stop tail was a big bargain. No changed parts, no refinish, no breaks. I’ll tell you why next post.

Fingerboard Oddities

October 10th, 2014 • ES 335, ES 345, ES 3559 Comments »
This is a 60 ES-335 with what is purported to be a factory installed ES-345 board. Very cool. I wish I owned it.

This is a 60 ES-335 with what is purported to be a factory installed ES-345 board. Very cool. I wish I owned it.

We all know that a dot neck has a dot marker fingerboard, a block neck has little blocks, a 345 has parallelograms (yes, I can spell) and a 355 has big blocks. But supposing someone wanted a 335 with parallelograms or a 345 with dots? Is that something Gibson would do? Or even farther out of the box, say Super 400 markers on a 335? Maybe an ebony fingerboard on a 335? I’ve always said that anything was possible at Gibson during the “Golden Era” and that leaves some wiggle room for anomalies like this. It is fairly well known that some owners were upset when Gibson changed from dots to blocks in 1962. No one knows how many dots were returned to Gibson to be “upgraded” to blocks but I’ve seen a few. The serial numbers were pretty reliable during the dot neck era so if you see a block neck with a 58-61 serial number, you can be pretty certain that it was redone at the factory.

Here's a 68 ES-335 with a 355 board. I've never seen it in person so I don't know if its an ebony board or just big 355 inlays. Probably a factory one off.

Here’s a 68 ES-335 with a 355 board. I’ve never seen it in person so I don’t know if its an ebony board or just big 355 inlays. Probably a factory one off.

But what about other fingerboard anomalies? When I’m confronted with one of these oddities, I always assume at the outset that it didn’t come from the factory that way. After all, it isn’t that hard to change a fingerboard. It isn’t easy, either but plenty of luthiers can do it properly. But some are definitely factory one offs. The trick is knowing how to tell a factory custom board from one that was changed later. We are fortunate that some pages of the Gibson logs still exist (although Gibson isn’t real good about making them public). They were pretty good about noting special orders in 59 and 60 but by 61 there seems to be less documentation, so the best method is to look closely for anything that might suggest that the original fingerboard was removed and get in there with a magnifying glass or a camera with a macro lens. The camera will always see stuff that you can’t see with the naked eye. You are looking for breaks in the lacquer between the binding and the neck itself. You are looking for excess glue where it doesn’t belong. If the fit isn’t perfect, it was probably added later. Factory boards tend to fit pretty much dead on.

So, what’s out there? I’ve seen a few 335’s with a 345 board. How do I know it isn’t a 345 with no Varitone? The body bindings are multi-ply rather than single and the hardware is gold. How about a 345 with a dot board? I was recently told by a fellow dealer that he had one and that it looked legit. I’ve never seen one but I couldn’t deny its possible existence. He’s promised me a photo. I have seen a 355 with a Super 400 board but I can’t find the photo. Gruhn Guitars had a ’62 335 with bowtie inlays (like a Kessel Custom) not too long ago but I’m pretty sure it was done somewhere other than the Gibson factory. It’s all part of the fun of Gibsons from the 50’s and 60’s. The truth is that you can find almost anything because if Gibson didn’t offer an ES–335 with a Varitone and an ebony dot fingerboard with factory Grover Imperials, somebody probably wanted one at some point and had Gibson make one up just for them. And if Gibson wouldn’t do it, there is always somebody who will.

One further point. I’ve been asked what these rarities are worth and it is a very good question (and up for debate). We all should know that rarity and price are not directly proportional. That’s why a 62 Byrdland in blond (10 made) isn’t worth more than a ‘burst. Or a sunburst 62 ES-335 for that matter. There just isn’t much demand. I think one offs are great but they tend to ask more questions than they answer. No one wants to explain why their collectible guitar doesn’t follow the “rules” because, unless they have factory documentation, it will always be questioned by collectors. Even with factory docs, most collectors want a bone stock classic-not a one off. My opinion? Much as I like the 345 and 355 inlays, I’d rather have a stock 335. I don’t think I’d be willing to pay a premium for a custom board on any 335, 345 or 355. Still, that blonde with the 345 board is awfully cool.

This one has bowties like a Kessel Custom. I can't tell if it's factory or not.

This 62 has bowties like a Kessel Custom. I can’t tell if it’s factory or not. I’m guessing not. It also has a bound headstock.

The Only Consistency in Inconsistency

September 29th, 2014 • ES 335, ES 345, ES 3553 Comments »
An early 59 on the bottom and a fairly late 59 on top. It's hard to see a .1" difference but you can sure feel it. Most players can feel a difference of .03" That's 3 hundredths of an inch. That's the usual difference between a 62 and a 64.  The difference between an early 59 and a typical 60 is three times that.

An early 59 on the bottom and a fairly late 59 on top. It’s hard to see a .1″ difference but you can sure feel it. Most players can feel a difference of .03″ That’s 3 hundredths of an inch. That’s the usual difference between a 62 and a 64. The difference between an early 59 and a typical 60 is three times that.

I probably touched on this a few times before but I’m struck by the huge variation in neck sizes in a particular year. And that year is the oft venerated and sought after 1959. Everybody talks about that perfect 59 neck but the truth is, I don’t know which 59 neck they think is so perfect. Right now I happen to have a lot of 59 guitars. I have three 335’s , two 355’s and a 330. These guitars and a few others I’ve measured have wildly differing neck profiles. A28950 is a very early 335-January 59 and has that baseball bat neck like a 58 on steroids. It is around .93″ measured front to back behind the first fret and is 1.03″ at the 12th. That’s big. I have a 56 Les Paul with the same measurement. A31172 is a 335 from early September, I believe, and has the 59 neck that I associate with that “59 neck”. It measures .88″ at the first fret and around .98″ at the 12th. I also have A30877 which is a 355 and has the same profile (but has a much earlier FON-probably April). Another 59 ES-355 is A31525 which measured only .82″ at the first .91″ at the 12th. I have a 335 in the same serial number ballpark with serial number A31627 which has a first fret depth of .84″ and a 12th of  .93″. It’s worth noting that 335’s and 355’s don’t follow the same timeline. The 355’s got thinner much earlier in the year.

Most of us don’t get to play that many 59’s, so we tend to remember the ones we have the privilege of playing. The conventional wisdom is that a 59 has a big neck and a late 59 has a “transitional” medium neck. But as you can see, it isn’t that simple. The 59 range (at the first fret) is .83″ to .93″.  That’s more range than any other year. 1960 is a good example. That same conventional wisdom says a very early 60 has a medium neck and a later one has a thin neck. That’s also generally true except that the transition comes very early in 1960. Serial A33009 is one of my all time favorites and it measures .85″ at the first fret. But just 500 numbers later is only .81″. That’s only 4 hundredths of an inch but you can certainly feel a big difference.

There is a problem using serial numbers to gauge the manufacture date, however. Especially in the case of ES-355’s which were a much lower volume seller. Factory order numbers present a little more accurate timeline. I have had a lot of 59’s from the S8xxx range and nearly all have had .88″ first fret necks. That includes the “first rack” 345’s (S8537) that have become so sought after. They are usually in the A296xx to A 299xx range. But the 59 ES-355 I mention above has a FON of S7625 but the serial is way later at A30877. So, perhaps we should be looking more closely at FONs to get a better idea of the evolution of the 59 neck. That ’59 ES-335 with the big fat .93″ neck has a 58 FON of T5490. I have been keeping a database of FONs and serial numbers and, so far, it’s not showing me much consistency in terms of features following a predictable timeline. I’d like to be able to say that big necks ended at FON S9xxx or so but it isn’t that easy. Remember FON’s go to 9999 and then start over again at 100. So, the year 1959 starts in the S66xx range and goes through S9999, restarts at S100 and ends at around S1765.  In case you’re confused, read my post on FON’s here.

This Git is on Fire

September 23rd, 2014 • ES 335, ES 345, ES 3555 Comments »
This 59 ES-345 is a real crowd pleaser even if the crowd is probably mostly Les Paul aficionados. Too bad somebody stole the pickup covers.

This 59 ES-345 is a real crowd pleaser even if the crowd is probably mostly Les Paul aficionados. Too bad somebody stole the pickup covers.

I like a little more subtlety to my flames on a 335 and this 60 I had last year really spoke to me. Sold it to a friend so I could still play it (and look at it) once in a while.

I like a little more subtlety to my flames on a 335 and this 60 I had last year really spoke to me. Sold it to a friend so I could still play it (and look at it) once in a while.

Ask the Les Paul guys what makes their guitar so special and many, if not most, will wax poetic about the flame top. They will use adjectives like insane, sick, wild, awesome and, if they can find the umlaut, über. When you ask an ES guy what makes his guitar so wonderful, it will likely be the tone. That’s not to say that LP’s don’t sound great-they do.  But I wonder whether the tail has started wagging the dog with all the talk of flame. But we’re not going to talk about flamey Les Pauls. We’re going to talk about awesome, über flamey ES-335s and 345’s and 355’s.

Does this look right to you? I dunno. The wood is pretty, for sure but an 80's dot reissue is supposed to look like the real thing and it doesn't

Does this look right to you? I dunno. The wood is pretty, for sure but an 80’s dot reissue is supposed to look like the real thing and it doesn’t

The usual 58-64 “Golden Era” 335 is not flamed. You’ll find a bit more figure in the 345’s and 355’s of the era but even then, they aren’t common. In fact, you are more likely (and I don’t know why this is) to find figure on the back than on the front. I had a red 62 ES-335 with the most exquisite flame but it was only on the back. Go figure. I kind of like of bit of figure in my top whether it’s a bit of birdseye, or some flame or some blister. It gives the guitar character-makes it look a little less run of the mill without shouting “..hey look at me…I’ve got über flame.”  Most of you know how much I like the 81-85 dot reissue but I have to say that the very flamey blonde ones just don’t look right to me. They are garish to my eye. That kind of figuring just looks wrong. And I know there are plenty of early 80’s owners who absolutely love them. But, to me, the point of a reissue is to re-create the vibe of the original and while there are flame topped blonde 58-60 ES 335’s, there aren’t many and they aren’t garish. That said, enjoy your flame topped ’81. It’s still a real nice guitar. Look at a watermelon red 59 ES-355 with a top that is as plain as the nose on my face and you’ll still be looking at a beautiful instrument. No one will say to you “hey, too bad it’s a plain top.”

It’s interesting that “insane” flame tops command a premium among Les Paul buyers. And that goes for the originals and the reissues. How much that premium is, or should be, is kind of all over the place. Reissues for $20,000 because it’s got a great looking top seems excessive. But then, an extra $50,000 or more for a very well figured 59 seems a little excessive to me as well. I’ve certainly seen ES sellers ask for huge premiums when they have a highly figured one for sale. There was a very attractive 59 ES-345 out of the UK a while back that was priced at close to $30K if I’m remembering correctly. That’s about a $10,000 premium. I recently bought a very flamey ’60 and paid perhaps a $4000 premium and currently have a 59 with some serious figure that probably has a $3000 premium. So, I can’t deny that there are some real dollars attached to these figured tops (and none to the figured backs). But the larger point is that a 335, 345 or 355 can be insanely beautiful and have awesome tone without even the slightest hint of figuring. That’s what great design is all about. A 335 doesn’t need a fancy top to look great. It’s a bit like a beautiful woman. She looks great in Armani but she also looks great without it.

That's more like it for a flamed blondie. This is the Jackie Lomax 335.

That’s more like it for a flamed blondie. This is the Jackie Lomax 335.

Unfortunately, the front of this 61 was as plain as the girl who won the spelling bee in your 6th grade class.

Unfortunately, the front of this 61 was as plain as the girl who won the spelling bee in your 6th grade class.

Sticker Shock

September 14th, 2014 • ES 335, ES 345, ES 3556 Comments »

 

Is this sticker real or fake? You decide. It's getting pretty hard to tell sometimes.

Is this sticker real or fake? You decide. It’s getting pretty hard to tell sometimes.

Or this one?

Or this one?

How about this one?

How about this one?

It’s a fact that plenty of Gibson humbuckers from the late 50’s and particularly the early to mid 60’s didn’t get a sticker. Whether they ran out of them or just weren’t that concerned when they reached into the pickup bin and pulled one out with no sticker, I don’t know. But there are plenty of them. In some cases, the stickers simply fall off and you can, at least, see the outline and know it was once there (although not necessarily a PAF sticker). In others, it simply never had one. I love the “philosophical” tree falls in the woods argument about whether a pickup with no sticker can be a PAF. Considering an early patent and a late PAF are the exact same pickup with a different sticker…yep. Tree falls int he woods. But I want to talk about fake stickers-especially fake stickers on real PAFs. I recently bought a PAF from a dealer I really trust and when I got it, I could tell immediately that the sticker was wrong. The cover looked right, the feet had the correct tooling marks and the solder looked good too. I returned it because a fake sticker calls the entire pickup into question-even if it didn’t have one from the factory and someone decided it couldn’t hurt to put on a good repro.

To my knowledge, no one has gotten the stickers right. The problem is that if they did get it right, I wouldn’t know it because it would be right. But I also figure I would see them for sale somewhere and that would tip me off. There are some really good fakes but they all seem to get something wrong. Usually it’s the font or the spacing but there are some that have that pretty much nailed. The next thing is the profile of the letters-they should be raised so you can see the dimensionality when viewed at an angle. There are fakes that got that right too. The letters should be metallic and at least some of the loops (open areas) in the “A”, “P”, “D” and “R” of “Patent Applied For” should be filled or partially filled and look kind of blobby. A few get that right as well but none seems to get it dead on. Part of the problem is that most players don’t get to see a wide range of PAFs. The stickers can age differently and they can shrink. I’ve seen stickers that look brand new and others that are virtually unreadable but they all have those same characteristics-raised metallic letter, tight spacing and blobby looking loops. There’s a pretty big range of surrounds from none at all to quite wide but not as wide as the surround on many patent number pickups.

Here’s another trick that unscrupulous seller might use…If you have a PAF with a complete sticker you could cut it in half and use the other half on another pickup. They don’t come off very easily but I’m sure someone has figured out how to do that. So, be careful of partial stickers. I assume the unscrupulous seller wouldn’t be dumb enough to put both halves into the same set of pickups. Well, maybe I shouldn’t assume that. Just look very closely when part of the sticker is missing and look at both pickups together.

But if it’s the real deal, it’s still the same pickup, sticker on not. The sticker doesn’t affect the tone and tone is the point. And, in general, if I get a guitar with one stickered PAF and another that isn’t and I can tell the pickups have never been out of the guitar, then I don’t worry too much about it. In a case like that, I pretty much know what it is and the sticker is a little less of an issue. And if the pickup is opened, I can at least tell if it’s either a late PAF or an early patent and, being the exact same pickup, I suppose it doesn’t matter which it is. There are characteristics of the bobbins, the wire, the tape, the lead wires, the base plate and the screws that are distinctive. I’m sure they can all be faked and I’m sure I’ve been fooled at least once but to get everything right-including the sticker-is a tall order and I truly hope nobody ever gets it 100% right. Answers: 1) Fake 2) Real 3) Fake,no, real. no? yes? You tell me.

Here's a really good closeup of a real one. It shows pretty clearly most of what I talked about in the post.

Here’s a really good closeup of a real one. It shows pretty clearly most of what I talked about in the post.

It’s not the Earth that we Inherit…

August 31st, 2014 • ES 330, ES 335, ES 345, ES 3559 Comments »

 

The blondes tend to show the dirt and this one had plenty. Cleaned up nicely, it did.

The blondes tend to show the dirt and this one had plenty. Cleaned up nicely, it did. Cleaner or polish will get into those checks and raw wood, so don’t slop it on the guitar. Put it on a cloth first.

…it’s the dirt. Talk about obscure references, anybody know that one? Pause… OK, it’s a line from the Broadway show Camelot (“The Seven Deadly Virtues”). And speaking of dirt, doesn’t anybody ever clean the crud off their guitars? You can call it “mojo” or “character” or “honest player sweat” but it’s still dirt and it isn’t particularly good for your guitar. I’ve had a slew of ‘em lately that must have 50 years worth of grime, tobacco residue and plain old BO. I’m not real big on cleaning or polishing my guitars either but a bit of maintenance now and then won’t hurt. A damp old tee shirt is a good start but if it’s really gross, then you’ll need a bit of chemistry. I use a product called Virtuoso Cleaner which, generally, does a good job getting rid of the dirt and leaving the finish alone. You can also use naphtha which, by the way, is essentially lighter fluid so don’t accidentally set your 335 (or yourself) on fire because you were smoking a cigarette while cleaning your guitar. Naptha will not react with the finish but will dissolve a lot of things (sweat, grime, grease, etc).

But, before you just slop any chemical on, don’t. Try it somewhere like on the back because it can cause some problems. Like making your guitar look dull and horrible (or duller and more horrible). There are two reasons that I’ve found that render most cleaners pretty well useless. One is easily fixed and that is when there is so much dirt and crap on the guitar that the cleaner takes off just one layer of it and leaves the guitar looking worse than when you started. If you keep at it, you will eventually take off the dirt but it may take a lot of Cleaner and a lot of elbow grease. Or you may have a bigger issue and that’s oxidation. When the elements act on the lacquer, the results are not very pretty. The finish will get dull and look a lot like Gibson’s VOS treatment (which I really don’t like). Cleaning won’t do much for oxidation but if you want to remove what looks like a dull film from your guitar, you’re going to be removing some finish. That’s what polish generally does. It won’t be a significant amount of finish but it will take some. Your guitar will still black light correctly-the finish under the oxidation is still old lacquer and you really won’t be diminishing the guitars value although some might argue that point. I think vintage dirt is like old strings. Worthless. Finally, there is some controversy about using anything with silicone in it. Ask any luthier about that. Avoid it.

There are some other things to note as well if you’re going to try to clean your old guitar up. If the guitar is checked, be really careful not to use anything that’s going to get into the wood. Checks are cracks in the finish and sometimes they go through to the wood and any liquid can get in there and stain the wood. It probably won’t affect how the guitar plays but it can look really horrible. So, don’t squirt the cleaner directly on the guitar-instead put it on that old tee shirt and then apply it. That should keep it from seeping through the checking and into the wood. You should also be aware that if you don’t clean it,  all that dirt is going to make the finish wear faster if you play that vintage beauty. You’re going to rub it deeper into the finish and it’s going to act like sandpaper and take off even more finish. Dirt is abrasive stuff and abrasive stuff and vintage guitars should avoid each other like the plague.

In general, I have no problem cleaning a guitar but I usually won’t polish it and I never buff a guitar with any kind of machine or tool. I’ll go at it pretty vigorously by hand but that’s about it. A nitro finish is pretty thin and the last thing I want to do is screw that up.

When I have to clean, I use this stuff. I don't sell it, so don't go all "paid commercial plug" on me.

When I have to clean, I use this stuff-usually the Cleaner. I almost never use the Polish. I don’t sell it, so don’t go all “paid commercial plug” on me.

The Lomax (with apologies to Dr. Suess)

August 22nd, 2014 • ES 33512 Comments »

 

This well played 59 ES-335 was owned by Peter Green, Victor Brox and Jackie Lomax. Jackie Lomax played it for more than 40 years.

This well played 59 ES-335 was owned by Peter Green, Victor Brox and Jackie Lomax. Jackie Lomax played it for more than 40 years.

…”and deep in the Grickle-grass, some people say, if you look deep enough you can still see today, where the Lomax once stood just as long as it could before somebody lifted the Lomax away.” Jackie Lomax died in September of 2013. His obit appeared in Rolling Stone and went like this:

Lomax was part of the thriving Liverpool music scene that launched the Beatles in the 1960s, playing with the Merseybeat band the Undertakers in the U.K. and the U.S., and later signing to the Beatles’ Apple Records for the release of his 1969 album, Is This What You Want? Tony Bramwell, a former publicist for Apple, said  John Lennon persuaded Lomax to sign with the label, and three Beatles (and Eric Clapton) backed Lomax on his 1968 single “Sour Milk Sea,” which George Harrison wrote. “He was a great rocker, a solid out-and-out rock and roller…”

Jackie Lomax with his 59 ES-335. Not sure when the photo is from.

Jackie Lomax with his 59 ES-335. Not sure when the photo is from.

Jackie Lomax was on the scene for a very long time and he pretty much played the same guitar for decades. This is something the great players do when they find a great guitar. Larry Carlton is another example-he’s played that late 60’s 335 forever. McCartney and his Hofner, Stevie Ray’s “Number One”, James Burton and his 53 Telecaster and lots of others. Like they say–“the great ones get played.” Jackie wasn’t a guitar god or anything, but he surely is part of the history of British rock.

I’ve been asked by the Lomax family to evaluate and possibly sell the guitar for them. So how do I quantify the value of a guitar that was played by Jackie for decades and before that was owned by British bluesman Victor Brox who bought it from Peter Green?  Simple. I don’t. You do. If you don’t care who owned a guitar before you-and many, many players and collectors don’t, then it’s just a very cool, well played 59 335 blondie with some changed parts. If history and provenance are important to you and, judging by the prices some famous guitars bring, there are some of you out there as well, then perhaps the guitar is worth a bit more. I wrote in my last post that history, provenance and context are important factors in determining whether a guitar is simply a vintage piece or a piece of history. While this guitar was never an icon, like the Dylan Strat, nor was it used on any mega hit records by a guitar god like Blackie, Brownie and that red 335, it is still an interesting and well documented example of what is probably the most desirable guitar this side of a Les Paul burst. I’ve found You Tube footage of the guitar being played in 1970 and as late as 2004. Unfortunately, I can’t find ’68 footage of “Sour Milk Sea” which is a great song and a showcase for his great voice (as well as George Harrison’s writing chops and Eric Clapton’s guitar). Jackie Lomax didn’t play guitar on it but I’m he used this old 59 to perform the song many, many times during his career.

Clearly, not that good at housekeeping. Rockers never are, it seems.

Clearly, not that good at housekeeping. Rockers never are, it seems.

 

History, Provenance and Context

August 12th, 2014 • Uncategorized5 Comments »
Two nice 59 ES-345's. Both worth about the same even though the one on the left was supposedly played by Duane Allman. Why isn't it worth more (hint-it isn't the Grovers)

Two nice 59 ES-345’s. Both worth about the same even though the one on the left was supposedly played by Duane Allman. Why isn’t it worth more (hint-it isn’t the Grovers)

…”my ’64 335 is 4 numbers away from Claptons…” my ’59 345 was once borrowed by Duane Allman…” my ’58  335 was played (for 20 seconds) by BB King and autographed…” Does any of this have anything to do with the value and desirability of your guitar? Good question. I get it all the time and I usually avoid it. It’s a pretty slippery slope but it is worth looking into since celebrity guitars are a pretty big business. With Dylan’s Strat selling for  $965K recently and Claptons “Blackie” selling for $959K and his 335 selling for $847K, the value of a celebrity owner can’t be denied. There are a great number of factors involved in what makes an historic guitar worth that kind of money and it’s not easy to quantify (or predict). The estimate by Christies auction house on the Clapton 335 was $60K-$80K. Oops.

The three examples mentioned at the top are the low end of the celebrity guitar phenomenon and I owned all of them. The Clapton serial number thing is kind of a joke, since Gibson guitars often weren’t numbered sequentially so for all you know, the guitar wasn’t within a month of Clapton’s. I had a 335 that was 4 numbers away and was shipped the same day and got no premium at all for it. To a huge fan, it might be worth a few bucks for the bragging rights or something. I did own a 58 335 that was played for a minute and autographed by BB King. The first thing I did when I got it home was remove the autograph. The guitar was worth more without it. And I owned the “Allman” 345. This is perhaps the most interesting of my celebrity guitars. It was a very fine 59 ES-345 that had some minor issues but was a great player. When I got it the Allman connection was mentioned by the seller but it didn’t really affect the price. I paid what I would normally pay for a ’59 345. If that seems surprising, it shouldn’t. You see, there was no provenance. Providence? No, provenance-the “proof” that it is what you say it is. All I had on the Allman 345 was a conversation with an old friend and very early bandmate of Duane’s who said that Duane borrowed the guitar from him for awhile. No photo of him with the guitar and no corroboration from anyone else. That’s pretty thin provenance and not enough to affect the value. I sold the guitar with a mention of it’s supposed history and got what I would expect to get for a slightly modded 59 ES-345.

So, those are the ends of the scale. Huge bucks for a guitar owned and played by a great in an historic context (recording, concert, career) and little or no added value for a guitar with a casual or unproven association with a great. So, I conclude, it is largely the historic context and provenance that gives the guitar the great value. But there is a large-and I mean huge-middle ground here. A guitar autographed by all four Beatles will probably be worth the value of the autographs plus the value of the guitar. The ’64 SG owned by George and played on “Paperback Writer” (and others) would be worth six figures. What about a less famous (but still relatively well known) player?  Well, this came up recently and I’m still wrestling with it.

This week, I got an email from a nice lady in the UK who asked me to provide some information about her late father’s guitar which she and her sisters inherited. You can’t deny its appeal. It’s a 59 ES-335TDN which is considered by most to be the top of the 335 heap. Price range is $30K for a beater to over $75K for a very clean one. These peaked at well over $100K in 2008. This one has clearly been played and modded. Grovers, changed bridge, changed neck pickup, Bigsby on and off, speed knobs-all pretty typical mods often made by players. Nice wood and a great vibe for sure but there’s something else. This guitar was a real workingman’s guitar-played throughout much of a 50 year career by a very interesting guy and owned by a few other interesting guys. The guitar belonged to Jackie Lomax and was his main player for many years. Look him up if you don’t know who he is. We’ll discuss this guitar in detail in my next post and you’ll find out  more about this gem (and who else owned it before him).

Nice, huh. '59 ES-335TDN. Got some issues for sure but it's got some vibe too. And some history, provenance and context.

Nice, huh. ’59 ES-335TDN. Got some issues for sure but it’s got some vibe too. And some history, provenance and context.