1963 SG (Les Paul) Standard Refinished with Repo PAFs??

[Fil]

I don't think this was a conversion as they would have had to replace the dot inlays with the traps. A lot of work and the inlays look perfectly routed and correct to the era (mother of pearl). The neck looks like a repair, not a reset. Reset would indicate a different angle and I don't see that. What I do see is some wood filler right where you would look down if you were playing it. And what did they use as wood filler? Dog shit? Looks awful.
I agree with RLW59. It looks like they used a chemical stripper as there is evidence of it in the pickup cavities and the missing binding.
I hate to rain on your parade, but I would pass on this. There's too much that is unknown and would probably end up being a whole lot of work to make it right.

​

 

[RLW59]

I don't think this was a conversion as they would have had to replace the dot inlays with the traps. A lot of work and the inlays look perfectly routed and correct to the era (mother of pearl). The neck looks like a repair, not a reset. Reset would indicate a different angle and I don't see that. What I do see is some wood filler right where you would look down if you were playing it. And what did they use as wood filler? Dog shit? Looks awful.
I agree with RLW59. It looks like they used a chemical stripper as there is evidence of it in the pickup cavities and the missing binding.
I hate to rain on your parade, but I would pass on this. There's too much that is unknown and would probably end up being a whole lot of work to make it right.

​

In the first set of pics the inlays looked reasonably OK-- enough that we all assumed they were factory.

But those last pics -- that's not the sort of plastic Gibson used for those inlays. Bet if there was a close up of the 12th fret inlay we'd see the filled edges of the dots that were there originally.



And with the new pics we can see there's no ledge where binding would have been. Which means they either narrowed the neck to match the fretboard (there'd be signs of that at the body join), or they replaced the fretboard with a wider one.

Another thing I didn't mention before is the pole pieces were hitting the bottom of the bridge pickup cavity. At first I chalked it up to the replacement pickups having unusually long pole pieces. But now I think it's a shallow non-factory rout.

And the painted crown inlay on the head.
----------------------
3 grand is low for a clean Jr, but kinda high for a refinished and modded Jr.

But I really do think it would be a great candidate for a Fool replica. Bring the neck paint right up to the edges of the fretboard and the lack of binding wouldn't be very noticeable.

I'd feel a little queasy doing that to a clean or restorable Standard, but that guitar is the perfect starting point.

If the inlays are the right size it would be easy to put in better looking plastic.

 

[SoloDallas]

IF it ends up being a refinished junior with bubba “upgrades” then I agree.
That wood is still worth something, guys - I have owned countless ‘60s juniors, early and late - they’re just fabulous.
But it never having been an original standard (the picture of the ugly inlay and pole pieces touching are a clear indication) certainly tells a different story than what originally it seemed to be.

I’d probably lower my offer to 1.5k USD but I would definitely still be trying to purchase that project Guitar and make it a dream 1960s standard, with a history of bubba!

NO current (or even future) Gibson custom shop SG is EVER going to sound like the potential this one has.

 

[Trem man]

Its definitely low player grade at best. For 3K or less you can find a really nice used Custom Shop SG Standard. As for the Vibrola - I have one on my 1965 SG Standard and love it. As long as you use the proper nylon washers to hold the arm on place its a great wiggle stick, like a Bigsby.

 

[Capt. Crunch]

I was offered this 63 Les Paul, it has been refinished, a neck reset, several of the parts are reproduction parts. The pickups are odd as I have not seen reproductions that put the PAF stickers on them? I believe the bridge and tuners are reproductions, although he claims the Klusons are real, along with the plastics, and the last fret is missing. The pots date to 61. According to the person that owns it he has had it for 15 years and the refinish was done before he owned it. Not sure how to value this one as the refinish is not great either.

Any thoughts on what is worth, or if it is worth buying?

View attachment 157803View attachment 157804View attachment 157806View attachment 157807View attachment 157808View attachment 157810View attachment 157811View attachment 157813View attachment 157814View attachment 157815

Re load all of this onto the Everything SG forum. You will get your answers there.

 

[Pave Dog]

There are a number of things that are confusing on that guitar.

- There's no neck binding, but the trapezoid inlays are the correct shape and material

- The control compartment is the correct shape. I don't see any indication that it is an SG Junior cavity that has been routed larger to a Standard cavity. The wiring is correct and pots date to 1963.

- The serial number which appears to be 130773 falls within the 1963 range.

- There are no signs of SG Junior bridge bushings that have been filled

- The bridge, pickups, pickguard, and vibrola are not original

- The radius in the bottom of the pickup routs is unusual. These are normally sharp. If the bridge pickup cavity had originally been routed for a P90 that would be apparent.

I'm convinced that its not a converted Junior, but there are too many questions to know exactly what it is. I'm leaning towards it being a refinished 1963 Standard with replaced parts. The lack of neck binding is confusing. The fretboard may have been replaced, however those inlays are pretty much impossible to replicate (unless they were pulled from the original board). It could have a replaced fretboard, or possibly a replaced neck. I dunno exactly what it is. There are too many questions to justify the asking price.

I agree, I tapped out as there are too many issues with it.

 

[Pave Dog]

Re load all of this onto the Everything SG forum. You will get your answers there.

I will do that. At this point I am just curious as to what I am looking at?

 

[Up The Steen]

I reckon this is a re-necked SG special (two P-90s) conversion.

I wouldn't pay more than $600 for it.

If you pay $3000 for that then you've been taken for a mug.

 

[Pave Dog]

I reckon this is a re-necked SG special (two P-90s) conversion.

I wouldn't pay more than $600 for it.

If you pay $3000 for that then you've been taken for a mug.

See above, not planning on following through and while he is asking 3k, I was never considering it once I got the pics

 

[Pave Dog]

I have owned (and sold) countless Gibson project guitars.
I disagree strongly about the vibrola being a weak element - it’s not. Certainly, it ain’t no Floyd Rose, but it’s not the vibrola to be the issue - especially if you remove the arm or place the arm in a resting place. The Guitar is never going to go out of tune because of the Vibrola - but because of a nut not properly slotted and maintained.
That is the real issue with most guitars of any kind.

As for the price – value of this guitar, I think $3000 for 1963 wood is perfectly acceptable, especially in today’s economy.
I would definitely refinish it and I would add the binding back on the neck – that neck definitely looks weird without the binding and that is a valid question as to what happened to that neck.

The sound of 1960s wood is unique and always worth the effort and the cost. Older instruments of that era are still the magic ones although I use instruments from any era, ESPECIALLY SGs.

I would kindly add that if you’re not interested in this project Guitar, I would be and I’d love to be in touch with the seller myself if you decline this offer.

Fil “SoloDallas”

PM me and I will give you his contact info, he is in Chesapeake VA

 

[V-man]

I have owned (and sold) countless Gibson project guitars.
I disagree strongly about the vibrola being a weak element - it’s not. Certainly, it ain’t no Floyd Rose, but it’s not the vibrola to be the issue - especially if you remove the arm or place the arm in a resting place. The Guitar is never going to go out of tune because of the Vibrola - but because of a nut not properly slotted and maintained.
That is the real issue with most guitars of any kind.

I am going to “moderately” disagree with your “strong” disagreement about the liability of the vibrola.

The idea of defending the system while advocating its disengagement or deletion (folding back or removing the arm) already starts off on flimsy ground. The second issue is the assumption/argument the practical point (solely) pertains to tuning stability.

If the arm is to remain folded back, it presents an impediment to accessing the knobs. Admittedly, it’s minor (more or less on par with weaving around a tremolo arm) but it’s an impediment nevertheless for a non-functioning/defeated feature.

More importantly, the fulcrum point (behind the ABR) is where many plant the edge of the hand and (like floating trems) can result in bending the notes under heavy-handed picking attack or palm muting. In the alternate case of some who might “pick below” this point, the hand is awkwardly impeded by the housing found on the SGs as opposed to the less-cluttered vibrolas found on the1st-reissue Flying Vs of the 1960s.

Finally, I won’t dig into the argument about the solid/rigid attachment point of the stopbar and sustain/resonance vs that of the vibrola, but I’ll at least raise the point on behalf of those more convinced of these sorts of arguments.

That’s not to say one cannot learn to acclimate themselves around the sticking points of this system like they would also have to on a Floyd Rose - equipped guitar (which shares some of the same issues)… but the Floyd’s drawbacks at least come with full function and superior tuning stability to both the vibrola and TOM systems.

Bottom line, as a family heirloom or a steal, the drawbacks can be willfully overlooked or overcome with mindful training, but as a player starting fresh with a “market value” purchase, there’s little reason to get involved with one of these setups when a superior TOM setup or wraptail (which many converted their vibrola guitars into) exists for the same overall price. Of the fair number of SG legends who have a stable of these… I cant’t think of many whose go-to is a vibrola SG as opposed to one with a TOM or wraptail version, and I would suggest is for good reason.