7 replies to this topic

[DaniMF]

Help, I don't know much about guitars, but I have someone wanting to barter a guitar for some work. Here's his story...
I purchased from the original owner over 20 years ago, in the original case, with original Gibson hang tag/warranty card, strap, pick case and pick. The owner told me he played the guitars in the store, picked this one but didn't like the color so he had the dealer professionally refinish it before he took delivery. Other than that it looks, plays and sounds great. I am not an expert of any kind but in checking the various web based resources, and serial number, it appears to be a mid-'60's Gibson LG 0. 
He's claiming if he were to sell it he'd ask $450
Doesn't look Gibson to me. And I don't want to get screwed in the deal.... Help please!

http://m1154.photobu...rofile/DaniMF81

[Grandpa FrankyZ]

Shame the pictures are not bigger, then we could see the guitar much better. there should be a serial number on the back of the headstock, what is it?


I can tell you this, it's not an LG.0. DADFAD would be the guy to ask, as he has a few Acoustic Gibsons, and has had a few in the past.


Edit:- this may be of some use. http://www.acousticm...ibson_LG_series

Edited by Grandpa FrankyZ, 08 August 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[dadfad]

The pictures aren't that clear so it's hard to say. Better pictures especially of the headstock and the back showing the tuner details would help. Personally I have a hard time believing anyone would choose to have a brand new Gibson refinished. (The LG-O series guitars came in natural anyway. LG-1 in sunburst. The LG-3 (cherry and gold sunbursts) and 4 (natural only) were discontinued in the early 60's. I have an LG-0 and an LG-1.

The LG-0 was made up into the early 70s. While I can't imagine why anyone would refinish it, as it came in natural anyway, the top does (from the not too great pics) appear to look like mahogany, which is what was used for most of the LG's.

From the pictures (I tried blowing them up but it didn't help much) it looks like the top of the headstock is flat as opposed to the Gibson "convolute" profile (which was used on all Gibson acoustics except the Mark-series).

Like Rick said Gibsons generally have a serial number pressed into the back of the headstock, but that's not necessarily so on some of the earlier models which could be on an internal sticker or even hand-written or stamped inside (usually on the neck-block).

We really need better pictures to be sure, but I can tell you this much. If (aside from the re-finishing) the guitar is virtually as it came from the factory (and having hang-tags, etc it should be) the rosette will have only a single stripe, the bridge-pins should be white (on the LG-0, black on the LG-1) and the bridge itself should have two pearl-dots. Most LG-0 bridges were made of wood and rectangular, except for the plastic bridges Gibson used for a few years on them in the later 60s, then switching back to wood briefly just before the series was discontinued in the early 70s. There were in a few years on some models wooden "belly-bridges" used (rounded on one side), but they were top bellies (belly-side toward the soundhole) and yours appears to belly down.

Without having better pictures or seeing the guitar (unless some of this information helps confirm something) I'd at this point only assume the guitar at face-value. How good it sounds and plays and not that it's supposed to be a Gibson LG-0 (or other LG-model).

As far as being worth $450-ish, if it's a Gibson it would probably be worth that (assuming there are no other structural issues). Re-finishing a vintage guitar greatly reduces its value. If I was going to sell my LG-0 (excellent, near-mint, etc) I'd only expect to get $900-$1000-ish for it. Maybe a little more. While a decently made guitar (as most Gibsons were back then) it was considered their "entry-level" acoustic instrument made mostly for beginners, students and "home-strummers."

While not my most favorite of my Gibson acoustics, I do like mine and play the LG-0 regularly. (I actually prefer it to the more expensive LG-1).

Best advise: Get some better pictures up!

And welcome to GuitarZone.

Edit: I just looked at the site Rick gave above and it mentions there were some bottom-belly bridges used. That might very well be true (Gibson often made use of other existing parts from other models, from say an L-model or a B-model), but I'd never heard of it before and I don't have that in any of my Gibson-stuff.

[DaniMF]

Thanks so much guys!
Serial # on headstock is 90437 which doesn't seem to be a Gibson #, along with the shape of the head. I'm questioning myself on what it actually is

[DaniMF]

So the headstock shape and serial # seem to match a 1982 Martin. But it's missing some of the other Martin characteristics. Ugh.... I'm basically just in a position of what to trade in value for this guitar. I can't get better photos and it's a make or break deal tomorrow. He's wanting $450 for a guitar that seems to be not what he's claiming it is. I don't want to give this guy $450 worth of work for a potentially $150 guitar

[Grandpa FrankyZ]

So the headstock shape and serial # seem to match a 1982 Martin. But it's missing some of the other Martin characteristics. Ugh.... I'm basically just in a position of what to trade in value for this guitar. I can't get better photos and it's a make or break deal tomorrow. He's wanting $450 for a guitar that seems to be not what he's claiming it is. I don't want to give this guy $450 worth of work for a potentially $150 guitar

The give him a $150 worth of work. In fact i would forget the deal, he has lied to you, so i would not trust him as an employer. Find a decent deal, and guitar.

[surfwhammy]

I studied the three guitar photographs for a few minutes, and compared them to some photographs of a Gibson LGO, and this was when I noticed the the guitar in the center photograph has a pick guard that looks similar to the pick guard of a Gibson LGO, but the problem is that the guitar in the leftmost photograph showing the case does not have a pick guard, and another problem is that the guitar in the rightmost photograph (back view) appears to be a different color from the leftmost guitar . . .

So, in addition to what everyone else advised, I think that you need to see the actual guitar and to play it . . .

It could be worth $450, but it could be a piece of junk, and there is no way to determine this from examining the photographs, although if it is the guitar shown in the middle photograph and it sounds good, then $450 is not a lot of money for a guitar that sounds good, really . . .

If the person is swapping the guitar for work, then why can't you see and play the guitar before you do the work?

This is what I want to know . . .

Edited by surfwhammy, 10 August 2012 - 05:33 AM.

[DaniMF]

Well I'm a tattoo artist, his son turns 18 tomorrow. So he wants an answer today. I'm not willing to do 4-5 hours of tattooing for something that isn't worth while. He lives an hour away and wanted to just bring it with him for his appointment. But I don't wanna bum out his kid on his Bday and tell him no deal on the spot. SO with your helpful advice and suspicions I'm going to decline the deal today. Potentially could be a nice guitar but I'm runnin the chance it's a POS too.
Thanks guys!