Discussion in 'Gibson SG' started by leftySG61, Aug 30, 2020.
The only correct Epiphone is a Made in Japan model :
Dear Permission: let me get this straight, the smeary dime store glitter logo was caused by nonexistent cracking and checkering. The thick dipped in molasses paint job is nitro not urethane. The thin tin Epiphones style Maestro was a Gibson special order that year and the exact Epiphone body contours are just shallow beveling. I see. It is a real Angus Young! How could I have been so blind. Thank you for correcting my ignorance. Never let it be said that I can't admit when I'm wrong. It's a good thing you didn't actually see, feel or examine this guitar.
I agree it is fake. Send it to me and I will dispose of it properly.
Sarcasm aside, permission to land is right. The 2000s ones were built off a standard, had the “wide” nut width, shallow bevels, etc. I know that one is real, because I’ve played hundreds of modern Gibsons, and even a few of the Angus Young signatures working at a music store. Based on pictures, it’s legit.
My offer still stands, though, and I’ll gladly take the counterfeit off your hands.
Let's look at what I said again, by direct quote:
"I can't see the logo in your pics, but it's common for them to have finish cracking around the inlays"
You'll notice that I was careful to not even suggest this was the case with your guitar, I simply mentioned a common issue that leads people to think their guitar is defective or fake when it is not. I was forced to do so because your comments were so deliberately vague. Post a picture of it, if you're so arrogantly certain. Hell, if you were, you would have done that in the first place instead of leaving me in the dark.
It's becoming clear that you're increasingly relying on subjective descriptions with provocative adjectives like "smeary dime store glitter" because you don't have actual substance to back up your claims.
Are you under the impression that nitro cannot be applied thick? That is obviously false. I'm also curious how you determined the thickness of the paint. Did you just happen to have an ultrasonic thickness gauge lying around the house?
Again, what was your thickness measurement on it? I'm still waiting after I asked last time how you determined that.
I already showed you how the bevels are identical to a Gibson SG Standard. You're in denial at this point. But let's settle it in a way you can't deny. Did this SG have a large heel or a small one?
You've only guaranteed that it will be said by giving yourself that reputation here. It's certainly good for you that I didn't have it in my hands, because that would eliminate all doubt you can try to sow by keeping information about it away from me.
Denial is a stinky cologne, bud.
So after looking at numerous pictures and creating several dummy horn shape cutouts out of a slab of mahogany I decided to reshape the horns myself. Now there are some vintage examples that are pretty extreme, I however decided to play it a little safer and use some more modest examples. It turned out great and pretty much better than i had hoped. Now off to refinishing.
Here is what they looked like before.
I like it!
Ha, thanks man!
@leftySG61 What SG is this ?
You’re welcome! I’ve done finish and woodwork often. You’ve done an excellent super pro job so far. I can only think the finish will be equally well done.
Lines/edges look much better now
Thanks! Yea what really made the difference was practicing on a blank slab first and avoiding any electrical machines.
Here are some pics of the first attempts. The one with the wider horns matches how the guitar originally was.
This is a 2019 1961 SG Reissue
Practice/trial on scrap 1st is always smart
I recently did a repair to the top of a vintage Gretsch 6120. To match the paint for touch up I took 6 different shades of orange that were very close to the Gretsch orange, painted a 2” square of each on raw maple, then when dry sprayed laquer over the samples. Once that was dry I chose the one that matched...and it was dead on
Separate names with a comma.