Wait.. there’s stuff on THIS one that looks wrong doesn’t it? The serial number is just “PP7”? That looks weird to me, but I’m not an expert, can anyone weigh in? It’s also supposed to be 50s, but that weird serial number is engraved - again not an expert, but I think I’ve read that 50s serial numbers are just stamped while 60s and later are actually engraved. If that’s true, this one looks sketchy. Plus what’s up with the back of the tuners? None of them are aligned, again is that normal for a vintage Gibson?
From the Reverb page: "This guitar has an original 1952 body with an early pre-production Gibson SG neck, which is why the back of the headstock is stamped with a "PP7" code. Still has the original pickups, electronics, and hardware. When Gibson Factory did the neck replacement in 1960/61' the body was re-finished in a new coat of gold. As shown in photos, the original paint can be seen through the "new" coat in some wear spots of the guitar" So it's had a new neck put on and been refinished at the very least.
I watched a video where a junk shop advertised a Les paul and commenters claimed it was fake, they reduced the price to £200 and someone snapped it up, it was genuine!
My 2 cents: I've owned two 52's. (still have one) There are several things that look correct. The Gibson logo is lower on the head stock, The botton of the truss rod cover has space between it and the nut, the knobs are tall, the toggle switch nut is round (not hex), the fingerboard looks like old brazilian rosewood with cowboy chord wear, the inlays are the right color and look slightly shrunk, the tailpiece has the patent stamp. Can't see the tuners well enough to tell if they are real but both of my guitars had more darkening of the tuner plastic and some slight shrinkkage. My guitars did not have serial numbers on the back of the head stock. Obviously the truss rod cover is incorrect. Without looking inside and holding the guitar I can't be positive, but my first impression is it's an early 52. also -The reverb listing has a lot wrong with it, primarily the neck. God bless & Rock on!
Putting in another two cents Mike, I'd agree with you entirely. I believe it's an early '52 as well. Everything looks legit for all the reasons you outlined. Would be good to see the pots and wiring properly. What is almost impossible to fake is the fretboard wear. Headstock is the correct shape, narrower than the 60s, looking more like an LPJ. The underwrapping of the strings on the trapeze tailpiece/bridge, due to the fact Gibson got the neck angle wrong in early production models also points to 1952. I would've expected some oxidation (greening) of the gold (bronze flake in clear nitrocellulose laquer) but it looks very clean. Personally, I think the $200 'buyer' paid more for it some time ago and is using this 'story' to create some worldwide interest to sell it at a premium price, realising it's not that good to play. As you know, Gibson sorted out the neck angle by 1954 !! 🙂
@@pmsphoto Yeah, they fixed them in 54, in the old days we would throw a Leo Quan bridge on them and rock out. I wish I knew who has the 52 right now. I still have an old brown 52 Lifton case that would go perfect with that guitar.
I'm pretty sure your Fender shirt is real! I wasn't sure at first, but I did a side-by-side comparison with mine and it's spot-on! Hope you're having an awesome day Mr. Bailey!
You would really be surprised the kind of deals that happen all the time. I bought with all the money I had at the time a 1963 custom color Polaris white Gibson sg junior all original for 400$ back in October of 2023. The guy only wanted 175$ I told him I’d give him all I had and he was really happy to be offered that. Came with the original case and I cleaned it up and had it looked at, all original and it’s an incredible story.
The heels are very different, (check vid at around 5:54). I don't which heel style would be right or wrong, or if both might have been correct at some point.
Did anyone else notice that the one advertised for $31k looks like a '68 Gold top that someone has put a trapeze on? It had that headstock inlay that was '68 only.
In 1977 i bought a ‘53 Les Paul at a garage sale for $250. Sold it in the 90’s for $4000. Found a lot of deals over the years but that was by far the best.
Not an expert, but it looks 100% legit to me. If it were fake, this would be the art forgery of the decade and well worth the 200 bucks regardless, because it would take a metric ton of work to fake something this convincingly.
Shape of the two tailpieces are different, which is not something that would be likely to be replaced. Pop the truss rod cover and see if it has the acorn nut or not.
I think the one on Reverb has issues... The OG '52's as far as I know didn't have the frog inlay on the headstock. The selector switch has a nut around it and not the original knurled ring. The V & T knobs don't look like they are period correct. On the back, the neck-heel is shaved down or a reissue ? The $ 200 guitar looks more OG to Me
Good video and good find for someone, it appears to be original. Estate sales can have some great finds. I bought a 1943 Gibson lap steel in original case for $100. So there are good finds out there but they are few and far in-between. Have a good one.
Body looks real but it has the neck or headstock replaced, since the mother of pearl headstock inlays are from later "Standard" models. There's the "PP7" stamp which isn't typical. The heel shape looks wrong too. There's a story about this early trapeze tailpiece and neck angle. Originally the LP neck angle was too flat and the design of the tailpiece meant the strings were flat on the strings which didn't work. So people had to wrap strings to make it slightly useable but then they were too high. At least this example has a good neck angle. Maybe why it was replaced in the first place.
The one on the left seems to have the original "wrap under" trapeze tail piece/bridge, while the one on the right has the trapeze tail-piece/bridge that was issued as a "fix" for the unplayable/zero intonation original. It just MAY be one of the holy grail or golden fleece models.
@troybrown7092 I noticed that too, but someone has seen the reverb listing and it says the 52 had a new neck on, a prototype or something, which would explain those differences (and the headstock inlay). Still, it makes it very hard to tell from what you can see.
"Remove the neck You'll know." Yes that will definitely make the guitar worth less than $200 U.S. or Canadian. Considering both are set necks. $200 U.S.D. buy even if fake, make sure it feels nice, a decent '52 copy cost more than a couple of Grand anyway. Sincerely Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Even if it isn't a legitimate '52 LP, it's still a great deal. If it's fake, just imagine the hours of work and the quality of the work to make it is worth much more than $200. It would be a great reliced recreation.
Your comparison guitar (on the right) has been re-necked in 68 - hence the crown inlay on the headstock. The guitar on the left looks like the real deal
That's 100% real. Only thing I wonder about is the backstory. Did he actually pick it up at a sale for $200, or did he just make it up to generate some hype around it to spark a bidding war, before he decides to put it up for sale online?
Yeah, the stamp on the headstock is a dead giveaway is not the same neck. There were no stamped headstocks in 1952. It’s cool that the body and electronics were legit, minus a refin.
The Wrap around tailpieces are completely different.The bottom of the reddit LPS body is more round and I don't think they use the les paul silk screen on the headstock back then
It could be genuine, I dont know. But it does seem suspicious that an estate sale by guitar unsavvy relatives didnt even do a random google to find a baseline ballpark price for a gibson. Its not like thats difficult or time consuming to find the answer is "starts from thousands". So on balance I'd still put my money on reddit stunt for attention.
It’s very difficult to believe that in this day and age, with all the information available, that something like this could happen. As the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it is too good to be true. If it is real, I’m seriously jealous.
How can you compare like for like when the advert on reverb clearly demonstrates that the guitar on the right is not a ‘pure’ 52? Its had a neck replacement and is refinished.
I'm sceptical because the gibson logo pictured is different from mine, which is a silver type of colour ...but it could be nothing ...make sure to get it checked over by a valid man who knows what he's talking about
I question the guy asking for help. The first three pics he shares should be the truss rod cover off, the back covers off and the pickups out. Why would he not post those?
I bought an absolutely mint 1966 Fender Princeton Reverb for $5 at a garage sale. Wife actually argued with me about the $5!! LMAO .. I told here the fricken name plate was worth the $5! . Anyways, I have a `52 Les Paul ( Historic Arts Collection 1 of 15 made in 1999). Wish I had only paid $200 for the real thing.
You would have to send this to Trogly he is probably the foremost expert on Gibson and Verification on vintage acquisitions. This thing I guarantee is a complete nightmare if real make no mistake the amount of "cherry" Vintage are low,, most vintage need alot of TLC and even then alot of them play like shit if even playable, Some sell for incredibly low because of this as they are simply wall hangers for props. Vintage instruments are not worth as much as people seem to think they are, unless its really rare, Like 1 of 10 rare, I had an argument with a guy at a convention because he was selling 60's and 70's Strats and he wanted $8k to $16k for them and when I asked why so high in price he said "rarity", I replied if they are so rare than why do you have 16 of them for sale? in this one place, I said look dude I would maybe give you $3k but that is top dollar, 70's ABC era isn't the greatest and I have seen probably over 200+ 60's era strats in the last 5-7 years they are not rare in fact I know a place where there are about 20 of them still in the original boxes(as well as dozens of other models) warehoused for repairs. Truth of the matter is the shit isn't worth what you think it is and most of it is shit that needs a few thousand dollars of labor just to make it playable, the quality control wasn't the best, and all too often its not as rare as you think it is. American Old isn't Old, I have bought 15th and 16th century Weapons and Armor as well as ancient era coins for $3k-7k and in instruments 1700's Violins and cellos for cheaper than what Vintage guitars sell for, A friend of mine has had a family lineage of Polish/Austrian/Czech ancestry that has had instrument shops going back to the early 1700s and they had a "modern" shop(back in the 1930's) in California and New York, his clientele now are all Musicians that are well known and he specifically deals now only in repairs for them as the shops closed down back in the early 2000s and he is retired, but he has a warehouse for his parts stock, first thing he says is after looking at his warehouse is that there are 3 of them elsewhere he knows from different owners with a family background like him, don't believe they are rare because they aren't except a few.
Part true but it’s a bit much to say that most play like shit. A fender especially is easy to get playing right unless something terrible happened to the neck or truss rod…
@@mohamedtlass3842 No its almost always true I can tell people that have little experience with a large pool of vintage, Fender has their specific challenging issues and Gibson have theirs as well as other Manufacturers. Alot of it depends on the Guitar and its life If it sat in a studio and had maintenance and was constantly kept up with then it probably isn't going to be that bad of a shape(a rarity), if it spent years gigging and beat the shit out of and was neglected while on the road or was one of those sat in the attic specials then you are going to have issues and this is the largest portion of vintage on the market. Electronics corrode over time, Frets need to be replaced as the material was soft and doesn't take a beating well, Necks twist particularly basses(and Rickenbacker can spin on a dong for that shitty bridge of theirs it only took them 65 years to fix finally), Nuts over time need to be redone they eventually chip and crack, Tuners seize as they wear out, Necks bow leading to Truss rods bottoming out, Bridge angles aren't correct, they need shielding done or redone, Neck pocket isn't proper, String spacing isn't proper and Loe E or High slides off the fretboard or is too close to the edge, Pot metal cracks, Sharp edges on metal parts, Screws strip out, Shrinking pickguards need to be replaced or the Pickguard and truss rod cover are cracking, Wood Rot in the body between layers causing maple and Mahagony to separate, Pickup Wiring breaks off at the Bobbin, The pickups are mostly all different and don't sound right because they well had no specific way to build them except if you got them from the same person in particular years, Necks aren't the same shape(Damn Jazzmasters I swear some years a thin C was a nearly 1 inch baseball bat and none of them are quite the same), Separation of Rosewood popping off the maple on the neck starting at the nut, F&*k Rickenbacker, Neck Pocket Angle needing adjustment, Bridge intonation cannot be achieved, SG neck pocket issues, Headstock and neck breaks, Wood Mushrooming where bridge posts are, Cracked Wood in the bridge area, ect ect. The list goes on and on tbfh, not only in my personal workings but people I know that have worked on or had a large pool of Vintage guitars come through, each one has its challenge depending on year and type, some of it is lack of quality control other issues are from dumb Ass Musicians doing dumb things like using a pick as a shim or overtightening screws which means you have the guitar life lived portion you are not accounting for, unless its out of a box or extremely well taken care of and had its problems fixed back then properly you end up sometimes with cascading failures leading to it needing way too much or not really worth it(for example a Gibson Neck joint issue that would need the neck removed from the body. I will Say the Advantage of Fender is I can take a vintage body and pop in a modern neck and be GTG and this is why bolt ons are IMO superior to Glued in set necks. No manufacturer thought for a second guitars would have a collectors market and worse an economy, they were tools to be used and discarded when the life was ended buying a newer one that hopefully was better made with a refined design as they all were still learning at that early in the market. They also knew though musicians make piss poor consumers and fall for dumb marketing.
HOAX OP posted a video of him playing it... the guitar in the video is newer... look at the headstock its the wrong shape (pointer than the 50s) also the fretboard isn't as hammered... i know its hard to see but you can see the inlay isn't shrunken and is properly oriented. also no scratch on the arm rest area of the body.
The one on the right doesn't seem right. The trapeze is different. And the ser# is not right. There was no crown on a 52. Plus the headstock on the left one seems kinda lp jr style. The heel is correct. On further investigation, the one on the right is a fraud. The left one is a 52. I hope Noone buys the one from BC thinking it is legit.
All of the golden era Les Pauls had a silk screened logo, applied atop the lacquer, and it would easily wipe off when people would clean their guitars, because it wasn't sealed in with additional coats of lacquer after application.
For $200 it's a steal, klusons look new, no serial # ??, check the pots(for dates) and caps in the control cavity, replaced input jack cover and switch knob, otherwise she's good to go.
I saw one of those in an estate sale in Kingston Ontario about 2 years ago. I think they were also asking about $200 and I though I should bid on it but I didn't. I notice the trapize on both are somewhat different. The expensive one is wrapped over and the metal piece at the bottom of the guitar is much shorter. The fake one is wrapped under? Also the fretboard looks unplayable. Not sure why anyone would want to invest so much money in something so worn out (yes, I'm talking about the $200 one (jk)). My ears aren't good enough to tell the difference and I would never want someone to damage the pristine condition of any of the guitars I own. How the hell do they get so wrecked in the first place? But that's just me!
The expression on your face makes you look like the guard from the Green Mile movie, the one that shot wild Bill. He needs to take the pot covers off and see what's inside, it does look real.
It a fake. Heal joint isn’t correct. You can find out quick by removing the truss rod cover, if the truss rod has the bolt type it’s real, if it has the allen type, it’s fake.
this is the Reverb post: the Gibson Les Paul 1952 on listing: *Reverb* tidd.ly/4cOkVyQ
Wait.. there’s stuff on THIS one that looks wrong doesn’t it? The serial number is just “PP7”? That looks weird to me, but I’m not an expert, can anyone weigh in? It’s also supposed to be 50s, but that weird serial number is engraved - again not an expert, but I think I’ve read that 50s serial numbers are just stamped while 60s and later are actually engraved. If that’s true, this one looks sketchy. Plus what’s up with the back of the tuners? None of them are aligned, again is that normal for a vintage Gibson?
From the Reverb page:
"This guitar has an original 1952 body with an early pre-production Gibson SG neck, which is why the back of the headstock is stamped with a "PP7" code. Still has the original pickups, electronics, and hardware. When Gibson Factory did the neck replacement in 1960/61' the body was re-finished in a new coat of gold. As shown in photos, the original paint can be seen through the "new" coat in some wear spots of the guitar"
So it's had a new neck put on and been refinished at the very least.
that explains it!
@@landonbailey $200.00??
I watched a video where a junk shop advertised a Les paul and commenters claimed it was fake, they reduced the price to £200 and someone snapped it up, it was genuine!
@@AndrewAHayes sometimes you get lucky 😇
Troglys guitar show had Ana episode where this happened, it was an SG I think though.
@@angrypantsman6034yes I saw this too. It was far from stock tough and a very unusual model.
My 2 cents: I've owned two 52's. (still have one) There are several things that look correct. The Gibson logo is lower on the head stock, The botton of the truss rod cover has space between it and the nut, the knobs are tall, the toggle switch nut is round (not hex), the fingerboard looks like old brazilian rosewood with cowboy chord wear, the inlays are the right color and look slightly shrunk, the tailpiece has the patent stamp. Can't see the tuners well enough to tell if they are real but both of my guitars had more darkening of the tuner plastic and some slight shrinkkage. My guitars did not have serial numbers on the back of the head stock. Obviously the truss rod cover is incorrect. Without looking inside and holding the guitar I can't be positive, but my first impression is it's an early 52. also -The reverb listing has a lot wrong with it, primarily the neck. God bless & Rock on!
Putting in another two cents Mike, I'd agree with you entirely. I believe it's an early '52 as well. Everything looks legit for all the reasons you outlined. Would be good to see the pots and wiring properly. What is almost impossible to fake is the fretboard wear. Headstock is the correct shape, narrower than the 60s, looking more like an LPJ. The underwrapping of the strings on the trapeze tailpiece/bridge, due to the fact Gibson got the neck angle wrong in early production models also points to 1952. I would've expected some oxidation (greening) of the gold (bronze flake in clear nitrocellulose laquer) but it looks very clean. Personally, I think the $200 'buyer' paid more for it some time ago and is using this 'story' to create some worldwide interest to sell it at a premium price, realising it's not that good to play. As you know, Gibson sorted out the neck angle by 1954 !! 🙂
@@pmsphoto Yeah, they fixed them in 54, in the old days we would throw a Leo Quan bridge on them and rock out. I wish I knew who has the 52 right now. I still have an old brown 52 Lifton case that would go perfect with that guitar.
@@pmsphoto they’re not that bad with some adjustments
I'm pretty sure your Fender shirt is real! I wasn't sure at first, but I did a side-by-side comparison with mine and it's spot-on! Hope you're having an awesome day Mr. Bailey!
You would really be surprised the kind of deals that happen all the time. I bought with all the money I had at the time a 1963 custom color Polaris white Gibson sg junior all original for 400$ back in October of 2023. The guy only wanted 175$ I told him I’d give him all I had and he was really happy to be offered that. Came with the original case and I cleaned it up and had it looked at, all original and it’s an incredible story.
"Welcome back Troglodytes to your daily dose of guitar information..."
Could you do an update on this if/when you find out? I love stories like this. Really cool if it ends up being authentic 😎
The heels are very different, (check vid at around 5:54). I don't which heel style would be right or wrong, or if both might have been correct at some point.
Send this to Trogly.
Did anyone else notice that the one advertised for $31k looks like a '68 Gold top that someone has put a trapeze on? It had that headstock inlay that was '68 only.
It’s had a neck replacement
@@ewal8556 Was that stated in the ad? It doesn't say '52 Les Paul, neck replaced?
It says in the add it was a 52 body with a Gibson factory neck replacement, an SG neck
@@ewal8556 Thanks , I missed that .
It appears to be a re-neck. The crown inlay is from an SG, and the larger heel resembles an SG neck. Shrunken inlays can be real.
@@donaldrowe8460 nope. 68 goldtop had the crown
SG neck won’t fit on a LP.
In 1977 i bought a ‘53 Les Paul at a garage sale for $250. Sold it in the 90’s for $4000. Found a lot of deals over the years but that was by far the best.
Not an expert, but it looks 100% legit to me. If it were fake, this would be the art forgery of the decade and well worth the 200 bucks regardless, because it would take a metric ton of work to fake something this convincingly.
Yes, you can’t get a semi decent chibson for 200$ anyways…
Shape of the two tailpieces are different, which is not something that would be likely to be replaced.
Pop the truss rod cover and see if it has the acorn nut or not.
I think the one on Reverb has issues... The OG '52's as far as I know didn't have the frog inlay on the headstock. The selector switch has a nut around it and not the original knurled ring. The V & T knobs don't look like they are period correct. On the back, the neck-heel is shaved down or a reissue ? The $ 200 guitar looks more OG to Me
Call Trogly.
No one needs Trogly. He would charge the dude anyway. Trogly is a douchey dweeb. The dude gets duped all the time lol.
Good video and good find for someone, it appears to be original. Estate sales can have some great finds. I bought a 1943 Gibson lap steel in original case for $100. So there are good finds out there but they are few and far in-between. Have a good one.
Very nice!
Body looks real but it has the neck or headstock replaced, since the mother of pearl headstock inlays are from later "Standard" models. There's the "PP7" stamp which isn't typical. The heel shape looks wrong too. There's a story about this early trapeze tailpiece and neck angle. Originally the LP neck angle was too flat and the design of the tailpiece meant the strings were flat on the strings which didn't work. So people had to wrap strings to make it slightly useable but then they were too high. At least this example has a good neck angle. Maybe why it was replaced in the first place.
If the gibson branded case was in even decent shape, it would be worth a $200 gamble. Id roll those dice right now.
The one on the left seems to have the original "wrap under" trapeze tail piece/bridge, while the one on the right has the trapeze tail-piece/bridge that was issued as a "fix" for the unplayable/zero intonation original. It just MAY be one of the holy grail or golden fleece models.
1 has a round heal on the neck the other has a squared off 1 ,something seams off to me. The $200 looks more legit to me .
@troybrown7092 I noticed that too, but someone has seen the reverb listing and it says the 52 had a new neck on, a prototype or something, which would explain those differences (and the headstock inlay). Still, it makes it very hard to tell from what you can see.
The 30.000 one has an SG neck on it. The end of the tailpiece looks shorter also.
"Remove the neck You'll know."
Yes that will definitely make the guitar worth less than $200 U.S. or Canadian.
Considering both are set necks.
$200 U.S.D. buy even if fake, make sure it feels nice, a decent '52 copy cost more than a couple of Grand anyway.
Sincerely
Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.
Even if it isn't a legitimate '52 LP, it's still a great deal. If it's fake, just imagine the hours of work and the quality of the work to make it is worth much more than $200. It would be a great reliced recreation.
The one in Canada has a replaced neck from an SG model 61/62 and the body top or all refined.
Looks real to me… but even if it’s fake, if it plays and sounds good, it’s a damn great way to spend $200!
Murphy Labs wouldn't raise the inlays like that... I'm guessing.
The owner should seek appraisals from Norm Harris, Mark Agnesi & George Gruhn.
Was that just a 7 minute setup for the punchline about Gibsons not staying in tune? If so bravo, I enjoyed it!
Looks like a 1952. The headstock is correct. The $30K one with the diamond inlay in the headstock is not correct for 1952.
That’s because it has an SG neck on it!
Your comparison guitar (on the right) has been re-necked in 68 - hence the crown inlay on the headstock. The guitar on the left looks like the real deal
Even if 100% genuine we only have the guy's word that he paid 200 dollars for it at an estate sale.
That's 100% real. Only thing I wonder about is the backstory. Did he actually pick it up at a sale for $200, or did he just make it up to generate some hype around it to spark a bidding war, before he decides to put it up for sale online?
Agreed. People are spending too much time scrutinizing the guitar, when they should be looking into the backstory.
Not sure but a lot of early Les Paul’s didn’t have serial numbers
I casually saw the post on Reddit the other day and wow! Lucky find.
At $200 it doesn’t matter if it’s fake. He bought it to play so play.. 👍🇦🇺🏴
Yeah, the stamp on the headstock is a dead giveaway is not the same neck. There were no stamped headstocks in 1952. It’s cool that the body and electronics were legit, minus a refin.
The Wrap around tailpieces are completely different.The bottom of the reddit LPS body is more round and I don't think they use the les paul silk screen on the headstock back then
The mounting brackets on the tail piece looks different to me.
I always hope people find stuff like this. It means that maybe, just maybe, I might get lucky too. And that is hard to hate.
Remove the neck? First time watching this channel, BTW you can't remove the neck on a Gibson, you can on a Fender however.
I notice the one on the left has strings that are somewhat off center, maybe because of that trapeze, or it's a fake
The strings are put on bridge wrong on one of them. But they look identical other than the headstock.
It could be genuine, I dont know.
But it does seem suspicious that an estate sale by guitar unsavvy relatives didnt even do a random google to find a baseline ballpark price for a gibson. Its not like thats difficult or time consuming to find the answer is "starts from thousands". So on balance I'd still put my money on reddit stunt for attention.
I didn't like how the pic of the back of the headstock shows the tuners are all crooked on the one from Canada.
It’s very difficult to believe that in this day and age, with all the information available, that something like this could happen. As the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it is too good to be true. If it is real, I’m seriously jealous.
The neck heels are different! The $200 one has a rounded heel, the 52 has a flat heel and the back of the headstocks are different.
I thought the bridge pickup on the 1952s had screws near the two opposite corners.
I'll be interested to see what Gibson experts think about the different shaped heels. Perhaps both can be correct?
did anyone notice that the tailpieces are different,look at the side by side at the end of the video.
How can you compare like for like when the advert on reverb clearly demonstrates that the guitar on the right is not a ‘pure’ 52? Its had a neck replacement and is refinished.
You set them up side by side on the screen
Easiest test would be to knock it off its stand.. if the headstock doesnt break, uts definitely fake!
Looked pretty real to me, including his playing demo.
I'm sceptical because the gibson logo pictured is different from mine, which is a silver type of colour ...but it could be nothing ...make sure to get it checked over by a valid man who knows what he's talking about
I question the guy asking for help. The first three pics he shares should be the truss rod cover off, the back covers off and the pickups out. Why would he not post those?
I hope for the finder that it's real. I'm sure Joe B's ears started ringing as soon as the post hit reddit.
Hahahahahhaha
Didn't have speed knobs in 1952. You need to check the pot dates and the back of the pickups.
so these are all wrong? reverb.com/p/gibson-les-paul-goldtop-1952
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WINNER OF THE PREVIOUS GIVEAWAY 👍
I bought an absolutely mint 1966 Fender Princeton Reverb for $5 at a garage sale. Wife actually argued with me about the $5!! LMAO .. I told here the fricken name plate was worth the $5! . Anyways, I have a `52 Les Paul ( Historic Arts Collection 1 of 15 made in 1999). Wish I had only paid $200 for the real thing.
The heel joints appeared quite different from guitar to guitar????
I saw what you did with that coffee cup lol! That was hilarious!
Edit: Shoot I'd buy it anyway.
You missed the neck heal. Different. I don't think that changed so drastically in one year.
Face it, you get way more for your money with the fake- look how long that tailpiece is!
Send this to the Trogly show. Cheers from Ottawa.
No don't. He would charge the dude. Basement boy gets duped himself all the time lol!
There were no serial numbers on 1952 models, also no neck angle. Reverb guitar is not a 1952.
you should do a follow up
So was it real? Any followup on this? Would be crazy luck if true.
Isn't it, ''trapezoid'', as in nonsymmetrical square?
I'm confused...
but what about the 80's elite tele in the background. hadn't seen a green one. 🧐phillips head screws on the paul. no bueno.
check pots should be centralab no re solder
The heel of the neck is different too
Back of headstock key distances... hummm
The left one is likely real. The right one is either a '68 or a fake. All the details I could see indicate a real 52 on the left.
That 1952 Lp GT Trapeze tailpiece made the guitar literally unplayable,....
the 2 neck heels look different
You would have to send this to Trogly he is probably the foremost expert on Gibson and Verification on vintage acquisitions. This thing I guarantee is a complete nightmare if real make no mistake the amount of "cherry" Vintage are low,, most vintage need alot of TLC and even then alot of them play like shit if even playable, Some sell for incredibly low because of this as they are simply wall hangers for props. Vintage instruments are not worth as much as people seem to think they are, unless its really rare, Like 1 of 10 rare, I had an argument with a guy at a convention because he was selling 60's and 70's Strats and he wanted $8k to $16k for them and when I asked why so high in price he said "rarity", I replied if they are so rare than why do you have 16 of them for sale? in this one place, I said look dude I would maybe give you $3k but that is top dollar, 70's ABC era isn't the greatest and I have seen probably over 200+ 60's era strats in the last 5-7 years they are not rare in fact I know a place where there are about 20 of them still in the original boxes(as well as dozens of other models) warehoused for repairs.
Truth of the matter is the shit isn't worth what you think it is and most of it is shit that needs a few thousand dollars of labor just to make it playable, the quality control wasn't the best, and all too often its not as rare as you think it is. American Old isn't Old, I have bought 15th and 16th century Weapons and Armor as well as ancient era coins for $3k-7k and in instruments 1700's Violins and cellos for cheaper than what Vintage guitars sell for, A friend of mine has had a family lineage of Polish/Austrian/Czech ancestry that has had instrument shops going back to the early 1700s and they had a "modern" shop(back in the 1930's) in California and New York, his clientele now are all Musicians that are well known and he specifically deals now only in repairs for them as the shops closed down back in the early 2000s and he is retired, but he has a warehouse for his parts stock, first thing he says is after looking at his warehouse is that there are 3 of them elsewhere he knows from different owners with a family background like him, don't believe they are rare because they aren't except a few.
Agreed…well said👍
Part true but it’s a bit much to say that most play like shit. A fender especially is easy to get playing right unless something terrible happened to the neck or truss rod…
@@mohamedtlass3842 No its almost always true I can tell people that have little experience with a large pool of vintage, Fender has their specific challenging issues and Gibson have theirs as well as other Manufacturers. Alot of it depends on the Guitar and its life If it sat in a studio and had maintenance and was constantly kept up with then it probably isn't going to be that bad of a shape(a rarity), if it spent years gigging and beat the shit out of and was neglected while on the road or was one of those sat in the attic specials then you are going to have issues and this is the largest portion of vintage on the market. Electronics corrode over time, Frets need to be replaced as the material was soft and doesn't take a beating well, Necks twist particularly basses(and Rickenbacker can spin on a dong for that shitty bridge of theirs it only took them 65 years to fix finally), Nuts over time need to be redone they eventually chip and crack, Tuners seize as they wear out, Necks bow leading to Truss rods bottoming out, Bridge angles aren't correct, they need shielding done or redone, Neck pocket isn't proper, String spacing isn't proper and Loe E or High slides off the fretboard or is too close to the edge, Pot metal cracks, Sharp edges on metal parts, Screws strip out, Shrinking pickguards need to be replaced or the Pickguard and truss rod cover are cracking, Wood Rot in the body between layers causing maple and Mahagony to separate, Pickup Wiring breaks off at the Bobbin, The pickups are mostly all different and don't sound right because they well had no specific way to build them except if you got them from the same person in particular years, Necks aren't the same shape(Damn Jazzmasters I swear some years a thin C was a nearly 1 inch baseball bat and none of them are quite the same), Separation of Rosewood popping off the maple on the neck starting at the nut, F&*k Rickenbacker, Neck Pocket Angle needing adjustment, Bridge intonation cannot be achieved, SG neck pocket issues, Headstock and neck breaks, Wood Mushrooming where bridge posts are, Cracked Wood in the bridge area, ect ect.
The list goes on and on tbfh, not only in my personal workings but people I know that have worked on or had a large pool of Vintage guitars come through, each one has its challenge depending on year and type, some of it is lack of quality control other issues are from dumb Ass Musicians doing dumb things like using a pick as a shim or overtightening screws which means you have the guitar life lived portion you are not accounting for, unless its out of a box or extremely well taken care of and had its problems fixed back then properly you end up sometimes with cascading failures leading to it needing way too much or not really worth it(for example a Gibson Neck joint issue that would need the neck removed from the body.
I will Say the Advantage of Fender is I can take a vintage body and pop in a modern neck and be GTG and this is why bolt ons are IMO superior to Glued in set necks. No manufacturer thought for a second guitars would have a collectors market and worse an economy, they were tools to be used and discarded when the life was ended buying a newer one that hopefully was better made with a refined design as they all were still learning at that early in the market. They also knew though musicians make piss poor consumers and fall for dumb marketing.
HOAX OP posted a video of him playing it... the guitar in the video is newer... look at the headstock its the wrong shape (pointer than the 50s) also the fretboard isn't as hammered... i know its hard to see but you can see the inlay isn't shrunken and is properly oriented. also no scratch on the arm rest area of the body.
The neck heels are completely different
I noticed they have different neck heel joints…missing fret nibs??…don’t know what that means cuz I’m no expert…he could check pot codes for dates
The tuning machines are not aligned in the Canada one, which may be a sign of a fake. Looks sloppy.
It was a garage sale and he knowingly ripped of an old man
The one on the right doesn't seem right. The trapeze is different. And the ser# is not right. There was no crown on a 52. Plus the headstock on the left one seems kinda lp jr style. The heel is correct.
On further investigation, the one on the right is a fraud. The left one is a 52.
I hope Noone buys the one from BC thinking it is legit.
Even if it is real, it seems overvalued to me, unless it has some historical association to well known players.
Did original 52s have the Les Paul signature on the front of the headstock? I dont think it's a legit 52
All of the golden era Les Pauls had a silk screened logo, applied atop the lacquer, and it would easily wipe off when people would clean their guitars, because it wasn't sealed in with additional coats of lacquer after application.
@@flapjack413 interesting, guess I was wrong and right at the same time. Thanks for the info
who cares? It was $200?
Does it play music? Okay, then whatever.
Bob cares. Yes. Yes. Fine.
George Gruhn would be best. He's been looking at these for over 50 years.
For $200 it's a steal, klusons look new, no serial # ??, check the pots(for dates) and caps in the control cavity, replaced input jack cover and switch knob, otherwise she's good to go.
Is this the Les Paul that you can’t palm-mute on?
Yes, Gibson got the neck angle wrong so it had to be top wrapped.
@@ernestschultz5065 Bottom wrapped. The strings went under.
It’s okay. They call it “Weddit” in southern Ohio.
I saw one of those in an estate sale in Kingston Ontario about 2 years ago. I think they were also asking about $200 and I though I should bid on it but I didn't. I notice the trapize on both are somewhat different. The expensive one is wrapped over and the metal piece at the bottom of the guitar is much shorter. The fake one is wrapped under? Also the fretboard looks unplayable. Not sure why anyone would want to invest so much money in something so worn out (yes, I'm talking about the $200 one (jk)). My ears aren't good enough to tell the difference and I would never want someone to damage the pristine condition of any of the guitars I own. How the hell do they get so wrecked in the first place? But that's just me!
that's tragically unhip!
@@landonbailey HaHa that's bloody Glorious...
If that’s a fake it’s a remarkable one
"Just take the neck off" ehh, well, no that wouldnt be a good idea since its a set neck.
Image of joke flying over superman’s head
@@landonbailey What joke would that be ?
Woooooooosh.
@@flapjack413 Must be windy where you are...
its a chibson look at the logo
For $200 it should be a buy. Then figure out how real it is. I can't tell, I am not an expert. It does show wear & tear and age.
Too much wrong with the headstock... I would have to say it's a knockoff...
The expression on your face makes you look like the guard from the Green Mile movie, the one that shot wild Bill. He needs to take the pot covers off and see what's inside, it does look real.
It a fake. Heal joint isn’t correct. You can find out quick by removing the truss rod cover, if the truss rod has the bolt type it’s real, if it has the allen type, it’s fake.
Still worth 200$ at least
Sure
fascinating