Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3
Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 16, 2007 16:11

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.

Depends on who bought the guitar I guess. I've read various tales of rich business men buying rock memorabilia as investments and so on.

Maybe it's only the stones 'anal'ists who really know about the theft. I didn't know it was stolen until I read one of Mathijs posts over at the les paul forum.

Me? I don't really care about that guitar, it's not the same instrument anymore... they should run an article on Keith's psychedelic custom instead!!!

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Smokey ()
Date: March 16, 2007 16:35

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


Thanks for this picture. I'd appreciate any ID of the amp set up.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 16, 2007 17:04

Smokey Wrote:

> Thanks for this picture. I'd appreciate any ID of
> the amp set up.

Fender Dual Showman or a bassman in to a 2x12 Fender cab and a 4x12 Marshall perhaps?

Mathijs will know!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-16 17:08 by His Majesty.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: March 16, 2007 23:49

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.


What I mean is that the bruglary was big news in guitar trading circles, every player and collector knew about it. This Les Paul has always been the "Keith Richards" Les Paul. So, every owner absolutely did know it was keith's burst, and that the guitar was stolen. This is the reason why it has been kept underground ever since. I guess the owners thought it was the right time to surface the guitar, and offer it "legally" through Christies, but I guess some people have woken up and started asking questions. I guess the various collectors and techs around the Stones have woken up, perhaps also with a bit of help of the Les Paul Forum and this IORR forum.

Mathijs

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: March 17, 2007 03:04

The Laches Approach
In Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation v. Lubell[32] the lower court found that the efforts made by the Guggenheim Museum to recover a Chagall gouache were not sufficient. The work was proclaimed to be worth about $200,000 and had been created by Marc Chagall in 1912 as a study for an oil painting. The museum alleged that the work had been stolen in the 1960s by person or persons unknown. The museum learned that the work was in the possession of the defendant, Rachel Lubell, in August 1985. On January 9, 1986, the museum demanded that Lubell return the gouache, but she refused.

[www.artcellarexchange.com]

I still think that the whole case is already time barred.
when was it stolen? in '1971?
that's 36 years ago.
It's too late for the last legitimate owner to claim the guitar.
also, the whereabouts of the guitar was known for a few times, no?

I think (in german law) the case is closed after 20 years - dunno about the rest of the world.
time barred, thats my guess.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: ChrisM ()
Date: March 17, 2007 06:50

I was talking to lawyer friend about this last night and he thought the statute of limitations could have expired as well. However there are at least 3 countries invvolved: France, where the guitar was stolen. The United States, where it was sold at least twice in the last 3 years and now Sweden where I think it now resides (correct me if I'm wrong somebody) so each of these countries laws would have to be considered. Also it occurs to me that some artwork that was plundered during the Second World War was returned to it owners many years later than the example you cite open-g. This could get more interesting than it already is.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: March 17, 2007 11:43

open-g Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I still think that the whole case is already time
> barred.
> when was it stolen? in '1971?
> that's 36 years ago.
> It's too late for the last legitimate owner to
> claim the guitar.
> also, the whereabouts of the guitar was known for
> a few times, no?

I have read and heard about at least three cases where a guitar was stolen in the 70's, and then the guitar got returned to its original owner just some years ago.

On the les Paul forum there were two cases. One I believe was from Ed king, formerly of Lynyrd Skynyerd, the other name I comepletely forgot, it was a guitarist in an English band from the 70's. But both stories were quite the same: their LP's got stolen, they reported the theft to the police (that apperently is the crux legally), annd just some years ago they recognised their own guitars in for example the beauty of the Burst book. In both cases they could prove it was THEIR guitar, and they received the guitar back.

So, the theft at Nellcote was reported to the police, this guitar is well documented, I would say it must be fairly easy to claim this guitar back, especially with all the big shot lawyers the Stones can afford.

Mathijs

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 17, 2007 13:13

Re big shot lawyers: Maybe that is the problem, it's Mick Taylors guitar right?

I recall you saying that Mick had no interest in getting the guitar back?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-17 13:15 by His Majesty.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Mathijs ()
Date: March 17, 2007 14:08

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re big shot lawyers: Maybe that is the problem,
> it's Mick Taylors guitar right?
>
> I recall you saying that Mick had no interest in
> getting the guitar back?

Yes, that's true. When I mentioned to him that this guitar had appeared on the market again he didn't seem to acknowledge it really. It was more of a "oh well" reaction than an "hey!" reaction...But at that time he was interested in different matters, really.

But maybe he or the Stones have woken up by now, I really don't know.

Mathijs

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 17, 2007 14:56

it'll be fascinating to see what (if anything!) ensues -
but it's still too bad the magazine felt obliged to squash the article.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: March 17, 2007 17:35

ChrisM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... Also
> it occurs to me that some artwork that was
> plundered during the Second World War was returned
> to it owners many years later than the example you
> cite open-g. This could get more interesting than
> it already is.


Yes, you're right.
there's a long article on that subject on the very same link I posted above.
or to make it short here: [www.artcellarexchange.com]
If you'd like to dig in. I for one, politely decline.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 17, 2007 18:07

if i'm understanding the link Open-G gave properly, the statute of limitations in civil suits
(when the property is in the hands of an innocent subsequent purchaser, not the original thief)
it doesn't matter when the thing was stolen - it matters when the original owner found out whose hands it's now in
(which is - obviously - crucial to being able to claim it back) plus a few other conditions.
that makes sense: the law can't very well blame the original owner for not claiming it for 30 years
when he didn't know where it was or who to claim it from.

the restitution of war loot is i think a different issue in a few ways - i didn't read Open-G's link,
but it's a fairly hot issue where i live, so ... i'll politely decline too. have some popcorn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-17 18:18 by with sssoul.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: ChrisM ()
Date: March 19, 2007 17:53

On Friday I wrote the following to the editor on Guitarist:

"As I reader of your magazine I was more than a bit excited to see in the April preview that the legendary Sunburst Les Paul once owned by Keith Richards and Mick Taylor would be featured. Imagine my surprise and disappointment then when I picked up the April issue to find no article and accompanying pictures of this legendary guitar. I understand that there was some concern over the fact that the guitar was stolen in 1971 and that it ownership is in question. Is this then the reason that the article was pulled? If so could you not run the article without reference to its theft and current status? Will you run the feature in a future issue perhaps? Is there any hope that the pictures or history of this guitar will ever grace your pages? If not could you see your way clear to send me the article and pictures under the caveat that I would suffer eternal damnation should I share them?"

Yours, disappointedly but ever hopeful,

Chris Maddox

And here is what I received in response:

:Hi Chris, thanks for the mail.
You're on the right lines, but we're not going to say that the guitar was 'stolen' because that's not the case. There may be some question as to its ownership over the years, even though it was given in good faith as we understand. In short, the guitar has thrown up a significant question mark that we don't want to get involved in at this stage.
I'm afraid I couldn't send you pictures in any event as they're under copyright to the owner (of the pics, not the guitar).


We're currently trying to find away to put the guitar in the mag, and not get involved in any potential disputes / disagreements.


Sorry for the disappointment.
With kindest regards,
Mick Taylor

Curiouser and, curiouser and extremely coincidental the the editor's name should be the Mick Taylor (unless of course Mick T of Stones fame has a job as an editor!)

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 19, 2007 18:46

curiouser and curiouser indeed, ChrisM -
thanks for pursuing that with the magazine, and for posting this!
i looked up that editor, by the way: [www.mi-pro.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-19 20:36 by with sssoul.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: open-g ()
Date: March 19, 2007 22:05

Good effort, Chris.

But how do you read the statement?
You're on the right lines - the guitar isn't stolen ???
are there even more significant question marks?

mysterious, mysterious...

thats a nice coincidence, Mick Taylor on keyboard

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 19, 2007 22:08

I understand it to mean that there are issues between later owners of the guitar... Just my take on the reply.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: with sssoul ()
Date: March 19, 2007 22:25

>> I understand it to mean that there are issues between later owners of the guitar <<

that's how it sounds to me too, but it also sounds like he means it wasn't 'stolen' - his quote marks! - in 71.
so what did happen to it in 71 - it was 'borrowed'?? (ahem, sorry - don't mean to get giddy)

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: His Majesty ()
Date: March 19, 2007 22:38

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> I understand it to mean that there are issues
> between later owners of the guitar <<
>
> that's how it sounds to me too, but it also sounds
> like he means it wasn't 'stolen' - his quote
> marks! - in 71.
> so what did happen to it in 71 - it was
> 'borrowed'?? (ahem, sorry - don't mean to get
> giddy)


When Mathijs spoke with Mick Taylor he didn't correct him on the 'fact' that the guitar was stolen, but he also showed no interest in getting it back.

Would you take this as confirmation that it was stolen?

This is why I also take the reply to mean that it's later owners who have issues about ownership. Maybe the editor isn't quite in on the story of how the guitar came to leave the stones circle, or perhaps there is another story that relates specifically to this guitar separate from the big theft!?

Hmmm!?!?!

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: gwen ()
Date: December 4, 2009 16:36

Interesting story and many photos (follow the link) from the guy who sold the guitar a few years ago. Photos include the guitar in the hand of the famous (Keith, Mick, Jimmy, Eric...) and many detail photos when it was being cleaned up.

I think he (Richard Henry) is the guy who was selling a CS "KR signature" Telecaster prototype a while ago. From what I gather he was working for Maverick when he sold the burst. He is currently selling a Limited Edition CS '52 relic reissue with a PAF, still using Keith's name to boost the sale.

Quote

The most historically significant '59 Les Paul in the world!

A very well known and documented guitar with the most incredible provenance that has etched its mark on the eternal pages of rock'n'roll history, most notably with the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton.

This iconic instrument was last sold by Richard Henry during a previous emplyment and any enquiries should be addressed to info@richardhenryguitars.com.

History:

The guitar is an original 1959 Les Paul Standard that was purchased new in March 1961 from Farmers Music Store in Luton, United Kingdom, by John Bowen. John played with Mike Dean & the Kinsmen and he had a Bigsby Vibrato fitted at Selmer's in London before trading the guitar in there for a Gretsch Country Gentleman in late 1962. The guitar was later purchased by Keith Richards, who was playing guitar in a little known outfit called the Rolling Stones.

Keith Richards used this guitar extensively in the early days of the Rolling Stones and it was seen regularly from autumn 1964 until 1966 when Keith began to favour a Les Paul Custom. Appearances on 'Ready Steady Go' and classic songs like 'The Last Time' and 'Satisfaction' have been played on this guitar. There are many great photographs of Keith and the guitar.

Keith was the first major pop star to use a 'Burst'; he was probably partly responsible for inspiring both Clapton and Page to pick up Les Pauls. Keith owned and used a Les Paul Standard way before Clapton had one, before Jeff Beck, before Peter Green, before Jimmy Page, Mike Bloomfield, Joe Walsh, Billy Gibbons, Duane Allman etc. (need we go on?) Keith sold the guitar to Mick Taylor in 1967 when Taylor had replaced Peter Green (who in turn had replaced Eric Clapton) in John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers. The Bluesbreakers' classic British Blues sound was forged when Clapton plugged a 'Burst' into a Marshall JTM45 combo and Peter Green followed suit, later selling his 'Burst' to Gary Moore. Taylor had stood in for Clapton when he failed to show for a gig one night and ended up playing Clapton's own Les Paul, so it was inevitable that the young Taylor would go for the same guitar and he exclusively played this Les Paul up to his joining The Rolling Stones two years later.

Before Led Zeppelin, Jimmy Page was a red hot session musician who cut his teeth on a 3-pickup Les Paul Custom fitted with a Bigsby. It is possible that Jimmy considered buying the 'Keith Burst' from Richards or maybe just used it in the studio? We aren't entirely sure but we are sure that Jimmy used the guitar on at least one mid 60's recording session. Eric Clapton used the 'Keith Burst' in 1966 at the Windsor Jazz & Blues Festival alongside John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers. Maybe Keith sold it to Eric then Eric sold it to Mick? Either way, there are several photographs of Clapton with this very guitar at the concert.

Mick Taylor made his live debut with the Rolling Stones at the famous Hyde Park concert in July 1969 after the shocking premature death of Stones guitarist Brian Jones. The concert was immortalised by Granada Television, who filmed and released it as 'The Stones In The Park'. Taylor used the guitar to play 'No Expectations' and 'Love In Vain'; Taylor was also filmed with it backstage in the band's dressing room trailer before the show. The guitar appears next on the Rolling Stones' 1969 tour of America, when Keith and Taylor both played it; the film 'Gimme Shelter' documents Keith using it for 'Honky Tonk Women'.

There are also many photos of Mick Jagger with the guitar at some 1970 recording sessions, which may be the last documentation of this instrument in the hands of the Rolling Stones. Its disappearance is shrouded in mystery and controversy: Rumour has it that the guitar was stolen in 1971, either from the Marquee Club during the Stones' 'Farewell Tour' of the UK, or from Nellcote in southern France during the recording of 'Exile on Main Street'. Dave Brewis of Rock Stars' Guitars recounts a story he heard from the next owner, Cosmo Verrico, who played guitar with the Heavy Metal Kids, who were signed to Atlantic Records alongside the Stones. The story goes that a Stones representative gave the guitar to Cosmo to replace one that was stolen. What is definite is that Cosmo did own the guitar until 1974, when he sold the guitar to Bernie Marsden of Whitesnake. Bernie owned the guitar for a little over a week. He sold it to guitar enthusiast Mike Jopp and thought he had done well when he made £50 profit.

Mike Jopp owned the guitar until 2003 when, brokered by Rock Stars' Guitars, it was sold to a private investor.

The 'Keith Burst' was next seen in late 2004 when it was offered up for auction by Christie's in New York. The guitar failed to meet reserve, possibly due to poor publicity and surrounding controversy. Rumour has it that a representative of Keith Richards laid claim to the guitar but this claim wasn't followed through, and Christie's let the guitar go to auction but the vintage guitar boom was still around the corner and original 1959 Les Pauls that are today $500,000 - $750,000 were then going for $150,000.

A private collector purchased the guitar in 2006 and it currently resides in Europe.

The guitar is showcased exclusively by Richard Henry Guitars.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: December 4, 2009 18:25

Mathijs, or ChrisM, do we have any idea where the orginal PAF wind up in whose guitar ?man i will tell you i was looking for some orginal paf back in the early ninties when i got my les paul sunburst ,and i was told i could buy one for $500 .to much back then now probably $1000 easily if not more .

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: ChrisM ()
Date: December 4, 2009 19:22

Hi Greek. Nice to see the thread about my favorite guitar revived. No idea why the original PAFs were pulled from the guitar and where they wound up but I recall reading that the person who had removed them as well as the original Bigsby, Cosmo I believe his name is, kept the parts which were later restored to the guitar. Not sure how true that is but if you are looking for a set of PAFs I have seen them go for as much as $10K. Have you tried any of the PAF clones made by Seymour Duncan, RS Guitarworks and the like? They are fairly close to the originals though. It's all in the ear of the beholder though...

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: CBII ()
Date: December 4, 2009 21:18

I've seen several PAF's in the 2k - 4k (USA $$$) range. All the vintage dealers I know or have spoken to over the past 18 months say just about every thing "guitar" took a huge dump. There are some real bargains to be had if you have the money. I don't so I'm not buying anything vintage right now.

ChrisM you are absolutely right about the Seymour Duncans. They come as close as they get to "REAL DEAL" PAF's. Don't know about the RS Guitarworks equipment but I'll take your word for it.

CBII

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: December 4, 2009 22:24

Quote
ChrisM
Hi Greek. Nice to see the thread about my favorite guitar revived. No idea why the original PAFs were pulled from the guitar and where they wound up but I recall reading that the person who had removed them as well as the original Bigsby, Cosmo I believe his name is, kept the parts which were later restored to the guitar. Not sure how true that is but if you are looking for a set of PAFs I have seen them go for as much as $10K. Have you tried any of the PAF clones made by Seymour Duncan, RS Guitarworks and the like? They are fairly close to the originals though. It's all in the ear of the beholder though...
thank you for the info .i have been using gibson 57 classic in the neck postion and gibson 57 classic plus in the bridge postion on my two les pauls and flying V. i like them they are wax potted so there is no squealing (unlike the orginal paf which were not)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-04 22:25 by The Greek.

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: ChrisM ()
Date: December 5, 2009 00:15

The only thing I don't like about the potting is that if you want to take the covers off it doesn't look so good. Still, it does reduce microphonic feedback. Before you try and swap out the pickups, you might try replacing the control pots and caps. The improvement in overall performance can be striking. Gibson had used liner taper pots which give hardly any control in subtly using the volume and tone knobs. (Someone explain to me why the still do this!) There are plenty of after market vendors for these replacement kits. RS Guitarworks is one, Dr. Vintage another

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: January 26, 2016 23:02





Guitarist Presents - Legends of Tone - Gibson



ROCKMAN

Re: The Keith/Mick Sunburst Les Paul
Posted by: dadrob ()
Date: January 27, 2016 01:23

didn't Keith sell that guitar to Mick Taylor who then lost track of it?

or was that another Lp with a bigsby?

that whole story seems like a mess

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1833
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home