Gibson R9 Authentication

[bluesky636]

Mysterious photos that only one person has seen, multiple errors in build, zero documentation, and a missing OP. It just gets better and better.

 

[jb_abides]

Way narrower than I’ve ever seen.

Agree, there's an apparent 'waist' to them.

 

[60thR0]

Presence or lack of COA means nothing, especially with a used guitar. COAs are easier to fake than guitars and blanks are readily available online.

R9 Stamp...? That's would not be visible given the shielding paint, even if present.

Like the tuner issue, a nut can be changed, and is done so by many, so we need to factor mods into the realm of possible over 8 years.

To me, inlays, hard to tell definitively... they can look akin other 2016 True Historics given some variance for lighting conditions. Hard to tell, but cellulose nitrate can certainly light up like that.

These are all 2016 True Historic guitars:
View attachment 24170
View attachment 24172
View attachment 24171

Going back to my original statements regarding OP to strive to post his others, or take better ones, if possible.

Again, it could be scenario 3(B), an oddball legit TH with an unusual tenon construction.

I am not saying it's definitive nor did I claim to be 100%. I am not saying it's without problems... and you'd need the better photos to discern. My output are super compressed.

I don't have a dog in the fight -- but I've yet to see a plausible scenario that better describes what this is, apart from an oddball, with sensible evidence that weighs in some other direction -- instead of just focusing on one aspect and calling it a fake.

I am totally willing to be on the other side -- but "what is it?" presents many problems.

Sure you can change the nut but why change pots to a non PIO pot? Why change tuners to old, non correct ones? Why change the pick guard to non correct/older one (it’s not the fitment, the color is wrong (pre TH)?

Back color also looks a bit light for a TH but I’m not an expert, some TM aged on reverb seem not to be as dark.

 

[latestarter]

Hope the OP can get a refund, ‘cause that’s what he needs.

 

[Cowentin40]

It look like a regular Gibson USA Les Paul Standard or Classic that has been refined and aged with historic parts to look like an R9 :
- Short tenon with hand writing on the cavity
- Black paint without "R9" stamped on the control cavity
- Headstock shaping
- Inlays

Not a true R9 but not necessarily a bad guitar, the aging is very realistic, it could be a good buy if the price is right !

 

[bluesky636]

It look like a regular Gibson USA Les Paul Standard or Classic that has been refined and aged with historic parts to look like an R9 :
- Short tenon with hand writing on the cavity
- Black paint without "R9" stamped on the control cavity
- Headstock shaping
- Inlays

Not a true R9 but not necessarily a bad guitar, the aging is very realistic, it could be a good buy if the price is right !

Points on fretboard inlays are definitely rounded.

IMG-1317 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-1317 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

"Not a true R9" = FAKE R9

 

[Cowentin40]

Points on fretboard inlays are definitely rounded.

IMG-1317 hosted at ImgBB

Image IMG-1317 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

"Not a true R9" = FAKE R9

I agree, refinishing a guitar to make it look like an R9, okay, but doing it to sell it later as a real R9 is a scam...

we will note the knowledge of Gibson customer service who authenticates the guitar, no worries!

 

[bluesky636]

Look familiar?

2019 Traditional neck joint.

https://guitarchimp.com/cdn/shop/products/IMG_9787_a7b15458-8176-4776-9d12-634a22ea6860_medium.jpg?v=1641590531

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

I explained: perhaps OP wanted more folks to weigh-in independently, first.

So, after re-reading his post, I will re-iterate and expound upon what he's already mentioned... since he's mentioned most of it.

Gibson has twice verified directly to OP as authentic.

Per Gibson, it's verified authentic as a 2016 True Historic R9 Tom Murphy Aged. Serial checks out.

Note: the pen inked 'TH' designation in the pickup cavity.

There are other photos where proper Murphy-aging is evident, including Tom's hidden 'TM' initials near the knobs.

There are other photos where the presence of a very flush tenon presents, which I've annotated below. Better photos with different angles might reveal more, or OP discussing what he's seen that doesn't show in photos, because even below, it's somewhat an oddball if it is fully flush.

I've attempted to annotate where things sit:
- Dashed green: outline of tenon
- Magenta arrows: curve of tenon edges
- Light blue: truss rod channel

No Flash pic used:
View attachment 24168

Flash pic used:
View attachment 24169

Granted, very hard to see the seam and curve, and this is the contentious aspect without better photos or naked eye assessment.

The channel is harder to identify... Perhaps OP will get provide pics of the channel from another angle, and it most certainly seems to be of channel wood that's very close to color-matched with the neck wood, assuming it's there.

What's undeniable is OP reports per Gibson, it's verified authentic as a 2016 True Historic R9 Tom Murphy Aged.

So, 1, 2, 3 A&B --

(1) Someone went thru an unprecedented and extraordinary process to create a fake TH Murphy matching a legit TH Murphy in Gibson's system ... from what? Whole cloth, with a duplicate serial and Tom Murphy tells? This would cost more than a legit TH, I'd wager. The effort involved and conditions for such an elaborate fake for a TH R9 strains credulity.

(2) a conversion from a legit USA would have a pressed serial and Made In USA in the headstock, hard to remove, plus other issues would arise beyond presenting as a short tenon if the counter argument is that type of conversion.

(3) It's a legit with 2 scenarios (A, B):

- (A) The long tenon is fully flush and very, very hard to discern in photos.
- (B) Somehow, the Custom Shop made an oddball... Plus, with aforementioned post-sale modification to cavity.

My leanings, and Occam's razor -- especially with confirmation from Gibson -- would suggest (3) although not sure if (A) or (B) holds the stronger case unless and until I see more, better.

Which I why I mentioned the OP set of photos as not helping narrow things down.

There are lot of Gibson Les Pauls with inked on serials numbers. One example with a top like this could be a 1996 Les Paul Classic Premium Plus. From the pics, the guitar definitely does not have a long tenon. Could be a guitar like I mentioned that has been refinished and re-stamped. Current font Gibson rubber serial stamps are available. If I ordered a R9 and got a Standard done up like a R9 I would be pretty bummed, even if Gibson said it was unique.

Oh, I will add one more scenario. The OP is messing with everyone. You can do some pretty amazing things graphically these days.

 

[S. Weiger]

There are lot of Gibson Les Pauls with inked on serials numbers. One example with a top like this could be a 1996 Les Paul Classic Premium Plus. From the pics, the guitar definitely does not have a long tenon. Could be a guitar like I mentioned that has been refinished and re-stamped. Current font Gibson rubber serial stamps are available. If I ordered a R9 and got a Standard done up like a R9 I would be pretty bummed, even if Gibson said it was unique.

Oh, I will add one more scenario. The OP is messing with everyone. You can do some pretty amazing things graphically these days.

Not a LP Classic, in 1996 the silkscreen would say 'classic' and not 'model'. Definitely not an R9 IMO, 100% sure it has short tenon. Inlays are typical 90's. Neck binding looks thick. And then there's all the other anomalies mentioned earlier.
Hard to say what it actually is, but I feel certain what it isn't.

 

[jb_abides]

Hard to say what it actually is, but I feel certain what it isn't.

Yeah, still looking for the best alternative hypothesis for what it is; hence why 'oddball' scenario.

 

[bluesky636]

Yeah, still looking for the best alternative hypothesis for what it is; hence why 'oddball' scenario.

Easy. It's a fake R9.

 

[bluesky636]

Let's look at what we have learned about this hot mess.

1. Of all the people who have commented, only one person believes they see a long tenon in the neck pickup cutout. The fact is, what appears in the OP's photo is identical to the photo I posted of the neck pocket of a 2019 Les Paul Traditional ... a short tenon.

2. The headstock wings are narrower than any I have ever seen on any R7/R8/R9/R0. They appear to be what you would get after trimming the wings of the wider headstock on a Traditional or USA Standard. Are we to believe that the master craftsman that created an impossibly tight neck joint was incapable of properly cutting the headstock and wings?

3. If this guitar is supposed to be a 2016 True Historic R9, why are the wrong tuning keys on it?

4. The fretboard inlays clearly have rounded points on them. Incorrect for a True Historic R9.

5. It is very convenient that the control cavity is coated with black shielding paint thereby hiding the area where the R9 would be stamped.

6. Why were the pots and caps in the control cavity replaced, thereby damaging one of the Bumblebee caps? Are we to believe the Gibson techs are that sloppy in assembly to damage a capacitor like that.

7. The OP claims that Gibson verified the guitar as a 2016 True Historic R9 based on the serial number. Did the OP provide photos to Gibson to back up the serial number or did he just say "Hey Gibson. What guitar does this serial number belong to?" Is Gibson that stupid to respond to such a request?

8. Where are the mystery photos from the mystery website? Only one person seems to know about them. Why aren't they available to the rest of us?

9. What pickups are in the guitar? They should be Custombuckers.

10. Where is the OP? He makes one post asking for help verifying the authenticity of the guitar then disappears. Did he not get the answer he wants? Is he posting on the "other" website?

11. Did I miss anything?

There is only one conclusion to make from all this: The guitar is a fake. It is NOT a 2016 Custom Shop True Historic R9. It is most likely a Traditional of unknown year poorly modified to look like an R9. Why did Gibson identify it as they did? Hopefully just due to lack of information and not outright ignorance.

Finally we come to the OP. At best he is a troll. At worst he is a scammer looking for more information so he can build a better fake. I see no other theoretical scenarios.

 

[S. Weiger]

Let's look at what we have learned about this hot mess.

1. Of all the people who have commented, only one person believes they see a long tenon in the neck pickup cutout. The fact is, what appears in the OP's photo is identical to the photo I posted of the neck pocket of a 2019 Les Paul Traditional ... a short tenon.

2. The headstock wings are narrower than any I have ever seen on any R7/R8/R9/R0. They appear to be what you would get after trimming the wings of the wider headstock on a Traditional or USA Standard. Are we to believe that the master craftsman that created an impossibly tight neck joint was incapable of properly cutting the headstock and wings?

3. If this guitar is supposed to be a 2016 True Historic R9, why are the wrong tuning keys on it?

4. The fretboard inlays clearly have rounded points on them. Incorrect for a True Historic R9.

5. It is very convenient that the control cavity is coated with black shielding paint thereby hiding the area where the R9 would be stamped.

6. Why were the pots and caps in the control cavity replaced, thereby damaging one of the Bumblebee caps? Are we to believe the Gibson techs are that sloppy in assembly to damage a capacitor like that.

7. The OP claims that Gibson verified the guitar as a 2016 True Historic R9 based on the serial number. Did the OP provide photos to Gibson to back up the serial number or did he just say "Hey Gibson. What guitar does this serial number belong to?" Is Gibson that stupid to respond to such a request?

8. Where are the mystery photos from the mystery website? Only one person seems to know about them. Why aren't they available to the rest of us?

9. What pickups are in the guitar? They should be Custombuckers.

10. Where is the OP? He makes one post asking for help verifying the authenticity of the guitar then disappears. Did he not get the answer he wants? Is he posting on the "other" website?

11. Did I miss anything?

There is only one conclusion to make from all this: The guitar is a fake. It is NOT a 2016 Custom Shop True Historic R9. It is most likely a Traditional of unknown year poorly modified to look like an R9. Why did Gibson identify it as they did? Hopefully just due to lack of information and not outright ignorance.

Finally we come to the OP. At best he is a troll. At worst he is a scammer looking for more information so he can build a better fake. I see no other theoretical scenarios.

12. Control cavity routing is so wrong that it hurts my eyes.

 

[bluesky636]

12. Control cavity routing is so wrong that it hurts my eyes.

Thanks. Wasn't sure about that one.

 

[modavis99]

The other thread was on thegearpage. I apologize in advance if I’m not allowed to link to that thread, but if linking is allowed the thread is here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/gibson-r9-qc.2523059/

I agree with the others saying this is not an R9 and is likely a regular old fake. Perhaps this is a trad that has a repainted neck with a correct serial number for an R9. But that wouldn’t be consistent with the wrong wings (unless trad wings are different)?

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

Not a LP Classic, in 1996 the silkscreen would say 'classic' and not 'model'. Definitely not an R9 IMO, 100% sure it has short tenon. Inlays are typical 90's. Neck binding looks thick. And then there's all the other anomalies mentioned earlier.
Hard to say what it actually is, but I feel certain what it isn't.

That would be removed in the refinish. If you didn't want to refinish and age the entire guitar you could use an earlier year classic like one from 1991 that doesn't say classic under Les Paul on the headstock or other guitars that had inked on serial's. it does seem like guitars like that sell for more than I think they are worth. Most likely scenario is that it is a guitar Gibson screwed up with, but I have seen lots of refinished and aged Les Pauls on the net that look just the same.

 

[Subliminal lanimilbuS]

Actually, I was just looking at picture number 3 and those don't look like any fret markers I have seen on a 2016 R9, or any post 2002 historic for that matter. You are seriously going to have to check out that serial number with Gibson.

 

[bluesky636]

The other thread was on thegearpage. I apologize in advance if I’m not allowed to link to that thread, but if linking is allowed the thread is here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/gibson-r9-qc.2523059/

I agree with the others saying this is not an R9 and is likely a regular old fake. Perhaps this is a trad that has a repainted neck with a correct serial number for an R9. But that wouldn’t be consistent with the wrong wings (unless trad wings are different)?

Ah, yes. I remember seeing thst on TGP. Seems there were a lot of questions about the authenticity of the guitar which mirror those posted here. I think there are even more issues posted here (wrong fretboard inlays, weird headstock wings, control cavity shape, etc.).

Nothing I have seen in either threads convinces me that this is a real Tom Murphy painted, True Historic R9.

 

[bluesky636]

Actually, I was just looking at picture number 3 and those don't look like any fret markers I have seen on a 2016 R9, or any post 2002 historic for that matter. You are seriously going to have to check out that serial number with Gibson.

Yeah, I noted the rounded points on the fretboard inlays in a couple of my posts.

This thing has so many things "perfect" and so many things completely wrong it's hilarious. My 2014 R8 is more authentic than this trainwreck.