1955 Les Paul Goldtop for Sale. $$$$
- Thread starter Chili
- Start date
This.
I mean 25K for a hunk of wood is absurd, but that's actually relatively cheap for a mostly original 1955 Gold Top.
Chili
Site Moderator
I can't ever imagine paying that much for it, even if it is a collector's item. Guess I'm not a collector. Tad is right about being in CL, who would do that? Someone from Austin, obviously. dumbass. I noticed he said something about two extra holes for an old tailpiece (in one of the pics). To me, that right there negates any collector value.
jimistone
long standing member
Actually even altered vintage guitars are bringing high prices...just not as high as the unaltered ones.
I guess we can thank ebay for putting a lot of value on each individual part.
you can sometimes get more out of a guitar by parting it out than selling it as the whole thing.
jimistone
long standing member
advertising on Craigslist is just telling thugs where they can steal a valuable guitar.Probably a fair price for an old LP. But why Craigslist? Who the hell sells vintage instruments on Craigslist? I feel like emailing the seller a link to Reverb, eBay, Chicago Music Exchange, or Vintage & Rare
I know a guy who brokers deals on vintage musical equipment. He has bugged the shit out of me about letting him sell my 66 strat. He has the connections to buyers who have the money. They trust him to authenticate guitars and amps. He gets a sizable cut out of the sale, but he gets top dollar for your vintage guitar or amp.
My strat isn't for sale but if it was I would let him handle it. It damn sure wouldn't be on craigsliat.
That's true. It's okay to replace old/broken parts, but drilling new holes, or losing the original parts, is a no-no. And don't anyone dare refinish one. They're like cars. Old cracked original paint is more valuable than fresh new paint.
Resurrect
New member
Personally, I wouldn't shell out more than 500 bucks for a guitar. All I care about is sound quality, and if I can't get a satisfying sound out of something even for three hundred, I might as well give up. I can not imagine shelling out thousands of dollars for, as Greg put it, "A chunk of wood." 
Personally, I wouldn't shell out more than 500 bucks for a guitar. All I care about is sound quality, and if I can't get a satisfying sound out of something even for three hundred, I might as well give up. I can not imagine shelling out thousands of dollars for, as Greg put it, "A chunk of wood."
Most people that say stuff like this can't afford anything more than a 300 dollar guitar anyway.
I personally think the ceiling for quality is about $1500-2000. Somewhere in that range. Guitars don't get much better beyond that price range. The difference between a $2000 and $5000 guitar is practically nothing. The difference between a $300 guitar and a $1500 guitar is huge.
jimistone
long standing member
the huge price is because of rarity and collectability. Original 1959 Les Paul standards "bursts" go for a quarter of a million because they are EXTREMELY rare. Collectors with a lot of money to spend want the rarest pieces in their collection. original gold tops are not as rare as 59/60 bursts, but they are pretty rare.
you can get a modern Gibson gold top for a couple of grand and it's a much better guitar than the $25,000.00 original one. I can fully understand why the guitar had a later tailpiece/bridge on it....the originals were garbage.
But...
If I was a collector and had plenty of money.
I wouldn't be interested in a gold top with incorrect holes drilled in it.
you can get a modern Gibson gold top for a couple of grand and it's a much better guitar than the $25,000.00 original one. I can fully understand why the guitar had a later tailpiece/bridge on it....the originals were garbage.
But...
If I was a collector and had plenty of money.
I wouldn't be interested in a gold top with incorrect holes drilled in it.
I think 55 was the year they went to a bridge+tailpiece instead of just having the wrap-around bridge. The change happened mid-run to the best of my knowledge. So an early 55 will have just the bridge, a later 55 will have the bridge and tailpiece. I don't know what the extra holes would be for since 55s didn't have that floating tailpiece thing.
I could be wrong about all of that. That's just how I think it was from reading shit.
Personally, I wouldn't shell out more than 500 bucks for a guitar. All I care about is sound quality, and if I can't get a satisfying sound out of something even for three hundred, I might as well give up. I can not imagine shelling out thousands of dollars for, as Greg put it, "A chunk of wood."
I see by your info that you're a young person. You can get very decent quality for little money these days, a far cry from the budget shyte some of us learned to play on decades ago. But don't rule out the pricier stuff. When you get to a place where it makes sense financially, you might find yourself appreciating what another grand or so can buy you.
jimistone
long standing member
yeah, the wraparound setup is what I was referring to. I just figured that would be the most obvious reason for the extra holes...for an incorrect bridge/tailpiece.
Yeah but I think he said the holes are near the strap button. That could be like maybe it had a Bigsby at some point, or one of those floating tailpiece things.