Terry Morgan 59 Reissue

mburekenge

The view must be absolutely spectacular from atop those high horses. No doubt the air is refreshingly clean too.

Twinfan

Interesting that someone who supports forgeries has turned to criticising those who don't.

You may be happy in accepting fakes but there's no need to roll out the passive aggression to those who do not condone them.

p90fool

Iamnobody said:

p90fool said:

@guitars4you now has a reputation as a dealer in fakes, which he didn't have before January the 5th. 

it'll be hard to put this fact back in the box, ie, he's a dealer who's selling illegal products. 

I'm really not bothered personally, but I think it's a very silly thing to do on a public forum. 

I think that's very harsh he doesn't even own the guitar yet and therefore hasn't sold anything illegal.

Anyway rightly or wrongly his potential customers won't see it like that. They will see him being upfront about selling a high end replica. 

Of course it's harsh, that is exactly my point, the reputation will be out there, rightly or wrongly.

Mark is a great contributer to this forum and is obviously a straight up guy, I just think that chatting about trading illegal products on a public forum is a mistake, and doing it as a private individual when guitar dealing is your business makes it look very under the counter, like a car dealer doing dodgy MOT deals at the back door. 

I'm not moralising or judging, I really don't care about Gibson's fragile feelings and have had a partscaster with a Fender decal myself in the past, I just think people should be more careful.

This place can feel like a private club at times, but it isn't. 

Danielsguitars

Blimey 5 pages in and nothing's changed

 This will never end so don't waste any more time on it, some like em some don't

Just go and have a beer or nice cup of tea

Oh just a thought if a famous player has copies made of his famous axe not by the company for say a show or to play then surely they are fake too but nobody says anything about them, normally it's  completely the opposite 

There are alot of double standards imo

p90fool

There are no double standards here, it is actually illegal. 

Twinfan

^ exactly.  A fake is a fake and use of IP that isn't yours is illegal.

Danielsguitars

I didn't say double standards here I should've said in the industry so oppolgies 

But my original statement stands that it seems ok for someone famous to knock up a replica and no one bats an eyelid

I'm going to wash my hair now and have a glass of wine, there are alot worse things in the world to worry about

p90fool

customkits said:

I didn't say double standards here I should've said in the industry so oppolgies 

But my original statement stands that it seems ok for someone famous to knock up a replica and no one bats an eyelid

I'm going to wash my hair now and have a glass of wine, there are alot worse things in the world to worry about

Lol true, enjoy

Plectrum

customkits said:

I'm going to wash my hair now and have a glass of wine, there are alot worse things in the world to worry about

Dandruff and sobriety?

guitars4you

p90fool said:

Iamnobody said:

p90fool said:

@guitars4you now has a reputation as a dealer in fakes, which he didn't have before January the 5th. 

it'll be hard to put this fact back in the box, ie, he's a dealer who's selling illegal products. 

I'm really not bothered personally, but I think it's a very silly thing to do on a public forum. 

I think that's very harsh he doesn't even own the guitar yet and therefore hasn't sold anything illegal.

Anyway rightly or wrongly his potential customers won't see it like that. They will see him being upfront about selling a high end replica. 

Of course it's harsh, that is exactly my point, the reputation will be out there, rightly or wrongly.

Mark is a great contributer to this forum and is obviously a straight up guy, I just think that chatting about trading illegal products on a public forum is a mistake, and doing it as a private individual when guitar dealing is your business makes it look very under the counter, like a car dealer doing dodgy MOT deals at the back door. 

I'm not moralising or judging, I really don't care about Gibson's fragile feelings and have had a partscaster with a Fender decal myself in the past, I just think people should be more careful.

This place can feel like a private club at times, but it isn't. 

I fully take on board what you and others have said - but going back to page 1 my initial questions were really about fishing for additional information - I have never said it is for sale - I have not quoted anyone a price, be it via a PM message, or on FB and certainly not on my site - I expressed concerns that if it was offered for sale, then I'd be concerned about IP and whilst I've seen them listed as Gibson 59 Flame Top LP's on other sites in the past, my heading on this thread alone does not state Gibson or Les Paul,  yet I agree by interpretation the intent is there - Yet equally a lack of any pics on my part offers no further concrete evidence of any wrong doing - Equally I have had many many PM's from interested parties, so there is a market be it right or wrong - Yes I now personally own it and there is nothing illegal about that - Geoff Whitehorn owns and gigs one - Tim from Bare Knuckle owns one and uses it at a promotional tool to promote BK pick ups - N Marten used to own one when he was editor at Guitarist and I know of a few respected FB members who also own one - Yet equally it is certainly a discussion or argument that could never be won by me

Yet equally I have praise for the builder if it is to be judged solely as a fine musical instrument - I happened to show it today to a very discerning customer I've known and respected for 12 years or so - Not with a view to a sale, but purely as an interested party who appreciates fine guitars - He has owned and played Tom Murphy Gibson Guitars in the past (same initials TM) and after WOW, his opening comment was why can't Gibson build such a fine replica - I'm sure many FB members have owned, sold and played such fine Tom Murphy LP Guitars, yet equally Gibson are allowed to flaunt words like 'True Historic' when True is clearly an inaccurate statement, even though they are still fine guitars - But hiding behind their IP they can protect that statement even if it is not accurate - as such there are two sides to a coin - granted one is legal, but one is also clearly not accurate 

I clearly can't defend my intentions to purchase it for myself, for what ever it might or might not represent , yet equally Guitars4You don't sell fakes 

Recently I had a chat with an other dealer about a late 50's Gibson LP Reissue that he was selling, that had been sent to Historic Makeovers - when first viewing the guitar he asked me 'do you think it is an original LP' and I instantly said no, but it was so good that it could quite easily fool many - that guitar is still a genuine Gibson in that it left the Gibson factory, yet it is no longer the guitar that actually left the factory - so where does this leave all of us ? - it is not a question based on wrong or right, but more a statement of confusion 

Picking up on an early statement within this thread about SVL Guitars - Yes Simon applies his name to the guitar, but in the USA that same guitar is 100% illegal as Fender own the IP on the shape and outline of that pre-CBS headstock shape - granted they forgot or failed to register the IP throughout the rest of the world - But since over 50% of total guitars sales are sold within the USA then maybe it is a slight oversight on their part - IP is now not just about the brand name it is also about the identity, that is now often found in just a logo or symbol - A tick is just a tick, yet place it on sports wear and it is Nike - 3 horizontal lines are just 3 lines, yet place them on sports wear and it is Addidas - A cat is just a cat but place it on a car bonnet and it is a Jaguar - I could go on - so in the same way that Pre CBS Strat headstock is Fender's IP, yet over here we accept a SVL as okay - I last had a used SVL in stock maybe 12 months ago and following a showroom visit by my Fender Custom Shop product specialist, he noticed it and as such I received somewhat of a dressing down for trying to sell such an instrument - I know it has already been discussed at boardroom level, that if Fender can't control such activities, regarding non Fender replicas, that they can build it into there dealer stocking profile, that it would be  strictly prohibited for dealers to stock new 'boutique' guitars that  are clearly inspired by Fenders vintage Strat/Tele body and headstock - If they go through with this, then it will have a severe impact on 'boutique' brands selling vintage inspired guitars into the worlds largest dealers

WezV

guitars4you said:

Recently I had a chat with an other dealer about a late 50's Gibson LP Reissue that he was selling, that had been sent to Historic Makeovers - when first viewing the guitar he asked me 'do you think it is an original LP' and I instantly said no, but it was so good that it could quite easily fool many - that guitar is still a genuine Gibson in that it left the Gibson factory, yet it is no longer the guitar that actually left the factory - so where does this leave all of us ? - it is not a question based on wrong or right, but more a statement of confusion 

its an interesting point.   I have worked on a few fender necks where i have added an authentic decal from the wrong year as part of the work.

As an example, i did a 70's start partscaster out of a lot of original 70's parts... but no neck, so i took a MIM 70's reissue neck as the starting point.  It made more sense to improve and relic a MIM neck than it did to buy a dodgy original. It gave a good neck for a lot less money.   All the parts are fender and many of them are 70's originals

I have also taken "62 reissue" necks and added proper clay dots and better logo's, always left the original heel marks in tact though


there is a large headstock strat neck i made out in the world with a fender logo on it.  it purposely has a fake looking logo in black vinyl, but also has a separate birdseye maple fretboard and 23 frets.... i don't think there is much chance of it being sold as genuine 

Danielsguitars

I think the thread title is funny

How is this a reissue, it's a brand new guitar made to look old

Twinfan

guitars4you said:

Picking up on an early statement within this thread about SVL Guitars - Yes Simon applies his name to the guitar, but in the USA that same guitar is 100% illegal as Fender own the IP on the shape and outline of that pre-CBS headstock shape - granted they forgot or failed to register the IP throughout the rest of the world - But since over 50% of total guitars sales are sold within the USA then maybe it is a slight oversight on their part - IP is now not just about the brand name it is also about the identity, that is now often found in just a logo or symbol - A tick is just a tick, yet place it on sports wear and it is Nike - 3 horizontal lines are just 3 lines, yet place them on sports wear and it is Addidas - A cat is just a cat but place it on a car bonnet and it is a Jaguar - I could go on - so in the same way that Pre CBS Strat headstock is Fender's IP, yet over here we accept a SVL as okay - I last had a used SVL in stock maybe 12 months ago and following a showroom visit by my Fender Custom Shop product specialist, he noticed it and as such I received somewhat of a dressing down for trying to sell such an instrument - I know it has already been discussed at boardroom level, that if Fender can't control such activities, regarding non Fender replicas, that they can build it into there dealer stocking profile, that it would be  strictly prohibited for dealers to stock new 'boutique' guitars that  are clearly inspired by Fenders vintage Strat/Tele body and headstock - If they go through with this, then it will have a severe impact on 'boutique' brands selling vintage inspired guitars into the worlds largest dealers

But as you say Mark, an SVL is fully legal here in the UK - there's no issue whatsoever. Fender may not like it but it's not illegal.

Unlike a Gibson Les Paul logo'd Morgan...

Danielsguitars

That's why everyone else is making fenders, now I know i'll have to churn a few out lol

Strat54

http://www.eaglegb.com/170/jaguar-etypes-for-sale/eagle-supersport-roadster-for-sale-juf310e

Moss

Strat54 said:

http://www.eaglegb.com/170/jaguar-etypes-for-sale/eagle-supersport-roadster-for-sale-juf310e

Notice the Eagle logo

It's not claiming to be a Jag

Danielsguitars

Its a modded e type so not the same thing at all more a historic makeover

olafgarten

Strat54 said:

http://www.eaglegb.com/170/jaguar-etypes-for-sale/eagle-supersport-roadster-for-sale-juf310e

This isn't the same, this would be similar to something like a Feline, looks like a Les Paul but is improved and with a different logo 

guitarblaster

Moss said:

Strat54 said:

http://www.eaglegb.com/170/jaguar-etypes-for-sale/eagle-supersport-roadster-for-sale-juf310e

Notice the Eagle logo

It's not claiming to be a Jag

It is a Jaguar series 1 E-type 

monkey42

guitars4you said:

 

Picking up on an early statement within this thread about SVL Guitars - Yes Simon applies his name to the guitar, but in the USA that same guitar is 100% illegal as Fender own the IP on the shape and outline of that pre-CBS headstock shape - granted they forgot or failed to register the IP throughout the rest of the world - But since over 50% of total guitars sales are sold within the USA then maybe it is a slight oversight on their part - IP is now not just about the brand name it is also about the identity, that is now often found in just a logo or symbol - A tick is just a tick, yet place it on sports wear and it is Nike - 3 horizontal lines are just 3 lines, yet place them on sports wear and it is Addidas - A cat is just a cat but place it on a car bonnet and it is a Jaguar - I could go on - so in the same way that Pre CBS Strat headstock is Fender's IP, yet over here we accept a SVL as okay - I last had a used SVL in stock maybe 12 months ago and following a showroom visit by my Fender Custom Shop product specialist, he noticed it and as such I received somewhat of a dressing down for trying to sell such an instrument - I know it has already been discussed at boardroom level, that if Fender can't control such activities, regarding non Fender replicas, that they can build it into there dealer stocking profile, that it would be  strictly prohibited for dealers to stock new 'boutique' guitars that  are clearly inspired by Fenders vintage Strat/Tele body and headstock - If they go through with this, then it will have a severe impact on 'boutique' brands selling vintage inspired guitars into the worlds largest dealers

Mark, I was hoping to not contribute anymore to this thread but as it was my statement around SVL, I just wanted to clarify. My issue was never around IP shape but that as a buyer (and you are a seller) at any point in time (even 50 years from now) I could buy an SVL strat knowing just by looking at it, that is was an SVL. I would know that it is a close a copy to a Fender 61 Strat, but without having to go on a fishing trip to verify. The same cannot be said on a TM guitar, that's all the point I wished to make.

both are mighty fine guitars though