My new 1958 les paull replica

[Tom Wittrock]

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...



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....

:rolleyes

When you change what I write into something else, and say that's what I said [and clearly above, you did that] then we can't have an honest discussion.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

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.

If you feel doing illegal things is ethical, then we will disagree.

 

[NYCBURST]

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.

You see here's where you ignorance comes in. To say he probably sounds 100 percent better than me on my magical forgeries. You dont even know who I am you arrogant little jerk. You believe what you see on YouTube videos with Joe Bonamassa who keeps buying vintage bursts but says it's not a big tone factor, because he wants people like yourself to keep buying his signature models with Gibson. Seriously, get a life dude. You've probably never even held an original 59 les paul let alone owned one.. go back to you're basement and sift through the guitar center catalog.

 

[fakejake]

If you feel doing illegal things is ethical, then we will disagree.

I don't think you thought this statement through, Tom.
Horrendous, gruesome, inhumane things were and are legal in some countries throughout history, while not adhering to some of these practices and things were or would be considerd illegal. Sometimes, one must break the law in oder to act ethical. Just think of some of the laws in the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, ISIS etc...

 

[fred dons]

in conclusion, are we now going to remove the les paul logo on the top of the page, or did the forum get a sublicense from Gibson ?

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

in conclusion, are we now going to remove the les paul logo on the top of the page, or did the forum get a sublicense from Gibson ?

As of 2017 Gibson don't own it.

The Les Paul Estate does.

Charlie Daughtry has already addressed, and dealt with the issue.

:salude

 

[RocknRollShakeUp]

You see here's where you ignorance comes in. To say he probably sounds 100 percent better than me on my magical forgeries. You dont even know who I am you arrogant little jerk. You believe what you see on YouTube videos with Joe Bonamassa who keeps buying vintage bursts but says it's not a big tone factor, because he wants people like yourself to keep buying his signature models with Gibson. Seriously, get a life dude. You've probably never even held an original 59 les paul let alone owned one.. go back to you're basement and sift through the guitar center catalog.

Oh man, I'm so sorry, I really hit a nerve..you do have quite a sensitive ego on you...but yeah, a really good player on a run of the mill reissue will sound way better than a lesser player on a hyped up forgery, or even hyped up replica, or even a real 59 burst. Good tone and playing is in the player and their technique and physical and aesthetic interaction with the instrument. In other words good tone mostly comes from the fingers and not from the "old growth wood", or even from the real burst.

But I can see how some obsess about the materialistic aspect of playing and equipment and fall into the trap that they must have some special material item in order to allow them to unlock the mysteries of truly good tone and playing. When the truth is, there are lots of instruments out there, some quite banal on their surface, that will do the job if you are a good enough player. The opposite is not true however and even the most superlative equipment will sound like shit in the hands of a hack.

And btw, newsflash, Bonamassa sounded amazing even when he was using Reissues. If he wants that extra little bit of magic from using vintage equipment that he can now afford in spades, well, that's cool, and God bless him.

Most people however would be better served by buying a good non fraudulent reissue and just focusing on playing it masterfully, rather than getting involved in the ethically questionable practice of buying forgeries that are promised to be built by "old growth wood" (which may or may not be in fact the case) that will take them into tonal and playing Nirvana.

But hey bro-man, what ever floats your boat. It is your time, your money, and your ethical compass.

And with that, I've nothing more to add. Cheerio and be well (I really do mean it).

 

[brandtkronholm]

...I have owned since '95 approximately 50 historic reissues or more...

That's better than 2 reissues a year! What are you chasing? (Have you tried a PRS?)

I think RocknRollShakeUp has made the keen observation:

...But I can see how some obsess about the materialistic aspect of playing and equipment and fall into the trap that they must have some special material item in order to allow them to unlock the mysteries of truly good tone and playing.

 

[Ed A]

:rolleyes

When you change what I write into something else, and say that's what I said [and clearly above, you did that] then we can't have an honest discussion.

Well Im sorry you feel we cant have an honest discussion, and I assume (but Im trying to learn not to assume anything) that you feel I intentionally changed your words... It was not that at all, I apparently misunderstood what you said... So I apologize for misquoting you.... it is still going over my head exactly what you were trying to say about having and owning Gibson branded replicas vs ordering one like that... I think you can maybe give me an inch for misunderstanding your poser comment and definition?..... but I had no intention of changing words to serve my purpose, I REALLY thought I knew exactly what you were saying... so honestly and sincerely, my bad.

 

[Ed A]

Quote Originally Posted by Ed A View Post
...I have owned since '95 approximately 50 historic reissues or more...

That's better than 2 reissues a year! What are you chasing? (Have you tried a PRS?)

I think RocknRollShakeUp has made the keen observation:

Not exactly sure what Im chasing, but I can certainly say Ive had Gear Aquisition Syndrome for quite some time!... Although thankfully its calmed down... but to answer your question (sorry, you asked)... I played the same 1971 Les Paul for 20 years from 1974 to 1994... I got my first Murphy painted R9 in 1994... I then binged on historics for about 15 years... never owning more than two at a time... the obsession to find the perfect flame with the perfect color with the perfect tone... even though I knew that isnt possible I bought and sold a ton anyway.... truth being, it WAS FUN... LOL!... the anticipation of opening a new case and smelling that fresh lacquer... problem is I had to sell in order to buy... but so what... I had some awesomely cool historics including four painted and aged Murphy '99s... but I wasnt sentimentally attached to any one of them... The ONLY one that will never go is my 10lb 1971... I did all my learning on that guitar and its the only one that will stay forever... the rest?... easy come, easy go as Ralph Kramden would say!

 

[NYCBURST]

Oh man, I'm so sorry, I really hit a nerve..you do have quite a sensitive ego on you...but yeah, a really good player on a run of the mill reissue will sound way better than a lesser player on a hyped up forgery, or even hyped up replica, or even a real 59 burst. Good tone and playing is in the player and their technique and physical and aesthetic interaction with the instrument. In other words good tone mostly comes from the fingers and not from the "old growth wood", or even from the real burst.

But I can see how some obsess about the materialistic aspect of playing and equipment and fall into the trap that they must have some special material item in order to allow them to unlock the mysteries of truly good tone and playing. When the truth is, there are lots of instruments out there, some quite banal on their surface, that will do the job if you are a good enough player. The opposite is not true however and even the most superlative equipment will sound like shit in the hands of a hack.

And btw, newsflash, Bonamassa sounded amazing even when he was using Reissues. If he wants that extra little bit of magic from using vintage equipment that he can now afford in spades, well, that's cool, and God bless him.

Most people however would be better served by buying a good non fraudulent reissue and just focusing on playing it masterfully, rather than getting involved in the ethically questionable practice of buying forgeries that are promised to be built by "old growth wood" (which may or may not be in fact the case) that will take them into tonal and playing Nirvana.

But hey bro-man, what ever floats your boat. It is your time, your money, and your ethical compass.

And with that, I've nothing more to add. Cheerio and be well (I really do mean it).

I concur completely, tone does come from the fingers, it can be a 50 dollar guitar, if you have good tone, you have good tone. I'm not worried about my tone brother. That is not the discussion, the discussion is the quality of old growth wood, resin and Hyde glues Brazilian rosewood and the original lacquers. You're denying my experience of owning all these guitars and telling you the truth. How many 1950s les Pauls have you owned? How many have you played? That's all I want to know. Most of the people that comment on this forum, and say the new guitars sound the same as the vintage guitars have never even been in the same building as a 59 les Paul. How many bursts have you played?

 

[Tom Wittrock]

I don't think you thought this statement through, Tom.
Horrendous, gruesome, inhumane things were and are legal in some countries throughout history, while not adhering to some of these practices and things were or would be considerd illegal. Sometimes, one must break the law in oder to act ethical. Just think of some of the laws in the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, ISIS etc...

I agree with your point.
I was really talking about the subject of this thread, but I should not have stated what I did, without including that part of it.
I think that the illegal use of Gibson and Les Paul logos on Les Paul copy guitars is unethical.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

Well Im sorry you feel we cant have an honest discussion, and I assume (but Im trying to learn not to assume anything) that you feel I intentionally changed your words... It was not that at all, I apparently misunderstood what you said... So I apologize for misquoting you.... it is still going over my head exactly what you were trying to say about having and owning Gibson branded replicas vs ordering one like that... I think you can maybe give me an inch for misunderstanding your poser comment and definition?..... but I had no intention of changing words to serve my purpose, I REALLY thought I knew exactly what you were saying... so honestly and sincerely, my bad.

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.

 

[NYCBURST]

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.

I'll answer your question. I just commissioned another build that is almost done. The logo was not omitted, I could have easily had it left out, as I can most likely assume that Edward could have. I love these guitars because they best represent to me a reissue of an original 58 59 60 les paul. The reissues Gibson is making is not up to my standards, I'm very sorry that you struggle with that, but again that is you're American right to disagree, it's even you're right to call us posers, that's fine, I was just letting you know that I don't appreciate it. But if that's truly how you feel, I'm not asking you to feel a different way. I'm simply saying I don't like or agree with what you're saying. That's all. God bless America !!

 

[JReeves]

disgusting

 

[NYCBURST]

disgusting

Very dramatic response over a guitar..

 

[J.D.]

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

 

[NYCBURST]

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

Not if it's on a thread about "replicas" . I've owned hundreds of gibsons and still own Gibson guitars. If you're going to have a section for replica guitars, I suspect people are going to talk about replica guitars.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

Question for Replica Owners:


If the market for Replicas was akin to the high end Acoustic & Mandolin replicas where they can be sold in shops and they're exacting to every last detail except the name/label, would you be satisfied with that or would you still have the desire seek someone out who gives you the Gibson logo?

 

[NYCBURST]

Question for Replica Owners:


If the market for Replicas was akin to the high end Acoustic & Mandolin replicas where they can be sold in shops and they're exacting to every last detail except the name/label, would you be satisfied with that or would you still have the desire seek someone out who gives you the Gibson logo?

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.