• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Keith Richards 59 Les Paul for sale

Biggles58

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
937
Yowwww! I'd give my both my nuts and a kidney for that guitar!...... Well, one nut but I'd love to just play it! By the way, I seem to remember that this guitar had a stop tail piece and that the Bigsby was added later but I don't see the mounting holes for the studs. Can anyone verify/disclaim that? Also does anyone know the story behind this guitar?
 
Last edited:
B

buffalonickle

Guest
Dunno how much, but you can see the stud holes if you look carefully.

the guitar is genuine - it is the one!

this guitar has to be the most important Les Paul in 60's British pop history.

Keith had this guitar before Clapton, Page and the rest of 'em used Les Pauls!
 

gmann

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
6,147
The holes for the studs are to the right and left of the front tension bar on the Bigsby. Look again, you'll see 'em. The one on the low E side is clearly visible while the one on the high E side is kinda hard to see but it's there. This is the guitar.
 

moonweasel

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
9,427
I grew up with the Hot Rocks Vol. 1 in the 80s. I actually wore that tape out!

What are some songs from that era that he would have used this Paul on?

(From the 60s I mean)
 

Biggles58

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
937
You're right Buffalonickel. Keith introduced the sunburst Les Paul to Britain in 1965. Here he is man himself with the guitar at that time.
4nk2h

What do you think the guitar will go for?
 
Last edited:
B

buffalonickle

Guest
I reckon it's got to go for $500,000.

When you consider how much Eric's composite Strat went for recently, I think Keith's Les Paul is of more historical importance.
 

Biggles58

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
937
What's wrong with a Bigsby Rowdy? The guitar had the Bigsby on it when Keith bought it. That will do for me!
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
143
Didn't Keith sell this guitar to Mick Taylor whilst Taylor was with Mayall? I seem to remember Keith mentioning that in a Guitar Player interview. It seems he would have gotten it back when Taylor joined The Stones. Damned nice. Too bad I don't own Microsoft, there would be a little SOLD! sign under that thing if I did.
 

DEVILBAT

New member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
1,679
Not buying that guitar because of the Bigsby would be like not buying one of Page's guitars because of his mods.
 

strobe

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
142
Sweet! I'd have to rate that Les Paul very high in its historic significance - just a notch below Peter Green's '59.
 

keto

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
301
Strobe, please don't take this personally but...historical significance, on a scale of 1-10, Keef's is probably a 9 and Green's is probably a 4. IMHO. For reference, Page's #1 would be a 10, for example. Even Boomfield's would outrank Green's, maybe a 5 or 6.

Green just isn't that well known amongst the general populace. It's we gear freaks and amateur music historians who know him and value his work.
 

theo

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
39
While we're talking historical significance, what about Pages LP Custom? Ya know how many songs that guitar figured on? Stuff like Hermans Hermits, the Who, the Kinks, Tom Jones "It's Not Unusual", etc etc etc... the list goes on and on.

IMO Keiths and Pages #1 are important guitars, but not with the breadth of the Customs usage. I'd consider Claptons 'burst more important because of the fad it set off, much like EVH's FrankenStrat.

Theo
 

strobe

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
142
keto:

Don't worry, I don't take anything personally here. It's all good. But if there's two doors to walk through, with Peter Green playing in one room and Keith in the other, I'm in Peter's room all day.

Of course the Stones are more well known, but they're not a guitar band, with the exception of the Mick Taylor years. Peter dropped out in his prime. Otherwise the disparity in their popularity would not be as significant. But this is not a popularity contest. To me, it's more about who influences me more, or who makes me want to buy a Les Paul more. Green can play circles around Keef. Bloomfield is an equal, for sure. Cheers.
 

strobe

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
142
Just to continue my last thought on the previous post, if some of you can weigh in, please do. Whose Les Paul would (or should) sell for more: Keith's or Peter Green's?

My vote is with Peter Green's since it is on so many great recordings, not to mention the ones Gary Moore has made with it. I'm not so sure if Keith played his in the studio that much, and he dumped it for a Tele eventually. I suspect some billionaire Stones freak would push the bidding past Green's, but for the rank and file bidder/voter, the verdict is......
 

DEVILBAT

New member
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
1,679
The Rolling Stones aren't a guitar band? THE ROLLING STONES?????!!!!! What are they? Electronica? Avant garde? Emo? Industrial?
Now I think I've heard it all.
 
Top