• 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!

My new 1958 les paull replica

Patek

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
415
To measure apples with apples, the most accurate Historic Les Pauls released by Gibson are the 2018 Brazilian Les Pauls which cost around 10k which is inline with most of these upscale fakes.

.

And they are still wrong. Aside from the old growth which is fair enough, but they still have the wrong logo, wrong headstock contours, wrong tailpiece position, plastic markers under the fretboard, wrong nitro, wrong glues, and so on. colours and fade are not accurate generally (sometimes one comes out lucky). I’m not even going to touch on the hardware and parts. And the aging is applied, isn’t convincing

There is a market for HM and Bavarian makeovers for those who want their LP to look right

Likewise there is a market for a replica where the entire build from scratch for a totally bespoke LP as accurate or not as you want.

You are not going to get something that looks as accurate as a masterbuilt replica or a HM by going direct to M2M !

And even after all that, I’m more than happy to buy customshop LPs fresh from the factory unmodified ! Just like id love to own a bavarian makeover jobby, and a f*ckoff-looking replica. And indeed one can always dram about having a real burst too. Variety is the spice of life
 

Patek

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
415
I’m very sorry too, I didn’t realize you were someone of incredible importance and that myself or anyone should give a fvck about your standards. I like my custom shop guitars as much or more than than the boutique, allegedly old wood guitars Ive compared them to.

Maybe you’re sufffering from the placebo effect of believing Internet hype or you got tone turds for historics. Personally I don’t care. It’s a lot of unsubstantiated hot air and gum flapping. I’ve posted a couple of JD Simo videos where the historic he is playing is as good as any Les Paul tone I’ve heard. You posted more hot air about your standards and the guitars you allegedly own. Post a video of anyone playing one of these magic guitars you speak on. Show us the elusive tone that meets your standards.

Like I said, I’m in NY too, if you want to meet up at one of the many guitar stores in the area (I’m partial to Rudy’s) and put your money where you mouth is lmk. We can shoot a video and take votes on YouTube, Otherwise, your entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But seriously post the maker of these allegedly great replicas you own. I’ll buy one just so I can go onto the replicas official forum and trash talk these fake guitars with my standards and opinions. Maybe then you’ll get a clue.


i am surprised this fundamentally terrible logic is being posted on this forum of all places.

A guitars quality is about as much as it makes you personally feel when you play it than it is about anything else. It’s about the sound you hear and how you feel when you play it that makes it great. If the measure of a guitar is about how it sounds in a YouTube clip then just give me a piece of MDF with strings strapped on it and I’m sure a bunch of members in here can make it sounds great through a plexi and then we can all throw away our vintage instruments
 

fakejake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
1,274
I have a homemade champ clone.
It looked naked without a logo, and I couldn't find an alternative one that I liked,
so I put a Fender logo on. Looks great to me, makes me genuinly
happy everytime I look at it.
The amp never leaves my music room (hasn't within the past 7 years), so practically no one except me sees it.
I'd be curious to know how many here think
there is something unethical
by having that logo on there, and why that would be? :salude

 

Patek

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
415
I have a homemade champ clone.
It looked naked without a logo, and I couldn't find an alternative one that I liked,
so I put a Fender logo on. Looks great to me, makes me genuinly
happy everytime I look at it.
The amp never leaves my music room (hasn't within the past 7 years), so practically no one except me sees it.
I'd be curious to know how many here think
there is something unethical
by having that logo on there, and why that would be? :salude


To the stocks with you!
 

JReeves

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
34
Pay the money if you want it to say Fender or Gibson or whatever.
Otherwise, you are a thief.

Go to Gibson with enough money and they will build you whatever you want from whatever wood you want. Using a brand name on a fake is stealing.
 

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
maybe we've been off the whole time

I've just realized this thread is about a Les Paull Replica

I see no copyright infringement there
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Patek, with all due respect. The flawed logic is that these replica Les Pauls are noticeably superior because the woods used are allegedly older and came from a certain rainy side of the hill in Central America. And that somehow, out of all the variations of trees harvested, the cut, the weight, the density of the blank itself, that these builders all found a stash of magic wood that exhibits distinct and preferred tonal properties . Frankly, that defies my understanding of reason and logic.

As far as clips are concerned, unless Jimmy Page or Duane Allman was playing through a Marshall stack in your living room, the tones all of us chase are from recordings and clips. This is exactly how tone is measured whether its ABB at the Filmore, Led Zeppelin at RAH, or something as simple as Free's All Right Now spinning on someone's stereo.

I have developed my standard of what I consider a great Les Paul from recordings and clips and through playing and owning a whole bunch of gear: vintage, boutique, custom shop, both guitars and amps. The JD Simo clip I posted was solely a reference to make a point. And unlike self serving unsubstantiated blather, a video is a whole hell of a lot more compelling. You know, when in a a place where logic and standards of proof matter, like a courtroom.

Think and buy whatever you like. I was sad to see you part with your beautiful Goltop. I too know that life can throw all of us a curve ball now and again. However, if you can't tell that the JD Simo Nicky clip I posted as a reference is a great Les Paul, the frankly I think you're being intentionally obtuse, because no matter how much MDF you string up, you won't find that tone.

i am surprised this fundamentally terrible logic is being posted on this forum of all places.

A guitars quality is about as much as it makes you personally feel when you play it than it is about anything else. It’s about the sound you hear and how you feel when you play it that makes it great. If the measure of a guitar is about how it sounds in a YouTube clip then just give me a piece of MDF with strings strapped on it and I’m sure a bunch of members in here can make it sounds great through a plexi and then we can all throw away our vintage instruments
 

m bernardi

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
534
I don't post much, be I like to read the posts. The guy was wrong to post the head stock but first time poster. Guys should have told him what he did wrong. I respect all the people on here a lot of knowledge going on. But like mom said if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.
 

fakejake

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
1,274
A question to all that think makeovers are OK, but copies/ replicas with the Gibson logo not:
Where does a makeover end and where does a replica start?
What if I buy a Historic and then put the neck on a replica body and throw away the Gibson body?
What if I just reuse the Gibson headstock? Or just the headstock veneer?
Technically it is still a makeover, right? Where do you draw the line?
 

J.D.

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
10,030
When you buy a guitar from Gibson you can modify it however you like.
 

MeHereNow

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
677
A question to all that think makeovers are OK, but copies/ replicas with the Gibson logo not:
Where does a makeover end and where does a replica start?
What if I buy a Historic and then put the neck on a replica body and throw away the Gibson body?
What if I just reuse the Gibson headstock? Or just the headstock veneer?
Technically it is still a makeover, right? Where do you draw the line?


Above is pretty much way to overanalyzing..
But..

to answer:

6u0dhfM.jpg
[/IMG]


I draw the line there...
 

J.D.

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
10,030
It's your guitar, modify however you like.

If you take off the tuners and rebuild everything from scratch then IMO it is no longer a Gibson guitar. So then what part(s) make it a Gibson guitar? I'd say the wood. "Replacement" body = no longer a Gibson guitar. What line is drawn at repair work (e.g. reneck) I am not the authority to define.

Original vs. repaired/restored vs. conversion vs. replica. Discuss. I won't own either a conversion or replica so I don't need to worry about it. The replica builds are very cut and dry though.
 

Patek

Active member
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
415
It's your guitar, modify however you like.

If you take off the tuners and rebuild everything from scratch then IMO it is no longer a Gibson guitar. So then what part(s) make it a Gibson guitar? I'd say the wood. "Replacement" body = no longer a Gibson guitar. What line is drawn at repair work (e.g. reneck) I am not the authority to define.

Original vs. repaired/restored vs. conversion vs. replica. Discuss. I won't own either a conversion or replica so I don't need to worry about it. The replica builds are very cut and dry though.

it is an interesting discussion

a lot of conversions have been re-topped. That’s half of the body. If the neck is damaged it could be a 52 re-top and re-neck. All parts are repro. So really it’s only that little slab of mahogany that has been re carved and re routed, stripped and finished. This still seems to be on the side of ‘it was once a gibson’ even though it is just literally that bit of old growth mahogany which one treated could have been anything. But it would still come under a conversion. One minute piece away from a 100% replica of the parts were repro. In fact you could say a replica neck/body with all original parts is closer to an original than a re-top re-neck with repro parts.
 

bobblejot

New member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Messages
1
Gray areas for sure.

Sorry first post not sure if replying was the right thing or not.

This probably isnt a good or normal opinion in this forum especially but i believe makes sense in the context of this thread.

What makes a Gibson? hardware such as pots, caps, tailpiece, bridge, tuners, strings are made by external suppliers and these more than anything seem to make up the tone of an electric guitar!?

The pickups im not sure but were they not designed by someone other than the gibson company hence paf ( patent applied for ) not approved?

And im sure old wood is somehow special in look but in sound im not sure if most if anyone will hear the difference.

So Gibson basically had a body shape and headstock shape? not exactly tone carrying qualities.

Anyway i love Les Pauls just not sure the craziness is warranted.
 

JamesE

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
52
What is the legality of these items in your country? Here in Germany it is illegal to import them - if caught by Customs, they will be destroyed, and you may be prosecuted as well. Are they mostly bought by young people who want to "impress their (non-guitar-playing) friends"?
 
Top