Restore or Not Gibson LP Before Selling?

[louisjames]

Trying to decide whether to send my 1954 Gibson LP Goldtop off to be restored or to sell as-is? The guitar had already been refinished (mediocre job with the back and neck painted black along with a mustard "gold" top) long before I got it but that was never an issue as for me it was a gigging guitar. I can't afford a truly top-grade, $2K+ refinishing so looking at ones in the $1000 price range.

All of these would have some "aging" done as part of the package. Supposedly to have the guitar look lightly played, age-appropriate. Although I wonder if "aging" is done because at the price point I'm looking at, the "aging" is also there to cover over any flaws, etc.

So the question is - - would you rather buy a guitar as-is and then decide to have a refinish done, or want to buy one that already has a lightly aged finish from someone like MJT, BadMojo, etc? I don't know that I would see a significant increase in price if I have the refinishing done and then there's the thought that any buyer might want to save this option for themselves. Thanks in advance for any input and suggestions.

J-

[maxtheaxe]

That's a tough one. If you're not keeping it and don't want to dump a couple grand or more into refinishing, you might be better served to sell it as-is to someone who likes to do that work...sort of a 'conservator'. Let them decide how they want it done.

Too bad they messed with it...that's a guitar I've seen offered anywhere from $25k to $100k...maybe more...in original condition. Depending on the condition, other than the poor refinish, of yours, I still don't think I'd take less than about $7500 for it, as long as it plays & functions properly & has no headstock cracks, etc., and provided you can prove what it is to prospective buyers.

Got any pix?

[Hoyt]

I'd try selling it as is. If you don't get near what you want, reconsider the restoration.

There's a good chance you might not get back the money you put into restoration, but don't know that for sure.

Good luck.

[louisjames]

I fell into the LP many moons ago, so not going to worry that it was messed with prior to my getting it. But nice to think about if it were all-original. I am just glad to have enjoyed it all these years. It has the obligatory Grover's and adjustable wrap-around bridge which were actually a plus for gigging. At least it was spared mini-switches and other 70's indignities, and fortunately has the original P90's, plastics, and knobs, and was never broken. Still thinking on this one. My long-time pal said he would know I was done with music once I sold the LP and my Tremolux. He might be only half right. Thanks for the feedback.

[Dru Edwards]

A '54 Gibson Les Paul? Wow! I would call a couple of experts at national guitar shops that deal with vintage guitars and ask them. We also have some experts here who will weigh in too. My thoughts are if you are going to restore it don't look on the less expensive end (i.e. $1k vs $2k) on a '54 Gibson.

[muscmp]

i would pay the money and have it brought back to the original scheme. otherwise, as long as you plan to keep it, just do what you want without consideration of the next person. redo it or leave it as is. it is yours to enjoy NOW!

play music!

[stephenT]

As is. A correct restoration is $$$, anything less is a waste on that collectable, desirable LP. Let the next owner do it. He or she may have a preferred restorer.

[louisjames]

Originally Posted by stephenT

As is. A correct restoration is $$$, anything less is a waste on that collectable, desirable LP. Let the next owner do it. He or she may have a preferred restorer.

I spoke to a number of vintage shops and asked the same question. All said sell as-is and let the buyer decide on the type and level of restoration, if any, they want to do. Thank you again to all who replied. Still not sure what I'll do as I've had the guitar almost 40 years. Hard to let go of such a good friend.

[DenverSteve]

To me there is no reason. No amount of “restoring” will or can restore the guitar. It can never again be original.

[FrankHudson]

I think the original question is now well answered, but just a side comment.

I fully understand (intellectually) the current market value of "original" and I agree with what the vintage resellers have told the OP as the best tactic to follow from it's current state in the process of resell.

That's all correct as a matter of market economics. Like I said, question answered. Of course the real dollars and sense answer is based on a romantic and emotional desire for "original" by many buyers.

Still, my own emotional reaction is that it's an instrument. What the OP did with it (he didn't even do the current refinish) was play it--the right thing! The tailpiece replacement was near a requirement for early Les Pauls due to a faulty design. If I was the kind of guy who might buy such a instrument (I'm not...) I'd play it too, and I'd keep the second-rate refin and I certainly keep the tailpiece replacement. Personally, I just feel the "original" thing is odd when applied to a mass-produced instrument, however real it is if I was seeking to covert it into cash at some point in my life. Even in terms of Stradivarius violins I understand the market doesn't fetishize original like the vintage electric guitar market does. It just seems odd.

[MC5C]

I guess I'd have to have a real good reason for selling it, but I'd sell it as is. For a couple of reasons. Money-wise, you'll get about the same for it as-is as you would with a mild restore, so you'd be out the money for the restore. You may well get a lot more for it as-is, because the buyer (if a serious collector) is just going to re-restore it anyway. Second, just let the buyer make the decisions on what they want to do with it. An awful lot of old Les Pauls have been restored, it's not like they are all pristine case queens. There is a point where doing a complete refinish simply becomes required maintenance. I'd say your friend is right, BTW, if you sell that you're giving up on a big chunk of your life. But your circumstances and reasons are your own.

[louisjames]

Originally Posted by MC5C

I'd say your friend is right, BTW, if you sell that you're giving up on a big chunk of your life. But your circumstances and reasons are your own.

My original reason for the refin is I wanted to see the guitar in a similar finish that it would have had if bought back in the day. Selling it was secondary but there are a few reasons for that. My gigging days are over and the playing I do now is acoustic duo and finger picking. I no longer have the hand strength and dexterity that I had back in my blues band days.

So the LP, while a dear old friend, is sitting in its case. Hell, I can't even play a dread any longer due to shoulder problems so moved to an ES-125 and small-body acoustic. So why not let someone else enjoy it now? Not an easy decision to make but I'm no longer a kid and my priorities have changed.

As for the original versus refin or player versus collector. I remember a guy years ago just when Bursts were hitting the stratosphere. He wasn't much of a player but he just had to have it. I don't think it's been out of the case more than a handful of times. Mostly to show it off to friends. For me a guitar is meant to be played and I always gravitated towards players rather than closet queens. I'm not knocking the folks who must have something all original and / or pristine. It's their money. But a good vintage guitar, or any good guitar needs to be played, heard and enjoyed. At least in my humble opinion.

[M Sarad]

I traded my ‘52 Gold Top LP to a notorious LA dealerfor a ‘62 ES 335. He took it to a luthier in LA and converted it into a Sunburst after he discovered that it had tiger striped top. I suspect there is a fake ‘59 floating around now.

He told me the headstock on the 335 was refinished to cover cigarette burns. Turns out it was refinished to cover a headstock break. It was weak and rebroke. My refinisher discovered the first break.

I sold it to Norm for less than I paid.