Gibson ( Fakes/Chinese knock offs)

[1meanplexi]

But...that guitar was never for sale, just made for him.

Um, GNR's manager bought that guitar and gave it to Slash. Slash was broke and unknown at the time; no way someone would make a high end Les Paul copy and just give it to him.

That is correct.....see this link http://www.slashsworld.com/equipment/gu ... is-derrig/ what is the guitar referred as in the first paragraph? Doesn't matter how he got the thing. What does the headstock say in the pics?

Says "Gibson". You better report him.

Hmmm.....Indeed !

 

[rlord1974]

The only "fakes" that get my blood boiling are the ones that use the actual manufacturer's logo and model name on them. That is counterfeiting, pure and simple. It's a rip-off and can deceive/swindle a potential purchaser.

"Replicas" of a guitar that have the actual luthier's name and/or logo don't get me as rattled, because they are not masquerading to be something they are not.

I guess that means: I'm against the Chinese counterfeit guitars, and have less disdain for something like a Yaron, as it has Yaron's name on it - not Gibson's. I'm sure Gibson's position is quite different than mine, however.

Neither of the two Gil Yaron LP's that have been shown on this site in the last week have Gil Yaron's name on the headstock. They both say Gibson, so yeah, I imagine Gibson would take issue with that as well.

Links please. I could have sworn they said "Gilyaron" in the Gibson script font....

I am speaking about two separate guitars, each with the logo covered in all of the pics I have seen.

.....The only thing I have seen so far are covered logos, with some fairly lame excuses for why they are covered.

.....I find the fact that both logos are covered highly suspect when coupled with all of the "nod,nod, wink, wink" shit going on in that thread, and that in my opinion, they feature a Gibson logo. That would be the only good reason I could think of to hide them.

Fair enough. I'm just going on what has been disclosed publicly, but you're right: there's a reasonably good likelihood that they do say 'Gibson', in which case I would consider them to be "counterfeits', not replicas. However, they are some pretty damn high quality "counterfeits"!

 

[Anonymous]

They did say Gilyaron in Gibson font.

The intent was to look like it, so they are infringing. The idea is to be confused at a glance. That meets the intent.

I dunno man, I really don't think anyone is gonna drop $10.5K on a guitar and then notice, "Holy shit! This says Gilyaron not Gibson!!!" I really don't think Gil's intention is to confuse anyone. It really doesn't matter anyway... As I reasoned in another thread, Edwards in the mid-priced arena hurts Gibson much more than Gil ever could.

Steve

 

[voodooradio1]

The only "fakes" that get my blood boiling are the ones that use the actual manufacturer's logo and model name on them. That is counterfeiting, pure and simple. It's a rip-off and can deceive/swindle a potential purchaser.

"Replicas" of a guitar that have the actual luthier's name and/or logo don't get me as rattled, because they are not masquerading to be something they are not.

I guess that means: I'm against the Chinese counterfeit guitars, and have less disdain for something like a Yaron, as it has Yaron's name on it - not Gibson's. I'm sure Gibson's position is quite different than mine, however.

Neither of the two Gil Yaron LP's that have been shown on this site in the last week have Gil Yaron's name on the headstock. They both say Gibson, so yeah, I imagine Gibson would take issue with that as well.

Links please. I could have sworn they said "Gilyaron" in the Gibson script font....

I am speaking about two separate guitars, each with the logo covered in all of the pics I have seen.

.....The only thing I have seen so far are covered logos, with some fairly lame excuses for why they are covered.

.....I find the fact that both logos are covered highly suspect when coupled with all of the "nod,nod, wink, wink" shit going on in that thread, and that in my opinion, they feature a Gibson logo. That would be the only good reason I could think of to hide them.

Fair enough. I'm just going on what has been disclosed publicly, but you're right: there's a reasonably good likelihood that they do say 'Gibson', in which case I would consider them to be "counterfeits', not replicas. However, they are some pretty damn high quality "counterfeits"!

No doubt about it. The one guy (who shall remain nameless ) features some mighty fine tone and dynamic range in his video.
I think the powers that be at Gibson and Fender should take note of the fact that there are builders out there that can build "golden age" guitars much better than they can, and think about sanctioning these builds for a reasonable percentage. Something like that could be a win for Gibson, the builder, and the customer, but I have no idea if that would be as easy as it seems on paper.
I know I would be afraid to cross borders with anything that was counterfeit. Not many places in the world that you can do so without being guilty of a crime. To import counterfeit goods into Saudi without reading and understanding their laws is reckless. Do do so after having read them is pure stupid. The punishments far outweigh any benefits. Gibson has an authorized dealer in the United Arab Emirate, so it is a safe bet to assume that they have registered their patents everywhere in that region that it is possible to do so.

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt about it. The one guy (who shall remain nameless ) features some mighty fine tone and dynamic range in his video.I think the powers that be at Gibson and Fender should take note of the fact that there are builders out there that can build "golden age" guitars much better than they can, and think about sanctioning these builds for a reasonable percentage. Something like that could be a win for Gibson, the builder, and the customer, but I have no idea if that would be as easy as it seems on paper.

I don't believe that Gibson has no right to stop anyone from making a Les Paul copy, thus there is no reason for them to sanction it. What they have is a trademark on the Les Paul body design (which can be renewed) and a registered trademark on the "Gibson Les Paul" name (also renewable).

Now, they sued Paul Reed Smith in 2004 and won a summary judgement around the production of the PRS Single Cut, which they said infringed on the LP trademark. However, this was thrown out pretty quickly and although Gibson appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, it would not be heard. All this did was stop PRS from producing the single-cut for awhile, but as we all know it is back in production and they made no changes to the design. While Gibson can bully small companies, it is clear through precedent that they would lose to anyone who actually defended themselves. That's why they don't waste their time going after Edwards, etc., IMO...

Actually putting "Gibson" on the guitar is where things get ugly. No way that flies anywhere the registered trademark is in force. As far as I understand, Gil will not put Gibson on the guitars he builds and the logos are covered on the guitars he built in the pictures at his request because he wants to fly under the radar...

I've heard people mention the font - you can't trademark a font...

Here's what I consider a pretty accurate statement about Gibson's plight from the LP forum:

"There was a lawsuit brought by Gibson against the manufacturer of Ibanez over headstock shape. The lawsuit never went to court and was settled OUT of court without prejudice (no admission of culpability) in part because Ibanez had already changed its headstock prior to the lawsuit even being filed.

Gibson hasn't won lawsuits regarding its guitar or headstock shapes. It *has* succeeded in blustering a bit by sending out cease and desist letters that lay claim to ownership. The cost of taking an intellectual property claim all the way to court is well over $100K (and that's a bare minimum), so it's often cheaper to avoid the process. When Gibson has managed to hit court, it's ultimately lost most of the important suits. They sued PRS and won in the original court session (local judge) but lost on appeal, largely because of Gibson's own lawyers' screwups with their own witnesses. Gibson is loathe to launch lawsuits overseas (which is why there are accurate copies there that don't come into the US); the costs would eat them up and there's every likelihood that they'd lose, setting precedent that they just couldn't get back. Cease and Desist letters lose their luster when there's already judicial precedent that says you're wrong.

The short of it is, if you're large enough to catch Gibson's eye, they'll send out a cease and desist letter. And then you'll be forced to pony up the cost of a lawyer to write a letter that says, "Up Yours." And then they'll send another letter, and so on. They're hoping that you run out of money or interest before they do."

Gibson has an authorized dealer in the United Arab Emirate, so it is a safe bet to assume that they have registered their patents everywhere in that region that it is possible to do so.

"U.S. Patents filed prior to June 8, 1995 expire 17 years from the date of issue, or 20 years from the first non-provisional patent application in the family - whichever is later."

Any patents on the Les Paul expired a long time ago. What exists, as I mentioned, is a trademark on the body style, which seems unenforceable based on precedent.

Steve

 

[voodooradio1]

No doubt about it. The one guy (who shall remain nameless ) features some mighty fine tone and dynamic range in his video.I think the powers that be at Gibson and Fender should take note of the fact that there are builders out there that can build "golden age" guitars much better than they can, and think about sanctioning these builds for a reasonable percentage. Something like that could be a win for Gibson, the builder, and the customer, but I have no idea if that would be as easy as it seems on paper.

I don't believe that Gibson has no right to stop anyone from making a Les Paul copy, thus there is no reason for them to sanction it. What they have is a trademark on the Les Paul body design (which can be renewed) and a registered trademark on the "Gibson Les Paul" name (also renewable).

Now, they sued Paul Reed Smith in 2004 and won a summary judgement around the production of the PRS Single Cut, which they said infringed on the LP trademark. However, this was thrown out pretty quickly and although Gibson appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, it would not be heard. All this did was stop PRS from producing the single-cut for awhile, but as we all know it is back in production and they made no changes to the design. While Gibson can bully small companies, it is clear through precedent that they would lose to anyone who actually defended themselves. That's why they don't waste their time going after Edwards, etc., IMO...

Actually putting "Gibson" on the guitar is where things get ugly. No way that flies anywhere the registered trademark is in force. As far as I understand, Gil will not put Gibson on the guitars he builds and the logos are covered on the guitars he built in the pictures at his request because he wants to fly under the radar...

I've heard people mention the font - you can't trademark a font...

Here's what I consider a pretty accurate statement about Gibson's plight from the LP forum:

"There was a lawsuit brought by Gibson against the manufacturer of Ibanez over headstock shape. The lawsuit never went to court and was settled OUT of court without prejudice (no admission of culpability) in part because Ibanez had already changed its headstock prior to the lawsuit even being filed.

Gibson hasn't won lawsuits regarding its guitar or headstock shapes. It *has* succeeded in blustering a bit by sending out cease and desist letters that lay claim to ownership. The cost of taking an intellectual property claim all the way to court is well over $100K (and that's a bare minimum), so it's often cheaper to avoid the process. When Gibson has managed to hit court, it's ultimately lost most of the important suits. They sued PRS and won in the original court session (local judge) but lost on appeal, largely because of Gibson's own lawyers' screwups with their own witnesses. Gibson is loathe to launch lawsuits overseas (which is why there are accurate copies there that don't come into the US); the costs would eat them up and there's every likelihood that they'd lose, setting precedent that they just couldn't get back. Cease and Desist letters lose their luster when there's already judicial precedent that says you're wrong.

The short of it is, if you're large enough to catch Gibson's eye, they'll send out a cease and desist letter. And then you'll be forced to pony up the cost of a lawyer to write a letter that says, "Up Yours." And then they'll send another letter, and so on. They're hoping that you run out of money or interest before they do."

Gibson has an authorized dealer in the United Arab Emirate, so it is a safe bet to assume that they have registered their patents everywhere in that region that it is possible to do so.

"U.S. Patents filed prior to June 8, 1995 expire 17 years from the date of issue, or 20 years from the first non-provisional patent application in the family - whichever is later."

Any patents on the Les Paul expired a long time ago. What exists, as I mentioned, is a trademark on the body style, which seems unenforceable based on precedent.

Steve

I was speaking more toward the use of the logo, than anything to do with design.(I have to learn to be more careful with my choice of words) It is no secret that many builders will give the customer what they want if they are willing to pay for it, including logo's that they don't have the right to use.That is the reason for some of them preferring to fly under the radar.It may cost well over $100k to take a claim to court, but it doesn't cost .01 to stop infringing on another's right or to not do it in the first place. Nobody that is in the business of building or selling a product would want to fly under the radar unless they don't want their business practices to be in the spotlight.
Anyway, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt about it. The one guy (who shall remain nameless ) features some mighty fine tone and dynamic range in his video.I think the powers that be at Gibson and Fender should take note of the fact that there are builders out there that can build "golden age" guitars much better than they can, and think about sanctioning these builds for a reasonable percentage. Something like that could be a win for Gibson, the builder, and the customer, but I have no idea if that would be as easy as it seems on paper.

I don't believe that Gibson has no right to stop anyone from making a Les Paul copy, thus there is no reason for them to sanction it. What they have is a trademark on the Les Paul body design (which can be renewed) and a registered trademark on the "Gibson Les Paul" name (also renewable).

Now, they sued Paul Reed Smith in 2004 and won a summary judgement around the production of the PRS Single Cut, which they said infringed on the LP trademark. However, this was thrown out pretty quickly and although Gibson appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, it would not be heard. All this did was stop PRS from producing the single-cut for awhile, but as we all know it is back in production and they made no changes to the design. While Gibson can bully small companies, it is clear through precedent that they would lose to anyone who actually defended themselves. That's why they don't waste their time going after Edwards, etc., IMO...

Actually putting "Gibson" on the guitar is where things get ugly. No way that flies anywhere the registered trademark is in force. As far as I understand, Gil will not put Gibson on the guitars he builds and the logos are covered on the guitars he built in the pictures at his request because he wants to fly under the radar...

I've heard people mention the font - you can't trademark a font...

Here's what I consider a pretty accurate statement about Gibson's plight from the LP forum:

"There was a lawsuit brought by Gibson against the manufacturer of Ibanez over headstock shape. The lawsuit never went to court and was settled OUT of court without prejudice (no admission of culpability) in part because Ibanez had already changed its headstock prior to the lawsuit even being filed.

Gibson hasn't won lawsuits regarding its guitar or headstock shapes. It *has* succeeded in blustering a bit by sending out cease and desist letters that lay claim to ownership. The cost of taking an intellectual property claim all the way to court is well over $100K (and that's a bare minimum), so it's often cheaper to avoid the process. When Gibson has managed to hit court, it's ultimately lost most of the important suits. They sued PRS and won in the original court session (local judge) but lost on appeal, largely because of Gibson's own lawyers' screwups with their own witnesses. Gibson is loathe to launch lawsuits overseas (which is why there are accurate copies there that don't come into the US); the costs would eat them up and there's every likelihood that they'd lose, setting precedent that they just couldn't get back. Cease and Desist letters lose their luster when there's already judicial precedent that says you're wrong.

The short of it is, if you're large enough to catch Gibson's eye, they'll send out a cease and desist letter. And then you'll be forced to pony up the cost of a lawyer to write a letter that says, "Up Yours." And then they'll send another letter, and so on. They're hoping that you run out of money or interest before they do."

Gibson has an authorized dealer in the United Arab Emirate, so it is a safe bet to assume that they have registered their patents everywhere in that region that it is possible to do so.

"U.S. Patents filed prior to June 8, 1995 expire 17 years from the date of issue, or 20 years from the first non-provisional patent application in the family - whichever is later."

Any patents on the Les Paul expired a long time ago. What exists, as I mentioned, is a trademark on the body style, which seems unenforceable based on precedent.

Steve

I was speaking more toward the use of the logo, than anything to do with design.(I have to learn to be more careful with my choice of words) It is no secret that many builders will give the customer what they want if they are willing to pay for it, including logo's that they don't have the right to use.That is the reason for some of them preferring to fly under the radar.It may cost well over $100k to take a claim to court, but it doesn't cost .01 to stop infringing on another's right or to not do it in the first place. Nobody that is in the business of building or selling a product would want to fly under the radar unless they don't want their business practices to be in the spotlight.
Anyway, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

You may also want to fly under the radar if you don't want to get hit with cease and desist orders from Gibson, even if you aren't using the Gibson logo, since they will go after certain people just for using the LP body design as evidenced by the PRS suit, even though they know they can't enforce it in the long run. I don't believe Gil will make a guitar with a Gibson logo - perhaps he has in the past, I don't really know, but I believe he doesn't now. I also know that there are probably other high end guys out there who will now and I know people will pay for that. And... of course there are all the crappy Chinese Gibson-logo'd counterfeits. People pay for those as well...

I agree with you that using someone's registered trademark and flat counterfeiting is a totally legit thing for Gibson to go after... no argument there...

Steve

 

[voodooradio1]

No doubt about it. The one guy (who shall remain nameless ) features some mighty fine tone and dynamic range in his video.I think the powers that be at Gibson and Fender should take note of the fact that there are builders out there that can build "golden age" guitars much better than they can, and think about sanctioning these builds for a reasonable percentage. Something like that could be a win for Gibson, the builder, and the customer, but I have no idea if that would be as easy as it seems on paper.

I don't believe that Gibson has no right to stop anyone from making a Les Paul copy, thus there is no reason for them to sanction it. What they have is a trademark on the Les Paul body design (which can be renewed) and a registered trademark on the "Gibson Les Paul" name (also renewable).

Now, they sued Paul Reed Smith in 2004 and won a summary judgement around the production of the PRS Single Cut, which they said infringed on the LP trademark. However, this was thrown out pretty quickly and although Gibson appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, it would not be heard. All this did was stop PRS from producing the single-cut for awhile, but as we all know it is back in production and they made no changes to the design. While Gibson can bully small companies, it is clear through precedent that they would lose to anyone who actually defended themselves. That's why they don't waste their time going after Edwards, etc., IMO...

Actually putting "Gibson" on the guitar is where things get ugly. No way that flies anywhere the registered trademark is in force. As far as I understand, Gil will not put Gibson on the guitars he builds and the logos are covered on the guitars he built in the pictures at his request because he wants to fly under the radar...

I've heard people mention the font - you can't trademark a font...

Here's what I consider a pretty accurate statement about Gibson's plight from the LP forum:

"There was a lawsuit brought by Gibson against the manufacturer of Ibanez over headstock shape. The lawsuit never went to court and was settled OUT of court without prejudice (no admission of culpability) in part because Ibanez had already changed its headstock prior to the lawsuit even being filed.

Gibson hasn't won lawsuits regarding its guitar or headstock shapes. It *has* succeeded in blustering a bit by sending out cease and desist letters that lay claim to ownership. The cost of taking an intellectual property claim all the way to court is well over $100K (and that's a bare minimum), so it's often cheaper to avoid the process. When Gibson has managed to hit court, it's ultimately lost most of the important suits. They sued PRS and won in the original court session (local judge) but lost on appeal, largely because of Gibson's own lawyers' screwups with their own witnesses. Gibson is loathe to launch lawsuits overseas (which is why there are accurate copies there that don't come into the US); the costs would eat them up and there's every likelihood that they'd lose, setting precedent that they just couldn't get back. Cease and Desist letters lose their luster when there's already judicial precedent that says you're wrong.

The short of it is, if you're large enough to catch Gibson's eye, they'll send out a cease and desist letter. And then you'll be forced to pony up the cost of a lawyer to write a letter that says, "Up Yours." And then they'll send another letter, and so on. They're hoping that you run out of money or interest before they do."

Gibson has an authorized dealer in the United Arab Emirate, so it is a safe bet to assume that they have registered their patents everywhere in that region that it is possible to do so.

"U.S. Patents filed prior to June 8, 1995 expire 17 years from the date of issue, or 20 years from the first non-provisional patent application in the family - whichever is later."

Any patents on the Les Paul expired a long time ago. What exists, as I mentioned, is a trademark on the body style, which seems unenforceable based on precedent.

Steve

I was speaking more toward the use of the logo, than anything to do with design.(I have to learn to be more careful with my choice of words) It is no secret that many builders will give the customer what they want if they are willing to pay for it, including logo's that they don't have the right to use.That is the reason for some of them preferring to fly under the radar.It may cost well over $100k to take a claim to court, but it doesn't cost .01 to stop infringing on another's right or to not do it in the first place. Nobody that is in the business of building or selling a product would want to fly under the radar unless they don't want their business practices to be in the spotlight.
Anyway, I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

You may also want to fly under the radar if you don't want to get hit with cease and desist orders from Gibson, even if you aren't using the Gibson logo, since they will go after certain people just for using the LP body design as evidenced by the PRS suit, even though they know they can't enforce it in the long run. I don't believe Gil will make a guitar with a Gibson logo - perhaps he has in the past, I don't really know, but I believe he doesn't now. I also know that there are probably other high end guys out there who will now and I know people will pay for that. And... of course there are all the crappy Chinese Gibson-logo'd counterfeits. People pay for those as well...

I agree with you that using someone's registered trademark and flat counterfeiting is a totally legit thing for Gibson to go after... no argument there...

Steve

I think Gibson would be kind of stupid to go after him. Like you said, it is the lower end copies that hurt their business. They need to look at the fact that there are certain customers that want what they aren't delivering, and they don't mind paying big bucks for holy grail tone. Would be a lot smarter to contract with him for very limited run instruments and allow him to use the name for those. That way Gibson is paid for the use of their name, the customer has an authentic instrument, and the builder can ply his trade and make money without having to worry about anyone shutting him down. But that makes way to much sense for it to ever actually happen.

 

[Schaf]

Gibson is selling a 50-60 year old design for ridiculous prices and trying to keep up their profit margins.
Why did Gibson not argue when Slash helped them selling Les Pauls in tens of thousands with using a replica on AFD?
Does my Tokai sounds better for half price? Yes it is. I sold my Gibson.
Lately I helped to find a good Les Paul for a friend. We tried approx 80. How much were hitting the mark? 2.
Ridiculous. The instruments are mediocre at average for premium price. Bollocks.

Manufacturing/selling counterfeits is a different story. Using the Gibson trademark, is the same as counterfeiting any other brand. It should be tracked down and busted with the full force of the law.

I always love the "I played 80 Les pauls and only found 2 I liked". If that's the case, you probably don't like Les Pauls. Most of the ones I've played lately were pretty darn good right of the shelf. This is at GC too. And, with a little bit if tweaking would be great playing guitars. Who in the hell has time to play 80 guitars. If they were that much junk, why would your friend even consider buying one?

And actually, the studio's and the Tradional Pro's are pretty damn good guitars for reasonable prices. I even played one of those vintage burst satin finished studios. It was 799. It played and sounded awesome right out of the box. I have to admit, I was shocked at how good it was for the price.

 

[aftec]

Lately I helped to find a good Les Paul for a friend. We tried approx 80. How much were hitting the mark? 2.
Ridiculous. The instruments are mediocre at average for premium price. Bollocks.

I always love the "I played 80 Les pauls and only found 2 I liked". If that's the case, you probably don't like Les Pauls. Most of the ones I've played lately were pretty darn good right of the shelf. This is at GC too. And, with a little bit if tweaking would be great playing guitars. Who in the hell has time to play 80 guitars. If they were that much junk, why would your friend even consider buying one?

Well, my friend asked for help and he wanted to make sure he grabs a goods guitar for his 4-5k. Can you try 80? Yes, if you know what you are looking for in an instrument. If you strum it a couple of times, and play a couple of notes, the instrument will talk to you. It feels good or not, it will have natural sustain and resonance or not etc. Next. You can pretty much filter them down to 8-10 and replay them.
Yes, it takes a day, and I was willing to do it for an old friend.
I do like LPs and not all the 80 was junk, they were working, construction was solid, but only 2 had that extra thing I consider in a guitar "amazing". The rest was not worth the price they asking for. If they would sell them at Epiphone prices, they would have a good price/value ratio.
But we are not the same, and we pick guitars differently and have different tastes. If you like most of the stuff they manufacture, great, you are lucky to find a lot of instruments you like.

 

[Schaf]

Lately I helped to find a good Les Paul for a friend. We tried approx 80. How much were hitting the mark? 2.
Ridiculous. The instruments are mediocre at average for premium price. Bollocks.

I always love the "I played 80 Les pauls and only found 2 I liked". If that's the case, you probably don't like Les Pauls. Most of the ones I've played lately were pretty darn good right of the shelf. This is at GC too. And, with a little bit if tweaking would be great playing guitars. Who in the hell has time to play 80 guitars. If they were that much junk, why would your friend even consider buying one?

Well, my friend asked for help and he wanted to make sure he grabs a goods guitar for his 4-5k. Can you try 80? Yes, if you know what you are looking for in an instrument. If you strum it a couple of times, and play a couple of notes, the instrument will talk to you. It feels good or not, it will have natural sustain and resonance or not etc. Next. You can pretty much filter them down to 8-10 and replay them.
Yes, it takes a day, and I was willing to do it for an old friend.
I do like LPs and not all the 80 was junk, they were working, construction was solid, but only 2 had that extra thing I consider in a guitar "amazing". The rest was not worth the price they asking for. If they would sell them at Epiphone prices, they would have a good price/value ratio.
But we are not the same, and we pick guitars differently and have different tastes. If you like most of the stuff they manufacture, great, you are lucky to find a lot of instruments you like.

How do you find 80 Les Paul's in one day? It would take me a month just to find that many within a reaasonable area. As to the other stuff, I've owned many guitars. I have never pulled one off the shelf and thought, man this thing is perfect. Not once. But I have picked up a number of them and said with a little setup work, this thing will be awesome.

I was just commenting on the ones I've played lately. Almost all the ones I've played recently have been pretty damn good right off the shelf. That takes a lot for me to say that. It just didn't happen often with any guitar, let alone Gibson.

And, I'm sure Gibson could sell them more in line with an Epiphone if they put a verneer top on them like the epi's as opposed to a solid maple top. Because right now they have a good line from affordable to crazy expensive.

 

[japetus]

I've played a few of the Chinese ripoffs that after a setup... play just as good or better than the real thing. Take that as you will.

 

[aftec]

How do you find 80 Les Paul's in one day? It would take me a month just to find that many within a reaasonable area. As to the other stuff, I've owned many guitars. I have never pulled one off the shelf and thought, man this thing is perfect. Not once. But I have picked up a number of them and said with a little setup work, this thing will be awesome.

I was just commenting on the ones I've played lately. Almost all the ones I've played recently have been pretty damn good right off the shelf. That takes a lot for me to say that. It just didn't happen often with any guitar, let alone Gibson.

And, I'm sure Gibson could sell them more in line with an Epiphone if they put a verneer top on them like the epi's as opposed to a solid maple top. Because right now they have a good line from affordable to crazy expensive.

We visited a shop in Germany, and they have an amazing selection of guitars. I put them in here, since they are continent away, they will not mean any harm to Brad's shop.(www.station-music.de) Never seen 20-30 Suhrs hanging next to each other, 10 Tylers etc.
It was surreal trying all Soldano SLO versions, even with factory mods I've never heard of, comparing differences.
I was not talking about instruments with a perfect setup to taste, but you can get a basic idea about an instrument with an average setup too. If something sings with an average setup, it will be a great instrument with a good setup.

 

[rspencer]

So it's ok for high end rip offs/knock offs but not Chinese.

I see the same double standard all the time with other gear as well on forums.

Agreed. A $4K-10K copy is oh so cool, but a $400 copy is evil thievery.