Another LP Replica NGD

[Anonymous]

Awesome guitar, Steve. Crying shame that certain douchebags had to shit on your NGD with their cunty little comments. My how the mighty Rigtalk has fallen.....

Agreed... It's not mine though, it's Brett's (the OP)...

Mine (with clip) is here:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169876

Our guitars were made pretty much side by side by the same builder...

Steve

 

[VC4Ever]

So in conclusion Ejecta is a loser.

 

[xXDaveyJonesXx]

In conclusion, Gibson is such a shell of its former self with price points more demanding than ever to the point that they're forcing guitarist to look to luthiers who are reputed to build a Gibson better than Gibson. To build a guitar with the integrity and quality that Gibson used to back when they gave a damn and respected their customers enough to give them their money's worth.

At this point, it's Gibson who would be better off changing their logos and headstocks, as the re-birth of these... "Classics" are impostures to the legacy of Les Paul. A sad, sorry, sick joke. Much like this thread and forum is becoming everyday.

I'm right behind Steve and the OP and taking my money elsewhere.

 

[ejecta]

Slash has nothing to do with this. Wow... The mental gymnastics are amazing around here. .

So, let me understand. Slash does exactly the same thing the OP (and a few others writing in this thread) has done - have built and use a high quality replica guitar with a Gibson logo on the headstock, but he has nothing to do with this? Are you kidding me? Perhaps you should spend a little time on Luminosity...

Some interesting stuff from an article on replicas (reproduced from a previous replica thread here that went bad

Slash's Replicas

The Reality of Replicas

Undoubtedly, major guitar manufacturers like Gibson, Fender, and Ibanez view any instrument produced by an unofficial source to be counterfeit. And legally that’s certainly true. But the handmade replica culture is not the same thing as some unsuspecting musician getting ripped off. Instead, all parties involved (except the major companies) agree that this can be an honorable transaction among consenting adults—one that involves high-quality instruments.

“Keep in mind that a guitar builder is very similar to an artist,” says Roman Rist. “For an artist to pull off a convincing Picasso means he has arrived. It is not about passing off a fake. Rather, it’s a way of saying ‘Hey, this is my business card. If I can do this, I can do just about anything.’”

Some replica builders who did not want to be identified in this story even have relationships with the companies they’re copying. They might do custom work for those manufacturers or help out in a pinch. Replicas are frequently of such stellar quality that they command high prices on the vintage market to this day.

“The last nice Max-made Les Paul that I know of changed hands for $45,000,” says Howie Hubberman. Baranet himself won’t confirm this, but when offered a range of $35,000 to $50,000, he says, “They’ve resold much higher than that.”

Ironically, some replica builders are so respected that other people copy their work.

“There are more forgeries of my stuff than my replicas of the corporate stuff,” Baranet laughs.

Again if someone took your amp and made an exact copy of it right down to the logo you'd have a shit fit and you know it. You'd have every reason to be pissed and take legal action to make them stop.

Absolutely amazing the irony.

Oh yes, the same old tired nonsense you asked in the thread mentioned above that you took a shit on:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=156983&hilit=replica+gibson&start=50

Rather than just reference it, here's what I said the last time you asked the same exact question:

I knew this was coming, and it is a fair question. The only thing I am conflicted on in the least is the logo/name, however, as I said, that aspect is irrelevant to me. In other words, I'd buy the guitar with whatever was written on the headstock. To me that has no value. The guitar will have more value as what it really is, so passing it off as something from the original manufacturer makes no sense and any real buyer is going to know it is not a real '59... It is a replica and people make replicas of all kinds of things down to the last detail...

If the original manufacturer was making guitars like this, I'd buy one, but they don't... that is why there is a small market for these in the first place.

As far as making something that copies a design, it happens every day. Ceriatone and any number of amp companies make a living directly copying other designs EXACTLY, putting a different logo on the final product and selling it (usually cheaper) and no one seems to have much issue with that. You can't really protect amp designs - they are simple circuits and it is cost prohibitive to try to actually patent any innovation around them for small companies anyway. You have to have deep pockets to enforce a patent. Not worth it... I think patenting guitar bodies and head stocks that have been in the public domain for 60 years is laughable, especially since many companies were making the same style guitars forever. It is just a way to try and control the market now...

Finally, it would be silly of anyone to use my name and logo. I have very low market penetration, so anyone copying my amp would be better off putting their own name on it. if someone was making an exact copy of my amp with a different name, there would be nothing I could do about it frankly, so I wouldn't care in the least... If it was really an exact copy down to the components, I'd know for a fact they couldn't price it cheaper than I have and make money...

Please try to remember my answer next time so I don't have to keep re-posting it... or, maybe, just keep your thoughts to yourself since you keep repeating yourself in every LP replica thread and you never get the answer you want...

Steve

Again all it is all these long winded responses peppered with personal attacks against me but no one has yet to point with a well reasoned response how this is legal. It's obviously not hence the reason to "protect" the thiefs.

By the way I remember your answer and it's contradictory as much now as much as it was then.

And the record on the amp tangent... if George Metropoleous made an exact clone of a 60's plexi and put a Marshall logo on it and sold it that way then I'd think he was an asshole just as much as anyone who bought one from him.

 

[ejecta]

If I'm a douche and loser for sticking up for the protection of people's copyrighted designs and property then so be it. I'll wear those names proudly for all us designers out there.

 

[Anonymous]

Again all it is all these long winded responses peppered with personal attacks against me but no one has yet to point with a well reasoned response how this is legal. It's obviously not hence the reason to "protect" the thiefs.

No one has said that it's legal and no one has to justify what they do to you...

By the way I remember you answer and it's contradictory as much now as much as it was then.

Then why ask the same stupid question? Were you expecting me to give a different answer? There is nothing contradictory about what I said now or then. Do you even know what the word means?

And the record on the amp tangent... if George Metropoleous made an exact clone of a 60's plexi and put a Marshall logo on it and sold it that way then I'd think he is as big a douche just as much as anyone who bought one from him.

For the record, I don't care what you think. I really don't.

On another note, I guess it's ok for a Marshall cloner to "steal" Marshall's exact design, layout, component choices, cosmetics, etc. and then offer it without a logo so someone can slap a Marshall logo on it though, simply because Marshall doesn't have a U.S. Patent on the design, huh? Where is your moral indignation there? Well thank you, Mr. Morality, fighting for the rights of designers everywhere! You should actually hate any Marshall cloner and everything cloners like Ceriatone/Bugera as 'thieves" as much as any LP cloner! What a hypocrite...

Done talking to you now on this subject... You ignore what people write and just talk...

Steve

 

[Scumback Speakers]

Technically you shouldn't post a replica's headstock with the "Gisbon" name on it as they may pursue your builder with a cease and desist order. Then no one would have a decent Les Paul unless it was 50 plus years old.

what a load of shit...

Not sure what exactly is a load here, but...

You're entitled to your opinion. I know of two builders who got "cease and desist" orders from Gibson after buyers posted pics and the name to the builders on the LPF forum. After that the LPF and TGP made it clear that you could post pics of your Les Paul replicas as long as the headstock wasn't in view and said "Gibson" (or Gisbon, LOL). If you did, your pics got yanked, your post got deleted, or edited, and you got a suspension or got banned.

So while you may think that policy is a "load of shit", it's also fact that the forums don't want to get into a legal battle with Gibson..and that's why they do it.

Now if you want to debate old wood vs new wood, that's another subject, and tonally subjective. I've heard plenty of new R9's, R8's that sound decent. But they don't ring, vibrate, or sound like a guitar that's made in the 50/60's or has wood from that timeframe, in my experience. I've only played 10-12 real 58-60 bursts, and over 200 HIstorics, R9's, etc. to base my opinion I've posted, but the results have been pretty consistent when I compared them side by side.

I've also played replicas made by all (or most) of the major "replica" builders (that I know of). They're all head and shoulders above the production Gibsons made now. That includes three different Derrigs, Max's, Bobburst, Gilyaron, etc. The Derrigs were popularized by Slash, of course, and did a lot towards bringing the Les Paul back to prominence in the late 80's.

So not showing the "Gibson" logo on the "open book" style headstock in a pic on a forum is doing the forum you're typing on a favor by keeping them from paying legal fees, or some other investigative crap.

I hope that explains why no headstock pics is practiced in online pics.

 

[Anonymous]

Technically you shouldn't post a replica's headstock with the "Gisbon" name on it as they may pursue your builder with a cease and desist order. Then no one would have a decent Les Paul unless it was 50 plus years old.

what a load of shit...

Not sure what exactly is a load here, but...

You're entitled to your opinion. I know of two builders who got "cease and desist" orders from Gibson after buyers posted pics and the name to the builders on the LPF forum. After that the LPF and TGP made it clear that you could post pics of your Les Paul replicas as long as the headstock wasn't in view and said "Gibson" (or Gisbon, LOL). If you did, your pics got yanked, your post got deleted, or edited, and you got a suspension or got banned.

So while you may think that policy is a "load of shit", it's also fact that the forums don't want to get into a legal battle with Gibson..and that's why they do it.

Now if you want to debate old wood vs new wood, that's another subject, and tonally subjective. I've heard plenty of new R9's, R8's that sound decent. But they don't ring, vibrate, or sound like a guitar that's made in the 50/60's or has wood from that timeframe, in my experience. I've only played 10-12 real 58-60 bursts, and over 200 HIstorics, R9's, etc. to base my opinion I've posted, but the results have been pretty consistent when I compared them side by side.

I've also played replicas made by all (or most) of the major "replica" builders (that I know of). They're all head and shoulders above the production Gibsons made now. That includes three different Derrigs, Max's, Bobburst, Gilyaron, etc. The Derrigs were popularized by Slash, of course, and did a lot towards bringing the Les Paul back to prominence in the late 80's.

So not showing the "Gibson" logo on the "open book" style headstock in a pic on a forum is doing the forum you're typing on a favor by keeping them from paying legal fees, or some other investigative crap.

I hope that explains why no headstock pics is practiced in online pics.

I think his point was that he disagrees with your last statement that you can't get a decent Les Paul that isn't 50 years old... I don't think he's contesting the rest of what you said...

Steve

 

[bonedarrell]

I'll wear those names proudly for all us designers out there.

Ahhhh! And there it is!!

You're not an asshole, you're a crusader!! A voice of righteousness and goodness for all of the big corporations loosing all of their biz to the independent luthier thief pirates!!! I get it now! If these luthiers didn't exist, we would all be forced to spend our money with Gibson! It is so clear now! You have shed so much light on all of us!!! So now what should we do with these despicable replicas we own? Any thoughts? Give them to you so you can turn them in to Gibson and we can all go to jail??? Hey man, I want to do what's right and you are obviously the voice of all that is right, honest and good!!


or........


You're just a whiney, bitchy dude that just has to grandstand about something and, I will just keep my superior replica while you preach to an empty room?????

I lean towards the later.....

Hey man, not everybody can afford one of these. No shame bro. Some people own islands and I can't afford one of those.. All good sugar.

 

[Scumback Speakers]

I think his point was that he disagrees with your last statement that you can't get a decent Les Paul that isn't 50 years old... I don't think he's contesting the rest of what you said...

Steve

Ah, maybe that's an angle I missed, but I did go for a replica vs an R9 or R8 so I won't be able to agree with him on that one, either.

Should I bring my 59 Junior tomorrow to make sure we have one legitimate Gibson logo in the room?

 

[pstar]

Welcome steve and Brett to the b.g.c....
They become addictive. Can't stop at 1.

 

[rottingcorpse]

IMO,ejecta is just stating the obvious. It is illegal.

IMO,stating such fact in someone's NGD thread that said in the title that it was a replica is a "captain obvious" move.

IMO, now he is forced to stand his moral high ground for making a social faux pas.

He could have, at any time, just said "happy new guitar day" but chose to get into an internet "lobster knife fight"......which seems to happen often on the online forums....not just here.

As I have stated before, I am blown away by the beauty and craftsmanship of the said replicas. The OP's replica drops my jaw as much as Steve's did. If I wanted a guitar of this body style and caliber, and could afford one, I would have no qualms about having one built for me this way. The Gibsons I have played are so "hit and miss" that I would never place a custom order with them.

To the OP and steve,enjoy your new guitars. They are true handmade works of art, worthy of your love. I am jealous.

 

[kalt]

To most of the above,...wow. Just wow.

To the OP, LOVE the new git bro.

Gratz!

 

[bwgintegra]

Hey Guys, haven't been on RT much the last couple of days. Looks like have missed out of the discussion here. Three years ago I played a LP replica at the LA amp fest that was amazing. A year later it was time to make the purchase and wait. I couldn't be happier with the guitar! I have a nice collection of guitars and LP style guitars. This guitar is absolutely great, feels and plays amazing. This is also my first experience with OX4 pickups, have just the right amount of bite and output. I just wanted to share a great guitar with my fellow RT members and not start a shit storm about replica builders.

 

[steve_k]

Hey Guys, haven't been on RT much the last couple of days. Looks like have missed out of the discussion here. Three years ago I played a LP replica at the LA amp fest that was amazing. A year later it was time to make the purchase and wait. I couldn't be happier with the guitar! I have a nice collection of guitars and LP style guitars. This guitar is absolutely great, feels and plays amazing. This is also my first experience with OX4 pickups, have just the right amount of bite and output. I just wanted to share a great guitar with my fellow RT members and not start a shit storm about replica builders.

Agree with you on the OX4 PU's. Those were in my last replcia. Liked them so much that I contacted Mark at OX4 and got him to custom wind me a couple more sets for my others.

 

[voodooradio1]

Technically you shouldn't post a replica's headstock with the "Gisbon" name on it as they may pursue your builder with a cease and desist order. Then no one would have a decent Les Paul unless it was 50 plus years old.

That just doesn't make any sense? I know this builder goes to great lengths to get the details correct, and they certainly look to be high quality guitars, but at the end of the day these are not Gibson Les Pauls, they are Gil Yarons. If these guitars are as nice as everyone says they are, why would they have a problem with the builder putting his own name on the headstock? I just don't see how infringing on Gibsons trademarks adds anything to the guitar, besides an element of dishonesty.
If I had the ability to build a guitar as awesome looking as this, I sure as hell wouldn't give the credit to someone else.

(Edit) When I dropped this post, I didn't realize the thread had turned into a shitstorm. The guitar looks awesome, and I'm not trying to pass judgement on how others spend their hard earned money. By most all accounts, these guitars are as good, or better than the originals, which is why I don't really get the use of another companies name on the headstock. Wasn't trying to stir shit, so Happy NGD !!

 

[rupe]

Technically you shouldn't post a replica's headstock with the "Gisbon" name on it as they may pursue your builder with a cease and desist order. Then no one would have a decent Les Paul unless it was 50 plus years old.

That just doesn't make any sense? I know this builder goes to great lengths to get the details correct, and they certainly look to be high quality guitars, but at the end of the day these are not Gibson Les Pauls, they are Gil Yarons. If these guitars are as nice as everyone says they are, why would they have a problem with the builder putting his own name on the headstock? I just don't see how infringing on Gibsons trademarks adds anything to the guitar, besides an element of dishonesty.
If I had the ability to build a guitar as awesome looking as this, I sure as hell wouldn't give the credit to someone else.

It's not about the builder, it's about the market that builder serves. There are enough people out there who care as much about the look as they do the quality of the instrument. Seeing anything other than "Gibson" and "Les Paul" on the headstock doesn't complete the look.
This market exists because there are enough players with discerning tastes (and a few others who are clueless but have a desire to be a part of "the club") who are willing to pay a premium for something that Gibson doesn't offer...a near dead-on replica of a '58-'60 burst.
I won't get into the ethics/morals or what I think in that regard...I'm simply stating why this "is".

 

[Beyond Black]

Awesome guitar, Steve. Crying shame that certain douchebags had to shit on your NGD with their cunty little comments. My how the mighty Rigtalk has fallen.....

Agreed... It's not mine though, it's Brett's (the OP)...

Mine (with clip) is here:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169876

Our guitars were made pretty much side by side by the same builder...

Steve

Oops, my bad. With all of the unnecessary, self righteous, judgemental whining going on around here, I lost track of who's NGD thread was getting shit on...
Awesome guitar, Brett. Crying shame that certain douchebags had to shit on your NGD with their cunty little comments. My how the mighty Rigtalk has fallen....Corrected!

 

[Badronald]

Les Paul's and replica's sure stir people up don't they?

I've got nothing to add except, looks nice man, congrats on the new guitar.

 

[theminijimmy]

Looks Amazing bro.....Enjoy and post some more pix of it..