My new 1958 les paull replica

JPP-1 said:

LOL, so you have no evidence to support what you claim. Hence for you the conversation is over. But not before some parting name calling: attempting to cast dispersion on my ability to discern tone because I challenge your unprovable assertions -then you run to your safe space.

I find it amusing to think that of the 1000s of different cuts of wood having varying weights and densities, from different trees of different ages, scattered across a diverse geographical region, that all of these cuts of wood have some recognizable magical tonal property, that the aurally gifted such as yourself can discern. frankly, I find that assumption preposterous, but you can believe whatever you'd like, you just can't prove it.

To your other points , my ears are just fine and i take tone very seriously, to my own amusement sometimes. I also own and have owned vintage guitars albeit not a Burst.

Here are some facts. Gibson made bursts from 1958-1960. if it wasn't built during that time its not a Burst, regardless of how old the woods might be or what magical properties you'd like to imagine the woods in your guitar have.

While my Gibson R9s were not built in 1959, tonally, they embody everything I've looked for in a great Les Paul. And, whether it matters or not, like the glorious Bursts before them, they are genuine Gibson Les Pauls.

Afaic this is as good as any Les Paul tone I've heard.

Click to expand...

I fully endorse and support this cogent response! :dude:

So a Stradivarius violin with the old growth wood from the "Little ice age", that's all bullshit?
You're telling me there isnt a difference in tone from a 59 les paul to one that is built today? Is that what you
are really telling me?

NYCBURST said:

So a Stradivarius violin with the old growth wood from the "Little ice age", that's all bullshit?
You're telling me there isnt a difference in tone from a 59 les paul to one that is built today? Is that what you
are really telling me?

Click to expand...

So are you really telling us that a stradivarius is the same as a Les Paul? That's quite a leap of extrapolation. You'd be better served by comparing stradivariuses to modern violins and 59 les pauls to modern les pauls.

RocknRollShakeUp said:

So are you really telling us that a stradivarius is the same as a Les Paul? That's quite a leap of extrapolation. You'd be better served by comparing stradivariuses to modern violins and 59 les pauls to modern les pauls.

Click to expand...

I see you've broken out your thesaurus, my friend... Highest marks. Yes, I am indeed comparing 59 les pauls to modern Les Pauls and giving you my
opinion and you seem to not agree with me. You stated that that the tone on the video with jd Simo was as good of a tone as you've ever heard. There are videos of him playing a 59 Les Paul, would you say that's there's not a difference in tone? I certainly would.

JPP-1 said:

I find it amusing to think that of the 1000s of different cuts of wood having varying weights and densities, from different trees of different ages, scattered across a diverse geographical region, that all of these cuts of wood have some recognizable magical tonal property, that the aurally gifted such as yourself can discern. frankly, I find that assumption preposterous, but you can believe whatever you'd like, you just can't prove it.

Click to expand...

You werent speaking to me... but I would like to chime in.... You are correct that 1000s of different cuts of wood used to make '50s Les Pauls will not all have the same tonal properties... if youve ever taken the same set of pickups and pots and bridge and tailpiece and moved them from one guitar to another (Ive done this with at least thirty different Les Pauls), you will notice that no Les Paul will sound exactly the same, even with the same electronics.... some will sound very close to each other, some will sound extremely different... And that is as you are saying because of the wood being different... a very small part of the difference can be attributed to the glue and lacquer difference, but its the wood itself that makes the inherent tone unique and different in each and every guitar... I think we can agree on that... where we will disagree is in your assumption that there is no way old growth wood can sound different... it can and it does... doesnt mean every vintage guitar or old wood replica sounds better because it has 'magical' wood (a word I never used)... there are plenty of dogs out there... sounds 'better' is subjective but I know what it means to me... the best sounding historic will smoke the worst sounding vintage LP... without a doubt... but the best sounding vintage LP is gonna beat the best sounding historic every time... Im not gonna use adjectives to describe the difference, but there is a difference... I have owned since '95 approximately 50 historic reissues or more.. Ive also owned two '57 conversions, a '54 goldtop, a '53 goldtop, a '59 345, '56 and '59 juniors and three Bartlett replicas.

Now Im not gonna get into the argument of how I know whether my replica is truly built with old growth wood. I trust the builder, I trust the source, I trust my eyes (the mahogany is darker like vintage LPs Ive had) and I trust my ears... the mahogany used in the '50s and the old mahogany used by some luthiers today came from trees are that are gone... finito... dont exist anymore... Edwin Wilson gave me a tour of the custom shop back in '99 and he himself told me off the record that they were never going to replicate the tone exactly of the original mahogany because of the difference in mineral content, age and location of the trees harvested as compared to the location and age of the trees that are now all gone, etc.

I played nothing but historics for a long time (many great guitars) until I played a '53/'57 conversion that unplugged knocked my socks off... I bought it and never turned back... I ended up going the replica route because I found that they sounded just as good, and I could get a flametop burst which I prefer over goldtops.

JPP, youve mentioned how good you thought my 2018 goldtop sounds and it does, real happy with that guitar. But Im on Long Island and I believe youre in NY, and you are welcome to come by any time and hear (and feel) the difference compared to the replica. You cant always tell by listening to recordings but Im pretty confident you will tell in person. And hey maybe youll bring a guitar over that will beat the old wood in which case I'll be happy to eat my words and even happier for you.... Serious!

Ed A said:

First off if you want to say that replica builders who use the Gibson logo know that its not legal, you are absolutely correct... and that its unethical that they build them, well thats an opinion that you or anyone else is entitled to...

Click to expand...

No, it's not an opinion. If it's illegal, it is also unethical.

Ed A said:

… or that its unethical for me to buy and play one or that I am a poser for doing so, …

Click to expand...

Since I'm the one who brought the 'poser' term into this discussion, let me remind you that I said it was the people who asked or ordered the replica built with the illegal logos that I called posers, and not any and all people who buy them.

There is no reason for that logo on the guitar, except ego [hence, I said poser]. It serves no purpose for the function of the guitar.

So, I ask you, Ed A and all others, would you buy the same the exact same guitar if it had its own unique logo? If not, why not. :hmm

Owning a replica is right up there with the Rolex bought at 1AM on a side street or cubic zirconia engagement rings. :hee

Tom Wittrock said:

No, it's not an opinion. If it's illegal, it is also unethical.

Since I'm the one who brought the 'poser' term into this discussion, let me remind you that I said it was the people who asked or ordered the replica built with the illegal logos that I called posers, and not any and all people who buy them.

There is no reason for that logo on the guitar, except ego [hence, I said poser]. It serves no purpose for the function of the guitar.

So, I ask you, Ed A and all others, would you buy the same the exact same guitar if it had its own unique logo? If not, why not. :hmm

Click to expand...

Tom, I know full well that your poser term is reserved just for those of us that have replicas with the Gibson logo... and to answer your question, no I absolutely would not buy one that had a non-Gibson logo... I of course have no issue with those who want to do that.... its their choice, but not mine.

So now I have to ask you, with all due respect... why are you so sure that the only reason I want that logo is ego driven?... and what exactly do you mean by poser?... Do you feel that my intention when playing one of these is to have people think I am playing a real Gibson?... thats a serious question, because Im not exactly sure what you mean.... If that IS the case well I can say that I have NO interest in fooling anybody and I have never met a replica buyer who has either... after all we are having this discussion in the NON-Gibson guitar section.... As far as WHY I want the logo, I cant seem to find where the ego thing come in, I mean really Im looking deep inside LOL to give you the best reason why... All I can say is that I decided to go the replica route because I believe I can get closer to the specs, feel and tone of an original '59 by going that route... Doesnt matter if Im wrong or others disagree, what matters is its what I believe... and secondly I absolutely love the process of being involved every step of the way with wood choice, color, finishing aging, etc.... and just like somebody wants a Nicky to look like the original or a Sandy to look like the original, I want my replica to look like an original!... After all, anybody with a Sandy replica is going to gush about how cool it is they have a guitar thats intention was to look like the original.... but you know what, no matter what, that Sandy is never gonna be the original one, and neither is my replica, but yet we all continue to make believe.... why, because its FUN!... Im not interested in putting all this time and money and effort into a replica and have it say Johnny on the headstock... Im the one that will sit on the couch and look at it, not anybody else, so I want it to look the way I want it to look... really that simple... I love telling people at shows when they ask about my guitar what it is, first thing I point to is the logo and say 'guess what, its actually not a Gibson' I dont badmouth Gibson, I have five real Gibsons at home, but I enthusiastically tell them about the experience for me...

And I also have to ask you, and this never seems to be answered by the Gibson logo replica haters... when you first heard that Slash's Appetite guitar was a Derrig, were you very upset that he would dare play that guitar?... He never hid what it was, he boasted about it... if you saw him and the discussion came up would you call him a poser for using it, tell him that its unethical that he used it?... Its a serious question. Did you and your friends or forum mates talk about it with the same intensity that we get here all the time?.... Its well know that he played the guitar because he loved it... and he also feels its a phenomenal guitar and he obviously has no problem with the logo... and in my opinion, not too many other people do either... I feel there is double standard here...

I never had any clue until the last year or so that there was such an intense debate over this... now that I do know, I will have it put in the control cavity that it is a replica... although that may not be good enough for some, it will be good enough for me.

Ed A said:

And I also have to ask you, and this never seems to be answered by the Gibson logo replica haters... when you first heard that Slash's Appetite guitar was a Derrig, were you very upset that he would dare play that guitar?... He never hid what it was, he boasted about it... if you saw him and the discussion came up would you call him a poser for using it, tell him that its unethical that he used it?... Its a serious question. Did you and your friends or forum mates talk about it with the same intensity that we get here all the time?

Click to expand...

@Tom Wittrock has been completely consistent on his views, which gets my respect big time (post #2):

https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?209268-Echo-Park-quot-Amos-quot-for-sale

As far as Slash goes, how he ended up with the Derrig guitar is more dumb luck than deliberately going out and looking for a Gibson replica, and everyone here probably already knows that.

J.D. said:

As far as Slash goes, how he ended up with the Derrig guitar is more dumb luck than deliberately going out and looking for a Gibson replica, and everyone here probably already knows that.

Click to expand...

And then he intentionally bought a Max after that when he had the bucks... but who really cares at this point... Tom asked me a question and I answered it...

I too respect Tom wittrock standing by his view and not wavering on it. I'm not even saying I disagree with him. But the fact is, I just happen to really like my replicas. I dont appreciate the "poser" comment, I've owned hundreds of Gibson guitars, vintage 50s and new ones. It's my "opinion' and personal "experience" that an old growth Brazilian rosewood "replica" is the closest thing to the original 59' les Paul and the custom shop guitars, while great guitars on their own, are still not close enough. Great guitars, mind you, just not what I'm looking for.

Ed A said:

Tom, I know full well that your poser term is reserved just for those of us that have replicas with the Gibson logo...

Click to expand...

That is absolutely NOT what I said. :bigal

I give up Ed. No point talking further. :rolleyes

/

Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
Tom, I know full well that your poser term is reserved just for those of us that have replicas with the Gibson logo...

Tom Wittrock said:

That is absolutely NOT what I said. :bigal

I give up Ed. No point talking further. :rolleyes

Click to expand...

Huh?... Now I am thoroughly confused... I was simply acknowledging that I understood who you were calling posers... here is what you said:

'Since I'm the one who brought the 'poser' term into this discussion, let me remind you that I said it was the people who asked or ordered the replica built with the illegal logos that I called posers, and not any and all people who buy them.'

I thought you clearly said that those that had Gibson branded replicas were posers... After re-reading this a couple times are you saying that its OK to seek out, buy and own a Gibson branded replica but its not OK to order one that way?... If so, then this is all going over my head, I dont get it...

I responded as thoughtfully as I could to your question about whether I would want a replica with a different name on the headstock... but instead we're talking about the use of 'poser' in a sentence... so yeah at this point Im all for dropping it as well....

NYCBURST said:

I see you've broken out your thesaurus, my friend... Highest marks. Yes, I am indeed comparing 59 les pauls to modern Les Pauls and giving you my
opinion and you seem to not agree with me. You stated that that the tone on the video with jd Simo was as good of a tone as you've ever heard. There are videos of him playing a 59 Les Paul, would you say that's there's not a difference in tone? I certainly would.

Click to expand...

Hehe, well luckily I'm a wordsmith and gorgeous words just exude off my constitution my friend, thusly the need for a thesaurus is not necessary.

Regarding your other point, I will say this: I think JD Simo playing a good reissue probably sounds about 100% better than you playing one of your magical forgeries, err, I mean "replicas". Compared to himself on the other hand, he probably sounds better playing a good reissue, than a crappy iteration of a 59 Les Paul, and he probably sounds better playing a great 59 Les Paul than a crappy reissue. There are many variables in play.

I think in the hands of a Master even a great example of a real burst may give an extra 5% or so of tonal brilliance, arguably, and this contention is based on what Joe Bonamassa has described (there is a video where he describes this "extra 5%", a value surely not to be taken too literally), and this possibly stemming more from the original wiring harness, i.e. mainly from the volume and tone pots used at that time, and we can probably safely assume the pickups, more than anything else. Again there are many variables in play, but your assumption that any advantage is MAINLY from old growth wood, that some dude has stacked away, if you trust him that is, is a highly contentious and controversial claim.

Tom Wittrock said:

No, it's not an opinion. If it's illegal, it is also unethical.

Click to expand...

Sorry mate but that statement is ridiculous

it IS and opinion and ethics ARE opinions

in Iran it is Illegal for a woman to show her hair uncovered in public, it is also considered by many in Iran to be unethical to do so. Women can be severely punished for this crime

In the UK cannabis is an illegal drug, it is a crime to grow, or own it and or use it. Most people in the UK do not think it is unethical for a guy in his own home minding his own business, using cannabis. That has been polled for many years, people don’t care and have no issue with it. But it remains illegal

id say most people in my country wouldn’t think it was unethical to commission / purchase a Thomas Chippendale arm chair identical to an original, or an unlicensed Damian Hirst print / painting copy; and likewise an unlicensed 1959 LP replica. Honestly mostly people don’t give a shit. It’s only unethical in this case to You personally, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Ed A said:

. Do you feel that my intention when playing one of these is to have people think I am playing a real Gibson?...

Click to expand...

No, it's more that you want to think that you're playing a real Gibson

Tom Wittrock said:

No, it's not an opinion. If it's illegal, it is also unethical.

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Law and ethics might be related in some complicated form, but just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is unethical.

Agreed.

But in this case of making a replica Les Paul with Gibson on the headstock, one could make a strong argument that it is not only illegal (from an IP infringement perspective) but is also unethical. Making a Les Paul style guitar using the builder's own branding and not infringing on Gibson's IP is neither illegal nor unethical.

YMMV