The Fender Forum
NEW! LPF Facebook Page
NEW! LPF Instagram Page
Merchandise & Donations
NEW! Burst Serial Log Home Page
LPF Homesite
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 228
  1. #41

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    Hey big Al, you know I love you, but talk about crapping on somebody's parade! First off I'd like to say that excessive fawning and spewing praise is what we all do regarding our beloved instruments. Whether they be replicas, real Bursts, re-issues, juniors, telecasters, Epiphones, Hagstrom's, etc... Point being, anywhere you go, any forum you visit, people love to talk about their obsessions. That being said the reason I own two replicas has nothing to do with it being forbidden fruit! I pride myself in being able to put myself in somebody else's head and see their opinion so I can see why replicas are not for everyone and why one may have issues with them. But to those of you who hate these things, not that you really care, I would like to explain why it is the guitar for me. I still have my first 71 Les Paul I bought in 74 with factory humbuckers. A Norlan guitar with T tops that sounds great. In the mid 90s the reissue kick started for me. I went through at least 40 of them through the years buying and selling. A lot of absolutely great guitars. And I still have a Jimmy Page 59 reissue from 2005. about 15 years ago I got my first vintage Les Paul. I have had four early 50s goldtops, two of them being professionally converted to 57 specs. The best sounding and most magical guitar of all of them was my recent 53/57 conversion that I no longer own. I'm not going to get into the whole Old wood argument here, but I know I hear a difference and many friends and fellow players that played that goldtop can hear the difference. Couple years ago I got one of these replicas and I had the opportunity to compare to my goldtop. I won't sit here and say that it sounded exactly like the old goldtop. What I will tell you is that the playing experience for me is just as good and just as fulfilling. For me a better tone and better experience than the Murphy 59 I had or any other re-issue I had at that time. Close enough to the old gold top that I decided to sell it, buy a second replica and use the balance of the money to pay bills. I swore that goldtop would never leave my hands. Now you may call bullshit to the old wood thing but I know this particular builder used ancient mahogany and very old Brazilian on this guitar as well as the very hard nitro, correct glues, etc. And you may call bullshit to any of that making a difference and you are all entitled, but my hands and my ears I do hear a difference with the old wood. Reissues are great guitars and I am very thankful that Gibson is producing that kind of quality but if I feel more inspired playing this guitar that's all that matters. It doesn't have to matter to you but it matters to me.

    So as far as them being fake goes. That's an interesting one, I know that many get quite upset with these guitars that replicate a Gibson Les Paul. Let me make it clear that it certainly is not my intention to ever attempt to pawn this off as a real 59. And frankly I think anybody spending 300 grand on a Les Paul would have to be an idiot to think that this is one of those. And I have no moral issue with playing it. I want to play a guitar that satisfies me so it makes no difference to me whether the guitar came from Canada or Nashville. Frankly does not even enter my mind. It's the enjoyment of playing the instrument is the only thing I care about. And while we are talking about the guitars from Nashville, yes those are officially produced by the Gibson guitar Company. But in terms of replicating the construction of the guitar that came out of Kalamazoo in 1959 they are just as fake as my replica. There is no part of a modern Les Paul that is any closer to the original 59 than my replica. I made the decision to get a replica simply because I will never own a cherry Sunburst made in 58 to 60. So this is my opportunity to own one that is made from woods and parts that Gibson as a large company cannot give me. In addition the experience of building a replica is for me and extremely exciting one. Working one on one with the luthier, visiting his shop, picking the woods, being there while he's spraying the guitar, watching the top being carved, etc. is a hell of a lot of fun for me. May not interest any of you but it's a hell of a lot of fun for me. And since I'm 14 years old and since I first started playing guitar in 1972 this whole thing has been always and only about fun and fulfillment. I certainly have never need made enough money from it to be anything more than that. So to shit on my parade because I really dig owning a couple of these replicas, you're entitled, but really what is the point?.
    While I don't agree with the name Gibson being on the headstock, I have to say Ed, the time you posted clips of your first replica, I was knocked out. And the next replica sounded great too. They are phenomenal instruments, and I for one, should get smart and buy one for myself. What I've been wondering lately is your build based in Canada, and how woud the CITES treaty affect buying a guitar from him?
    Last edited by rockabilly69; 04-19-17 at 04:09 PM.

  2. #42
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    230

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    I don't want to speak for Ed, but this builder's guitars come with CITES paperwork. No issues at all.

  3. #43
    Les Paul Forum Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Lake Ontario shore
    Posts
    13,335

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    Hey big Al, you know I love you, but talk about crapping on somebody's parade! First off I'd like to say that excessive fawning and spewing praise is what we all do regarding our beloved instruments. Whether they be replicas, real Bursts, re-issues, juniors, telecasters, Epiphones, Hagstrom's, etc... Point being, anywhere you go, any forum you visit, people love to talk about their obsessions. That being said the reason I own two replicas has nothing to do with it being forbidden fruit! I pride myself in being able to put myself in somebody else's head and see their opinion so I can see why replicas are not for everyone and why one may have issues with them. But to those of you who hate these things, not that you really care, I would like to explain why it is the guitar for me. I still have my first 71 Les Paul I bought in 74 with factory humbuckers. A Norlan guitar with T tops that sounds great. In the mid 90s the reissue kick started for me. I went through at least 40 of them through the years buying and selling. A lot of absolutely great guitars. And I still have a Jimmy Page 59 reissue from 2005. about 15 years ago I got my first vintage Les Paul. I have had four early 50s goldtops, two of them being professionally converted to 57 specs. The best sounding and most magical guitar of all of them was my recent 53/57 conversion that I no longer own. I'm not going to get into the whole Old wood argument here, but I know I hear a difference and many friends and fellow players that played that goldtop can hear the difference. Couple years ago I got one of these replicas and I had the opportunity to compare to my goldtop. I won't sit here and say that it sounded exactly like the old goldtop. What I will tell you is that the playing experience for me is just as good and just as fulfilling. For me a better tone and better experience than the Murphy 59 I had or any other re-issue I had at that time. Close enough to the old gold top that I decided to sell it, buy a second replica and use the balance of the money to pay bills. I swore that goldtop would never leave my hands. Now you may call bullshit to the old wood thing but I know this particular builder used ancient mahogany and very old Brazilian on this guitar as well as the very hard nitro, correct glues, etc. And you may call bullshit to any of that making a difference and you are all entitled, but my hands and my ears I do hear a difference with the old wood. Reissues are great guitars and I am very thankful that Gibson is producing that kind of quality but if I feel more inspired playing this guitar that's all that matters. It doesn't have to matter to you but it matters to me.

    So as far as them being fake goes. That's an interesting one, I know that many get quite upset with these guitars that replicate a Gibson Les Paul. Let me make it clear that it certainly is not my intention to ever attempt to pawn this off as a real 59. And frankly I think anybody spending 300 grand on a Les Paul would have to be an idiot to think that this is one of those. And I have no moral issue with playing it. I want to play a guitar that satisfies me so it makes no difference to me whether the guitar came from Canada or Nashville. Frankly does not even enter my mind. It's the enjoyment of playing the instrument is the only thing I care about. And while we are talking about the guitars from Nashville, yes those are officially produced by the Gibson guitar Company. But in terms of replicating the construction of the guitar that came out of Kalamazoo in 1959 they are just as fake as my replica. There is no part of a modern Les Paul that is any closer to the original 59 than my replica. I made the decision to get a replica simply because I will never own a cherry Sunburst made in 58 to 60. So this is my opportunity to own one that is made from woods and parts that Gibson as a large company cannot give me. In addition the experience of building a replica is for me and extremely exciting one. Working one on one with the luthier, visiting his shop, picking the woods, being there while he's spraying the guitar, watching the top being carved, etc. is a hell of a lot of fun for me. May not interest any of you but it's a hell of a lot of fun for me. And since I'm 14 years old and since I first started playing guitar in 1972 this whole thing has been always and only about fun and fulfillment. I certainly have never need made enough money from it to be anything more than that. So to shit on my parade because I really dig owning a couple of these replicas, you're entitled, but really what is the point?.
    Well, Ed, I'll explain. First it wasn't the op's guitar. I wouldn't crap over someones guitar they posted. It was held up as an example of killer Burst tone. I disagree. There is nothing in that video that would lead anyone with experience to declare as great or definitive Burst tone. It is over processed and frankly, more of the cookie cutter generic tone all too often posted on youtube. The amazing sustain that so many felt the need to remark on, is as you well know, feedback, and I could get the cheapest off shore bargain basement guitar to do the same thing. It has no bearing on the guitars inherent sustain, I am sure you would agree with me.

    As to my remarks about the fawning over these fake Gibsons, it is evidenced plainly in this very thread. People fall over backwards in supplication, heaping mighty praise based on what??? I find it odd that such a bland testament can generate such awe, while similar postings of a Historic generate yawns. The poisonous fruit I speak of must be the attractiveness of owning something illicit or counterfeit as the thrill of putting one over can give. I find it distasteful to promote these fakes. Replicas may be the nice way of saying it, and it may be easier to convince oneself that such a label makes it appropriate or in some twisted logic correct, but it ain't so.

    That some of these may be amazing musical instruments I've no doubt, but they would be so with slight alteration to appearance and the makers name on the headstock. These builders trade on Gibsons history and image to sell fakes. The only reason they get the dough is because it says Gibson and is easy to market. The ultimate goal is one of deception, and somewhere down the line will cause someone some grief when they find that the Gibson they just bought is indeed a fake. In effect a higher quality Chibson, but the same thing none the less. Ed, you know I love ya, but just because you say you love Gibson Les Pauls so much doesn't make commissioning a forgery OK. It is the same for any highly regarded brand and image. Lots of ways to justify questionable ethics, history has taught us that.

    I responded to the op because I felt that the opinion that it represented great Burst tone was not one I shared. My opinion and I am free to express it in this type of thread. I also remarked on how overtly positive and glowing the opinions of this fake. It has always struck me as odd that one only has to mention "Replica" and the overwhelming opinion is so overly flattering. I did not call you out when you posted about your new fake Gibson, nor have I called anyone out when they post about their guitars, but this was about a video and I was addressing that, not crapping over someones thread. Unless you mean that we must all share your view and keep quiet if we don't??? Forum is a gathering of individuals to discuss, not slap each other on the back.

    Call it what you want, fake is fake. If someone must have one the very least they could do is stamp into the wood in the cavities the word REPLICA if that is what you want to call it or some other easy enough to see permanent mark to identify it as such. But then, no one ever does that, do they? I guess it is all OK if one only desires it. I love this thing so much I'll buy a fake counterfeit version and justify the snot out of that because, hey, I just love them so much. If you buy it then own it and mark it so the next few shrubs down the line don't get taken.
    The older I get, the better I was.

  4. #44
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Hey Al. Well this is obviously something you feel very strongly about. And I absolutely respect that and I respect your opinion. When I said crapping on somebody's parade I did not know that the OP did not own the guitar. But in any case although I completely understand your opinion and I respect your opinion it's just something I can't relate to. Obviously if I did I would never have bought these guitars. And I can honestly say that the moral issue or the legal issue or the fake issue whatever we want to call it never even entered my mind for a moment. I never thought well maybe this isn't something I should do. It literally never entered my mind. And it still is not an issue for me in anyway. Someone could call me whatever they want for feeling that way but I am just being honest. And I think it simply comes down to because first, I know that these guitars are not being marketed as a real Gibson and that the intention is not to pass them off as a real Gibson. And I know that I don't walk around telling anybody its a real Gibson and if I ever sold the guitar I would never attempt to pass it off as that. At this point I'm pretty much just repeating myself from earlier so there's not much more I can say other than l buy and play these for the pure enjoyment of it and there is no other reason than that. I know how good the guitar is and I'm sure if you played it you would agree. But at this point I think if you even saw the guitar you might smash it on the floor so that probably won't come to pass. LOL!

    PS. I never said you or anybody should share my viewpoint. I wanted to simply share MY viewpoint. When I read on this thread that these guitars are being bought for illicit reasons or because they are forbidden fruit, well that is so far from the truth regarding my own reasons that I felt I needed to explain why I play these guitars. Nothing more than that.
    Last edited by Ed A; 04-21-17 at 10:51 PM.
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  5. #45
    Les Paul Forum Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Lake Ontario shore
    Posts
    13,335

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Ed, to be clear, I am sure you would never misrepresent a replica, but these always get sold and the Gibson label and serial number can make for further confusion. While they may not pass for a 50's they may be passed as a CS and serial number duplication could make for messy deals.

    I do feel strongly about the ethical question these pose and felt compelled to post. In the end it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

    Don't even get me started on hardware!!!!
    The older I get, the better I was.

  6. #46
    Les Paul Forum Member Xpensive Wino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In the pocket
    Posts
    5,661

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Isn't the Gibson logo protected by trademark?


    Gibson do seem diligent in pursuing violators.

    https://www.google.com/search?site=w...k1.5jbSV2WHxfE

  7. #47
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al View Post
    Ed, to be clear, I am sure you would never misrepresent a replica, but these always get sold and the Gibson label and serial number can make for further confusion. While they may not pass for a 50's they may be passed as a CS and serial number duplication could make for messy deals.

    I do feel strongly about the ethical question these pose and felt compelled to post. In the end it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

    Don't even get me started on hardware!!!!
    Its all good Al... I may just surprise you and have something put in the cavity of the next one Im having built to make it clear what it is... I will be first to admit that I want it to 'look the part' on the outside, but I have no problem having an identifier to avoid problems down the road with re-sales...

    Im curious do any of you that have a big issue with replicas have an issue with Slash using a Gibson labeled Derrig on Appetite?... I sure didnt, never even thought about the moral issue.... And Gibson now makes a replica of a Slash's FAKE replica!!!... guess they werent too upset about the Derrig, if THEY could make some money off of it!.... and being that Slash said for years he couldnt get Gibson to build him one that sounded as good, Im happy he did use it, that Sweet Child tone still blows me away!
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  8. #48
    Les Paul Forum Member Xpensive Wino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In the pocket
    Posts
    5,661

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica



    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce.htm


    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce/ipenforce-crime/ipenforce-role/ipenforce-group/ipenforce-workplace/ipenforce-workplace-matters/ipenforce-workplace-matters-criminal.htm




    "Infringement of trade marks and copyrights can be criminal offences, as well as being actionable in civil law. A range of criminal provisions are set out in the relevant Acts, and other offences such as those under the Fraud Act 2006 may also be applied."

  9. #49
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Xpensive Wino View Post


    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce.htm


    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipenforce/ipenforce-crime/ipenforce-role/ipenforce-group/ipenforce-workplace/ipenforce-workplace-matters/ipenforce-workplace-matters-criminal.htm




    "Infringement of trade marks and copyrights can be criminal offences, as well as being actionable in civil law. A range of criminal provisions are set out in the relevant Acts, and other offences such as those under the Fraud Act 2006 may also be applied."
    Well what you've posted here is certainly not a surprise to anybody above the age of 12 that understands what it means to steal a brand, an identity, A copyright, etc. And no doubt replicas that carry a registered brand-name are not legally produced. But again we have to talk about intent. This is not like a fake Apple Store in China or fake iPhones or fake Rembrandts, things sold with the intent of being counterfeit. If a person builds a replica with the pure intent of passing it off as something that it isn't then they should be criminally charged. But that is not what is going on here. If somebody puts together a fake stratocaster with all non-fender parts and puts Fender logos on it and tries to pass it off as such that is a problem. But if somebody builds their own stratocaster and puts a fender logo on it because that's what they feel like doing for themselves I have no issue with that. Years ago because I am a Jimmy Page fanatic I wanted a replica of his 100w Hiwatt that he used live in the very early days. Including his name Jimmy Page right on the faceplate. And I had it built. So should I be flogged for playing through an amp that looks just like the one that my hero played and says Hiwatt on it even though it's not a Hiwatt? There's something to be said here for admitted fanaticism and tributes versus counterfeit and intent to defraud. This goes back to the 90s when I was going to guitar shows and I first saw replicas there. And they were clearly understood to be replicas. And at that time we were talking about Maxes and Derrigsand how it would be nice if Gibson with their reissues try to get that accuracy. And through the years they've achieved more and more of that. I don't remember anybody talking about how criminal those guitars were. So if you want to feel bad for Gibson that this is somehow killing their profit margin you're entitled. And if you believe people left and right are being ripped off buying replicas and being told that they are a CC or a real burst well yes that would be terrible if that is the case. But I am willing to bet 99% of the replicas out there are known to be replicas. If I am wrong about that then I will admit to being naïve. But in my mind there is a difference between counterfeit and intent to defraud versus replication. I agree that some type of notation or marking on the instrument would be helpful. But for me and many of us really again comes back to playing guitars we love. Charlie Daughtry has one of the best real bursts I've ever seen. And he has a replica he loves as well. Some of us have an issue with this some of us don't. Anyway this is probably a losing argument for me so everyone have a nice day!
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  10. #50
    All Access/Backstage Pass lpnv59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NH/MA Bordertown USA
    Posts
    10,725

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Bursts aren't identified as genuine by the logo anymore. So if the Gibson logo completes the build as a replica, no harm. But there is no reason to not have something built into a replica to identify it as not built by Gibson.
    "It's a Marshall bubby. It gets loud." Ace Frehley

  11. #51
    Les Paul Forum Member Pellman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    Bursts aren't identified as genuine by the logo anymore. So if the Gibson logo completes the build as a replica, no harm. But there is no reason to not have something built into a replica to identify it as not built by Gibson.



    I cannot, not, not, not for the life of me understand what you mean.

    please translate!

    Do you write Zen Koans for a living?

    What is the sound of one hand clapping?

  12. #52
    Les Paul Forum Member Dave P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Bob Mayo on keyboards. Bob Mayo!
    Posts
    694

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    I have a couple of replicas as I started getting too paranoid taking my burst anywhere. I had a couple of conversions go through my hands, and I didn't like either of them as neither were done right. I have more of an issue of taking a perfectly good P90 Goldtop and hacking it up than I do with having a replica built. Ironically, the replicas like I have are now changing hands for $20k-$25k, so now I'm getting paranoid about taking those anywhere. So now if I need to take one out, I'm using my Norlins or a Tokai, go figure.
    Les Paul Forum Founder

    “It is only through inner peace that we can have true outer freedom.” — Sri Chinmoy



  13. #53
    All Access/Backstage Pass lpnv59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NH/MA Bordertown USA
    Posts
    10,725

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Pellman73 View Post


    I cannot, not, not, not for the life of me understand what you mean.

    please translate!

    Do you write Zen Koans for a living?

    What is the sound of one hand clapping?
    OK..for instance...there's no need to get the routing details of control cavity so close that when buying a real burst you need to hire an expert to confirm it as a genuine burst. Yet some builders seem to be working on the brass ring in the undetectable replica. Replica builders should route a control cavity that houses the controls and leave out the chew marks, widows peak, shelfs etc.... I was happy with my Keebler when I owned it. Had zero chance of fooling anybody, but at a glance looked like a genuine Les Paul while feeling and sounding better than most historics available to me.
    "It's a Marshall bubby. It gets loud." Ace Frehley

  14. #54
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Dave and Billy to the rescue! Yay! Just kidding, I know this is an important topic that has polar opposite's for opinions. But I appreciate their responses.
    Last edited by Ed A; 04-24-17 at 11:46 AM.
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  15. #55
    Les Paul Forum Member kerryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,170

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    Well what you've posted here is certainly not a surprise to anybody above the age of 12 that understands what it means to steal a brand, an identity, A copyright, etc. And no doubt replicas that carry a registered brand-name are not legally produced. But again we have to talk about intent. This is not like a fake Apple Store in China or fake iPhones or fake Rembrandts, things sold with the intent of being counterfeit. If a person builds a replica with the pure intent of passing it off as something that it isn't then they should be criminally charged. But that is not what is going on here. If somebody puts together a fake stratocaster with all non-fender parts and puts Fender logos on it and tries to pass it off as such that is a problem. But if somebody builds their own stratocaster and puts a fender logo on it because that's what they feel like doing for themselves I have no issue with that. Years ago because I am a Jimmy Page fanatic I wanted a replica of his 100w Hiwatt that he used live in the very early days. Including his name Jimmy Page right on the faceplate. And I had it built. So should I be flogged for playing through an amp that looks just like the one that my hero played and says Hiwatt on it even though it's not a Hiwatt? There's something to be said here for admitted fanaticism and tributes versus counterfeit and intent to defraud. This goes back to the 90s when I was going to guitar shows and I first saw replicas there. And they were clearly understood to be replicas. And at that time we were talking about Maxes and Derrigsand how it would be nice if Gibson with their reissues try to get that accuracy. And through the years they've achieved more and more of that. I don't remember anybody talking about how criminal those guitars were. So if you want to feel bad for Gibson that this is somehow killing their profit margin you're entitled. And if you believe people left and right are being ripped off buying replicas and being told that they are a CC or a real burst well yes that would be terrible if that is the case. But I am willing to bet 99% of the replicas out there are known to be replicas. If I am wrong about that then I will admit to being naïve. But in my mind there is a difference between counterfeit and intent to defraud versus replication. I agree that some type of notation or marking on the instrument would be helpful. But for me and many of us really again comes back to playing guitars we love. Charlie Daughtry has one of the best real bursts I've ever seen. And he has a replica he loves as well. Some of us have an issue with this some of us don't. Anyway this is probably a losing argument for me so everyone have a nice day!
    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.

  16. #56
    Les Paul Forum Member Pellman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    OK..for instance...there's no need to get the routing details of control cavity so close that when buying a real burst you need to hire an expert to confirm it as a genuine burst. Yet some builders seem to be working on the brass ring in the undetectable replica. Replica builders should route a control cavity that houses the controls and leave out the chew marks, widows peak, shelfs etc.... I was happy with my Keebler when I owned it. Had zero chance of fooling anybody, but at a glance looked like a genuine Les Paul while feeling and sounding better than most historics available to me.
    roger that. thanks for clarifying.

  17. #57
    All Access/Backstage Pass lpnv59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NH/MA Bordertown USA
    Posts
    10,725

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Pellman73 View Post
    roger that. thanks for clarifying.
    NP, sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place.
    "It's a Marshall bubby. It gets loud." Ace Frehley

  18. #58
    Les Paul Forum Member Xpensive Wino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In the pocket
    Posts
    5,661

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    Well what you've posted here is certainly not a surprise to anybody above the age of 12 that understands what it means to steal a brand, an identity, A copyright, etc. And no doubt replicas that carry a registered brand-name are not legally produced. But again we have to talk about intent. This is not like a fake Apple Store in China or fake iPhones or fake Rembrandts, things sold with the intent of being counterfeit. If a person builds a replica with the pure intent of passing it off as something that it isn't then they should be criminally charged. But that is not what is going on here. If somebody puts together a fake stratocaster with all non-fender parts and puts Fender logos on it and tries to pass it off as such that is a problem. But if somebody builds their own stratocaster and puts a fender logo on it because that's what they feel like doing for themselves I have no issue with that. Years ago because I am a Jimmy Page fanatic I wanted a replica of his 100w Hiwatt that he used live in the very early days. Including his name Jimmy Page right on the faceplate. And I had it built. So should I be flogged for playing through an amp that looks just like the one that my hero played and says Hiwatt on it even though it's not a Hiwatt? There's something to be said here for admitted fanaticism and tributes versus counterfeit and intent to defraud. This goes back to the 90s when I was going to guitar shows and I first saw replicas there. And they were clearly understood to be replicas. And at that time we were talking about Maxes and Derrigsand how it would be nice if Gibson with their reissues try to get that accuracy. And through the years they've achieved more and more of that. I don't remember anybody talking about how criminal those guitars were. So if you want to feel bad for Gibson that this is somehow killing their profit margin you're entitled. And if you believe people left and right are being ripped off buying replicas and being told that they are a CC or a real burst well yes that would be terrible if that is the case. But I am willing to bet 99% of the replicas out there are known to be replicas. If I am wrong about that then I will admit to being naïve. But in my mind there is a difference between counterfeit and intent to defraud versus replication. I agree that some type of notation or marking on the instrument would be helpful. But for me and many of us really again comes back to playing guitars we love. Charlie Daughtry has one of the best real bursts I've ever seen. And he has a replica he loves as well. Some of us have an issue with this some of us don't. Anyway this is probably a losing argument for me so everyone have a nice day!

    Intent isn't mentioned in the law as a mitigating circumstance, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    Bursts aren't identified as genuine by the logo anymore. So if the Gibson logo completes the build as a replica, no harm. But there is no reason to not have something built into a replica to identify it as not built by Gibson.
    No harm? Are you certain?

  19. #59
    All Access/Backstage Pass lpnv59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NH/MA Bordertown USA
    Posts
    10,725

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Xpensive Wino View Post


    No harm? Are you certain?
    Yes I'm quite certain. But I guess it would depend on ones definition of "harm". I meant it in the sense of someone being duped into thinking they were buying a genuine burst for $10,000 or whatever replicas are bring in these days.
    "It's a Marshall bubby. It gets loud." Ace Frehley

  20. #60
    Les Paul Forum Member Xpensive Wino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In the pocket
    Posts
    5,661

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    Yes I'm quite certain. But I guess it would depend on ones definition of "harm". I meant it in the sense of someone being duped into thinking they were buying a genuine burst for $10,000 or whatever replicas are bring in these days.
    That's not the issue, is it?

  21. #61
    All Access/Backstage Pass lpnv59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    NH/MA Bordertown USA
    Posts
    10,725

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Xpensive Wino View Post
    That's not the issue, is it?
    Dunno, depends on what your definition of issue is. Lol
    "It's a Marshall bubby. It gets loud." Ace Frehley

  22. #62
    Les Paul Forum Member Pellman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    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.


  23. #63
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by kerryboy View Post
    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 by Ed A; 04-24-17 at 05:04 PM.
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  24. #64
    Les Paul Forum Member Pellman73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Pinehurst, NC
    Posts
    1,685

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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!

  25. #65
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Last edited by Ed A; 04-25-17 at 08:37 AM.
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  26. #66
    Les Paul Forum Member kerryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,170

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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.

  27. #67
    Les Paul Forum Member Zoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,346

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by kerryboy View Post
    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.

    There is no such thing as too much flame !!!

  28. #68
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    the netherlands
    Posts
    195

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    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.

  29. #69
    Les Paul Forum Member kerryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,170

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by fred dons View Post
    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.

  30. #70
    Les Paul Forum Member Zoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,346

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by kerryboy View Post
    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

    There is no such thing as too much flame !!!

  31. #71
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    15

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoomer View Post
    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?

  32. #72
    Les Paul Forum Member becks bolero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,810

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    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 by becks bolero; 04-25-17 at 06:14 PM.
    "First off, nobody cares if you know how to play scales. Nobody gives a shit if you have good technique or not. It's whether you have feelings that you want to express with music, that's what counts, really." -Neil Young

  33. #73
    Les Paul Forum Member Ed A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere near Nelson
    Posts
    4,528

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by kerryboy View Post
    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.
    Climb down off the hilltop... Get back in the race.
    Allman Brothers Tribute Band http://www.seventurns.net/

  34. #74
    Les Paul Forum Member Dave P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Bob Mayo on keyboards. Bob Mayo!
    Posts
    694

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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!
    Les Paul Forum Founder

    “It is only through inner peace that we can have true outer freedom.” — Sri Chinmoy



  35. #75
    Les Paul Forum Member Zoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,346

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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.



    Zoomer

    There is no such thing as too much flame !!!

  36. #76
    Les Paul Forum Member JPP-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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.

  37. #77
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,944

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
    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.
    The artist formerly known as "A-hole".



  38. #78
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,944

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by lpnv59 View Post
    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.
    The artist formerly known as "A-hole".



  39. #79
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,944

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
    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
    The artist formerly known as "A-hole".



  40. #80
    Les Paul Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    717

    Re: 1959 Burst Replica

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Scroll Down And Click On All Of Our Sponsors' Logos For Their Websites!






i