Is this a Gibson?

[Jason Rodgers]

I have here what looks like a Gibson ES-125T. My mom bought this guitar for me in about '95-'96 for $125 from a guy who was a local cowboy bar strummer in central Idaho. He was at least the 2nd owner, and the condition is pretty much as I received it.

Here are some full body shots.

Top and back are laminated (looks to be maple), top has parallel braces, solid mahogany sides, mahogany kerfed linings, mahogany neck, rosewood fingerboard.

[Jason Rodgers]

"Hey, why don't you look at the headstock?" you ask? Well, that's one of the more interesting "features" of this guitar. The guy who sold it to the guy before me "fixed" a typical headstock break... with some wood glue, an 1/8th aluminum plate, and some bolts. That guy said it was a Gibson.

(The, err, wasp sticker was my addition.)

Lovely, no? The original 3-on-a-plate tuning machines are gone, and replaced by these Schallers. Of course, the extra thickness of the aluminum plate necessitated routing out the difference so the posts could extend above the surface. (sigh)

[Jason Rodgers]

"So, why don't you just find the serial number on the back of the headstock and look it up?" you ask? That's the next interesting thing: except for the logo that is probably buried under that plate, there is not a single identifying mark on this guitar... except for a stamped "2" on the back of the headstock.

It's a little biffed, but you'll have to trust me that this is a "2."

I did a little google work and found that Gibson, up until the early '80s, would cull cosmetically undesirable instruments and sell them as "seconds." They stamped them with a "2" and sold them discount.

[Jason Rodgers]

Now, from what I've read, these seconds were sometimes indistinguishable from the first-line instruments. So that's what's left me scratching my head. The Gibson ES-125T, from the late '50s on, had a typical robust metal tailpiece and a compensated saddle. This guitar has neither.

I got to thinking: if this instrument was pulled as a second, maybe they put some cheap hardware on it instead of the standard gear.

Any ideas, so far?

More tomorrow. Closeups of the pickups.

[Mark Swanson]

I'd say it is a Gibson. Someone has replaced the tailpiece and probably the bridge too. I'd fix that headstock, get that metal plate off of there and patch new wood where they routed and where ever else it's needed. It would be a nice guitar if you take the time to do it right. Sounds like a good project for you!

[Jason Rodgers]

It certainly has a lot of things pointing to Gibson, especially that number 2. For the longest time I figured, nah, it's just a Lyle or some other cheap version of the 125T. The tailpiece and bridge are the biggest head-scratcher for me, though. These are clearly inferior pieces, and someone would be stupid to remove the original to replace them (but then again, look at the headstock...). All the pictures I've seen of the 125T, from the late '50s on, look pretty much the same: tailpiece with the solid brass string retainer, and a compensated rosewood bridge with knurled brass height adjustment wheels. This tailpiece is much more flimsy, and although the bridge is rosewood, it is not compensated and the adjustment wheels look too thin.

[Jason Rodgers]

Ok, here's the pickup.

Underside. No labels or stamps with patent or "PAF."

And here is something I hadn't seen until I pulled off the pickup cover last night. A part code reads "UC - 450-1". Google reveals that this is indeed a vintage Gibson part number.

[Mark Swanson]

Yes, it's a Gibson. The pickup won't say anything because it is a P-90 and PAF pickups are the humbuckers. But all the wiring and everything I've seen tells me it's a Gibson. Did you notice how the headstock tapers in thickness from the neck to the tip? That is Gibson too. Not an high-value one, but still one worthy of a good restoration.

[Jason Rodgers]

I'd say it is a Gibson. Someone has replaced the tailpiece and probably the bridge too. I'd fix that headstock, get that metal plate off of there and patch new wood where they routed and where ever else it's needed. It would be a nice guitar if you take the time to do it right. Sounds like a good project for you!

Ha-ha! You know me and projects, Mark. Yes, I've considered putting this on the "someday" list. Frank Ford has a good tutorial/photo documentation on Frets.com of a headstock repair with a color-matched mahogany backstrap. This break is so ugly, with missing wood, that it would take some serious work to make it even close to unnoticeable. Tracking down tuners, either vintage or repro, would be the easy part. It could really use a refret, too.

Now, I've always been curious about this guitar, but my mom recently asked me to dig a little deeper: she got tickets to the Antiques Roadshow this summer and wants to take it as one of her items. I told her, eh, it's probably not anything that would get you on TV, and the value is probably about what it would cost to repair it. If it's at all worth more than that, then I'd have a professional do it. Kerry Char is in town, as are a few others whom I'd trust. For now, it plays well, the P90 sounds cool, and the aluminum headplate makes a good conversation piece when people go, "What the hell?..."

[Greg Steil]

It is indeed a Gibson that has had a hard life. Is there a FON in the F-hole? As far as tapered headstock that would indicate pre May 1950. However the thin body 125 shows up mid 50's. The game is afoot. Check the pot code numbers for another clue.

[Jason Rodgers]

FON?

I'll check the pots.

[Mark Swanson]

Look inside with a bright light, you may well be able to detect a very faded stamp inside that way. i have usually been able to find them.
At least it hasn't been refinished!

[Dave Locher]

I owned one of those for 48 hours about 20 years ago. It was sweet and lovely, but when I plugged it into my amp it howled like a banshee so I returned it Monday morning. Back then I did not have enough money to warrant owning a guitar I couldn't use on stage.

I think there is a good chance that the pots and the pickup are worth more as parts than the guitar is worth as a whole, but if it were mine I'd either play it just the way it is and enjoy it (assuming the headstock "repair" doesn't interfere with the tone or playability?) or restore it.

It could be worse: Several years ago I saw one of those at a guitar show that someone had turned into a single cutaway guitar by cutting out the bottom bout and crudely gluing in pieces of what looked like 2x4 wood sort of cut to fit, then painted that part flat black.

[Jason Rodgers]

I owned one of those for 48 hours about 20 years ago. It was sweet and lovely, but when I plugged it into my amp it howled like a banshee so I returned it Monday morning. Back then I did not have enough money to warrant owning a guitar I couldn't use on stage.

Yes, feedback is pretty gnarly at mid- to high-gain. Despite the plates being 1/4" thick 5-ply (I think), it's still a hollow-body guitar. Actually, I play it unplugged way more than plugged and it's loud.

I think there is a good chance that the pots and the pickup are worth more as parts than the guitar is worth as a whole, but if it were mine I'd either play it just the way it is and enjoy it (assuming the headstock "repair" doesn't interfere with the tone or playability?) or restore it.

Yes, I considered this, but I have no reason to part it out. It plays very well, and I'm lucky the truss rod has never needed a turn! And unless someone came along and told me that "2" is actually the serial number, the headstock repair will likely wait until I can afford it (or feel confident enough to do it myself!).