The ultimate guitar for tobijohn (even if it is backwards!)

[mickey]

The very first EVER CSB Les Paul for sale in Nashville.....

[bleys21]

So tobijohn is a nickname for Warren Buffett? Where does he send the check?

On a serious note, I'd assume that if you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it...

[LancerTheGreat]

It's only backwards if you're not looking in a mirror though

[slowhand84]

The very first EVER CSB Les Paul for sale in Nashville.....

I'm sure Bonamassa will buy it like always

[mickey]

So tobijohn is a nickname for Warren Buffett? Where does he send the check?

On a serious note, I'd assume that if you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it...

Nashville tends to be a Mecca for guitars with six figure pricetags.

The check would go to https://cartervintage.com/
but it appears to have been sold as it isn't in stock.

[tonebender]

Ed passed away back in 2018 so not surprised it has already been sold. So the guy buys it for his young son you plays it for a couple of years and then it sits. One day he finds out it is worth over $600K. They must have been a pretty well to do family to buy that for a Christmas present. My parents got me a Sears & Roebuck guitar for Christmas, worth nothing now.

[mickey]

ED?

[nomadh]

Did you see the mismatch in that top? And they say gibson qc sucks just recently. We would never accept that from agile. Not even sx. Just sad

[fatjack]

he does havea 56 es175 I'd buy if it wasn't backwards Scary things is I don't see $5500 for the es as out of line.

[mickey]

Did you see the mismatch in that top? And they say gibson qc sucks just recently. We would never accept that from agile. Not even sx. Just sad

They did say in the video the top was supposed to be for a goldtop but for reasons unknown they decided to make a CSB.

[mickey]

he does havea 56 es175 I'd buy if it wasn't backwards Scary things is I don't see $5500 for the es as out of line.

I have as close a copy of an ES175 as you could ever want (except it is trimmed out like a super 400 and the size of an ES125.)
It is called the SX GG-7 and is the one in my avatar. I got it for $125 as a B-stock.

[Mossman]

"These guitars were so ahead of their time, they were only made from 1958 to 1960."

There's a little revisionist history for you (or historical ignorance). It's more like: "These guitars sold so poorly, they were replaced by the SG in 1960".

[Chocol8]

Yeah, these guitars were expensive to build with poor quality control (lots of guitar to guitar variations) and their nasal sound was not fashionable in the late 50’s or early 60’s. They sold very poorly for a few years, were discontinued, and then had little used value for years.

And then a young Clapton bought a used one and plugged it into an early amp he bought from Jim Marshall and...

[mickey]

"These guitars were so ahead of their time, they were only made from 1958 to 1960."

There's a little revisionist history for you (or historical ignorance). It's more like: "These guitars sold so poorly, they were replaced by the SG in 1960".

Very interesting, if true.
I have long heard that was because of Les Paul/Mary Ford's divorce.
If the Les Paul Gibson had not been replaced by the SG for a time then Les' income from the royalty payments would have had to be included in
Mary Ford's alimony payments that Les had to pay. By stopping production of the Gibson Les Paul guitar for a time and replacing it in Gibson's
line-up with the "SG" Les avoided paying Mary several thousand dollars more per year for the remainder of her life.
Once all the dust had settled on the divorce they were able to re-start the Les Paul guitars without it co$ting Les many thousands.

[Mossman]

"These guitars were so ahead of their time, they were only made from 1958 to 1960."

There's a little revisionist history for you (or historical ignorance). It's more like: "These guitars sold so poorly, they were replaced by the SG in 1960".

Very interesting, if true.
I have long heard that was because of Les Paul/Mary Ford's divorce.
If the Les Paul Gibson had not been replaced by the SG for a time then Les' income from the royalty payments would have had to be included in
Mary Ford's alimony payments that Les had to pay. By stopping production of the Gibson Les Paul guitar for a time and replacing it in Gibson's
line-up with the "SG" Les avoided paying Mary several thousand dollars more per year for the remainder of her life.
Once all the dust had settled on the divorce they were able to re-start the Les Paul guitars without it co$ting Les many thousands.

That sounds like an urban legend to me. It seems unlikely that a corporation would disrupt their product line so that Les Paul could save money on his alimony settlement.

The story I always heard (from numerous sources) was that the model fell out of favor towards the end of the '50s. Probably due to waning interest in Les Paul's music in the advent of rock and roll, and the "modern" appeal of Fender guitars.

As @Chocol8 mentioned, the LP had a resurgence in the '60s when strapped British guitarists started buying up used Les Pauls from the '50s for dirt cheep.

[mickey]

It could well be an urban legend, I do not know.
I also don't know how much of a "corporation" Gibson was back then?
This was before Norlin bought Gibson to keep then from folding.
But I have heard it since the SG's were first introduced.

[Chocol8]

It’s definitely an urban legend. The arch top Les Pauls never sold well, and if I remember correctly only about 1100 bursts were made during their three year run. For 1961, Gibson brought out the flat and cheaper to manufacture redesigned Les Paul which is now known as the SG since Les Paul didn’t like the design and asked them to stop using his name on it. Les Paul was not aware of the redesign until it had already happened and had nothing to do with the project, nor the end of production of the arch top guitars.

[Chocol8]

OK, so I wasn’t 100% correct.

Yes Gibson discontinued the LP and made what became the SG due to poor and declining sales plus cost to manufacture, but according to McCarty, Les did ask for his royalties to be withheld due to the divorce, and they eventually agreed to just end the contract. This was in 1963 though, well after what we now call the LP was discontinued, which happened in 1960.

[nomadh]

It is funny how it all happened. And now LPs must outsell the sg 5 to 1? Maybe 15 to 1? Anyone know the numbers? Sort of the new coke shell game.

[mickey]

OK, so I wasn’t 100% correct.

Yes Gibson discontinued the LP and made what became the SG due to poor and declining sales plus cost to manufacture, but according to McCarty, Les did ask for his royalties to be withheld due to the divorce, and they eventually agreed to just end the contract. This was in 1963 though, well after what we now call the LP was discontinued, which happened in 1960.

I heard the LP was replaced by the SG because of Les' divorce from a Gibson dealer in the early 1960's & just always assumed it was true.
If I remember correctly, the SG's were called Les Pauls for the first year or so after they were introduced.
I have always liked SG's better.

[Chocol8]

If I remember correctly, the SG's were called Les Pauls for the first year or so after they were introduced.
I have always liked SG's better.

The SG shape was introduced in 1961 with the Les Paul name. The contract was cancelled in 1963 but they kept using the LP truss covers until they ran out. So nearly 3 years worth of SG’s were LP branded.