MapleFlame
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2005
- Messages
- 14,044
Poor girl has been through hell
Apparently, it's a burst now. Wasn't its current owner arguing vociferously that it was a Goldtop back in the "2 bursts in Germany" thread?:hmm
Yes, as was pointed out recently in the older thread.
Was this just a ruse to get the guitar cheap?
1) Expert claims it isn't really a refin Burst, but instead a refin Goldtop. In doing so, a reputable dealer is raked over the coals for saying it was a refin Burst..
2) Expert buys/deals for it based on his expertise.
3) Expert resells it as a Burst.
This whole episode smells fishy. :wah
Yes, as was pointed out recently in the older thread.
Was this just a ruse to get the guitar cheap?
1) Expert claims it isn't really a refin Burst, but instead a refin Goldtop. In doing so, a reputable dealer is raked over the coals for saying it was a refin Burst..
2) Expert buys/deals for it based on his expertise.
3) Expert resells it as a Burst.
This whole episode smells fishy. :wah
John...we know your opinion on Detlef. What’s your opinion of this guitar now bring marketed as a burst when Eric insisted it was a Goldtop? Does that offend your notion of full disclosure?
I just read the thread....seems he is pretty open about the history of the guitar including it being a suspected GT....admits that the ledgers have that serial number on a lap guitar meaning it may not be the real one. It has being called the "Conti Burst" for a while so in advertising it, seems he is just going with what people will recognize.John...we know your opinion on Detlef. What’s your opinion of this guitar now bring marketed as a burst when Eric insisted it was a Goldtop? Does that offend your notion of full disclosure?
.....the Detlef bashing thread.......
He should edit his own post in the other forum then. This is what he posted:
Originally Posted by Eric Ernest
1. Original Goldtop.
2. Early 70's sunburst refin.
3. Early 80's Gibson factory (clown) sunburst refin around 1980 when it was renecked by the Kalamazoo factory with an NOS neck. (Work order done through Gruhn's.)
4. Early 2000's German sunburst done by one of Detlef's guys.
5. 2015 Swiss sunburst done by one of Gregory's guys.
6. 2017 a sunburst Historic Makeover refin.
Yes...I agree that anyone who is less than 100% honest in vintage deals should be called out. But it's curious how you are so black and white in the one instance, i.e. Detlef, and so gray in this one. I know Eric is your friend, and I know you've had nothing but good dealings with him, but shouldn't we all be striving for as close to 100% full disclosure as possible?:jim
Charlie, honest response, do you think Detlef deserves "bashing" for:
1. selling an obviously fake "vintage" Marshall as being all original; and
2. "authenticating" a fake Explorer for one of his cabal, when he so clearly lacks the expertise to do so.
My recollection was that the Marshall was part of the deal sold with the Conti guitar. Doesnt mater if it was a consignment. Then there is the issue of the explorer...He did not sell the Marshall. That's a lie continued by you and others.
And, there is no "cabal" as you say.
Now who's being dishonest? :rolleyes
He did not sell the Marshall. That's a lie continued by you and others.
And, there is no "cabal" as you say.
Now who's being dishonest? :rolleyes
But it's curious how you are so black and white in the one instance, i.e. Detlef, and so gray in this one.
I know Eric is your friend, and I know you've had nothing but good dealings with him, but shouldn't we all be striving for as close to 100% full disclosure as possible?:jim
I don't agree with your premise.
Go back to the original thread and re-read what I wrote. I stated that I don't know whether it's a GT or a 'burst. Said the same in this thread.
There is more evidence now than when we discussed the guitar in that thread. We now see the serial number was recorded to a different instrument in the ledger (information provided by Eric I might add) which suggests it is not the real serial number to the guitar. Two peices of information raising the possibility of a refinished GT were an early number and brown filler. Neither were mentioned with the previous sale (along with unclear discrptions of replaced plastics) or maybe not even noticed. Both are discussed in Eric's thread along with the possible implications and possible explainations. Tell me, is there a real equivalence between the level of disclosure here?I think that misses the point. It doesn't matter whether you think its a Goldtop or a burst, it matters what Eric thinks it is, and he pretty decisively thought it was a Goldtop in the other thread.
However, I will say this...if we were back in school and choosing sides on the debate team, I'd want you on my team.
It doesn't matter whether you think its a Goldtop or a burst, it matters what Eric thinks it is, and he pretty decisively thought it was a Goldtop in the other thread.