fbpx
 

1969 Gibson SG Standard (Number Two)

09 Aug 1969 Gibson SG Standard (Number Two)

This is the second 1969 Gibson SG Standard I own.

Note: this article is being currently written/edited. Please bear with me, thanks, SD

Frankly, I had bought this one being fooled into believing it was a mint example of a 1968 Gibson SG. My lack of knowledge at the time, induced me to believe the vendor claim.

The vendor – and the guitar – had a matching 1968 Gibson serial number and the pot codes dating exactly to 1968.

Only later I would find out that much of the potentiometers (pots) of 1969 and following years had been purchased and stored away by Gibson in previous years. They were using what was available to them.

Still, “pot codes” (numbers, codes written on the top or side of the potentiometers) serve a good purpose – strictly together with other features – to checking the approximate or exact year of production of a guitar. But never be fooled by one single correspondence: all of the appointments must be met when purchasing a vintage instrument of supposed value, as advertised by often not-all.knowing vendors or worse, fraudulent ones.

The giveaway for this one, is the neck joint (THIS is a 1969 neck joint, not earlier):

69sg2

Here’s a close up of the front body:

5

In the above image, a few items stick out as typical, late ’60s SG Standard details: large pick-guard, “witch-hat” tone and volume knobs, Maestro “Lyre” Vibrola (better than the sideways but still a disastrous item, functionally), nylon saddles bridge and Gibson T-Top Pickups.

Also of note, the progressively shallower cutaway carvings (compare with carvings of a 1968 Gibson SG and a 1961 Gibson SG).

A few more images with different lighting:

3 9 8 7 6 1 2

 

Note of the author for the more ‘particular’ reader: these articles on  SoloDallas’ gear are not intended to be egotistical, neither am I intending to show off. They are for passion, documentation/information and sharing pleasure with those who have a similar interest.  Thanks for your trust and understanding, SD

avatar
Fil "SoloDallas" Olivieri
sd@solodallas.com

We Are Rock 'N Roll People.

10 Comments
  • avatar
    Oh Well
    Posted at 18:23h, 03 September

    yep, thats bitchin!!!

  • avatar
    Susihukkanen
    Posted at 21:06h, 18 August

    Hi SoloDallas!
    I found this a bit interesting ’69 SG from a local shop. It is described as: GIBSON SG STANDARD: 1969, Cherry, Case, Removed Maestro, 80’s PU’s etc. 3.11kg … 1875e

    http://www.kitarapaja.com/usvi.htm
    http://www.kitarapaja.com/pics/gsgstd691_1024_768.JPG
    http://www.kitarapaja.com/pics/gsgstd692_1024_768.JPG

    Since my main interest would be to have as old SG as I am, it would be nice to have this restored to more original condition. In particular those “wrong” pick-ups bother me. How easy it would be to find more original SG PU’s from ’69 to this guitar? I’m not interested in returning the Maestro back, just the PU’s.
    BR, Susihukkanen

  • avatar
    Ant
    Posted at 18:07h, 19 January

    i would love one of these i would have my right leg sold… or left either one 😀

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 18:13h, 19 January

      You’d be disappointed. Much better a battered one, even an issue one. One that you can find battered for cheap. You fix it, and there you go. Guaranteed, it’ll sound better than this one! I almost never use this one.

      • avatar
        Ant
        Posted at 18:18h, 19 January

        what if you batter it a bit will it sound good then? 😀 only joking i cant find any “project guitars on the net :(“

  • avatar
    OldSchoolRocker666
    Posted at 17:07h, 19 January

    If you’ll ever gonna sell it (which i doupt), i would love to buy it, what a guitar.. Just look at it.. Wow you’re one lucky

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 17:57h, 19 January

      Thanks, but NEVER judge a guitar by its looks ( I learned myself the hard way). This one now actually sounds well, but when I got it, it was stiff and dead. I had to go through several months of setups, playing, setups, playing etc. extensively before it started to raise from the dead. “Mint” looking vintage instruments are often not what you’d expect from them. 🙂

      • avatar
        OldSchoolRocker666
        Posted at 18:48h, 19 January

        Hehe i know, i don’t like most Mint guitars (in a playable sense) because of that, okey they look great but as you say many sound stiff and dead. Took about a year to get my guitar to finaly open up decently, now it vibrates and resonates fine as i want it to 🙂

        By the way i’ve found a minor ”issue”, sometimes when i hit the third string (begining from smallest E string and up), expecily using an overtone over the string the string buzzes or makes a ”Fiissshhhhhhhhh”-sound, any idea if it’s wrongly setup or anything?

  • avatar
    SGStandard68
    Posted at 15:23h, 19 January

    I love it
    It is in a very condition, so how much was it?

Post A Comment