Burst Candidate '9-1244': Calling All Burst "Authenticators"

[S. Weiger]

double post

 

[S. Weiger]

I’ve never seen a real sunburst without that slight gap. Just one data point.
To quote Tampa Red, when it’s “Tight Like That” it’s not necessarily good when talking about this aspect of sunburst Les Pauls.
To be clear, I’ve never seen this particular guitar, the photo is not particularly revealing and I ain’t buying anyway.

A small tolerance should be allowed for, AFAIK. I have seen (pics) of a confirmed Burst here with a gap of almost 2mm !
I'm sure this Burst fall within "vintage specs" for that particular feature. But there are definitely sth. going on with that neck/tenon/body ...

Here's a shot of my confirmed 1960, also a very snug fit:

 

[S. Weiger]

Many speculate it to be a MAX clone with some vintage parts.

If Max really was able to produce a cavity this good in 2015 or earlier, then Houston, we have a problem...

From the Video:

 

[sws1]

If Max really was able to produce a cavity this good in 2015 or earlier, then Houston, we have a problem...

From the Video:
View attachment 28002

It would have had to have been in the 90s or earlier, since this guitar was documented back then.

 

[potionwerks]

Is there a guitar equivalent of PSA that does grading and authentication? In my opinion there should be a standardized rubric with scoring for accuracy, authenticity, and provenance. Something like:

Accuracy = f (Woods, Carves/Routes, Hardware, Plastics, Electronics, Finish)
Authenticity = f (Play Wear, Oxidation Characteristics)
Provenance = f (Case and Candy, Presence in Ledger, Photographs, Sales Receipts, etc.)
Grade = f (Accuracy, Authenticity, Provenance)
Value = f (Grade, regression analysis of comparable sales)

Of course each of these vectors has many sub-points (ie. do the PAFs have No 4 tape, how does the pot date relate to the interpolated production date of the serial number, etc.). You'd probably never have a 100 point guitar unless there was a way to connect the fingerprints on the trussrod to a Gibson employee or found the exact strain of pollen from the fall of '59 embedded in the finish or something crazy like that (might MRIs and X-Ray Diffraction facilitate this?). We can definitely be far more exact but I digress.

In my view this example, 9 1244, is worth basically the scrap value of its parts plus the husk of a reissue guitar because there are too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies to establish accuracy and provenance.

 

[potionwerks]

The closest number I see in the serial log is 9 1242 which is the 262nd of 448 log entries, so this should be a ~June guitar if it's original. If the pots are not 1959Q1 or close I'd definitely call foul. The closest neck tenon photo I found is 9 1181 which has a little gap but is much tighter than this one. Contours on the stoptail seem too pointy and maybe stick out beyond the posts more than they should also. The ABR-1 appears to have a thin back wall and could be original but those were on so many guitars... The trussrod groove seems a little shallow/narrow but okay maybe? The left side of the S on the logo is a little thick (often the connection between the B and S is filed flat but this one has a bump) but looks pretty good otherwise. I don't see many burst faces with quilt or burling either. If the pots are in the proper date range, and the glues are correct then maybe it's a banged up original with a re-carved/reset neck.

 

[bern1]

A small tolerance should be allowed for, AFAIK. I have seen (pics) of a confirmed Burst here with a gap of almost 2mm !
I'm sure this Burst fall within "vintage specs" for that particular feature. But there are definitely sth. going on with that neck/tenon/body ...

Here's a shot of my confirmed 1960, also a very snug fit:

Yes, yours looks right, the photo is good and the gap is visible.

The pic of the guitar discussed in this thread is not sharp enough to really determine what’s what.