HELP! need to ID this guitar
Posted 08 August 2012 - 07:31 PM
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!
Posted 08 August 2012 - 07:53 PM
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.
Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:49 AM
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.
John Jackson -My Teacher and My Old Friend
When the roll is called up yonder he'll be there...
Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:12 PM
Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:20 AM
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.
Posted 10 August 2012 - 05:30 AM
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.
Sinkhorn's Dilemma: Every paradox has at least one non-trivial solution . . .
Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:17 AM
- Grandpa FrankyZ likes this
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users