The Gibson ES-335

I love this photo. It was apparently taken during the final British tour in late 65. It shows the guitars we all associate with JP&G but what's that in the upper right? It's a stoptail 345 is what it is and it was George's main stage guitar for that tour

When I watched the Ed Sullivan Show on that February night in 1964, I was actually already very interested in their guitars. I recall getting right up close to the (black and white) screen and trying to read the name on the headstock of John’s guitar. It sure looked like “Rickenbacker” to me but who had ever heard of a Rickenbacker? George’s Gretsch Country Gent was easy to recognize and Paul’s Hofner bass was just plain strange. Being a Beatle would have meant that you could play any guitar you wanted and I’ve always found it interesting to try to get into their heads when it came to their choices. As far as I know, none of them ever owned a 335 but all three of them owned Epiphone Casinos which, frankly, was not a

This photo was taken in Sheffield, England in December of '65

particularly high end guitar. Casinos, like ES-330s, could be fairly problematic at high volume. The feed back easily and I’m guessing if you’re a Beatle, feedback was not something you wanted beyond the opening note of “I Feel Fine.”  I also found it interesting that in the mid to late 60’s I was playing essentially the same guitar that they were. I had a 63 ES-330 for a number of years. But there is an ES that’s much less well known that counts as a Beatle guitar. It’s a sunburst stoptail ES-345 that George bought some time in 1965 and began playing in November of that year. He began using it as his main stage guitar after his second Country Gent fell off the back of their van and was run over by a truck in 1965. The 345 looks to me to be a late 63 or a 64. It was pretty common for higher end guitars to be purchased a year or two or even three years after they were shipped. Especially in the UK.  They toured for much of 1965 (that was Shea Stadium if you’re old enough to remember) but the 345 didn’t hit the stage until very late in the year. The Beatles did their final British tour in December of ’65 and George began it with his beloved second Gretsch Country Gentleman. After the aforementioned incident involving a truck ( or a lorry, if you want to be culturally correct), George brought out the 345 and used it for the rest of the tour along with his Rickenbacker 12 string. After the tour ended around Christmas, the guitar wasn’t seen in public again. I have no idea what happened to it but I like to think that maybe it’s one of the ones that passed through my hands over the years.

There certainly aren't a lot of photos of George's 345 and while George looks unusually absorbed in his playing here, I know exactly what he's thinking. "hey, this Varitone doesn't suck all the tone out of this one."

Wait a second, isn't that George with a long guard dot neck? It is but the guitar belonged to Joe Brown of Joe Brown & the Bruvvers. Apparently, the Beatles were the opening act in sometime in 1963 and Paul's brother Michael snapped this photo. All these guitars have to be somewhere.

Here's a 66 with very rounded Mickey Mouse )almost ears. One of the big variables in 66 is the shape of the ears. Compare these to the one at the bottom which has what some call "fox" ears

OK, so Gibson made some big changes necessitated by the huge runup in guitar sales that occurred in early 64. Interestingly, these changes are largely responsible for the end of what we call “The Golden Era”. How do you otherwise explain the fact that a December 1964 ES-335 will cost you somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 and a January 66, made just 13 months later will cost between $3000 and $5000? I’m purposely skipping 65 because the transition makes it impossible to generalize. What I mean is a big neck 65 with nickel parts is worth more than a big neck with chrome which is worth more than a skinny neck and so on. The 66’s are mostly the same both in features and value. Back to the question at hand. Let’s take a close look at the 66 ES-335. The biggest change is the neck profile. It’s a full 1/8″ narrower at the nut-and that’s a lot- and the profile is quite a bit shallower. It is still round rather than flat – the laws of geometry tell us that even with a depth equal to the depth of, say, a 62. it will feel more rounded because the neck is narrower. The other big change is the trapeze tailpiece replacing the stoptail. There were other changes worth noting: The fingerboard changed from Brazilian to Indian rosewood, the pickups, while still pre T-tops (and I know I’ll get an argument from someone) were the later type with poly coated wire. Tuners are double line Kluson rather than single and the truss rod cover has a narrow bevel. That seems like a lot but is it enough to justify the huge price discrepancy. There were some big changes by ’68 too but they aren’t really worth much (if any) less than a 66. Let’s look at what’s good about a 66 and why it’s a relative bargain. I don’t believe the trapeze really affects tone much and I don’t believe it affects sustain that much either. It looks kind of wrong and that isn’t inconsequential. The pickups and the construction of the guitar are more important in that regard and those things didn’t change much. The pickups are generally considered to be very good but not as “good” as the earlier ones which were identical to later PAFs. I agree with that assessment but they can still sound truly great. The only thing that changed, besides the covers, is the wire they wrapped the coil with. It went from enamel coated to poly coated and that changed the tone a bit. I think the big thing is the current trend toward larger necks. In some ways it’s like a “mine’s bigger than yours” thing. You hear folks actually bragging about how big the neck is on their guitars (“It’s a freakin’ baseball bat, dude”). That’s just sophomoric silliness. In other ways, it goes to playability. I like a wider nut on my guitars. The depth of the neck is of lesser importance to me but the extra space for “cowboy” chords is really appreciated. However, if you have no problem with the narrower nut-and Fender players probably have less of a problem than Gibson players, then the 66 is an awesome choice for a first foray into vintage. If you can’t play the narrow nut, then, by all means, don’t buy a 66. Most players will get used to it fairly quickly and if it was the only way I could get myself a vintage 335, then I would try to adapt. In fact, the first one I bought when I returned to the vintage fold in the 90’s was a 66 ES-345. I didn’t want to spend too much and I loved the guitar. It led me back to all this (blog, business and collection) and it was an excellent and not too expensive starting point. If you really hate the trapeze, look for one that’s been converted to a stop-especially one where they put the stop in the right place. It will diminish the collector value, to be sure, but it will look cooler and that’s worth something, isn’t it?

The ears on this one are short and pointy. There's a third type in 66 and a 4th.

"The Mexican" One of the last Golden Era Gibson ES-335s. It's an early 65 with an original stoptail and a big 64 sized neck. I found this in Guadalajara, Mexico.

Most of us place the beginning of the Great Guitar Boom precisely on Feb 9th, 1964 at around 8:45 PM EST. Why so exact? That’s about the time the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I’m not totally sure of the exact time-I remember having to slog through the usual dog acts and ventriloquists to get to JPG&R. I was 12. I was impressionable. I was hooked. I bugged my Dad to buy me a guitar and he came home with a Kay flat top with terrible action that was just about impossible to learn on but I started lessons within a few months. Most of us Gibson types feel that the Golden Era ended in 1964 with a little slopover into 65. Fender folks fall in line to around that time as well. Is the fact that so many kids wanted electric guitars the reason that the perceived quality of the instruments started its long  decline? Is it true that Gibson couldn’t keep up with the demand? The simple answer is yes. But there’s more to it than that. Fender was giving Gibson fits because they were mass producing guitars cheaper and faster than they could and with the sales going through the roof, Gibson had to do something. It’s a little like New Coke, if you remember that. Consider this: Gibson sold 1241 ES-335’s in 1964. In 1967, they sold 5718 and these were not “starter” guitars either. So, the guitar boom was on and all the guitar makers benefitted (and they sprung up like mushrooms).  Suddenly Gibson was trying to appeal to a younger, hipper and less discerning buying public who was inundated with rock groups appearing on TV with their oh so cool guitars. There were no less than 4 TV shows that emerged that put the spotlight on the rock groups of the day. Shindig! showed up on ABC in September of 64, Hullabaloo was NBC’s entry in 1965. Where the Action is was created by Dick Clark and aired after school on ABC (House band Paul Revere and the Raiders). Finally, there was a show that had actually been on the air since 1961 which was sort of a LA based American Bandstand called The Lloyd Thaxton Show which went national in late 64. That’s a lot of programming showing a

Hermie's in Schenectady where retail rules. Still there with the same sign out front. I'm pretty sure Hermie himself is no longer with us, however.

lot of guitars. Beatles aside, most of them were Fenders, if memory serves and Gibsons were a rarity. Sure, there were Guilds and Voxes and Gretsches but Fender seemed to rule the roost. I bugged my father to take me to the local Fender dealer-the estimable Hermies Music Store in Schenectady, NY-our motto “we will sell no guitar below retail” to get an electric. Gibson wasn’t even on the radar.  I ended up with a white Duo Sonic and a Princeton Amp. So Gibson saw that even though their sales were climbing exponentially, they had to do something to compete with Fender. I assume they took a look at Fender guitars and tried to figure out what the attraction was. Apparently it wasn’t the bolt on neck. Apparently it wasn’t the contoured body. It must have been the skinny neck because that was Gibson’s response. The common perception was that a slim neck played “faster” and fast was what a lot of kids were about on their guitars. The perception was that the best lead player was the guy who could play the fastest and Fenders were known as fast. Gibson had to compete and so they narrowed the nut  to 1 9/16″ which was about 1/16″ narrower than most Fenders of the day. The addition of the trapeze tail was related as well but only because it eliminated a step or two from the manufacturing process. And what are the elements that separate the Golden Era from the years that followed? Of course, the trap tail and the skinny neck. Next up, we’ll take a close look at the 66 model year.

This is a fairly typical 66. Smaller pointy ears, chrome hardware, trapeze tail and, of course, the 1 9/16" nut width

ES-345s were the hot seller this year. I think I sold close to 30 of them. They are still my favorite with the Varitone connected or without.

I don’t actually have a topic that is New Years related but I thought this might be a good time to take a look at the vintage market with regard to ES 335, 345 and 355s. I really can’t look ahead since I don’t have a crystal ball so, assuming the Mayans are wrong and the world doesn’t end in 2012, we’ll all have to be content to look at the market over the past year. You sure can’t tell anything from the majority of the dealers. When I go through the 335s on Gbase, I have to laugh. If you looked at the guitars that were listed at this time last year and the ones that are listed today, I would guess that at least half of them are still for sale. In the fourth quarter, the market for stop tail 335s got very strong. The market for Bigsbys? Not so much. But the term strong is relative. When I see 62-64 block necks both on Gbase and Ebay north of $30,000, I understand why none of them sell. Unless the guitar is dead mint, that’s not a reasonable price.  Dot necks have held their value better with 59’s leading the way, of course. But, the average dot neck has crept below $20,000. The one’s that are fetching the lower prices are usually 60, 61 and 62’s. The 58 and 59’s are doing somewhat better.  My sales range this year for 1958-1964 ES-335s (excluding refins, repairs and exotic colors) is $9000 to $25,000.  Average no issue stoptail block was around $16K. Average Bigsby/studs version was around $12,000. I only sold perhaps 6 or 7 dot necks this year and no 58s and only one 59, so my average will be skewed downward. But I can tell you this, the stoptail dot necks, while not flying out of the dealers are still a very desirable guitar. I believe the only reason they are sitting unsold is that the owners are asking 2007 prices. The old cliche that says an item is worth what someone will pay still holds true and I’m sure some very high dollar 335’s changed hands this year. But I think we have a face a basic truth about the economics of 2011: The 1% with all the money is going to spend whatever it takes to get whatever they want. The players and the small collectors are going to look for the deals. That’s pretty much how it went for me.  On the ES-345 front, the market was softer and the bargains have been fast and furious.  A PAF equipped ’60 for under $9K? A stoptail near mint 64 for under $9500? These are reasonable post bubble prices that I got for 345s.  I prefer not to name names but c’mon $29,999 for a red ’63 ES-345?  Go check Gbase.  This years crop of 1959-1964 ES-345s ranged from $6500 for a Bigsby/stud ’64 to $18,000 for a near mint ’60 stop.  We’ll leave the red 59 and the blondie out of the equation. I didn’t sell a whole lot of 355s this year-maybe 8? The mono 355s are very strong-they are out the door sometimes before I even get them. The foreign market is nuts for 355’s. I had one go to Japan, another to Australia, one to the UK and another to Germany. This is probably a good thing since I don’t have to worry that the US Government is going to confiscate them due to the use of Brazilian rosewood. The range for 355’s this year was $6500 to $15,000. The top seller was a mono 59 in excellent condition. My intent here is to keep you from spending more than you have to in order to get the guitar you want. be patient and when the right one comes along at the right price, don’t give it too much thought because someone else is going to snag it from under you. Whether you buy from me or from someone else, you will be a lot happier knowing the price you paid is what the guitar is worth not someones idea of what it was worth 5 years ago. Oh, and Happy New Year and thanks to all 35,624 of you for reading what I write and helping me to enjoy another year of guitar buying, selling, playing and just yakking about them.

Here's a whole load of 61's. They seem to come in bunches. All sold.

This is a 62 set up with a stop but is a Bigsby/studs version. Note the brown case-last year for those too.

I thought I had done this already and went through the old posts and somehow I never did a post looking specifically at the 62 model year for the ES-335. And it’s a pretty interesting one because it was the year that Gibson switched from dot neck to block neck. Most folks assume that 61’s are dots and 62’s are blocks. Au contraire. Gibson made the transition to the block neck during 1962 probably in the Spring. I’ve never seen a stat that says how many dot necks and how many block necks were shipped but based on what I’ve seen in the real world, it’s got to be perhaps 8 blocks to every dot. They made nearly 900 335s that year and it was the first year that cherry was the more popular color (by more than 2:1). What’s really odd is that I’ve only had one red 62 block and I’ve had a least 8 or 9 62 block necks. I have two more I’m buying and they are both sunburst as well.  I have no explanation. Of course, 62 is also the year Gibson started phasing in the patent number pickup. Most of you know that the early patent and the late PAF are identical. Only the sticker is different but that doesn’t stop folks (including me) from charging a $1000 to $2000 premium for that sticker. Nobody ever said that collectors were sensible. A couple of other things occurred during 62 as well-although I’m going to get an argument from someone on this because it isn’t entirely clear. The saddles changed to nylon. “Hold it”, you say…”the saddles changed in 61-I know because my SG has them”. And you would be right but they didn’t change on 335’s until 62. In fact of the 8 or 9 62’s I’ve had and quite a number of others I’ve seen, most of them still show metal saddles. The other change during 62 was from the no wire ABR-1 to the wire version. This is trickier to figure out because alot of people swapped out their no wire bridge for the wire type for the simple reason that they got tired of chasing their saddles around the bandstand every time they broke a string. It seems to me that most are no wire and that the transition occurred late in the year. Lastly, 62 was pretty much the last year for the brown case. Although I’ve had a 63 SG in a brown case, I haven’t had a 63 335 in one. That doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. As I’ve mentioned aboout 100 times, the cases were often supplied by the music store and if they had a brown one kicking around the back room in 63, they wouldn’t hesitate to put a 63 335 in it. The 1962 is a fairly popular year for players and collectors because it is usually the least expensive “Golden Era” 335. Surprised? It has to do with the neck profile more than anything. While it is the same (more or less) as a 60 (except the earliest ones) and a 61, the 62 block isn’t a dot neck so it isn’t worth as much. OK, why is it worth less than a 63…after all it’s more likely to have 2 PAFs, right? That’s true but many 63’s have the big 64 size neck which to many buyers trumps a PAF. I would say a 62 and an early 63 are the “bargains” of the era. Stop tails in great shape should be from $15K-$18K depending on the condition. Don’t go looking on Ebay-the dreamers have them as high as $32,000 and be careful on Gbase as well. There are 62/63s for as high as $25K.  The average among the dealers in still over $20K but those guitars aren’t flying out the door-some have been listed for 3 years now. A Bigsby or Maestro version will be thousands less. You should be able to find one for as little as $10,000 but it’ll probably be a Maestro. Make sure the string break angle isn’t too shallow. It will cause big string benders all kinds of problems because the strings will fly right out of the saddles. From a tone standpoint, most are excellent. These are extremely consistent and well built. If you can deal with the slim (front to back) neck, you can save a lot of money and have a guitar that be the equal of almost anything out there. The best guitar I owned this year from a tone standpoint was a 62 (but it was a dot neck).

OK, it's the wrong red and it's refinished but it's still a 62 dot neck and it's still the best one I had all year.

OK, it's an SG but it's easier to see because of all that hardware. This is new looking nickel-even though this is a real 64. Looks a lot like chrome.

This is what nickel looks like after 45 years of wear and tear on a real player. Chrome won't do that.

Yes, another Steely Dan (Aja) reference. Can you actually tell chrome hardware from nickel? It’s easy when it’s old but not so easy when it’s new. And why do folks today like nickel on their guitars so much better when the world was all but demanding chrome back in the early 60’s? It’s a pretty interesting story and illustrates how tastes change and how people perceived their guitars. For reasons known only to Gibson, the first humbuckers had stainless steel covers but by 1958 they had switched to nickel plated covers. In fact, all of the brightwork on the first 335s was nickel plated (which probably isn’t really nickel, by the way, but nickel-silver which, by the way has no silver in it, it’s copper, nickel and zinc). Pure nickel is pretty corrosion and tarnish resistant and, whatever it was Gibson was using, wasn’t. So, I’m guessing nickel-silver (or German silver). And the tarnish and corrosion was the problem. Within a couple of years, especially among performers who tend to sweat a lot, the pickup covers, stoptails, bridges and anything else that got sweated on or came in contact with the players hands, started looking pretty crappy. From 58 until 64, every ES-335 had a nickel plated bridge, stoptail (if it had one), pickup covers, pickguard bracket and tuners. You can see on most vintage pieces from this era that they get pretty dull. Back before the days of “relics” and “VOS” and all the other trendy fake worn guitars, people wanted their brightwork to look bright and they took care of their guitars usually getting visibly upset when they smacked the headstock into a cymbal or dinged up the body. Gibson was getting lots of complaints. Somehow it took 6 years for someone to listen but eventually (by 1965) Gibson started a slow transition to chrome plating. The pickup covers seemed to be the first component probably because the covers showed the most discoloration. By early 65, the stoptail was history and the trapeze was substituted and they were often the next item to go chrome followed by the bridge and even later, the pickguard bracket. The tuners stayed nickel throughout the 60’s. It interesting that you can still find nickel pickguard brackets into 1967 (I guess they had a lot of them on hand). The transitions were not consistent nor were they short in duration. It seems that they even used one nickel pickup cover and one chrome cover on occasion which probably looked OK when new but would shortly take on a mismatched appearance. The chrome plated parts stayed bright and shiny pretty much forever or until the plating wore off. But chrome is pretty durable so most of the 65 and later 335s you see still have shiny brightwork. It pits and corrodes eventually but it doesn’t tarnish. It’s sort of surprising that most of us now prefer the look of tarnished nickel. I’m guessing because most vintage players like their “naturally aged” vintage pieces and nickel allows that to happen. I, on the other hand, really like the way nickel looks-especially when it’s still shiny. Most people have chrome plated bathroom fixtures. Mine are all nickel. It can be pretty hard to tell chrome from nickel until you put them next to each other. The nickel will have a greenish warmer cast while the chrome will be bluish (funny you don’t look bluish) and cool looking. Cool as in not warm, not as in “what a cool looking pickup cover”. Gibson has long since listened to their consumers and gone back to nickel plated parts but I suspect that it might be a slightly cheaper process. they probably would have used chrome from the beginning if it saved them a buck or two. Cost consciousness has always been a somewhat unfortunate part of the Gibson credo, after all. Still is.

It's tough to photograph shiny things without the reflections causing the metal to look different than it does. The nickel looks a little gold but the chrome has a cold blue look. The nickel will dull out and tarnish but the chrome will look the same in 40 years as it looks now. In fact, that chrome cover is 44 years old.

It sure looks like Eric's but all red 64s look like Erics-it's a mass produced guitar not a handmade luthier piece. It was shipped two weeks later so it isn't even that close in serial number but the seller still wants $100,000 for it. Do you think he'll get it? I don't think so.

Wow. Check this out on Ebay! I had already written today’s blog entry but I put it aside for this bit of news. It’s a very nice 64 stoptail that’s in wonderful condition and all original too. I would sell you this guitar for around $16,000 or $17,000 but this seller wants…wait for it…A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!! Why do you suppose it would command that kind of money? Was it played by a very, very famous musician? Nope. Is it a custom made for somebody famous? Maybe it’s NOS-never left its case in 47 years? Nope. It’s…it’s (gasp) 92 serial numbers away from the Clapton 335. Seller says it’s EXACTLY like Eric’s. But then, so is just about every other 64. OK, if it was one number away on either side, then maybe a premium. But I can tell you from experience that close don’t count. I had the 64 23 numbers from Claptons and that one was shipped the very same day as Clapton’s. Did I get a premium when I sold it? Not even close. I mentioned it but didn’t tack on a $84,000 extra just because it’s within 2 weeks of the Clapton 335. The truth is that any 64 commands a small premium precisely because EC played one. That’s why they run slightly more than big neck 63s.  They are great guitars, make no mistake about it. Most of my regular readers know that my all time favorite is a red 64. And just to be accurate, the guitar being sold isn’t exactly like the Clapton 335 because the Clapton 335 had some changed parts. Do you suppose if the seller put a patent number bridge on his and a “custom” truss rod cover that he might get $125,000? Still a relative bargain when you consider what Eric’s sold for. But it didn’t sell for $800K+ because it was a 64 335. It sold for that because it was THE guitar that he performed with on stage for many years-even if it isn’t the “Crossroads” guitar. Noteworthy provenance works like this: If an item was owned by someone notable or famous, the item will accrue additional value. But look at it this way, if I paid $772,500 for President Kennedy’s golf clubs (Arnold Schwartzenegger owns them) and you wanted to sell the golf clubs that belonged to his dog walker, you’d get about the same premium that this guitar deserves. Maybe even more because JFKs dog might have peed on them. OK, I’m being pretty cynical here (which shouldn’t surprise anyone) but really, $100K because it was made 2 weeks after a guitar that’s famous? I don’t understand what some people are thinking sometimes. I know Ebay is full of dreamers and nutcases but here’s a guitar that I would actually buy if he put a sane price on it. And I’m not necessarily calling the seller a nutcase. I’ll just call him a dreamer. There has been an alarming trend in the past 10 years that seems to say that it is OK to dream as big as you want because dreams can and do come true. The truth is they come true for someone else.

This 64 had to have its inlays replaced because they curled up and died. This doesn't seem to happen on 345s and 355s or dot necks.

I wonder why it is that the only inlays that ever cause any trouble are the block inlays on 335s. I’ve had at least 80 ES-345s and not one has had a problem with the inlays. Yes, they shrink but they don’t curl or fall out. The dot markers on the early 335’s have only one small problem and that is that they fall out once in a while. So, you glue it back in. Of all the 355s I’ve had, I’ve never had any problem with the big block markers. They don’t seem to shrink or curl or fall out. I wonder if they are mop rather than some kind of low tech plastic? I never looked that closely. Anybody want to help me out here? UPDATE: Yes, I’m told the 355 inlays are MOP or some other non plastic material.  But the markers on the 62 – 65 (and later) 335s can be a nightmare. They shrink, they curl, they wear down and turn brown and transparent and the fall out. Or they don’t fall out, they just stick up and are very difficult to glue back down because you can’t get the old glue residue out without removing the inlay which is often impossible to do without breaking it. Granted, I’m not Dan Erlewine but, hey, it’s a piece of plastic glued to a piece of wood. How tough can this be? Well, it’s plenty tough because the inlays wear down to the thickness of a piece of construction paper. So, what do you do? I guess you could replace the inlays that are sticking up but they won’t look right because the wear and color will be different. You could replace them all but they will probably look too new. You could send them to a talented repair person who will probably be able to age a replacement to match the rest of them. The thing that puzzles me here is why folks seem to get so bent out of shape when an inlay has clearly been replaced. Most buyers won’t bat an eye when they spend $30,000 on a 59 dot neck with shriveled tuner buttons. They either replace them with a set of Uncle Lou’s or other repros or they just get a set of repro tuners and put the shrunken ones in the case. But tell a buyer than the inlays are coming up or one has been replaced and they immediately start looking elsewhere for a 335 with original inlays. Don’t get me wrong, I like my guitars to be 100% original but when it comes to the natural deterioration of plastic parts, I look at it the same way I look at frets. I would much rather have a properly refretted guitar than a guitar that has its original frets and badly needs a fret job. Similarly, I’d rather have a guitar that has had its shrunken and lifting inlays replaced than one that has inlays that impede proper play. I don’t believe a replaced inlay should have too much of an impact on the value of an otherwise original guitar. I do believe a replacement should be disclosed but I also believe that if you buy a block neck 335, you should be aware that the inlays may be a problem. To make matters worse, it’s something that nobody mentions in their listings. Make sure to ask before you buy.

ES 355 inlays always look really good. I'm pretty sure the material is different. Maybe its real MOP.

345s seem to shrink a bit but they don't curl up and fall out.

This is what headstock angle is. the top one is the Fender model where the angle is created by lowering the face of the headstock as opposed to actually angling the headstock itself. One of these will break more easily.

The angle of the headstock on the ES models changed in 1965. It went from 17 degrees down to 14 degrees. Surprisingly, I get correspondence, whenever I have a 65 to sell, asking whether it has the 14 degree or 17 degree headstock angle. Before I address this, let’s take a look at why the folks at Gibson decided to do this. It seems (and most of you know this) the headstocks were breaking off at an alarming rate and the brass at Gibson needed to find a way to keep this from occurring. By lessening the angle of the headstock, they felt that it would be less likely to break off in the event of a fall. The logic seems sound but the reality was different. The headstocks still broke at a somewhat alarming rate. Interestingly, you don’t see broken headstocks on Fenders. The headstock angle on a Fender is zero. Or maybe it was the maple rather than mahogany necks. So, in any case, it didn’t fix the problem. So, why do so many vintage guitar lovers only want the 17 degree headstock angle? If you go back to the post about the break angle from the bridge to the tailpiece, you will probably get your answer. It seems there is a feeling that the more extreme the break angle (at either end), the better the guitar will sound. Totally untrue. There are some who say that the string tension changes. Simple physics says it doesn’t. The idea of “compliance” which is how easy or hard a string would be to bend to a given pitch is real and does change when the break angle changes. But the change from 17 degrees to 14 degrees isn’t going to be perceptible. The way you wind your strings will probably have as much effect on compliance as the 3 degree change in the headstock angle. Finally, here’s what Gibson says on their website: The headstock is carefully angled at 17 degrees, which increases pressure on the strings and helps them stay in the nut slots. An increase in string pressure also means there is no loss of string vibration between the nut and the tuners, which equals better sustain. OK, how many of you have had strings jump out of the nut on your Gibson? Nothing like making a problem where one doesn’t exist.  Sustain? From more fractionally more pressure on a nylon nut? Sounds like hype to me. The Fender folks would have something to say about this as well. Me?, I think it’s more a matter of taste than anything else. The most desirable 335s have a 17 degree angle, so that’s what people want. I get it. It makes sense. It’s the same as the chrome/nickel thing. There is no change in tone but one looks different from the other. Truthfully, if they aren’t side by side, it’s hard to tell 17 degrees from 14 degrees. Now, the only time this matters is of you’re considering buying a 1965 ES-335. 345 or 355. 1965 is the only year that both angles were available-and big necks and little necks and chrome and nickel. That’s what happens in a transition year. But if I wanted a big neck ’65 because I want to save thousands of dollars over a 64, I’m not going to worry about whether the headstock angle is 14 degrees or 17 degrees. I’m going to pay more attention to how it plays, how it sounds and how it speaks to me.

These aren't ES-335's but you get the idea. Seventeen on the left, fourteen on the right.

This is the best playing, best sounding dot neck I've had this year. I'm not even sure it's a nitro finish although I think it is. And for half the price of an all original, somebody got a world class instrument for $10,000 less than he might have paid. Luck? Maybe but refins are always a lot cheaper and can be the best value out there.

As a vintage dealer with a very narrow product line, I get to see trends in a kind of microcosm. The trend I’m seeing is that refinished vintage pieces are becoming awfully popular. It seems every time I get a “Golden Era” 335/345/355 in the house and I price it at the usual 50% off that a refin has typically commanded, the guitar is gone in a day. Let’s figure out why that would be. The antique automobile industry accepts repainted cars without batting an eye while the antique furniture folks are almost as rigid as the guitar collectors. What’s wrong with a refinish and why does it merit such a drastic reduction in price? To answer that, I think we need to examine what it is that makes these “original” guitars so desirable. First off, I don’t buy into the idea that a refin wrecks the tone. If you can tell the difference in tone between a 50 year old nitro finish and a 20 year old one, then you have much better ears than I do. And, while I don’t recommend buying a 335 with a thick poly finish, I’m not sure how different it would sound.  I’ve never seen or heard one. But consider this-a 59 dot neck might currently sell in the high $20K range (although plenty of dealers still think $40,000 is the right price). Is a refin (especially a good nitro pro refin) worth a $14,000 reduction? If that’s true why then is a 64 refin only compromised by $7,000 or so. If you buy guitars with the idea of investing, then you are probably bound, to an extent, by the conventions of the collector, meaning the finish is going to count for 50%. But if you buy them to play and to appreciate how good these old guitars are, I don’t think a properly executed refinish is going to diminish your enjoyment by very much if at all. The best vintage dot neck I’ve had this year was a refin. One of the better block necks was also a refin. That refinned block neck went for only slightly more than a new Historic. There was no comparison to any modern Gibson. It was an absolute gem and somebody bought it for about half it’s non refinished value. Even if the guitar is refinished, it’s going to rise and fall with the market. let’s say I bought a brand new Historic for $4700 and I bought, say, a refinished big neck 65 for the same price. Which one will be worth more in five years? The 65 by a wide margin, IMO. In fact, the Historic probably won’t catch up to the 65 for 40 or 50 years. Which one is going to sound better? I dunno, depends on the guitar but I think the odds favor the 65 (even if its a trap tail). There are an awful lot of people who feel that they can hear the most subtle differences in tone caused by things like the finish or the type of rosewood in the fingerboard or the tailpiece. I’m not going to cast doubt on their perceived abilities, I’ll just say that I have very good ears and I don’t hear it. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that a pro refinished 64 is probably going to sound the same as an original one. An amateur refinish might sound as good as well but it will probably look like crap and that has to count for something. So, as desirable as an all original finish 58-early 65 “Golden Era” 335 is, if the only way you’re going to get your hands on one is to buy one that’s compromised, a pro refinished one can be an excellent (but not the only) choice.  One word of caution-be wary of solid color refinishes because they can hide a lot of other problems but just because a guitar is painted a solid color doesn’t mean it’s been broken. Just be aware that it’s a possibility. I know a doctor who x-rayed his refinished SG Custom to see if the neck had been cracked. It worked and the guitar was intact. We’ll look at other “compromised” 335s in the weeks ahead in the hope of connecting you with the guitar that you can afford. And I’ll leave you with a question. Considering the conventional wisdom, if a vintage guitar has had a headstock repair and a refin is it’s value diminished by 50% for the break and another 50% for the refin?

This was another cool refin that showed up recently. It was a factory refinished 65 ES-355 that sounded excellent and looked very cool as well. I'm pretty sure I underpriced this one by a lot.