The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Stjofön Big on April 14, 2013, 03:12:45 AM
-
Found this on Jules site. What do you guys think, aside from the obvious with colour, pickup, tuners and finger rest? http://www.chicagomusicexchange.com/bass/vault/gibson-eb-0-sunburst-1959-61/
-
gorgeous!
-
Reminds me of another strange gibson I saw on the fly guitar pages, a ´65 or so eb-3 converted eb-0.
Same sunburst refin, they suspected that it might have been done at the factory. Factory finish or not,
looks great....
-
I like it!
-
I like it to, but not 8k like it!
-
+1 8)
-
Beauty....but the 1959-61 date?
With the non-banjo tuners and the chrome humbucker....maybe '61 at earliest, no?
-
Did Gibson ever cap these in maple? The maple lamination is very clear in the pic showing the finish damage. It's obvious that both the front and back of have been laminated. Might be nice to have some pot dates too......
-
I don't think it's laminated that's the yellow/white undercoat. Gibson shot the LP juniors like that, Fender did the same thing too in the 60's
-
I like it to(o), but not 8k like it!
You got that right!
-
I don't think it's laminated that's the yellow/white undercoat. Gibson shot the LP juniors like that, Fender did the same thing too in the 60's
Looks way too thick to be just an undercoat, and the full side view clearly shows a lamination.
The sunburst doesn't look like any Gibson sunburst of that era.
The original style EB-0 never came with the chrome humbucker.
No way that this is original.
-
I would think this one is modified with the later tuners, rather than being a 61 model - if you look at the close-up
of the back of the headstock, it is too narrow for the tuners. Compare with the same close-up of the ´61 cherry eb-0, the headstock is wider. Maybe just a switch of parts - rare sg shaped eb-0 with banjo tuners soon to appear on e-bay :)
-
I don't rule out that this might have been a one-off from a later time. LP Junior one-offs popped up again ans again - that shape has its fans. The maple top and back is weird though, but perhaps if you asked for it nicely enough ...
-
Do you collect for thin(s) laminations...?
-
I agree on the pup cover being wrong. Having owned a 61 dated LP Jr shaped EB-0 with the clover tuners from the factory I feel pretty comfortable that the headstock being narrow like this would indicate it came with banjo pegs.
So, is this a factory re-fin/re-work from a short while later? Maybe. Some ancient Doc Bass? Maybe. Fun? Sure!
-
The sunburst doesn't look like any Gibson sunburst of that era.
Yeah, I thought that burst style looked like a later paintjob too.
But maybe the owner sent it to Fender :)
Would love to see te pot dates and a serial number. Would be funny if it turns out to be an old banjo tuner EBO that had a broken headstock and routed for a PJ and a Kahler...and someone put on the new tuners and plugged/capped it in maple and sprayed the burst to hide all the extra holes :)
THAT's why it's so pricey. All that custom work.
-
I don't rule out that this might have been a one-off from a later time. LP Junior one-offs popped up again ans again - that shape has its fans. The maple top and back is weird though, but perhaps if you asked for it nicely enough ...
It's possible, of course, but highly unlikely that they would do one with thin top and back laminates -- they just didn't do that with Juniors and Specials -- and even more unlikely that they would deliberately use the narrow headstock meant for banjo tuners. Besides, the sunburst looks like a Fender three-color burst.
The body core and neck are probably the only original parts of this bass.
-
...
Would love to see te pot dates and a serial number. Would be funny if it turns out to be an old banjo tuner EBO that had a broken headstock and routed for a PJ and a Kahler...and someone put on the new tuners and plugged/capped it in maple and sprayed the burst to hide all the extra holes :)
THAT's why it's so pricey. All that custom work.
Don't laugh, that might be exactly what happened!
-
I agree on the pup cover being wrong. Having owned a 61 dated LP Jr shaped EB-0 with the clover tuners from the factory I feel pretty comfortable that the headstock being narrow like this would indicate it came with banjo pegs.
So, is this a factory re-fin/re-work from a short while later? Maybe. Some ancient Doc Bass? Maybe. Fun? Sure!
I just can't believe it is genuine. The wear marks look phoney to me.
-
it looks like a dog chewed it.
-
I still think it's tempting to suggest Gibson might have done this sunburst as a custom job.
I've been comparing it to the EB-3 (1963 sunburst) from the flyguitars site (borrowed a pic.)
and the colours are very similar. Even that checkering is the same, with that large pattern.
Of course, it does not prove anything, BUT the EB-3 is also possibly converted from an EB-0, by who? Gibson?
It sure is a rather professional routing job, and given the obviously old refin, could anyone buy Gibson bass mini-humbuckers
and also the GA-90 1C coil if they wanted to convert their EB-0's? Does not sound likely to me.
Of course, these days you can buy any part you like at any time if you got the dollars, and to learn
som 'quick checkering jobs' and ageing stuff is done rather easily on the internet too..
Maybe some punk's got a gibson sunburst shop in the basement, ageing cheap epi's??
-
I don't think that sunburst EB-3 on flyguitars is a legit factory finish. It's a real Gibson EB-0 that was converted, it's a refin and there's zero evidence that the refin was done by Gibson. Routing templates have been around for decades now, no evidence that was done by Gibson.
Back to the EB-0 at Chicago Music Exchange, I have no reason to think it's not a real Gibson, it's just heavily modded and refinned.
-
I don't think that sunburst EB-3 on flyguitars is a legit factory finish. It's a real Gibson EB-0 that was converted, it's a refin and there's zero evidence that the refin was done by Gibson. Routing templates have been around for decades now, no evidence that was done by Gibson.
I know, but I was hoping someone here (older than me) would agree that getting these parts (coil w. gibson nr, switch w/ 1-4 plate, pickup w/ chrome ring, pickguard etc) would be difficult in the mid sixties if you had no contact with the factory?
I mean, even the yellow wire tubing?
I don´t mean to ´EB-3 this thread´, but was it at all possible to buy original parts from Gibson back then?
-
I know, but I was hoping someone here (older than me) would agree that getting these parts (coil w. gibson nr, switch w/ 1-4 plate, pickup w/ chrome ring, pickguard etc) would be difficult in the mid sixties if you had no contact with the factory?
I mean, even the yellow wire tubing?
I don´t mean to ´EB-3 this thread´, but was it at all possible to buy original parts from Gibson back then?
Very difficult. But this could easily have been done 20 or more years later and still look old.
-
Why are guys so sure it is sandwiched with maple top and back?
The pic of the damaged side doesn't convince me.
Looks more like it was sprayed/painted this way. The line between the dark side and the lighter part is not sharp enough for a different wood.
(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server800/c0f00/products/16532/images/49979/10__27218.1354127315.1280.1280.jpg)
If it were maple wouldn't they have made it transparant to show the grain?
-
I didn't say it was a maple top and back. It was probably mahogany, done to conceal modifications.
In this view, you can see the line of the top lamination, and the small amount of bare wood showing on the rear edge also looks like a lamination.
(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server800/c0f00/products/16532/images/49980/11__93959.1354127316.1280.1280.jpg)
-
Stranger still, what if that EB-3 and this EB-0 were the work of the same character? It could be. Someone with a sense of Gibby adventure!
-
Stranger still, what if that EB-3 and this EB-0 were the work of the same character? It could be. Someone with a sense of Gibby adventure!
A sense of Gibby adventure and a 70s Fender sunburst pallette. :P
-
I didn't say it was a maple top and back. It was probably mahogany, done to conceal modifications.
In this view, you can see the line of the top lamination, and the small amount of bare wood showing on the rear edge also looks like a lamination.
(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server800/c0f00/products/16532/images/49980/11__93959.1354127316.1280.1280.jpg)
Guess I'm too stupid, but I just don't see it Dave... ???
-
Guess I'm too stupid, but I just don't see it Dave... ???
[/quote]
Nor can I... That ´line´you see, is it not just the grain?
-
I think it's just a trick of the light.
(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server800/c0f00/products/16532/images/49979/10__27218.1354127315.1280.1280.jpg)
-
Judging by the size of the screws in the jack plate and cavity cover alone, the work was NOT done by Gibson
-
Judging by the size of the screws in the jack plate and cavity cover alone, the work was NOT done by Gibson
True, but the jack plate was listed as the only modification done (!)
Are we by the way sure this instrument was not made for just one purpose, to screw up the minds of people
on this forum?
-
Judging by the size of the screws in the jack plate and cavity cover alone, the work was NOT done by Gibson
So?
As if screws can't be replaced over a period of four decades :rolleyes:
-
So?
As if screws can't be replaced over a period of four decades :rolleyes:
Gibson uses #3 screws and those aren't them. It's a typical mistake made by those who don't know the difference between Fender and Gibson spec, or don't care...BaCH for one.
All I was saying is the work wasn't done by Gibson IMO. Picking nits is what's done around here, sorry I offended you by pointing out the obvious.
-
Guess I'm too stupid, but I just don't see it Dave... ???
Nor can I... That ´line´you see, is it not just the grain?
...and I thought I was missing something.
-
You young guys with your blurry vision! :P ;D
What can I say? On my monitor I can see a what looks like lamination lines, top and back. Feel free to disagree, but I'm standing my ground.
Whatever. This bass did not come from the factory in anything like its current condition, for a number of reasons.
-
You young guys with your blurry vision! :P ;D
What can I say? On my monitor I can see a what looks like lamination lines, top and back. Feel free to disagree, but I'm standing my ground.
Whatever. This bass did not come from the factory in anything like its current condition, for a number of reasons.
Sorry, this was the first thing I saw. To me the lamination job sticks out like a hooker in church ;)
-
Gibson uses #3 screws and those aren't them. It's a typical mistake made by those who don't know the difference between Fender and Gibson spec, or don't care...BaCH for one.
All I was saying is the work wasn't done by Gibson IMO. Picking nits is what's done around here, sorry I offended you by pointing out the obvious.
I'm not offended. :mrgreen: It's just that I think that replacing small screws for slightly larger ones does not make this bass less legit.
It's a practical or pragmatic solution when screws lose their grip (after being removed and put back too often) over a period of four decades.
About BaCH: at least they know the difference between a bolt on and a set neck... :-*
-
Rob, aren't we talking about five decades?
-
:mrgreen: oops, yes.
-
It's a practical or pragmatic solution when screws lose their grip (after being removed and put back too often) over a period of four decades.
It's a solution used by amateurs. A pro fills and redrills the original holes, especially on an instrument of significant value...which this one isn't IMO. So I guess it doesn't matter.
-
It's a solution used by amateurs. A pro fills and redrills the original holes, especially on an instrument of significant value...which this one isn't IMO. So I guess it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't. A pro may do things that way now, but decades ago a player wouldn't be inclined to seek out a skilled repairman just because a couple of screws stripped out. He'd run bigger ones in and get back to the gig. Ultimately, it becomes a question of economics and utility. When Billy Sheehan modded his P-Bass over the years (using a plethora of ill-fitting fasteners, BTW ;D), he was trying to achieve an end result: to make the bass functional in the manner he needed it to be, and on a limited budget. Is he a pro? Certainly not in the world of guitar repair and modification. However, I would submit that it is those amateur repairs that gives that particular instrument its current significant value.
Also, we know better now. I just had to secure the pickguard on an old Japanese P-bass copy that I was modding. I filled the original holes with plastic wood and re-used the original rusty screws.
-
No, it doesn't. A pro may do things that way now, but decades ago a player wouldn't be inclined to seek out a skilled repairman just because a couple of screws stripped out. He'd run bigger ones in and get back to the gig. Ultimately, it becomes a question of economics and utility. When Billy Sheehan modded his P-Bass over the years (using a plethora of ill-fitting fasteners, BTW ;D), he was trying to achieve an end result: to make the bass functional in the manner he needed it to be, and on a limited budget. Is he a pro? Certainly not in the world of guitar repair and modification.
If you look at my original post you'll note my comment was in regard to whether Gibson did the work. Sheehan's bass has value because he did it. An unmodded P of that vintage would be of more value than a Joe Schmo hack job or even a pro modded one.
However, I would submit that it is those amateur repairs that gives that particular instrument its current significant value.
Using your logic that would make this bass more valuable today because I installed Schallers in '65, took a chisel to it in '73 to put in the tele pup and refinned it with Preval rattlecans. Maybe in your view but not in the marketplace.
(http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae241/cata1d0/1960%20EBO/P1050616.jpg) (http://s976.photobucket.com/user/cata1d0/media/1960%20EBO/P1050616.jpg.html)
-
I have to agree with Carlo here. Whatever was done to this bass, it wasn't done by Gibson, either at the time it was manufactured or later.
-
Whether Gibson had anything to do with the way it looks today is impossible to say without further background and just looking at some pics. The bass does raise more questions than it answers though and I'm surprised how Chicago Music Exchange ignores all that and puts it up (and prices it) as if it were definitely legit.
The very thin maple veneer makes sense for someone who wanted the sunburst to turn out nicely - always an issue on a maho surface. And if he wanted the sunburst to turn out nicely on the back too, that needed a veneer as well. In any case a cosmetic thing and in all likelihood owed to the specific fin and not to any acoustic effect - the maple top and back would have needed to be much thicker for that.
I'm not discounting the possibility that if in '63 you would have asked Gibson to refin your EB-O in sunburst they would have said: "For that to look good, we need to veneer it." OTOH the likelihood of someone sending his bass to Kalamazoo for that rather than taking it to his neighborhood luthier is small.
-
Sheehan's bass has value because he did it. An unmodded P of that vintage would be of more value than a Joe Schmo hack job or even a pro modded one.
I believe that's what I said.
-
I believe that's what I said.
Great, we're in agreement...next time jam some toothpicks and titebond in the holes. Holds much better than plastic wood and can be re screwed immediately.
-
I'm not discounting the possibility that if in '63 you would have asked Gibson to refin your EB-O in sunburst they would have said: "For that to look good, we need to veneer it." OTOH the likelihood of someone sending his bass to Kalamazoo for that rather than taking it to his neighborhood luthier is small.
Were there alot of "neighborhood luthiers" in '63? And if there were some, were they hip enough to add a maple cap and spray a sunburst like that? Highly unlikely. I think its more probable that this was a one-off - a prototype, a trade show traffic builder or a favor to a known artist. This kind of stuff turns up all the time - why is it so hard to believe that Gibson actually built at least one of these out of stuff that was laying around?
-
I'm not saying that Gibson couldn't have done this. We just don't know. Or if it came out that way or whether the maple cap and new fin came much later.
-
Were there alot of "neighborhood luthiers" in '63? And if there were some, were they hip enough to add a maple cap and spray a sunburst like that? Highly unlikely. I think its more probable that this was a one-off - a prototype, a trade show traffic builder or a favor to a known artist. This kind of stuff turns up all the time - why is it so hard to believe that Gibson actually built at least one of these out of stuff that was laying around?
I see no evidence that this is a maple cap. It's probably mahogany.
There's no evidence that this was done in the 60s. Judging from the 70s Fender three color sunburst, I'd guess it was done in the 70s or later.
Yes, there were "neighborhood luthiers" in the 60s. A lot compared to today? No, but it only takes one to screw up a guitar.
Bottom line, it's not impossible that Gibson would make a prototype as you say, there's just no evidence that this is one, and a lot of evidence that it isn't.
-
some toothpicks
now that's what amateurs do :mrgreen:
-
I see no evidence that this is a maple cap. It's probably mahogany.
There's no evidence that this was done in the 60s. Judging from the 70s Fender three color sunburst, I'd guess it was done in the 70s or later.
Yes, there were "neighborhood luthiers" in the 60s. A lot compared to today? No, but it only takes one to screw up a guitar.
Bottom line, it's not impossible that Gibson would make a prototype as you say, there's just no evidence that this is one, and a lot of evidence that it isn't.
What's the point of putting a maho veneer over a maho body bass? ??? ??? ??? ??? I remember from my luthier that a lot of colors don't go to well with the reddish maho, translucent black turns brown etc,yellow seems to be an issue too. The top and back don't look to me like maho at all, more like non-descript (i.e. not fancy) maple.
-
I don't think it is capped, veneered, or refinished. Similar finishes can be found on many Melody Makers of the same vintage.
(http://www.rocknrollvintage.com/prodimages/1960-melody-maker-single-cut-b.jpg)
-
I don't think it is capped, veneered, or refinished. Similar finishes can be found on many Melody Makers of the same vintage.
(http://www.rocknrollvintage.com/prodimages/1960-melody-maker-single-cut-b.jpg)
'zactly. Some of the singlecut Juniors as well.
-
now that's what amateurs do :mrgreen:
Yeah, the ones who read Dan Erlewine or have basic woodworking skills and own a chisel.
(http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae241/cata1d0/ME/P1030003-001_zps257b6462.jpg) (http://s976.photobucket.com/user/cata1d0/media/ME/P1030003-001_zps257b6462.jpg.html)
-
Without up close inspection it is impossible to tell if this is original. I am not convinced that the bass is maple or mahogany capped, could be but I would need the bass in hand to determine that. The sunburst is not necessarily "70's Fender" I have seen Gibson pedal steels with a similar finish.http://smg.photobucket.com/user/godofthunder59/media/1960Gibsonpedalsteel004.jpg.html
-
If it's not even veneered then it's just a rare fin. Pricey for that.
-
My first guitar was a 1959 Melody Maker, bought new.
Here's my problem with the theory that the one at Chicago Music Exchange is like the Melody Maker or Junior/Special bursts:
1. This is definitely a 1959 or 1960 body. The narrow headstock puts it in that era.
2. All Melody Makers were only two-color sunbursts in 1959 and 1960. Junior and Special sunbursts were never three-color, they only exist as two-color sunbursts prior to 1961 and not at all afterwards in the SG shape.
3. All Melody Maker sunbursts, pre- or post-1960, were not sunburst on the back side. They were single color brown mahogany stain. Likewise with Junior/Special sunbursts.
4. Even the later three-color Melody Maker sunbursts had a narrower red and brown band and a larger yellow area than the one at CME. Dozens of examples on gbase. But this is really beside the point since this one has a 59/60 era body.
Beyond that, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
What's the point of putting a maho veneer over a maho body bass?
Well, if you are a vintage dealer, and you get ahold of a LP Jr or Special - or even a lowly EB-0 - that someone has done kooky things to with chisels and DiMarzio's, you put a mahogany veneer on top, sand it, fill it, touch it up a tad on the edges, and there you go. Vintage rarity. Buy it now: prices go up Tuesday!
-
Did Gibson do sunburst (back of) necks around that time like this specimen has? That seems an inordinate amount of effort.
-
Did Gibson do sunburst (back of) necks around that time like this specimen has? That seems an inordinate amount of effort.
I think they did on some of the big jazzboxes.
-
Anyway, in my opinion - along with the T-bird II, 63-65, and the Epiphone Embassy - one of the sexiest and sweetest basses around. Can really dig that colour setting. :rimshot: