Joe B's latest score...a KILLER 64 SG!!!

AlienVintage said:

If it does turn out to be chrome:

Here's one possible explanation: '64 SG Standard that was sent back to the Gibson factory for a factory refin sometime after mid-1965 (so, maybe this would have been sometime in the later '60s, etc.).

I have a reasonably similar, parallel situation that caused me to scratch my head a little bit until I finally figured out exactly *why* I was seeing what I was seeing.

I've got a '52 Les Paul that was sent to Kalamazoo for a factory refin in 1968. This story was actually corroborated by the family of the original owner from the '60s. The owner wanted to fix some of the "blemishes" on the original finish. So, the guitar got the full goldtop refin, but doing more of what was typical for 1968 (as opposed to aiming for '52 specs).

-no silkscreen Les Paul on the headstock (blank, like the early '68s)
-has a 1968 "Les Paul" engraved TRC (like the early '68s).
-they converted it to a shaved ABR-1 with trapeze tailpiece.
-most relevant to this post: many of the original parts were replaced with chrome parts. *Even the pole screws* in the P90s were replaced with chrome pole screws.

The chrome pole P90 screws really had me wondering about what was original on my '52, but when I opened it up and studied it (including under the pickups, under the pickup covers), there was zero doubt of its originality (of course, minus the parts that were replaced with chrome parts).

What I came to hypothesize was: after mid-1965, even when a guitar was being refinished in the factory, Gibson seems to have preemptively (and probably unilaterally) switched a lot of the original nickel parts to newer chrome.

At that time, it wasn't about preserving originality - they were just aiming to make the guitar as pretty and shiny as possible, hopefully to last.

Gibson must have had a policy, around the late '60s, where they felt chrome was less likely the cause the owner to come back at a future point, complaining about how the metal parts looked tarnished or whatever.

Obviously makes sense, since in mid 1965, there was a reason they decided to switch to chrome, across the board - they were probably getting a lot of customer/dealer complains about worn-out looking nickel.

So, even on factory refins, I think they chromed everything out, probably as a warantee-type policy where they were hoping to avoid situations where the customer came back and complained that the guitar looked worn-out.

So... again, *if* there is chrome... a factory refin (maybe in the later '60s) is a theory that would completely fit with what we know: the original owner's history, the guitar's hardware we see today.

Click to expand...

JBLPplayer said:

Thanks CD! I brought the guitar to the Beth Hart session last week. Really worked out well. Test drove the new burst as well. The real star was the Fender prototype high power twin... I used the amp for 90 percent of the album along with a 1958 3x10 Fender Bandmaster ( or Slubifier as I call it. ) and a 66 non Music Ground Bluesbreaker aka a Marshall. :salude

She nailed Black Coffee in the original key! That's all I will say.
Joe B

PS... Curious to see what you SG guys think of the photos. Thank in advance for the information. :dude:

Click to expand...

GuitarMikey said:

Great guitar. My 64 Sunburst 335 had chrome covers and tailpiece on it when i purchased it from the original owner. Thank goodness he had the nickel covers and tailpiece in the case. He said he put them on in the late 70s when the nickel started to tarnish.

:salude
Mike

Click to expand...

Kris Ford said:

..except that those are NOT late 60's pickup covers.. which have a pretty unique rounded shape, like the Harrison SG...
These for reference, seen in my '76 RI Explorer.

]
Plus his wife would have probably known..nope, I believe that to be the original finish..
Again, these are by no means criticisms to Joe's new SG.

Joe, next string change could you take a pic of the underside of the pickups?:hmm

Just some anomalies, and hoping that the guitar wasn't subject to any "organ harvesting" by someone before it was picked up by Charlie..you know, a nephew or someone tells Aunt Gerri he will get it appraised or something, and strips the parts he wants, or maybe an "overnight" trip to a shop, where some "repair guy", had a field day helping himself to some parts, and replacing them with new/repro.
(again, just a theory, not saying this happened..)

But bridge has wear that is not congruent with the pickup covers, (around abr-1 post holes) and trem handle screw IS tarnished and blown out looking, suggesting heavy use, again, seems odd with such clean pickup covers. And all other nickel such as screws jack nut, etc are tarnished, switch ring nut is worn and tarnished..Just an odd mix of worn and used parts with super pristine clean.. maybe the trem was OFF, not used, in a airtight bag or something, and there was some sort of string anchor he came up with..then decides to put the trem back on, and it still looks new...we will never know..(doesn't explain blown out trem handle screw though..)

Maybe he rocked it coverless with a homemade string anchor, and tried to put it back "stock" before he passed?

I love these guitar forensics!! But SN# seems TOO early for even the beginning of mixed stock..if it were in the 22XXXX range, I would be more believing..

It IS also possible those covers were added in the 70's, (remember when it was a thing to uncover everything? how many covers were thrown in the trash without a second thought? ) Maybe he lost/tossed the originals?

It begs to be asked..did someone touch this guitar in between Gerri's late husband and CD?
If no, then it's original owner may have done everything and the case protected it..

Click to expand...

JBLPplayer said:

Thanks a lot for the info Kris... I will look into it. I've owed 6 LP/SGs and sold them all ... This one I like... Price was super fair so I'm good either way. This one is a player/road dog for sure. SGs are a new universe for me.

Click to expand...

JBLPplayer said:

This one is a player/road dog for sure. SGs are a new universe for me.

Click to expand...

TM1 said:

Domed Thumbwheels on that SG? Looks like it in the photo. Didn't think Gibson used those past 1963...! Beautiful guitar! Seems like there was something magical about SG's in Kalamazoo that year. Almost every '64 I've played was really a step above other years..
Enjoy it Joe!!

Click to expand...

CDaughtry said:

Here you go boys....:jim

And at his recent Beth Hart recording session!:dude:

Click to expand...