52-59 Burst Conversion

rufes · Oct 26, 2010

loufed52 said:
I wouldn't retop it. No matter what, the old wood is gone from the top.

I am with you. No problem with refinishes but I don't like retops

However it is his guitar and he is doing a great job on it

eace2

VintageWoodWorkshop · Oct 26, 2010

I admit I cringed when I saw that you were re-topping it but it will definitely be an amazing guitar when finished with your skill level and tools. I would have liked to see you patch it back up and do a 52/57 with goldtop (although I know the gold paint is another layer of complexity in its own right). Regardless, it will great to see how this progresses....keep posting and thanks!

JIMI55LP · Oct 26, 2010

TW59 said:
Are you going to retop the 60 next? :hmm smile wink

And convert it to a 52' GT, that's the ticket! " Be the first one on your block to have your son sent home in a box "

Steve Craw · Oct 26, 2010

Electric Lloyd said:
Boogie on Guitar,
I think you're doing the LPF an honor by sharing this project. And it takes a set of balls to keep sharing, in spite of the nay-sayers. It's your guitar. Many of us can tell by your impressive skills, that the choice you have made "with YOUR guitar" will come out fantastic. Good luck & please keep us posted! It's looking absolutely killer!:applaude

+1 ! He's not taking a pristine museum piece and changing it, he's converting an already boogered guitar, that belong to HIM. I find this thread interesting for the display of woodworking talent involved, but if I were the OP, I'd tell the lot of you to kiss off!(I'm being polite)

loufed52 · Oct 26, 2010

Anyone that's been here longer than 2 minutes knows that this type of repair work will polarize the membership.

I'm sure that the OP knows it too, and probably expected some difference of opinion.

Will it be a great guitar? Maybe.

But is it really a vintage LP now?

You decide.

marshall1987 · Oct 26, 2010

loufed52 said:
Anyone that's been here longer than 2 minutes knows that this type of repair work will polarize the membership.

I'm sure that the OP knows it too, and probably expected some difference of opinion.

Will it be a great guitar? Maybe.

But is it really a vintage LP now?

You decide.

IMO the OP's 1952 Les Paul ceased being a collectable vintage guitar when it was re-necked with a 1970's Norlin neck. That repair took beyond the point of no return for most collectors. Essentially all that was left was a chopped up Goldtop body of questionable value. So where is the big loss to the pool of collectable vintage guitars?

loufed52 · Oct 26, 2010

marshall1987 said:
IMO the OP's 1952 Les Paul ceased being a collectable vintage guitar when it was re-necked with a 1970's Norlin neck. That repair took beyond the point of no return for most collectors. Essentially all that was left was a chopped up Goldtop body of questionable value. So where is the big loss to the pool of collectable vintage guitars?

I don't see anyone saying that it's collectible.

I don't see it as being a "conversion" either, not as I would define it, and there are others here that see it that way too.

As I pointed out, there will be differences of opinion when old wood is being removed, especially since he's putting a vintage neck on it.

Why put a vintage neck on it if authenticity isn't an issue?

Classic71 · Oct 26, 2010

I understand the feelings of the anti-retop brigade, but the subject has been discussed to death and there's no going back now. With this in mind, can't we just sit back and watch the OP do his work?

He has explained in pretty straightforward terms why he is doing what he is doing (in his previous thread I believe), and the negative comments are serving no further purpose except to dissuade the OP from sharing the experience any further. The guitar was only half a 50's goldtop before Boogie started, and was a million miles from being in collectible condition. The reasons for not restoring it to '52 specs have also been discussed.

Bottom line is, it's the OP's guitar and he can do what he likes with it. If anyone else wanted to "save" this guitar they should have ponied up at auction time, not waited 'til now to dictate what should and shouldn't be done with it. Rant over folks, peace!

Classic71 · Oct 26, 2010

loufed52 said:
I don't see it as being a "conversion" either, not as I would define it, and there are others here that see it that way too.

What does it matter if it can or can't be called a "conversion". It's going to be the guitar that the OP wants, and he can call it anything he likes, no?

Click to expand...

Classic71 · Oct 26, 2010

loufed52 said:
Will it be a great guitar?

Have you seen his previous work? That would suggest an affirmative answer to that question. (Sorry Lou, I'm not picking on you in particular)

boogieongtr · Oct 26, 2010

Electric Lloyd said:
Boogie on Guitar,
it takes a set of balls to keep sharing, in spite of the nay-sayers. :applaude

It doesn't bother me, I have thick skin.

loufed52 said:
Will it be a great guitar? Maybe.

But is it really a vintage LP now?

Yes, I'm planning on making this a great player guitar.

marshall1987 said:
IMO the OP's 1952 Les Paul ceased being a collectable vintage guitar when it was re-necked with a 1970's Norlin neck. That repair took beyond the point of no return for most collectors. Essentially all that was left was a chopped up Goldtop body of questionable value. So where is the big loss to the pool of collectable vintage guitars?

This is exactly my position on the guitar and I couldn't have stated it any better! Here is my take and why I bought the guitar. I love old wood and this will be my 8th conversion (or variation). I have had renecks/veneer top/retop/stock 50's with TOM & stop tail/plug P90's & route out for PAF's. I look at the stupid money ($18K) people have paid for the Pearly Gates LP's. IMOP they are nothing but a glorified reissue built with wrong woods, glues, inlays ...... I paid $3,200. for this guitar, sold $800. of existing parts. I now have $2,400. plus $200. for a 50's neck I have been keeping for just the right project. For $2,600. I will now have a 50's body, 50's Lifton case, 50's neck with original Brazilian fingerboard and inlays. I use hide glue for all of the construction like Gibson did in the 50's. To top off the old wood I have a killer vintage looking Michigan flame maple top. Gibson also used Michigan grown maple in the 50's LP's. If nothing else it should be a great guitar to gig with and for under $3K. What's not to love about this?

eace2

J.D. · Oct 27, 2010

Nice work.

My first impression, honest question and not meant to be disrespectful, is why not just make an entire guitar from scratch? Seems like an awful lot of work to save a Mahogany back. JMHO.

pinefd · Oct 27, 2010

J.D. said:
Nice work.

My first impression, honest question and not meant to be disrespectful, is why not just make an entire guitar from scratch? JMHO.

Who says he hasn't? :hmm

Frank

latestarter · Oct 27, 2010

Thanks for taking the time to post the pics and progress reports. Goodness knows you're not oblidged to.

I tinker on projects of much smaller scales but seeing these builds/conversions provides motivation and many tips! Thansk again, and looking great!

J.D. · Oct 27, 2010

pinefd said:
Who says he hasn't? :hmm

Frank

Nobody.

Point is the guitar as-is had value, and there is a considerable amount of lost value and labor to get that body free of the rest of the guitar. Slabs of lightweight Mahogany are available to start a build from scratch.

I know it's his guitar blah blah blah so please don't waste your time with that response :hee

Tom Wittrock · Oct 27, 2010

Is there any reasonable way to remove the old top and save it?
Could be used to restore or patch another? :hmm

boogieongtr · Oct 27, 2010

TW59 said:
Is there any reasonable way to remove the old top and save it?
Could be used to restore or patch another? :hmm

I have asked several guys who have been in the business 35 years plus and nobody says it can be done. I thought about making a jig and then using a .032 bandsaw blade and cut it off. It would have to be a large band saw that can cut up to 14". One slip and you could loose both the body and top.

Here is how I make a bookmatched top. Grab a chunk of 6/4 Michigan flame maple.

Cut it to 20" and run it thru my bandsaw. I made a jig that holds it steady at 90 degrees and the saw curf is .032

Run each half thru my router table to straight line and remove the saw curf.

Glue up the two pieces.

Run the top blanks thru a drum sander and finish it to 11/16". You now have a booked matched top ready to use.

loufed52 · Oct 27, 2010

Boogie, Jim I believe your name is, it seems that I'm getting flamed more than you are, which is fine with me.

I don't really care if anyone likes what I have to say in this context, and it seems that you don't either, which I respect.

I also respect your obvious skills, and your right to do your project as you see fit.

I've restored some excellent guitars for some ridiculously cheap money too, so we're on the same wavelength there.

I just can't reconcile (in my mind) removing old wood from a vintage Gibson for the purpose of improving the cosmetics.

My approach would have been different; I would have put on the vintage neck and decided if I liked the tone and feel of it before doing anything so radical.

Now there's no way to know if the guitar is tonally better or worse than what you would have had with the vintage neck on it.

Good luck to you, and I hope that you are satisfied with the results.

jwalker · Oct 27, 2010

TW59 said:
Is there any reasonable way to remove the old top and save it?
Could be used to restore or patch another? :hmm

A restorer could do it I bet. Take the binding off, hold the body in a jig, make a fixture to hold enough infra red lamps to evenly heat the top. Hook the fixture up to a variac, get a long thin piece of robust of steel the width of the body like a long hack saw blade with the teeth ground off. Heat the top up slowly and evenly, start an edge up with a thin parting knife and work the blade under the top. Once you get enough heat stored up in the body it would likely come off. It would take time and patience but most people would probably say f$&@ it after a half hour and sand the top off.

I never tried it though. Maybe the large surface area is too much to draw a knife through? But it seems like it could be done.

Tom Wittrock · Oct 27, 2010

boogieongtr said:
I have asked several guys who have been in the business 35 years plus and nobody says it can be done. I thought about making a jig and then using a .032 bandsaw blade and cut it off. It would have to be a large band saw that can cut up to 14". One slip and you could loose both the body and top.

Thanks. I assumed that was the case.

52-59 Burst Conversion

Formerly dmartinez

New member

Well-known member

Formerly Lefty Elmo

loufed52

Guest

Well-known member

loufed52

Guest

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner

Active member

loufed52

Guest

Les Paul Forum Sponsor

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner