Vintage Gibson

[Sweetpea44]

I don't know much about these .... but this just appeared on my local CL ....

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/msg/5012409079.html

Is this a fair price? Should a 'possible neck repair' be concerning? The add doesn't say serial number, but it states it's a 1917.

Thoughts?

[jmp]

Seems fair to me. Would definitely check out the neck, they should have included a picture of the possible repair. Would check for cracks, separations, top deformations, finger board alignment, fret wear, in person.

[Sweetpea44]

I posted this in another section earlier, but didn't realize there was a 'Vintage' category for thread posts ....

I don't know much about these .... but this just appeared on my local CL ....

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/msg/5012409079.html

What is a fair price for a teens Gibson? Should a 'possible neck repair' be concerning? The add doesn't say the serial number, but it states it's a 1917. Is there a good resource out there to learn more about these early instruments? Thanks!

[Ken Waltham]

I think it may be a little too much for the repairs, especially the overspray. Good , well executed repairs are a non issue, but, poor repairs are a headache.
There are so many of these out there, you don't have to "settle" unless you chose to.

[pfox14]

Looks like a total refinish to me and not a very good one at that. Tailpiece is a replacement, but looks OK. I don't think the price is unreasonable, but if you're really considering getting it, I'd talk him down to $1000-1100.

[Capt. E]

First of all, it is not a A-1, but an A-2. Looks like original finish to me, but a bit hard to tell from photos. I'd take the guy's word at that it has been oversprayed. People get used to seeing these old Gibson with a dull worn finish. Mint ones are still pretty shiny. Not a big deal to me. The tailpiece looks original and is the identical shape etc to the one on my all original 1920 A-2, must be a good reproduction if it is a replacement. The pickguard is also original and in great shape. My only question is that the bridge has been moved towards the tailpiece which may indicate some neck bow or movement in the neck joint. The bridge movement is the most suspicious thing to me.
As long as there are no issues such as neck joint, too much relief etc, it is a good buy at $1250. I paid a bargin price of $1325 for my 1920 A-2 in very close to mint condition with the OHSC.
If I didn't already have a nice A-2, I might be interested in this one.

[Capt. E]

See my comments in your post under Vintage. Again, it's an A-2, not an A-1. Nice looking, an 8 out of 10, I would say. Worth the $1250 if there are no neck issues or top sinkage. I am concerned that the bridge has been moved towards the tailpiece. It would be a steal at $1000.

[Timbofood]

Say Cap, you've got one, why don't you get this one and send it to me for my birthday?
You can't win if you don't play!

[Steve VandeWater]

First of all, it is not a A-1, but an A-2. Looks like original finish to me, but a bit hard to tell from photos. I'd take the guy's word at that it has been oversprayed. People get used to seeing these old Gibson with a dull worn finish. Mint ones are still pretty shiny. Not a big deal to me. The tailpiece looks original and is the identical shape etc to the one on my all original 1920 A-2, must be a good reproduction if it is a replacement. The pickguard is also original and in great shape. My only question is that the bridge has been moved towards the tailpiece which may indicate some neck bow or movement in the neck joint. The bridge movement is the most suspicious thing to me.
As long as there are no issues such as neck joint, too much relief etc, it is a good buy at $1250. I paid a bargin price of $1325 for my 1920 A-2 in very close to mint condition with the OHSC.
If I didn't already have a nice A-2, I might be interested in this one.

Why do you say it's an A-2? Looks exactly like my 1915 A-1 except mine is missing the pick guard and has a replacement bridge. I'm sure this one probably says if it's an A-1 or A-2 on the inside label. Mine has original finish and tp, but a replacement cover like this one. I bought mine two weeks ago on local Craigslist for $675 and it's the best money I've ever spent!
The thing I notice about this one thats different from mine is on the back. On mine, the back covers the neck at the attachment point. ( is that the proverbial heel?) This one, the neck is totally separate from the back. Maybe that's the possible neck repair?

[Dobe]

I think he might be wrong on the 'maple back' as well. I believe that would be birch, no ?

[Ken Waltham]

It is an A1, the t/p cover is a repro, a birch back, with overspray.

[allenhopkins]

A-2 would have a bound back, I believe.

[Ken Waltham]

A-2 would have a bound back, I believe.

Correct. Overspray...well scratches don't happen under the finish. You can clearly see that in the photos. T/P cover may be debatable, but, it looks like the new repros..they are engraved rather than stamped. Birch back no doubt. That would be the standard.

[pianoman89]

Many of these old Gibsons spend their life with the bridge too close to the fretboard, so being moved back shouldnt be any concern. It probably plays in tune now. My concern would be the oversprayed finish.

[Scott C.]

It is definitely an A1. Good catch there Van on the back not covering the neck. My 1917 A1 has the back covering the neck, while my 1923 A2 does not. So, Ken do you happen to know when they made that change? Also, could it have been altered at some point? Something else that I noticed is that the pick guard is the earlier style?

[Ken Waltham]

It is definitely an A1. Good catch there Van on the back not covering the neck. My 1917 A1 has the back covering the neck, while my 1923 A2 does not. So, Ken do you happen to know when they made that change? Also, could it have been altered at some point? Something else that I noticed is that the pick guard is the earlier style?

I do not believe they ever changed, but, the back covering the end of the neck heel is a functionality of the being bound or unbound on the back. Last week, I had both a 1920 A2 and a 1920 A here. They were just like the above photos, and, they were the same year.
I guess it was not feasible to bind the point of the neck heel, and, I can understand that. They were making hundreds at the time, and it would complicate production. Only A2's and A4's are bound on the back.
To me, the p/g looks like it belongs to the mandolin. Or at least from the same era.

[Capt. E]

Well, I guess it is kind of in-between. The double ring around the sound hole is an A-2 feature. It has a bound fingerboard. I did not notice the unbound back. That is absolutely the only difference from my A-2. Like I said, nice reproduction for the tailpiece. They do seem to have evolved in the way the backs were done. Here is photos of my 1920 A-2. http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/al...p?albumid=1762 The back and a different pickguard attachment seem to be the only differences other than top color. (and I guess the model designation on the label).

[Capt. E]

Yeah, it is an A-1 now that I see the back in not bound. It does have the double ring around the soundhole same as A-2. I have no concern with an overspray when you are looking at a less than mint instrument. What is the deal? Many an instrument was oversprayed by Gibson when sent back for service after they changed to lacquer. Yeah, the bridge is probably not a big deal. The seller says it plays well and I have no reason to disbelieve. $2000 was too much for it in the shop. $1250 is a fair retail price...talk them down to $1100 with free shipping and return privileges.

[Scott Tichenor]

Threads merged.

[brunello97]

Many of these old Gibsons spend their life with the bridge too close to the fretboard, so being moved back shouldnt be any concern. It probably plays in tune now. My concern would be the oversprayed finish.

Just had mine (re) set up with a bridge location adjustment after 100+ years of the bridge in the same place.

Doh. Plays much better now.

Mick

[Scott C.]

From what I have observed on my own. The earlier pick guards have a scroll cut around the bridge. Not sure yet when that changed? Some where between 1914 and 1917? Or, is it just one of the differences between the plain A and the A1's and 2's? Also, notice that the 1923 A2 is straight across the top and the others raise up between the bridge and the neck?
Could the neck cap be associated with the two piece back? As well as the binding?

[pianoman89]

I have no concern with an overspray when you are looking at a less than mint instrument. What is the deal? Many an instrument was oversprayed by Gibson when sent back for service after they changed to lacquer.

Done by Gibson? Most likely no issue. Done by Joe Shmo? Could be a real problem, could be just fine. But not really that bad if you know how to refinish correctly.