• 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!

Beano(?)-Maybe?

TM1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
8,349
Tom, I see both those. Works on my iMac with Firefox. I do notice that when I try to copy & paste that photobucket blacks out the link. If I go to the library I can copy just fine. I really dis-like what Photobucket tries to do by charging $399. for their "copy, paste & host" photos. I think they get plenty of money and they're not getting anymore of mine..
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
Now I'm trying Google Chrome, and now the photos show. :rolleyes

That's the same photo of the headstock on the link. To me it clearly looks like 9-2177.
This is why I posted what I did earlier. I have had plenty of experience with these 9-2xxx Bursts and I have seen several where the 2 looks like a 3 [as I showed in my photo].

Does anyone have a clear, macro image of a Burst serial number higher than 9-2xxx?

As for the Keith Burst, I heard it was stolen a long time ago and the number had to be written again. :hmm
 

TM1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
8,349
Now I'm trying Google Chrome, and now the photos show. :rolleyes

That's the same photo of the headstock on the link. To me it clearly looks like 9-2177.
This is why I posted what I did earlier. I have had plenty of experience with these 9-2xxx Bursts and I have seen several where the 2 looks like a 3 [as I showed in my photo].

Does anyone have a clear, macro image of a Burst serial number higher than 9-2xxx?

As for the Keith Burst, I heard it was stolen a long time ago and the number had to be written again. :hmm

I have no clue, I know it was stolen in 1972 while they were recording Exile...
 

Jon Brook

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
177
sorry ..am confused ..how is this not 9 -3012?

Jon



Unfortunately, your photo doesn't show on my screen.
Hopefully, you can see mine.

I had this Burst at least a year before I realized it wasn't 9-3012. :ganz

917_p53806.jpg
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
Sure looks like a "3" to me Tom. It's never been repaired. If it was it was before Ricky owned it in 1974. Keith's was never repaired either and his number is 9 3182.

I'm reading it as a 2 as well Don...

9_2177-14-me.jpg



9_2177-06-me.jpg


9_2177-19-me.jpg


:salude
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
sorry ..am confused ..how is this not 9 -3012?

Jon

Simple ... the second digit is definitely a 2, even though it looks like a 3 [at first]. The dark filled grain adds to the confusion.
But trust me [and many others], that's 9-2012 and not 9-3012. :ganz
 

Triburst

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
4,353
Then I saw 3 3612.:## You've got to trust the experts, or hold it yourself :hank
 

J.D.

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
10,030
Simple ... the second digit is definitely a 2, even though it looks like a 3 [at first]. The dark filled grain adds to the confusion.
But trust me [and many others], that's 9-2012 and not 9-3012. :ganz

^^

True dat
 

Garincha

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
385
:dh

This has been suggested several times is the past, but I say it again: Why doesn@t someone in the UK with a bit time on his hands track down the photographer of the Beano sessions, and see whether he or his relatives still have the negatives. The guy was a professional photographer and his name is known (even mentioned somewhere around in the forum). Using the negatives and some modern image processing software it should be easy to enhance the woodgrain and patterns of the inlays, which will make is so much easier to match with currently known bursts.
Just sayin...:salude

I wondered that myself. The photographer was the late David Wedgbury. The negatives and the copyrights are held by Snap Galleries in London. If somebody really wants a high resolution picture of Beano it can be done easily although it won't come cheap. The gallery's website lists the 32x32 inch print of the iconic picture for 2.500 pounds.

As for the quality: The pics have been probably taken by a middle-format camera which would have a resolution still much greater than most DLSR cameras of today. Hell, even a 35mm Leica would have enough resolution to show the grain on a microscopic level. Whith a professional photographer operating a middle-format camera you should expect pictures with details not far from the burst pictures by CD. David Wedgebury died in 1998 so it wasn't like there had not been enough time to research the case and get in touch with him personally. As that seemingly never happend, most likely nobody ever cared enough about the whereabouts of that guitar other than some guys on a web forum.
 

houndog31

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
550
I wondered that myself. The photographer was the late David Wedgbury. The negatives and the copyrights are held by Snap Galleries in London. If somebody really wants a high resolution picture of Beano it can be done easily although it won't come cheap. The gallery's website lists the 32x32 inch print of the iconic picture for 2.500 pounds.

As for the quality: The pics have been probably taken by a middle-format camera which would have a resolution still much greater than most DLSR cameras of today. Hell, even a 35mm Leica would have enough resolution to show the grain on a microscopic level. Whith a professional photographer operating a middle-format camera you should expect pictures with details not far from the burst pictures by CD. David Wedgebury died in 1998 so it wasn't like there had not been enough time to research the case and get in touch with him personally. As that seemingly never happend, most likely nobody ever cared enough about the whereabouts of that guitar other than some guys on a web forum.

I did exactly this a few years ago. I paid to have scans of every frame of Wedgbury's entire shoot in hopes that there'd be additional images, other than the few that we all know so well, where the guitar, or amp for that matter, could be seen. My deeper hope was that at least one image might even have the back of the headstock visible, but to no avail, the two or three that we've come to know are the only frames that show EC with the guitar.

As mentioned above the quality and resolution of these 2-1/4 film negatives are outstanding, and extremely sharp. The scans I paid for were similar to a contact sheet, my goal was to see every frame, not compare wood grain. But to Garincha's point, a high-resolution scan of the front image, the one is this thread, would provide clear detail, no question. If anyone thinks they know of a Burst that fits the bill that would be the way to go. There's an old thread on this discussion in fact but a few, um Forum members doubted the availability of the negatives and the resolution. They are available, I found them easily.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
This forum came into existence in 2001 and that's when(for many of us) this whole Beano thing took shape........for me since 2003 when I came onboard.
Beano is a fascination and a searching out.........I'd put a small amount of $$ towards a (hopefully) difinitive pic of it.......... if others would do likewise.........it could possibly become property of the forum on that basis if everyone agreed to same?
 

fakejake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
1,274
Someone launch a kickstarter and I'd be happy to put in 10$, just to see where this is going. If everyone on the forum interested participates we might have a much better version of that iconic picture soon. :headbange
 

Garincha

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
385
Someone launch a kickstarter and I'd be happy to put in 10$, just to see where this is going. If everyone on the forum interested participates we might have a much better version of that iconic picture soon. :headbange

I'm afraid that wouldn't work as expected ;) You can buy a high quality print of that picture, but you can't scan and publish it here. The copyright for the pictures is also held by Snap Gallery and it would certainly be a bigger task to talk them into letting the LPF publish a HiRes version of Wedgebury's pictures. What might be possible is to buy the print, scan it but publish only a small portion of it (which would still be enough for showing the grain). But before doing so I'd still seek legal advice considering web copyright issues can be very ugly!

As much as I like the detective-story aspect of this, I'm afraid if even Eric himself doesn't care enough to really go forensic, it won't happen...
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
No need to go to these lengths.

I'm absolutely convinced that there are some who know the exact whereabouts of this guitar.

I'm glad they're staying tight lipped...what else would we have to talk about...:laugh2:
 

Garincha

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
385
This forum came into existence in 2001 and that's when(for many of us) this whole Beano thing took shape........for me since 2003 when I came onboard.
Beano is a fascination and a searching out.........I'd put a small amount of $$ towards a (hopefully) difinitive pic of it.......... if others would do likewise.........it could possibly become property of the forum on that basis if everyone agreed to same?

I wasn't aiming at this forum since as you said, it only came in existance after Wedbury's dead. I was aiming more towards the numerous rumours about Beano that were flying around as far back as the early 80s. I remember having read an interview with Mick Moody in a german guitar magazine where he talks about one of his (or Marsden's I don't know exactely) Burts that somebody suggested to be Beano. We know today that this wasn't true, but it shows how far back the Beano rumours went. If the Whitesnake people were really interested to know if their guitar was Beano, a visit at David Wedgebury's place would have sorted it out. Even Clapton himself could have gone to greater length but appearently wasn't interested that much.

I honestly think the mystery surrounding the guitar is probably the most interesting thing about it. Imagine one day it is discovered and we find out it plays and sounds just average ;)
 

Garincha

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
385
I'm absolutely convinced that there are some who know the exact whereabouts of this guitar.

...which means absolutely nothing whithout a proof. And that's where the HiRes prints come into play ;) I'm convinced the current owner has gone to these lenght already...

But let's face it: The sole reason why the guys in the know keep their mouthes shut are the legal aspects of it. If some burst would be identified as Beano, it would get very ugly in no time. They ain't saving the mystery for us, they are saving their own asses ;)
 

ourmaninthenorth

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
7,119
...which means absolutely nothing whithout a proof. And that's where the HiRes prints come into play ;) I'm convinced the current owner has gone to these lenght already...

But let's face it: The sole reason why the guys in the know keep their mouthes shut are the legal aspects of it. If some burst would be identified as Beano, it would get very ugly in no time. They ain't saving the mystery for us, they are saving their own asses ;)

I simply thought I'd add to the paucity of "proof" in the whole narrative....heard the rumour? No?..hold on, I'll start one....:laugh2:

Of course, if one knows where this guitar is; and those people do exist - I've done my very best comedic conspiracy thinking on this... any public domain proof is the last thing they'd desire...

So we get the big, high res shot..what then? All it'd really mean is that instead of 20 page threads, they'd only now be two posts long...

Q. Is it Beano?

A. No

:biggrin:
 

houndog31

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
550
I'm afraid that wouldn't work as expected ;) You can buy a high quality print of that picture, but you can't scan and publish it here. The copyright for the pictures is also held by Snap Gallery and it would certainly be a bigger task to talk them into letting the LPF publish a HiRes version of Wedgebury's pictures. What might be possible is to buy the print, scan it but publish only a small portion of it (which would still be enough for showing the grain). But before doing so I'd still seek legal advice considering web copyright issues can be very ugly!

You can easily negotiate with the estate owners through Snap a fee that would be for "research only, not for publication", that's what I did. Although it wasn't cheap it was worth it for me to answer the lingering question I've had for some time, which was: Were there any other photos from that session where you could see that guitar and amp? You don't need to publish them for everyone else to see if you just want to compare tops. I have the scans but I can't share them. And it would be cheaper than buying a numbered art print.

I also reached out to Mike Vernon who produced the BB album, he's still active in the blues community, asking if he was aware of any other unpublished photos from that day, sadly he did not know of any. In fact he had not even seen most of the other ones that I described from the Wedgbury shoot.

FWIW a 300dpi or higher resolution digital scan from that size negative would provide way better resolution than a print ever would. If someone has a guitar top to compare it with it would most likely provide a wood grain fingerprint. Photography is my profession for the past 40 yrs so I'm not trolling here.
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
Although it wasn't cheap it was worth it for me to answer the lingering question I've had for some time, which was:
Were there any other photos from that session where you could see that guitar and amp?

So, what's the answer to that question? :hmm
 
Top