RSS

Archive for the ‘ES 335’ Category

Bargain Bin, Part 2

Thursday, October 23rd, 2014
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

Sunday, October 19th, 2014
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

Friday, October 10th, 2014
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

Monday, September 29th, 2014
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

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014
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

Sunday, September 14th, 2014

 

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…

Sunday, August 31st, 2014

 

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)

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

 

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.

 

Why Would Anyone Do That?

Tuesday, July 8th, 2014
Yikes. Why would anyone do this? Because it was 1972 and this was just a ten year old guitar back then and the owner wanted a cutout and a phase switch. Knock off two or three thousand bucks for each hole.

Yikes. Why would anyone do this? Because it was 1972 and this was just a ten year old guitar back then and the owner wanted a cutout and a phase switch. Knock off two or three thousand bucks for each hole.

How many times have you asked that very question when examining a vintage guitar (or amp)? Somebody puts in mini-switches or spray paints the back of the headstock black or cuts a big hole in the back? The issue is, of course, issues (do I sound like an existentialist?). After decades of ownership (and many owners), most vintage guitars are going to have an issue. Tuner changes are probably the most common on ES’s but there are plenty of others. But issues like that are quantifiable. You know why they were done and they really aren’t hiding anything. You put Grovers on because the Klusons kind of sucked, although your tuning problem was probably not the tuners at all but the nut. Same with ill advised mods like adding a coil tap or putting in DiMarzios. Someone thought they were improving the guitar. That’s all 20/20 hindsight. Who knew back in the day that these old guitars would actually be worth this much money decades later? But what about the issues that don’t make much sense? You know, the ones that seem to be hiding something. I had a refinished 62 335 that had a piece of veneer over the back of the headstock. The guy who did it said it was to cover tuner holes from Grovers. The guy who bought it from me insisted it must be covering a headstock break-which, by the way, it wasn’t. I recently sold a 59 with a nickel sized spot of overspray at the top of the back of the headstock. Why would anyone do that? Maybe he smacked the headstock into a cymbal stand back in 1976 and took a chip out of it. Maybe he set the guitar down and the headstock was in the ashtray and got burned by a cigarette (which is what I think). Sometimes it’s just impossible to know why a repair or mod was done. These are the ones that worry most buyers and rightly so. They worry me a lot less because every issue gets priced in if I’m a buyer or a seller. The point here is that if the issue raises questions, then it’s really hard to quantify when pricing a guitar. If the issue is straightforward and clear, then it’s easier.

What about the ones with the ones with the little “2” on the headstock? They don’t come with a factory explanation as to why they got the “2”. They often have some factory overspray to cover a finish flaw but it could be something else. There is a theory that the “2” meant it went through some part of the manufacturing process twice (like finishing) to correct a flaw and that these aren’t “factory seconds” at all- just guitars that needed a second pass to be made right. Does that count as a repair and therefore a diminished value if it left the factory that way? I would say yes but it really depends on what was done. I’m sure more than one 335 left the factory with a twisted neck but it’s still a dealbreaker issue to me. Another (like that cool 59 I had with the deep, dark sunburst) may have left the factory with a partial factory respray done before the guitar was ever sold. Not a dealbreaker at all but I did discount the guitar pretty substantially even though it blacklighted perfectly. The 330 I have with the factory red paint in the f-holes (likely used for a black and white photo shoot) is actually kind of cool and doesn’t diminish the value at all, IMO.

Clearly, a case by case approach is the best way to deal with the issue of issues. I get asked to assign a value to various issues all the time but I prefer to take the guitar as a whole and evaluate it. Certain issues bother people more than others even though they may make no difference at all to the playability, tone or appearance. It’s pretty subjective, so you, as a buyer, should take the same “whole guitar” approach. If Bigsby holes in the top drive you nuts, stay away from those but if you can handle a big cut out in the back of the body (which is my number one dealbreaker mod), then you can save a lot of money and get a vintage ES that will play and sound as good as one that has no issues at all.

This 59 most likely left the factory like this because somebody messed up the sunburst and had to respray it. It blacklighted perfectly and had the little "2" above the serial number. It was one of the best 335's I've ever owned and went for perhaps 20-25% less than it would have had it been perfect when it left the factory. If I could have proved beyond any doubt that it was factory original, it would have sold for more. Unfortunately, they don't come with an explanation.

This 59 most likely left the factory like this because somebody messed up the sunburst and had to respray it. It blacklighted perfectly and had the little “2” above the serial number. It was one of the best 335’s I’ve ever owned and went for perhaps 20-25% less than it would have had it been perfect when it left the factory. If I could have proved beyond any doubt that it was factory original, it would have sold for more. Unfortunately, they don’t come with an explanation.

ES-335, 2013 Style

Monday, May 26th, 2014
A very recent (2013) '63 Anniversary ES-335 reissue. Close. Real close. But those ears. C'mon, really, that's the best you can do?

A very recent (2013) ’63 Anniversary ES-335 reissue.
Close. Real close. But those ears. C’mon, really, that’s the best you can do?

First off, sorry for the recent radio silence-I’ve been renovating and moving into my new (actually really, really old) house here in beautiful Litchfield County, Connecticut and haven’t had much time to write. My apologies. It’ll get back to the usual 5 or 6 posts a month pretty soon. Today, I thought I would write about something that I keep getting emails about–folks seem to want my opinion of the newest Gibsons. I usually respond that I haven’t played them and that I’m really a vintage guy. But I wrote about the “Nashville” Custom shop models a while back when I got a couple in trade. Now I have a ’63 50th Anniversary 335 from the Memphis facility that a lot of folks are saying good things about. It is a 2013 (50 years from 1963 but you knew that). There are things I like and things I don’t like. First and most important is how does it play and how does it sound? The good news is that it feels like the real thing. The neck profile is fairly close, the feel of the finish is right (this is more important than you think) and the frets feel decent as well-a little on the high side but the guitar isn’t 50 years old yet. The frets will have plenty of time to get low. My big gripe about new Gibsons is that they don’t ring out and sustain very well. That could be an age factor-new wood isn’t as dry as old wood and old wood seems to be more acoustically active. More resonant, if you prefer. On the other hand, the quality of the woods might have been better back in the day but, hey, it’s a plywood guitar. How much difference is it going to make. Well, actually, it could make a pretty big difference because so much of the tone comes from the center block and the neck. In the past, these guitars felt kind of heavy and that may also have been related to the wood. Most 50’s and early 60’s 335’s weigh in around or slightly below 7.5 lbs. Some hit 8 lbs but most don’t. Don’t count 345’s and 355’s-Bigsby’s and Varitone chokes are heavy. The ’63 Anniversary I have in my hands weighs 7 lbs 6 ounces which is what it should weigh and  very comfortable for an old dude like me. This guitar sounds pretty darn good too. Lots of bite in the bridge pickup (a Burstbucker) and no mud in the neck (also a Burstbucker). Nicely balance and the middle three way position doesn’t sound almost exactly like the bridge pickup which I’ve found in a lot of modern 335s-it’s actually a pretty useful tone.

So what don’t I like? Well, it sure doesn’t look like a 63. They made the ears pointy but they are way wrong. There was a later iteration of the pointy ears that you saw in 67 and on a lot of Trini’s. Some folks call them “fox ears”. They are short and pointy and kind of stumpy looking. That’s more what these look like. It’s strange that Gibson got the Clapton reissue almost dead on and they couldn’t nail this one. The rumor is that the Clapton bodies were made in Japan where they know how to copy stuff. Next, the neck heel is way too big-how tough would it be to get this right? Really. The knobs are way off and the pickup covers are too. These are easy to change if you’re so inclined but, again, you’d think they could source accurate parts. I can source accurate parts, so I don’t see why Gibson can’t. Lots of great repro stuff out there. For some reason the three way switch tip is black and the owner of this guitar insists that’s how it came from the Gibson dealer. And how about correct vintage length stop tail studs? These are the short ones. I hear the Nashville ones that you pay a couple thousand more for have the long ones. I haven’t checked recently. They’ve finally gotten the bindings better but the headstock inlay (the crown/flowerpot) is a bit odd. These are kind of nitpicks I suppose but it would be so easy to fix them. Fit and finish, by the way, are excellent. I had a Memphis “fat neck” back in 2009, I think, that looked like it was routed with a chain saw. These new ones are smooth and clean inside. Nicely done. The important thing is that they are sounding and playing pretty well and if they can keep the price from going up every year, they just might make sense for a lot of buyers who were hoping to find vintage in that $3000 range. Myself, I’d still take an 81-85 over this guitar but not because they sound any better. Only ‘cuz they’re old and I like old.

This is a real one. Do those ears look the same to you? They sure don't to me. These are longer and they stand up straighter. And the knobs. How tough can it be to copy the real ones??

This is a real one. Do those ears look the same to you? They sure don’t to me. These are longer and they stand up straighter. And the knobs. How tough can it be to copy the real ones??