• 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!

Blurry Serial Number

Tim Plains

Active member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
795
It would really help if you posted a decent picture of the guitar but Studios don't have that serial number format or body/neck binding. Studio pricing is $600 - $800. If you can talk them into that price range, buy it right away.
 

epbean3

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
8
It would really help if you posted a decent picture of the guitar but Studios don't have that serial number format or body/neck binding. Studio pricing is $600 - $800. If you can talk them into that price range, buy it right away.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I didn't try to talk them out of the Studio theory. The manager is just as "positive" it's a Studio as I am that it's a Classic, but he is still under pressure from his regional manager (this is a corporate-owned pawn chain) to try to get back as much of their money as possible. I'm going to guess they have $1600 in it because that's the number he put out there as an example of how their layaway program works. I guess he thinks someone would pay more than it's worth if they need to make payments. I'm not that guy, I pay cash and always want a cash price.

I know it's hard to put a value on a Frankenstein, but even being a modded guitar trying to look like something it isn't, and being that it clearly has some mileage on it, it is still pretty darned cool. Especially if it can be had at a Studio price. Not usually my kind of thing but it appears that this guitar and I are starting to form a relationship. I should probably plug it in and play it.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
Upon taking a second look at the photo, I don't think this guitar was made by Gibson. Even though its a low-res photo, a number of things can be seen

- There is too much distance between the tailpiece and the bridge
- The screw for the pickguard bracket is way off target
- The pickup rings appear to be import rings. Import rings are wider on the ends. In the photo below, compare the distance from the end of the ring to the height adjustment screw.
- The switch looks to be out of position
- The neck binding looks too thick.
- The frets appear to be over the buinding (no nibs)
- The dark red color of the sunburst finish (which actually looks quite vintage-like) is not a finish that was offered on the Classic
- The shape of the horn is off. The gap between the cutaway and the neck ring appears to be too little
- The shape of the open book headstock is incorrect

I believe that the guitar is probably somebody's homebuilt project. Compare the subject guitar to a 1999 Classic Plus model in the photo below. The camera angle and focal lengths are different, so you can't make direct comparisons of the proportions, but you can still see enough to detect that the subject guitar is not right. If the pawn shop really has $1600 in this guitar, I think they got screwed. Of course, they're likely to pass it on to some uninformed buyer.

5N6MawP.jpg


c5nWZhz.jpg
 

El Gringo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
5,657
Upon taking a second look at the photo, I don't think this guitar was made by Gibson. Even though its a low-res photo, a number of things can be seen

- There is too much distance between the tailpiece and the bridge
- The screw for the pickguard bracket is way off target
- The pickup rings appear to be import rings. Import rings are wider on the ends. In the photo below, compare the distance from the end of the ring to the height adjustment screw.
- The switch looks to be out of position
- The neck binding looks too thick.
- The frets appear to be over the buinding (no nibs)
- The dark red color of the sunburst finish (which actually looks quite vintage-like) is not a finish that was offered on the Classic
- The shape of the horn is off. The gap between the cutaway and the neck ring appears to be too little
- The shape of the open book headstock is incorrect

I believe that the guitar is probably somebody's homebuilt project. Compare the subject guitar to a 1999 Classic Plus model in the photo below. The camera angle and focal lengths are different, so you can't make direct comparisons of the proportions, but you can still see enough to detect that the subject guitar is not right. If the pawn shop really has $1600 in this guitar, I think they got screwed. Of course, they're likely to pass it on to some uninformed buyer.

5N6MawP.jpg


c5nWZhz.jpg

You have a very good eye and are very correct .
 

J T

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
10,501
The 99 Classic will have the 495 and 500 ceramic uncovered black pickups
 

Tim Plains

Active member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
795
I only saw headstock pictures before Dan's post. Where did the pic of the guitar come from?
It's definitely not a Gibson.
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
Upon taking a second look at the photo, I don't think this guitar was made by Gibson. Even though its a low-res photo, a number of things can be seen

- There is too much distance between the tailpiece and the bridge
- The screw for the pickguard bracket is way off target
- The pickup rings appear to be import rings. Import rings are wider on the ends. In the photo below, compare the distance from the end of the ring to the height adjustment screw.
- The switch looks to be out of position
- The neck binding looks too thick.
- The frets appear to be over the buinding (no nibs)
- The dark red color of the sunburst finish (which actually looks quite vintage-like) is not a finish that was offered on the Classic
- The shape of the horn is off. The gap between the cutaway and the neck ring appears to be too little
- The shape of the open book headstock is incorrect

I believe that the guitar is probably somebody's homebuilt project. Compare the subject guitar to a 1999 Classic Plus model in the photo below. The camera angle and focal lengths are different, so you can't make direct comparisons of the proportions, but you can still see enough to detect that the subject guitar is not right. If the pawn shop really has $1600 in this guitar, I think they got screwed. Of course, they're likely to pass it on to some uninformed buyer.

5N6MawP.jpg


c5nWZhz.jpg

Outstanding post. :salude
 

Hotshot

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
282
The book ends look off on the right pic. Too much space in the middle. Just putting my 2c in. I have a friend who’s obsessed with trying to shave down a 2000 Standard to a historic or 50s.. Having just redone a 90s, 2014, and owning a 60s and 70sLP one thing is the same. The point or seem that that bookends meet is flawless with almost no gap. Wings and sizes may change over the years but there’s a crispness to the Gibson’s that knockoffs don’t possess.

Ill post a pic when I get home.

Ya....staring way too much at them
 
Top