I have to ask?

[Deleted]

I have to ask a question... but first let me say this. I have been in a hot topic about Counterfeit/fake/replica guitars. The ones I have been chatting about are the ones that are supper expensive. To me this kind of guitar should not be made by anyone, unless you have permission form the guitars company and are licensed to do so.
So here is my question to those of you that build guitars. Would you build an exact copy of any guitar, use their name on the guitar, if you could get $10,000 or more for it? Hum..

EB

[antares]

Well, I don't consider myself as a builder of guitars because whilst there is a degree of skill required to make a Leo-type work nicely, it is still not like truly building a guitar in my view. We could have built S types etc in the factory where I worked although our product was aircraft interiors. In fact this has some similarities for me to a discussion as to whether very many builders should really promote themselves as luthiers? For example, someone buys a Stewmac acoustic guitar kit and sees it through. Should that someone be considered as a luthier when the finished item is broadly speaking much the same as one costing thousands, and then by extension should someone call themselves a luthier if he or she has never built a violin, cello or even perish the thought- a lute? What if that same individual completed a Stewmac fiddle kit? If it's down to making a living from it then although it's academic, perhaps they should be viewed as guitar builders?

Right, that's got the qualification surrounding the term "build" out of the way. If I was "building" guitars whether truly making or simply assembling, I would emphatically not put a decal on and sell it on, even for ten thousand dollars. What I would be prepared to do is let the prospective purchaser consult his or her own conscience as to which waterslide transfer he or she would like to apply, because if I was assembling a guitar that to all intents and purposes was someone else's design, I would have relinquished any right over what the buyer does to it.

Recently in another thread, I recounted how I declined a generous offer regarding a custom mandolin tailpiece, so no, I don't think I can envisage a scenario where I would ever do it. On the other hand, I have four self assembled Leo-types. Only my "Esquire" could even remotely conceivably be passed off as genuine. All have period correct decals. They are not for sale and although I have no control over what happens to them once I'm gone, they are pleasing to my eye hanging on the wall and I have no problem with that.

I also think that Fender (only an example) are partly to blame for the gross overcharging for some segments of their product line up. They wiil happily charge more for their Custom Shop (sic) guitars than a piece of art like (eg) Dane's Gecko. You go ahead and milk a cash cow in that way and inneviably you reap the rewards of plagiarism. I don't feel sorry for such perpetrators. I do feel for those that get hood-winked while believing they're getting the real deal, but I suspect those folk are in a relative minority. That said, some of the fakes would fool me. I also feel a bit for guitar shops that unknowingly trade in such guitars because it's a risk and the buck stops with them.

e&oe...

[dnic]

My simple answer is no. Steve covered the rest. Thanks Steve you saved me a lot of typing.

[Deleted]

I seen this video, in the video is a guy that is showing a Non Gibson LP with the Gibson name on it.It is supposed to be made just like they made them in 1959, by hand and used hide glue to make it. It says in the video the guy that made these studied the 59 LP for many years, and started to make replicas of the 1959 LPs.
It is also said that Slash (for guns and roses) had two of these guitars and that Gibson was so impressed with the guitars that Gibson started to do their reissues of the 59 LP all due to these fake guitars. Now these "fake" guitars go for almost as much as the real.
I question this... How could this guy get away with using the Gibson name on a LP?
In the video the guy says it is a fake, but it would take someone with really deep pockets to buy it. I just don't get it. Here in the USA we have laws against owning and selling guitars like this. It is a counterfeit.
But for me I would never own one or make an exact copy of anything. This kind of thing also goes on the car world. I can't tell you how many times I looked at "fake built" cars. That people were trying to pass off as the real deal. Sad to say so many people get took on stuff like this everyday!
EB

[antares]

Then Gibson skanked the idea of re-issues of the 'burst from someone else? Hmmm.

e&oe...

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2018 16:23:23 GMT -6 antares said:

Then Gibson skanked the idea of re-issues of the 'burst from someone else? Hmmm.

e&oe...

That is what I have been told by more than one person... Like to know where they got this info.

So far not one of them have not responded to me asking where did you get the info? And how they think that Slash was the one that turned it around for people and Gibson to like the LP's again.

One guy was telling me in the 80's you couldn't even give away an LP because no one wanted them. I did say to him, I found that really hard to believe, because I knew people and played with people that played LP's back in the 80's and that's all they could talk about.

And so far no one has told me how any of these people can make and sell a counterfeit guitars with the branding, and get away with it? Right now here in the USA there are thousands of counterfeit that are made in a factory and sent here that are being shredded up into small peaces because of them being counterfeit.

I just don't get it. All I can see is someone in the future buying one of these 1959 counterfeits and paying a lot of money for it, only to find out sometime later that it's a fake!

I have seen too many of these so called "replicas" being made. One day someone is going to spend a lot of money buying one and get taken really bad. I know there is no way to stop people from making fake guitars or anything else. But I hope that this thing we say " what comes around goes around" will catch them and bite them in the butt.

EB

[antares]

If you are in the market for such a stratospherically priced guitar, then you really should do your research and if something seems too good to be true, odds-on that's just what it is. You wouldn't buy one from eBay or Craigslist would you? If in the fairy tale world of my dreams I had that sort of cash to hemorrhage on a guitar, I think I'd be going to Norman's Rare Guitars or somewhere like that where you can have some kind of reassurance of a come back.

FWIW, I've heard the same story about that guitar and Gibson's response at least ten years ago, so I don't doubt that it's true Eddie. I think your correspondents may well be on the level, but thinking is one thing, proof is another so I can see where you're coming from. I know full well it's wrong and I wouldn't get involved, but at the same time, I'm more relaxed about it. I reckon that plagiarism actually creates a scenario that allows these companies to position themselves at the top of the market and to a great extent trade on their legacy. Rolex is a great example; I've owned one since 1989 and it is a nice wrist watch. At their eye watering asking prices, they facilitate a pirate market which perpetuates Rolex's ability to overcharge those that simply must have the logo. Rolex lose nothing because the vast majority of sane folks would not consider purchasing one whether they had the money or not and importantly- it allows them to create and maintain an aura of exclusivity. At the moment I have a Steinhart Submariner "homage" on my wrist. Unlike a Chinese fake, it carries the name "Steinhart" name on the dial but more importantly it is indistinguishable in fit, finish and function from a Rolex Sub which would cost 20 times as much. It's Swiss made to a German company's "design". I rest my case m'lud!

I'm also reminded of Microsoft's crocodile tears regarding pirating that conveniently ignores the fact that they have benefited greatly from the very ubiquity of Windoze that pirate software helps to perpetuate. Also- Microsoft's products do not become less expensive over time while PC hardware improves exponentially and continues to plummet in cost. I thought the competition that drives down hardware prices was the American way? Seems not to be the case with Micro$oft's products installed on such hardware...

I had no idea that it is illegal even to own such fakes in The USA? I don't believe it is illegal to own replicas here, but importing may well be, and definitely misrepresenting such merchandise is quite rightly illegal. Good thread Eddie.

Caveat emptor!

e&oe...

[dnic]

All of this discussion has made me ask myself the question, what kind of person would make fake guitars just for money. Cause to me it's just plain thievery. But then it occurred to me maybe it's like art forgery. An artist that paints forgeries has to be a very talented painter in his own right that may not be getting a fair price on his own art. But add to the cash possibilities of forgery the ego rush of pulling it off and having to be as good as the original painter or really even better. Now apply that to guitars and maybe there's a reason for builders to go there. Now this will sound egotistical but the LP and the 335 copy I've done are every bit as good, even better than Gibson. I tried to be as close to the real deal as possible but of course did not put Gibson the peghead. And I made improvements on the LP that would give it right away. OK and the burst on the 335 was not a Gibby looking burst. I actually decided after that guitar I'm not making dead on copies anymore. But that may only last until the next guy offers me a pile of money. Not sure I'm making any sense, but thanks for bearing with me if you did.

Now just to through another wrench into the rabbit hole. My belief is that every LP built after 59 is actually a copy. Even the ones built by Gibson. "right now Eddie is grabbing his chest like Sanford, I'm coming to see you Elizabeth". Sorry if you're not up on 70s American sit-coms Steve. Eddie I know you love your later model LP but bear with me. Simply said after 59' Gibson stopped making LPs as we know them. Yes they went to the SG body and called it LP for a couple of years. But when they started building LPs again it was in a different factory on different machines with new jigs and fixtures and likely a new crew of people. So yes Gibson makes a Les Paul looking guitar and they use the same kinds of wood as they did in the 50s but so do a lot of others. So the only thing that makes them more legit is the Gibson name.

I'm sort of jerking your chains here but not entirely. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

[antares]

I agree with that analysis Dane. What's in a name? Gibson acquired the Dobro name. Upshot is you can't buy "Dobro" strings from anyone. How fundamentally stupid is that? It's like being told you cannot buy a "hoover". perhaps you guys call them vacuum cleaners over there? Here they are known as "hoovers" as well. Moreover- look what the Gibson behemoth did to old John Dopyera? Those bottom feeding characters even forced a very old man to change the name of his home because it infringed their name. When you weigh things up, this whole Gibson thing gets pretty unsavoury. That said it's just how it is in a dog eat dog commercial world.

Personally I don't care for what I shall call the single cut. Always subjective, but to me it doesn't look right and I want to set to with tools to rework a second cutaway. For decades I have preferred (eg) Ibanez Artists and of course the Yamaha SG2000 that I chose to scratch that set neck carved maple top on hog itch. In fact I'd put my Yammy up against any Lester including a grail '59 'burst but that's another discussion that has already been thrashed into submission.

I've just remembered that I directly imported a replica of a Rolex 5517 "Mil Sub" from China using a "Trusted Dealer". It wouldn't fool anyone on a large number of specific attributes. I can justify it to myself because only around 1200 military submariners were made and only around 300 are known of. You cannot buy them and when one comes up it's around $100,000. Rolex have never re-issued them. Accordingly I have no personal problem with that even because I couldn't just buy one even if I was that stupid and Rolex wouldn't make a cent out of such a second hand deal, but I admit that it's double standards on my part. Even if they did re-issue it, they would base its retail price on the notion of that $100,000 figure so let's say at least four or five times the retail of a standard Submariner? For a watch that Steinhart can bring to market for 500 bucks? It stinks guys. Sorry to continue with the watch analogies but I also have a replica Omega Speedmaster. I also have a "gen" Speedie and I use the replica to preserve the condition of the genuine watch. Would Omega have me buy a second "gen" to preserve the first? Do I care? The important point is that I would never try to pass off the replica to someone as a "gen". I met Alan Bean once and Neil Armstrong is one of my heroes!

BTW, John Mayer wears an original Rolex 5517 MilSub.

I guess what I'm saying in my usual long-winded and meandering fashion is that there's something wrong with a system that facilitates such gross overcharging, and whilst I am wholly against faking, it is a quid-pro-quo of that business model. Fakes per-se are not the same thing as Eddie's original post, but the two are inextricably linked.



e&oe...

[Deleted]

Dane your not really jerking my chain...

I know I can build an exact replica of just about anything, not just guitars. But my problem is people who do, and then sells these guitars or anything else. To me it is now a forgery, counterfeit. And even though people should check out what they are buying, you know as well as I do, that someone out there will buy one of these, due to impulse buying and get taken.
I don't know if you all remember the fake I had. It fooled me and 5 other music store pros. It was really a guy that worked for Grover that showed me and others that it was truly a fake.
So I guess my question is, how do people get away with selling these "Fakes" eBay is full of these guitars and some are selling for more than $10,000. Why not just buy a real Gibson? I mean if you have $10,000 to spend on a fake I bet you would have the money to buy the real deal. Or go to Gibson and have them build it, if you have to have the Name brand on it.

I understand the are and satisfaction of building a great instrument. But when it comes to making money off of what Name bards have already done... I have a problem with it. Even when I built kit guitars I always made changes to them so no one could ever try and sell them for the real deal.

I know we all build look a like guitars. LP, ES335, Strat, Tele's PRS, and so on. But these are only similar, and just at a glance they remind people of the original.

NO for me I could never do an exact copy or replicas and put a name brand on it. I don't care how much someone would offer me to do so. I still wonder how so many of these builders can get away with selling something that is a fake, with the name branding on it? One of the funny things is, seeing people complain about the high cost of the Gibson guitars, and yet there are people buying these fakes for thousands of dollars without a blink of an eye.

Hum.. Something is wrong with this whole thing.

As far as Gibson making "replicas" Gibson has the right to make replicas of their own guitars. They are backed up by Gibson. Someone else making a "replica" will not (in most cases) back up their work. Or in a few years they won't be around to do so. Just like all the custom guitars I have made and sold, I will back them up for only a 2 year spanned. I mean I am not a big company like Gibson or Fender and so on. Never wanted to be.

someone said that it's because people like to have a hand built guitar that is not made with a CNC machine. Oh really? I have not seen how any of these so called copies were made. Oh they talk about how it was made but no one shows how it was made. How do know of these people are not using a CNC? If they are truly hand made, I really doubt that the build would be exact every time. Even in the old days each hand built guitar was not exact. This is one reason that those guitars are sought after. No two are exactly alike.

I'll end with this... Is it wrong to build something and then sell it with the manufactures name on it. I would say a big yes! I don't even agree with it, even if you say it's for yourself. Some day you will pass on, and someday someone will buy that guitar thinking they have a real deal.

I think I shared this with you once;
I had a guy that brought over a Fender Strat, (so called) for me to do some work to and to give it a good look over. This guitar looked really good for it's so called age. The neck had all the right markings on it and it was made around 1970. So I would up taking the neck off to see about the markings that should have been there from the factory.
That is when nothing about this guitar was real except the neck. The neck had the markings on it, but the body was Squire, plywood. The pickups were Squire and so on. The guy was out a lot of money. He learned that day (an expensive learning curve)Not to trust everyone.But I did put the guitar back together and made it play good. I even put in some new pickups in it. Came out pretty good.
Oh the guy that had or has this guitar did go back to find the guy he got it from... You guessed it, he was nowhere to be found. I also gave the guy the option of me making a body or he could buy one on eBay, and I would swap out the parts. But after I have playing so good with the plywood body, he decided to go with it.

But I guess, this whole this is about morals and ethics. Sad thing that there so many out there that lack these traits or integrity in there lives.
EB