My new 1958 les paull replica

NYCBURST said:

I can't remember seeing a 1939 herringbone guitar replica on a guitar hanger recently? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Are you referring to boutique acoustic guitars, which in no way resemble a vintage Martin or Gibson.

Click to expand...

If you want a clone of, say, a pre-war Martin the options are aplenty from Merrill, Hooper, etc to companies like Santa Cruz & Collings...same goes for Mandolins.

deytookerjaabs said:

If you want a clone of, say, a pre-war Martin the options are aplenty from Merrill, Hooper, etc to companies like Santa Cruz & Collings...same goes for Mandolins.

Click to expand...

've played a collings, but they're not exactly replicas. I'm sure they have shifted bracing and all the jazz, but I don't believe they copy shape and dimensions exactly. I should say, theyre intention isnt to replicate and clone a certain guitar, like a 59 les Paul replica

Tom Wittrock said:

Then I will state it again, although I'm not sure how to reword it.

My 'poser' comment was aimed at these individuals only: The people who order ["commission"] the replica with those logos and would not buy it otherwise.
Again repeating myself, I am not using that term on people who have bought and owned them, except the people above.
So, it isn't those that have them, it is those that demand them from the builders [creating the demand that entices scrupulous builders to make them].
If that doesn't explain it to you, I can't think of any other way to word it.

I can't justify this illegal act because someone merely wants it. They don't need it. It seems solely ego driven for the initial buyer.

After 10 pages [and other threads] I have yet to have a single answer as to why people demand those logos on the guitars. I have seen numerous posts stating that some of these replicas are superior to current made Gibson products, but no one explains how the logo plays into that.
I say it is ego [posing]. I've heard no reasonable counter to that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying... and its fine with me if you or anybody else considers me a poser or of being unethical, immoral, whatever number of terms have been used on this board... I wont be changing your minds and I can certainly live with that... But for the life of me I CANT understand how all of that applies to me because I commissioned a replica with a Gibson logo yet, for all the tons of people out there that have bought Max's and Derrigs and Keeblers and Bartletts and early Yarons, they all get a free ticket if they didnt originally 'commission' the guitar?... Somehow they can have the Gibson branded replica and be allowed to enter the gates of heaven but God forbid they order one like that?.... Maybe I am missing something here...

Also, you say you havent gotten a single answer about why people want these logos... well I already previously answered your question as clearly as I could... right here:

'...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...'

Lastly, I dont know what ego has to do with this, its my love for an obsession with vintage bursts, which Ive never owned and never will... Im obviously not the only one obsessed... just like the thousands of players who buy CC guitars and celebrity player replica guitars... its ALL posing, faking, pretending!!!... but its FUN thats why we all do it... I have a Jimmy Page #1, I had a Jimmy Page doubleneck, I had a Carmelita CC... its FUN... and having a replica of a real '59 that is accurate including logo that in MY opinion gets closer to the real thing than Gibson is able to do, well thats FUN for me...

I cant explain it any more clearly than that. Thanks all of you for your time, but Im moving on... I need to go figure out what I can sell so I can buy the new Fender Page Dragon Telecaster... which at $1399 will be a POS compared to a real '59 and Im sure have screen painted dragon art, not hand painted and wont sound anything like Page's original... BUT, I can make believe and smile when I go to bed... because its FUN!

lim_lau said:

Hi, everyone. here is lim from China. i am new around, this is my first post on this awesome forum to share the most incredible les paul i've ever had.

And a big shout out to mr tom bartlett who is a real deal of guitar maker in Canada. u guys probably knew him already, but i think u gotta own or owned one of his work to

really know what is he is about!!! this is a nice les paul replica with all the right materials, everything r up to the top notch and down to the details. the only bad thing for

great work is being too les paul, u can't even think of use it to do non les paul thing!!! so without more bull feces, let's check this master piece out

Click to expand...

Beau tiful asymmetric top

NYCBURST said:

I can't remember seeing a 1939 herringbone guitar replica on a guitar hanger recently? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Are you referring to boutique acoustic guitars, which in no way resemble a vintage Martin or Gibson.

Click to expand...

Have you heard of Pre-War guitars? Probably as close to a replica 1930s acoustic as you're going to get.

https://www.pre-warguitars.com/herringbone/

https://www.pre-warguitars.com/americanjumbo/

The OPs guitar looks stunning (and shoot me down but I don't have a problem with replica guitars).

Frutiger said:

Have you heard of Pre-War guitars? Probably as close to a replica 1930s acoustic as you're going to get.

https://www.pre-warguitars.com/herringbone/

https://www.pre-warguitars.com/americanjumbo/

The OPs guitar looks stunning (and shoot me down but I don't have a problem with replica guitars).

Click to expand...

I think i did run across these once, the advanced Jumbo looks fantastic..

J.D. said:

You'd likely get a similar reaction on a Rolex forum posting about a new fake watch.

Click to expand...

Fake/replica/copy whatever Rolexes are inferior in every possible way to the real thing. And are vastly cheaper.

You could say the opposite is true for these master replica les pauls. They are certainly in general, a lot more expensive than a customshop reissue.

the comparison you made doesn’t work.

I'm just curious with the pre-war guitars or mandos etc comparison because you rarely, if ever, see the logo/sticker issue.


The part that I'm wondering about: is the Gibson logo on the headstock just a part of the buyer culture of those particular replicas? Like how so many people need to put a Marshall logo on their clone amp/cab because they feel it just has to complete the package or how so many partscaster guys put Fender logo on the headstock, both of which are clear infringement. Or, is it that since you can't build or buy a 'Burst copy legally without making it totally oblong (change body & headstock) that builders/buyers just say "**** it" then go all the way?


Obviously you can't read minds, I just find it interesting in that 'Burst Replicas are a black market thing with or without the logo because they have to be and the majority of them seem to (from a distance as a non-buyer non-expert) have this problem with the fake logo.

deytookerjaabs said:

I'm just curious with the pre-war guitars or mandos etc comparison because you rarely, if ever, see the logo/sticker issue.


The part that I'm wondering about: is the Gibson logo on the headstock just a part of the buyer culture of those particular replicas? Like how so many people need to put a Marshall logo on their clone amp/cab because they feel it just has to complete the package or how so many partscaster guys put Fender logo on the headstock, both of which are clear infringement. Or, is it that since you can't build or buy a 'Burst copy legally without making it totally oblong (change body & headstock) that builders/buyers just say "**** it" then go all the way?


Obviously you can't read minds, I just find it interesting in that 'Burst Replicas are a black market thing with or without the logo because they have to be and the majority of them seem to (from a distance as a non-buyer non-expert) have this problem with the fake logo.

Click to expand...

From the current thread in "Amplifiers: Oh what to do what to do" https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?210487-Oh-what-to-do-what-to-do

DoubleBoogie said:

You can do what I did with my quad of original 60's D130Fs and have a 4x15 cab made! This thing is enormous in every respect. Sounds killer! I am in the process of having Mark Kane build me a 100 Watt Dumble clone to mate with it!

Click to expand...

It appears that this cab is either homemade or extensively altered and not fully a Marshall product, but it isn't stated definitively.
I do wonder how it sounds, though the Marshall logo will have no affect on the sound.

deytookerjaabs said:

I'm just curious with the pre-war guitars or mandos etc comparison because you rarely, if ever, see the logo/sticker issue.


The part that I'm wondering about: is the Gibson logo on the headstock just a part of the buyer culture of those particular replicas? Like how so many people need to put a Marshall logo on their clone amp/cab because they feel it just has to complete the package or how so many partscaster guys put Fender logo on the headstock, both of which are clear infringement. Or, is it that since you can't build or buy a 'Burst copy legally without making it totally oblong (change body & headstock) that builders/buyers just say "**** it" then go all the way?


Obviously you can't read minds, I just find it interesting in that 'Burst Replicas are a black market thing with or without the logo because they have to be and the majority of them seem to (from a distance as a non-buyer non-expert) have this problem with the fake logo.

Click to expand...

I cant read minds either but yeah I think it is part of the buyer culture... there are guys that do not want Gibson on the headstock and then there are many (probably most) that do... Ive explained many times why I want it... your thought 'because they feel it just has to complete the package' is part of it for sure... interesting you bring up the Marshall logo... here are a couple pix of amps I own...

The Marshall is not a Marshall... custom built cab, EC replica grill cloth, and Ceriatone 36W amp... why put a Marshall logo on it?... Because I love the way it looks!... certainly not going to tell people its an actual Marshall, what would be the point of the that?

And the Hiwatt... did Jimmy Page sell me his personal signature Hiwatt that he used with Zeppelin from '69 to '71... dont think so!... A friend built this for me years ago when I wanted a replica (there's that word again) of Jimmys real amp... Why?... because it looks cool as hell and Ive said this before, its FUN!...

Im a Jimmy Page fan, Im a Marshall fan, Im a burst fan... and I have many authentic Gibsons and a '69 Plexi superlead and '69 Greenback cab... so sue me for also wanting replicas of these iconic instruments... as long as the builder and the buyer (thats me) has no intention of passing them off as something they arent then I have no problem with it ethically... not saying others should feel the same way, I can ONLY state how I feel about it... I dont feel the dozen instruments my builder makes in a year is affecting Gibson negatively... if anything these instruments help keep Gibson from being complacent and to continually step up their game with their historics... but thats just how I feel, Im not looking to change someone elses opinion... And I dont NEED any of these things including my Gibson branded replica to live my life... But I have them because they bring me enjoyment... when I sit on the couch and hold and stare at the replica where I picked out the wood, the coloring, the aging and worked with the builder (who is an artist) to bring to life my vision, I dont want to see KMart on the headstock. I want it to look how I want it to look... simple as that.

NYCBURST said:

The reissues Gibson is making is not up to my standards, I'm very sorry that you struggle with that, ...

Click to expand...

Once again, a post on this thread making a ludicrous claim about me with an outright lie.
Your conversation with me is dishonest, as I never said that. :fu

Ed A said:

Somehow they can have the Gibson branded replica and be allowed to enter the gates of heaven but God forbid they order one like that?....

Click to expand...

I know nothing about your "heaven" or why YOU won't let certain guitar owners in there. You probably have already had my name stricken from your list of who can come in. That's your world, not mine.

Ed A said:

Also, you say you havent gotten a single answer about why people want these logos... well I already previously answered your question as clearly as I could... right here:

'...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...'

Click to expand...

Your answer merely says it is because of specs, but those specs have no effect on the quality or playability of the guitar. Sounds like you want the logos for ego, as they have nothing to do with the feel or tone. Just looks.

Tom Wittrock said:

Once again, a post on this thread making a ludicrous claim about me with an outright lie.
Your conversation with me is dishonest, as I never said that. :fu

Click to expand...

No, Tom take a deep breath, you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying, I'm saying you struggle with the fact that "I" think it's alright
to put the Logo on a replica. It goes against "your" ethics. That's what I am saying. Another words, You can't understand why I want it on the guitar. And I struggle to understand why "you" think it's such a big deal.... It's just a difference of opinion. Is that little emoji giving me the finger, I believe it is..

Seems some who desperately want a real Burst but don't have the means will willingly be accomplices in breaking IP laws to somehow try to trick themselves into believing they have basically the equivalent guitar. That about right?

Tom Wittrock said:

I know nothing about your "heaven" or why YOU won't let certain guitar owners in there. You probably have already had my name stricken from your list of who can come in. That's your world, not mine.


Your answer merely says it is because of specs, but those specs have no effect on the quality or playability of the guitar. Sounds like you want the logos for ego, as they have nothing to do with the feel or tone. Just looks.

Click to expand...

What guitar owners are YOU talking about that I wont allow in my heaven... You have an issue with those that commission these guitars but not those who have them... I have NO issue with anybody that owns any guitar Gibson or not.... All players are welcome to my heaven LOL!

Yes, of course it has nothing to do with quality, or playability or feel or tone... guitars for many of us, and Im going to guess for you as well, are much more than just a tool... Ive tried to explain many times (not just to you), the emotional aspect of it, the joy, the fun of the whole process of having the guitar built and why I want that logo on there... when you say its because of ego, I dont agree, but maybe I dont understand the definition of that word...... SO... its all good... Im certainly not going to change how you feel about it, Im not expecting to... Youre not stricken from any of my lists (which I dont have)... Im not angry with you... you may be with me... I dont think I have been rude, but I do have my opinions as you have yours... I was hoping to give you some insight as to why I feel differently about it, not saying you should agree with what I think, but hoping you would at least accept that I am being as honest as I can be and not hiding behind anything when asked questions.

J.D. said:

Seems some who desperately want a real Burst but don't have the means will willingly be accomplices in breaking IP laws to somehow try to trick themselves into believing they have basically the equivalent guitar. That about right?

Click to expand...

Hey, [MOD EDIT] I could buy 5 bursts if I want, also I've owned Les pauls from the fifties. You're crossing a serious line with that comment... Have you any control [MOD EDIT]?

NYCBURST said:

Hey, [MOD EDIT] I could buy 5 bursts if I want, also I've owned Les pauls from the fifties. You're crossing a serious line with that comment... Have you any control [MOD EDIT]?

Click to expand...

Last I checked, name calling was against forum rules. :wah

J.D. said:

Last I checked, name calling was against forum rules. :wah

Click to expand...

I'm about done with the forum anyway, because of guys like you.. I mean you got to be a bit psychotic to start
insinuating people whom you don't even know haven't the means to buy a certain guitar. That's about as creepy
as you can get. Listen to yourself "name-calling" what are you eight years old?

Again:

Stoj said:

Hi All,

Thanks to our Mods we now have permission to post our Replicas builds.

Please note I have been advised that under no circumstances are headstock logos allowed to be displayed.

Lets's respect our mods decision as I think this is a great step forward for our forum.

Let's not turn this thread into a debate about replica vs fake etc,

There are a members that own both bursts & replicas and I thought it would make a great conversation topic & a place for us guys who do own them to hang :salude

Without further to do here's my Replica ..

Click to expand...

OP Lim_Lau didn't obscure the headstock logo, but ok, it was his first post ever on here and reading the rules is as always advised, but i couldn't find anything about specific rule in the ruledisclaimer here either, only by searchin extensivly and finding it in above quoted thread.
But as stated in above quote from this: https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?191935-Replica-Les-Pauls-show-em!! replica's are allowed here to show in the "Non gibson guitars"
So if you do feel the need to disscus the "it's a fake/your criminal/copyright imposing and a poser" don't do it in a thread where someone shows his replica, albeit beeing the headstock isn't shown because mods decided it's allowed for people to show their replica's.

Then:
above already stated "There are a members that own both bursts & replicas"

there are for example:

https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/...ls-show-em!!&p=2587886&viewfull=1#post2587886

https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/...ls-show-em!!&p=2588228&viewfull=1#post2588228

And more, and some of them ordered their replica's with G logo...
So that makes them ... ? Y'all read it here... and more.. from: theseus, ferrari/ford transits/AC cobras, carbon dating, Van Gogh, Trump, Stradavarius, cannabis, rolexes, criminal intent, physical abuse, the pearly gates, isis.. etc etc..


Now, best line in the above quote: "Let's not turn this thread into a debate about replica vs fake etc"

it didn't in that thread.. but it happened here, which it shouldn't have.

To OP Lim-Lau: Hope you're still here and i hope you'll start a new thread about your Bartlett with some more detailed photo's and ommit the G and LP logo.

Help me understand it then. I'm reading that the same exact guitar without all of the authentic cosmetic details isn't good enough. I honestly don't understand what drives one to commission a replica.