• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

1959 Burst Replica

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
Dunno, depends on what your definition of issue is. Lol

I don't want to speak for Xpensive wino but I THINK what he is saying is what I said before.

You cannot make the assumption that its not hurting Gibson. Its LIKELY that it isn't.... but then again, if you take everyone who pays, what they do for these really killer (what ever you want to call it them) guitars complete with all the Fixins, you might have a real number well into the hundred thousands of dollars if perhaps world wide there are more than say, 25 of these guitars made a year (comfortably estimating people are paying at least 5G a guitar? and that is considerably low estimate).

Take all those people who may not have the opportunity to have said replica and they might buy a True Historic. Take a number cruncher consultant who shows that the custom shop needs to cut two employees (I don't know but I"m guessing maybe 50-75g salaries? I have no idea) because they were 100,000 in the red for their branch of Gibson guitars and guess what... you HAVE hurt someone.

This is of course completely hypothetical, may be total BS-- but at the very least you cannot argue that it ain't hurting nobody. might not and probably not... but not-- I don't think you can say that. I"m not saying you are a bad person if you own one. I'm just saying like any other hot topic (like the death penalty) you have to be comfortable with that possibility-- or have rationalized that there is no way its really hurting. I rationalize tons of stuff I do in my life so again! I"m not judging.

the INTENT part to me is the most fascinating. Say you have a buddy who is a master luthier. You say, "hey buddy can you make me as close to an authentic burst a possible? Here's 15G. make no shortcuts. I'm never going to show it to anyone else, I"m going to just play it in solitude and thus we are doing nothing wrong-- you know like a tree falling in the woods if nobody is there-- it makes no sound-- ya? Well if you make a Gibson les paul in a vacuum and nobody knows about it nobody gets hurt right? sure". Then.... sadly you pass away. Your family finds this guitar that looks, sounds feels (hell you even had him put a serial number on there. maybe just an R9 type serial number) like a real gibson. They decide to sell all your stuff off. What started out as just a fun project between you and your friend now, magically, becomes a fradulent thing! I think THAT is what is so fascinating here.

blah blah blah

I wish we were in a pub drinking and discussing this.

:salude
 

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
The only person you are trying to convince that this is not a trade mark infringement is yourself.

It might be the greatest guitar in the world, but it is not a Gibson and if they come calling with their legal team, you will have a hard job convincing them otherwise.

What other reason is there to put Gibson on the headstock other than to give the impression that it is one.

Did you bother to read what you just quoted from me? At the very top of it I said it is obvious that these are not legally produced. I am absolutely aware of the copyright infringement. My part of this whole discussion has been based on the moral issue. I understand that intent is not part of the law but it is has everything to do with how I feel about owning and playing these things. And I've explained a million times why it is not a moral issue for me personally but I certainly don't have a problem with others that don't agree. And if you have to ask the question what other reason would there be to have that name on the headstock other than an intent to defraud, well then you either have not read much of the discussion here at all or you really don't know much about these replicas or the people who build them or the people who buy them.
 
Last edited:

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
Did you bother to read what you just quoted from me? At the very top of it I said it is obvious that these are not legally produced. I am absolutely aware of the copyright infringement. My part of this whole discussion has been based on the moral issue. I understand that intent is not part of the law but it is has everything to do with how I feel about owning and playing these things. And I've explained a million times why it is not a moral issue for me personally but I certainly don't have a problem with others that don't agree. And if you have to ask the question what other reason would there be to have that name on the headstock other than an intent to defraud, well then you either have not read much of the discussion here at all or you really don't know much about these replicas or the people who build them or the people who buy them.

For the record, I don't have a problem with it.

And really, most likely, there are much worse crimes against humanity being committed every day... owning a guitar that says gibson on it that wasn't made by gibson hardly makes a tick on the world wide Evil Meter as far as I'm concerned.

now that Prada bag I got my wife in new york that she thinks is real? Thats definitely ok! :rofl
 

kerryboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2002
Messages
1,199
I understand that intent is not part of the law but it is has everything to do with how I feel about owning and playing these things.

Don't think that is going to get you very far if Gibson were to take legal action.
 

Zoomer

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,357
Don't think that is going to get you very far if Gibson were to take legal action.

It's not illegal to own one - only to build one with the name on it - Gibson owns the name/logo only they don't own the body shape or headstock shape which people believe they do.
 

fred dons

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2001
Messages
318
agree, Gibson would be foolish to try and sue an owner of such a replica and that is why they won't do it, they will issue a cease and desist to known replica builders (note that they do no sue, they merely issue a cease and desist)
I think we all can agree that the current shareholders to the company hold the legal right to the name and other trademarks but due to gibsons marketing (getting close to a 59 but still off ) they have created this market and they are the only ones who can undo this.
 

kerryboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2002
Messages
1,199
agree, Gibson would be foolish to try and sue an owner of such a replica and that is why they won't do it, they will issue a cease and desist to known replica builders (note that they do no sue, they merely issue a cease and desist)
I think we all can agree that the current shareholders to the company hold the legal right to the name and other trademarks but due to gibsons marketing (getting close to a 59 but still off ) they have created this market and they are the only ones who can undo this.

Ahhh, I see. Its all Gibson's fault. Good argument that.
 

Zoomer

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,357
Ahhh, I see. Its all Gibson's fault. Good argument that.

Not directly but they are milking buyers by upgrading them slightly more accurate every year - it's marketing - if every year is built more accurate there is more of a reason to buy one
 

tj93

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Messages
17
Not directly but they are milking buyers by upgrading them slightly more accurate every year - it's marketing - if every year is built more accurate there is more of a reason to buy one

agreed, this is why there is a replica market, Gibson could close the market by stepping it up, but they have no economic need to. Back to the post in hand, anyone else got their thoughts on the guitar?
 

becks bolero

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
1,810
I just looked at the original clip, sounds ok but not anything exceptional

too many effects

he is a great guitar player though

I guess as long as *he* is inspired by his guitar, that's all that matters!!

everyone has a different ideal sound in their head.

does he say what pickups he's got in there?
 
Last edited:

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
Don't think that is going to get you very far if Gibson were to take legal action.

Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.
 

Dave P

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
976
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.

I feel like an amateur compared to you, I only had 21 historic Les Pauls! :hee
 

Zoomer

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,357
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.

+1

I have owned well over 30 myself - I have 5 now, 2 are brazilian's - all mine are 2003 and older so they all have the truss rod condom and wood glue - I had PAF's in a couple of them over the years - they all sound most excellent - but in all honesty don't come close to my 1954/1957 conversion in tone or feel !!! I ordered a replica hoping it will come closer to the conversion I have - if Gibson built the guitars with the right wood and specs I would buy one from them - but they don't !!

Looking forward to getting mine next week - either way we can all agree to disagree - getting the feel you love and the tone you hear in your head out of your gear is the dream of all of us. They are many paths to the mountain top - no ones path is the same.

:peace2

Zoomer
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Ed I think you have great tone and to my ears you really channel Duane through your playing. And while I completely disagree with your fetishism with regard to wood subspecies and tone, especially after hearing you play a Mexican tele and still channel that Duane woody vowelly honking tone, I respect your right to be outspoken about your opinion and your gear choices. i also don't doubt that you personally would never try to pawn your replicas off as originals. but what if it's stolen or you sell it, what about the next guy that luthier makes a "Burst" for.

Please don't equate Gibson's current historics or any of their Les Pauls with out and out fakes that are not made by Gibson. There is no equivalency. Whether these LP fakes are made in a Chinese factory or by some Canadian luthier is irrelevant. the quality of the fake doesn't make it any less so. Suggesting anything else is false: legally, ethically, anyway you look at it really. Gibson can make their Les Pauls out of balsa wood, they have that right, the folks in Canada, China, wherever else don't.

Look at Rolex, another iconic brand. The Rolex Daytona 6263 also known as the Newman Daytona is like the 59 burst of watches. It has gone as high as 1 million dollars at auction. The movement in the watch, the 727 is based on a more common Valjoux 72 movement that was found in a variety of watches that cost a fraction of an original 6263 including later versions of the Daytona. Obviously, there have been attempts to replicate the 6263 by "master craftsman". Maybe some of those folks wanted the closest thing to the 6263 but couldn't pony up high 6 or 7 figures. So they get one built with the Rolex markings on it. That's ok? Whether a fake Rolex is made by a "master craftsman" in Switzerland or sweatshop in Asia it's still a counterfeit. Just like any Les Paul not made or authorized by Gibson.

For people who think tone is in the wood subspecies moreso than the fingers, Gustuvsson and others are doing quite well selling high end Les Paul style guitars. At the very least, I would hope people making these counterfeits or those ordering them would insist on markings inside the tone cavity i.e.: NOT GIBSON or some other identifier to discourage any chance of fraud.




Well I would say why not put it in on the headstock? For you the answer may be obvious. It's a forgery, it's a fake. But if the intention of the builder is to make a replica of a great guitar which in many ways is a tribute to that vintage guitar and to not lie to people and tell them that it is a real Gibson, then is it really that big of a deal? 10 guitars in a year certainly wont hurt Gibson's business. And if anything the attention to detail on these helps push Gibson further to getting their details closer. I would never in 1 million years expect to try to pass mine off as a real 59, and there's no reason to try to pass it off as a reissue because in my opinion it surpasses a re-issue so why would I need to do that? Here's another analogy. My all-time favorite muscle car is a 1971 442 convertible. Fully restored they go for over $100,000. I could never afford that. But in a heartbeat I would pay $25,000 for a so called tribute. A cutlass supreme with the 442 hood, trim and striping and all of the 442 badging. It is not a real 442 and if I owned one I would never try to pass it off as one. I would simply enjoy driving a replica of a car that I actually could never afford to own. Just as I enjoy playing a replica of a 59 Les Paul I could never afford to own. I'm only living once on this earth so I'm going to do what makes me happy and I have no intentions of any unscrupulous behavior. I understand your point, so don't buy one or play one, but I hope you can at least see mine.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
I don't want to speak for Ed, but this builder's guitars come with CITES paperwork. No issues at all.

Whis is, frankly, hilarious.

So, the builder is concerned enough about one law to comply, but simultaneously decides to engage in flagrant trademark infringement.

His moral compass is truly fucked.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
So if the Gibson logo completes the build as a replica, no harm.

.....and the corrolary of this proposition is that you endorse trademark infringement, which is tantamount to theft.

I hope you have a hit record one day. I'll make sure I download it for free so that you don't make a penny from your intellectual property.
 

F-Hole

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
2,171
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.

What, like you've behaved honourably in dating over 50 women, so that makes it OK to rape the 51st?

You didn't "make a nice little donation to Gibson", you purchased their product.

To help the hard of thinking...............https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donation
 

jhmp

New member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
717
Whenever there is a good product, people will copy it. It will not be untill they have experienced theft of their own intellectual property will they understand. So, the majority never will.
 
Top