Well, it seems the article will not be printed after all. Instead of the cover you see above Stevie Ray Vaughn is pictured and there is nothing at all about the guitar in the mag. When queried, the editor had this to say:

"We're sorry about this. All was looking good with the LP as you could see from the previous issue. We photographed it, put the story together... then unearthed a potentially sticky aside RE previous owners. The upshot is that we can't run the piece - sorry if you feel robbed of a great feature (I do too for what it's worth)"

Now although I'm very dissapointed that there will be no feature on my favorite Stones related guitar I found the comment "then unearthed a potentially sticky aside RE previous owners." rather revealing. What does this portend I wonder?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-04-01 19:24 by ChrisM.

bummer!
but thanks for letting us know, and for writing to the editor.
maybe Mathijs will know what the "previous owner" problem might be about?

I'm wondering if Mick Taylor has laid claim to it after all these years. He was after the all the owner of record when it was stolen.

The Guitar: 1959 Les Paul,serial #93182,sunburst finish,single cut away body,maple top,cherry finish sides and back in Honduras Mahogany,Grover Tuners 22 fret Brazilian Rosewood finger board with mother of pearl inlays,one humbucking patent applied for Zebra rythem pickup,one humbucking patent applied for double black lead pick up. Gibson ABR1 Tunomatic bridge four rotary controls selector switch Bigby tail piece together with 1960's Les Paul hard shell case Played by Keith on the Ed Sullivan show 64/65 Ready Steady go (1964) and during various Rolling Stones appearences from the same era. Also played by Mick Jagger during Beggars Banquet recording sessions. Also borrowed by Jimmy Page fromm keith,for the Heart of Stone recordings.

>> Also played by Mick Jagger during Beggars Banquet recording sessions. <<

that bit seems to be based on photos from the 1970 Stargroves sessions.
the auction site that gave that description had a couple of them posted and misdated as 1968.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Also played by Mick Jagger during Beggars
> Banquet recording sessions. <<
>
> that bit seems to be based on photos from the 1970
> Stargroves sessions.
> the auction site that gave that description had a
> couple of them posted and misdated as 1968.


So Jagger did'nt use it during Beggar's?

>> So Jagger didn't use it during Beggar's? <<

not that i know of. i don't know exactly when in 1968 Mick T bought it from Keith,
but if it was around during the Beggars sessions, i suppose Mick J might have picked it up sometime
when there were no cameras around and Keith wasn't looking. :E

Don't forget that it was also used on Blues From Laurel Canyon and Bare Wires and played by Mick T at Hyde Park and Keith and Mick during the '69 tour and good knows what else after it was stolen. A very storied guitar and one that should be returned to its rightful owner, if anything to help give him a leg up from the procedes of its sale, assuming he wants to cash it out that is. Hopefully the litigation, and I have t o assume there will be given the guitar's value, will not keep it tied up for the next few years.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> So Jagger didn't use it during Beggar's? <<
>
> not that i know of. i don't know exactly when in
> 1968 Mick T bought it from Keith,
> but if it was around during the Beggars sessions,
> i suppose Mick J might have picked it up sometime
> when there were no cameras around and Keith wasn't
> looking. :E


Yeah you could be right. That's just what the Chrities auction has it listed as,and christies is usally pretty historic,when they sell authentic peices for million's. I'd like to know thogh for sure that is an interesting one.Then we can have some popcorn.

i wrote to Christie's about it, actually, but i guess they didn't believe me -
one of the big photo sites (Corbis or one of those) has those 1970 Stargroves shots misdated as 1968,
and maybe the owner was using that mistake as evidence. but i don't know what Mick is supposed to have used it for
on Beggars, or (as i've noted) whether the guitar was even in the Stones Camp at that point.

O i think it was around in 68 in the stones camp,Rick Taylor played it at Hyde Park.

I did read the thread about this very same guitar on the Les Paul Forum, where I don't write but have a look sometimes (BTW, it seems some usual IORReans who post on these guitar threads post over there too). A few info was written there, and if I recall correctly, there was even some posts by the very owner of the guitar.

As ChrisM said, I wouldn't be surprised if a note from Taylor's lawyer was sent to the magazine regarding that guitar...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

I have not seen any pics of any of the stones with that guitar from 1966 till the return of Mick Taylor in 1969. I believe the sale took place during 1967 though. Isn't this already covered in one of the fantastic ratbag boogie threads?

I remember arguing for ages with a friend about those stargroves pics, to this day he still believes they are from Olympic Studios 1968! Aaargggh!!!

Very interesting to know they've pulled the article.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-15 20:26 by His Majesty.

>> O i think it was around in 68 in the stones camp, Mick Taylor played it at Hyde Park <<

yes, but its presence at Hyde Park in 69 doesn't mean it was in the Stones' hands in 68.
Mick T bought the guitar from Keith sometime in 68, and played it with the Bluesbreakers
(or - sorry! - whoever he was playing with at that point). when he joined the Stones in 69
the guitar came back with him, hence its presence at the Hyde Park gig and later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-15 23:33 by with sssoul.

>> Isn't this already covered in one of the fantastic ratbag boogie threads? <<

in about three of them, i think! if it was 67 that Mick T bought it, then that's all a lot clearer.
sorry your friend is being stubborn about the Stargroves shots - if nothing else convinces him,
the fact that Keith's got a Dan Armstrong is mighty strong evidence that they're not from 68, no?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> O i think it was around in 68 in the stones
> camp, Mick Taylor played it at Hyde Park <<
>
> yes, but (of course) Hyde Park was in 69, and Mick
> T wasn't in the Stones in 68.
> he bought that guitar from Keith sometime in 68,
> and played it with the Bluesbreakers
> (or - sorry! - whoever he was playing with at that
> point). when he joined the Stones in 69
> the guitar came back with him, hence its presence
> at the Hyde Park gig and later.

I always thought it was bought in 68 too,not 67 like HM states. so it was in the stones camp in 68 imo.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Isn't this already covered in one of the
> fantastic ratbag boogie threads? <<
>
> in about three of them, i think! if it was 67
> that Mick T bought it, then that's all a lot
> clearer.
> sorry your friend is being stubborn about the
> Stargroves shots - if nothing else convinces him,
> the fact that Keith's got a Dan Armstrong is
> mighty strong evidence that they're not from 68,
> no?

That was part of my evidence! It was awhile ago though, it's not an ongoing case, I gave up!.

>> I always thought it was bought in 68 too,not 67 like HM states.
so it was in the Stones camp in 68 imo. <<

well ... yes, up to whatever point it was sold to Mick T, it was apparently in the Stones camp.
but even if it was sold to him during or after the Beggars sessions, what would Mick J be using it for on Beggars??

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did read the thread about this very same guitar
> on the Les Paul Forum, where I don't write but
> have a look sometimes (BTW, it seems some usual
> IORReans who post on these guitar threads post
> over there too). A few info was written there, and
> if I recall correctly, there was even some posts
> by the very owner of the guitar.

(It's the first time I quote myself, LOL)

For the sake of accuracy I think the guy who posted there had a modern copy of the Bigsby LP, not Keith's/Taylor's...

Sigh, the language barrier...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> I always thought it was bought in 68 too,not 67
> like HM states.
> so it was in the Stones camp in 68 imo. <<
>
> well ... yes, up to whatever point it was sold to
> Mick T, it was apparently in the Stones camp.
> but even if it was sold to him during or after the
> Beggars sessions, what would Mick J be using it
> for on Beggars??

Good Question,Will have to try and find that one out.

stonesfrk Wrote:

> I always thought it was bought in 68 too,not 67
> like HM states. so it was in the stones camp in 68
> imo.


Mick Taylor is pictured playing it in 1968.

>> Mick Taylor is pictured playing it in 1968. <<

march 1968, indeed: [www.iorr.org]
what one would normally call "Beggars sessions" started around late february 68, right?

The story I have in my memory, probably from here, is that Mick Taylor bought the guitar in 1967 during the satanic sessions through Ian Stewart.

This is supposedly from 1967...

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is supposedly from 1967...
>
> [www.bluestormmusic.com]
> lbreakers67_00.gif

This is indeed from '67 I belive, just before Taylor bought the SG and the 50 watt marshall Plexi. According to Mick Taylor himself (and he was absolutely sure about it) he bought the Bigsby Les Paul from Ian Stewart in late 1967 in the lobby of the Olympic studio. He recalled it was after the summer, as it was cold and rainy.

Mathijs

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, it seems the article will not be printed
> after all. Instead of the cover you see above
> Stevie Ray Vaughn is pictured instead and there is
> nothing at all about the guitar in the mag. When
> queried, the editor had this to say:
>
> "We're sorry about this. All was looking good with
> the LP as you could see from the previous issue.
> We photographed it, put the story together... then
> unearthed a potentially sticky aside RE previous
> owners. The upshot is that we can't run the piece
> - sorry if you feel robbed of a great feature (I
> do too for what it's worth)"
>
> Now although I'm very dissapointed that there will
> be no feature on my favorite Stones related guitar
> I found the comment "then unearthed a potentially
> sticky aside RE previous owners." rather
> revealing. What does this portend I wonder?

As I have stated before, this guitar is not kosher. It has been stolen in 1971, and has been treated that way ever since. Every owner has known that it was a stolen guitar. I bet the story has caught up to the owner.

Mathijs

>> According to Mick Taylor himself (and he was absolutely sure about it) he bought the Bigsby Les Paul
from Ian Stewart in late 1967 in the lobby of the Olympic studio. <<

cool, thank you Mathijs and HM for sorting me out on that yet again.
i've corrected the Mick T's Guitars thread about the date of that historic purchase too.

>> It has been stolen in 1971, and has been treated that way ever since. Every owner has known that it was a stolen guitar.
I bet the story has caught up to the owner. <<

... i'm not sure i understand what you mean (i tried, sorry!) -
do you mean you reckon the chain of illicit owners has finally been traced?
i never really thought about it, but it is a bit odd that Christie's would be openly involved
in an auction of a famously stolen guitar ... (hm, maybe that's what Jagger is doing with it
in their description: distracting attention from which guitar it actually is??)

Christie's - thats a point.
...and wouldn't it be time-barred by now anyway?

I think Mathijs means that the current owner has finally found out that he has 'hot' goods!

[trying real hard to imagine being interested enough in this guitar to buy it without knowing its history]
i think i thought (as Mathijs said) that "every owner has known that it was a stolen guitar", but ...
yeah, i reckon the historical record's been muddied enough that someone could have missed that fact
if they really wanted to. anyway it'll be interesting to see what happens next.