Vintage Gretsch Guitars

1961 6120 Restored… or Fake????

1

Hello gentlemen!

what do you think??

Link

I'd love to see the bigsby hinge...

2

Bigsby looks later and the serial number barely seen under the model stamp on the label looks very wrong. The tuners are clearly not original, and if this has been restored, why didn't they fix that missing neo marker?

“the neck is almost straight”...

3

So Elvis didn't write Blue Suede Shoes?

4

Pickup volume knobs look misplaced.

5

If you look closely you can see the serial number is on another piece of paper attached to the label. I know next to nothing about vintage instruments but that alone would disqualify it for me.

6

Very, very wrong. If you’re thinking of buying this I have a GENUINE 1949 White Falcon you may want instead.

I’m kidding, of course. But this is bad, stay away at all costs.

7

Converted Anni. The F holes are the give away sign.

8

Wow, this is funny in a very sad way:...... "The relabeled label contains the 1961 serial number, but the original serial number is unknown". So they just took a random '61 number and put it on there?

9

These fake 6120s almost always have a bad head stock overlay. The orange stain is not right. Every fake one I’ve seen has this quality.

I see that on this one as well.

10

I'd be leary with all these: Neck joint reinforcement screw peculiar to 1961 was put in from the cutaway side, and the buried wood has been changed to a wood of the same color as the body due to the neck reset.

The relabeled label contains the 1961 serial number, but the original serial number is unknown.

The neck is almost straight and the truss rods have plenty of room. The string height is the lowest and the height of the 1st string on the 12th floor is slightly higher, 1.8mm.

  • Non-genuine hard case included

-Product rank (B+):

There are scratches, rusts, & dents. But, no problems for normal use.

Looks like a Streamliner re-do

11

Hey! Now your comments have arised me some questions:

Fred: isn't the headstock veneer correct for a late 50's 6120? I see a correct 1960ish one!

Joe: you are right about the fhole binding, but they thinned it to 2'25", correct?

To me, what makes me wonder is the headstock overlay... It's not a duke kramer 60's one....

12

The veneer itself looks correct. It’s the finish that’s wrong. The stain on the overlay is pretty unique. The patina of the overlay is what I look at. This I could be a 6120 but it’s had a good bit of work done to it. The headstock overlay looks as if it had some type of finish work.

The fakes I have seen all have a stain that doesn’t match they age of the guitar. It always looks a bit hazy compared to original 6120s.

13

The veneer itself looks correct. It’s the finish that’s wrong. The stain on the overlay is pretty unique. The patina of the overlay is what I look at. This I could be a 6120 but it’s had a good bit of work done to it. The headstock overlay looks as if it had some type of finish work.

The fakes I have seen all have a stain that doesn’t match they age of the guitar. It always looks a bit hazy compared to original 6120s.

14

Hey! Now your comments have arised me some questions:

Fred: isn't the headstock veneer correct for a late 50's 6120? I see a correct 1960ish one!

Joe: you are right about the fhole binding, but they thinned it to 2'25", correct?

To me, what makes me wonder is the headstock overlay... It's not a duke kramer 60's one....

– biel ballester

As for it being "...correct for a late 50's 6120...", I have a real '58 6120...and the headstock inlay on this one looks different. The letters appear to be shaped slightly differently - at least in the photos. Even the horseshoe doesn't look "factory" to me.

15

If this is a "fake", what exactly is it?

16

$6K+ for this? That'll be a big NO from me.

18

I say it's a real 6120 with a bunch of work done on it. Not too bad quality work, really. I've seen much MUCH worse!

It would be a cool guitar, if it was priced accordingly.

19

I say it's a real 6120 with a bunch of work done on it. Not too bad quality work, really. I've seen much MUCH worse!

It would be a cool guitar, if it was priced accordingly.

– JBGretschGuy

I'm with you. There's no other model with the same body and neck joint as a 1961 6120. Well, I guess the 1961 6119 does, but if that's what this was, the bridge pickup would be quite a bit farther forward.

20

Maybe this would help...

– LightninLane

Thank you.

Notice the edges of the horseshoe on the suspect guitar.

The difference of patina finish is very obvious.

21

It started life as something, and if that something wasn't a 1961 6120, I'm having trouble seeing what else it could have been.

22

Here are two genuine 6120s - 1961 and 1960. Obviously a different person was doing them at different times in history. I think it was Dan Duffy who said they were all done by hand.

23

I'm with you. There's no other model with the same body and neck joint as a 1961 6120. Well, I guess the 1961 6119 does, but if that's what this was, the bridge pickup would be quite a bit farther forward.

– Afire

The F-holes are wrong for a '61 6119

24

I agree with you. The squared off unbound types can be converted to pointy bound, but that's not what this looks like to me.

25

To me, the converted F holes always still look a little "off", like the modern F holes.

If a guy could snag the one for $3K, it would be a great bar gigging rig.


Register Sign in to join the conversation