It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I had this guitar plugged in for a couple of hours with said dealer....the greatest guitar experience of my life, I thought it felt and played just fine.
(formerly miserneil)
Interesting.
I wonder if Gibson would be that concerned about whether people were ripping off £250,000 vintage guitars? In some ways that's really a problem for the punter. Wouldn't they be more concerned about counterfeit guitars that tried to tap into the current lines and therefore their income streams?
FWIW I don't think any replica/fake etc should try and pass itself off as the real thing though.
While it's illegal and shouldn't really be going on, the volume is so small that I somehow doubt it'll be a serious competitor to the Gibson Custom Shop. With that said, if I could afford one of these clones, personally I'd probably buy one over a "real" Gibson... but for every one person with my opinion, there are probably another ten who'd just buy a Gibson to spare themselves the hassle. R8s and R9s are usually still REALLY good, obviously.
I am also aware that my position may be seen as hypocritical given my dislike of the numerous companies that copy the Blackmachine design, but the situation isn't really the same. That smacks of larger companies preying on an innovative and very small-volume builder for obvious commercial gain, and hammering out a steady stream of not-very-special guitars that miss the point. This is one man on his own, building painstaking replicas with great care and love, one at a time, to a standard not available anywhere outside an original Les Paul - which is out of reach to almost everyone. And it probably doesn't have the faintest effect on Gibson's sales figures.
Hence the law is there to protect the consumer and why all counterfeit goods are to be destroyed. It is both to protect the original copyright holder and the consumer.
On a guitar level, I do appreciate they are good guitars, very good guitars. The question however is a psychological one, not a physical one.
The question is the drive of the consumer WANTING that Gibson logo, because deep down they want to own a piece of history, or pretend to be, like getting a R9 pretending you got a real Burst. Both are not true but on the surface, it looks like it. Secondly, what drives the builder NOT putting his own name on it? One argues that is the need of the consumer wanting the logo on the headstock that drive the builder putting it on there.
However, there are plenty of good boutique builders making their own guitars with their own logo and headstock that command a good price. Palir for example is a recent one, they started making noting more than a Tele and Strat copy with their own logo slapped on it. But they don't pretend to be Fender.
As an artist, I want my work to be my work, and not give others the credit for my work.
Hence the law is there to protect the consumer and why all counterfeit goods are to be destroyed. It is both to protect the original copyright holder and the consumer.
On a guitar level, I do appreciate they are good guitars, very good guitars. The question however is a psychological one, not a physical one.
The question is the drive of the consumer WANTING that Gibson logo, because deep down they want to own a piece of history, or pretend to be, like getting a R9 pretending you got a real Burst. Both are not true but on the surface, it looks like it. Secondly, what drives the builder NOT putting his own name on it? One argues that is the need of the consumer wanting the logo on the headstock that drive the builder putting it on there.
However, there are plenty of good boutique builders making their own guitars with their own logo and headstock that command a good price. Palir for example is a recent one, they started making noting more than a Tele and Strat copy with their own logo slapped on it. But they don't pretend to be Fender.
As an artist, I want my work to be my work, and not give others the credit for my work.
Doesn't feel or look like one, never mind that they're faded the old fashioned way with cherry under the pickguard etc
(formerly customkits)
To me, it looks totally fake, and if Terry is going to all the trouble of 'leaving the cherry under the pickguard', he should learn when to stop it with the sandpaper.
I honestly don't think this type of aging makes it look like a timeless replica, it makes it look like a guitar that been reliced in the early 2000's, when people thought this kind of relicing looked good.
In 20 years time, it will date like gated reverb and frostwash jeans, and people will look back and think "how did anybody think that made a guitar look vintage?"
The thread that keeps on giving......
its not done with sandpaper.