I called a guy tonight about a guitar he listed in a paper and I'm going to drop by and check it out.

It's a 1952 Les Paul that was (WAS) completely gold but got stripped back in the early 70's. The P90s & switch tip were sprayed black. Pickguard is a Gibson replacement in black. Tuners have been changed to Grovers. All else is original, case, wiring, screws and shoes. (knobs? I'duno)



Still thinking... the price is good and if I can get a custom aged refinish done on it I might consider saving this. I'm gonna contact Gibson on this and see what they can do.

Thoughts? pro, con, indifferent?

If it is real, it is so cool looking that I would leave it alone. (Unless you had intonation problems, which might require a new bridge.)

When my 57 was refinished (back in 73 or so...), we found the same thing... the top was 2 pieces.

Bill

It'd be cool just to own a piece of history, assuming the price wasn't a killer.

Of course, if it sounds good so much the better.

I'd do as little reconditionng as possible though. Making an old guitar "look old" strikes me as daft.

I just can't get my head around those specially dinged strats Fender sells, or worse those "weathered" SGs and Les Pauls Gibson sells (which to me just look like someone did a half-assed finishing job).

my lord! if the price isn't crazy i would definately buy it. don't pass it up. nice guitar. is he asking alot?

If I were to buy it I'd leave it natural. A really nice clear coat on that great looking wood will give you something different than all the rest of them.

Total score! If it plays OK, you will never regret buying it. Or sell it to me... Skip the refin.

I say play it. If it sounds and plays anything better than "ok" i'd grab it up.

As far as the finish, i'm with Dak on this one. I'd either put some dullcote or glosscote, or tung oil finish, but not any sort of paint. I think it's a fine looking guitar as-is and it'd be unique.

Of course, some ppl say that painting or finishing a guitar changes its tone. I've never done it so i dunno.

I'd fix anything that's broken, of course, but everything else i'd leave alone

Never done it either, but I would imagine that it would have to at least be a semi hollowbody for the finish to noticeably effect the tone. I wouldn't think you'd hear the difference on a solid heavy hunk o' wood Les Paul type guitar.

Maybe someone here knows about this from experience?

If you DON'T buy it, please PM me with any and all info that you can provide, and give me a chance at "first dibs", wouldja?

I bought a warmouth strat body with a hiddous black oil finish. Took the finish off and stained and waxed it. The acoustic sound of it is awesome. Turn out better then I had thought. It is so resonate that it will feeback when treated right even when the pro junior is in the other room, and the feedback sustain is very controlable.

Wow. Just like mine! 'Cept it looks a little funny of course.

I of course think these are the greatest guitars ever made and have played little else for the 20 years since I've owned mine. If it plays well (and an amazing number of old LP's do), maybe I'd just get Gibson to put an original gold finish on it and take the spray paint off the pickups and guard.

I also had a stop tailpiece put on mine (see my avatar), because I really don't like the trapeze ones and neither did Les Paul - the LP came with a stop tailpiece less than 2 years later. The trapeze ones just don't stay in tune well, and the tone is just a lot more solid without that thing. But if you can get it to work for you (as some people have), more power to ya.

In any case, if it's got the original PU's and the neck is in good shape, there's no way you could go wrong with this!

Personally, I love the tone of those trapeze tailpiece/bridge set-ups on '52 Les Pauls; but nothing else about that bridge!

I wasn't sure what your was because it looks like my '71 reissue of a '56 which I still don't have put back together yet (2 years as parts in the box
)

I've received word back from Gibson and a contact name at their Valley Arts repair centre so I'll speak to him on Monday and see what they can do.

There are lots of comments about leaving it and I do appreciate that it looks interesting, my '71 came to me this way and I never cared for it. I'm into wood and this was poor wood selection in my experienced opinion.

I'd like to know what it will set me back to make this a "repaired" (in the sence that the finish is damaged) 1952, first run, no serial number all gold original or as best it can be.

Hang tags range from $10,000 to $25,000 for these when they're proper. This might have fallen from the tree but I'm relatively sure I can correct this with Gibson's official help. I'm way way below this figure to start.

Caevan gets first call if I pass. I'll pm ya as I find out more information.

If you decide to get it refinished, how about ALL gold? There were a few or these rare birds made. I've actually had my hands on one. Pretty odd and interesting, and a good conversation piece, since everyone will want to know what it is.

Bill

Buy it and put a Floyd Rose on it

Love to try it just once,I say buy it$$$$$

Gibson didn't bother matching the halves of the maple cap on the body when they were going to paint over it with gold. They started the "book matching" when they brought out sunburst and "flame top" finishes.

I'd probably get it redone like original. Then use it till it looks old again!

Guitars-are-louder-than-shoes, please check your PM's.

This was a first run solid gold model and has traces of paint to confirm this.

If I could get it refinished as originally manufactured and then Murphy aged and certified it would be the most honest thing to do for her.

Floyd Rose the '52 LP hmmmm.. I'd likely get shot for doing that. I've made a few of those threats myself

Okay smart guys... I'm digging through the pages and looking for documentation that described issues with the original angle at which the neck was attached to the body on these very early models.
Anyone recall this or have information with respect to intonation issues on these? I know they made changes almost immediately and it was this sort of thing.

I believe that the changes were made in the 70s. My 57 has a different neck set than the 70-something.

Bill

Yeah. Supposedly the higher arch in the body they did later made the intonation better, but I dunno... have never had any trouble with mine. Mine is the same deal... shallower angle, shallower arch, very early prototype with no serial number. Intonation has not been an issue.

Do it!

Once again, i doubt you could go wrong with it either way.

Even if it sits in your closet like this for a year and you decide that you don't want it anymore, i'll bet you can get your $$ back out of it. Cavean appears to be frothing at the mouth over there.

If you restore it to original and weather it all properlike, you'll probably *still* come out ahead.

Even if you restore it to original and leave it pristine and beautiful, it'll still be a great guitar that there will surely be a market for.

So it seems to me that whether you want to have it to play, or have it to sell and make money on, you can't go wrong as long as the body, neck and pickups are in halfway useable shape.

Otherwise (unless you've got exclusive dibs on it) you may want to snatch it up before someone else does

Phaeton - Do you know what the seller is asking? I'd expect this to command a lot of money even with the refin and wear.

I hate to say it, I probably won't wind up being able to swing things, dibs or not; however, with a little luck and a lot of time, maybe... !! (I'd like the chance to see...)

I just love '52s, inspite of their faults; I wish the prices were still almost reasonable, like they used to be. Vintage collector mania has put too many wonderful playing and sounding instruments out of the reach of players!

Having that weird, awesome, vibey '54/'59 Frankenpaul whisked out from my grasp a few years back has left an ache in me, as has the market value of my friend's old, totally stock original and pretty clean '52 (it sounds sooo pretty through my bf '67 Pro reverb... I can't make him a fair offer, and I won't take advantage of him or insult him!

Fine looking guitar! I know I'd snap it up in a second if I had the funds. Even if it's not your cup of tea, I'm sure you could fix it up and sell it for a tidy profit.

(Speaking from hands-on experience, as well as the usual reading...)

'52 Les Pauls came with the "trapeze" wrap-around bridge/tailpiece that Les himself designed.

Actually a great sounding bridge for sparkly, shimmery, vintagey tones, but it got a bad rep because of a blunder on Gibson's part: the neck-to-body angle was too shallow, and the bridge couldn't be strung as intended- over the top- without very high action, so Gibson shipped them strung from under the bridge (see your photo there) to compensate for this. This often results in too low of an action, and there is no provision for adjusting height or intonation AT ALL.

Bad form when introducing such a revolutionary new design, don't you think?

Lee Flier's '52 Les Paul "gold-top" has been fitted with a tune-o-matic and stop-bar bridge and tailpiece, I believe.

If I owned a '52 with the "trapeze", and a friend of mine does (bought it brand-new!), I'd consider having the neck re-set to correct the original problem, and enjoy the Hell out of that beautiful tone and less common compliment of hardware!

But I'd more likely try to come up with an alternate bridge/tail design that would address these issues while sounding similar, and still leave the guitar as unchanged as possible.

That bridge, and truly vintage or vintage sounding P-90 "soapbars" go hand-in-glove together for SUCH a GORGEOUS tone!!

You could probably substitute the wrap-around trapeze for a trapeze tailpiece and floating bridge, a la many jazz boxes, without altering the instrument and diminishing its' value.

But this instrument has already been altered. It's already been devalued and no amount of refurbishing will help that. For that reason, I'd put it in the best possible playing condition and, well, play the darn thing! (And, in fact, that is exactly what Lee has said several times when others comment on her stud-mounted tailpiece/Tune-o-matic bridge alteration of her '52. It was necessary, in her mind, to make the guitar work the best it can possibly work.)

Yep. Though it would be neat and nifty to get it refinished, I'd be more worried about playing it. It's horrid condition is a part of it's coolness. It can be refinished anytime in the future.

Bill

... should have known better than to have these conversations in a public forum

I might have to sell a few pairs of shoes to cover this one because I'm still trying to sort out where it's coming from. Not to mention that there's a certain female in the house who's more interested in a new car not a guitar!

Let you know what's up when I get the thing but that won't be until the weekend.

I appreciate all of the input I've received on this and I'm inclined to take my time before making any decisions about what I do with her.
(the guitar... not my wife)

Congrats! (And good luck on convincing the wife ).
Whatever you decide to do to this axe (or not do), I'm sure it's gonna be sweet.
Hope it's even more than you wished for!

And, of course, be sure to give us all the updates (and sound clips...).