• 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!

1967 Gibson ES-335, Reverb Listing

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
I'm looking at a Reverb listing for a vintage 1967 Gibson ES-335. The seller claims the unplayed guitar was discovered "under-the-bed" of the original owner's family house. Perhaps I'm wrong... but IMO it looks too perfect, and then the red flags...

Here's a link to the Reverb listing.......

https://reverb.com/item/32728702-gibson-es-335td-1967-cherry

Just looking at the limited photos from the listing ....I'm seeing potential red flags which give me pause. :dang

For example:

1. The "Gibson" logo on the headstock looks very odd.

2. The pick guard seems to wide, the dimensions don't look right.

3. The neck heel looks odd, it's somewhat large and rounded in appearance.

4. The "f" holes look odd, position seems off.

5. The location of the "crown" inlay on the headstock appears "off".


See photos from listing below....Opinions??







 
Last edited:

RAB

Active member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
2,122
Looks “jake” to me (as Gil would say) ...and it’s highly unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of faking a ‘67 335...:hmm
 

Progrocker111

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
4,013
Looks ok to me, the crown position on headstock went lower in early 1967, logo is ok for 67 too. :hmm
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
Looks “jake” to me (as Gil would say) ...and it’s highly unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of faking a ‘67 335...:hmm

Well....when you take note of the guitar's unusually high price, all bets are off. :hmm

It's nearly in the price range of a large neck '65 with trapeze tailpiece.
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
Looks ok to me, the crown position on headstock went lower in early 1967, logo is ok for 67 too. :hmm

I'm holding my original '67 right now....and seeing very noticeable differences between the two guitars. It may take enlarging the photos to see the features clearly.

The neck heel is especially glaring.

BD380278_DD51_4A9B_8644_DE56F62C801E.jpeg



COMPARE TO THIS ORIGINAL '67 ES-335.......**note "squared" shoulders on the neck heel.



COMPARISON OF HEADSTOCKS (above... the Reverb "Under-the-bed, 1967 ES-335"; vs. below... original vintage '67 ES-335)



 
Last edited:

RAB

Active member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
2,122
Well....when you take note of the guitar's unusually high price, all bets are off. :hmm

It's nearly in the price range of a large neck '65 with trapeze tailpiece.

But why not fake a ‘59 dotneck instead? Much more potential coin for the perpetrator! :lol
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
But why not fake a ‘59 dotneck instead? Much more potential coin for the perpetrator! :lol

I agree....but think about it for a moment. Don't you believe a fraudulent 1959 ES-335 would attract a LOT MORE scrutiny from the experts? :dang. It's a completely different matter for a 1967. I mean, who cares? :hmm

This guitar isn't so much about intentionally passing off a "fake" '67; the more plausible explanation is the guitar's owner thinks it's a 1967, because that's what the previous owner told him. So everyone assumes it must be a 1967. That is, until I come along.

DESCRIPTION FROM THE REVERB LISTING:

"Okay, quite a story on this one. About fifteen years ago I bought this guitar from the original owner. Using his paper route money, he ordered the guitar from his local music store in July 1967. When it arrived he was given a free lesson and a gig-bag and sent on his way. As he told me, he played it for about a week until he broke the first string. He said he had trouble replacing it so he put it back in the bag and shoved it under the bed. Time moved on, high school sports, off to college, moved across the country, had kids, life, etc. All the while this guitar literally sat at his parents house, under the bed, in a bag. Fast-forward thirty-five years or so. When I first see the guitar it has a rusty unwound "g" string tied using a half-hitch around the first string tuner post. It had been there since July'67. It had not been played, or ever plugged into an amp as the owner didn't have one. I've plugged it in one time only just to test the harness and pickups when I bought it. That's correct, it's been plugged in ONE TIME ! It is now wearing it's second set of strings in almost fifty-three years. I've played it for less than twenty minutes in the time I've owned it. I bought a block neck '62 reissue because I just couldn't bring myself to put wear on this thing. Like one of my dealer friends said, "How'd you like to be the first guy to slam that thing into the corner of the coffee table?". It's been in a new aftermarket case stored properly with my other guitars since I've owned it. Several local dealers have seen it and their comments were, " That's a Museum piece". "Don't EVER play that thing". One guy said, "I haven't seen one that clean since I used to unpack them from the factory". A long term luthier friend feels It could be the best one of these left. I won't go that far at all, In fact I could see some burnishing on the back when I shot the pics. I think the owner spent his first week doing his Elvis moves in his bedroom mirror, like thirteen year old kid might do!"


From the evidence I see, it's an unverified "under-the-bed" ES-335 of an unknown age & origin, with "quite a story on this one". Perhaps even a Chinese copy?? And why is it the seller conveniently omits a clear photo of the serial number on the back of the headstock, or inside orange label?

Final thought......look at the price the guitar is listed for......:dang
 
Last edited:

deytookerjaabs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,592
I don't know the details of logo placement circa '66-'69 in terms of identifying year and all that jazz.


But, it's not a chinese copy.


I've messaged Mr. OK Guitar himself in the past if I was concerned about anything and he was very gracious in his replies, give that a shot if you can. Personally, I don't see any red flags other than asking top dollar over top dollar which is kind of a Reverb-y thing to do these days.
 

JimR56

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
588
Nothing looks "odd" or "off" to me. :ganz The only unfortunate thing is that it doesn't have an original hard case.

The price is simply someone's opinion of a premium added to reflect the extremely fine condition of the guitar. And I've seen far crazier prices than this, so I'm not that surprised or shocked.
 

Progrocker111

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
4,013
I'm holding my original '67 right now....and seeing very noticeable differences between the two guitars. It may take enlarging the photos to see the features clearly.

The neck heel is especially glaring.

BD380278_DD51_4A9B_8644_DE56F62C801E.jpeg

Yes, i have noticed that heel too, but i have seen some varibility especially during 67. Even the lowered position crown on headstock first occured in 67.
 

OKGuitar

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
938
My 2 cents. The heel looks unusually large but I think it's legit. I've seen that before. The other thing I see is the body shape-it looks closer to a 68 but doesn't have the big f-holes, so my gut says really late 67. Read my old blog post about "the curse of the mint guitar". It's a real thing. I have had trouble selling mint guitars in the past because folks are simply afraid to play them, especially after paying a serious premium for mint. I'll take a 9/10 any time over mint. Also, that old saw about the good ones get played is just so much crap. It may be true that good ones get played but it's also true that the one's that didn't get played can be just as good. It just didn't get played enough for anybody to know if it was good or not. $7500 is a lot for a 67 but I haven't seen a big neck 65 at that price for around 4 years so the poster who made that comment should go do some research. You're looking at $9K (at least) for a big neck 65. OK, maybe 3 cents worth.
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
After messaging the Reverb seller regarding his "under-the-bed, 1967 ES-335", he provided this closeup photo of the serial number.....

See anything odd with this serial number? :dang

 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
My 2 cents. The heel looks unusually large but I think it's legit. I've seen that before. The other thing I see is the body shape-it looks closer to a 68 but doesn't have the big f-holes, so my gut says really late 67. Read my old blog post about "the curse of the mint guitar". It's a real thing. I have had trouble selling mint guitars in the past because folks are simply afraid to play them, especially after paying a serious premium for mint. I'll take a 9/10 any time over mint. Also, that old saw about the good ones get played is just so much crap. It may be true that good ones get played but it's also true that the one's that didn't get played can be just as good. It just didn't get played enough for anybody to know if it was good or not. $7500 is a lot for a 67 but I haven't seen a big neck 65 at that price for around 4 years so the poster who made that comment should go do some research. You're looking at $9K (at least) for a big neck 65. OK, maybe 3 cents worth.

Just posted a new photo of the guitar's serial number. What do you make of the serial number? Legit?
 

OKGuitar

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
938
Re-neck, IMO. Things were hectic at Gibson in 67 and weird stuff occurred but that serial is not OK. It was stamped off center and it was done one number at a time by eye which is why the digits don't line up. That also explains the big heel. Like to see a photo of the neck pickup route. That'll show a re-neck.
 

deytookerjaabs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,592
Hmm, re-neck in this case certainly would imply full refin unless they did a smokin' job on the finish around the heel? I had a re-necked '61 355. The neck work was farmed off in 1980 to a local Nashville luthier (he left a label w/work description inside the guitar) and the refin job he did was about spotless though it was wine red thus obviously not original. If not for the hardware the guitar still looked new almost 40 years later. But, the neck construction was impeccable..one piece, thin royalite binding over the frets, right neck angle no volute etc, only way you could tell the neck wasn't original is they used a circa 1980 headstock veneer/logo.



:hmm
 

Melodyman

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
191
Shouldnt the 67 have a narrow nut and neck? Also, the head stock shape is questionable.. but for me, the body arching under the neck pu is missing and flat like they started making them in the 80's.. which is a dead give away that this body isnt a 67,, One might expect one or two inconsistencies, but this one has a few too many for a judgement online. Would like to see side profile pics and full shot top to bottom and back as well as pickup cavities..
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
First photo is the "under-the-bed. '67 ES-335";.... the photo below it is an original vintage 1967 ES-335.

**Note the dimensions of the pick guards. Hard to tell....but if both pick guards are the same, then the bodies are not identical at the waist.



 
Last edited:

JimR56

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
588
$7500 is a lot for a 67 but I haven't seen a big neck 65 at that price for around 4 years so the poster who made that comment should go do some research.

I'm the poster who made the comment, and feel free to call me Jim. My comment was general. Not only was I not referring to 1967 335's, I wasn't even referring only to 335's. People put high (and often crazy) prices on things all the time, especially when the item they're selling is CLEAN like this. That was all I was saying.
 

latestarter

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
4,173
Looking at my just recently sold 1967 Cherry 335 I'd say the front of the head stock, logo and crown are all fine. My heel was definitely squarer, but I've seen the odd oval shape also. I'd say the F Holes are fine too. In fact, the only that doesn't look great is that serial position. And there might be a reasonable reason for that. I refretted mine with a wide string spread profile at the nut end to try and make up a little for the narrower nut. Worked well. There's even a thread here somewhere about it.
 
Top