$12,000 FAKE Gibson Guitars being sold by reputable stores
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Today we take a look at a couple of high end classic stores, one in the USA and one in the UK, selling fake Gibson Les Paul '59 Burst guitars. I am not kidding, these are no less counterfeit than Chibson guitars but overtly being sold openly on reputable stores.
VIDEO LINKS MENTIONED
Vintage & Rare Link: www.vintageand...
Gary's Classic Guitars LLC: www.garysguita...
ATB Burst Link: www.atbguitars...
ATB Video: • Video
Zimm's guitars video : • Kris Derrig Gibson Rep...
🔔 SUBSCRIBE for more: www.youtube.co...
🎸 PATREON: / cgsuk
🎸 CGS Website and Forum: www.ChinaGuitar...
🎸 Instagram: / chinaguitarsceptic
🎸 Facebook: / china-guitar-sceptic-7...
📧 Email me: chinaguitarsceptic@gmail.com
#Gibson #fakeguitar #59burst
1. The quality is key. A standard chibson sucks when it comes to electronics, tuners, bridge, etc. The white collar fakes are painstakingly crafted to original specs. These guitars don’t insult the brand. The only crime is putting Gibson on the headstock IMHO
2. They should not be selling these guitars with Gibson on the headstock. The luthiers should’ve just put their own brand on it.
I'm with you 100% on both answers mate.
Totally agree! Do NOT pass them off as Gibsons!
It's a terrible shame that the people who buy these high-end "replicas" can't tolerate a different name on the headstock, it's really odd, they will pay top dollar for a top quality instrument, but it has no value to them if the name isn't "Gibson" a company that they don't think can build a proper copy of their own guitars.
s k gil yaron put his name on the headstock during his replica career, but he did start out putting Gibson. The ones with gil yaron on the headstock are equally as valuable if not more than the ones with Gibson
I guess Gibson doesn't care as long as the quality is as high or higher quality... it protects the brand and in your Slash example... affords them the opportunity to capitalize on the situation legally! I kind of don't blame Gibson in that sense.
The irony is, imagine if you had thought you had bought an authentic Derrig Guitar only to discover you have a 80's Gibson?
Lmao! Now that's funny. 🤣🤣
Wow that escalated quickly I think I would be highly upset .I traded for an Epiphone SG Pro only to get home and all it had was chibson parts but I traded a chibson for it so at least when I came home I came home with legitimate Epiphone body and because of the broken headstock on my $2,000 Flying V I have all the hardware to make it a legitimate Epiphone SG Pro. Does that make the SG Pro that I built out of all these parts legitimate or fake
Let's just say if I could trade my 2020 LP for a LP copy made by the guy that made Slash"s guitar. yeah I'm in
To be fair, Gibson said "Play Authentic" and didn't say "Buy Authentic."
😂😂😂
LoL ten points my friend
You should get Mark Agnessi on the phone to talk about this, he's just sitting around in his leather jacket and bare feet doing nothing all day.
I would love to. Anyone got his phone number. Believe me I WILL DO IT!!! We got on well at NAMM and JC too. So no offence meant here but this is really crazy!!
😆! I was hoping to see a comment like this! 100% agreed 👍!
@Mike Duckwall he was a nice guy when I met him. I think it's important to separate a man from his work. I didn't agree with the message but I didn't shoot the messenger.
@@angusseletto1511 from what I've heard he's a great guitar player.
It would actually be better to get a comment from jc on this. I hope he sees it at least. I got on really well with jc and Mark at NAMM and I hope they can navigate this once great company back to happier times. Slight change of tack required though.
The use of the gibson name and logo and the disign of these guitars are owned by Gibson,
so these guitars are counterfeits and there is a law prohibiting making fake copies. This has nothing to do with the build quality
That's my stance too.
I was a person friend of Terry's, and saw first hand the guitars he created.
Most of his customers brought Terry's guitars because of Gibson's wayward quality control. His attention to detail was incredible. His death is a sad lose to all his family and friends, and the guitar building community
As I said in the video, he's a huge loss to the Luthier fraternity and may he rest in peace. I'd really like to know more about him and I'm already talking to one other person who knew him. If you would be willing to share, please email chinaguitarsceptic@gmail.com as I'm thinking of doing a video about his skills as a builder.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Please contact me at peach.robert67@gmail.com
Second that.
Terry was incredible.. and such a lovely bloke.
His guitars are forever secured the hall of fame now... rare beauties.
I own a replica 58 Les Paul I bought from a luthier 10 years ago. It's branded a Les Paul there's no serial on it. This guy went to town and built it from the right woods and a set of 58 plans. The guitar is amazing and I made the pickups and done 50's Peter Green wiring. I am not going to discuss guitar price but I got a good deal. Morally is it wrong probably but so long as you are honest about the instrument it is what it is. What about people cloning marshall amplifiers. People can't afford the real equipment and many will settle for replicas. What about Gibson custom shop doing reissues those are replicas technically.
Chibsons only exist cause people can't afford the real guitars these companies see a gap in the market and exploit it. I don't have a problem buying a chibson, chickenbacker, etc and modifying these guitars for me and I gig them and beat the puddings out of them and leave my valuable guitars at home. If you spend 300 on a guitar what do you expect really. If you wind pickups for instance a set of replica pafs are about 150 quid upwards, fret level and setup another 100+ you are a price of a budget Gibson there and then you might still have a setup fee as well.
I just think if these companies cared truly about their customers they would do something about their QC and pricing and people won't be thinking about buying replicas.
I can't disagree with any of what you say here my friend. Very much my outlook on it too.
The big problem comes when crooks pass ANY copy off as real and stick 'non-experts' with an expensive mistake. Sadly that happens all the time. So I guess my videos hopefully push 'caveat emptor' - buyer beware! 😊👍🙏
How can you stop counterfeits that's the problem as well 12k for a replica is a rip off but look at picasso didn't he have apprentices that copied his work and even forger's work became valuable
You cannot rationalise the idea that Gibson producing re-issues is the same as a chibson.. Gibson owned the copyright for the original therefore any re-issue they make of their guitars cannot be classed as a counterfeit. Your attempting to justify your illegality. Nothing else..
I think selling a replica (even with a Gibson logo) is totally fine morally and ethically *AS LONG AS* there is strict transparency in every transaction, no lying or funny business (should be labeled as a replica somewhere clearly visible, preferably where you'd place a seriel number). I can appreciate patent and trademark law to an extent, but someone making a more affordable and better replica i think should be rewarded instead of suppressed. Gibson's QA is shit now because they spend more time litigating competition than they do actually trying to compete with them at the market level.
The problem comes when the next unscrupulous person tries to pass it off as the real thing or now as a Derrig, Morgan or Max built copy. you just know it will happen. People are always out to make a fast buck. If we could guarantee that there was strict transparency in the chain of ownership then sure.
I really don't get why (other than to pass them off) Derrig and Morgan ever put Gibson on the headstock if they were capable of making a better standard than the original. Seems crazy doesn't it.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic it happened to me.. 😪 I'm dead inside. Busted my ass for it in the blistering heat and cold doing construction for two years to make the extra $ dreamed of it for 20 years. I would never do that to someone.
@@RandyRugarMusic So sorry brother there are some real scum bags out there :-(
The minute you slap "Gibson" on the headstock is the moment your replica turns into a fake and you forfeit that work as your own, to profit (or not) from someone else's brand.
Being a Gibson lover and owning over 45 Les Pauls I do believe in authentic guitars as I build my own guitars and really would not want a fake or replica of my builds selling for 25% of what I can sell the real ones for. However I do own 2 Max Les Pauls as well as the Derrig shown in this video at Zimm's. The Max Barranet Les Pauls and Kris Derrigs are incredible replica guitars that are very accurate at a fraction of the value of my own 59 burst. As for those who sell them as Gibsons this is unfortunate. P.S. thanks for using the footage of the Derrig we shot at Zimm's Guitars. :) By the way the pic with Slash in it ay 2:58 into the video is not Kris Derrig, it is a pic of my friend Max Barranet and also my good friend Slash.
I would be really interested in chatting to you about your experiences. I'm looking at following up this video with more in depth views of Kris, Terry, Max and others. If you'd be interested please can you email at ChinaGuitarsceptic@gmail.com it would be great to talk to you. All the best, Mike
I have no problem with them as long as the seller is being open and honest about its origin.
If everyone was honest about it. Sadly people aren't and that's why we have law.
There is a great difference between a counterfeit item, and a 'replica' item. The replica is NOT sold as a true item, made by the manufacturer. It is sold as a replica of that item -- a KNOWN impostor.
There are many automobiles that are replicas, and the original manufacturers don't raise a peep.
Here's just one example: ruclips.net/video/aZmEvDXqm8s/видео.html There are many.
It's up to the original manufacturer of the replica item to dispute the item's authenticity, if they so desire. However, if the replica is labeled as such, and the workmanship exceeds the original item, then there is absolutely no reason to complain about it, and virtually no original manufacturers do complain.
The law is all about COUNTERFEIT items: Items that are claimed to be made by a certain manufacturer, but are not. These items are notoriously of lower quality, and passed off as an original.
So...these high-quality guitars are NOT counterfeits; they are replicas, and there is a difference.
As long as they are sold as replicas, I see no reason to be upset. Here's yet another example:
ruclips.net/video/puZDmj2QuX8/видео.html
I agree but the double standard in law is my point and I don't think it helps lessen the motive to build copies no matter how high the quality and intended tribute in the action of great builders.
Perihelion77 your right, and I think the guy here really does make a judgment even though he says repeatedly that he leaves it to us. Kind of a waste of time. Won’t be watching another. My genuine Gibson is not great anyway...
Factually incorrect I’m afraid, at least as far as the UK law is concerned. If you want to make and sell a legal “replica” of something here in the UK you must first and foremost ensure you don’t put the original company branding on the item (and then hope that the OEM doesn’t take legal action against you for any number of other possible trademark or copyright infringements). As soon as you put the branding on the item, in this case the Gibson logo and the Les Paul Model trademark, it doesn’t matter whether you call it a “replica” or not or whether you tell everyone it’s not the “real thing” and price it accordingly I’m afraid it is still illegal.
I’m sure the lack of action on behalf of the authorities is mostly a question of resources (especially considering that with limited resources you’re going to clearly prioritise action against counterfeiters who are intentionally trying to pass off their items as the real thing, mislead buyers and profit off this) and a lack of knowledge of the relatively limited number of such high end “replicas” that are up for sale at any one time (vs the much more significant quantities of low value fakes circulating in the market and continuing to be manufactured). The lack of legal efforts by manufacturers is almost certainly driven by the same thing... a couple of high end “replica” Les Pauls circulating worldwide doesn’t really cause a big revenue or profits effect for Gibson, their existence (as high quality items) doesn’t damage their brand image, and the cost and effort to take legal action against such a small number of items and their builders or sellers would be hugely disproportionate to the benefit they would gain from doing it, unlike efforts against an ongoing volume manufacture of counterfeit items like Chibsons. We should all remember that companies like Gibson exist to make revenue and profit and they don’t take legal action in accordance with what is morally right but rather what legal action has a good chance of delivering a positive cost-benefit result - going after ATB or Vintage and Rare for individual instruments just wouldn’t be worth the legal costs involved for Gibson. 🤷🏼♂️
I was looking at the Gibson website yesterday and noticed almost all of their models are now out of stock. Gibson is now making it's own copy of their 1957 Les Paul Junior. When they were first produced they were considered a beginners guitar and were priced below $200.00. The price of their reproduction of that same model guitar is now at the ridiculous price of $3,799.00. That's really$3,800.00 with the taxes in most states it could be about $4,000.00 for a 1 pickup guitar with no binding on the neck or the body with cheap Klusson tuning pegs. It's ridiculous.
I recently bought a Harley Benton version of this late 50's LP Junior. It was $329.00 with hard shell case and shipping. The one improvement I can say for the Harley Junior models has over the Gibson is the neck and body joint. The HB has the joint beveled so you can move your hand easier to access the lower end of the fret board. It doesn't have that big block of wood to get in your way like the Gibson does.
I've owned a few original late 50's and early 60's Gibsons which included ES 335's ES 175's Les Paul Specials, Les Paul Juniors and SG Juniors and SG Specials. I know the difference in quality each of them have. Gibson is pricing Les Paul Juniors above or at the same level as their new Les Paul Standards and definitely above their studio models. Gibson is crazy this is what happens when corporate people try to run a music instrument company and they're not musicians. Now wonder people buy copies. The regular working guitar player can't afford these prices. Gibson Les Paul Juniors are good but not for $4,000.00
I'm a big fan of the Harley Benton Hill as well as their price point too my friend.
It is utterly shocking the prices that some of the big-name brands seem to be charging these days and I wonder often how they can justify such a price tag!
Gibson would have a hard time winning any court case Vs these luthiers who are making 59’ burst replicas, even with the Gibson logo, for several reasons.
1. They are not mass produced, they are essentially built upon order, and are built by a single luthier who takes a good amount of time to complete.
2. They are never representing them to the buyer as anything other than a replica.
3. They usually have “secret” markings to identify them as not authentic and identify who the builder was.
4. They are usually substantially more expensive than all of Gibson’s offerings.
5. They are not of “lesser quality”, so they won’t damage the Gibson brand.
These guitars are made to replicate an item that very few authentic’s still exist.
It falls more into paying someone to replicate your old Dutch master painting or expensive jewelry, so the original can be kept safe in a vault.
As long as it isn’t sold “as a Gibson”, they are not defrauding anyone or damaging the Gibson trademark, sales, or overall brand through infringement.
Essentially, no one is buying one of these replicas instead of buying a new Gibson.
Gibson also worked with several of these luthiers when they started doing their historic recreations, so that would also work against Gibson taking any type of legal action.
I completely respect skilled luthiers making masterpieces that show off their craftsmanship. However, a fake is a fake. Why put Gibson on the headstock unless your intent was to fool someone into believing it was a "real" Gibson? Also, fakes dilute the market value of the real instruments they copy. I'm not trying to jump on some moral high-horse, but if we look at the reasoning behind the fake and are honest about it I think we would all come to about the same conclusion. Great video as always Mike! God bless and rock on.
Nobody can argue with that brother. I am just perplexed at Gibson and their lawyers who came after me for trying to encourage people not to buy fakes and yet these incredibly high profile sales go unchallenged.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic I think some 'back handers' have been passed around!
@@Chinaguitarsceptic it's possible that in court that the argument could be made that Gibson has in fact not diligently protected their trademarks by allowing these builders to continue for years or decades and thus may have a weaker standing in court trying to defend against other interlopers.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Agreed! Baffling....
I think Gibson wants the used market devalued so that they can sell more new guitars! Makes sense doesn't it? They make zero money on the used market so cast so much doubt on the used and higher end used market that they have to come directly to you to be sure they are getting "authentic." I don't really care what the headstock says if it's a great guitar and even if it isn't.
Thanks for watching my video.... please put a link in your description...Cheers
Cheers buddy of course I will I thought I had!
To answer the questions posed in the video:
1 - Quality. The workmanship, materials and finish on UK and USA luthier made guitars typically tends to be better than Fender and Gibson themselves let alone the far east knock offs. The prices asked reflect this and if the proper paperwork is obtained then anyone selling on later will get a return (or at least not lose much) on their money.
Chibsons are cheaply made and finished with the potential to lose an unwary buyer a lot of money. This is highly unlikely to happen with USA/UK made items as the prices will always be so much higher.
2 - Agreed. The trademark infringment is exactly the same. They are only "getting away with it" because no one is making an issue out of it and complaining to Trading Standards. If they did then I'm sure that the guitars would have to be removed from sale....should this happen or should there be a different standard be in place for higher quality guitars? Perhaps Gibson and Fender could operate a licence system to allow a select few of the best luthiers to make custom pieces if they felt it doesn't harm their own business in anyway. At the end of the day it is up to them to protect their IP.
Spot on with #1 mate and #2 as well except that my 'mole' has reported these particular sales to Gibson with no response.
Gibson won’t care as they only make people lust for that authentic 1959 LP even more. Next years marketing from Gibson will be another tweak towards something closer to a Terry but never getting there. The more we talk about it the more free promo Gibson gets
If Gibson had done a deal with say terry, I believe the retail price for a full certified old growth wood/ braz construction with bespoke / reclaimed parts, all work done in his shop; by the time it got to Gibson they would be listing it for £25k. Plus there would only be 2 or 3 available per year! Would be insane. They would never have done it though as it would put Their in-house man to shame; Tom Murphy. Compare the finishing and ageing work between the 2. One looks like a great les paul with nice ageing, and one looks like a real 1959..
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Gibson might still be licking their wounds from the double whammy recently of the failed lawsuit against Dean for headstock and bodyshape infringments (What on earth were they thinking there? Dean have been making those guitars for decades) and secondly the self inflicted "play authentic" farce which is some of the best shooting yourself in the foot ever seen. If they genuinely wanted folks to only play Gibson then fixing the quality control and giving a value for money propostion might help.
Fender also got hit with a record fine for "price controlling" so they might also not be wanting to risk legal action...who knows....sometimes the negative publicity involved with individual cases or small builders is probably not worth it in the long run....dealing with someone making hundereds if not thousands of knock offs might be different though.
Good video! It amazes me how everybody trashes Gibson but everybody continually copies them. A real Les Paul is a true treasure. Anybody who has ever owned one can spot a fake by simply holding one. I tried many times over to help people by modifying Epiphones and Chinese fakes and no matter what you do you can’t make them play or sound like a Gibson Les Paul. There truly is something special about a Gibson Les Paul. Wether you call it a anointing or luck or the perfect combination of materials doesn’t matter, the fact is they are unique and even the haters are truly jealous of them. Most people who hate them have never owned one. Put a Les Paul in the hands of a hater and they will change their tune real quick.
I think one of the big differences is the full disclosure. The big problem with the Chibsons, and I own 2 (SG & LP), is people selling them as the real deal. I think a REPLICA or TRIBUTE brand on the back of the headstock would be a good compromise on all of them. I've actually looked into getting a brand to do this to the ones I own.
thank you for posting this brother! great info!
My pleasure! Thanks buddy :-)
These Guitars were all advertised as replicas, it's up to you if you're prepared to pay that kinda money for them, The problem comes if you try to pass off a chibson/fake/replica as the real deal.
Yep totally and they are illegal to sell anyway both from the stores and for you if you end up buying one
Good story! If chibsone were 12k then it would be allright, right?
There you go! Exactly! No difference is there. Thanks mate!
Thanks, CGS. I got the last of the Chinese counterfeits, brother. A beautifully made creme Gibson SG custom with 3 pickups and gold hardware. Also a Les Paul Custom: with quilted top green burst. Both with perfect Gibson headstocks. Both for under $500. delivered. Pictures didn't show the Gibson headstock. But when they came, I was not displeased.
The shop: Luckinmusic as with all others in China are shut down now.
I never knew how fat and clean a single melody line could caress my acoustic nerve until this SG arrived. Although not harmonically balanced for chords like my Grote semi-hollow flame 12-string set up for 6, but single lines: sweeter than honey, bro. Some instruments produce no listening fatigue such as a great violin or classical guitar. That SG custom is right there with them.
So many guitar companies, and guitar builders make copies of well known guitar models, Tele, strat, LP etc. They may not be replicas, but everyone recognised those shapes
I agree that the shapes of guitars should no longer be trademarked these days, but a logo and branding should
Great video and I do not distinguish between the legality of Chibsons or "white collar" forgeries. Both are equally in violation of the law. From Gibson's point of view, the rationale is probably that the low quality and low prices of the majority of Chibsons can harm the value of their brand, while the high quality, limited supply and outrageous prices of a Derrig or Max oddly helps their brand. Can't afford the buy-in for the "burst club", Derrig, impossible too find, still too steep of a price tag? Well buddy boy, Gibson has just what you are looking for, a $7,000.00 "official re-issue" of the classic 50s Les Paul Burst.
LOL love your last line, that's classic!!!
Cheap fakes do not harm the brand either. They strengthen it
I believe these guitars should be built the same way they’ve always been built, however they shouldn’t be branding them as “Gibson” guitars.
Agreed totally
I feel really mixed on this one. Making a beautiful, top notch replica of any item from the past is somthing I do really admire, be it a guitar, an old car or whatever. However, not prominantly including your own logo in a non removable place and making it so realistic that it could be mistaken for the real deal feels pretty dodgy! I shoot at a UK gun club, and there are lots of types of older, highly valuable firearms which with changing laws get reclassed as 'grandfathered' where you can keep it, but you can never sell it, perhaps a similer thing should apply here!
I like that idea. Something needs to be done to protect people against fraudsters. It's so easy so say that the guys making these were full of the best intent - it's when some crook gets hold of one and rips people off that it becomes a problem!
Agreed. A replica is a replica because it's not pretending to be the real thing. That said, it would be a lot easier to accept if the luthier put their brand or name on it. Even a mark on the back of the head stock to indicate that it's a replica. I'm not very familiar with these high end replicas so maybe some makers do put their mark on them.
The other thing that bothers me is that they are using Gibson's name and head stock without license. Even a replica is stealing intellectual property if it's not licensed. But replicas are a very small market and can cost more than the real thing so perhaps Gibson doesn't see them as a threat.
@@schreds8882 Yes! i agree completely
CGS I’ve always suggested people that own these brand somewhere inside the cavity to distinguish the guitar in case someone does what you have described. If I had a terry I’d want nothing more than TM branded on the inside of the cavity with a hot iron, to prove it is a “real terry” ! And not simply a really good Tom Murphy passing itself off as a terry replica!
Oh well, you can only blame the people commissioning them in the first place
@@Chinaguitarsceptic it's odd to considder what kind of serious, immediate police action would come on me of I tried to make or flog fake diamonds for £12,000! If the current owners/sellers of these guitars would insure they have non removable 'replica' markings somewhere on the outside of the guitar then I guess that would be okay, a bit like the way Fender Custom Shops put logos on the rear of headstocks.
hey again friend.. haven't heard from you in a while.. i wish you success... long time fan..
Hey buddy, I have been putting out 3 videos per week, are you not getting notified? Check you have the bell checked and notifications switched on. Lots to catch up on 😊👍
ok, good to hear you are doing well :)
I'm rewatching this video on December 16th 2021 and I have to say , Mike who ever cut your hair did a wonderful job because your hair looks fantastic .
I have cut my own hair for 25 years mate! LOL Is it that bad?
I have a Les Paul copy made in the Samick factory, where the first Epiphone Les Pauls were made. It is branded as Stellar Mercury 06 single cut electric guitar. Got it on ebay for $199 in a hardshell case. Amazing guitar, Cherry Sunburst, bound top, neck and head stock, chrome covered alnico pickups.
I enjoyed this. I hadn’t really thought of it this way with the high end replicas, but you are right. It’s hypocritical of Gibson to go after other builders who even hint at a Gibson design but say nothing of these more expensive ones. I’m sure they are fantastically built, but surely applying a Gibson logo is illegal?
Exactly my friend and Gibson can't have a double standard like that without expecting to be called out on it sometime.
I remember years ago, a seller selling replica Les Paul's at a guitar show. They were however stamped "into the headstock" "Replica".
100 or so guitars were just seized in the US. You made a good point when you said "the headstock only matters to players and players will know its a fake" that talked me out of a chibson. Now I do want one thats on DH gate but I want my own logo on it.
It's the only way to go my friend
Why would you want a hand made custom built guitar that looks like a production line guitar? The reasoning baffles me! If you have bought a custom made replica made by a master why wouldn't you want the masters name on the headstock?
Seppo says: as a professional lutheir for several decades, I find it an insult to my craft to purposefully clone existing instruments, be they brand new or vintage. I build "renditions" of existing models being sure to engineer and improve the quality and eliminate errors built into the originals. Eg: early teles with both E strings falling off the fretboard further up the neck. 'Nuff said.
Every respect to your body for not supporting the practice of Building or promoting or selling fake guitars
Great video brother
Thanks bro
As long as it is not being sold as a genuine Gibson, and the person buying knows this then I don't see the problem. I wouldn't personally pay up to £12k for a replica but it is all down to what people want. Transparencyand honesty is key in this sort of thing..
Great video mate. Really enjoyed it. Crazy prices for a real Gibson let alone a replica. I bought a Fake Telecaster before..It said 1968 made from the numbers but all fake. Bought that at an auction in North London years ago..Never seen a fake Telester before and I was surprised. A Gibson was for sale on the same day.
Thank you my friend. Sorry you got clobbered with a fake Tele, it really is bad news! I hope you didn't pay too much. Way too many fakes in the market these days you never know what you are buying. This is the problem especially with fakes that are as close as these masterbuilts. Someone will end up paying £250K one of these days!
CGS It was my fault mainly as I should have known better. I got exited when I saw it and didn’t know much about what was real or fake like today. I paid alltogether just under £300 if I am not mistaken and that was another sign but I got stuck with the bid. Not the end of the world but would had rather support a guitar shop that waste it on junk. Lessons in life and shows that nothing is at it seems.
@@GenosGlory At least it wasn't £3k mate :-)
CGS oh yeah that would had been a disaster. cheers mate
CGS that has already happened a handful of times. In fact one guy was burned just 2 months ago thinking he was buying a beaten up, refinished, mutilated 1960 LP with all the wrong parts at the bargain price of £35k (you would Add a 2 or a 3 in front of that £35k if it was straight...). After serious work he managed to get his his money and his 6 other LPs he traded in to get it all back. les paul forums
It is not illegal to buy one of these, but it is a criminal offence in both the UK and USA to sell one without permission from Gibson (the Trademark owner). Penalty in both countries is up to 10 years in Jail and a massive fine ($2,000,000 in USA).
All of these sellers can and should be prosecuted and go to jail. Google, Ebay, Facebook, Craigs List, Gumtree, et al should be fined ($2,000,000 per guitar) for assisting an offender if they carry any listings for these items.
Same for anyone selling replica decals with Trademarks on.
Do this to a couple of companies and the fake guitar problem goes away, certainly it will be impossible to find them online as the big IT companies won't want to pay out $2M per guitar often.
I have no problem with them selling these guitars for £12K and putting the luthiers name on it, but they should remove the "Gibson" and "Les Paul" from them.
Without these cavalier retailers and the online product listing sites, Chibsons and other fakes would not even be seen by most people.
Clone, tribute, replica call it what you want....just sugar coated words for fake, all driven by vanity and curtain twitching.
They want the Asda Smartprice purchase price but, they want the 'looky me' romance of the puka item which, unfortunately comes at the premium they can't afford.
No different to the fake Rolex watch and, designer handbag market, all these fake products are all designed to catch those with the same mind set.
Where the value is depends on the depth of the pocket.
Excellent video 😎
Thanks brother
I don’t have too much of a problem with it providing the purchaser knows what they are buying. The issue comes when someone is buying a les Paul thinking it’s a Gibson. Personally though if I had £12k for a guitar I’d buy a custom shop les Paul rather than a replica
Hey Steve, great to hear from you buddy. However it's not the primary seller. What about the next seller who passes them off as the real thing?
CGS yes agree that is the problem. I do wonder why these people feel the need to put logo of Gibson etc on them. If I could build a guitar as good as a les Paul then it would have my own name all over it and I’d want people to know who built it
lot to think about there!! Mike Thanks!!
It is all down to the Logo Brand Name at point of sale , lots of companys sell les paul shaped guitars with their own brand names on ,same as Fender shaped guitars you can go online and buy the Logos of Gibson and Fender to stick on any guitar and that doesn't seem to be a problem for the company that sell these stickers ?
The shapes of guitars should no longer be trademarked IMHO but brand names and logos definitely should and that's my point. I can't build a car and put rolls royce on it.
So how can Gibson sue for copyright infringement and then allow this? Can they legally sue someone and allow this?
I think it's only worth going after other brands with the money to be sued.
Much ado about nothing when it comes to these... they weren't being passed off as being made by Gibson; the first words out of dude's mouth at about the 8:00 mark was "I know, this looks like a Les Paul but it's not... it's a Terry Morgan." If you have $12,000 and want to knowingly purchase a replica, that's your business... we should be far more concerned with average Joes parting with their last $2000 for what they think it the real thing.
No but it said Gibson on the head stock.
If a store claims it's an actual Gibson, knowing it's not, that would be fraud. If the store tells you it's a Gibson copy or replica, not fraud. The manufacturer is the one infringing on Gibson's name and property. But, it wouldn't be financially beneficial for Gibson to take legal actions, especially if produced in another country and in small quantity. And, it's not like these copies are hurting Gibson sales by outselling them. Chances are it prompts more people to want to buy Gibson guitars.
All true my friend but still illegal.
Considering Gibson’s quality control of late, fakery would practically be contract labor.
I was quite impressed with the 2020 range at NAMM in January. But they have certainly had their issues in recent years.
At least they’re describing them as “replicas”, and not authentic Gibbys. Granted I’d never pay over $1500 for a guitar anyway 🤷♂️ And also maybe Gibson has granted license to these high end replicas?
Part of the reason for 'branding' is to protect a reputation for quality compatibility, spares, etc ... In the case that there is no real damage to reputation as a result of a copy companies like Gibson would find it difficult to establish what their 'loss' was as a consequence ... in these cases, arguably actually a profit and improvement in their reputation and standards ...
The fact that there is no financial benefit to any litigation might make a Court consider this as vexatious litigation, maybe with a lot of cost! Furthermore, follow the money again would say that there is no point in using a tiny operation copying, as it would cost a big sum of money in costs , without any chance of a payout ... The principle is not to bother suing 'a man of straw'. It does make sense to sue a factory ...
Brand dilution is another issue and this is a painfully costly headache for Brands, who often feel obliged to sue, even though they know that it is not in any way a threat to their business. McDonald's do this often.
Finally, there is PR. Very negative publicity would likely have resulted from Gibson suing a high quality limited edition rival and might have negatively affected sales ...
So, in summary, technically your implication is correct in that Gibson ought to have historically and now currently litigate, but then they establish a nightmare of having to litigate individual music retailers every time one of these comes onto the market. That's a lot of cost monitoring the industry and lawyer costs for small quantities with no reward and not necessarily a win (which Would dilute the brand !).
Shop owners are selling to a specialised knowledgeable Customer base at these prices and their intentions are clearly not to profit from illegality. The guitars have not got any serial number, which is where anyone buying this sort of guitar will, if responsible, look first and even check (if one has been subsequently added for re-sale).
Despite technical breach of the Law's strict liability, the law was designed to also protect from profiting from copying brands to sell them as the brand itself. Not the case here.
Gibson are probably wise to stay out of this and although Courts might be forced by Law to rule against shops, they might be very reluctant and qualify any ruling ... which would actually help the re-sale market for other copies ...
If the shops are obstructed, then private sales will result anyway ... so what would be achieved by stopping the Stores being honest ? Nothing really ...
Guitar manufacturers need to be seen to be working with the retail industry. Music Stores being sued for being honest doesn't really work ... but creates advertising for these quality copies. Irrespective of enforcing a technicality under strict liability, these guitars will inevitably end up on the market somehow.
It's just a mess, but no-one gains by making difficulties for the Music Stores in these cases.
Excuse the length of my contribution of 'thoughts' ... 😴
The trademark and intellectual property laws are there to protect against all unlicensed use of other people's property. The crime remains the same and profit and loss may only be a consideration in sentence as you rightly assert.
I feel it doesn't help to counter the fake trade when distinguishing between white collar and Chinese fakes.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Commerce isn't about 'feeling' and Law is also mindful of commerce ... hence IPR laws in the first place.
The Laws are tools to regulate society ... IPR breaches are treated in that context ... English Law is entirely based on the concept of Ownership of Property , so it is not surprising to consider IPR breaches as a Criminal Matter, when in reality it is a Civil Commercial matter ... for regulation.
Experience tells me in Law to 'always follow the money' ... It's amazing how that can help ...
@@Jester-Riddle sorry my 'feel' wasn't about the law my friend. It was about Gibson, stores and to an extent the community double standard when it comes to white collar fakes. Sorry for the confusion.
However I agree with your reply entirely.,👍
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Everything is contextual and this is why the Law and it's actual enforcement/penalties evolve daily, or more sporadically via Legislation. For this reason the 'applicable standards' envisaged at the time of legal decisions, or Legislation almost inevitably change over time. This is because the purpose of law is about the regulation of an evolving society and thus there are no absolutes in reality.
Therefore, is it really a 'double-standard', or a just a more refined 'standard' when assessing the law's applicability and consequences to new and different circumstances ? Even historic standards are regularly questioned and even over-ridden as society changes …
I'll give you a specific example to make you think on this … Nearly everybody believes that the 'double-jeopardy' rule means that a person cannot be tried for the same offence twice … and some even try to exploit that ! However, the Law has recognised that this simplistic belief is silly really and therefore it is no longer the case … The rigid dogma of 'double-jeopardy' was clearly obstructing 'justice' (insofar as 'justice' is achievable !), so the law evolved … the generally 'known' standard of 'double-jeopardy' is still generally believed and clung to as 'knowledge', but it is actually a false belief … a false standard, because notwithstanding societal belief that it was a bad loophole for 'getting away' with things and the belief continues, the Law did eventually change, but 'quietly'.
Ultimately, all this is about is 'what do you want the Law to achieve'. As I have suggested. applying the believed societal standard of the Law doesn't achieve anything probably, so the law directly, or indirectly needs to flex to adjust to fit the current sensible outcome.
In summary, the Law and it's processes is not about absolutes, but is merely about evolving regulations. Communication of those changing standards is too complex to achieve societal understanding until it is necessary to demonstrate it …
What I am trying to communicate simply is that society holds onto learned dogma because it is easier than staying abreast of changes that are necessary, partly because we don't like change as humans, partly because it's simpler and we like to believe we know where we stand ! Do you know all the changes to the Highway Code since you started driving, for example ??? I certainly don't, but we all believe that we know 'enough' … But, we can't all know everything !
Sorry to bore you wit my thoughts ! I think I will go and re-string my Mockingbird Pro 400, as it's overdue … need to oil the fretboard, etc … Now that's a good use of time … LoL
Good luck with the channel.
From Gibson's perspective it's about reputation. It would look seriously bad for their brand if they went after well respected Luthiers who are putting out better quality instruments than they are. Think "play authentic" X1000 in terms of backlash.
The really smart thing to do would have been to:
A. Hire the luthier.
B. Offer them some sort of licensing deal to use their logo/headstock. Such as fender do with their headstock shapes with charvel and warmouth etc.
It's most likely Gibson tried these measures and got a solid no in response. In which case they were forced to accept the fakes or face the backlash.
Either way the authorities that deal with counterfits have their hands full dealing with dangerous fake items such as faulty electrical equipment and consumables with poisonous ingredients. This is pretty low down on their list of priorities.
Is it right? No.
Is it serious? Also no.
Ultimately the quality of the product is all that will matter to the consumer. Trademark infringement and copyright are there to protect businesses and more importantly, the consumer. If the consumer is happy then it's up to Gibson to do something about it. The government certainly shouldn't be wasting money persuing this if Gibson can't even be bothered.
You have me on tenterhooks...
Gibson just doesn't want NEW guitars competing with their NEW guitars. They aren't chasing older fakes because it would be too labour intensive.
You could well be right mate, but that's surely not good for business?
I believe that if it didn't come off the Gibson floor, it should be nameless, or maybe a tiny asterisk next to the trademark. Or even small initials from whichever one of the two builders you mentioned, placed by logo. The guitar world would know that it may have not come from Gibson builders, but are assured it is as good a high quality product or better than the trademark product.
My question to everyone is, if you see a white collar 59 Les Paul and a real vintage Gibson Les Paul, not 59 but vintage in the same price on Reverb or eBay, which one would you buy?
Great question! I wish I had the money!
I own one of those 2010 Gibson AFD LP's, (my better half bought it as a surprise for my 40th & it arrived with the fretboard damaged in shipping lmao). I think it's down to Gibson to defend their trademark but another part of the argument is that some of the more infamous luthiers who built replicas also did work for Gibson in their Custom Shop, so you could argue that Gibson sold their guitars lol (of course you could also say they stole from their employers in that regard but Gibson obviously respected their work enough to employ them, knowing they'd built replicas). Personally, I have no issue with replicas, unless they're being sold as the real thing undisclosed, of course. That's where I draw the line but given how many replicas now exist, one should always exercise a degree of 'caveat emptor' when buying any high end guitar.
Very much agree
It’s important to put the price of £12k into context, the original 50s Gibson parts on this replica push the price up by several thousands. It would be a lot less without the original 50s parts
Its a Great made and sounding Great as Gibson Does, I guess that helps..Very Respectable to the people...Well done..
Thank you very much.
Ugh, those luthiers should have just put their names on the guitars. Like Nash guitars are copies of all Fenders, and I would love to have a Nash. Collings guitars went even further and redesigned the guitars they copied, and I think they are the finest guitar company. 🍔🍟
These builders should've put their own brand/logo/or name on the headstock. I really don't care if it sais the Gibson name. I care more about the actual contours of the guitar, overall build and finish. Take Jaydee guitars for example. They make superb SG's one which I would pay the extra price for and they build them with their own name.
I totally agree and the addition of their own logos would make them legitimate instruments in their own right.
I wish the head stock had his name on like other small makers. Great vid as always
That would be great!
I'd feel better about it if the headstock had some different branding. It's just a better quality of knockoff, otherwise. There is now the chance to enter into a licensing arrangement with Gibson and make authorized copies, like Banker Custom's Flying V and Explorer. Highly exact copies of early Gibsons in every respect but the brand name on the headstock, and Gibson approved. That route seems to be a win for everybody, whereas high end fakes just confuse the issue. It's all way out of my budget range, anyway.
I agree. It does confuse the issue.
1) The problematic ones are fakes that are of lesser quality, that can tarnish the brand name, that are passed off as 100% authentic. However, these are of the highest quality, so no insult to the brand there, and, at least in these examples, they are clearly advertised as being replicas built by Terry, so no one is trying to fool anyone here. These guitars have every bit of the quality and attention to detail as an actual Gibson, and then some, unlike the Chibsons.
2) Enforcement of copyright and trademark laws is not a completely automatic process, at least not here in the US (other than in customs maybe), nor should it be. The copyright/trademark holder has to take issue with any specific usage of their copyright/trademark, and then take legal steps to deal with it. If the copyright/trademark holder is fine with a specific case, even though it is technically in violation of their copyright/trademark and a case could be pursued, they absolutely have the right to ignore that and allow its use.
In responce to the ATB guitars video about Terry Morgan, he made the comment that Terry was the premiere of Les Paul replica building. Technicaly, well literaly that statement is wrong. Gibson have been making replicas ever since the first LP was crafted. That very first one is the proto original and therefore all guitars subsequently modeled on the original are technicaly replicas and that is true of all makes and models. If Terry was in Nashville working in the custom shop his efforts wouldn't be classed as fakes.
Very true and I think he would have been a great master builder in the custom shop. Not going to happen now though RIP Terry.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Agreed and his passing is a great loss to a trade that desperately needs master craftsmen such as Terry was. RIP.
I think a huge part of it has to do with knowing and admitting it's a fake. I think it is kinda childish in a way to hide the fact that it's not a Gibson by putting their logo on it and a serial number, etc. However I do understand that it completes the look of the original and as a luthier I can see why someone would like to go the extra mile to get as close as they can just for the sake of pushing their skills and craftmanship. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable either selling or buying a fake Gibson but I have no problem buying an exact Les Paul replica with a different logo and headstock. As a player, to me it all comes down to price, looks, feel and sound. I could care less about authenticity. I just wouldn't feel 'safe' owning a fake if people are so protective on their trademarks.
It also works the other way around: I would like to own an affordable vintage Gibson (Norlin era or something) but I'm too afraid to buy one since it could be a fake. So although I like certain Gibson's, the change of accidentally being illegal puts me off.
Very good point and respect to you as a builder that you would not be comfortable going that far. The crazy thing is that if these builders had put their own logo on the headstock the chances are the Gibson would have gone after them!
Very interesting video, thanks for taking on the topic my good man.
It's such a gray area but as you say, where do you draw the line? The copier of a copier is still a copier. At the end of the day we all copy those that we see around us as we grow up to learn how to do things. When we start into vocational activities or creative activities then we also copy to learn. If we didn't have something to shoot for, how to do we know if we've done it properly or not?
If there were a way to claim a copyright as we do with music or a revenue share or a simple way to offer that revenue share when making products, then it helps everybody and encourages new people to get into the game. The original copyright holder may lose if the copier does a crap job though. Granted, it's bound to help them in a huge way such as the AFD situation.
Man, you're asking some tough questions here :P. Thanks for the thought provoking video! #NAMM2021
It's good to ask the difficult questions 😊👍🙏
@@Chinaguitarsceptic Why is the sky blue? What makes babies? Why is pink so metal? 😛
Personally, I don't see how they can sell anything with the Gibson logo on it, regardless of what they call it. It's obvious that it's a Les Paul clone and I thought that Gibson also trademarked that exact SC body. Other such as Harley Benton offer SC style guitars, but the cut is different and they're not going to fool anyone down the road.
Can anyone explain how these 'clones' can be legally sold when the copyright/trademark specs are so identical to the real thing?
The interesting thing to me is that, in line with its white collar aspect, in the art world we see the same thing. Forgeries are worthless, except for those few high quality historic forgeries still worth decent money (and sometimes, though rarely, openly exhibited in museums, e.g. van Meegeren who sold forgeries to the NAZIs). In fact, when there is so much money on the table (as in the art world), and high stakes trading that is governed by rumor and confidential auctions, official catalogues and appraisers etc. there is a lot of internal governance outside of the law. Certainly, the fact that Gibson is still a contemporary company, and that the shops are retail locations makes it more openly illegal, but it seems that the culture around these white collar fakes are much the same as famous forgeries in the art world. Even directly, cheap guitars are "trash" or "beginner instruments", middle of the road guitars are "tools" and those very top high end luthier built guitars are "works of art." It seems to me that the comparison to art, that I'm sure we've all heard or said ourselves, is more than figurative!
I don’t see any difference between these guitars and the Chibson’s when it comes to the law. However, perhaps because they aren’t marketed as “Gibson’s “ and because the quality is excellent, Gibson turns a blind eye. As you mentioned in your video the Slash fake increased Gibson sales and spawned their own Slash model. Maybe Larry and Terry built guitars are viewed in the same way.
I think it has to be that. Gibson definitely know. I just don't get why they allow overt trade through dealers????
They weren’t “marketed” at all, they were very discrete orders from very discerning customers. Made in extremely small numbers and all unique to the clients spec. Not in the slightest bit concerning for Gibson, only concerning for actual burst buyers where some of these replicas have been sold as real 1959 les pauls by dodgy guitar dealers. Just goes to show how good some of them were
It is kind of sad of both Gibson and Fender to some extent that they milk their sales with signature models from guitarists whose prime was 30 years+ past (Slash LP, Page tele) instead of some more contemporary artists. I prefer Ibanez and how they support contemporary artists like NIta Strauss, Yvette Young). At least they are looking towards the future.
You're talking about Derrig but you show a pic of max baranet (another replica builder slash bought from)
Yes thank you brother you're the second person to bring this to my attention. I shouldn't rely on Google image search so freely. Sorry. However Max also made many copies and slash also had one of his so we can easily include him each time I mentioned Kriss Derrig. 👍😏
There is something to be said about a copy that are not mass produced where the builder can pay attention to detail and keep an eye on the guitar while being built Most Chibsons are a different story A first run of a Chibsons might be ok but once they get a foot in the door QC drops big-time Most of the white collar guy's use some of the methods Gibson used to do but can't anymore I rarely buy a guitar w/o playing it first myself
Always play it. The name isn't that important when it comes to playability and feel
I got me a 2020 Epiphone Les Paul Standard....my conscious is clear.
And you likely have a much better guitar
A fake is a fake no matter how good it is.
That's the view of the law too my friend
The only comment needed here. Well said👍
Gibson is selling officially licensed fakes that are inferior to luthier built fakes in terms of vintage accuracy.
@@bierce85 Does Heinz make fake Ketchup? Coke fake cola? Recipes change man...
Mart b it would be illegal for CocaCola to sell their Original Coke from the 1800s
No one was buying Les Pauls in the superstrat era. Slash's replica absolutely reversed Gibson's fortunes and Les Pauls once again became the hip guitars. I think the reason Gibson tolerates the high-end replica is that they actually help the brand. There are several builders that make these and they are almost always of much higher quality than the Gibson Custom Shop. They also typically are more faithful to the design of the vintage Les Pauls oftentimes with the exact same parts, woods, and finishes of a real '59 burst. If Gibson went after the high-end replicas they would just disappear into private collections and would be traded on the black market instead of openly.
Derrig built those Les Paul's from a kit that Ibanez made in the early 80's They were an unfinished body/neck ... you glued in the binding and finished the guitar yourself, they were $195 and sold through several mail order catalogs.
Wow if that is accurate I will be absolutely astounded. Can you provide references for that comment as I would be so interested to follow that Wormhole? Thanks my friend! 😊👍🙏
@@Chinaguitarsceptic I think I read about that in a guitar magazine (can't remember which) way back in the late 80's. I know that Ibanez sold a lot of those Les Paul kits up until about 1985 or so when Gibson put the kibosh on their import... it was basically Ibanez' way of skirting the "lawsuit" ban in 1977 when Norlin sued Ibanez for trademark infringement. I'm sure you could dig up a lot more with some deeper research.
Regards 🎸
The thing is, as long as there is no Gibson on the headstock, or it doesn’t have the Gibson shaped headstock, then it’s fair game. The US Supreme Court has ruled that body shapes cannot be trademarked. So any similar shaped guitar body made by a luthier is fine legally. Let’s be honest here, there is only so much wiggle room with a guitar body shape. Now, a Gibson logo on a non Gibson made guitar is of course not ok.
Totally agree but these have the open book and Gibson logo!
CGS yep, then those would definitely not be cool. I may have misinterpreted your video Mate, I thought you meant every body shape that looked similar to a LP.
1. They are master luthiers with a tonne of knowledge and experience. (Some aren’t).
There are plenty of fake ‘bursts’ but these luthiers didn’t push 100 guitars a day. The numbers are quite limited and I’m sure that the builds are more a compliment to the Gibson brand rather than an insult from the Chinese counterfeits (who can’t even drill an abr1 in correctly).
2. I am in Australia, so it all depends on the stores jurisdiction.
It would be a scummy move on Gibson’s behalf to go after the estate of a deceased luthier.
Imagine that? I think the shops view them as historical pieces which aren’t on the same level as the crap being pushed out of China. I can see your point and this is a great video for a discussion on the ethics of a builder, shop and brand.
Good stuff buddy.
Also Gibson did send out cease-and-desist’s to other luthiers at the time which does (correct me if I’m wrong) include ‘MAX’.
Look at Shelby Cobra it’s one of the most replicated sports car in the world with many fakes rolling across the auction block at Barrett Jackson every year, but they are reported as replicas before they are sold so the buyer knows what they’re getting.
Thinking about it, these are yet another example of how the '58-60 burst' obsession really has gone way too far, these 1980s fakes are worth almost as much as some genuine Gibson 1950s goldtops & customs! I know which I'd rather have!
They are simply way better than a Gibson. Way better. Did I say way better? I meant WAY BETTER BY A HUNDRED MILES. Yes, I've played them.
I find prices above $5000 for any guitar obscene but I understand that they are an investment. But you have to ask yourself what musician needs to spend more than that for a top quality tool? Those spending more are investors with the possible exception in people like kirk hammett who actually plays his 2 million dollar les Paul. I respect that.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic I agree, spending over £5K for a non vintage instrument really seems daft, and owning a vintage instrument or a classic car or whatever and never using it is pointless and only makes the things more rare & expensive for people who really want to make good use of them! But prices are such an odd subject, no one would bat an eyelid if I spent £12000 on a Ford Fiesta which depreciates at 20%odd per year, but spending £12K on a 60s Stratocaster which should gain 5-10% per year is seen as a waste of money!
@@TheDogPa Thats possibly more of a critisism of Gibson quality than it is a compliment to custom builders! I have to agree that I've never played a modern, high end Gibson that I've really liked or thought was worth it's big pricetag, however, I have played vintage ones that I thought were pretty nice. I also think the modern lower end Les Pauls Studios are far better in terms of value for money (especially as a used buy!) than any of the Standards or Customs!
btw...i don't think of derrig as a "fake" builder..but rather the builder of rock history.
1. The quality of these instruments is as you say often much higher than even that of the Gibson custom shop classic reproduction models, the attention to detail, obviously the selection of woods can be more precise for really high quality flame tops.
2. The stores selling these are not advertising them as Gibson 59s or even as 59 reissue models, they may have a Gibson logo on, but they are clearly advertising them as master luthier builds. In my opinion they are correct in doing this, there not doing what the company the other week where doing and just advertising them as Gibson's and just letting unsuspecting buyers purchase them.
Also in regards to the whole Chibson vs these deal, the Luthier made instruments are priced as such that unsuspecting learners and people on a budget aren't going to see them and go wow a 59 LP for £250 I'll buy that now it's cheap as chips. The people looking at £12000 Luthier built 59 replicas will undoubtedly know the builders name and know exactly what they are looking for, which will be a high quality built 59 spec LP that plays looks and sounds the part of the original if not even better.
Totally agree on all aspects. The only thing I feel is clear is the legality aspect which is black and white. That's why I'm not sure it helps squash the import of and market being flooded by the Chinese counterfeits.
Buyer be aware is the only way you can explain this.Terry Morgan made a replica, and that's what it's listed as.No problems.But if he listed it as a real deal ,what do you do.Most would've figured it out.But what about the guy that knows little .Always research your buys,is what we should all do. Good to see you back at it.! 👍😷
My feeling on this is very simple, if you put a fake name on any product you have made then it’s a fake as it is designed to defraud by imitation. However if you make a replica, say it is and put your own logo on it saying this is a replica of a Gibender then that’s fine. You can even say ‘Compare this to the real deal it’s at least as good!’ Eastman have done this with their excellent range of guitars. I have a E486B BK. It’s a fantastically made instrument and compares to the equivalent Gibson Custom shop ES335, it even has genuine Seymour Duncan Phat Cat P90s but what it does NOT do is pretend to be Gibson product. I’ve also played their SB59, which surprise surprise is an excellent remake of a 59 Les Paul, again with Seymour Duncan 59 pups, a wonderful instrument. Sorry for this being longwinded but I feel strongly about this something that purports to be something it’s not is a fake no matter how good it is, unless it is marked with the trademark, name etc with the full approval of the original manufacturer and it is indelibly marked as a replica made by Joe Bloggs that way it cannot be passed off as the real thing at a later date.
As with all, in the loose term of "repica," can only be as the buyer beware. It is insane to purchase these items at given cost. I guess a Picasso "relic" is next? Oh my...am I living as Peter Gabriel eloquently stated in the "Humdrum?"
Lol at Peter Gabriel comment, but I agree totally with the rest
The only thing I can think of is: Chibsons are made to fool you into thinking it’s something worth 10 times as much as it is.
“White Collar” replicas don’t hide the fact of what they are and they’re better (subjectivity I guess) built than new Gibson Custom Shop guitars.
I think of it this way: the Gibson that is selling guitars today really has very little to do with the one that actually made quality instruments all those decades ago. It's in a different plant with different craftspeople and different ownership. What came as standard in the 50's is now only produced by the custom shop and is 2-5+ times the price when adjusted for inflation. The trademark is effectively being held hostage by a company that has badly mismanaged it's funds and can't build quality instruments consistently (I say this as a Gibson owner). The only reason Gibson still exists is because they have a monopoly over a few body shapes that we aren't willing to give up on. It isn't because of the merit of their own craftsmanship.
The existence of white color fakes is due entirety to Gibson's shortcomings. If other people are competing with Gibson at their own prices (or higher), the issue isn't trademark. Why pay Gibson to do something that other people do better? The name is the only thing I *kind of* have a problem with. People who buy white collar fakes know exactly what they are buying, and there is no reason for them to be passed of as real Gibsons (usually). They also aren't produced at a scale to be that disruptive to Gibson's finances.
The chibsons are a different matter entirely because they pass off a low quality instrument as an expensive one
Very good points well made and I can't honestly disagree with anything you say here!
Great video CGS. Yeah, Gibson benefits from this, the illegal sellers benefit and the buyer gets an illegal guitar. If Gibson had a lick of sense they would of contracted this guy to make real Gibson's or gone after him in court. Isn't it that simple? A fake is a fake is a fake. Bottom line and should not be sold as the real deal. Thanks for informing us, thanks for all you do. Hang in there. We are better off with CGS in this world. Stay healthy and strong.
A luthier can’t legally build a Gibson and put his name on it. That’s called copy right infringement.
Exactly so there shouldn't really be a double standard
But those CGS mentioned did and to make it worse Gibson not only DIDN'T go after them but they actually used one of the fakes to make a Slash Gibson. So what's that say about Gibson?
There's probably thousands of Fender copies out there made and sold by Luthiers with slight mods mainly in head stocks. Fender doesn't sue them and no one complains about them being fakes. Oh yeah, that's cause they aren't claiming they are Fenders! How many Kramers, Ibanez's, old Charvels, Jackon's and more are based on the Fender Strat? How many Luthiers are making Tele style guitars? Dozens? Hundreds? Why isn't Fender suing them? Because Fender doesn't appear anywhere on the guitar.
Rondo Music sells dozens of Strat and Tele copies and some LP copies but they are different enough and aren't marked with the name brand.
If not for guitars like I mentioned half your guitarists wouldn't be able to afford a guitar. Fender's and Gibson's are grossly over-priced. Even thee Squires have double and tripled in priced. But again they aren't calling them Fenders or Gibsons.
Can they put a piece of tape over the *cough*headstocklogo*cough* and sec it that way? Kind of like how pickup makers would sell double-cream hum buckers, but with covers on so as not to infringe on DiMarzio's double-cream copyright?
I have no issues with people building great replica guitars, just have an issue with them putting a gibson logo on it.
Well that's the thing Mike and like I've said in previous videos:
It's Ok if it's made in the USA.
Morally, it's no different to a Chibson. Quality wise they're probably worlds apart. I still take the same stance in that, buying a replica is up to the individual if that's what you're after as long as they're aware it's not genuine. Buying a Chibson's no different than going into a luthier and commissioning a custom build - except the price. But unless it's licensed from Gibson, it's fake regardless of where it's made.
Personally I'd buy a $300 knock off, not a $12K knockoff. I'm sure the $12K guitars are every bit as good as they say. But that's the appeal to me in I can have fun upgrading a $300 guitar and I haven't lost too much money on the project. I'd buy a $300 Epiphone if they we're in that price range. That's why I think Tokai are great value if that's the style you're after compared to an Epiphone. I very rarely muck around with my higher end guitars.
But, you're also right that fakes can make it into the wild and then it's out of control.
You have to ask the question "Why are there fakes around"? To me it's obvious, Gibson haven't got a price range for their lower end guitars like Fender, PRS etc and their higher end is very much hit and miss. Again, why would you buy a high end fake guitar if there wasn't issues? Address those two problems and a lot of your counterfeit woes go away. Epiphones going in the right direction, but again they still look off. Gibson refuse to listen to what their customers want and that's to their detriment. Other manufacturers have taken up their slack.
Spot on! I said the same of their range in my response to play authentic video. I thought they had listened when I saw epiphone guitars with the open book, but you're right that they don't seem to have gone all the way. Their woes continue 😔
I didn't see any ads for luthier built copies that claimed to be from Gibson so I don't know what law is being broken. Copyright infringement is for Gibson to take action about or not and as far as the price is concerned I guess folk can pay whatever they think a particular guitar is worth
The trademark is in the brand name. I can't build a car and put a ferrari badge on it.
@@Chinaguitarsceptic I suppose it would be as long as the name is registered as such and I suppose the laws on that vary from country to country. That wasn't really my point but that's ok
As long as they are not trying to pass it off as a Gibson and openly telling people that it is a replica made by ... Luther they are legally skirting the edges of selling fakes. They are selling a replica. It is the same in the classic car circuit with the Our Sang. It isn't sold as a genuine Bugatti but a replica.
As long as you are not advertising it as a real Gibson you can legally sell it, it is not breaking the law. Anyone can make a replica and call it that. Chibsons are put together fast and don't always pay attention to detail, a professional Luther making one can get you as close to the original as possible without paying a crazy price
Sorry to 'burst' your bubble buddy but it is totally illegal to sell one even if you were to engrave FAKE into the face of the guitar. Check out my video on Rich Tone where I give the full legal breakdown!
@@Chinaguitarsceptic I'll give you that one trade mark does say that even if you say it is a fake you can still get in trouble for selling it
I think it’s absolutely wrong to sell a guitar with the Gibson logo on the headstock and it’s not actually a Gibson. I don’t care about the quality, it’s irrelevant. They really should have either put their own name on the headstock or their own company name on the headstock. Gibson is allowing this to happen, they shouldn’t. As far as the ones that have already been made by these master luthier’s I don’t know what the answer is. Should we destroy or deface these works of art? I can’t see destroying them, I don’t know what the answer is. I’m mad at Gibson for allowing this to happen.
It's the double standard that's infuriating
Did you rip some sections of other people's film footage for this video?
The Derrig footage... the ATB store footage?
Bit of a copyright issue there mate ironically 🤣
1 - A fake is a fake, regardless of who made it or how good it is, so a 'white collar' fake is no better than a Chibson.
2 - I can only conclude that Gibson are not worried about these due to the small quantity and high quality involved - neither of which applies to a Chibson of course.
This is, in my opinion, the equivalent of a Shelby Cobra kit car vs a real Shelby Cobra. One is 50k the other 500k. Both should perform well and the newer kit build may even outrun the original. It’s not being sold as an original but a replica so I don’t see the issue here. I would have a problem if there was any misrepresentation or deceit of any kind on the part of the seller. I don’t think fakes are good for the industry or the consumer at large but we are way past the point of stopping counterfeit merch from being made and sold. Buyer beware I suppose
Caveat emptor all the way.
I don't like them if they have a branded logo on the headstock. Somewhere out there is a guy whose dreamed of owning a really good guitar, like a Les Paul, etc, and he's saved up his money, and it's gonna be a piece of crap when he gets it. And he'll be stuck, because he can't get the money together to buy another one.I'm not talking about a few high end copies, but there are THOUSANDS of Chibsons out there that aren't worth the match to strike to burn them.
Different states and different countries have different laws and IP laws can be very complex. I'm certainly no expert on the mater, but I imagine there are several issues at play. 1) Companies have to actively defend their IP a lot of the time, it's not automatic. 2) There is no Fraud as they are not being sold as actual Gibson guitars, but as replicas, so the buyer is being informed of the authenticity of their purchase (which is why it's not fraud).
No, not fraud, but it is still illegal.
I knew Kris Derrig he was a craftsman and a nice guy, odd but nice he was obsessive when it came to getting the details off of a guitar !! ...he built them as a tribute and as way to learn .....Kris worked in Atlanta with Bert Foster .....that is where I met him at ...I have sold tribute guitars is what I call these as these are usually made to order ...guitars or quality that they could not afford otherwise ! ...these guitars are made for players or people who know the difference between a so so Les Paul ....and a great one !!! These guitars are no more fakes than or shameful ...when some Les Pauls original ones are 350K or more .....No guitar is really worth that but the market warrants it ....and some guys can not not afford that ...so they make one themselves or buy one or commission one .....and like you said this is the closest you will get ...Gibson are making great guitars ....I wish these guys would stamp them in the pickup cavities and put there names on them ...they are not made in big or large quantities ...so these only really help Gibson in my book ...I have helped folks acquire some made by a man named Hogue who also worked on the Max Les Paul and V's !!! Jim Nunis also made great tributes and he died as well young life ...what from cancer or Luekemia ...The Nitro Cellulose lacquer is very carcinogenic apparently as all of these guys died way early ......they were all expert craftsman ....and due to the price of these guitars ...I dont see anyone getting duped !!! Because it is rare these go up for sale ....and I had a real 58 that was refinished by Historic Makeovers and it was restored from the ground up ...is he breaking the law by restoring them? to former glory ...no .....not at all ....I know this is the premise of your channel ..but I would find other subject matter this is not a problem because none of these guitars are going for 1500-3500.00 and no one will buy one of these unless they want to ..because they can have their dream guitar from gibson for that or I know I could! Gibson since the 90's and some models before that have been making incredible guitars actually so good that it has killed or drastically hurt the vintage market ...I have a 2014 ES 335 that stays in tune and the pickups roar ...and to be honest is as good as almost any 335 I have played ...the only difference is the aged wood ....but beyond all the legendary players ...play new guitars live on stage or copies ...Billy Gibbons has not taken Pearly Gates out in years ...but yet folks think they see it when he brings out a les paul !!! Enjoyed your take I am in the business of selling guitars ...and all of us are trying to sell what people want and ask for ....no demand we would not have these !! Also no need to fine us ....if they are not great guitars no one will pay the price !! And us brick and mortar stores have enough challenges ...Amazon, and guys selling guitars out of their moms basements who dont give folks customer service they just go away back into the shadows when there is a problem !! Email me sometime ...atlantavintageguitars@g male .com did that so I wont get spammed !