Fixing Up My Les Paul

[Doc W]

I hope I have not already asked in this forum... but here goes.

I am fixing up my 1952 Les Paul which I got in 68. It was a wreck back then, refinished (with house pain) and all the gold long gone and a bridge added (original gone). I am putting it back to the look of a 1954, more or less. I want to get the top painted gold, but the back and neck are very well worn.

Would you put a pristine gold paint job on it and let it age, or would you go for a somewhat aged gold look? I am definitely not into relic'ing, but I don't want it to look stupid.

[Rickenjangle]

Why don't you get the back and neck refinished at the same time?

[phantomman]

Why don't you get the back and neck refinished at the same time?

+1

My question as well.

I think the "new" gold would look goofy compared with the worn-and-aged sides, back, and neck. But if the entire guitar is re-finned, the vintage finish on the headstock may not be "simpatico".

Tough call!

Then there's the question of replacing any missing parts or hardware......

[NeoFauve]

House paint?
Whatever happens, some "before" pix are in order.


Another vote for an aesthetically unified finish in the hue of your choice.

[Don]

What's the top look like? You might consider sunburst if it's half decent.

I'm very against aging new builds, but am not against it for repairs (though I wouldn't age a complete re-finish)

[Doc W]

The neck has aged beautifully. I would not get it refinished. In fact, I wouldn't touch it. The back could probably use some finish work.

[refin]

I bought a '52 painted with what looked like red barn paint.....
keep us posted Doc!

[Wilko]

I'd do an aged refin to match. No shame in that.

[tugboat]

I'd do an aged refin to match. No shame in that.

+1 I normally don't like reliced finishes but in this case that's exactly what I'd do.

[Cogs]

Being from Canadia you might want to look up Gord Miller. He could probably make it look exactly right.

[boobtube21]

In my eyes this is a thing of personal preference...as in, which look do YOU prefer: a perfect refinish in contrast to the wear on the rest of the guitar, or the way it would look if it was relic'd to match? Though if relic'ing is a non-option due to your neg. opinion on relic'ing, that pretty much answers that question.

I'm not a purist per se, but I'm not a fan of relic'ing either...not judging anyone who is, to each his own

But as weird as it sounds... I think a lot of the "mojo" attached to the wear and tear on an instrument is that it tells the story of where it's been and what it's been through. As such, I'm not sure I would refinish it at all, as the house paint, like any scratch or ding, was part of it's journey in life before it ended up in your hands. And it wasn't your choice to paint it that way so you can't be blamed for it anyway.

Then again, you acquired it pretty early in its life so that may make you feel differently than if you just bought it this way last week...just think, if you had only refin'd it back in '68, it would have real wear on it now! (oh well).

Maybe go for the standard refin job, but just go extra thin on the clear coat? that way it will ding up nicely and not in an artificial way (sort of).

[Doc W]

Being from Canadia you might want to look up Gord Miller. He could probably make it look exactly right.

I just checked him out. His price for a Gibson gold top finish is $1450!!!! That is too rich for my blood, but it looks like he does good work.

[Doc W]

This should give you guys a better idea of what we are talking about.

The guy who owned it before me cut a big hole to put in a fake Bigsby with a wierd bridge. I had it removed in about 1970, filled in, and painted white. I was young and didn't realize the guy who did the work did a terrible job. I also used the two holes he had put in it to add a Gibson bridge with tuning relief. It worked ok but the action was always too high, and over the years, the crappy paint came off.

These photos were taken before the work started a few months ago. Since then, the weird varnish on the neck has been removed, the fretboard (Brazilian rosewood) has been cleaned up and leveled a little (there were some bad spots), and it has been refretted.

The 1952's had a very shallow neck angle so getting a bridge to work is a bit of a problem, but the guy working on it found bridge posts that lowers the action sufficiently so it plays very comfortably. He will be filling in that hole properly, resetting the bridge angle so it is perfectly in tune on all strings, and prepping the top for painting.

I just need a painter now, and I am still wondering about a little bit of aging or not. I don't want full relic treatment, for sure, but the suggestion of a little bit thin on the clearcoat sounds good.

[Doc W]

UPDATE: I just talked to Gord Miller. He says the $1450 price is for the whole guitar, front and back. I was thinking only of the top which he says would be $650, so I am going to give him some serious consideration.

[Don]

Wow! I can see it with an aged gold top and leaving the back and neck alone. $650 isn't bad!

[Cogs]

As the kids like to say, "omg"
If you think about what that guitar REALLY is & the $$$ it could potentially demand, I think you'd be crazy not to have it restored to as close to original by a reputable repaiman. Gord Miller & Dave Johnson (near Olympia, WA) are two guys that could make that guitar right. Not only would you have a cool axe but in the event you (or your family, for that matter) ever needed to move it, it will demand a lot more money than if it were left in its present condition.
It's not a moral issue, imo, but it would be a little irresponsible to NOT restore it. It's just a guitar; but it is also a potential investment you are making when you straighten a piece like that out. Less than a grand could add more than a grand to that guitar.
Besides, then you can post a bunch of pics for us all to enjoy the restoration process!

[Doc W]

.. but it would be a little irresponsible to NOT restore it. ...
Besides, then you can post a bunch of pics for us all to enjoy the restoration process!

Yah, I agree. I never had the spare cash before - and the whole process is not going to be cheap - but I honestly feel that I owe that guitar a facelift. I paid 50 bucks for in 1968 or thereabouts, so it owes me nothing, and I played zillions of gigs with it, so I owe it something.

I fully intend to keep you guys posted on the progress.

The next step is to get the bridge working. I have decided not to go with the original 1952 setup and will be going with the bridge it has on it now, just moved a little to get the intonation right, like a 1954.

[Don]

I love that you're not converting the guitar to a TOM bridge and Humbucking pickups.

As much as I love the '52 Les Paul/ES-295/ES-225 bridge'tailpiace on the ES-225 that I recently bought, that bridge/tailpiece did not work properly on Les Pauls. The '54 bridge/tailpiece is my favorite on a Les Paul.

[Kap'n]

The '54 bridge/tailpiece is my favorite on a Les Paul.

Never had the chance to really play a guitar with the one piece until I got my PRS SE. I'm a total convert.

[boobtube21]

This should give you guys a better idea of what we are talking about.

YIKES

Yeah I'd have that fixed up. She'll be a real beaut when she's done!

[kaicho8888]

Oh yeah... interesting project! Is that the original finish where the Bigsby was? It would be nice to match that and maintain the original antique look!

[Wilko]

Veneer that sucker.

[Don]

Veneer that sucker.

You could do that too. A '54 wrap LP bridge and P-90s over a lightly flamed maple top with a faded cherry sunburst finish is one of my favorite looks!

[Wilko]

I just meant to make the repair invisible. Then goldtop it.

[Don]

Or that.

[Kap'n]

It would be authentic looking. Which would be the prime consideration if it was to be sold at some point.

[Doc W]

Oh yeah... interesting project! Is that the original finish where the Bigsby was? It would be nice to match that and maintain the original antique look!

No, the original finish was gold. That is just a plywood plug.