Pens wrote:I liek the naked SG. I would be inclinded to say if it's a 1961 Gibson and it doesn't have a finish, do not put one on.
It's already been devalued. Keeping it that way seems to be saying that the preference of the next person to have it is more important than your own.
I say paint it an awesome colour you like. You could always strip it back before you sell it, and its in the same condition again.
Pens wrote:I liek the naked SG. I would be inclinded to say if it's a 1961 Gibson and it doesn't have a finish, do not put one on.
It's already been devalued. Keeping it that way seems to be saying that the preference of the next person to have it is more important than your own.
I say paint it an awesome colour you like. You could always strip it back before you sell it, and its in the same condition again.
Great bunch of guitars. Welcome to the forum!
It's not about the value. It's about the idea of don't fuck with something that is that old.
That's like buying a cool old toy 1960s raygun that's beat up, and repainting it. THIS KILLS THE CRAB.
euan wrote:
I'm running in monoscope right now. I can't read multiple dimensions of meta right now
Yeah, the resale devaluing was done when the original finish was stripped. Any new finish could be similarly stripped by someone who's after a restoration job, and anyone looking for a pristine original MM isn't buying that one anyway.
Aug wrote:which one of you bastards sent me an ebay question asking if you can get teh kurdtz with that 64 mustang?
robertOG wrote:fran & paul are some of the original gangstas of the JS days when you'd have to say "phuck"
