Terry Morgan 59 Reissue

IvisonGuitars

While I like the fact that the best replicas are made here in the UK (from a craftmans point of view) and I'd personally love to own one, I also totally see that they can be passed off as the genuine article. In fact, it's common knowledge in certain circles that a very well known vintage guitar dealer populated a TM body with genuine vintage Gibson parts and attempted to pass it off as a genuine '59 guitar.

WezV

EricTheWeary said:

I don't get it really. You've got £7k to spend on a Les Paul type guitar and you want the finest instrument you can get for that and you've decided Terry can make a better one than Gibson can. So why do you need Gibson on the headstock? It's not like taking a punt on something on eBay for £300 and being concerned about losing value. Unless you are attempting some form of deception ( for financial gain or because you think people will be impressed that you own an old guitar) I don't get the point. 

You are not after the finest guitar, you are after the finest replica of a specific guitar.  It's a different mindset.

guitars4you

miserneil said:

While I like the fact that the best replicas are made here in the UK (from a craftmans point of view) and I'd personally love to own one, I also totally see that they can be passed off as the genuine article. In fact, it's common knowledge in certain circles that a very well known vintage guitar dealer populated a TM body with genuine vintage Gibson parts and attempted to pass it off as a genuine '59 guitar.

is that the one I touched on above Neil

IvisonGuitars

guitars4you said:

miserneil said:

While I like the fact that the best replicas are made here in the UK (from a craftmans point of view) and I'd personally love to own one, I also totally see that they can be passed off as the genuine article. In fact, it's common knowledge in certain circles that a very well known vintage guitar dealer populated a TM body with genuine vintage Gibson parts and attempted to pass it off as a genuine '59 guitar.

is that the one I touched on above Neil

I'm not sure Mark but quite possibly, the perpetrator had his 'Fingers' in a few pies if that's the same guy we are thinking of?

And don't get started 'written authentication', there's an interesting debate currently ongoing on a couple of forums about some 'authentication' that may/may not be genuine on a guitar that is reported to be a high value fake. 

It's a horrible minefield.

guitars4you

miserneil said:

guitars4you said:

miserneil said:

While I like the fact that the best replicas are made here in the UK (from a craftmans point of view) and I'd personally love to own one, I also totally see that they can be passed off as the genuine article. In fact, it's common knowledge in certain circles that a very well known vintage guitar dealer populated a TM body with genuine vintage Gibson parts and attempted to pass it off as a genuine '59 guitar.

is that the one I touched on above Neil

I'm not sure Mark but quite possibly, the perpetrator had his 'Fingers' in a few pies if that's the same guy we are thinking of?

I can't recall when it happened, the full story, or which forum it was on, but yes a TM with vintage parts trying to be sold as original and massive debates about is it genuine or not - I can't even recall how the story finished - I might see if I can find the link again

mgaw

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

guitars4you

miserneil said:

guitars4you said:

miserneil said:

While I like the fact that the best replicas are made here in the UK (from a craftmans point of view) and I'd personally love to own one, I also totally see that they can be passed off as the genuine article. In fact, it's common knowledge in certain circles that a very well known vintage guitar dealer populated a TM body with genuine vintage Gibson parts and attempted to pass it off as a genuine '59 guitar.

is that the one I touched on above Neil

I'm not sure Mark but quite possibly, the perpetrator had his 'Fingers' in a few pies if that's the same guy we are thinking of?

And don't get started 'written authentication', there's an interesting debate currently ongoing on a couple of forums about some 'authentication' that may/may not be genuine. 

It's a horrible minefield.

The simple rule on written authentication surely is that it is only correct at the point of writing and would need further verification if sold 5-10 years later - but I also see your point on 'fraud' authentication and I presume fake letterhead paper

IvisonGuitars

mgaw said:

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

It's not what his customers want, unfortunately.

EricTheWeary

WezV said:

EricTheWeary said:

I don't get it really. You've got £7k to spend on a Les Paul type guitar and you want the finest instrument you can get for that and you've decided Terry can make a better one than Gibson can. So why do you need Gibson on the headstock? It's not like taking a punt on something on eBay for £300 and being concerned about losing value. Unless you are attempting some form of deception ( for financial gain or because you think people will be impressed that you own an old guitar) I don't get the point. 

You are not after the finest guitar, you are after the finest replica of a specific guitar.  It's a different mindset.

I'm sure you are right I'm just struggling with the mindset that wants that. 

IvisonGuitars

*edit*......I just realised that video names the alleged perpetrator in the first 50 seconds! :-) 

guitars4you

mgaw said:

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

I can see merits in the question and as I stated above Sid Poole had a big reputation and put his name on the headstock

Also an interesting view point that it is commonly accepted that single handedly Slash saved the Gibson Guitar business by playing a 'fake' - Yet Gibson place him on a pedestal and make loads of signature models for him - Surely this is a case of double standards, morals, kettle, pot and black on the part of Gibson

guitars4you

miserneil said:

.

looks like that link etc has gone AWOL

A5D5E5

guitars4you said:

mgaw said:

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

I can see merits in the question and as I stated above Sid Poole had a big reputation and put his name on the headstock

Also an interesting view point that it is commonly accepted that single handedly Slash saved the Gibson Guitar business by playing a 'fake' - Yet Gibson place him on a pedestal and make loads of signature models for him - Surely this is a case of double standards, morals, kettle, pot and black on the part of Gibson

They were protecting their brand - far better to have him closely associated with Gibson than to make a fuss about him playing a fake.  I've not heard that Gibson go after any indivuals for owning a fake, so I don't see any double standards in operation.

As an aside, how would you feel if you paid good money for a guitar you believed was a Gibson but which turned out to be a fake?  While you may reconcile your actions and your conscience by saying that this guitar is as good and any Gibson and that you are not passing it off as a Gibson but nevertheless you are an active participant in the world of fakes and forgeries which causes some people to buy things that are not what they purport to be.

It is dodgy as fuck and I think you probably know that if you are honest with yourself.

Bridgehouse

guitars4you said:

Bridgehouse said:

@guitars4you my comment was really just thinking aloud in terms of your reputation and how it might be affected by a potential buyer trying to sell it off as real later on - you wouldn't want to be caught in the collateral damage!

surely no dealer can be held accountable for the actions of a 3rd party at a later date - In the past, I have sold a couple of SVL Simon Law models, Bravewoods and have always sold them as what they are, and if this TM 59 becomes for sale, my receipt would not mention the words Gibson or LP, yet both me and the buyer would agree and no exactly what it is, with no misunderstanding - I agree you can advertise it for sale under massive neon lights stating 'this is not a Gibson' but Gibson and trading standards would not agree

I stated earlier on this blog and I will state it again, in the violin business, it is totally acceptable for someone to pay 10's and 100's of thousands of £'s for a new or used violin that states it is a Strad - they are hand built by many many small luthiers and have been so for many many years - they are not sold as the real McCoy with the intention of 'frauding' the market place and then re-sold for millions of £'s at a later date but they are sold as highly desirable replicas - Such violins are often sold by the likes of Christie's and Sotherby's, as well as respected dealers world wide - many top performers buy them as highly desirable instruments to perform with - As such there is no talk whatsoever of fakes and as such the Strad Replica is common - Everyone knows what they are - ie 'Strad replica by Terry Morgan' or who ever - They have all the correct markings and effectively pay homage to the real McCoy

Regarding the above statement I'm not trying to defend the 'fake' Gibson market just stating a simple fact and I fully respect all above comments from all FB Members

I'm not suggesting you have any accountability at all..

I was just suggesting that if it was later sold as a genuine and a big furore started that revealed it as a fake and it came out that the perpetrator got it from you in a legit sale then it could have collateral reputational damage.

Its clear you've worked hard for your well earned reputation - I would say one of the best in the industry - I was merely pointing out a potential and unfortunate possible side effect of the transaction that could cause damage to your reputation... Was just a friendly other opinion

mgaw

guitars4you said:

mgaw said:

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

I can see merits in the question and as I stated above Sid Poole had a big reputation and put his name on the headstock

Also an interesting view point that it is commonly accepted that single handedly Slash saved the Gibson Guitar business by playing a 'fake' - Yet Gibson place him on a pedestal and make loads of signature models for him - Surely this is a case of double standards, morals, kettle, pot and black on the part of Gibson

Mark you avoided the question totally:)

Twinfan

You can't compare it to the violin market Mark, Stradavarius aren't around any more to defend themselves or sell their own products.

As a dealer I'm really surprised at your stance on this!

mburekenge

 This type of Internet moralising really makes me chuckle.

imo, a top draw replica, handmade by an expert luthier with their total dedication  is a 'real' Les Paul, and way closer to a real burst than anything Gibson currently produce.

Indeed, a replica is way more 'real' than some swirly finish, robot tuner laden, zero fret Gibson, churned out by machine like a low quality sausage, using matchbox quality materials and QC that makes an 80's Skoda look like a Bentley.

Who gives a flying monkeys what 'lifestyle brand' corporation owns the IP?

i own fender and Gibson guitars, and I own replicas. All are great! I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

Bridgehouse

mburekenge said:

 This type of Internet moralising really makes me chuckle.

imo, a top draw replica, handmade by an expert luthier with their total dedication  is a 'real' Les Paul, and way closer to a real burst than anything Gibson currently produce.

Indeed, a replica is way more 'real' than some swirly finish, robot tuner laden, zero fret Gibson, churned out by machine like a low quality sausage, using matchbox quality materials and QC that makes an 80's Skoda look like a Bentley.

Who gives a flying monkeys what 'lifestyle brand' corporation owns the IP?

i own fender and Gibson guitars, and I own replicas. All are great! I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

It's not internet moralising. It's merely a statement that IP law is IP law - whether we agree with it or not - and it states that regardless of how we feel about it, or how 'real' something is, if the person/institution that makes it doesn't hold the IP and it carries the IP holding companies logo then it is a fake. 

If a band releases a cover of a song - even if it's the best cover ever created and it's much better than the original - if they don't have the permission of the copyright holder then legally a cut of the proceeds belong to the copyright holder. That's just the way the law is. Morals have nowt to do with it from a legal point of view.

mburekenge

Bridgehouse said:

mburekenge said:

 This type of Internet moralising really makes me chuckle.

imo, a top draw replica, handmade by an expert luthier with their total dedication  is a 'real' Les Paul, and way closer to a real burst than anything Gibson currently produce.

Indeed, a replica is way more 'real' than some swirly finish, robot tuner laden, zero fret Gibson, churned out by machine like a low quality sausage, using matchbox quality materials and QC that makes an 80's Skoda look like a Bentley.

Who gives a flying monkeys what 'lifestyle brand' corporation owns the IP?

i own fender and Gibson guitars, and I own replicas. All are great! I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

It's not internet moralising. It's merely a statement that IP law is IP law - whether we agree with it or not - and it states that regardless of how we feel about it, or how 'real' something is, if the person/institution that makes it doesn't hold the IP and it carries the IP holding companies logo then it is a fake. 

If a band releases a cover of a song - even if it's the best cover ever created and it's much better than the original - if they don't have the permission of the copyright holder then legally a cut of the proceeds belong to the copyright holder. That's just the way the law is. Morals have nowt to do with it from a legal point of view.

@Bridgehouse ;You are absolutely correct on that count... especially when you say morals have nothing to do with the law!

in the most literal, legal sense, the replicas are indeed fakes.

what I don't understand, is why that bothers people (other than Gibsons legal team).

Bridgehouse

mburekenge said:

Bridgehouse said:

mburekenge said:

 This type of Internet moralising really makes me chuckle.

imo, a top draw replica, handmade by an expert luthier with their total dedication  is a 'real' Les Paul, and way closer to a real burst than anything Gibson currently produce.

Indeed, a replica is way more 'real' than some swirly finish, robot tuner laden, zero fret Gibson, churned out by machine like a low quality sausage, using matchbox quality materials and QC that makes an 80's Skoda look like a Bentley.

Who gives a flying monkeys what 'lifestyle brand' corporation owns the IP?

i own fender and Gibson guitars, and I own replicas. All are great! I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

It's not internet moralising. It's merely a statement that IP law is IP law - whether we agree with it or not - and it states that regardless of how we feel about it, or how 'real' something is, if the person/institution that makes it doesn't hold the IP and it carries the IP holding companies logo then it is a fake. 

If a band releases a cover of a song - even if it's the best cover ever created and it's much better than the original - if they don't have the permission of the copyright holder then legally a cut of the proceeds belong to the copyright holder. That's just the way the law is. Morals have nowt to do with it from a legal point of view.

@Bridgehouse ;;You are absolutely correct on that count... especially when you say morals have nothing to do with the law!

in the most literal, legal sense, the replicas are indeed fakes.

what I don't understand, is why that bothers people (other than Gibsons legal team).

I have to admit - it doesn't bother me that people want to make really authentic copies of classic (and unattainably expensive) guitars for people to enjoy.

What bothers me is that they are close enough to the originals for some unscrupulous buggers to palm them off as originals for their own greed.

And to be clear - it's the tw@ts that do this that bother me and not the guitars themselves - just in the same way that cheap arsed rip-off perfume and beach sunglasses salesmen bother me