Secrets of a Vintage 1959 Gibson Les Paul

[smitty_p]

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.

I think those are all compelling points, especially the one about putting an item into distribution.

 

[Inspector #20]

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.

Excellent points here!!!! I always respect your reasoning and your opinions are very well thought out.

I've always been one who goes against societal norms and I've always rooted for the little guy..I suppose because I am that little guy.

I wanted a Gibson Les Paul, based on the silly notion that my early guitar heroes played them, but I just couldn't seem to find a good example, so I figured I could use premium quality parts and make my fake better than an original for thousands less.

It's also a demo for my setups and it's one of my most popular guitars with my music students.

You want to know something really ironic??? You are the only person who gives me "grief" over my fake Les Paul (I'm not complaining, but there's a reason I am mentioning this) but do you know what guitars are constantly criticized??? My Tele-style Von Herndon Guitars.

I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear comments (through the guitar's FB page) like "why would you pollute a Tele with a Gibson scale neck" or "why would you waste your time/or ruin a Telecaster by altering it???"

And I won't even acknowledge the comments about the "ridiculous" headstock design...even though it's an original trademarked design.

But, we must all be willing to accept all criticism and people should be free to express their thoughts and feelings, even though I didn't expect these "hybrids" to be so loathed.

I wouldn't mind a nice, genuine Les Paul, but I haven't found one yet..

 

[gball]

@smitty_p - When I was reading your post, the following phrase came to mind:

"Is it real? Or, is it Memorex?"

View attachment 72482

Don't take this the wrong way, because the guitar is pretty, but I guarantee you if you posted this photo over on the Les Paul forum and asked that question you'd find out right quick all the tells that this is a counterfeit.

 

[Inspector #20]

Don't take this the wrong way, because the guitar is pretty, but I guarantee you if you posted this photo over on the Les Paul forum and asked that question you'd find out right quick all the tells that this is a counterfeit.

Absolutely!!! It's just a $169.00 knock off that brings me great pleasure. I know it's not "correct" and I always volunteer the fake aspect of my guitar.

What I love the most is when I'm permitted to play one of the really high end counterfeits and I get to slam the guys after a show that point out how it could not possibly be a fake because of all the "correct" things...then I show them photos of the build...

 

[Don O]

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.

Warmoth basically does that with Fender under a license agreement. You can build a killer Strat with their neck and body. I have a few examples :dood:
And I put my initials on the headstock (DOC).

 

[Inspector #20]

Warmoth basically does that with Fender under a license agreement. You can build a killer Strat with their neck and body. I have a few examples :dood:
And I put my initials on the headstock (DOC).

 

[smitty_p]

Warmoth basically does that with Fender under a license agreement. You can build a killer Strat with their neck and body. I have a few examples :dood:
And I put my initials on the headstock (DOC).

True. I forgot about that.

What I’m thinking would go one step further. It would allow a builder to put the Gibson logo on the front of the headstock. But, there would have to be a permanent, embossed license stamp on the back of the headstock.

So, the comparison would be Warmoth building necks with the Fender logo, not just a license stamp.

One drawback would be that it might dilute the Gibson brand.

 

[gball]

Excellent points here!!!! I always respect your reasoning and your opinions are very well thought out.

I've always been one who goes against societal norms and I've always rooted for the little guy..I suppose because I am that little guy.

I wanted a Gibson Les Paul, based on the silly notion that my early guitar heroes played them, but I just couldn't seem to find a good example, so I figured I could use premium quality parts and make my fake better than an original for thousands less.

It's also a demo for my setups and it's one of my most popular guitars with my music students.

You want to know something really ironic??? You are the only person who gives me "grief" over my fake Les Paul (I'm not complaining, but there's a reason I am mentioning this) but do you know what guitars are constantly criticized??? My Tele-style Von Herndon Guitars.

I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear comments (through the guitar's FB page) like "why would you pollute a Tele with a Gibson scale neck" or "why would you waste your time/or ruin a Telecaster by altering it???"

And I won't even acknowledge the comments about the "ridiculous" headstock design...even though it's an original trademarked design.

But, we must all be willing to accept all criticism and people should be free to express their thoughts and feelings, even though I didn't expect these "hybrids" to be so loathed.

I wouldn't mind a nice, genuine Les Paul, but I haven't found one yet..

Dude, my only beef is using the trademarked headstock shape and the logo. I have no problem with you or anyone else building a Les Paul style axe so long as those elements are not in play. I've even owned a "knockoff" myself - a PRS 245.

And that's really strange to me about your Tele-style builds. Fender has themselves issues models with carved top/dual humbuckers, set necks, Gibson scale.

Probably the same "purist" mentality that drives people to feel that everything needs to arbitrarily conform to how they did 'em in the 1950's or they are "wrong"

 

[Inspector #20]

True. I forgot about that.

What I’m thinking would go one step further. It would allow a builder to put the Gibson logo on the front of the headstock. But, there would have to be a permanent, embossed license stamp on the back of the headstock.

So, the comparison would be Warmoth building necks with the Fender logo, not just a license stamp.

One drawback would be that it might dilute the Gibson brand.

In all honesty, the hit and miss QC of Gibson's product and their high pricing, despite significant shortcomings in quality, was something that Kris Derrig himself claimed opened a niche market for his replicas and this was back in the late 1970's when he started building recall Les Paul's while employed by Atlanta Guitar Works. Charlie Daniel's is said to have purchased one of Derrig's very first 1959 Les Paul Replicas.

Kris moved to Los Angeles in the early 1980's and went to work for Jim Foote at Music Works, located at 1804 Artesia Boulevard. Foote said Derrig, whom he describes as “the softest-spoken, nicest person you could ever possibly meet,” made around a dozen guitars at Music Works. Lenny Kravitz owns one of his Les Paul Replicas. Foote has described in several articles that the quality of a Derrig build was beyond anything you could purchase from Gibson.

 

[Inspector #20]

Dude, my only beef is using the trademarked headstock shape and the logo. I have no problem with you or anyone else building a Les Paul style axe so long as those elements are not in play. I've even owned a "knockoff" myself - a PRS 245.

And that's really strange to me about your Tele-style builds. Fender has themselves issues models with carved top/dual humbuckers, set necks, Gibson scale.

Probably the same "purist" mentality that drives people to feel that everything needs to arbitrarily conform to how they did 'em in the 1950's or they are "wrong"

I saw those Fender models too and thought it couldn't be too far off the mark!!! I guess I was wrong.

I'm still working on the one my Mom is going to give to Joe B. I'm hoping he plays and enjoys it, despite its less "traditional" appearances.

 

[ivan H]

is using his own logo on his builds now.

That's the thing, isn't it. I have no problem buying a "exact copy" (aka counterfeited) type guitar, so long as it doesn't have the original guitar brand logo emblazoned across the headstock.
Somehow a Hess Billy Bob just came to mind, imagine that, hint hint @SG John.
Cheers

 

[Inspector #20]

That's the thing, isn't it. I have no problem buying a "exact copy" (aka counterfeited) type guitar, so long as it doesn't have the original guitar brand logo emblazoned across the headstock.
Somehow a Hess Billy Bob just came to mind, imagine that, hint hint @SG John.
Cheers

I chose to use the classic open book headstock on my DoubleNeck build...I just liked how it looked...reminded me of Jimmy Page and Don Felder's EDS-1275's....

 

[Inspector #20]

That's the thing, isn't it. I have no problem buying a "exact copy" (aka counterfeited) type guitar, so long as it doesn't have the original guitar brand logo emblazoned across the headstock.
Somehow a Hess Billy Bob just came to mind, imagine that, hint hint @SG John.
Cheers

I think of my Les Paul as both a movie prop and a guitar setup demonstrator....

 

[ivan H]

I chose to use the classic open book headstock on my DoubleNeck build...I just liked how it looked...reminded me of Jimmy Page and Don Felder's EDS-1275's....

View attachment 72497

View attachment 72498

Yes, but (& this is in regards to the whole guitar, not just the headstock) you;
(A) aren't mass/commercially producing them,
(B) have your own logo & not the Gibson logo on the headstock. So no harm, no foul.
Even if it was an "exact in every detail" type replica, those two points, in my opinion make it perfectly ok. Cheers

 

[SG John]

Yes, but (& this is in regards to the whole guitar, not just the headstock) you;
(A) aren't mass/commercially producing them,
(B) have your own logo & not the Gibson logo on the headstock. So no harm, no foul.
Even if it was an "exact in every detail" type replica, those two points, in my opinion make it perfectly ok. Cheers

I like adding my own special sauce. Like Martin style diamond inlays and my name.






Or, even more fun by adding multi ply binding and a quilted top. Something you certainly won't see coming out of the factory.







But then, I only do it for my amusement. I hate having to make stuff for other people. Especially since I'm in the Douglass Adams camp when it comes to deadlines. I like to hear the wooshing sound they make as they fly by.


Like with this monster. Someday, I'll finish it. Hopefully sooner than later.

 

[Inspector #20]

I like adding my own special sauce. Like Martin style diamond inlays and my name.

View attachment 72506




Or, even more fun by adding multi ply binding and a quilted top. Something you certainly won't see coming out of the factory.



View attachment 72508



But then, I only do it for my amusement. I hate having to make stuff for other people. Especially since I'm in the Douglass Adams camp when it comes to deadlines. I like to hear the wooshing sound they make as they fly by.


Like with this monster. Someday, I'll finish it. Hopefully sooner than later.


View attachment 72511

You are the coolest, Big John!!!!!

 

[Inspector #20]

Yes, but (& this is in regards to the whole guitar, not just the headstock) you;
(A) aren't mass/commercially producing them,
(B) have your own logo & not the Gibson logo on the headstock. So no harm, no foul.
Even if it was an "exact in every detail" type replica, those two points, in my opinion make it perfectly ok. Cheers

Yes, Sir....it's just for my own amusement!!!! My birthdate is the serial number....

 

[eSGEe]

Absolutely!!! It's just a $169.00 knock off that brings me great pleasure.

Id have to look back ....but -- uhm........ I think it was actually only 129.00 (shipped) from China land ---- and it made me smile many many times as well.

hard to keep track I bought firebird too (which was also not BAD -- but I didnt like the neck and flipped it out) -- to a local musician who LOVED the look but didnt want to take his REAL VINTAGE firebird to bar and outdoor venue gigs ....... IMAGINE THAT .... hhmmmm

 

[Inspector #20]

I like adding my own special sauce. Like Martin style diamond inlays and my name.

View attachment 72506




Or, even more fun by adding multi ply binding and a quilted top. Something you certainly won't see coming out of the factory.



View attachment 72508



But then, I only do it for my amusement. I hate having to make stuff for other people. Especially since I'm in the Douglass Adams camp when it comes to deadlines. I like to hear the wooshing sound they make as they fly by.


Like with this monster. Someday, I'll finish it. Hopefully sooner than later.


View attachment 72511

I enjoyed the challenge of coming up with my own headstock design. It was an interesting process...

 

[eSGEe]

wasnt "bad" in its own right but the shape is a little off and the neck was WAY to baseball bat fat for me