Jeff Beck

check out the cool Jeff Beck solo here...

I'm sorry, there's no excuse.....and No Statutes of limitation on a vintage Les Paul, stolen from Jeff Beck.

The thief and later receivers of stolen goods, should face consequences.



Jeff Beck has been known for being totally generous and genuine.

The dropped on his head BS is absurd. NO one can play like Jeff Beck. He originated cosmic guitar.


The original thief will face karmic punishment. Those who received stolen goods could have reported it to Beck Police.

He gifted Page with the Tele that became the Dragon...and his original Yardbird's tele Esquire to Seymour Duncan...(who gave it to the R&R museum..)

.

rialcnis said:

Jeff Beck has been known for being totally generous and genuine.

Click to expand...

That's pretty funny.

Being a great musician doesn't axiomatically make you a great person.

The potential buyer calls the former owner's manager, who happens to be with that person. Puts former owner on the phone, who gives his blessing. It's that simple. What more could a potential buyer do other than take the former ("genuine") owner at their word?

Get it in writing.

Simple questions, asked without prejudice or mischief.

At what point is a stolen guitar considered unstolen?

If it is currently considered to have clean title, how has that been established at any point since 1969?

F-Hole said:

That's pretty funny.

Being a great musician doesn't axiomatically make you a great person.

The potential buyer calls the former owner's manager, who happens to be with that person. Puts former owner on the phone, who gives his blessing. It's that simple. What more could a potential buyer do other than take the former ("genuine") owner at their word?

Click to expand...

A thief is a thief. An opportunist is an opportunist. Receiving stolen goods is a crime.

Obviously the thief knew who owned it. There is no "former" owner involved after Jeff legally acquired it.

Obviously the first buyer and second buyer, knew who it belonged to. Why not get the thief or first guy busted? Why not return it to JB?

Jeff was going through stuff during his Yardbirds period, he became burned out and screwed up and admitted he had a breakdown. They were doing 500 shows a year and not making much money, yet the Yardbirds members have no ill feelings about him and worked together since.

Some people might have problem JB didn't hire or rehire them, but everyone I read are grateful of knowing JB. He is known for giving new talent jobs.

As I said, Jeff is known to be genuine and generous and his "friends," hate thieves as much as anyone. So, why are you so adamant the guitar has any owner other than Jeff Beck?

Jeff denies the conversation occurred. That's it.

You are bad-mouthing him and have a grudge or something.

This "owner" should just give it back and apologize.

rialcnis said:

A thief is a thief. An opportunist is an opportunist. Receiving stolen goods is a crime.

Obviously the thief knew who owned it. There is no "former" owner involved after Jeff legally acquired it.

Obviously the first buyer and second buyer, knew who it belonged to. Why not get the first guy busted? Why not return it to JB?

Jeff was going through stuff during his Yardbirds period, he became burned out. they were doing 500 shows a year and not making much money, yet the Yardbirds members have no ill feelings about him and worked together since.

As I said, Jeff is known to be genuine and generous and his "friends," hate thieves as much as anyone. So, why are you so adamant the guitar has any owner other than Jeff Beck?

Jeff denies the conversation occurred. That's it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the current ower, or the previous owner, stole the guitar? Tread carefully now!

Indeed, both the former owner and current owner knew that Jeff owned the guitar. What makes you believe that the guitar wasn't offered to Jeff, in person, as a gift (i.e. for free, on the basis that it was known to be stolen)? Would you believe that the offer was rejected, outright, in vulgar terms?

You are also incorrect that "Jeff denies the conversation occurred". Rather, his lawyer states the conversation did not occur. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when Mr. Beck is required to answer questions under oath, rather then rebutting legal arguments around jurisdiction. After all, perjury is perjury as theft is theft.

There are many facets to this dispute that you are not privy to, and yet you take quite the emphatic position.

As for your "Jeff is known to be genuine and generous and his "friends", that's as misinformed as the rest of your post.

F-Hole said:

Are you suggesting that the current ower, or the previous owner, stole the guitar? Tread carefully now!

Indeed, both the former owner and current owner knew that Jeff owned the guitar. What makes you believe that the guitar wasn't offered to Jeff, in person, as a gift (i.e. for free, on the basis that it was known to be stolen)? Would you believe that the offer was rejected, outright, in vulgar terms?

You are also incorrect that "Jeff denies the conversation occurred". Rather, his lawyer states the conversation did not occur. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when Mr. Beck is required to answer questions under oath, rather then rebutting legal arguments around jurisdiction. After all, perjury is perjury as theft is theft.

There are many facets to this dispute that you are not privy to, and yet you take quite the emphatic position.

As for your "Jeff is known to be genuine and generous and his "friends", that's as misinformed as the rest of your post.

Click to expand...

Okay so we will see what happens in court. I never suggested the most recent person was the thief. You are now saying Jeff wouldn't take it back when offered to him for free. If that turns out to be true than the court would look at that.

Is it really something to be posting publicly on a thread about a Jeff Beck book?

F-Hole said:

That's pretty funny.

Being a great musician doesn't axiomatically make you a great person.

The potential buyer calls the former owner's manager, who happens to be with that person. Puts former owner on the phone, who gives his blessing. It's that simple. What more could a potential buyer do other than take the former ("genuine") owner at their word?

Click to expand...

Trouble is, it seems Jeff denies the conversation ever took place ?
Intentionally buying known stolen goods is never a good look, lets see what the courts decide :\

rialcnis said:

Is it really something to be posting publicly on a thread about a Jeff Beck book?

Click to expand...

No, and on that we agree. An awful lot has gone unsaid, trust me. Some of the assertions posted here needed to be rebutted, albeit with purposefully incomplete information.

Jeff is not behaving in any other manner than a guy who has figured out that he may have a tenuous claim to an expensive guitar, which he'd likely sell in the blink of an eye.

F-Hole said:

No, and on that we agree. .

Click to expand...

Ok then.

Musicians are a funny lot- people giving away instruments they made glorious, epic music with. To them it might just be "another hammer" right? I have a guitar, one of several, most people would consider junk, but it pulls out the sounds that live inside me. Ok- wasn't that fucking poetic? So if I had a bunch, and wasn't particularly attached to them, and one goes missing, meh- life is short so why dwell on it?
So with that said, this is the question that seems to torment several of us at least; how does a stolen guitar resurface after a time, and become "available"?
I mean, arrest the guy selling it currently, make him flip on the guy before and son-on and so-on, until the thief is caught. Because this is bullspit. So it would go underground; most of the vintage stuff is anyway. Just make the crooks lose a LITTLE sleep. There I said it- crook. If you own something someone stole YOU ARE A CROOK. And don't tell me someone didn't know this was Jeff's guitar that went missing. I mean we all know gullible isn't in the dictionary, right?
Not trying to start a big deal- but how is this, in any shape or form, remotely OK?

ourmaninthenorth said:

Simple questions, asked without prejudice or mischief.

At what point is a stolen guitar considered unstolen?

If it is currently considered to have clean title, how has that been established at any point since 1969?

Click to expand...

You have to imagine how you'd feel. Stolen stuff, it sucks (been there multiple times) but you do move on to a point, at least for me I don't miss the stolen goods except my old Minivan. Stolen thing that decades later is worth more than a nice house? Hmmmmm. That's when the $$ start kicking around in your head.


How many times do guys talk about "The one that got away" as in the one that they can't afford to get back rather than the ones they actually used the most???



...Money.



Every time the step-family, hill folk, gets together they talk about an old stolen Gibson Banjo from way back. Not a one of them give a damn about Banjos, it's a pile of money that they feel they missed out on.

deytookerjaabs said:

You have to imagine how you'd feel. Stolen stuff, it sucks (been there multiple times) but you do move on to a point, at least for me I don't miss the stolen goods except my old Minivan. Stolen thing that decades later is worth more than a nice house? Hmmmmm. That's when the $$ start kicking around in your head.


How many times do guys talk about "The one that got away" as in the one that they can't afford to get back rather than the ones they actually used the most???



...Money.



Every time the step-family, hill folk, gets together they talk about an old stolen Gibson Banjo from way back. Not a one of them give a damn about Banjos, it's a pile of money that they feel they missed out on.

Click to expand...

I take your point, but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

I say this in the full and certain knowledge that the whole picture hasn't revealed itself yet, as I am equally certain that I have no right to know the ins and outs, other than taking part in this fascinating discussion, this really is none of my business - but there are salient details already stated in public that make this fascinating and complex on a continuing basis.

Mr Margelouff, not once but twice ran his 2000 purchase past Mr Beck's camp. Prior to purchase when Mr M sought an approving nod from Mr B - in the affirmative by Mr M's account ( subsequently contested by Mr B's Counsel ), and after purchase when Mr B's then management told Mr M "not to worry about it".

It's been stated here today that a further occasion of contact took place between the parties Mr M, Mr B and possibly the anonymous 2000 seller, Mr X.

It's enormously relevant.

At some point Mr B was offered the guitar back for nothing, as a gift, by Mr M or Mr X, or both. It's freely accepted that Mr M and Mr X knew this to be the stolen Mr B guitar. It's stated that Mr B dismissed it's return out of hand.

Hence my question about when does stolen become unstolen.

I can't explain Mr X's motivation in buying the guitar in the first instance, because it'd be useless conjecture.

Crooks don't ask permission, let alone twice, nor do they freely offer return of stolen goods at zero cost. It goes against the job description.

Hence my question about trying to get clean title on this guitar.

This guitar is a stolen guitar, it's not a fact contested by anyone I think?...but it's not the usual cops and robbers show either, or at least not since 2000.

2018 appears to be an important turning point, a new management team with Mr B appear to have an opposing view from his previous team, again according to the reported events by Reuters. Mr B apparently appears to have changed his mind, and the guitar and it's title are where they are today.

I do take your point about money though, bloody serious stuff is money.

corpse said:

If you own something someone stole YOU ARE A CROOK.

Click to expand...

Not true, and a very unfair and ridiculous statement. :rolleyes

You don’t have to even know about the item Tom- the police will come to call. It is crap that at some point in this transaction something suddenly becomes ok. Now stolen now ok.
That is the ridiculous part.
Not an opinion- it is factual as far as I know.

corpse said:

You don’t have to even know about the item Tom- the police will come to call. It is crap that at some point in this transaction something suddenly becomes ok. Now stolen now ok.
That is the ridiculous part.
Not an opinion- it is factual as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Which, in this instance, is precious little. Indeed, you embarrass yourself.

Does the doctrine of mens rea mean anything to you?

Beck has known full well where the guitar has been since well before 2000, who had it and how to contact them. Would it surprise you to know that they were both in the same room at the same time?

The armchair experts on here should be very careful in impugning the character of the actors involved. Given what I know of their behaviour in this matter, it is absolutely and unequivocally beyond reproach.

Tom Wittrock said:

Not true, and a very unfair and ridiculous statement. :rolleyes

Click to expand...

Amen.

au_rick said:

Intentionally buying known stolen goods is never a good look.....

Click to expand...

What about the guy who purchased Page's stolen LP Custom, with the sole intent of returning it to him?

You see, context and nuance are everything.........as is the case with the Beck 'burst.