Official Luthiers Forum!

I recently purchased a 2011 Gibson ES-175 Steve Howe Custom on eBay. I got quite the discount, but only because the headstock had broken completely off.

I have become an amateur luthier for friends and anyone else who will let me fix their guitars, so I welcomed the opportunity to make this repair and have a beautiful, high quality instrument to polish up on my jazz licks and then hopefully pass down to my son in 20-30 years.

Ok, to the point...

Because I had to completely refinish the headstock, the imprinted serial number on the back side had to be filled and sanded over.

I would like to fully restore this guitar, so I have been searching endlessly for a set of steel handstamps that match the original font.

So far, I know the font is in the Gothic family, but I still can't find an exact match. Here's the closest I could find:

http://numberall.com/character-specs-an ... nfo_6.html

(I think Round Face Gothic is the closest)

Here's an example of an actual serial stamp to compare it to:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_uYw90zkIM/T ... 2193+(copy).jpg

Does anyone know the exact hand stamp font that Gibson currently uses, or know what company they purchase the actual hand stamps from?

I realize there are lots of counterfeiters out there so I assume there's no way Gibson would ever provide this info.

I would be curious to know what protocol is for a professional luthier with the same dilemma. If I can't find the font or hand stamp match, is it better to use a slightly non-matching stamp, or not stamp it at all?

This is a very valuable guitar ($4000 retail), so I want to do the right thing here.

Thanks in advance for your help.

_________________
-Noah

http://www.noahwatson.com

In my experience, sanding so much that the serial number is removed is overkill.
All you want to do is remove the old finish in order to do the repair - the wood is already sanded by the folks at Gibson.

Sorry.... don't know the font that Gibson uses.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Thanks for your reply. Once I had sanded the original finish (only to the wood, so no overkill here), the original serial number imprint was so shallow that the nitro completely filled it in when applying it.

It's worth noting that the neck and headstock were originally stained, so the thickness of the black finish I applied (to hide the crack and make the color consistant) wasn't taken into account when they stamped the serial.

At this point, the black finish looks beautiful and the original shape of the neck and headstock have not been compromised at all.

I've taken my time and made sure not to do any harm to this instrument. Many hours of sanding and spraying carefully, as well as painstakingly masking everything with precision.

_________________
-Noah

http://www.noahwatson.com

Game over because...


...this would be kinda counterfeit, right?

Just accept that the number's gone. It is like a lost paper label.

Absolutely not counterfeit. It's a Gibson to which he is restoring the original serial number. What's counterfeit? Repaired yes, counterfeit no.

Not the guitar would be counterfeit. But a copied label is, and making believe the the guitar would be in original state, including its labels, serial numbers, branding marks etc. is definitely deception.

I definitely see your point.

It has the same function as the paper label, so almost by default, tampering with it is questionable.

On the flip side, it is common to replicate the Gibson logo on the face of the headstock, as well as any other Gibson specific markings.

I've seen several logo restorations by experienced luthiers online.

I'm not opposed to to either solution, whether its re-stamping or just leaving blank.

I'm more interested in doing what is best for the value and integrity of the guitar.

There's no hiding that its not factory anymore, since the original stain has been airbrushed over, but its still the original neck and headstock, which may be harder to believe if there's no stamp.

With a guitar this valuable, I definitely want to get other opinions before moving forward.

_________________
-Noah

http://www.noahwatson.com

I doubt it's a legal issue....but I'd add that unless the original serial number is on the headstock it's going to be very difficult for anyone else to acertain whether or not the instrument is 100% genuine. Aspects of it will remain to indicate it was a genuine Gibson ES-175 but the fabricated number will forever add a dubious quality to it...I would think.

A missing serial number on an otherwise authentic instrument indicates a repair...end of story. Write a note that includes the serial number. Explain shortly what you did to the instrument. Date it. Phone # if you want. Stick it under a pickup.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Personally I find the notion of restamping a serial that was already there some sort of fraud or forgery ridiculous... but thats just me...
now I would go with the closest die stamp you can find and call it done - You are obviously are going to declare the repair if it is sold anyway, so the fact that you had to use a slightly different stamping to reiterate the serial is going to be slight... in the mind of the potential buyer compared to the fact that the headstock was sheared at the neck at some point..
I think that the forgery issue can be a serious one when your talking about 1,000,000 Chinese "Fibsons" entering the coutry every year is one thing - or ever 1500 "replica" 59's that are practically indistinguishable from a real deal fouling the vintage market another - however a single restoration in an amatuer repair shop isnt going to cause the slightest itch under the collar of a Gibson lawyer I doubt...
Cheers
Charliewood

On the other hand, you could make the case that the intent of trying to bring the serial stamp back to pristine is an attempt to pass it off as original condition. Same arguement as if the label was damaged / ruined ....... would it be right to recreate, artificially age ( "forge"??) a new one? I also doubt it would become a legal issue unless you tried to use it to your advantage...... just the other side of the coin.

_________________
Dave
Milton, ON

I don't know....But Dan Erlewine doesn't seem to have a problem recreating and replacing a label.
http://www.stewmac.com/tsarchive/ts0129.html

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Artfully restoring musical instruments to make repairs less detectable is usually perceived as a testament to a luthiers skill. Unless it is done to make something appear what it isn't, I don't think most in the business have a problem with it.