• THIS IS THE 25th ANNIVERSARY YEAR FOR THE LES PAUL FORUM! PLEASE CELEBRATE WITH US AND SUPPORT US WITH A DONATION TO KEEP US GOING! We've made a large financial investment to convert the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and now have to move to a new host. We also 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!
  • WE ARE MOVING THE LES PAUL FORUM TO A NEW HOSTING PROVIDER OVER THE NEXT 5-10 DAYS. We will experience downtime during that period. Please be patient and have confidence that we will return! Many thanks, Mike Slubowski, Admin

'88 '59 reissue; desireable?

56jnr

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
436
I was introduced to someone with a modest but interesting collection the other day; among them a '62 Strat, '66 Strat and '88 335. What caught my eye was the absolutely breathtaking 'burst on a tight, pinstripe on an '88 reissue with a 9 **** serial number. This was a darkback with a fairly slim neck which felt more like a '60's taper. All the nickel plate on the hardware had pitted beyond recognition but, even with ten year old strings on it (he stores it in the loft and doesn't play it) it sounded very, very nice and played exceptionally well.
In comparison with the '57 Classics on my ES175 those on the LP seemed fairly tame with a lot less output. There is some minor buckle rash, the body binding has one crack in it as has the switch tip; other than that it's in fine shape.
If I could persuade him to part with it would it be worth my while or are these not held in especially high regard?
The bridge, tailpiece and pickup covers-if not the entire pickups-would need replacing adding to the expense.
What do you guys think?
Thanks.

Andrew
 
Last edited:

chuck dale

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
294
If the price is right, I'd go for it. I played several back in the days they were new- I can't remember the sound, but they played and looked fine. Any other opinions?
 

56jnr

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
436
If the price is right, I'd go for it. I played several back in the days they were new- I can't remember the sound, but they played and looked fine. Any other opinions?

That's the problem really; I really have no pricing benchmark and thus have no idea what the going rate might be.
 

keef

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,006
$2.5-low 3Ks. I think these have become less desirable since the advent of the Historics due to the lack of a long tenon and less realistic tops/finishes. But when it's a stunnah...
 

56jnr

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
436
$2.5-low 3Ks. I think these have become less desirable since the advent of the Historics due to the lack of a long tenon and less realistic tops/finishes. But when it's a stunnah...

Thanks Keef; so I'll be looking at a max of around £1500UK you think?
 

keef

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Messages
5,006
Oops - yer in the UK - I was referring to US prices.

Due to the depreciation of the dollar buying these guitars in the UK would be costly - I'd say you will have to pay between 2000 and 2500 pounds for your RI, but maybe less from a private seller.

Here's a pre historic in Japan now on Ebay for $2.5K - but it has a headstock repair:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1990-Gibson-Les...ryZ38086QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

There is another one that went unsold at $4K - no wonder. Gbase dealers are offering these between $3.5-5K. Apart from the relative rarity I don't see what these guitars have to offer over a good historic, but I am sure they will have their fans.
 
Last edited:

Cody

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2002
Messages
4,495
Unless I'm horribly, terribly wrong, the serial# scheme was different back then, with the first digit being the year.

A serial# 9 xxxx would make it an '89. An '88 would be 8 xxxx.

Out of the pre-Historics, that makes the '89s more desirable in some camps, because the serials start with the historically correct 9.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've been misinformed.
 

moonpie

In the Zone
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
9,781
Unless I'm horribly, terribly wrong, the serial# scheme was different back then, with the first digit being the year.

A serial# 9 xxxx would make it an '89. An '88 would be 8 xxxx.

Out of the pre-Historics, that makes the '89s more desirable in some camps, because the serials start with the historically correct 9.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've been misinformed.



And you'll be praised if your info is correct:salude
 

Cody

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2002
Messages
4,495
And you'll be praised if your info is correct:salude
Thanks, moonpie!

Three second thread hijack: Moonpie, I always enjoy your posts. You, Sir, are clever, funny, and a gentleman!

:salude
 

StuartC

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
128
Hell yes!! I'd buy it. My best sounding Les Paul is a 1987 '57 Goldtop Reissue, which blows all my others away.
 

MikeSlub

Administrator
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
15,178
Unless I'm horribly, terribly wrong, the serial# scheme was different back then, with the first digit being the year.

A serial# 9 xxxx would make it an '89. An '88 would be 8 xxxx.

Out of the pre-Historics, that makes the '89s more desirable in some camps, because the serials start with the historically correct 9.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I've been misinformed.

You are correct, Sir. :2cool
 
Top