Secrets of a Vintage 1959 Gibson Les Paul
- Thread starter 67plexi
- Start date
Beware....
gball
Ambassador of Boogie
So, this guy is a proud counterfeiter/forger and even went so far as to admit it in a video. Unbelievable.
eSGEe
Ferengi Ambassador of Trade
I really like the grain of the one in the video link pic. -- very nice -- where can I get one?
eSGEe
Ferengi Ambassador of Trade
but if Im intentionally buying fakes.........Im not out much $$$
and I get what I paid for---only people spending silly high $ --- get screwed...... and well.... yep-- sux for you---BUYER BEWARE
SG John
Ambassador of Cool Guitars and Amps.
Tommy got me to try one of those ToneRite units a few years ago. I like it, and it’s normally hooked up to whatever guitar is sitting on the stand. This SG certainly feels a crapload looser and easier to play than it did a couple of years ago. When it comes out of the case, it gets played for a week or two, and the ToneRite is clipped on when I’m not playing.
It's an alarm that goes off when you try to buy another guitar...
From their website …
Vintage Tone, Now!
It’s no secret that vintage instruments sound better. Tens of thousands of hours of play time alter the molecular structure of the wood fibers, aging the instrument and creating a richer, sweeter, and louder tone.
The ToneRite accelerates this same play-in process by using a set of sub-sonic frequencies to simulate long term play.
Simply attach the ToneRite whenever you are not playing, and expect to hear a dramatic increase in resonance, balance, and range after only a week of use.
Ima put one on my weiner...
I admit…I’m a little conflicted by this. I am completely with you on those who create a copy and try to pass it off as the real thing.
However, I do waffle a bit when someone makes a replica and specifically states that it is NOT the genuine article, but that it is a replica of another item. In that case, the buyer is properly informed and is not being mislead. Having said that, I could see the danger in selling it to someone who would then attempt to resell it as the real thing. So, I admit, I do go back by and forth on the replica thing.
Good points...
There's always unscrupulous people and I've seen real (average) Gibson's that were refinished, relic'd and passed off as R9's and other things that they are not and people invested in them under false pretense.
I know a phenomenal luthier here in SoCal that builds Replicas of the Kris Derrig Replicas. I have seen him intentionally break the headstock off a new Gibson to repair it like the one Slash used on AFD at a client's request.
The fakes now are so well executed now that they have fooled all but the most highly skilled appraisers. If one of those gets out on the market, you are not gonna be able to yell it from the genuine article.
Expect to pay $1,500.00 to have a (potentially vintage) guitar authenticated by a qualified appraiser. Yes. That's what the inspection costs.
Personally, I've always been one that appreciated good craftsmanship, so guitars like the Kris Derrig and Max Baranet Replicas were very intriguing to me, which was why I wanted to build a replica in the first place.
I enjoy telling people my Les Paul is a fake. It's immensely satisfying when a guy with a Wildwood Spec R8 plays my Chibson and tells me that it plays and sounds better than his $______.00 Gibson.
TBTH, the Chibson has brought me a really good income by using it as a demo. After people play it, they want their genuine Gibson's set up to that level of playability and tuning stability. Additionally, the Chibster is frequently loaned out for photo shoots and music videos.
Last edited:
That’s funny…building high-quality replicas of a high-quality replica!
Y’know…sometimes I think it would be interesting for Gibson to initiate a replica licensing program. Any builder could build a replica, but it gets a clear, pressed-in stamp on the back of the headstock indicating it is a Gibson-licensed replica. The builder would pay a licensing fee to Gibson. Gibson could even exercise a minimum QC standard. The builder could exceed that standard, if desired.
There will always be those who want the real thing. But, it would be a way for good, local builders to build that dream “Gibson”, while staying above board ethically and legally.
gball
Ambassador of Boogie
Sure, I admire the skill if someone can pull it off. But I take umbrage with the use of the term "replica" as an excuse to create a forgery. It's almost like someone is trying to excuse the crime, like "Here, I made this replica Rolex watch...nobody will know but you" or "let me sell you a replica Van Gogh, it's just like the real thing" or maybe "Replica 1969 Camaro, better than the original." I find it disingenuous, because even if the counterfeiter sells it off to the original buyer with full disclosure it's still putting something into distribution that is not what it pretends to be. And per Robert's post above it all creates this bizarre acceptance of fakes, which comically leads to the concept of some fool making a fake of a fake. It is really mind numbing to think that this is the state of things.
And what is is all about, really? There's this huge mystique built up about this tiny handful of guitars that Gibson built over 60 years ago. What's it really based on, when you get right down to thinking about it? I mean, back when these things were new nobody wanted them, then years later a handful of dudes in England found a use for them (as likely because they were available cheap on resale as anything else) and so there was a renewed interest in something that was no longer made, so Gibson being the smart company they are started making them again. But they made them a little differently the second time around, and suddenly the ridiculous comparisons started between the "originals" and the new ones...and worse than that was the unfounded rush to the judgment that the new ones weren't as good, and here we are dealing with that silly notion all these years later...but it's all based on opinion and conjecture, not one single concrete thing that concludes that the old ones are demonstrably "better" and if you've played them you know what I mean (I submit that the overwhelming majority of that mystique is simply rarity and rest is association with the people that used them). Incidentally, most of my favorite music of all time was made with "inferior" instruments by that logic, and guess what? Not me, the guys who make the inferiority claims or anyone else can tell the difference when listening to the recordings.
An original 'burst is a cool thing, and a great investment. Will it make you better player? Nope. Will it make you a better songwriter? Not a chance. Will it even be an objectively better guitar than the one you already have? Crapshoot. So to me all this silliness, and I really don't have a lot of patience for the fixation people have on trying to replicate something from the past and passing it off as real (as opposed to building something of their own) which is exactly what they are doing if they use the open book headstock and put a Gibson logo on it - their supposed disclosures notwithstanding.