Epic Bartlett 59

rlord1974":2wz8ysqt said:
jsp":2wz8ysqt said:
rlord1974":2wz8ysqt said:
ejecta":2wz8ysqt said:
sah5150":2wz8ysqt said:
ejecta":2wz8ysqt said:
sah5150":2wz8ysqt said:
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"...
That would be dumb because they'll make more money selling it off as what it really is...

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.
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...

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.
 
sah5150":1imj6s7a said:
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 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:
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?
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...

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.
 
I'm not entirely sure of the law regarding replicas, but it would seem they shouldn't be able to do it without permission from Gibson. Maybe there's some loopholes, I can't say. I suspect the money the guy makes isn't enough to cut into Gibson's profits, so it's not worth it to pursue.

That said, looking at the pics in the OP, that dude is a fucking artist.
 
ejecta":32c1wv0b said:
sah5150":32c1wv0b said:
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 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:
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?
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...

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.
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.

Would you buy any of the exact boutique clones of old amp designs by Marshall, etc.? How would that be different than buying a '59 LP clone, because as I said, if it is only the logo that bothers you, that certainly isn't all that bothers Gibson or Fender.

Steve
 
jsp":1ijvftnz said:
rlord1974":1ijvftnz said:
jsp":1ijvftnz said:
rlord1974":1ijvftnz said:
ejecta":1ijvftnz said:
sah5150":1ijvftnz said:
ejecta":1ijvftnz said:
sah5150":1ijvftnz said:
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"...
That would be dumb because they'll make more money selling it off as what it really is...

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.
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...

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.

You're right, it's a counterfeit. No argument there. However, it's also better than anything "original" Gibson is making today. Does that make it right? No. But it certainly explains why people want them and why these luthiers are building them.

Do I feel bad for Gibson? Yes, in fact I do - I feel bad that they're unwilling to make the guitars people covet on the basis of manufacturing cost and instead flush millions of dollars a year down the drain on legal fees to protect their copyrights and trademarks. The easiest way to combat copyright infringement when it comes to replicas is to just make the product people want. Then people will buy the real deal instead of spending their money elsewhere.
 
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
 
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

I'm not sure price is the only determining factor here. The price was only determined by the lack of available, playable, intact 59' LPs in existence whatsoever.

If the instrument had been plentiful and survived the ages in the mass number currently produced, the replica builders wouldn't need to replicate.
 
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
 
From the article I posted, an interesting little section:

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.

Steve
 
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

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
 
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
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....

You obviously are not taking that attitude...

I see the negativity at both ends of the price spectrum, frankly...

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
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.

Steve
 
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?
 
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?
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...

Steve
 
I wonder if cryogenic treatment of new wood might simulate the characteristics of old wood? I read somewhere about some builders trying this.. 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.
 
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..
Dunno, but I'd certainly be interested to see what it sounds like...

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.
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...

Steve
 
First off, guys like Bartlett and yaron were able to build you an EXACT replica of a golden age les Paul. This means same type and age mahogany, Brazilian rosewood fingerboard, exact paf copies, correct headstock angle , bridge position, etc. The same person builds each guitar by hand using the old world techniques Gibson used to use. Since each one is built by the same guy, consistency is greatly improved and you won't have to play 10 to find a good one as with some of the big companies. Just look up some of the old build thread from yrs back and see the attention to detail. I was blown away yrs back reading those threads and you will be too. That's why it's cool to see these guitars when they pop up as they are rare, the build time and wait can be 4 years these days or so I've been told anyway.
 
Hey Steve, nice guitar!!! Like the black.
One question though are there gaps by the inlays? Or is it just the photo?

IMG_6684_zps1a297013.jpeg
 
Back
Top