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

1959 Burst Replica

rockabilly69

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Messages
2,872
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:

RyanC

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
233
I don't want to speak for Ed, but this builder's guitars come with CITES paperwork. No issues at all.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
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.
 

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
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:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
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!!!!:laugh2:
 

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
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!!!!:laugh2:

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!
 

Xpensive Wino

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
6,079

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679


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!
 

lpnv59

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
10,725
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.
 

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
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.


:nut

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?
 

Dave P

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
976
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. :##
 

lpnv59

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
10,725
:nut

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.
 

Ed A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2001
Messages
4,679
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:

kerryboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2002
Messages
1,199
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.
 

Pellman73

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,762
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.
 

Xpensive Wino

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
6,079
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? :hmm

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?
 

lpnv59

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
10,725
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.
 

Xpensive Wino

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
6,079
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?
 
Top