Kris Ford
New member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,003
Intended to create an honest debate/conversation.:jim
Maybe just a lil TOO good?
- Thread starter Kris Ford
- Start date
Intended to create an honest debate/conversation.:jim
fakejake
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,290
Thats interesting... in other words: while the guitars themselves look good, its mostly the ageing that looks unconvincing?
From those pics you've seen, would you say the ageing was on par with Fender CS or for example Danocasters? Better, worse?
I'm not sure how one can tell without having a sample of each in hand? pictures are always deceiving and there is no consistency to the aging of vintage guitars...all comes down to how much they were played and cared for. I wouldn't imagine that day 1 a new guitar would look old. I think the point here is given the same materials are used, a new guitar will age exactly like the originals did and after 10-20 years would be difficult to differentiate.
If Fender could build them at any point in time, I don't see why anyone can't reproduce them... providing supplies are available. considering the majority of the work here is in the wood-work, any good luthier should be able to achieve the same results if they really wanted to.
Not unconvincing. One guitar by itself would go under the radar easier, when there's a few you see the same hand at work; as is often the way with aging. They weren't over done. I remember it being a little too predictable, the perfect amount of wear in just the right places but the arm wear let it down. That type of wear would make me suspicious from the off. I'm sure with a lot of these guys they'd do better not to do the arm wear- seems to be the hardest part.
I can't compare to Fender CS as they vary so much. Similar work to Danocaster, though I'd go with him if I chose to have such work done as he's a stand up guy.
Tom Wittrock
Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 42,567
Derrig and other replica makers have been flamed often. But few would confuse a Derrig for a real Burst, although someone probably has. More recent replica [Les Paul] makers have copied certain interior marks that only are seen when looking inside. They are unnecessary. And to put the Fender or Gibson brand name on them is criminal in my opinion.
But there is no good reason to duplicate certain inside marks or forge the brand, except to cause fraud and cheat people.
I do not condone cheating people with forgeries.
Maybe you do? :wah
fakejake
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,290
If I were interested in such a replica, I guess what would put me most off in practital terms is that the whole business seems slightly dodgy, including the website, the lack of information about the exact location of the workshop or the people running it. No clear highres pictures of the finished guitars, no documentation or certification, probably not even an invoice when buying. These guitars might be more difficult to resell than some think.
If I were to go for an expensive hq replica someone like Nacho might be the better choice. At least those a worth something on the used market in case you need to sell, he runs a proper business and I would also be a lot more comfortable making a deposit.
If I were to go for an expensive hq replica someone like Nacho might be the better choice. At least those a worth something on the used market in case you need to sell, he runs a proper business and I would also be a lot more comfortable making a deposit.
no - I do not condone cheating people with forgeries - I don't condone a lot of behavior that others seem to revel in either... In this case, if FCS made it right, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, they just don't want to - for whatever reason.
I have four pre-cbs Fender's. I'm invested... so to speak.
The reality is, when there is a demand, someone will fill the supply. if not this guy, then someone else.
In an ideal world where everyone took the moral high-ground, perhaps he would solely do 'restorations'. Today's climate is anything but a moral high-ground - all I have to do is watch / read the news to validate that.
If I was to purchase from anyone off the internet (other than ebay/ reverb) I would probably email him/her and ask for references and quality photo's first...
You yourself said earlier that pics can be deceiving. And then you would have to trust a guy like in his choice of reference. He probably has Justin from Music Ground as his trusted spokesperson.
are you looking to be convinced it's OK to buy from this site or are you looking to poke holes in what I say? Unsure of your intent with this question?
I've bought off the internet many times - Sweetwater, Guitar Center, Eddie's, Music Zoo. Everytime I have requested additional photo's. It may not be as ideal as in-hand, but it was the best I could do. Yes - photo's can be deceiving and if I feel uncertain, I walk away.
If you are asking how one would justify purchasing off this or any site on the internet, that is up to you to decide what you feel comfortable with and deciding how you reconcile that. I simply told you what I would do.
Poke holes, no, but questioning the inconsistencies in what you're saying and highlighting the fact that asking a con man for references is hardly a guarantee of any sort.
I am not asking any of the things you mention and would not and have not expressed any desire to purchase one of these fakes, much as I wouldn't buy a Chibson.
If anyone hands over thousands of pounds to an operation like precbsguitars, he/she deserves to lose that money.
Last edited:
did you miss my comment that I was playing devil's advocate?
People are going to do what they are going to do... I'm going to spend my time playing guitar and not worrying about it...
Devils advocate and seemingly advising other forum members how best to purchase from an illegal operation.
I find often in life those casting stones are the ones trying to hide their own guilt... now get back on topic and quit trying to make this about me.
You seem to have some sort or persecutory disorder. Casting stones, poking holes... You say one thing, then another, all under the lame reasoning of playing devils advocate. You are trying to make this about you.
You should take your own advice.
:hee
like attacking me is going to make this guy close up his business or convince anyone to not buy from builders... or stop someone from purchasing from them. you sure spend a lot of energy of the wrong things.. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
eace2:hee
like attacking me is going to make this guy close up his business or convince anyone to not buy from builders... or stop someone from purchasing from them. you sure spend a lot of energy of the wrong things.. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Only a :wank would presume to tell people they are spending their energy wrong. You must be just playing devil's advocate again. :hee
Tom Wittrock
Les Paul Forum Co-Owner
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 42,567
If these guitars are worth owning, there is no need for certain features.
I can't think of any legitimate reason [and you nor anyone I can remember has given one] as to why it should have the copyrighted brand name or the copyrighted headstock shape.
Customer demand?
There's customer demand for all kinds of stolen stuff. Seems a weak reason in such a case.
In an ideal world, these forgers would be forced out of business, and fined if necessary.
And maybe the customers who demand them. :ganz
Big Al
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 14,545
Fake is fake.
The only reason to duplicate hidden manufacture marks and use original type neck stamps and other brand markings is to deceive. It is an endeavor in counterfeiting. A forgery meant to pass as real.
The only reason to duplicate hidden manufacture marks and use original type neck stamps and other brand markings is to deceive. It is an endeavor in counterfeiting. A forgery meant to pass as real.