1959 Burst Replica

Ed A · Apr 17, 2017

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.

MapleFlame · Apr 17, 2017

Ed A said:
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?.

Can't agree enough on what you said. I find myself playing my P90 and PAF replica more and more. 1 1/2 years later they sound even better. Yes the Conversion I have, 54 wrap, 56 LP might have a small step ahead, and even my 2 69 Goldtops, but these replica guitars are very comparable.

Pellman73 · Apr 17, 2017

I think this is fascinating.

probsbly no right answer!

though I'd say that the use of the word "forgery" is a bit strong if the guy who makes it sells it to a guy who knows it's not real. But then does it become a forgery if it is then passed off at a later date as real !!? Does the act of forgery have to have intent!?

The word forgery connotes an intent to deceive... but this is certainly not that. It's an attempt to make a great facsimile of something mostly unobtainable for most. And if it's not hurting anyone (I think this is important) then what's the harm? I guess it does bring up the question... how many replica guitars can you make a year before you are hurting the real makers of the real guitars (Gibson). That question also cannot be answered... so perhaps it IS wrong to put Gibson on the headstock.

Digressing--

How many replica guitars are made a year that would have been potentially bought as True historics by people who want something that close to that quality? Let's say 50. Still would potentially hurt Gibson and hurt the people who work there. Just saying... to say "this doesn't hurt Gibson"... how can you say that for sure ?

Man I have no idea!

reminds me a little of this guy who sold perfect artistic renditions of money... was he forging money or making art? Not necessarily analogous but it's fun to think about it

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/arts/design/jsg-boggs-dead.html

Zoomer · Apr 17, 2017

Ed A said:
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?.

+1

If Gibson made them right I people would get it from them - bottom line is the ONLY way to get a properly made les paul is from a private builder - Gibson doesn't make them 100% right -

britbender · Apr 17, 2017

I think the only reason for a luthier to put Gibson on the headstock, is to be able to ask more money.

What other reason could it be ?

renderit · Apr 17, 2017

britbender said:
I think the only reason for a luthier to put Gibson on the headstock, is to be able to ask more money.

What other reason could it be ?

He has a name like Dypschitz or something...

Dishimyuh · Apr 18, 2017

Zoomer said:
+1

If Gibson made them right I people would get it from them - bottom line is the ONLY way to get a properly made les paul is from a private builder - Gibson doesn't make them 100% right -

Bingo, I tried to find a Historic that I would be happy with and I couldn't. I was fortunate to find an English made guitar that I like. Do I like it as much as my Burst, no, but it's still a great guitar.

Ed A · Apr 18, 2017

britbender said:
I think the only reason for a luthier to put Gibson on the headstock, is to be able to ask more money.

What other reason could it be ?

I don't agree at all. How about the reason is that the buyer wants it that way? I can only speak for myself and what I believe are the intentions of the builder of my replica. If I said to him I do not want Gibson on the headstock as some people don't he would not have charged one penny less. He has a standard price that is based on the cost of his materials and the labor he puts in. It's not going to go up and it's not going to go down whether you have flamed to hell or a plain top. Or whether it says Gibson or it says Kmart.

Another reason I want it to say Gibson, and again I know that some of you may not understand this, is I love the look of a Gibson Les Paul. Right down to the logos. I am obsessed with them. But it does not matter to me who is building it because again whether it's Gibson in Nashville or my guy in Canada I really don't care. Call me selfish but I want to play what I want to play. I've heard others that feel exactly the opposite they have the need to have it say something else. Different strokes.

Ed A · Apr 18, 2017

Pellman73 said:
I think this is fascinating.

probsbly no right answer!

though I'd say that the use of the word "forgery" is a bit strong if the guy who makes it sells it to a guy who knows it's not real. But then does it become a forgery if it is then passed off at a later date as real !!? Does the act of forgery have to have intent!?

The word forgery connotes an intent to deceive... but this is certainly not that. It's an attempt to make a great facsimile of something mostly unobtainable for most. And if it's not hurting anyone (I think this is important) then what's the harm? I guess it does bring up the question... how many replica guitars can you make a year before you are hurting the real makers of the real guitars (Gibson). That question also cannot be answered... so perhaps it IS wrong to put Gibson on the headstock.

Digressing--

How many replica guitars are made a year that would have been potentially bought as True historics by people who want something that close to that quality? Let's say 50. Still would potentially hurt Gibson and hurt the people who work there. Just saying... to say "this doesn't hurt Gibson"... how can you say that for sure ?

Man I have no idea!

reminds me a little of this guy who sold perfect artistic renditions of money... was he forging money or making art? Not necessarily analogous but it's fun to think about it

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/arts/design/jsg-boggs-dead.html

Well it is a fascinating topic for sure and I know one that gets very heated! So yes you may be right that I shouldn't say that it won't affect Gibsons sales. It certainly could but on the other hand any guitar that somebody purchases other than a Gibson because they believe that guitar is a better guitar or it is better for them will hurt those sales as well, no? Even if it's not a dead on replica I think if someone is determined to have a guitar that's made from 75-year-old mahogany and Gibson can't build them a new one then they'll find a way to do it one way or another. In fact they may look for an old goldtop candidate and make a conversion out of it. Which is a whole other heated topic LOL!

britbender · Apr 18, 2017

renderit said:
He has a name like Dypschitz or something...

the Dypschitz Kalamazoocaster, sounds cool. No ??!

britbender · Apr 18, 2017

Ed A said:
I don't agree at all. How about the reason is that the buyer wants it that way? I can only speak for myself and what I believe are the intentions of the builder of my replica. If I said to him I do not want Gibson on the headstock as some people don't he would not have charged one penny less. He has a standard price that is based on the cost of his materials and the labor he puts in. It's not going to go up and it's not going to go down whether you have flamed to hell or a plain top. Or whether it says Gibson or it says Kmart.

Another reason I want it to say Gibson, and again I know that some of you may not understand this, is I love the look of a Gibson Les Paul. Right down to the logos. I am obsessed with them. But it does not matter to me who is building it because again whether it's Gibson in Nashville or my guy in Canada I really don't care. Call me selfish but I want to play what I want to play. I've heard others that feel exactly the opposite they have the need to have it say something else. Different strokes.

I get how you feel.
when the replica thing started the options were limited with Gibson, no custom shop for example...
I just think its gotten out of hand whith "high end replica builders", there is a lot of them, and it is a buissness for some of them.

But as you say, different strokes

ourmaninthenorth · Apr 18, 2017

Seeing as though we're having an intelligent conversation, I'd like to weigh in with a few personal thoughts. Please note the personal, I think it's entirely possible to criticise the existence of these guitars without casting asparagus against their owners and indeed makers. I reserve that approbation for the wrong 'uns..those who are actively setting out to deceive...there is much evidence based material on this very site to keep us all arguing until judgement day, I think the proportion of these creatures to overall output is small.

To Ed, I played one of the guitars made by the maker of yours last year, under battle conditions ( studio setting, loud amp ) . My argument could end here if it was garbage...a vanity... it wasn't. It was bloody astonishing. Looks wise, probably up there with the best of the artificially aged guitars I've seen. Build quality - faultless. Sound - well I a/b'd it in my head with my #1 - a 2001 Murphy R9, a phenomenal guitar that I'd not found an Historic match for, despite extensively searching. It would have been murdered by the fake, simple as that.

Now here's where it gets personal, and perhaps a little contentious, and being completely candid a little unworldly. Why have I got a problem with fakes? Let me say that it isn't just guitars, it seems the whole world is sliding into a pit of fakery..one has to guard against almost everything..there is a gobshite waiting around every bush to take the piss, or your money, or both. There appears to be a mass delusion gathering momentum that everything is up for grabs, copy everything..it doesn't matter. Well, to me it does.

My love of guitars provides an oasis of clean water, I can escape the detritus of the world into an unsullied world of wood and wire, where what is, is. Of course I realise that there are some dogs in this world, but largely they are easily avoidable..particularly at my spending point. My conundrum lies here - I not only understand, but actually appreciate the fact that guitar players are looking for the very best they can afford. I'd venture to say that most fake buyers have already exhausted the best that Gibson can make, at a certain price point i.e non-vintage. I've even said here, when I played the Canadian, that I didn't care what was on the headstock..I'd have it in a flash...it was an unguarded moment of weakness - even zealots are allowed a day off!!! :laugh2:

I'd also mention that how another player spends his hard earned is absolutely none of my business. And yet I have a real problem with these fakes, I can't narrate it properly..I've tried many times, but as yet I'm coming up snake eyes. I'm no defender of Gibson as a corporate entity, I don't own vintage, I have no dough in that game to protect...and yet still, I have a problem with these fakes.

Just my train of thought Gents.

:salude

MapleFlame · Apr 18, 2017

For me in simple terms, I am a good friend of the person who built my replica, and I wanted something that totally represented his very gifted talent. The fact they sound so darn good, but man they look and play so darn good.

Ed A · Apr 18, 2017

ourmaninthenorth said:
Seeing as though we're having an intelligent conversation, I'd like to weigh in with a few personal thoughts. Please note the personal, I think it's entirely possible to criticise the existence of these guitars without casting asparagus against their owners and indeed makers. I reserve that approbation for the wrong 'uns..those who are actively setting out to deceive...there is much evidence based material on this very site to keep us all arguing until judgement day, I think the proportion of these creatures to overall output is small.

To Ed, I played one of the guitars made by the maker of yours last year, under battle conditions ( studio setting, loud amp ) . My argument could end here if it was garbage...a vanity... it wasn't. It was bloody astonishing. Looks wise, probably up there with the best of the artificially aged guitars I've seen. Build quality - faultless. Sound - well I a/b'd it in my head with my #1 - a 2001 Murphy R9, a phenomenal guitar that I'd not found an Historic match for, despite extensively searching. It would have been murdered by the fake, simple as that.

Now here's where it gets personal, and perhaps a little contentious, and being completely candid a little unworldly. Why have I got a problem with fakes? Let me say that it isn't just guitars, it seems the whole world is sliding into a pit of fakery..one has to guard against almost everything..there is a gobshite waiting around every bush to take the piss, or your money, or both. There appears to be a mass delusion gathering momentum that everything is up for grabs, copy everything..it doesn't matter. Well, to me it does.

My love of guitars provides an oasis of clean water, I can escape the detritus of the world into an unsullied world of wood and wire, where what is, is. Of course I realise that there are some dogs in this world, but largely they are easily avoidable..particularly at my spending point. My conundrum lies here - I not only understand, but actually appreciate the fact that guitar players are looking for the very best they can afford. I'd venture to say that most fake buyers have already exhausted the best that Gibson can make, at a certain price point i.e non-vintage. I've even said here, when I played the Canadian, that I didn't care what was on the headstock..I'd have it in a flash...it was an unguarded moment of weakness - even zealots are allowed a day off!!! :laugh2:

I'd also mention that how another player spends his hard earned is absolutely none of my business. And yet I have a real problem with these fakes, I can't narrate it properly..I've tried many times, but as yet I'm coming up snake eyes. I'm no defender of Gibson as a corporate entity, I don't own vintage, I have no dough in that game to protect...and yet still, I have a problem with these fakes.

Just my train of thought Gents.

:salude

Duly noted and understood! And I appreciate your candid thoughts on the guitar itself that it was quite an excellent instrument. And although you don't have any interest in a replica yourself you are objective enough to see why some like myself do play them. Now here's the interesting thing, at one time I was pretty much in the same position as you in regards to these things. I bought my first 59 reissue in 94. It was also around that time that I first became aware of replicas seeing them pop up at guitar shows. And for the next 20 years I was always aware of them but had no interest in them at all. I was aware of the improved accuracy and the Old wood being used. Of course again there are more and more replica builder showing up so like anything they will vary in quality of build and woods used. That being said let's just consider some of the best replicas made I was always aware of them and had no interest in them. And I wasn't exactly sure why I think it was just a matter of if it didn't come from the Gibson corporation itself so it didn't feel right. Not from any kind of a moral standpoint it just, I don't know, didn't interest me. I think what flipped me is when I saw extremely detailed pictures and description of the build process of a replica done by the builder I ended up using. And I guess I was just so damn impressed in a matter of moments I flipped on the whole thing. I thought if I really want a cherry Sunburst built to my specs with me involved in the selection of the wood etc. that is also made from old woods and Brazilian boards and all the right glues and Jacques, etc. why not consider one of these? So just as I can't really explain why I had a problem with them before it's hard for me to explain why I have no issue with them now? But at this point I don't need to analyze it I just want to enjoy playing a guitar and that I do!

ourmaninthenorth · Apr 18, 2017

Ed A said:
Duly noted and understood! And I appreciate your candid thoughts on the guitar itself that it was quite an excellent instrument. And although you don't have any interest in a replica yourself you are objective enough to see why some like myself do play them. Now here's the interesting thing, at one time I was pretty much in the same position as you in regards to these things. I bought my first 59 reissue in 94. It was also around that time that I first became aware of replicas seeing them pop up at guitar shows. And for the next 20 years I was always aware of them but had no interest in them at all. I was aware of the improved accuracy and the Old wood being used. Of course again there are more and more replica builder showing up so like anything they will vary in quality of build and woods used. That being said let's just consider some of the best replicas made I was always aware of them and had no interest in them. And I wasn't exactly sure why I think it was just a matter of if it didn't come from the Gibson corporation itself so it didn't feel right. Not from any kind of a moral standpoint it just, I don't know, didn't interest me. I think what flipped me is when I saw extremely detailed pictures and description of the build process of a replica done by the builder I ended up using. And I guess I was just so damn impressed in a matter of moments I flipped on the whole thing. I thought if I really want a cherry Sunburst built to my specs with me involved in the selection of the wood etc. that is also made from old woods and Brazilian boards and all the right glues and Jacques, etc. why not consider one of these? So just as I can't really explain why I had a problem with them before it's hard for me to explain why I have no issue with them now? But at this point I don't need to analyze it I just want to enjoy playing a guitar and that I do!

I think there's the rub. What guitar player worth the name would want to deny his fellow journeyman that? Definitely not this one.

:biggrin::salude

Nick-O · Apr 18, 2017

I've never had a huge problem with replicas. I work on Harleys for a living, and that is one copied bike right there. Doesn't bother me if it is built right. I see that name on everything. Most folks who wear the gear don't even own a Harley. None of it bothers me, it is just how we are.

My question is an honest one. If the headstock is not the same and the name on it is the builders or whatever, is it a replica? I love the look and sound of the LP, no question, but in my price range I can't afford what I would like. The LP's I have are great, but I have changed everything that is not glued together on them to get them to fit. And still there is compromise.

I think it is all about what makes you play, and play often and better. I love guitars and i love making music. I can way past all the other stuff if the tones and feelings are right.

.02¢

Ed A · Apr 18, 2017

Nick-O said:
I've never had a huge problem with replicas. I work on Harleys for a living, and that is one copied bike right there. Doesn't bother me if it is built right. I see that name on everything. Most folks who wear the gear don't even own a Harley. None of it bothers me, it is just how we are.

My question is an honest one. If the headstock is not the same and the name on it is the builders or whatever, is it a replica? I love the look and sound of the LP, no question, but in my price range I can't afford what I would like. The LP's I have are great, but I have changed everything that is not glued together on them to get them to fit. And still there is compromise.

I think it is all about what makes you play, and play often and better. I love guitars and i love making music. I can way past all the other stuff if the tones and feelings are right.

.02¢

Agreed. There are some that have replicas that want a different name on it and I certainly have no issue with that. But as you say then it falls short (visually anyway) of being an actual replica. It's like my analogy before if I someday build myself a 1971 442 replica from a cutlass but change over to 442 parts and put 442 badging on invariably there will be an owner of a real one that would look down on me for doing that. So should I put a 443 badge on it? So everybody knows I'm not driving a real 442? Well it wouldn't be a replica then would it? One last thing, I do understand that if these things are being used intentionally as forgeries in deceitful ways well that obviously is something that I'm 110% against. But as a tribute to an iconic instrument that is long gone, I think there is a place for them.

fred dons · Apr 18, 2017

tough call, do I buy a copy made by the company who has bought the legal rights to the name and the design and who is making a guitar which almost looks like the original but in a different factory with parts which are almost similar to the original or do a get a copy with is more exact and has the correct parts but does not have the legal rights. both in the end are copies, the first one did pay for the name but it is a "copy"

Pellman73 · Apr 18, 2017

Ed A said:
Well it is a fascinating topic for sure and I know one that gets very heated! So yes you may be right that I shouldn't say that it won't affect Gibsons sales. It certainly could but on the other hand any guitar that somebody purchases other than a Gibson because they believe that guitar is a better guitar or it is better for them will hurt those sales as well, no? Even if it's not a dead on replica I think if someone is determined to have a guitar that's made from 75-year-old mahogany and Gibson can't build them a new one then they'll find a way to do it one way or another. In fact they may look for an old goldtop candidate and make a conversion out of it. Which is a whole other heated topic LOL!

Ed-

for you to even acknowledge my post shows you are a true gentleman and a scholar.

man.... bottom line is..... I wish u and your replica the best and I think I'd love a Good one!

RocknRollShakeUp · Apr 19, 2017

I have to admit, if I knew a local luthier that could build a superlative example, with the correct materials (including old stock wood) and specs, who's work I had seen and loved, and if the price was reasonable, I'd have a hard time saying no. As it is I wouldn't even know who to contact to order a replica. But the appeal as others have said is having the best built, most historically accurate burst one can get, a burst that is built with only the most discriminating masterful intent, ability, and taste, whose details have been carefully and perfectly executed, one detail at a time, with enough time spent to get every detail perfect. In other words, a burst that you couldn't possibly get from Gibson - even if what I just wrote was half fantasy. Anyway that is the siren call of a good replica I suppose, and even though I am definitionally uninspired to go through the motions to even begin to know where I could acquire such a thing, the intoxicating promise of such burstful bliss manages to pluck even at my disinterested heart strings. And then there is the added intrigue of having a forbidden fruit. Then again, my other self says to me that tone wood doesn't really matter anyway, and that a well built 2014 Historic with a good set of PAF's is likely just as good as any other holy grail burst. :hee

Anyway, really interesting thread and topic.

1959 Burst Replica

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member