rlord1974":2wz8ysqt said:jsp":2wz8ysqt said:rlord1974":2wz8ysqt said:ejecta":2wz8ysqt said:sah5150":2wz8ysqt said:It's a very accurate, painstakingly aged replica of a '59 LP. A replica is defined as "an exact copy or model of something". It's hand built by one guy using old growth lumber and original techniques with attention to detail that can't be matched by a big company approach for a price that is similar to a Collector's Choice. I personally appreciate this kind of craftsmanship and I've seen detailed pictures of how these builds are done and that is why I decided to get one. I'm not closed minded to original designs, I don't care what people think of my gear (although I share pictures sometimes for fun), I don't care about forum cred and personally, I don't care about sacred headstock designs and logos either... that aspect doesn't matter or appeal to me at all...ejecta":2wz8ysqt said:sah5150":2wz8ysqt said:That would be dumb because they'll make more money selling it off as what it really is...hoss33":2wz8ysqt said:Why not put a nice Bartlett headstock on it and be proud of it?
The second next owner is going to sell it off as a real Gibson. "Super rare factory Black Burst"...
Steve
So does it look like a Gibson headstock with the logo and Les Paul sig or does it have a Bartlett headstock? I'm assuming by the responses it's just another small time builder who can't sell enough of his original deigns to guitars players so fucking closed minded and worried what others think abut their gear and forum cred that it has to have that sacred headstock design and logo.
Steve
I should clarify that I wasn't saying you are close minded. It just seems a portion of guitar players seem too obsessed about looks of something that was made create music that you use your ears to enjoy.
If I may ask though.... would you be ok with someone making an exact copy of your Cherry Bomb amp down to every detail including your logo and name and selling it?
That's apples to oranges.
50's and early 60's Les Pauls haven't been produced for over 50 years and Gibson won't or can't produce replicas that use the same materials and craftsmanship. Hence the need to purchase quality replicas from other builders.
The Cherry Bomb is still being produced by the original designer/manufacturer.
So, would it be OK if I remade Nike Jordan XII's and sell them for profit? Nike can't or won't remake them, hence the need to find a quality replica...
Another apples to oranges comparison. But go ahead, knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that nobody wants them other than some microcosm of society with a bizarre fetish for ugly rubber shoes.
sah5150":1imj6s7a said:I didn't take any offense to what you said, I was just clarifying my position. You may very well be right about obsession with looks, etc, but most of the folks here are not pro musicians, in fact, many don't gig or record at all. If their hobby is buying guitars based on the look, or whatever, who cares, and why are they to be looked down on for doing so?ejecta":1imj6s7a said:I should clarify that I wasn't saying you are close minded. It just seems a portion of guitar players seem too obsessed about looks of something that was made create music that you use your ears to enjoy.
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...ejecta":1imj6s7a said:If I may ask though.... would you be ok with someone making an exact copy of your Cherry Bomb amp down to every detail including your logo and name and selling it?
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...
Steve
Gibson has shown that they will go after small builders making replicas that come to their attention with a cease and desist no matter what is written on the headstock. Do you think that is OK, when many companies had been making LPs with the same bodies and headstocks for years with no issue and the design has been in the public domain for 60 years? All of the sudden in the last decade or so, we have Fender and Gibson enforcing their patents to control the market.ejecta":32c1wv0b said:sah5150":32c1wv0b said:I didn't take any offense to what you said, I was just clarifying my position. You may very well be right about obsession with looks, etc, but most of the folks here are not pro musicians, in fact, many don't gig or record at all. If their hobby is buying guitars based on the look, or whatever, who cares, and why are they to be looked down on for doing so?ejecta":32c1wv0b said:I should clarify that I wasn't saying you are close minded. It just seems a portion of guitar players seem too obsessed about looks of something that was made create music that you use your ears to enjoy.
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...ejecta":32c1wv0b said:If I may ask though.... would you be ok with someone making an exact copy of your Cherry Bomb amp down to every detail including your logo and name and selling it?
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...
Steve
Obviously we see things differently and that's cool..... I'd personally never buy one because it's illegal for this guy build these guitars and he knows it and that's why no pics of the headstocks are shown. People can play justification gymnastics all thy want with excuses of magic old wood, "Gibson can't or won't", "attention to detail" but it is wrong for this guy to build and sell these guitars.
jsp":1ijvftnz said:rlord1974":1ijvftnz said:jsp":1ijvftnz said:rlord1974":1ijvftnz said:ejecta":1ijvftnz said:sah5150":1ijvftnz said:It's a very accurate, painstakingly aged replica of a '59 LP. A replica is defined as "an exact copy or model of something". It's hand built by one guy using old growth lumber and original techniques with attention to detail that can't be matched by a big company approach for a price that is similar to a Collector's Choice. I personally appreciate this kind of craftsmanship and I've seen detailed pictures of how these builds are done and that is why I decided to get one. I'm not closed minded to original designs, I don't care what people think of my gear (although I share pictures sometimes for fun), I don't care about forum cred and personally, I don't care about sacred headstock designs and logos either... that aspect doesn't matter or appeal to me at all...ejecta":1ijvftnz said:sah5150":1ijvftnz said:That would be dumb because they'll make more money selling it off as what it really is...hoss33":1ijvftnz said:Why not put a nice Bartlett headstock on it and be proud of it?
The second next owner is going to sell it off as a real Gibson. "Super rare factory Black Burst"...
Steve
So does it look like a Gibson headstock with the logo and Les Paul sig or does it have a Bartlett headstock? I'm assuming by the responses it's just another small time builder who can't sell enough of his original deigns to guitars players so fucking closed minded and worried what others think abut their gear and forum cred that it has to have that sacred headstock design and logo.
Steve
I should clarify that I wasn't saying you are close minded. It just seems a portion of guitar players seem too obsessed about looks of something that was made create music that you use your ears to enjoy.
If I may ask though.... would you be ok with someone making an exact copy of your Cherry Bomb amp down to every detail including your logo and name and selling it?
That's apples to oranges.
50's and early 60's Les Pauls haven't been produced for over 50 years and Gibson won't or can't produce replicas that use the same materials and craftsmanship. Hence the need to purchase quality replicas from other builders.
The Cherry Bomb is still being produced by the original designer/manufacturer.
So, would it be OK if I remade Nike Jordan XII's and sell them for profit? Nike can't or won't remake them, hence the need to find a quality replica...
Another apples to oranges comparison. But go ahead, knock yourself out. Just keep in mind that nobody wants them other than some microcosm of society with a bizarre fetish for ugly rubber shoes.
The actual product in question is irrelevant. I don't really care what guitar people play, but a counterfeit is a counterfeit, an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted product. If the guitar you love is a counterfeit, fine, but call it what it is.
Business":1rdltxva said:Gibson doesn't make budget guitars with the correct headstock and logo either
I don't think you can justify the existence of Chinese copies using that argument
Chinese Gibson because you can't afford a real Gibson
'59 replica because you can't afford a real '59
I don't really see the difference
Except '59 LPs are more music paraphernalia than they are musical instruments
sah5150":2zek5nva said:BTW, I think it's ironic that one of the most iconic Les Paul players and endorsers was actually playing replicas with replica names and logos:
Slash's Replicas
Slash is a bad guy I guess...
Steve
Actually, some folks posting in this thread ARE taking a pretty negative, "holier than though" attitude about the replica thing... and they are entitled to their opinion, as I am to retort....Business":2f65lekq said:Nobody's saying Slash (or anybody else) is a bad guy
What I'm pointing out is some people's double discourse over cheap vs expensive counterfeits
I've bought a LP copy myself. Right or wrong? I'm ambivalent
I'm paying for one guy's craftsmanship to make me a guitar that is the closest thing looks-wise, playability-wise and sound-wise to a real '59 at a price I can afford. It's more than just looks to me. Can't argue with anything else you said.Business":2f65lekq said:What are you paying for when you buy a '59 replica?
Quality? yes
But mostly, you're paying for it's nearly identical resemblance to an already existing product
Builder are getting paid because they can copy something perceived as valuable, not innovate or create
The new 2014 Historics are the most accurate yet in terms of construction (hide glue neck set, correct dye, truss rod sans tubing, etc.), but they do not get the neck or body carve right, they aren't using old growth lumber and they aren't going to be tailored to the sound I'm looking for like my build is. I sent the guy clips, he recommended pickups, etc. He is going to match a specific burst color I'm wanting. I got to pick out the maple for my top from a bunch of samples he had available. The Historics are great guitars - I've had two - this is just a different experience. A very custom experience you can only get from a small builder/one man shop where you have a lot of input...lespaul6":1h93acug said:I thought the latest 59 historics were supposed to be the most accurate? Do they sound that bad? The necks might still be a little thick but... what would be the main issue or issues with the historics?
Dunno, but I'd certainly be interested to see what it sounds like...lespaul6":wnz7k45s said:I wonder if cryogenic treatment of new wood might simulate the characteristics of old wood? I read somewhere about some builders trying this..
I'm not against big, per se. I just see very few big company custom shops doing things right. I waited two years for a Custom Shop Charvel when I was quoted 8 months, and the neck needed work when I did get it and it wasn't even painted, just primered. I don't mind waiting, I just want a real estimate of delivery and for it to be right when I get it. In the end, it's a great guitar, but I'll never order another one...lespaul6":wnz7k45s said:There does seem to be a strain in the culture which sees anything "big" as inherently flawed or incapable of providing quality products or services e.g. "big govt", "big business", "big banks" etc... I wonder if Gibson purchased the rest of that old growth wood for a bespoke custom shop if people would be interested in that? I listened to a few recordings of old instruments and they sounded different despite the woods age so I guess its difficult to know until you play it.