• 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!

Why so many 52's popping up

vintage58

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
3,958
cibai said:
While I agree that the trap tail on 52s is not ideal, they are very playable, and have a unique tone among the LP line. The underwrap bridge, is actually very resonant and that comes through plugged in.
billys said:
But "non-functioning"?....no way.
MikeSlub said:
I play my '52 and '53 trapeze Goldtops all the time. :wail
Hey, my apologies for any potential slight against '52 goldtops, I do suppose that "non-functioning" was a bit harsh. I was mainly referring to things like the higher level of difficulty in muting strings with the palm of one's right hand when playing these guitars.

Anyway, I guess that playing '52 goldtops is not too far off from what Jimmy Page once said about playing Telecasters: "It's more of a fight [with a Telecaster], but there are rewards."
 

billys

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
610
I know what you meant; no problem.

It's interesting to me how people always talk about the muting factor with those tailpieces, and while it's true, I just have never seen it as that big a thing. Every setup has certain attributes that suit it to a certain kind of playing....



vintage58 said:
Hey, my apologies for any potential slight against '52 goldtops, I do suppose that "non-functioning" was a bit harsh. I was mainly referring to things like the higher level of difficulty in muting strings with the palm of one's right hand when playing these guitars.

Anyway, I guess that playing '52 goldtops is not too far off from what Jimmy Page once said about playing Telecasters: "It's more of a fight [with a Telecaster], but there are rewards."
 

strat028228

New member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
166
54-56 Strats not being playable? I have had many guitars in my time and My 54 Strat plays and sounds much better than a refin 59 burst i had......54 Strats and 59 Les Paul are the holy grail in my opinion.
 

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
vintage58 said:
In the meantime, I've become interested mainly in 1959 ES-345TD's. Among other things, these guitars: (a) sound great; (b) look cool; (c) have PAF's (frequently double-white ones, at that); (d) have intonable bridges; and (e) can still be had for a little over $20,000.00. And, despite what others have said, the Varitone does not "suck" tone!!! :)

Sorry the hijack the thread but I love my '59 345!
25_p35330.jpg
 

badbrad

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
148
vintage58 said:
Yes to both, but that's just me. My current vintage guitar–buying philosophy is leaning towards guitars that need no work or restoration whatsoever. And that's not because of collector-oriented concerns, either; it's more an outgrowth of musical concerns. You see, I'm the type of person who spends way too much time fussing over whether this or that part is historically correct, or whether the typeface on a switch ring looks right. And the net effect of that whole mindset (on me, at least), is that it's taken me further away from things that I think matter more—like practicing, composing, and performing. So as you could imagine, if a person like myself were faced with a project like a conversion (which, if done correctly, could well be described as involving the utter pinnacle of the above sort of fussiness), I'd probably never get anything done. There are simply too many decisions involved with a conversion, and I just wouldn't have the patience to deal with all of them. Alternately (and more briefly) stated: I just want a vintage guitar that I can play right out of the case, with little more than a set-up and, at the most, a refret. And if that means moving into a slightly higher price range, I'd probably do that before buying a less expensive guitar and spending several thousand dollars afterwards for the necessary vintage parts and conversion work. Again, though, that's just me.

But let's imagine that someone did want to go ahead and convert a '52 goldtop to '57 specs, but (and this is an important "but") he or she didn't already own any of the necessary vintage parts at the outset of the project. And let's say that he or she were going to start off by buying the guitar and all the related parts today (i.e., at today's prices). In this scenario, it may well be true that the given '52 goldtop will be worth twice its original price when the conversion is done, but the buyer would also have to purchase the following:

- double-black PAF's (with covers): ~$3,000.00
- 1957 Centralab pots and Sprague caps: ~$800.00
- 1957 knobs: ~$500.00
- Kluson single-line, single-ring "2356766" tuners: ~$1,000.00
- "wireless" nickel ABR-1: ~$800.00
- 1950s stop bar nickel tailpiece: ~$800.00

Forgive me if some of these prices are too low or otherwise off from where they should be; I really haven't kept up with the current values of the parts to which they pertain. Anyway, all this is not including the remainder of the guitar's wiring harness, or the switch ring and pickup surrounds. So you'd be laying out $13,000.00 for the '52 goldtop, plus about $7,000.00 for the above-listed parts, plus another $3,000.00 or so to have some expert luthier do the conversion. That adds up to about $23,000.00. If the original guitar doubled in value to $26,000.00, your profit would only be about $3,000.00, and this would be after a tremendous amount of legwork to find all the necessary parts, and then who knows how much time to wait for the conversion to be completed. Therefore, I personally would rather just spend $23,000.00 on a completely original guitar that's ready to play as is (see below), and whose value would likely appreciate as much as that of the finished conversion.

I've already ruled out the idea of owning a humbucker-equipped 1950s Les Paul—for the time being, at least. I'm simply not in a financial position to even *entertain* the idea of purchasing one at this stage of my life. But maybe someday, who knows?

In the meantime, I've become interested mainly in 1959 ES-345TD's. Among other things, these guitars: (a) sound great; (b) look cool; (c) have PAF's (frequently double-white ones, at that); (d) have intonable bridges; and (e) can still be had for a little over $20,000.00. And, despite what others have said, the Varitone does not "suck" tone!!! :)
You are off by around $2600 for the parts you listed and that is on the conservative side, fyi
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
freecap said:
How the hell did they sell Strats back then, on price alone???


The price of a 1959 Strat was higher than a 1959 Les Paul Standard [Burst]. :wow
Even the case. :eek
I suspect the same was true in 56/57.

Demand was MUCH higher for the Stratocaster. That's how they sold them. ;)
I think some of the finest Strats ever made came from 1956. :brow
 

vintage58

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2003
Messages
3,958
badbrad said:
You are off by around $2600 for the parts you listed and that is on the conservative side, fyi
Thanks for the info. So, were those estimates $2,600.00 too low, or $2,600.00 too high?
 

GuitarNeil

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
135
I agree with Tom, I've had and played many early Strats and I think 56-58 were the best years with 54's being very uneventful. Incidently, I've played quite a few custom shop and masterbuilt strats that have exceeded the originals in tone and playability. I've NEVER played a Gibson Les Paul Historic reissue that even came close to an original, not that they arent good guitars, just different....it must be the age factor.
 

freecap

New member
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
237
I just compare my experience with strats, having owned and played 54,57,60,62 (presently), 63.

The 57-62 era fits and sounds best to me, but what do I know???

So a 59 strat costs more than a Burst at that time? Amazing when you consider the workmanship and materials. Guess three pups is better tahn two...
 

RReed

Banned
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
169
TW59 said:
Demand was MUCH higher for the Stratocaster. That's how they sold them. ;)

Plus the Stratocaster had many selling points. 3 pickukps, body contour, tremelo, custom colors!
 

R.A.O.

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
348
If the underwrapped bridge is such a dealbreaker on a 52, you don't have to do a full on conversion to make it work for you. A neck reset will make it function fine. Personally, I love those tailpieces.
 

cfh

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
895
I think 1954 to 1956 strats are the best. The older the better when it comes to strats. as time marched on, Leo was always tweaking the design so he could make it faster and easier. prior to october 1954, all strats were basically hand made custom guitars. the official 'production' date of october 1954 made the strat much more of a 'production' guitar. when fender changed from ash to alder (alder being cheaper and *much* easier to finish) in mid-1956, i think the end of a strat era came to be.

Les pauls on the other hand constantly improved from 1952 to 1959, without regard to making them easier to make or cheaper. i would say that it's harder to make a dual coil pickup (PAF) than a single coil (P90). and shooting a sunburst finish is a lot tougher than a gold finish. also with sunburst wood grain and match was a concern, where with gold it was not. gibson had a much different philosophy about making guitars than fender.
 

sunburst1

Active member
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,989
I agree , but i always wondered why all the biggest Strat hero's from Clapton to Stevie Ray always used alder body strats? How could anyone not love those early ash body strats? They are just so rare and expensive now even the hardtail models are expensive. I saw some nice ones in Philly over the weekend , but not one blackguard tele. :)
 

cfh

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
895
The equivalent to the pre-october 1954 strat is the broadcaster. again, totally hand made and not a 'production line' guitar at all! very cool. by the time it became the nocaster it was more of a production line guitar. certainly by fall 1951 when it became a tele it was definately a production line guitar. the early models are so unique and each one is totally different.

i think the reason for clapton and stevie and all the other using alder body strats is this - just the sheer number of them available. ash body strats were fairly low production. each year of the strat they made more and more of them. alder models outnumber ash model probably 20 to 1 (if not more than that). of course that's just a guess, but they only made ash body strats for 2 years, and the first year was pretty low production.

back to gibson, it amazes me how few of any 1950s model gibson they made. what did they crank out? maybe juniors and specials, but that's about it.
 

strat028228

New member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
166
Hank Marvin, Homer Haynes, Buddy Holly and Hendrix all used alder Body Strats.....Holly had a 55 Ash first but then got the famous 3-Tone Sunburst 58.
 

Rev.WillieVK

Active member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
9,268
'52s sound GREAT and don't have to be permanently altered to make them play great:

3749_p49442.jpeg
 

Rich R

In the Zone/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
4,999
Rev.WillieVK said:
'52s sound GREAT and don't have to be permanently altered to make them play great:

3749_p49442.jpeg

That's the ticket, Bill--I play mine with the trap, as well. It's no problem--just requires technique and musicianship... :couch
 

guiTarzan

New member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
26
Cool guitar!

I think this is the best and easiest solution to make a `52 full playable.
What`s that bridge, Rev.Willie? Is it milled on the bottom to make it fit?
My `52 LP has an old Gotoh-ToM installed, that is reduced in the height that way, and it
works well (and looks good too).

The only thing is, that you have to drill two holes into the body, but... so what?!
 
Top