1959 Burst Replica

I know this is a forum of enthusiasts but I think there are multiple angles to the argument. The first being that in the hands of anyone with notoriety a fake logo is free advertising for the company, noted examples being Frank Zappa's SG, someone said Slash had a replica, Junior Watson has a re-veneered MIJ which was like that when he bought it. Those few alone are worth far more in branding recognition than any value lost in their particular purchase, all guys who bought/owned Gibsons too. That's just Gibson. I had an import breezy sound '62 custom style that some dude did an awful job of hacking the edge of the headstock off then put a fender logo on it, bought it at a show that way and it was sold as a tokai (which was obvious anyways with the bridge & tuner markings). This dummy sold it too, as a tokai of course, one of few sales regrets. Everyone who saw it and didn't talk to me probably thought it was just and AVRI.

Brand recognition is extremely important, especially in the guitar world and 95% of guys who see that logo on stage will never know otherwise, only the serious enthusiasts learn that stuff and even when we do does it ever stop us from buying the real thing?

I've got a laundry list of "illegal" things I find disgusting and perfectly legal things which are far worse than buying a replica & it's subsequent trademark infringement. Owners & sellers should do themselves a favor and buy the guitar with a blank veneer then make up their own mind, if you really find it "superior" to Gibson why even brand it that way? Again, it's free advertising.

I wish the vitriol towards fakes was met with equal fervor on about a thousand far worse activities that go on unabated all day, every day, and I find it an incredible exercise in mental gymnastics to think their existence is cutting into an already heavily saturated Gibson market. As for genuine dirtbags who want to fool people, their intentions were never to procure the real thing! Some people just get off on having a "Chibson" because they see themselves as wittily bucking the system thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect and, again, never intended on purchasing the real thing. There was a guy back in Chicago who owned a small shop and was exemplary of that sort of behavior.

From what I can tell none of these are side by side as "new" through the dealership channels and folks who find out about them do so after years/decades of enthusiasm towards the company itself, really a fringe market at best, just ask a builder how many he makes a year. Again, I don't support the shallow commissioning of a fake but I've got only so many stress points to allow a healthy mental well being and if these hit those points I'd be committed as there's already enough things in the world that ruffle my feathers.

deytookerjaabs said:

I've got only so many stress points to allow a healthy mental well being and if these hit those points I'd be committed as there's already enough things in the world that ruffle my feathers.

Click to expand...

this is how I feel about it. In a similar thread on this forum, fakes were equated to murder and it was insinuated that because I said that I don't have a strong position on the topic I must be OK with murder too. I also struggle with absolutes, because I find life rarely follows an absolute rule.

For example, I've seen the same person say people who buy fakes should be punished, just like those that make them. I have never seen anyone say Slash should be sent to criminal or civil court for his crimes against Gibson. In fact, they (Gibson) have honored him with a signature model of his very fakes! Isn't that the pinnacle of hypocrisy? I respect the person with the strong position, and simply resolve to find humanity ironic - as he had no problem taking pride in having Slash as a customer... money does funny things to help justify our behavior.

I think you may be missing the point somewhat. Much of the vitriol against counterfeit vintage guitars is due to the level of detail some of these counterfeiters go to that has no legitimate purpose other than to deceive.

A fake a Rolex that looks like a Rolex on its surface is one thing. A fake Rolex that has identical internal mechanics, tooling marks, etc. is entirely another. The former may impress a persons friends etc, the latter can be used to defraud a collector. It's as really simple as that.

The date stamp on a Strat neck or the "chew" marks in the control cavity of a Les Paul are unnecessary for anything other than trying pass off a counterfeit guitar as real.

The raison d'etre for these counterfeits is supposedly the old wood. I personally do not believe the old wood myth because I've played enough guitars new and old to know that old wood is not some constant magical defining factor. Wood: new or old is a variable, the tree, the cut, the grain pattern, density/weight, all these factors can vary considerably. Think there weren't and tone dogs in the 1950s and 1960s, watch some of Bernie Marsden's YouTube videos. He talks about 50 and 60s guitars that didn't cut it for him. Still, some people do believe that old wood is it and commission these counterfeits.

For these old wood fetishers, how a Gibson Logo adds to the tone is beyond me and tooling marks replicating the marks on an original Bursts? The existence of these counterfeits provide the potential and opportunity to defraud someone out of tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for no legitimate reason. And while it certainly doesn't equate to murder or violent criminal activity go ask someone who has been defrauded by a scammmer like Madoff if it cannot be in many ways life crushing. Think about it? Would you rather someone break your legs or take away your life's savings? I'd probabaly do the 6 months in a cast.

deytookerjaabs said:

I know this is a forum of enthusiasts but I think there are multiple angles to the argument. The first being that in the hands of anyone with notoriety a fake logo is free advertising for the company, noted examples being Frank Zappa's SG, someone said Slash had a replica, Junior Watson has a re-veneered MIJ which was like that when he bought it. Those few alone are worth far more in branding recognition than any value lost in their particular purchase, all guys who bought/owned Gibsons too. That's just Gibson. I had an import breezy sound '62 custom style that some dude did an awful job of hacking the edge of the headstock off then put a fender logo on it, bought it at a show that way and it was sold as a tokai (which was obvious anyways with the bridge & tuner markings). This dummy sold it too, as a tokai of course, one of few sales regrets. Everyone who saw it and didn't talk to me probably thought it was just and AVRI.

Brand recognition is extremely important, especially in the guitar world and 95% of guys who see that logo on stage will never know otherwise, only the serious enthusiasts learn that stuff and even when we do does it ever stop us from buying the real thing?

I've got a laundry list of "illegal" things I find disgusting and perfectly legal things which are far worse than buying a replica & it's subsequent trademark infringement. Owners & sellers should do themselves a favor and buy the guitar with a blank veneer then make up their own mind, if you really find it "superior" to Gibson why even brand it that way? Again, it's free advertising.

I wish the vitriol towards fakes was met with equal fervor on about a thousand far worse activities that go on unabated all day, every day, and I find it an incredible exercise in mental gymnastics to think their existence is cutting into an already heavily saturated Gibson market. As for genuine dirtbags who want to fool people, their intentions were never to procure the real thing! Some people just get off on having a "Chibson" because they see themselves as wittily bucking the system thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect and, again, never intended on purchasing the real thing. There was a guy back in Chicago who owned a small shop and was exemplary of that sort of behavior.

From what I can tell none of these are side by side as "new" through the dealership channels and folks who find out about them do so after years/decades of enthusiasm towards the company itself, really a fringe market at best, just ask a builder how many he makes a year. Again, I don't support the shallow commissioning of a fake but I've got only so many stress points to allow a healthy mental well being and if these hit those points I'd be committed as there's already enough things in the world that ruffle my feathers.

Click to expand...

I would love a return to the '70s or '80s era mentality when they weren't as collectible. Those of you on this board that came from that period were lucky. But those of us that came behind you are F**K'd. We don't get to experience what they had and its all because of the exponential demand for collectible sake.

I do feel bad for people that got ripped off. But if these INSTRUMENTS were not COLLECTIBLES, they wouldn't be the price of cars and houses and people wouldn't be getting ripped off and there wouldn't be the demand for people to make fakes.

JPP-1 said:

I think you may be missing the point somewhat. Much of the vitriol against counterfeit vintage guitars is due to the level of detail some of these counterfeiters go to that has no legitimate purpose other than to deceive.

Click to expand...

Sure, deception done on that level by intentional means should be scorned and is illegal. As it stands, you or I are free to build a 100% dead on replica to keep for ourselves, it's the action of trying to pass it off in sale that violates the law. In a relatively free society where people see things from from half a million to millions of dollars and those with the ability/knowledge can concoct a scam, scammers will exist. They have been for a long time in the world of traditional instruments, you see it in art, watches like you pointed out, and in many other facets of "collectibles." That takes another level of judiciousness to combat thus hats off to this forum & it's members for attempting to and doing so at times. Really, it's at the point where it should be more organized but this is a start, probably not too far from making over reissues to be used a scam-bait but I'm guessing they may have features you can't change. MANY old world instruments are literally a sticker and an eraser from being a fraud as the designs are completely open source. All it takes is the wrong owner. Perhaps in a century or two these guitars will be the same way if their respective trademark holders fail to stay afloat. Beyond that, certainly experts at the highest ends of law and engineering can disagree on what we as a society should grant in terms of time limits on "limited monopoly" and the subsequent acts granting trademark but, yes, it is the law as is.


Of course anything THAT close to original should have a marking to, at the very least, prevent it from becoming the scam of the decade in the wrong hands. But, I'm more or less referring to trademark violation and I've seen only one high end replica in person but it wasn't in danger of passing as original, unless it's convincing a guy who knows nothing in a back alley but you could do that with a reissue. On the flip side of that I personally have known numerous persons whose replicas of old world instruments were, again, an eraser & sticker away from possible fraud if not simply exacting to the originals. I didn't cast any vitriol towards them in person from what I can recall other than, perhaps, a yawn here and there. It's up to them & them alone to continue to be good samaritan.

IMO, as to the OP, for the most part these are knowledgeable folks with decent intentions who go awry when they make a very shallow decision to put the wrong logo on the open book thus violating trademark. Now, there are laws in place and when the parent company crunches the #'s they do get the ball rolling as I've seen various builders change their tunes over time. Those who committed the sales can & may suffer the penalties, no sense in me being the judge/jury/executioner. I've violated some laws in my time, I think I have a good moral compass but I'm human all the same. Fortunately I don't feel the need for that stuff as a musician but I find it interesting and never shy from learning something new no matter how useless/trivial. At the same time, if someone sells a re-veneered MIJ or other such guitar for what it is I'm not beyond buying it though that stuff hardly passes for the real thing.

To those who walk the replica into Sam Ash so they can have their "experts" assess then lay down gobs of $$ & turn the fake around for more gobs of $$? Yes, the community and courts should call them out then maybe show them a little lesson, a bit of time a cell with a guy who calls himself "debo" SHOULD do the trick.

If simply owning a bonafide replica means you need to spend time with Debo then we should start locking up those players in the local conservatory who are equally as capable of fraud. Many of them are nuts too, trust me, straight up nuts, but that's a different story. Oh, I forgot I inherited one myself, was my grandmothers violin, decent german copy form the 1800's probably goes for a few thousand & my dad used to say he's gonna "sell the strad" when he was blitzed

So, to me, as a person I might think it's shallow to need the fake logo but I don't hold hatred towards those with no intent to deceive. The iconography, hero worship and the psychological effects thereafter are like drugs that fuel those needs. Then they come on here and else where to show pics, save them, and at the least leave a fingerprint of the fake. Frankly, they'll be much more successful at deceit by keeping it in the closet. No two of those maple tops are the same and a high res photo of a fake at least gives the community at large a chance to keep it as it belongs.

One last time...the parent company still has every right to then take the seller to town on trademark, there is a system in place. That's the first worry. The second being high class fraud, if they post a pic of the guitar here first as the replica it is, the experts right here can save it and take note meaning at least ONE guy should remember it. The mods/owners of this forum are SMART for allowing the pics & posts of replicas w/out the logo/headstock.

I can understand why people do a lot of things, I can even sympathize but that doesn't make it right.

Putting an identification mark say in the control cavity seems like a small concession to make for even the most OCD Burst enthusiast if it helps ensure that that particular Replica is not used to potentially defraud someone.

If a person cannot make that tiniest of concession than they are either very selfish or deep into self deception. We can all act selfishly myself included but if I can take a small step that would lesson the potential negative impact of my selfishness I would. For any sane person, how does the above inhibit their joy of owning a counterfeit Burst.

I mean seriously, do people take off the control cavity cover and gaze longingly at the "chew" marks, while clicking there heels and saying: this must a Burst, this must be a Burst, this must be a Burst.

A counterfeit guitar assembled today by law breaking luthiers are not nor will they ever be a 1950s Burst. Truth of that matter, it's not even a real Gibson. At least today, Gibson is making a Les Paul that is very close to the originals and afaic it's the next best thing for someone that wants to own a genuine Gibson Les Paul.

sikoniko said:

I would love a return to the '70s or '80s era mentality when they weren't as collectible. Those of you on this board that came from that period were lucky. But those of us that came behind you are F**K'd. We don't get to experience what they had and its all because of the exponential demand for collectible sake.

I do feel bad for people that got ripped off. But if these INSTRUMENTS were not COLLECTIBLES, they wouldn't be the price of cars and houses and people wouldn't be getting ripped off and there wouldn't be the demand for people to make fakes.

Click to expand...

JPP-1 said:

Putting an identification mark say in the control cavity seems like a small concession to make for even the most OCD Burst enthusiast if it helps ensure that that particular Replica is not used to potentially defraud someone.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, but it's not you or me doing it. If we continue to **** on those who post their replica there'll be no fingerprint of the guitar. Those paid to be in position to judge these guitars merely need to right click and save as many as they can...just in case. That's what a detective does.

Look I basically agree with much of what you are saying.

But we are adults here hopefully with a good moral compass. For those folks that would not sell theses counterfeits to deceive, I think we are assuming they have a pretty good moral compass. Ok, if that's the case then take responsibility. That's all I'm saying. If a counterfeit owner can take a small step to help ensure someone won't get unintentionally harmed by their counterfeit than there is no legitimate reason I can see not to do it.

deytookerjaabs said:

Sure, deception done on that level by intentional means should be scorned and is illegal. As it stands, you or I are free to build a 100% dead on replica to keep for ourselves, it's the action of trying to pass it off in sale that violates the law. In a relatively free society where people see things from from half a million to millions of dollars and those with the ability/knowledge can concoct a scam, scammers will exist. They have been for a long time in the world of traditional instruments, you see it in art, watches like you pointed out, and in many other facets of "collectibles." That takes another level of judiciousness to combat thus hats off to this forum & it's members for attempting to and doing so at times. Really, it's at the point where it should be more organized but this is a start, probably not too far from making over reissues to be used a scam-bait but I'm guessing they may have features you can't change. MANY old world instruments are literally a sticker and an eraser from being a fraud as the designs are completely open source. All it takes is the wrong owner. Perhaps in a century or two these guitars will be the same way if their respective trademark holders fail to stay afloat. Beyond that, certainly experts at the highest ends of law and engineering can disagree on what we as a society should grant in terms of time limits on "limited monopoly" and the subsequent acts granting trademark but, yes, it is the law as is.


Of course anything THAT close to original should have a marking to, at the very least, prevent it from becoming the scam of the decade in the wrong hands. But, I'm more or less referring to trademark violation and I've seen only one high end replica in person but it wasn't in danger of passing as original, unless it's convincing a guy who knows nothing in a back alley but you could do that with a reissue. On the flip side of that I personally have known numerous persons whose replicas of old world instruments were, again, an eraser & sticker away from possible fraud if not simply exacting to the originals. I didn't cast any vitriol towards them in person from what I can recall other than, perhaps, a yawn here and there. It's up to them & them alone to continue to be good samaritan.

IMO, as to the OP, for the most part these are knowledgeable folks with decent intentions who go awry when they make a very shallow decision to put the wrong logo on the open book thus violating trademark. Now, there are laws in place and when the parent company crunches the #'s they do get the ball rolling as I've seen various builders change their tunes over time. Those who committed the sales can & may suffer the penalties, no sense in me being the judge/jury/executioner. I've violated some laws in my time, I think I have a good moral compass but I'm human all the same. Fortunately I don't feel the need for that stuff as a musician but I find it interesting and never shy from learning something new no matter how useless/trivial. At the same time, if someone sells a re-veneered MIJ or other such guitar for what it is I'm not beyond buying it though that stuff hardly passes for the real thing.

To those who walk the replica into Sam Ash so they can have their "experts" assess then lay down gobs of $$ & turn the fake around for more gobs of $$? Yes, the community and courts should call them out then maybe show them a little lesson, a bit of time a cell with a guy who calls himself "debo" SHOULD do the trick.

If simply owning a bonafide replica means you need to spend time with Debo then we should start locking up those players in the local conservatory who are equally as capable of fraud. Many of them are nuts too, trust me, straight up nuts, but that's a different story. Oh, I forgot I inherited one myself, was my grandmothers violin, decent german copy form the 1800's probably goes for a few thousand & my dad used to say he's gonna "sell the strad" when he was blitzed

So, to me, as a person I might think it's shallow to need the fake logo but I don't hold hatred towards those with no intent to deceive. The iconography, hero worship and the psychological effects thereafter are like drugs that fuel those needs. Then they come on here and else where to show pics, save them, and at the least leave a fingerprint of the fake. Frankly, they'll be much more successful at deceit by keeping it in the closet. No two of those maple tops are the same and a high res photo of a fake at least gives the community at large a chance to keep it as it belongs.

One last time...the parent company still has every right to then take the seller to town on trademark, there is a system in place. That's the first worry. The second being high class fraud, if they post a pic of the guitar here first as the replica it is, the experts right here can save it and take note meaning at least ONE guy should remember it. The mods/owners of this forum are SMART for allowing the pics & posts of replicas w/out the logo/headstock.

Click to expand...

deytookerjaabs said:

Totally agree, but it's not you or me doing it. If we continue to **** on those who post their replica there'll be no fingerprint of the guitar. Those paid to be in position to judge these guitars merely need to right click and save as many as they can...just in case. That's what a detective does.

Click to expand...

Lol. Good point

Btw, while I won't say this is a counterfeit without more evidence, but the vagueness of this post is most troubling and one that should be documented afaic.

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/duane-burst-jamcity-les-paul-pics-added.1833263/

Originally Posted by JPP-1


Putting an identification mark say in the control cavity seems like a small concession to make for even the most OCD Burst enthusiast if it helps ensure that that particular Replica is not used to potentially defraud someone.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, but it's not you or me doing it. If we continue to **** on those who post their replica there'll be no fingerprint of the guitar. Those paid to be in position to judge these guitars merely need to right click and save as many as they can...just in case. That's what a detective does.

deytookerjaabs said:

Totally agree, but it's not you or me doing it. If we continue to **** on those who post their replica there'll be no fingerprint of the guitar. Those paid to be in position to judge these guitars merely need to right click and save as many as they can...just in case. That's what a detective does.

Click to expand...

I said this in the Fender thread. I don't have a problem with someone commissioning a guitar to be built to spec, but I do believe they (the person commissioning the build) have a responsibility to future buyers on the provenance of the instrument - if the builder does not. Some sort of marking or something to identify it for what it is.

I know that doesn't satisfy the trademark police here, but it does at least reduce risk of doing potential harm in the future to someones wallet.

JPP-1 said:

Lol. Good point

Btw, while I won't say this is a counterfeit without more evidence, but the vagueness of this post is most troubling and one that should be documented afaic.

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/duane-burst-jamcity-les-paul-pics-added.1833263/

Click to expand...

From the pics in the link, it's a 100% built from scratch guitar. Unless Gibson is selling him the blanks, the word "restoration" is well beyond an exaggeration.

It's no suprise to me someone can make a great Telecaster knock off but it's astonishing to me someone can make such a nice Burst replica! I won't own one because the good ones are out of my range price wise and I'm not inclined to own forgeries but I sure like seeing and hearing what small time luthiers can come up with.

slammintone said:

It's no suprise to me someone can make a great Telecaster knock off but it's astonishing to me someone can make such a nice Burst replica! I won't own one because the good ones are out of my range price wise and I'm not inclined to own forgeries but I sure like seeing and hearing what small time luthiers can come up with.

Click to expand...

I wonder why they can't come up with their own design if they're going to put Gibson's name on the headstock.

Well I was trying my best to not re-enter this conversation... but what the hell!

JPP, I will do my best not to let my agitation come across as a personal attack.... but there are some things you are saying that I just can not agree with... But lets start off with what I believe you and I and anybody with a moral compass CAN agree on.... ANYBODY who attempts to sell a replica OR a re-worked actual Gibson reissue as a REAL burst needs to be prosecuted and flogged!... We all know this has been attempted and by the way it has been attempted with reissues as well, doesnt have to be a replica. If you really want to defraud to the tune of tens of thousands, you can take a reissue, put in chew marks and do any number of things to pass it off and intentionally commit a felony.... But I think we can also all agree that the HUGE and VAST majority of replica owners as well as reissue owners (sent to historic makeovers, etc.) do not have ANY intention of trying to pass off their guitars as a $300K burst.

'Much of the vitriol against counterfeit vintage guitars is due to the level of detail some of these counterfeiters go to that has no legitimate purpose other than to deceive.'

BUT this comment above from you is SO inaccurate... My replicas have every 'level of detail' you refer to.... But for you to suggest the purpose of the builder to add these details or for the buyer to want these details is to deceive, then you couldn't be more wrong! Once again I will note that EVERYBODY that has these replicas and posts them on THIS very forum AS replicas in a section called NON-GIBSON guitars knows EXACTLY what they are.... The level of detail (logos, chew marks, etc.) are NOT placed on these guitars to deceive!... Otherwise everybody on this forum showing off their replicas would be putting them in the vintage guitar section AS REAL BURSTS... Replica builders and replica owners are not looking to deceive anyone, we proudly let people know EXACTLY what it is we own and play... I keep saying that, Im not sure why that keeps getting twisted around.

Does a guitar have to have chew marks or a Gibson logo to make it sound better? No... so you may ask then WHY does the builder or the owner want these details.... It is so we can say, 'hey look he even put in the chew marks!'... As silly as that sounds, that is the reason!... Every improvement Gibson made on the reissues beginning with deep neck joints and body shape in '94, analine dye in '99... then binding thickness, plastics, tortoise dots, better looking inlays, hand sanding, etc.... many of those things have nothing to do with tone, but we ALL welcomed that as the latest and greatest improvement... just so we could say, 'hey the inlays even look real on my reissue'... what other reason to try to get those details right other than to replicate an iconic long gone instrument?

Why do people buy Ford Cobra replicas complete with logos?... Because they want to drive one of the coolest cars ever created but cant afford the half million bucks or whatever it is the originals cost! That Cobra replica will NEVER be the real deal, but owners love to show off the accuracy of the details in the replication of the original... but at the end of the day, its a fake... you replica haters love to use the word 'fake' and you're right, my replica IS a 'fake' '59.... and your '59 reissue is a 'fake' '59 too, yes its an authentic Gibson product, but the only REAL '59 Les Pauls came out of the Kalamazoo factory in 1959, so lets admit whether its a reissue or a replica it will never be the real deal. Is it REALLY worth 5k more to buy a true historic than a standard flametop? Or even more for CS guitars, Duane Allman replicas, etc... No. But we all want to play the game of make believe that we are getting '59 details or reissues of some celebrity's guitar. Im guilty of it, so are many of you, but they are all fake! There is only one REAL Hot Lanta Duane Allman darkburst and believe me, none of us own it!

Which brings me to my next point... Although I want ALL the accurate 'details' in my replica, I have NO problem stamping the word replica in the control cavity... You guys seem to think that is very necessary so that someone doesnt get duped... Well my replica thanks you for the compliment, But I have never seen any replica, chew marks and all, that would fool me that its an original, if youre gonna spend $300k, you sure better know what youre looking at or bring somebody with you that does. But adding an identifying marking I have no problem with.

Next point. Old wood. Uh oh. Here we go again... I will tell you why I after buying over forty reissues between '94 and '05 and having over 10 vintage Gibsons including two goldtop '57 conversions, why I more recently turned to replicas. I loved the reissues I owned (still own an '05 Jimmy Page). Many were great guitars. I had no interest in buying vintage until I played a vintage conversion that frankly smoked my reissue... well smoked is maybe a little strong. It sounded 'better', had something different and unique that I fell in love with. Now maybe that difference wasnt so great that somebody out in the crowd would notice, but I noticed it and thats all that mattered... I went through a bunch of vintage guitars. Some were better than others... AND HERE IS THE IMPORTANT POINT.... The best reissue will ABSOLUTELY sound better that the worst vintage LP... BUT the best vintage LP will always sound even better than the best reissue. If you dont believe that then you havent played and compared enough.

We all know that Fenders made of ash and maple sound totally different than Gibsons even if you had the same humbuckers on each guitar. So why is it so hard to believe that mahogany grown much more slowly from a different region or brazilian rosewood would sound at least a little different? Edwin gave me a tour of the custom shop in '99 and flat out said they could never get mahogany like they did in '59... he talked about the lime and moisture content and the region where those trees came from and talked about the importance of the wood dictating tone. He wasnt going to advertise that publicly that Gibson couldnt duplicate it. It is NOT a myth that the wood used in the '50s came from fields of trees that no longer exist other than in small stock piles that Gibson is too big to have access to.

I talk about the old wood thing because that is why I personally turned to replicas. I believe in that 'myth', Ive heard it countless times with my own ears, fine if you dont believe it. Having had some great old wood in vintage Gibsons but needing to sell them to pay bills, I didnt want to go backwards too far... And I did NOT sell my vintage Gibson until I knew the replica sounded just as good, and it does. Getting the accurate details is gravy...

Last point. Someone mentioned how replicas could actually help brand recognition... How funny and how true... We all know how in the late '80s Slash was single handedly credited for bringing back the popularity of the Les Paul which was on the verge of extinction... So funny that he did that with a Gibson branded replica!... And even more interesting that in the immediate years following his success he publicly said that he was annoyed that Gibson could not give him a guitar that sounded as good as his replica so he had to turn to vintage LPs... I guess another guy that just doesnt know tone or what he's hearing...

And lastly, yeah why is it that us no-name replica owners and the builders that make them are treated like gutter rats yet Ive never heard anyone say the same about Slash.... the revered hero for bringing back the the Les Paul.... replica :spabout

Really, its all good.... with me anyway... I think Gibson is making a tremendously good product. Doesnt bother me in the least if some of you have no interest in replicas, I didnt for many years... And if you have an issue with copyright, you're entitled... But please dont tell me that the replica builder or owner's sole intention is to deceive... I am talking about the moral issue... Using the word COUNTERFEIT should be reserved for anything that is created with the intent to deceive and defraud (look up the definition). That can be done with modification to an authentic Gibson, doesn't have to be a replica... The word replica refers to something that REPLICATES something.... do any of you have the same issue with this car below that is a replica but has Ford logos on it?... If you dont, then its a double standard... If you do, then we will always be far apart on our views.

Ed A said:

Click to expand...

I have a problem with this... it's not a very good replica. the originals had spinners that mounted the wheels to the axles. should not have lug nuts... ITS A FAKE!

I've owned two replica Les Paul's, both fine guitars which felt/played and were more '50's like' than the various, (good) CS historic I've owned. ... That said, those two are now gone and I moved onto owning JG Bluesmasters.

While I can understand that 'some' among the 'strain out a gnat and swallow a camel' class will view replicas as fake/illegal, for those who can't afford the originals yet desire the 50's wood specs, etc., (in full acceptance revealing any future sale with full disclosure) for them it is all about the fact that 'the devil is in the details' ... And for that latter class, such is reckoned justification enough.

As I've said in times past here before, if Gibson's, (then) Art & Historic division had made their reissues from '93 onwards seriously spec'd-out to duplicate the 50's originals, we wouldn't have had all this ongoing quest to duplicate, (what for many aspiring musicians) is considered a 'holy grail' guitar.

Then again, had that been done in '93, think of all this money/productivity Gibson would not have achieved meantime ... :hmm ... :## ... eace

go into a guitar store pay no attention to the makes and models and just start picking up guitars and play them if it speaks to you then buy it! i was gigging with a korean goldtop for 10 years because it SOUNDED right to me

Ed (and others on that side), despite some exasperation with the current management, I have a TON of respect for Gibson and its history. I don't get too excited about trade dress (the headstock shape, the type of sunburst, the top carve) but putting the Gibson logo on the headstock makes no sense to me. You've built a tribute, sure, an homage but if everyone knows it's not a Gibson burst, why not proudly label it as such? Heck, use the tried and true Japanese technique of making the logo LOOK like Gibson from a distance (Gibsoon? Gilson?). But why use the other company's logo?

renderit said:

When I was younger I made my own perfect copies. I tried branding with my own label. They didn't sell for some reason...

Click to expand...

Did you remember to register it? :ganz