• 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!

A snippet about the Beano'Burst.

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
Coincidentally, I do own a '64 SG Custom.

1964SGCustom.jpg


I can't say I recall putting my hands on a '60-'62 SG neck, but the neck on mine is much slimmer than an R9, and slimmer than my R0. It's been awhile since I've touched an original '50s LP Std, but the ones I recall were full and round, whereas my SG is a shallow 'C'.

Now you are comparing reissues to originals. Most reissue Les Pauls have neck shapes totally unlike any normal 50s Les Pauls.

And many people make the common mistake that the "thin 1960" neck shape is thin in width. It isn't. It is thin in depth.
Like I say, most people do not understand the neck shape and how it changed in mid/late 1960.
Come by my shop [call ahead] and I'll show you. Or come to Dallas or Arlington. :salude
 

Jeff West

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
875
"And many people make the common mistake that the "thin 1960" neck shape is thin in width. It isn't. It is thin in depth."

To me like you say it always made sense to use "thin" and "thick" exclusively for depth, and "narrow" and "wide" exclusively for width, i.e., parallel to frets.

Thin and wide = '61 ES335

Thick and narrower = beat up '56 Supro I recently got from your brother in Houston, Tom!
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
"And many people make the common mistake that the "thin 1960" neck shape is thin in width. It isn't. It is thin in depth."

To me like you say it always made sense to use "thin" and "thick" exclusively for depth, and "narrow" and "wide" exclusively for width, i.e., parallel to frets.

Thin and wide = '61 ES335

Thick and narrower = beat up '56 Supro I recently got from your brother in Houston, Tom!

He gets some really great stuff! :)
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,298
You'd have to state the obvious and say that there is no concrete evidence to prove that the Beano is a '60 other than EC stating that it had a slim neck,so it could indeed be a slim neck plain topped '59(because of the DW).
Only the experts like TW59 are going to know how many slim necked(depth) '59s they've tried out/played to confirm this hypothesis or not.
 

TedB

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
2,141
Now you are comparing reissues to originals. Most reissue Les Pauls have neck shapes totally unlike any normal 50s Les Pauls.

Actually, I'm referring to the originals (that I recall) as well as Historics. IIRC, there is a fairly distinct difference in neck feel between a '59 LP and a '64 SG. I'm referring to depth and profile, not width.

If I found a '59 LP neck that was similar in profile (depth) to my SG, that would be interesting.
 

MattD1960

Active member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
573
well if the beast=the beano the gibson did a good job on the reissue now didnt they
 

Overdriver

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
1,047
And, judging by the way they have made reissues FOR DECADES, their opinion doesn't carry much weight. :ganz
True, but I don't think they ever seriously claimed during those decades that the Les Pauls they were making were reissues exact to the finest detail. As for Beano, a certain amount of deductive reasoning has led them and many others to conclude it's a '60, but until it surfaces, of course, we won't know for sure.:salude
 

Tom Wittrock

Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
42,567
True, but I don't think they ever seriously claimed during those decades that the Les Pauls they were making were reissues exact to the finest detail. As for Beano, a certain amount of deductive reasoning has led them and many others to conclude it's a '60, but until it surfaces, of course, we won't know for sure.:salude

If people really want to find it, they need to look at all reasonable options.

After all, the catalog Burst being from 1958 was news to many of us.
For all we know Beano was a 58. :hmm

I sure hope it wasn't a conversion. :ganz
 

gilapagostortois

New member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
730
And what proof do you have that the Beano Burst is a 59? :wah


tom, i'm sorry that this won't be a very satisfying answer, and i respectfully (and i really do mean respectfully) am not open to discussing revealing how or for how long it's been that i had occasion to become aware of definitive proof that the beano burst was/is in fact a '59. i'm fairly certain that any further elaboration would create, at the very least, a somewhat touchy situation. i hope and imagine that you can understand that i can not (and am in fact bound not to) inaugurate such a possibly touchy situation. i can however, and will say that the guitar bears a 9 xxxx serial number. goddamn...that felt good. that's it.
 

Overdriver

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
1,047
tom, i'm sorry that this won't be a very satisfying answer, and i respectfully (and i really do mean respectfully) am not open to discussing revealing how or for how long it's been that i had occasion to become aware of definitive proof that the beano burst was/is in fact a '59. i'm fairly certain that any further elaboration would create, at the very least, a somewhat touchy situation. i hope and imagine that you can understand that i can not (and am in fact bound not to) inaugurate such a possibly touchy situation. i can however, and will say that the guitar bears a 9 xxxx serial number. goddamn...that felt good. that's it.
I don't believe a word. This is nonsense and merely an attempt at self-aggrandisement. Proof is what's needed and anything else is rubbish.:salude
 

TedB

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
2,141
i can however, and will say that the guitar bears a 9 xxxx serial number. goddamn...that felt good. that's it.

I just spoke to Jimmy Hoffa before he took off in his UFO. He said that's baloney.


Proof is what's needed and anything else is rubbish.:salude

Agreed. The problem is even if someone truly had said guitar, I don't see how they could prove it. Virtually anyone old enough to be the thief could claim to be such, and there isn't enough photo evidence to differentiate the guitar from many others (at least not that I've ever seen).

For all practical purposes, every vintage burst is the Beano, and yet none of them is the Beano.
 

zosolp

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,488
As much as I would LOVE to own the beano burst, I would also love to have that magical bluesbreaker amp that Clapton used on the beano record.
 
Top