Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
'52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
'52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
Fender amp" for $125.
It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
totally ruining the collector's value.
- Rich
I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
Fender amp" for $125.
It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
totally ruining the collector's value.
- Rich
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Dr. Zontar <drzontar@yahoo . com > wrote:
> I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
> It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
> cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
> appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
>
> Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
> trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
> totally ruining the collector's value.
>
> - Rich
Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
* i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Dr. Zontar <drzontar@yahoo . com > wrote:
> I was watching PBS last night and caught this. Antiques Roadshow was
> in Las Vegas and an old guy brought in a '52 Gold-top LP to be
> appraised. He said he bought it in the 50's, along with a "small
> Fender amp" for $125.
>
> It had been stored under his bed for years. It had lots of hairline
> cracks in the finish, along with the usual scratches and dings. They
> appraised it at $15,000 - $20,000.
>
> Good thing it wasn't mine. I would have gotten rid of the stupid
> trapeze bridge/tailpiece, swapped out the P90's and repainted it,
> totally ruining the collector's value.
>
> - Rich
Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
* i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
here.
On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
here.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Spender <Spender@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples
> you can cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all
> the references here.
There's a few I could cite, but they're so damned different from one
another. I suppose it's like any other high-quality guitar, it's a
matter of who's playing and what he's feeding it through. Kind of like
a Tele--classic country twang, so explain Page's sounds with it in the
first couple of Zep albums.
Anyway, here goes (restricting to six string Rics, the 12-string
examples are pretty evident)....early Beatles, John Lennon. The rhythm
guitar is kind of hard to pick out, but check out "Long Tall Sally"
(Lennon plays the first lead break with his Ric) and "You Can't Do That"
(Lennon again playing lead). REM's Peter Buck is another good example.
There's not a lot of lead work in their stuff, but the guitar sound
stands out (to me at least). Another classic one is Radiohead's Ed
O'Neill (and sometimes Thom Yorke). Some of the earlier Creedence stuff
used Rics, but Fogarty also used Gretsches and Gibsons, and it's hard to
tell what he uses on which songs.
To me the classic Ric sound is sort of treble-heavy, similar in certain
ways to a Tele. In most of the examples I've cited, the player is using
the bridge pickup, which is kind of "chimey". You'd see if you looked
at the pic I've posted that I've replaced the bridge pickup in my Ric
with two DiMarzio hot tele pickups (I kept the original "toaster" neck
pickup), so I'm not getting that sound with mine.
I also have a Ric 12 string with stock pickups.
Spender <Spender@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples
> you can cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all
> the references here.
There's a few I could cite, but they're so damned different from one
another. I suppose it's like any other high-quality guitar, it's a
matter of who's playing and what he's feeding it through. Kind of like
a Tele--classic country twang, so explain Page's sounds with it in the
first couple of Zep albums.
Anyway, here goes (restricting to six string Rics, the 12-string
examples are pretty evident)....early Beatles, John Lennon. The rhythm
guitar is kind of hard to pick out, but check out "Long Tall Sally"
(Lennon plays the first lead break with his Ric) and "You Can't Do That"
(Lennon again playing lead). REM's Peter Buck is another good example.
There's not a lot of lead work in their stuff, but the guitar sound
stands out (to me at least). Another classic one is Radiohead's Ed
O'Neill (and sometimes Thom Yorke). Some of the earlier Creedence stuff
used Rics, but Fogarty also used Gretsches and Gibsons, and it's hard to
tell what he uses on which songs.
To me the classic Ric sound is sort of treble-heavy, similar in certain
ways to a Tele. In most of the examples I've cited, the player is using
the bridge pickup, which is kind of "chimey". You'd see if you looked
at the pic I've posted that I've replaced the bridge pickup in my Ric
with two DiMarzio hot tele pickups (I kept the original "toaster" neck
pickup), so I'm not getting that sound with mine.
I also have a Ric 12 string with stock pickups.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
In article <kigk24lmh3206nnhn8j0dvtm3ic1rd7lcl@news.easynews . com >,
Spender@Mars.org says...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
> >My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
> > * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
> here.
>
>
Ric's are one of the few guitars that are all maple, which is a very
bright sounding wood. Most sound like a Ric without even plugging them
in. IMO the sound is bright like a Tele but with less sustain like a
Jazzmaster or Jaguar. Unlike a Tele, both pickups are the same so the
dual pickup sounds are much better balanced, similar to some P90
Gibsons. Lennons 325 had the middle pickup disconnected, so most of
those early Beatles rhythm sounds are classic Ric through a Vox amp.
Through a Fender BF/SF amp, Rics can surf with the best of them and Carl
Wilson used both 6 & 12 string Rics on a lot of those early Beach Boys
songs. Both Lennon and Carl later also played Epi's with P90s.
Edge uses one a some U2 material and Dwight Yokum often uses one as
well. Tom Petty & Heartbreakers use them quite a lot, both 6 and 12
strings.
In article <kigk24lmh3206nnhn8j0dvtm3ic1rd7lcl@news.easynews . com >,
Spender@Mars.org says...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> >Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
> >My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
> > * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
> here.
>
>
Ric's are one of the few guitars that are all maple, which is a very
bright sounding wood. Most sound like a Ric without even plugging them
in. IMO the sound is bright like a Tele but with less sustain like a
Jazzmaster or Jaguar. Unlike a Tele, both pickups are the same so the
dual pickup sounds are much better balanced, similar to some P90
Gibsons. Lennons 325 had the middle pickup disconnected, so most of
those early Beatles rhythm sounds are classic Ric through a Vox amp.
Through a Fender BF/SF amp, Rics can surf with the best of them and Carl
Wilson used both 6 & 12 string Rics on a lot of those early Beach Boys
songs. Both Lennon and Carl later also played Epi's with P90s.
Edge uses one a some U2 material and Dwight Yokum often uses one as
well. Tom Petty & Heartbreakers use them quite a lot, both 6 and 12
strings.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Spender wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
> here.
>
Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
--
Les Cargill
Spender wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>
> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you can
> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
> here.
>
Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
--
Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that they
reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with every other
manufacturer (afaik).
-- jepp
if it sounds good.. . it IS GOOD!
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
news:482b6aec$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> Spender wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>>
>> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you
>> can
>> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
>> here.
>>
>
> Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
> times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that they
reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with every other
manufacturer (afaik).
-- jepp
if it sounds good.. . it IS GOOD!
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
news:482b6aec$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
> Spender wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>>
>> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you
>> can
>> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
>> here.
>>
>
> Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
> times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
> every other manufacturer (afaik).
Why would that make much of a difference?
On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
> every other manufacturer (afaik).
Why would that make much of a difference?
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>
>> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
>> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
>> every other manufacturer (afaik).
>
> Why would that make much of a difference?
With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
--
Les Cargill
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>
>> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
>> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
>> every other manufacturer (afaik).
>
> Why would that make much of a difference?
With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
--
Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
to be "distinctive"?
On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
to be "distinctive"?
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>
>> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
>
> OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
> pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
> minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
> which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
> to be "distinctive"?
Seems to me the skinny strings are louder that way. Seems. I dunno
for sure. I was simply explaining the difference in the string
arrangement. Rics are quite different in lots of
other ways, too.
--
Les Cargill
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>
>> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
>
> OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
> pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
> minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
> which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
> to be "distinctive"?
Seems to me the skinny strings are louder that way. Seems. I dunno
for sure. I was simply explaining the difference in the string
arrangement. Rics are quite different in lots of
other ways, too.
--
Les Cargill
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
> OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
> pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
> minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
> which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
> to be "distinctive"?
I can certainly hear a difference between a chord that is down-stroked
vs one that is up-stroked. I should imagine the difference with
stringing would work along similar lines.
Nil wrote:
> On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>> With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
> OK... but it seems to me that the pick would hit both strings of the
> pair and almost the same time. The difference in time would be
> minuscule, and I have a hard time believing the ear could distinguish
> which sounded first. I guess there's be a tiny difference, but enough
> to be "distinctive"?
I can certainly hear a difference between a chord that is down-stroked
vs one that is up-stroked. I should imagine the difference with
stringing would work along similar lines.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:52:43 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:
>Nil wrote:
>> On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>>
>>> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
>>> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
>>> every other manufacturer (afaik).
>>
>> Why would that make much of a difference?
>
>With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
You got it backwards - Ric = skinny string bottom.
Except mine, which is strung the "everybody else's" way.
Whichever way it's strung doesn't affect the distinctive tone any, it's just a
matter of how much emphasis is put on the high strings.
On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:52:43 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote:
>Nil wrote:
>> On 14 May 2008, "crow" <jeppardyPANTS@msn . com > wrote in alt.guitar:
>>
>>> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that
>>> they reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with
>>> every other manufacturer (afaik).
>>
>> Why would that make much of a difference?
>
>With the Ric arrangement, the pick hits the skinny string first.
You got it backwards - Ric = skinny string bottom.
Except mine, which is strung the "everybody else's" way.
Whichever way it's strung doesn't affect the distinctive tone any, it's just a
matter of how much emphasis is put on the high strings.
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
crow wrote:
> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that they
> reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with every other
> manufacturer (afaik).
>
Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
> -- jepp
> if it sounds good.. . it IS GOOD!
>
>
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:482b6aec$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>>>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>>>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>>> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you
>>> can
>>> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
>>> here.
>>>
>> Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
>> times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
crow wrote:
> The distinctive Ricky 12 string sound owes much to the fact that they
> reverse the order of regular & octave strings, compared with every other
> manufacturer (afaik).
>
Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
> -- jepp
> if it sounds good.. . it IS GOOD!
>
>
> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in message
> news:482b6aec$0$3369$4c368faf@roadrunner . com ...
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:10:35 GMT, "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I tend to do that kind of thing too.
>>>> My Ric 450, which I bought new in 1965:
>>>> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/Rickenbacker450.jpg
>>> Do Rickenbacker's have a "trademark" sound? Any commercial examples you
>>> can
>>> cite? I've never played one and I'm curious because of all the references
>>> here.
>>>
>> Tom Petty, the Beatles, the Byrds and REM all used Rics at varying
>> times. The Ric 12 is very distinctive.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
Re: '52 Les Paul on Antiques Roadshow
On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
alt.guitar:
> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
"Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
have I reversed them by accident at some point?
On 14 May 2008, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr . com > wrote in
alt.guitar:
> Danelectros also put the skinny string on top.
"Top" meaning what? My Danelectro is strung with the higher string of
the octave pair toward the bass-side of the neck. Is that right, or
have I reversed them by accident at some point?
