In 2012, a guitar allegedly owned by Kurt Cobain appeared on the Discovery Channel show “Final Offer.” Since exploring guitars is a key theme of this website, I decided to investigate this instrument to see where—or if—it fits into Kurt’s collection.
The seller described the guitar as one of Kurt’s earliest instruments still in existence, claiming it was played and broken on stage in November 1989. However, he didn’t provide details about how he obtained this information or the guitar itself.
The show didn’t mention the exact model, which made my research more challenging. After digging for hours, I concluded that the guitar might be a Teisco Audition or one of its many variations.
Teisco was a Japanese manufacturer that exported instruments to North America under various brand names like Silvertone, Beltone, and Kingston. Many of their models shared designs with European brands like Hagstrom, which is significant for this investigation.
In October 1989, Nirvana traveled to Europe, starting their tour on October 23 in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Kurt was initially seen playing his white Univox Hi-Flyer, used during the last few U.S. gigs and the first European shows. In November, while in West Germany, he switched to a red Hagstrom II F-200, which somewhat resembles the guitar featured on the show. After breaking the Hagstrom in November 1989, he used another Univox for a few gigs before moving on to a black Washburn Force 31 for the rest of the year. In 1990, he began using an Epiphone ET270, which also looks similar to the auctioned guitar.
It seems the seller might be confusing his guitar with the red Hagstrom II that Kurt played in 1989 or perhaps the Epiphone used later. While the three guitars share some visual similarities, their differences are noticeable upon closer inspection.
Unfortunately, that’s as far as my research has taken me. There’s no photographic evidence of Kurt playing the guitar sold on the show in 1989. While it’s possible he used it during performances that weren’t photographed, it would likely have been for a very brief period, and someone probably would have captured it.
Regardless, someone spent $10,000 based solely on the seller’s claims without substantial proof. I hope the buyer did thorough research and found positive evidence to support the purchase, but I can’t confirm that myself.
If you’re interested in investigating this further, here are some resources:
If you discover anything new, please share your findings in the comments below.
