"1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Discussion of newer designs, copies and reissue offset-waist instruments.
User avatar
zhivago
Mods
Mods
Posts: 21926
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:18 am
Location: London, UK

"1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by zhivago » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:32 pm

Resident Spartan.

User avatar
StevenO
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 17768
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:06 pm

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by StevenO » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:36 pm

Oh wow, I love that blue.

What colour would that be?

User avatar
Naturality
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:03 am
Location: Over There, look! >>>

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Naturality » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:49 pm

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's nice but 1969?! Wave The Fish!

The tremolo is bent too

User avatar
fullerplast
Mods
Mods
Posts: 12710
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:53 am
Location: In My Room

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by fullerplast » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:14 pm

What colour would that be?
I think it's called Krylon Medium Blue.... at a Wal-Mart store near YOU!
Q. Are we not men?

User avatar
StevenO
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 17768
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:06 pm

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by StevenO » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:26 pm

I'm painting my 58' jm that colour.

User avatar
geoffreysnow
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:24 pm

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by geoffreysnow » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:05 pm

That looks like a krylon blue metalic job i did a long time ago.  except i polished mine out

User avatar
RumorsOFsurF
Mods
Mods
Posts: 17598
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by RumorsOFsurF » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:58 pm

That sure doesn't look like a vintage bridge cover. :-\
Damn kids, get off my lawn!

User avatar
Jay
Admin
Admin
Posts: 7718
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Contact:

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Jay » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:36 am

This looks a lot like a guitar I recall seeing on the Hoboken Vintage website last spring.

User avatar
Soiouz
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Soiouz » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:45 am

RumorsOFsurF wrote: That sure doesn't look like a vintage bridge cover. :-\
What makes you think it's not vintage? It looks very legit to me (small flaps, size, etc.).


The whole guitar looks more like a 1959 or 1960 to me: amber switch tip, bakelite knobs, single line under "Fender" on the headstock, dots, etc.
Naturality wrote:
The tremolo is bent too
That, I think, would be consistent with 1959 too, as they were all unique. I've seen many other trem arms bent that way.
Last edited by Soiouz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Naturality
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:03 am
Location: Over There, look! >>>

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Naturality » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:34 am

Soiouz wrote: The whole guitar looks more like a 1959 or 1960 to me: amber switch tip, bakelite knobs, single line under "Fender" on the headstock, dots, etc.
I suppose it could have been restored after a bad life or something. Probably some repro parts

User avatar
mezcalhead
Admin
Admin
Posts: 11566
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:18 am
Location: Swampland

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by mezcalhead » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:44 am

I dunno about "probably" .. I guess it could well have some repro parts but impossible to tell one way or another from that photo. Zhiv's original point is that it doesn't have the features you'd expect from a '69, as Soiuz says.

The trem arms were hand made from a length of metal, so the bends and lengths varied depending on how the guy bending it felt that day. That shape doesn't look a million miles away from the arm on my '59, although as far as I know you can't date offsets by arm shape.
Distance-crunching honcho with echo unit.

User avatar
luau
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10019
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:07 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by luau » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:00 am

Too bad this was probably a '6' instead of '5' typo. I'm sure the owner is aware of what he has given the rest of his stock. I'd love to have a refin '59 for a refin '69 price just the same though.
Bigger in sum than parts.

User avatar
Naturality
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:03 am
Location: Over There, look! >>>

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Naturality » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:02 am

So, the big question. Who's gonna phone him for a price?

User avatar
luau
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10019
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:07 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by luau » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:06 am

Or a '9' instead of '0' typo.

linky
Bigger in sum than parts.

User avatar
Soiouz
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: "1969??....I don't think so, Gary"

Post by Soiouz » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:08 am

mezcalhead wrote: as far as I know you can't date offsets by arm shape.
Of course you're right. But, I just noticed that the vast majority of times when I see a trem arm bent like that, it belongs to an early offset.

Post Reply