# Thoughts and ramblings on counterfeit guitars.



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

After spending some time in pawn shops and more time on blogs on manufacturer websites I think I'm getting pretty good at spotting a fake.

Too bad more muso types don't spend the time to read. I guess they all want to be rock stars fast. 

Near as I can tell the guitars most faked are Fender Strats/Tele's Gibson LP,335,SG,V. and Ibanez Universe, Satriani, and RG and Occasional Mocking bird

They don't seem to interested in the other brands

Here's some thoughts:
Stopping the counterfeiters: Convincing a country like China to stop building fakes is like Sisyphus actually pushing his boulder to the top of the hill and it staying there. Not gonna happen. Some of the fakes are pretty good guitars, just Faked. 

Educating the buyers: The "Storage Wars" Effect. Everyone thinks they can find the Million$ prize in the pile of shit. The Companies have created their own problem here. By Hyping the high end guitars and making them So expensive that they rival used cars in price, creates the fake marketplace. 

I don't believe buyers care (at first) that it's fake. until it breaks down or simply breaks. 
Then the "Woe is me" calls start. 

The sellers:
This is the problem. 
With trade sites like alibaba, and china trade; I can order about 15 guitars for about 3000.00 landed in Canada. 

Now if I order those guitars in and sell them in a pawn/Exchange store with my own label on them - Fair game. I've thought about this many times, Starting a private label brand and web store. 

But

I can't charge as much as I may want to. IF I pass them off as the real deal, My Profit margin goes up considerably. 

There it is, the same old same old. Show me the money.

I wish there was more container inspections to find the fakes or maybe the guys building guitars embrace CNC routing and bring their labour costs down. One guy with a CNC machine in his garage can knock out a whole lotta high quality guitars. 


Just some thoughts and musings.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I stumbled onto one of those chinese sites last night that sell everything you could imagine. Knock-off guitars were in various price ranges from $50 up to around $300 all with free shipping of course. I'm thinking it wouldn't be hard to spot the $50 fake, but I bet the $300 fake would take a carefull & educated eye.
Can you imagine how many of those guitars are flooding into the US these days?


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

Even if you put your name on a fake guitar you are still violating copyright in my opinion. ie Ibanez law suit Gibson SG clones.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

As someone posted it is a violation of a copyright. Also IMHO if someone buys one of these things and then sells it off as the real deal to some kid (or anyone) is a crook in my book and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Wishful thinking on my part....


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

deadear said:


> Even if you put your name on a fake guitar you are still violating copyright in my opinion. ie Ibanez law suit Gibson SG clones.


So a strat made by Suhr is in violation?
i think there would only be 2-3 guitar companies left then.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

My main beef with counterfeit guitars is the misrepresentation, the lie. Exact and improved copies of name brand instruments with a clear indication that they are not originals is one thing but forgeries designed to deceive trusting buyers are another.

Not everyone wants to know their car's engineering specs but they do need to know that the Rolls Royce they are buying is actually a Rolls Royce.


----------



## Stonehead (Nov 12, 2013)

caveat emptor


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

I myself have purchased one of these guitars and I must say that what you get for the money is amazing. Not that there that great out of the box, but with such a low price you can modify it anyway you want. The horror stories of guitars made of plywood and or sawdust and glue are just that... stories. The guitars coming out of China now are very good solid wood bodies with good necks and fabulous paint. 
To be honest, I was going to order one with the Gibson logo on it just for giggles, but then decided to purchase the guitar with no logos what so ever. This was no problem for the seller. 
Here's how it went. I found a seller that has a good rating and checked all of his feedback, with hardly any negatives I found my man. I contacted him before ordering and negotiated a list of things I wanted. One peice neck, no logo of any sort on the guitar and amber speed knobs. Then we negotiated price and after a few discussions we settled on a final price of $200 US dollars...That right $200 US.. $214 Cdn at the time. With free shipping.
The guitar was not perfect when I received it, needed set up, new nut a little filing on one fret. I also decided to change the pickups to Duncans that I picked up off flea bay, as well as pots and wiring. In total is spent $347 dollars to make the guitar into a fantastic instrument.
The Gibson and Fenders of this world better sit up and take notice.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Stonehead said:


> caveat emptor


Of course. Be careful with buying used gear. Do your homework, inspect the goods, go with your gut, etc.

Lies and deceit are inevitable. But they should not be encouraged by knowingly purchasing counterfeit guitars. No matter what your intentions are, down the road that 'curiosity' may become bait for fraud.


----------



## Stonehead (Nov 12, 2013)

bluzfish said:


> Of course. Be careful with buying used gear. Do your homework, inspect the goods, go with your gut, etc.
> 
> Lies and deceit are inevitable. But they should not be encouraged by knowingly purchasing counterfeit guitars. No matter what your intentions are, down the road that 'curiosity' may become bait for fraud.


True enough but the onus is always on the buyer, period. Go with your gut feelings don't be impetuous and over zealous in any deal and as you said, do your homework beforehand. Follow those rules and you shouldn't have any problems.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Thing is, I know that and you know that but not every father buying a brand name guitar for his kid knows about how to spot a counterfeit. Nor do many other neophytes and unsuspecting buyers.

In my opinion, make any guitar you want but don't put a false brand name on it.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

________________


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

jimmydime said:


> I myself have purchased one of these guitars and I must say that what you get for the money is amazing. Not that there that great out of the box, but with such a low price you can modify it anyway you want. The horror stories of guitars made of plywood and or sawdust and glue are just that... stories. The guitars coming out of China now are very good solid wood bodies with good necks and fabulous paint.
> To be honest, I was going to order one with the Gibson logo on it just for giggles, but then decided to purchase the guitar with no logos what so ever. This was no problem for the seller.
> Here's how it went. I found a seller that has a good rating and checked all of his feedback, with hardly any negatives I found my man. I contacted him before ordering and negotiated a list of things I wanted. One peice neck, no logo of any sort on the guitar and amber speed knobs. Then we negotiated price and after a few discussions we settled on a final price of $200 US dollars...That right $200 US.. $214 Cdn at the time. With free shipping.
> The guitar was not perfect when I received it, needed set up, new nut a little filing on one fret. I also decided to change the pickups to Duncans that I picked up off flea bay, as well as pots and wiring. In total is spent $347 dollars to make the guitar into a fantastic instrument.
> The Gibson and Fenders of this world better sit up and take notice.


Yes, they had better, because there are plenty of people with low enough scruples to support these douchebags. as long as they don't fake the logos and it's obvious they're fake, fine.

- - - Updated - - -



bluzfish said:


> Thing is, I know that and you know that but not every father buying a brand name guitar for his kid knows about how to spot a counterfeit. Nor do many other neophytes and unsuspecting buyers.
> 
> In my opinion, make any guitar you want but don't put a false brand name on it.


Agreed. Caveat emptor is fine, but it doesn't excuse dishonest and immoral behavior and I for one choose not to be apart of the problem.

If people stop buying these pieces of shit, they'll stop bothering to make them.


----------



## Disbeat (Jul 30, 2011)

I'd like to know everyone's thoughts on luthier built Les Paul replica's, a lot of them are upwards of $10k and most of them put the Gibson logo on the headstock.
Obviously these are built extremely well by experienced and skilled luthiers but they are still essentially counterfeit. Chances are no one is gonna get duped into buying one of these thinking it's the real deal but it's still a possibility. 
Personally if I had the money I likely wouldn't be opposed to buying one but I've seen on other forums people bitching about the Chinese counterfeits because the Gibson name is on them praise these luthier built ones.
Just wondering where this plays into this debate.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Disbeat said:


> I'd like to know everyone's thoughts on luthier built Les Paul replica's, a lot of them are upwards of $10k and most of them put the Gibson logo on the headstock.


A reputable luthier would never do that if he/she has any pride at all in their work, unless of course they are intentionally being dishonest.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

My thoughts are that if Gibson didn't make it, nobody has the right to use their logo, regardless of price or quality.

Intellectual property needs more respect IMO.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I agree with many of you that if you want to make copies of well known guitars, go ahead and do it but don't try to fool people into thinking it's an original. It it's an XYZ guitar that's fine but if it's not, don't call it an XYZ.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Intellectual property needs more respect IMO.


Agreed. Any luthier worth his salt would refuse to stick a Gibson badge on one of his guitars. It's really very simple. You made it? Fine, slap your own badge on it.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

deadear said:


> Even if you put your name on a fake guitar you are still violating copyright in my opinion. ie Ibanez law suit Gibson SG clones.



If that were the case Places like Rondo, and GFS selling near carbon copies of LPs and SG's would have been shut down long ago.
Of course all it takes to stop any lawsuit is to put your own headstock design on the neck and there you go.

That's the thing that gets to Gibson and Fender. The headstock design.


----------



## GUInessTARS (Dec 28, 2007)

Since Slash used a replica (fake) Gibson Les Paul to record Appetite for Destruction, would the recent issue (actual Gibson factory) Slash AFD Les Paul, be a fake?
Or is a fake of a fake a double negative, thus making a positive?


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I think there is a big difference between a copy or a replica without the brand name it's copying on it & a counterfeit which presents itself as the original.

Certainly copyright, trademark and intellectual property are important as well.

Some copies are inferior, some are not.

I wouldn't put a company like Suhr in the same category as the online sites that sell out & out counterfeits.
Their guitars say they're Suhr.

Many counterfeits are easy to spot if you know the real thing--like these two:

















But the fakes are getting closer to looking right.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibanez#Lawsuit This is what went on between Ibanez and Gibson regarding the copying of head stock. Just because Gibson and Fender are not dragging people before the judge does not make it legal. Go to lawsuit part.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________________


----------



## wildkat (Apr 28, 2014)

I have to admit China does make some excellent guitars. I have an Epi Dot, and a Fender MP90 Jaguar both made in China, and their both flawless and cheap too. I paid $350 brand new for the Jag in a music store in Montreal. As for the headstock logo thing, if it's not a real Fender or Gibson, it should not have a Fender or Gibson logo on it. I made my own custom 24" scale light ash Telecaster, with a contour body, belly cut, and arm rest,4.5 pounds for the body, 7 pounds 12 ounces once assembled, stained it antique maple, put on about six coats of satin poly. I routed it for humbuckers, and did a rear route for the controls SG style,except for the output jack I left it Telecaster style. I put in some Gibson 57 classic/classic+'s in it with a tonepros T-O-M bridge and stop bar. And for the neck I used a Squier VM HH Jaguar neck, that I sanded down to bare wood, because I hated the cheap looking tint on it. I stained it Honey Maple color, and put a coat of oil based poly, then put on a custom made decal, which says Wildkat, and three more coats of poly. So you can say it's a Fenson or Gibder Wildkat. Lets see China copy that!!!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

wildkat said:


> I have to admit China does make some excellent guitars. I have an Epi Dot, and a Fender MP90 Jaguar both made in China, and their both flawless and cheap too.


I think a lot of the bad press China and other countries get is because of national pride and some envy thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I don't care what your guitar looks like or plays like, or how it is built, as long as you put your own name on it.


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

"If people stop buying these pieces of shit, they'll stop bothering to make them."

This is defiantly following the corporate line that Gibson wants everyone to follow. In the real world consumers are looking for a quality product at a reasonable price. Gibson can simply not deliver on this. Perhaps if everyone stopped by Gibson they would lower their price.


----------



## Disbeat (Jul 30, 2011)

Curious what you consider a reasonable price?


jimmydime said:


> "If people stop buying these pieces of shit, they'll stop bothering to make them."
> 
> This is defiantly following the corporate line that Gibson wants everyone to follow. In the real world consumers are looking for a quality product at a reasonable price. Gibson can simply not deliver on this. Perhaps if everyone stopped by Gibson they would lower their price.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

The Chinese stuff is getting better but I can still spot 'em every time. They haven't started using nitro on anything I've seen yet.....probably too expensive a process and requires a level of skill they're not interested in investing in. The headstock's are still out of whack although I've seen a couple with attempts at using a more correct bridge...


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> The Chinese stuff is getting better but I can still spot 'em every time. They haven't started using nitro on anything I've seen yet.....probably too expensive a process and requires a level of skill they're not interested in investing in. The headstock's are still out of whack although I've seen a couple with attempts at using a more correct bridge...


Does Fender and Gibson use nitro on every model?


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Gibson does. I believe the sealer coat they put on the low end matte finish stuff is as well.
Fender does however, it depends on the model....For instance, the '70's reissue bodies and most of the neck are poly.




Steadfastly said:


> Does Fender and Gibson use nitro on every model?


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I will be selling this fake Gibson someday..


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

jimmydime said:


> "If people stop buying these pieces of shit, they'll stop bothering to make them."
> 
> This is defiantly following the corporate line that Gibson wants everyone to follow. In the real world consumers are looking for a quality product at a reasonable price. Gibson can simply not deliver on this. Perhaps if everyone stopped by Gibson they would lower their price.


In the "real world" people do all kinds of shitty things. I don't expect anyone to adopt my personal codes of conduct. All I know is, I don't ever knowingly buy forged or stolen goods. Anyone who does this is looking the other way and IMO is a part of the problem.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2014)

I'm in agreement. I have to admit though, she be pretty.
Someone mentioned in one of the many threads about fakes,
deface the back of the headstock by stamping 'replica'.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Milkman said:


> In the "real world" people do all kinds of shitty things. I don't expect anyone to adopt my personal codes of conduct. All I know is, I don't ever knowingly buy forged or stolen goods. _*Anyone who does this is looking the other way and*_ IMO *is a part of the problem.*


IMO, you can leave out the "IMO" part of your statement.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

nonreverb said:


> Gibson does. I believe the sealer coat they put on the low end matte finish stuff is as well.
> Fender does however, it depends on the model....For instance, the '70's reissue bodies and most of the neck are poly.


Gibson uses a modern lacquer formulation on the current production Les Paul (and likely other models), except for the historic series Les Paul that uses a period correct nitro lacquer. The modern lacquer has higher plasticizer content which makes it more flexible/less brittle, and does not age/wear/check like old school nitro lacquer.

Fender stopped using nitro lacquer in 63-64. Only headstock faces were sprayed with lacquer for a period due to compatibility with residual decals in stock. I understand the current 57 reissue is sprayed in period correct nitro lacquer.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Plasticizer yes, but not a poly finish. I believe it's still a nitro based lacquer with additives.
Many custom shop Fenders are Nitro and there are examples of some nitro stuff after '68 when Nitro was officially dropped as the finishing compound. These were due to difficulties with the poly on specific finishes.



dradlin said:


> Gibson uses a modern lacquer formulation on the current production Les Paul (and likely other models), except for the historic series Les Paul that uses a period correct nitro lacquer. The modern lacquer has higher plasticizer content which makes it more flexible/less brittle, and does not age/wear/check like old school nitro lacquer.
> 
> Fender stopped using nitro lacquer in 63-64. Only headstock faces were sprayed with lacquer for a period due to compatibility with residual decals in stock. I understand the current 57 reissue is sprayed in period correct nitro lacquer.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I have read that nitro does not wear as well as poly. Any comments on this.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

It doesn't but the guitar sounds better as the coat is very thin and somewhat flexible. Poly chokes the natural tendencies of the wood. Just look at the typical poly finished guitar. It's a very hard. thick finish.



Steadfastly said:


> I have read that nitro does not wear as well as poly. Any comments on this.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> It doesn't but the guitar sounds better as the coat is very thin and somewhat flexible._* Poly chokes the natural tendencies of the wood.*_ Just look at the typical poly finished guitar. It's a very hard. thick finish.


I've heard that too. When someone does a scientific experiment using an anechoic chamber and it shows measurable results, I will believe it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I like nitro finishes because they look better to me. I have no scientific evidence to validate this.

I just like what I like. I have some poly and some nitro. The nitro finished guitars are higher end models so that probably has an impact.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

To be fair, nitro replaced varnish and for many years, was the only quality finish available. It's most desirable property is that it leaves a very thin finish which has very low impact on the woods ability to move (vibrate). Are there high quality poly finishes? There must be as Taylor's been using them for years. However, the poly that Fender was immersing their products in in the '70's and the crap they blow on the cheap Chinese stuff is not used because it makes the instrument sound any better....sure you can bounce a screw driver off it and it probably won't shatter but I doubt very much it's contributing to better tone....it's just cheap to apply.



Steadfastly said:


> I've heard that too. When someone does a scientific experiment using an anechoic chamber and it shows measurable results, I will believe it.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

nonreverb said:


> To be fair, nitro replaced varnish and for many years, was the only quality finish available. It's most desirable property is that it leaves a very thin finish which has very low impact on the woods ability to move (vibrate). Are there high quality poly finishes? There must be as Taylor's been using them for years. However, the poly that Fender was immersing their products in in the '70's and the crap they blow on the cheap Chinese stuff is not used because it makes the instrument sound any better....sure you can bounce a screw driver off it and it probably won't shatter but I doubt very much it's contributing to better tone....it's just cheap to apply.


There certainly are high quality poly finishes. Some high end builders are using catalyzed poly finishes these days. The right product applied correctly at a proper film thickness is key... not dipping a guitar in the stuff to mask flaws.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

when they use the kind you'd expect to find on someone's deck furniture, that always gets on my nerves. also alot of people confuse polyester with polyurethane, totally not the same thing.


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

Milkman said:


> In the "real world" people do all kinds of shitty things. I don't expect anyone to adopt my personal codes of conduct. All I know is, I don't ever knowingly buy forged or stolen goods. Anyone who does this is looking the other way and IMO is a part of the problem.


The problem here is how do you define "forged or stolen". Are you saying that anything that looks like a Gibson or a Fender, or an Ibanez (same body shape ect. ect) is a forgery or stolen intellectual property? 
Really I'd don't see how importing guitars from China hurts anyone, but do agree that the use of the Gibson, Fender or Whatever on the headstock is a no - no.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

bluzfish said:


> A reputable luthier would never do that if he/she has any pride at all in their work, unless of course they are intentionally being dishonest.


False. There are dozens - maybe more - of examples of reputable luthier's making superb guitars at the pinnacle of the art, and many of them using Gibson or other logos on them. For example, the guitar that made Slash famous - now itself one of the most famous and most valuable guitars in the world - is a Les Paul copy with a Gibson logo made by a luthier named Kris Derrig. Gibson itself special-released a copy of that guitar - a copy of the copy! - not long ago.

The difference in my mind between these reverently- and usually superbly-made and high-priced copies, and the offshore fakers, is that nobody is making money off the logo. They are sold with full disclosure, and usually trade at such prices that nobody can think they're getting a "great deal" on a Gibson or other guitar. 

Kris Derrig unfortunately died young, leaving only a small handful of amazing guitars, but others are still around, including a few here in Canada. Gibson and others are IMO wise to ignore the few hundred fakes these people produce, and let the art of making them develop, while the earth is scorched under the dishonest offshore fakers. Those people are making many thousands of fakes, most sub-standard in quality, and releasing them into a marketplace where they will inevitably be traded up for higher prices to ignorant buyers. The results will be many disappointed guitar players who think that all Gibsons, Fenders, etc. play like their shitty copy, and a reduced market for the genuine guitars and their expensive overhead and jobs here in North America.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

jimmydime said:


> "If people stop buying these pieces of shit, they'll stop bothering to make them."
> 
> This is defiantly following the corporate line that Gibson wants everyone to follow. In the real world consumers are looking for a quality product at a reasonable price. Gibson can simply not deliver on this. Perhaps if everyone stopped by Gibson they would lower their price.


I wonder how you think Gibson would lower its price? Probably by closing plants here, going to offshore manufacturers (maybe the same ones making the fakes now!) and reducing the quality of materials and manufacturing to something between the cheap fakes and the current Gibsons.

Some Gibson pricing has been nothing short of ridiculous. (Collector's Choice #9, the recent Custom Shop Duane Allman, and the "ultra-aged" R9s pumped out at the end of last year come to mind). However quality costs money. Last year Gibson made - IMO - some of the finest electric guitars they or anyone else has ever made. Many of them will be treasured instruments 30-40-60 years from now. They're a good investment for some players.

If you're not one of them, go straight to the fakers now instead of trying to push Gibson towards producing guitars like they do.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Sorry but I still see my statement standing as true.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> I've heard that too. When someone does a scientific experiment using an anechoic chamber and it shows measurable results, I will believe it.


Your skepticism is not unjustified... I don't think anyone has proven that a nitro guitar sounds better than a poly one. Except...

The nitro ones do breathe more, that's a fact, and that breathing is very possibly an important part of why older guitars often sound so good. So while I wouldn't bet anything on poly vs. nitro guitars produced in the past ten years, I'd risk a bet on the nitro one sounding better in 30 years, all else being equal.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

bluzfish said:


> Sorry but I still see my statement standing as true.



Because it _is _true.

How much a forgery costs has nothing whatsoever to do with using someone's name on your product. Maybe it's better than the real thing, but at the end of the day, if it's so frigging good, why would you put someone else's name on it?


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

boyscout said:


> I wonder how you think Gibson would lower its price? Probably by closing plants here, going to offshore manufacturers (maybe the same ones making the fakes now!) and reducing the quality of materials and manufacturing to something between the cheap fakes and the current Gibsons.
> 
> Some Gibson pricing has been nothing short of ridiculous. (Collector's Choice #9, the recent Custom Shop Duane Allman, and the "ultra-aged" R9s pumped out at the end of last year come to mind). However quality costs money. Last year Gibson made - IMO - some of the finest electric guitars they or anyone else has ever made. Many of them will be treasured instruments 30-40-60 years from now. They're a good investment for some players.
> 
> If you're not one of them, go straight to the fakers now instead of trying to push Gibson towards producing guitars like they do.


 First off, if you think that the price of a Gibson has anything to do with the cost of making the guitar, you are sadly mistaken. They pay their workers on an hourly basis... and pay them poorly as well. (Workers at Gibson USA are some of the most disgruntled workers in America.) Perhaps its the special million dollar Mahogany that they use.... or is it real gold hardware that justifies the ridiculous prices? 
It is also interesting that even though the Gibson factory was shut down for a considerable time in the last few years, they continue to make "some of the finest electric guitars they or anyone else has ever made." Where do you think these guitars came from? They most defiantly where produced "off shore", perhaps the pickups or tuners are put on in the USA, but that's not where the guitar was made.
Second, you should not speak on something you know nothing about. "If you're not one of them, go straight to the fakers now instead of trying to push Gibson towards producing guitars like they do." I'm sure you have never seen any of the latest guitars that have come out of China. They are producing some good instruments for a reasonable price. I can only speculate on the guitar they could produce if you offered them $800.
This same kind of narrow thinking was also prevalent in the 70's when guitars where coming out of Japan. Now they are some of the most sought after specimens of some players. Hmm that would be 30 years later wouldn't it.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Because it _is _true.
> 
> How much a forgery costs has nothing whatsoever to do with using someone's name on your product. Maybe it's better than the real thing, but at the end of the day, if it's so frigging good, why would you put someone else's name on it?


Credibility.
and to leverage the "brand" ie marketing, reputation etc of the OEM that you are copying without the years and millions it takes to do it for yourself.
its basically cheating, even if the product quality is good or better.

its not that different from the way things work on the legit side of the business....when company's with good products but inferior brands would ghost manufacture guitars for more marketable labels...ie Cort for a dozen other labels. The difference: a contract and some money changing hands.
http://www.edroman.com/rants/ghost.htm


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Credibility.
> and to leverage the "brand" ie marketing, reputation etc of the OEM that you are copying without the years and millions it takes to do it for yourself.
> its basically cheating, even if the product quality is good or better.
> 
> its not that different from the way things work on the legit side of the business....when company's with good products but inferior brands would ghost manufacture guitars for more marketable labels...ie Godin for Charvel, Cort for a dozen other labels. The difference: a contract and some money changing hands.


Sorry, but you have exactly ZERO credibility as soon as you lack the character or ethics to put your name on your work.

It's a very clear distinction to me.

Manufacturing a product and having an agreement to allow another company to put their name on it is quite different than making your product and putting another brand's logo on it without their permission.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Sorry, but you have exactly ZERO credibility as soon as you lack the character or ethics to put your name on your work.
> 
> It's a very clear distinction to me.
> 
> Manufacturing a product and having an agreement to allow another company to put their name on it is quite different than making your product and putting another brand's logo on it without their permission.


I should have been clearer....ethically, yes it is very different. However, it has no relevance in terms of the quality of the product. Theres no reason why a knockoff cant rival or better the quality of the original. 
The credibility I was referring to, was that of the original manufacturer, that the copycat is leveraging...that is why they may choose to do so, even if their product can stand up well enough on its own. What they are really stealing in some cases, is the credibility of the originator.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Please clarify your statement. Are you suggesting that "Gibson" bodies were made offshore?? If so, what evidence would you have to substantiate that claim?




jimmydime said:


> First off, if you think that the price of a Gibson has anything to do with the cost of making the guitar, you are sadly mistaken. They pay their workers on an hourly basis... and pay them poorly as well. (Workers at Gibson USA are some of the most disgruntled workers in America.) Perhaps its the special million dollar Mahogany that they use.... or is it real gold hardware that justifies the ridiculous prices?
> It is also interesting that even though the Gibson factory was shut down for a considerable time in the last few years, they continue to make "some of the finest electric guitars they or anyone else has ever made." Where do you think these guitars came from? They most defiantly where produced "off shore", perhaps the pickups or tuners are put on in the USA, but that's not where the guitar was made.
> Second, you should not speak on something you know nothing about. "If you're not one of them, go straight to the fakers now instead of trying to push Gibson towards producing guitars like they do." I'm sure you have never seen any of the latest guitars that have come out of China. They are producing some good instruments for a reasonable price. I can only speculate on the guitar they could produce if you offered them $800.
> This same kind of narrow thinking was also prevalent in the 70's when guitars where coming out of Japan. Now they are some of the most sought after specimens of some players. Hmm that would be 30 years later wouldn't it.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

jimmydime said:


> It is also interesting that even though the Gibson factory was shut down for a considerable time in the last few years, they continue to make "some of the finest electric guitars they or anyone else has ever made." Where do you think these guitars came from? They most defiantly where produced "off shore", perhaps the pickups or tuners are put on in the USA, but that's not where the guitar was made.


You are wrong there. The factory was not shut down for a considerable time. They were not allowed to use some wood, couldn't get the same kind of wood so they carried on with a replacement variety.

They were not produced "off shore".

Not to mention:


jimmydime said:


> This same kind of narrow thinking was also prevalent in the 70's when guitars where coming out of Japan. Now they are some of the most sought after specimens of some players. Hmm that would be 30 years later wouldn't it.


SO MUCH of the 'sought after' is based on plain bullshit. 

Many of those guitars were really not that good but they were a damn sight less expensive than other instruments. Once in a while there was a decent one here or there but they were, as a whole, underwhelming until the 1980s when Japan started to really get the finer points of guitar making down pat. Much of the stuff that is seen about the 1970s Japanese guitars being something special is just 'because it is old' and because so many are in the boneyard that they have become 'rare'. 

The pickups were almost always crap, the metal was almost always crap. Often the 'oooooh look at this' is being stated by someone with one that will soon be up for sale.

The stuff coming out of China now...yes, some of it is pretty damn good. The first time I saw a Chinese made guitar it was barely worth the effort to do a Pete Townsend with to smash it to bits. They have come a long way. I still don't think they are as good as what they are copying and hey, don't claim that it is something that it isn't. Put your own brand on the thing and your own headstock.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

You are paying alot for a Gibson but they will hold there value, if you keep it and look after it... they are not meant to be an investment ,you buy you injoy it........ so you can by a 200.00 fake at the end of the day that's what it worth no matter how long you have it.

Gibson factory workers probably don't make much, the woodworking industry has never been a high paying job, but the tooling , machines, and everything else that goes along with making the product is very expensive.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Hence the move from Kalamazoo to Nashville so many years ago. Union vs non-union shops



Rick31797 said:


> Gibson factory workers probably don't make much, the woodworking industry has never been a high paying job, but the tooling , machines, and everything else that goes along with making the product is very expensive.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

jimmydime said:


> First off, if you think that the price of a Gibson has anything to do with the cost of making the guitar, you are
> sadly mistaken. They pay their workers on an hourly basis... and pay them poorly as well. (Workers at Gibson USA are some of the most
> disgruntled workers in America.) Perhaps its the special million dollar Mahogany that they use.... or is it real gold hardware that justifies
> the ridiculous prices?
> ...


Sorry jimmydime, but nearly all of this is confused or wrong.

You first say that Gibsons are manufactured by "the most disgruntled workers in America" (source please!) and then say that they are manufactured offshore. Neither is true even though Gibson is reportedly not the best place to work. I guess you haven't done a Gibson factory tour, or seen some of the many factory tour videos on YouTube? Consider it... you're just plain wrong about this.

You say Gibson was "shut down for a considerable time in the past few years". Whether you're talking about the couple of days lost through the two Lacey Act muggings by federal officials in 2011 or the few weeks lost in the Nashville flooding in 2010 isn't important. Both events caused relatively little downtime and showed resilience and creativity and hard work in recovery by "the most disgruntled workers in America". However your point seems to be that Gibson's ability to produce guitars during those two years proves that they manufacture offshore, is that right? Interesting idea, but wrong.

You're "sure _ have never seen any of the latest guitars that have come out of China". True, I haven't seen any "in person" since the middle of last year so I haven't seen the latest ones. However I've visited a store in Barrie and several others in the U.S. that stock offshore off-brand guitars exclusively so I've seen hundreds of them, and played with a dozen or so in the stores. I've also watched a few dozen online videos, many posted by proud owners wanting to proclaim how great are their new instruments, but none have left me with that impression. If you think yours is wonderful that's all that counts, to you.

Many are saying that offshore guitars are improving. Maybe. They need to. The quality of ones I've seen just hits the low end of lines by Gibson and Fender. The branded guitars those companies are selling in Best Buy and Walmart are in my experience similar in quality and playability to the middle-or-better offshore products. Looking past the slick finishing of most offshore products and into quality of construction and hardware, and playability and tone, I haven't yet seen or heard one that would kick many regular-production Gibsons. They're a LONG, LONG way from the stellar output of the Gibson Custom Shop lately... many of those are amazing guitars. If we were confining discussion to just the low-end products you'd have an argument since they are so much cheaper without being so much worse, but you didn't limit your blat to the low-end branded products.

I see that someone else has already tried to inform you about Japanese guitars. Gibson wasn't in its best period under Norlin in the '70s either, but the Japanese were certainly not kicking its butt on any front except price. No doubt "some players" would consider old Japanese guitars desirable, but most would not. Money talks, whether you like it or not. Even rare Japanese guitars from that era don't command as much world-wide interest or - generally - nearly as much money as do Gibsons and Fenders. Only long after the '70s and the infamous lawsuit guitars did the Japanese, with Ibanez continuing to lead the way, actually earn their place in the market with something more than a low price.

Your passion, and probably your frustration at the fast-rising prices of Gibson guitars, are obvious. As Gibran said, "Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul." Don't mean to be rude jimmydime, but you should pay some attention to your rudder too. You believe things that aren't true._


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

boyscout said:


> ... Gibson and others are IMO wise to ignore the few hundred fakes these people produce, and let the art of making them develop, while the earth is scorched under the dishonest offshore fakers. ...


Sorry, but I don't get that line of argument at all. 

Firstly, just to be clear, we're talking about copies that are actually labelled with Gibson (or Fender or whoever's) brand. It's either a fake or it's not. And they either protect their copyright or they don't. An arbitary decision to pursue or not based on supposed quality is not a clever way of protecting that copyright. I can well imagine a court saying something along the lines of "you didn't protect your copyright when luthier, Mr. Gods A'gift-Toluthery produced a fake that was brought to your attention, but you didn't pursue. Therefore your copyright was voided by that failure to protect it." Or a decision to that effect.

If the luthier copy is so great, then either stick the correct name on it, or get it licenced from Gibs/nder.

Neil


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

Its probably not worth it to Gibson to go after the china makers that copy there product and put there name on it.. there will always be buyers for the fakes, the internet makes it easy to buy them................these should be stopped and taken and disposed of at Customs, but then Customs have alot to deal with and there priority is no doubt drugs coming into the country.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Option1 said:


> Sorry, but I don't get that line of argument at all.
> 
> Firstly, just to be clear, we're talking about copies that are actually labelled with Gibson (or Fender or whoever's) brand. It's either a fake or it's not. And they either protect their copyright or they don't. An arbitary decision to pursue or not based on supposed quality is not a clever way of protecting that copyright. I can well imagine a court saying something along the lines of "you didn't protect your copyright when luthier, Mr. Gods A'gift-Toluthery produced a fake that was brought to your attention, but you didn't pursue. Therefore your copyright was voided by that failure to protect it." Or a decision to that effect.
> 
> ...


Neil, yours seems to be the majority opinion here, which is interesting because the subject doesn't always lean so strongly your way.

I get the "law is the law" argument, and in nearly all discussions would be on that side of it. In this one, I've already explained why I feel differently.

It defies all reason to think that Gibson and Fender are unaware of the high-end replicas. A couple of public - and easily-victorious - lawsuits would virtually eliminate the "problem" if they thought it was a problem. Apparently they don't. Maybe they regard the practice as a form of brand flattery and promotion, since the guitars I'm talking about are generally at LEAST as well-made as those made by the copyright-holders, sold at higher prices, and often used by very serious players. The companies don't have much reason to fear significant erosion of sales - people who buy these would otherwise be buying expensive vintage or makeover guitars. And allowing a few very skilled craftspeople to stay in business by supplementing income with these things - I don't know of ANY who are well-off from selling replicas - is a good thing for the guitar world.

So if I was running Gibson or Fender I'd be looking at other fish. As they seem to be doing; maybe some of their reasoning is like mine above.


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

boyscout said:


> Sorry jimmydime, but nearly all of this is confused or wrong.
> 
> You first say that Gibsons are manufactured by "the most disgruntled workers in America" (source please!) and then say that they are manufactured offshore. Neither is true even though Gibson is reportedly not the best place to work. I guess you haven't done a Gibson factory tour, or seen some of the many factory tour videos on YouTube? Consider it... you're just plain wrong about this.
> 
> ...


_

Gibson workers are some of the most disgruntled workers in the US. Here is a company review site :
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Gibson-Guitar-Reviews-E6869.htm

Gibson currently has 3 plants overseas. Besides Epiphone, what guitars do you think these plants produce? Or, do they sit idle with shipping containers full of Gibson hardware corroding away?

Where were the Gibson guitars made during the flood and shutdown.... or did they simply just write off production.. (not a chance with Henry at the wheel). And where do they get the Rosewood and Ebony for the current guitars they are making?

Here is another article that you should have a look at.
http://www.guitarplayer.com/miscell...deal-about-usa-made-vs-offshore-guitars/23329

One more article on the 70's Japanese guitars:
http://www.jazzguitar.be/lawsuit_guitars.html_


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

[QUOTEGibson workers are some of the most disgruntled workers in the US. Here is a company review site :][/QUOTE]

These are all former employees of Gibson, no wonder they are negative about the company, some perhaps were fired.I worked in a woodworking manufacturing plant for 26 yrs, if i gathered up all the riff raff that came through the door and really just wanted a place to stay warm and dry and get a pay check, and ask them to do a review on the business you would get the same result... Somebody interview the long term people working at Gibson today and see what they say..


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I don't think Gibson is ignoring the counterfeiters, theyre just helpless to do anything about it really. Theyre dealing with countries that don't give a F about intellectual property. Maybe when the tide changes and labour isn't so cheap in china, that manufacturers start looking elsewhere to produce, preferably someplace where there are laws about counterfeits, will the Chinese have to change their tune to give companies a reason to deal with them. Right now, theyre holding all the cards.
And to a certain extent, its the OEMs fault for creating this monster.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Sorry, but you still haven't shown one shred of evidence that any of Gibson's plants overseas are producing Gibson brand guitars. Those are all Epi plants.
There was a short time when production stopped during the flood but no Gibson guitars were made outside the US. Production resumed shortly after. 
Since you have no proof of this, I don't understand why you'd continue to question their operations....You may not like Gibson Co. but that doesn't mean that they should be subject to wild speculation.
Also, a Gibson fact for you, there are no Gibson's being made with Ebony anymore save a very few special edition Custom Shop examples.



jimmydime said:


> Gibson workers are some of the most disgruntled workers in the US. Here is a company review site :
> http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Gibson-Guitar-Reviews-E6869.htm
> 
> Gibson currently has 3 plants overseas. Besides Epiphone, what guitars do you think these plants produce? Or, do they sit idle with shipping containers full of Gibson hardware corroding away?
> ...


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

Rick31797 said:


> [QUOTEGibson workers are some of the most disgruntled workers in the US. Here is a company review site :]


These are all former employees of Gibson, no wonder they are negative about the company, some perhaps were fired.I worked in a woodworking manufacturing plant for 26 yrs, if i gathered up all the riff raff that came through the door and really just wanted a place to stay warm and dry and get a pay check, and ask them to do a review on the business you would get the same result... Somebody interview the long term people working at Gibson today and see what they say..[/QUOTE]

Hahahaha. There a ton of reviews....not one positive and you write them all off saying its because they are former employees. That is laughable.


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

nonreverb said:


> Sorry, but you still haven't shown one shred of evidence that any of Gibson's plants overseas are producing Gibson brand guitars. Those are all Epi plants.
> There was a short time when production stopped during the flood but no Gibson guitars were made outside the US. Production resumed shortly after.
> Since you have no proof of this, I don't understand why you'd continue to question their operations....You may not like Gibson Co. but that doesn't mean that they should be subject to wild speculation.
> Also, a Gibson fact for you, there are no Gibson's being made with Ebony anymore save a very few special edition Custom Shop examples.


So you believe that all the plants Gibson has overseas are Epiphone plants. That make sense. I will take your word for it.
Also, about wild speculation you say that the plant in the US was shut down for "short time" and production resume "shortly after". What is definition of "shortly"?
The plant had to be completely rebuilt inside and this took at least 4 months but I believe production did not fully resume until 6 months later. Hundreds of guitars were lost and had to be remade. 
But by some magic.. Gibson produced guitars in the USA in a magical facility that no one knows about, while having 3 production facilities overseas that... just made Epiphones?? I could show you a container full of Gibson's being loaded at the dock in QuinDao and you still would think that they are all made in USA.
That's ok though, just take one minute and ask yourself if its that far fetched. Really.. think about it .


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

jimmydime said:


> I could show you a container full of Gibson's being loaded at the dock in QuinDao and you still would think that they are all made in USA.


Wow..that's wild. Any chance of backing that statement up with pics?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

jimmydime...ever hear the term 'talking out of your ass'?

You seem to be doing it.

Gibson used alternative woods when they couldn't use that shipment of rosewod and the shipment of ebony was being scrutinized.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

This just sounds like more conspiracy theory talk. 

Not all of Gibson's facilities were flooded for one....Two, many of the guitars were hanging on the production racks, well above the waterline. Yes, they did lose some but it could have been a lot worse. 
I work in a Gibson dealership and like all the other dealerships, demanded answers from the reps. They had to have answers as to what was happening and was going to happen. Rest assured, there were no Gibson brand guitars being built overseas. 

I still don't understand what axe you have to grind with Gibson though.....



jimmydime said:


> So you believe that all the plants Gibson has overseas are Epiphone plants. That make sense. I will take your word for it.
> Also, about wild speculation you say that the plant in the US was shut down for "short time" and production resume "shortly after". What is definition of "shortly"?
> The plant had to be completely rebuilt inside and this took at least 4 months but I believe production did not fully resume until 6 months later. Hundreds of guitars were lost and had to be remade.
> But by some magic.. Gibson produced guitars in the USA in a magical facility that no one knows about, while having 3 production facilities overseas that... just made Epiphones?? I could show you a container full of Gibson's being loaded at the dock in QuinDao and you still would think that they are all made in USA.
> That's ok though, just take one minute and ask yourself if its that far fetched. Really.. think about it .


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

nonreverb said:


> This just sounds like more conspiracy theory talk.
> 
> Not all of Gibson's facilities were flooded for one....Two, many of the guitars were hanging on the production racks, well above the waterline. Yes, they did lose some but it could have been a lot worse.
> I work in a Gibson dealership and like all the other dealerships, demanded answers from the reps. They had to have answers as to what was happening and was going to happen. Rest assured, there were no Gibson brand guitars being built overseas.
> ...


Like I said, production must have taken place in a magical production facility, with wood that came from the magical forest of Mahogany. The Rosewood was dropped by magical faries that couldn't be stopped by border agents. (It is Ebony and Rosewood that Gibson can no longer import.)

Gibson only has one production facility in the US and although the main factory had severe damage, the custom shop had the least of the damage. Gibson lost all the wood that was in the main facility due to the fact that it is on pallets on the floor. 
So, you as a dealer, must have been told that you would have to go 6 months without any new guitars. But your weren't.
Back to my fairy tale of magical production facilities..... Do you really think that Gibson would tell a dealer about the magical world where they build guitars?

I have no axe to grind with Gibson, other than I had a close family member who worked at Garrison in St. Johns Nfld. Gibson execs. walk in on Friday and tells the staff of 65 not to come to work on Monday they terminated. 

Other than that, I believe all the major US guitar makers use Asian (ghost) builders to save money.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

> Like I said, production must have taken place in a magical production facility, with wood that came from the magical forest of Mahogany. The Rosewood was dropped by magical faries that couldn't be stopped by border agents. (It is Ebony and Rosewood that Gibson can no longer import.)
> 
> Gibson only has one production facility in the US and although the main factory had severe damage, the custom shop had the least of the damage. Gibson lost all the wood that was in the main facility due to the fact that it is on pallets on the floor.
> So, you as a dealer, must have been told that you would have to go 6 months without any new guitars. But your weren't.
> ...



Jimmy without any real proof your thoughts are worth a dime.....


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Rick31797 said:


> Jimmy without any real proof your thoughts are worth a dime.....


Agreed. This line of thinking smacks of conspiracy theory run amok. Most of the big American guitar makers have an import, Asian-built line, which tends to be their budget line - but they hardly disguise that fact. But they also have a top-tier, made in USA line. They're not claiming it's USA-made while secretly having them built in Korea - I mean, come on.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

No offence dude but you're not making much sense.
For beginners, Gibson has three main facilities. Nashville, Memphis and Montana. Pretty hard to believe that the flood affected all of them. 
The Custom shop was unaffected but they, to counter your assertion that they couldn't produce guitars. Maybe they just shifted production over to the Custom shop in the interim...It's a more probable proposition than them makin' Gibson's in China. All to say: no evidence no credibility.
I understand now why you're a little peeved though. What Gibson did to Garrison was a dirty, shitty move and it pissed many off....including Canadian retailers.....as well as myself.



jimmydime said:


> Like I said, production must have taken place in a magical production facility, with wood that came from the magical forest of Mahogany. The Rosewood was dropped by magical faries that couldn't be stopped by border agents. (It is Ebony and Rosewood that Gibson can no longer import.)
> 
> Gibson only has one production facility in the US and although the main factory had severe damage, the custom shop had the least of the damage. Gibson lost all the wood that was in the main facility due to the fact that it is on pallets on the floor.
> So, you as a dealer, must have been told that you would have to go 6 months without any new guitars. But your weren't.
> ...


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Furthermore on the conspiracy theory:

If the 'thawties got Gibson on those obscure and F'n ridiculous ebony and rosewood 'laws' then they would out and out CRUCIFY Gibson for having 'MADE IN U.S.A.' on their products without them being made there.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2014)

jimmydime said:


> (It is Ebony and Rosewood that Gibson *can no longer import*.)


So .. every lumberyard in the USA has no stock of these woods that Gibson couldn't buy from?

I can believe that you've seen pic's of gibson's, or more precisely, gibsun's being loaded on a boat from china.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

LOL, to think I paid a small fortune for a 59 VOS Goldtop Reissue and all I ended up with was an Epi.

Damn you Gibson!!! Damn you all to Hell!!!!!!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

The plot thickens!...


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2014)

MIJ. Not for export?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes Larry, Japanese Domestic Market, or I've heard of them called EBG, Epiphone by Gibson.

I picked up a second one, straight from the source this past spring.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

jimmydime said:


> They most defiantly where produced "off shore"


I don't know if you were being clever or if that was a typo but it put a smile on my face just the same.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> I don't know if you were being clever or if that was a typo but it put a smile on my face just the same.



LOL. I'm thinking it was misspelling.


----------



## jimmydime (Nov 22, 2013)

Milkman said:


> LOL. I'm thinking it was misspelling.


Dang spell check!


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

jimmydime said:


> Milkman said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. I'm thinking it was misspelling.
> ...


You should have claimed "clever"!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

dradlin said:


> There certainly are high quality poly finishes. Some high end builders are using catalyzed poly finishes these days. The right product applied correctly at a proper film thickness is key... not dipping a guitar in the stuff to mask flaws.


I'm sure a lot depends on what the manufacturer thinks will sell for the biggest margin they can get for any one product. I don't believe anything is better or worse until the verifiable facts are made known. Just because someone says one product is better doesn't make it so.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

gibson doesn't try to stop any of it because those fakes and copies are good for business, that's why. as you can see plain as the nose on your face, gibson promotes the image of exclusivity. that's their brand. they are expensive, and not just anyone can have one. the most important ingredient involved with the notion of the "real deal" being immediately superior to the copy, is the acceptance of the exclusivity of the brand. once you've swallowed that, there need be no other dimensions to the argument. now, i ain't knocking someone owning an expensive guitar. i'd like to own an enzo or an aventador, and some one might rightly state that you can get a hell of alotta car for a hell of alot less money. thing is, if you drive through the nice neighborhood, where that contractor lives who did well last year. he's got a nice vette. my boss has a really nice replica 427 cobra. a shag nasty car that is soooooo fine. but it ain't no enzo. understand? not just anyone can own an italian supercar. ferrari actually gets to approve you, and some cars actually come with conditions. exclusive. not for everyone.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Fakes? I couldn't care less. Is it a good guitar that plays well and worth the asking price? That's the important thing.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Fakes? I couldn't care less. Is it a good guitar that plays well and worth the asking price? That's the important thing.


There's a huge difference between a copy that has its own brand name and a counterfeit which scams people--and the counterfeit is usually a piece of crap.
the copy might actually be good, and often is.
Many people in the 70's thought the ibanez copies of Gibsons were better than what Gibson was putting out--but they didn't put Gibson the headstock.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> gibson doesn't try to stop any of it because those fakes and copies are good for business, that's why.


Seems that is not the case...

http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/counterfeit-guitar-bust-708.aspx


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

Who would have thought a daughter and a mother team making fake gibsons...lol ... i bet after 3 yrs in jail she is back at it again...only covering her tracks better...




dradlin said:


> Seems that is not the case...
> 
> http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/counterfeit-guitar-bust-708.aspx


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

zontar said:


> There's a huge difference between a copy that has its own brand name and a counterfeit which scams people--and the counterfeit is usually a piece of crap.
> the copy might actually be good, and often is.
> Many people in the 70's thought the Ibanez copies of Gibson's were better than what Gibson was putting out--but they didn't put Gibson the headstock.


You may have missed the point. If it is a piece of crap then I wouldn't buy it. I don't care what's on the headstock. I buy what is good market value for the quality of the instrument regardless of what brand it is. I simply do not buy brands and that applies to pretty much everything I buy.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

But can you really judge the quality with a relatively quick inspection, without ripping it apart. Quality is really a long-term thing to me - how is it in a week, a month, a year. Track record is as important as my initial inspection, which is far from fool-proof. 

And how do we know the track record? Branding.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

High/Deaf said:


> But can you really judge the quality with a relatively quick inspection, without ripping it apart. Quality is really a long-term thing to me - how is it in a week, a month, a year. Track record is as important as my initial inspection, which is far from fool-proof.
> 
> And how do we know the track record? Branding.


I must respectfully disagree. While that may be true from time to time and with a person who has no history with guitars, when the quality that can be seen outside is good, usually the quality inside is also true. Then again, we are not talking automobiles here, we are talking guitars with very, very few parts. If you get stuck with buying a poor quality guitar, that is the fault of the buyer in almost every case.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I must respectfully disagree. While that may be true from time to time and with a person who has no history with guitars, when the quality that can be seen outside is good, usually the quality inside is also true.


That is completely misguided and far from the truth.

A counterfeiter's whole game is to make something look good while it is far from reality!

Guitars slapped together with poor quality and poorly seasoned wood, poor wiring and low grade components, soft fret wire, poorly seated frets, plastic nuts that crack, truss rods that seize, strip, or fail, finished gooped on thick to mask flaws, permanent rather than serviceable glues, glue joints that creep, plating that wears away, and on and on...


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

like i said before, there's nothing wrong with branding, but perpetuating the myth that a gibson guitar is actually worth the value assigned to it is ludicrous. too many people out there swallowing the belief that there is some magic under the paint. like foreigner's jukebox hero. gibby's cnc is somehow better than everyone else's? (the plek machine is pretty darn cool, but not every model gets plek'd) i suspect that people refuse to admit that they're buying the brand because it's not rock and roll to be label conscious. 

here's proof right outta my own guitars.

this guitar cost me $350. it came with a bone nut, a wilkinson trem, the same grovers my lp has. i put the same pickups in that guitar that came in the lp. it was a one piece maple neck, and rosewood board. the long tenon went under the neck pup.. mahohany body with a maple cap i bought a nice case for it. even having it set up, fret level (also came with s.s. frets, lp aint got those) pups installed (pots were already decent ones, and the cap values were fine) and i scotchbright padded the neck because it had crappy poly on the neck which i found sticky. i never got to $700 all in. it played and sounded every bit as good as the studio, and to me, is nicer looking. the tops look mismatched in both pics but it's the light. the studio pro cost me quite a bit more. it's nice, too. but it ain't that much nicer. the case isn't any better than the one i bought for the other guitar.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I was over at a buddies place. He has an Ace Frehley Gibson LP knock off and and Ace Frehley Epiphone LP knock off as well as a Zakk Wilde Gibson LP knock off. They are pretty tough to keep in tune and the "Grover" (at least that is what they are labeled) tuners work very poorly. I think they may be about a 10 to 1 ratio. The guitars look nice, but they would need a lot of work to play well. I never took the cover off to see if there is a truss rod. The back of the headstock says "made in USA". I would not be able to tell the difference except for the playability. He has them on display as fakes and knows of a guy who was buying them by the dozen at about $350 a piece and then putting them on e-bay, kijiji, etc for $1500 obo (not disclosing their origins) and did not see the harm in that. I think he had a few calls from customers lawyers that finally convinced him to stop or some such thing. 

I think the whole forgery thing is disgusting. Put an original name on your work not someone else's. Gibson can make or break themselves on their own terms, but they own the name.

Where does it start to disturb people that low quality, poor performing, illegal knock offs are happening? Guitars?, car parts? how about parts on that plane you are about to board for your vacation? How about that piece of medical equipment that will be keeping you alive during your surgery?

The bottom line is that when you buy something, you have a reasonable expectation of what it is and what it does. With a fake, you do not get what you are buying.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I was over at a buddies place. He has an Ace Frehley Gibson LP knock off and and Ace Frehley Epiphone LP knock off as well as a Zakk Wilde Gibson LP knock off. They are pretty tough to keep in tune and the "Grover" (at least that is what they are labeled) tuners work very poorly. I think they may be about a 10 to 1 ratio. The guitars look nice, but they would need a lot of work to play well. I never took the cover off to see if there is a truss rod. The back of the headstock says "made in USA". I would not be able to tell the difference except for the playability. He has them on display as fakes and knows of a guy who was buying them by the dozen at about $350 a piece and then putting them on e-bay, kijiji, etc for $1500 obo (not disclosing their origins) and did not see the harm in that. I think he had a few calls from customers lawyers that finally convinced him to stop or some such thing.
> 
> I think the whole forgery thing is disgusting. Put an original name on your work not someone else's. Gibson can make or break themselves on their own terms, but they own the name.
> 
> ...


This gives good examples of downsides to counterfeiters--and when we buy them, we help this to continue.

Fakes with other names are not the same--they may be crap or they may be decent or better.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

there is no guitar ever made in the history of all mankind that is comparable to an aircraft part. or car part for that matter. no one's gonna die because they used an ungulant to adhere your guitar's neck to the body. 
so far, still not one post addressing the issue of cost/value in a coherent manner. anyone out there want to give it a whack, or do we admit that the value is inflated and move on to something else? not referring to counterfeits being right or wrong. just the cost of a gibson guitar, from the meat of it's line, leaving out the lpj and fadeds, and other sub $1000 models (which will ALL be absent from the 2015 line up anyhow)


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

The monetary value of anything, as always, is what the market will bear. There are guides out there that will give you a range of values for just about any guitar in any condition and they come up with those numbers based upon what people are currently paying for them.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

dradlin said:


> That is completely misguided and far from the truth.
> 
> A counterfeiter's whole game is to make something look good while it is far from reality!
> 
> Guitars slapped together with poor quality and poorly seasoned wood, poor wiring and low grade components, soft fret wire, poorly seated frets, plastic nuts that crack, truss rods that seize, strip, or fail, finished gooped on thick to mask flaws, permanent rather than serviceable glues, glue joints that creep, plating that wears away, and on and on...


I completely agree. There are veneers and there are figurative veneers - they are there to put forth a visual or an impression. The rip-off artist hides as much as he/she can by the final veneer.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

If the brand name guitars were honest with what they sell instead of trying to pass their products off as superior in every way, I might change my views. People who put a brand name on a guitar is not right according to the laws in most countries but in my books, both are guilty. Which one is most guilty is debatable. Claims on both sides are outright lies. The brands are taking advantage of people's ignorance and the counterfeiters are taking advantage of the brand names claims.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> If the brand name guitars were honest with what they sell instead of trying to pass their products off as superior in every way, I might change my views. People who put a brand name on a guitar is not right according to the laws in most countries but in my books, both are guilty. Which one is most guilty is debatable. Claims on both sides are outright lies. The brands are taking advantage of people's ignorance and the counterfeiters are taking advantage of the brand names claims.


You are nuts. Not only are you nuts, but the viewpoint which you are putting forth in your post is completely unreasonable. EVERY brand extols the virtues/features/quality of their products. EVERY one. From Gibson which you have made your lifelong pursuit to defame, to GFS which makes some of the least expensive pickups available. Some of the descriptions on the GFS site would embarrass a Gibson marketing exec in their superlative characterization.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Buying counterfeit knock off anything helps the terrorists win!


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> there is no guitar ever made in the history of all mankind that is comparable to an aircraft part. or car part for that matter. no one's gonna die because they used an ungulant to adhere your guitar's neck to the body.


Do you think counterfeiters make the distinction between knocking off a guitar or an aircraft part (or anything else)? Do you think they have any kind of conscience at all?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Some folks like Gibson's, some like other brands, some people like Tide, some like Gain, some like Coke, some prefer Pepsi. Bottom line is, people go looking for things that they are familiar with and that they trust. A fake of anything takes away the trust that a brand has built with its' customer base and the customer loses as much as the business does.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

cheezyridr said:


> like i said before, there's nothing wrong with branding, but perpetuating the myth that a gibson guitar is actually worth the value assigned to it is ludicrous. too many people out there swallowing the belief that there is some magic under the paint. like foreigner's jukebox hero. gibby's cnc is somehow better than everyone else's? (the plek machine is pretty darn cool, but not every model gets plek'd) i suspect that people refuse to admit that they're buying the brand because it's not rock and roll to be label conscious.
> 
> here's proof right outta my own guitars.
> 
> this guitar cost me $350. it came with a bone nut, a wilkinson trem, the same grovers my lp has. i put the same pickups in that guitar that came in the lp. it was a one piece maple neck, and rosewood board. the long tenon went under the neck pup.. mahohany body with a maple cap i bought a nice case for it. even having it set up, fret level (also came with s.s. frets, lp aint got those) pups installed (pots were already decent ones, and the cap values were fine) and i scotchbright padded the neck because it had crappy poly on the neck which i found sticky. i never got to $700 all in. it played and sounded every bit as good as the studio, and to me, is nicer looking. the tops look mismatched in both pics but it's the light. the studio pro cost me quite a bit more. it's nice, too. but it ain't that much nicer. the case isn't any better than the one i bought for the other guitar.


You didn't put a value on labour. What does a professional top market luthier make an hour? I'm in construction and can do a job and make $1500 in 12 hours work. I'm pretty sure that they should make more than a grunt like me. How long does it take to build a guitar from scratch? Sure they have machines do the rough cutting etc, but if I build a guitar I'd want to make more than $50 profit for all that work. Add in the parts, and mark up from guitar stores and it's actually amazing they can built them for what they do. 

I think guitars built elsewhere are fine, but not when they counterfeit the brand name. The American guitars are priced right for where they are built based on the cost of living and average wage of the American worker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Ricktoberfest said:


> The American guitars are priced right for where they are built based on the cost of living and average wage of the American worker.


That is a fair statement for most of the guitars built in N. America. However, once a production line guitar gets over $700.00 or so, the margin of profit jumps tremendously. One off's are a different story since they _can_ be labour intensive but even that is not true of all of them.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> However, once a production line guitar gets over $700.00 or so, the margin of profit jumps tremendously. One off's are a different story since they _can_ be labour intensive but even that is not true of all of them.


Once again...absolutely ridiculous. Your statement assumes that a 'production line' is a fixed cost. The cost of production facilities can vary greatly. You may think that your posts sound like you have expertise but they do not. I have worked in production facilities that were completely manual with all work being done by hand even though they were production lines. I have worked in areas where almost everything was done by robotics. I have also worked at many levels in between.

You speak of something you know nothing of.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

never mind....


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

vadsy said:


> Do you actually know this or make it up?


Made the F up (as usual).


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Some folks like Gibson's, some like other brands, some people like Tide, *some like Gain*, some like Coke, some prefer Pepsi. Bottom line is, people go looking for things that they are familiar with and that they trust. A fake of anything takes away the trust that a brand has built with its' customer base and the customer loses as much as the business does.



I'm pretty sure most everyone here likes Gain.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Ricktoberfest said:


> You didn't put a value on labour. What does a professional top market luthier make an hour? I'm in construction and can do a job and make $1500 in 12 hours work. I'm pretty sure that they should make more than a grunt like me. How long does it take to build a guitar from scratch? Sure they have machines do the rough cutting etc, but if I build a guitar I'd want to make more than $50 profit for all that work. Add in the parts, and mark up from guitar stores and it's actually amazing they can built them for what they do.
> 
> I think guitars built elsewhere are fine, but not when they counterfeit the brand name. The American guitars are priced right for where they are built based on the cost of living and average wage of the American worker.
> 
> ...



i did add the value for the work, because the only work i did myself was scotchbriting the back of the neck which took all of 6 min with a pad i used to use for old pans. everything else was done by string 'em up guitar repairs. http://www.stringemupguitarrepairs.com/ 

i do construction too. i don't know what trade you're in but you make a shit ton more money than i do. (sheetmetal worker) having worked in a production environment for a long time as well, i disagree with your opinion that the guy working the line in ANY guitar factory should make more than a skilled tradesman. those guys aren't luthiers. they're machine operators and nothing more. i went to school and did a 5 yr apprenticeship to become a journeyman. i work my ass off AND i have to know alot of math, and posses other skill sets which are trade related. i took a 4 hr test to qualify for my journeyman papers, been doin it since 1985, and i am proud of my skills. i'm waaaaayyyy more skilled at sheetmetal, than anyone at memphis, or corona, or baltimore, is at being a guitar builder. in fact, i'll go as far to say i could learn any job on their production line faster than they could learn mine.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

^ vinyl siding. We're taking over the world. No schooling, no official apprenticeship. No real training. If you survive your first year you're golden. It's just the small issue of being 30' in the air on a 9" plank day in day out that ruins my day. 

Really though- I would give more credit to the guys on the production lines than that. Sure they have the button pushers, but this isn't some flunky who was a janitor last week. (No offense to any janitors out there). This is Gibson and fender, the 2 biggest names in the guitar world (electric at least)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2014)

Jim DaddyO said:


> A fake of anything takes away the trust that a brand has built with its'
> customer base and the customer loses as much as the business does.


A good example would be what happened in China with it's Baby Formula/Milk scandal in 2008.
Melamine was added by scrupulous suppliers to water down the milk but would show an acceptable
level of protein to pass tests for the market. This resulted in the deaths of a lot of babies and
destroying kidneys of many others. So .. yes, fakes do have a detrimental effect.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

cheezyridr said:


> i did add the value for the work, because the only work i did myself was scotchbriting the back of the neck which took all of 6 min with a pad i used to use for old pans. everything else was done by string 'em up guitar repairs. http://www.stringemupguitarrepairs.com/


Just looking at this again and the numbers don't add up. $350 for guitar $300 for new pickups and install, $100 for decent case, +fret job and setup? I mean maybe you got a good deal on the pickups and the work done but when you add it up I bet you spent at least a grand on that guitar which you admitted wasn't as good as a Gibson. I've seen deals for a Gibson LP studio that start at about $1100 new or 1 model year old. 

I'm not saying they're not high priced, but when a good meal out can run to $100 a person fairly easily, I don't think they are gouging people either. I have no problem if someone wants I make a guitar and sell it for less than that and say it's a copy of, or designed on a Gibson. But it kind of seems like you're saying because you don't like the price they charge, it's not as bad as if they were copying something that was more "reasonably" priced as was the original discussion. We shouldn't blame the victim of fraud for the fraud because we don't like their choices. 

Like blaming someone for getting mugged because they were known to be well off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

Does anybody care that buying a brand name guitar like Gibson,will hold its value over time....or this is not really a consideration when buying as the buyers dont keep them long enough..
You buy a 350.00 no name... in 20 or 30 years ......its still a cheap no name... but a gibson may even go up in value........ all along your getting to injoy the guitar.. how can you really go wrong..


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Rick31797 said:


> Does anybody care that buying a brand name guitar like Gibson,will hold its value over time....or this is not really a consideration when buying as the buyers dont keep them long enough..
> You buy a 350.00 no name... in 20 or 30 years ......its still a cheap no name... but a gibson may even go up in value........ all along your getting to injoy the guitar.. how can you really go wrong..



Depends on the purpose of buying the guitar. 

Bash about onstage- fake/knockoff with work
photos/videos- maybe a low end genuine model

investment or flip- only original and genuine


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

Why cant you buy a high quality guitar , like Gibson, and use it for all the above....they are made to be played...





djmarcelca said:


> Depends on the purpose of buying the guitar.
> 
> Bash about onstage- fake/knockoff with work
> photos/videos- maybe a low end genuine model
> ...


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Ricktoberfest said:


> ^ vinyl siding. We're taking over the world. No schooling, no official apprenticeship. No real training. If you survive your first year you're golden. It's just the small issue of being 30' in the air on a 9" plank day in day out that ruins my day.
> 
> Really though- I would give more credit to the guys on the production lines than that. Sure they have the button pushers, but this isn't some flunky who was a janitor last week. (No offense to any janitors out there). This is Gibson and fender, the 2 biggest names in the guitar world (electric at least)
> 
> ...


Damn right you guys are. Holy shit - you should see.the house of an acquaintance of mine - he has his own bloody man made beach.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

adcandour said:


> Damn right you guys are. Holy shit - you should see.the house of an acquaintance of mine - he has his own bloody man made beach.


When you get paid by what you do and not how long you're there you'd be surprised at what you can accomplish. Unfortunately making money doesn't mean you have money.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I can imagine there are some rough winter jobs Rick.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

It's not fun siding in -30 in Alberta, that's for sure. And I didn't mean to imply that $1500 for 12 hours work was regular pay either. There's been times when I went in to work and lost money after counting gas and food and how little was accomplished. I was simply pointing out that big companies like Gibson and fender aren't trying to gouge us. They have costs and they pass them on to us with a markup. Yes you pay a bit just for the branding- but that branding is more than just a name on a headstock. It's the customer service, the attention to detail, the R&D that went into these great guitars to begin with. No one thinks about how much they spent on their ideas that everyone feels free I copy as soon as they're released. 

I'd say more than 90% of guitars (I just made up that number) are base on gibsons or fenders. Usually either the strat type or the les Paul type. My guitar is a peavey hp special that was made in the USA and it's basically a custom super strat. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Ricktoberfest said:


> It's not fun siding in -30 in Alberta, that's for sure. And I didn't mean to imply that $1500 for 12 hours work was regular pay either. There's been times when I went in to work and lost money after counting gas and food and how little was accomplished. I was simply pointing out that big companies like Gibson and fender aren't trying to gouge us. They have costs and they pass them on to us with a markup. _*Yes you pay a bit just for the branding*_- but that branding is more than just a name on a headstock. It's the customer service, the attention to detail, the R&D that went into these great guitars to begin with. No one thinks about how much they spent on their ideas that everyone feels free I copy as soon as they're released.
> 
> I'd say more than 90% of guitars (I just made up that number) are base on gibsons or fenders. Usually either the strat type or the les Paul type. My guitar is a peavey hp special that was made in the USA and it's basically a custom super strat.


Unless you have worked for one of these "brand" companies, you have no idea what they charge us for the "brand". It is astronomical in comparison to what their costs are. The difference in costs between a good product and their top of the line (speaking about production models) is peanuts but the price is usually at least 50% higher and up.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> you have no idea what they charge us for the "brand"


I would wager a guess you don't have much of a clue yourself. 

I get it Stead, you hate Gibson. 

Either make a solid argument where you don't make stuff up and follow it through to the end, rather than ducking out when the going gets tough and play it like you're being bullied or move on.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Ricktoberfest said:


> Just looking at this again and the numbers don't add up. $350 for guitar $300 for new pickups and install, $100 for decent case, +fret job and setup? I mean maybe you got a good deal on the pickups and the work done but when you add it up I bet you spent at least a grand on that guitar which you admitted wasn't as good as a Gibson. I've seen deals for a Gibson LP studio that start at about $1100 new or 1 model year old.
> 
> I'm not saying they're not high priced, but when a good meal out can run to $100 a person fairly easily, I don't think they are gouging people either. I have no problem if someone wants I make a guitar and sell it for less than that and say it's a copy of, or designed on a Gibson. But it kind of seems like you're saying because you don't like the price they charge, it's not as bad as if they were copying something that was more "reasonably" priced as was the original discussion. We shouldn't blame the victim of fraud for the fraud because we don't like their choices.
> 
> ...



the guitar was 350, i bought it from mike mckenna
the case was $80, i bought it new from a former forum member, who used to own an online store that sold roxbury, dilion, and indie. i don't remember the guys's name anymore
the pick ups i bought used on kijiji, 57 classics with a satin finish. $150
pick up replacement is listed on trevor's site, $25 each, set up is $50, so 100 for the work.

350
80
150
100 = $680.
the studio pro, if i sold it right right now i'd probably get $1000-$1200 if i was real lucky. being "just a studio" it would likely not sell quickly, and probably for less than a grand, even though it's pristine and less than 1 yr old. so realistically maybe $850
frankly if i had to pay what joe avg would for the studio pro (new) i never woulda bought it. $1500+tax is too dam high _for me_.

i just want to make it clear that i'm not knocking gibson guitars as bad guitars. i like mine just fine. all i'm saying is, gibson's price is based on misty nostalgia for the brand, and in no way do you "get what you pay for" as some like to imply. you are right, i did say that the lp _wasn't much nicer_ than the roxbury, meaning it was a little better. i said that because the roxbury had a poly finish that was like what you might use on some furniture. it didn't seem to affect the guitar's sound at all. i just didnt like the feel of it. other than that, the roxbury had several features ABOVE the lp, like s.s. frets, a whammy bridge, fully bound, recessed knobs, long tenon neck. the only things the lp has the roxbury didn't is the coil taps and the finish isn't furniture poly, so the neck isn't sticky. 
most folks here who disagree with me still believe in the tone wood myth, even though it's been proven to be false, http://youtu.be/hFyQXy74xz4 and the myth of the finish killing the tone (no scientific evidence either way, i only go by personal experience) and the myth of the scarf joint being tonally bad, even though it's stronger and less prone to warping/twisting than the gibson headstock design. if one can accept those 3 concepts, the illusion gibson's brand depends on fades like a ghost. i use gibson as a whipping boy in this thread but they're no worse than fender or prs in fact probably less so. i am the boy who shouts "the emperor has no clothes!"


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

vadsy said:


> I would wager a guess you don't have much of a clue yourself.
> 
> I get it Stead, you hate Gibson.
> 
> Either make a solid argument where you don't make stuff up and follow it through to the end, rather than ducking out when the going gets tough and play it like you're being bullied or move on.


NEVER has a more true post been made on Guitars Canada - and there is a lot of truth on this site.

Steads is a master of everything and the owner and protector of most knowledge on our planet and beyond. It's true - just ask him.

- - - Updated - - -



cheezyridr said:


> i am the boy who shouts "the emperor has no clothes!"


There's always a bunch of people saying that

they just always seem to miss this

- - - Updated - - -



Ricktoberfest said:


> I was simply pointing out that big companies like Gibson and fender aren't trying to gouge us. They have costs and they pass them on to us with a markup. Yes you pay a bit just for the branding- but that branding is more than just a name on a headstock. It's the customer service, the attention to detail, the R&D that went into these great guitars to begin with. No one thinks about how much they spent on their ideas that everyone feels free I copy as soon as they're released.


and it is always said to one degree or another.

Everyone should come up with their own shape - or invent a time machine and get Les Paul's guitar from him - Gibson laughed him out of head office when he presented it to them.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> *Unless you have worked for one of these "brand" companies, you have no idea what they charge us for the "brand". It is astronomical in comparison to what their costs are. *The difference in costs between a good product and their top of the line (speaking about production models) is peanuts but the price is usually at least 50% higher and up.


What was it like working for Gibson? 
Hard to tell someone they have no idea, then make a bold statement implying that you do. While we ALL can speculate, 
As a privately held company, I imagine only a handful of ppl have access to the books at Gibson. And I don't care if you previously worked as CEO at another brand company, different industries have different margins, barriers, expenses etc.

i suspect the costs (and profits) associated with a premium brand are somewhat between "a little" and "astronomical".
many of these costs are legit, related to marketing, legal, r&d etc....and some are pure profit.
yes it is cheaper to run a small copycat company that indirectly piggybacks off the efforts and lessons learned by the big companies and they can often produce a good product. But if that's all that were left, we as consumers would ultimately suffer.
I don't expect Gibson to be run as a Not-for-profit organization, nor would I want them to.

my only criticisms of Gibson as a business is 1) the QC in upper end products often seems to be lacking
2) some of their lines seem to be off base in terms of value, IMO. LP STDs for instance....relative even to some of their other lines . 2b) sheesh, binding sure seems to cost a lot! 
but as long as they're selling at levels Gibby is comfortable with, that's none of my business.

i see Gibson as the Rolex of guitars. There are better options available. Some more or less expensive. But for some ppl, if you've always wanted one, there's a feeling that "you've arrived" that you don't get from a Swatch or an Epiphone, even though they all do pretty much the same thing. And if you can afford it, it's your money to spend.
some ppl don't get "luxury" items. That's fine. But it's just as reprehensible for them to judge those that do, as it is for the converse. The monk ascetic isn't as clever as some think it is.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

cheezyridr said:


> the guitar was 350, i bought it from mike mckenna
> the case was $80, i bought it new from a former forum member, who used to own an online store that sold roxbury, dilion, and indie. i don't remember the guys's name anymore
> the pick ups i bought used on kijiji, 57 classics with a satin finish. $150
> pick up replacement is listed on trevor's site, $25 each, set up is $50, so 100 for the work.
> ...


Now I'm confused, you bought a bunch of used parts and a used guitar and your complaining that a new Gibson costs more? And the fret work was free? 

I had a guitar that I loved and it cost $40 and all I had to do was put it back together. It was a Jay Turser strat that someone had canibalized and painted with model paint. As much as I liked that guitar I had no problem giving it to someone who wanted to learn guitar. My "real" guitar I would never give away because the quality and brand make it worth so much more. Paying $1500 for that guitar was a great investment in a hobby that I'll have for life.

And back to the main topic, isn't stealing a copyrighted idea still stealing, no matte what the cost of the guitar? At what point do we say "it's ok cause they make lots of money"? Or "it's ok because it's a song I like and my 99 cents won't make them rich". Sometimes we pay more for something we really like or want to support those who made it so they can make more. 

Having said that, I really have no idea if Gibson makes billions in profit every year- it doesn't matter. They make a product- I'll buy it if I want it. If I can't afford it, I'll make a parts LP like you did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i'll admit that i dont always clearly say what i mean. but no way you can misunderstand me that far except on purpose.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> What was it like working for Gibson?
> Hard to tell someone they have no idea, then make a bold statement implying that you do. While we ALL can speculate,
> As a privately held company, I imagine only a handful of ppl have access to the books at Gibson. And I don't care if you previously worked as CEO at another brand company, different industries have different margins, barriers, expenses etc.
> 
> ...


Have you worked for a large international company and had access to the costs of manufactured items? I'm just wondering.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Have you worked for a large international company and had access to the costs of manufactured items? I'm just wondering.


Yes, in the food industry.
and as I mentioned before, I know well enough that margins vary between industries and often between companies within industries.

but this is the internet. Anyone can say whatever they want...and be called out on it 

which reminds me, still waiting for you to elaborate on your prior assertion to having certain knowledge of the "astronomical" margins at Gibson?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Classic Steadly, questions others on qualifications while not backing up any of his own facts or explaining where he got them. That's a rough go.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Yes, in the food industry.
> and as I mentioned before, I know well enough that margins vary between industries and often between companies within industries.
> 
> but this is the internet. Anyone can say whatever they want...and be called out on it
> ...


The food industry is not really a manufacturing company unless you worked with a company manufacturing equipment for the food industry. If that is not the case, you are talking apples and oranges.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

That's pretty weak Stead, seems like trolling. Time you shut this thread down and start another argument elsewhere you intend to derail with nonsense. Try comparing oranges and potatoes, it should make more sense to you.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Let's talk cars for moment.

Kia starts building a car that looks exactly like a BMW 7 series and sells it for 1/4 of the BMW price. From a distance you can't tell the difference between the two cars, but under the skin the Kia is still a Kia. It really doesn't drive anything like the BMW version. Kia sells these cars for a while and nobody really cares. BMW doesn't drop the price of it's cars to compete because it knows anyone who is serious about cars will not buy the Kia anyway. It relies on it's reputation of building fine automobiles and the fact people will be willing to pay more for the BMW version. Does the BMW cost more to produce? Yes it does.

Then one day some enterprising person gets the bright idea to remove the Kia name plates and replace them with BMW name plates on his Kia. He sells it to some poor sucker and pockets big profits. Poor Sucker drives the car of his dreams for a while and before long realizes it's just not as fast as it should be, takes it to the dealer, finds out it's not a BMW.



Oh look......it's time for my medication! :sFun_dancing:


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2014)

Steadfastly said:


> The food industry is not really a manufacturing company ..


I worked at Laura Secord (late 80's) as a receiver. We used to get our cocoa beans from Brazil.
They switched suppliers for a cheaper deal (can't recall the country of origin) and the quality
suffered. Everyone noticed the difference. Me, my family,friends and consumers. Store price did 
not change.This was the start of the decline for the stores and eventually the plant itself.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

--------------------------------


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> The food industry is not really a manufacturing company unless you worked with a company manufacturing equipment for the food industry. If that is not the case, you are talking apples and oranges.


 I said it twice already, that industries differ, as do companies within industries. But so far it's better experience than any you've provided for yourself, so thanks for wasting my time with a pointless post. I may be talking about apples and oranges, but based on what little you've provided to back up your claims, you are talking about unicorns and leprechauns.

Besides, how is a food company not a manufacturing company? You think chocolate bars, cereal, etc grow on trees?
yes, I have a lovely gummy bear tree growing in my backyard this year. I said I was an executive at a food manufacturer, not a commodity broker, for beans or bananas or something.
theres a whole industry called CPG out there, that I guess you aren't familiar with. Google it.
clearly your business acumen is not up to par.
there really isn't that much of a difference between a guitar and a box of cereal from the business end of it.
you have raw materials to source. You have importing/exporting issues. Production equipment and staff. R&D, QC. Distribution, logistics and retail channels. Marketing and promotions, competitive intelligence. After sales support. Nothing really changes. A guitar company tries to get their guitars seen on The Voice. a cereal company advertises on the boards of an NHL game. In production, a guitar company sprinkles "magic mojo dust" on their guitars. A cereal company adds "fun" and "goodness" to their product. BFD. Same principles, just playing to different market segments.
ive spent a fair amount of time researching this, as a few years ago, I considered buying a small Canadian guitar manufacturer.


I'm usually a patient person, but I'm asking you for a third fucking time, no offense, you daft trifling fool, what is the basis for your prior claim of knowing Gibsons "astronomical" premiums?

If you cannot support this claim, STFU, you are embarrassing yourself.
if you were a real man, you'd backpedal and say something like "ok, I may have misspoke or exaggerated..." Or even just softening your stance by saying something to that "...it's just my belief that...". Everyone gets carried away sometimes, and it's forgivable.
but to act like an authority on something, dodge supporting your own statement, and then test others, well that's just being a troll, and frankly you're bringing out the worst in me.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Gibson bashing is a recurring theme on this forum, which I don't understand considering this is supposed to be a haven for guitar enthusiasts (not haters).

Price has nothing to do with cost... consumer goods are priced to market. Gibson has (rightfully in my view) positioned itself as a premium brand and prices their product accordingly. Their product sells as priced so pricing seems to be right to market. Gibson is in business to make a profit, and even if they are making exorbitant profits (I'm confidant they are not) there still would be nothing immoral or illegal about that... It's a discretionary purchase, not life or health related. They owe no apologies.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Gibson bashing is a recurring theme on this forum, which I don't understand considering this is supposed to be a haven for guitar enthusiasts (not haters).
> 
> Price has nothing to do with cost... consumer goods are priced to market. Gibson has (rightfully in my view) positioned itself as a premium brand and prices their product accordingly. Their product sells as priced so pricing seems to be right to market. Gibson is in business to make a profit, and even if they are making exorbitant profits (I'm confidant they are not) there still would be nothing immoral or illegal about that... It's a discretionary purchase, not life or health related. They owe no apologies.


Exactly.
im the first to acknowledge that for me personally, there is a law of diminishing returns effect on guitars over $1500.
but that doesn't mean others can't discern or appreciate or justify the differences...or that the costs can't be justified.
not to mention,that in most manufacturers, margins may vary between different SKUs...some are more profitable than others which are loss leaders, or have a purpose other than immediate direct revenue generation. Businesses often have to look at their overall revenue stream and profitability.
i woudlnt expect a Chevy Volt to yield the same margins as a Chev Corvette.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Diablo said:


> i woudlnt expect a Chevy Volt to yield the same margins as a Chev Corvette.


I find that humorous. It's well published, Chevy/Nissan/Mitsubishi/Honda and Toyota loose money on every E.V. They sell. 
The tech development and battery costs should price the vehicles at over 80k. 

I work in the auto repair industry and get fed the cool aid - I mean press releases. 

The most profitable vehicle on the road today in terms of production costs vs retail price is..........
the half ton pickup. 
Not much research needed, other than driveline meeting EPA standards every year.

the same logic could be applied to Guitars. 

Theres no real research or development needed. That was done in 1920-1960 
the only thing that's changed is material sourcing, and labour cost. 

Nothing justifying to me any price over 800.00 (I'm cheap)
and considering Gibsons record of broken head stocks, and twisting necks. Their quality isn't the greatest. 

But I still like ibanez clones.


----------



## Ricktoberfest (Jun 22, 2014)

djmarcelca said:


> Theres no real research or development needed. That was done in 1920-1960
> the only thing that's changed is material sourcing, and labour


But there is, even if we don't like it. Different tuners (robotune) different pickups, different wood cavity combinations to have great sound but be lighter. And for the guy who said fenders have reasonable differences but gibsons do not- I'm not sure if that was trolling or stupidity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

djmarcelca said:


> Nothing justifying to me any price over 800.00...


Ya, you're right... the cost of doing business in Nashville is about the same as the cost of doing business in China.

Not!

Oh... and price has nothing to do with cost.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

djmarcelca said:


> *I find that humorous. It's well published, Chevy/Nissan/Mitsubishi/Honda and Toyota loose money on every E.V. They sell.
> The tech development and battery costs should price the vehicles at over 80k.*
> 
> I work in the auto repair industry and get fed the cool aid - I mean press releases.
> ...


That was actually the point I was making.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> That was actually the point I was making.


Exactly... price has nothing to do with cost.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned that price has nothing to do with cost?

Just in case, it doesn't...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Exactly... price has nothing to do with cost.


I think of it in terms non-uniform margins, but ya, same thing.
prices of different products/SKUs have different elasticity ie what the market will bear. So, the trick for a manufacturer is to balance the low margin lines with high margin lines so as to maintain an overall acceptable level of profitability.

if th Chevy volt, hit the market with the early adopters having to bear the initial burdens of r&d, low volume production/supply levels, high costs to market (training staff, new new distribution, heavy marketing, incentives etc) the concept would never get off the ground. It would be unaffordable.
So, for an initial period at least, it gets subsidized by more profitable lines until the market reaches critical mass and becomes profitable...prices rise, and costs to market go down. Without this balancing act, you have the next Bricklin.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I may be talking about apples and oranges,


That's what I thought because if you had worked for a manufacturer, you would likely understand where I'm coming from. We are obviously coming at this from two different backgrounds.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Ricktoberfest said:


> for the guy who said fenders have reasonable differences but gibsons do not- I'm not sure if that was trolling or stupidity.


If you can post a YouTube of a tele and a strat sounding the same as each other and a YouTube of a Les Paul and any other 2 humbucker gibson sounding different I'll change my opinion. 

Besides I already offered in the other thread to put my money where my mouth was and meet up at any edmonton area L&M, if you could prove me wrong I'd buy you 4 packs of y our favorite strings. 
You could even chose the amp from any at the store. 

Nobody took me up on it. 
Trolling? No. I stated an opinion and offered to back it up. 

All you "armchair experts" simply called me names and wouldn't call me out.

- - - Updated - - -



dradlin said:


> Ya, you're right... the cost of doing business in Nashville is about the same as the cost of doing business in China.
> 
> Not!
> 
> Oh... and price has nothing to do with cost.


sure it can be. 
Lay out 5-6 million in tooling to completely automate the process, and only have 3-5 people monitoring for quality. 
It can be done, machines are cheap labour


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> That's what I thought because if you had worked for a manufacturer, you would likely understand where I'm coming from.* We are obviously coming at this from two different backgrounds*.


Oh, I'm very certain of that!


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

djmarcelca said:


> Lay out 5-6 million in tooling to completely automate the process, and only have 3-5 people monitoring for quality.
> It can be done, machines are cheap labour


Machines are costly to specify, purchase, implement, operate, maintain... you quote "5-6 million in tooling", ignore that, then focus on "3-5 people monitoring" as if that is the only cost.

People have no clue regarding the true composite costs of manufacturing.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

--------------------------------


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

dradlin said:


> Machines are costly to specify, purchase, implement, operate, maintain... you quote "5-6 million in tooling", ignore that, then focus on "3-5 people monitoring" as if that is the only cost.
> 
> People have no clue regarding the true composite costs of manufacturing.



tooling and machinery are cheaper and are regarded as an assets in corporate accounting whereas people/employees are strictly expenses. 
Plus machinery has a longer service life than people. So yes in terms of manufacturing... Machines are a better investment than human labour.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

djmarcelca said:


> tooling and machinery are cheaper and are regarded as an assets in corporate accounting whereas people/employees are strictly expenses.
> Plus machinery has a longer service life than people. So yes in terms of manufacturing... Machines are a better investment than human labour.



And of course you speak from your vast experience...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> And of course you speak from your vast experience...


I think he's got you on that one...the trend is towards automation where possible, not ousting machines in favour of manual labour.
Not to say its cost effective to replace every single person/job with machines of course...yet.

the availability of slave labour in the 3rd world, will not last forever.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> We are obviously coming at this from two different backgrounds.


Oh, that's the reason, here I was thinking you were just some know-it-all who actually knew nothing but it turns out not to be the case. Continue on sir.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> I think he's got you on that one...the trend is towards automation where possible..


That depends multiple factors, some of which include the geographic location of the manufacturing plant and related costs, government regulations, labour agreements, regulatory costs, production volumes, product mix, practicality in automating the process, etc.

There is much less automation involved in guitar manufacturing than many think. CNC machines do you machining in both US and Chinese manufacturing plants so that is a wash. The labour cost to support the automation and do the manual labour is far from a wash.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

vadsy said:


> Oh, that's the reason, here I was thinking you were just some know-it-all who actually knew nothing but it turns out not to be the case. Continue on sir.


We actually still know nothing about steadlys background or where is knowledge of Gibsons astronomical margins comes from 
guess he's hoping we'll all just forget if he keeps prattling on about apples and oranges. 
I've just lost interest.
his personal stock is on par with Nortel's at this point, in my books, from his contributions to this discussion.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> That depends multiple factors, some of which include the geographic location of the manufacturing plant and related costs, government regulations, labour agreements, regulatory costs, production volumes, product mix, practicality in automating the process, etc.
> 
> There is much less automation involved in guitar manufacturing than many think. CNC machines do you machining in both US and Chinese manufacturing plants so that is a wash. The labour cost to support the automation and do the manual labour is far from a wash.


Ya, I confess, I don't really know how or if manufacturing processes (guitars) differs between USA and offshore.
my hunch is, it's pretty similar....but the manual component domestically is better trained and obviously more expensive. from what I hear, Gibson USA is pretty much still a sweatshop and awful place to work, not a place where seasoned artisans can pour over their labours of love, so I don't know how much to consider the notion of extra time and care being invested by American labourers. Guess it depends who you believe.
I think there are value adds to domestic product that we often forget, such as Plek.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2014)

A quick tour. A mix of CNC and hands on finesse.

[video=youtube;wp4D6KmjtoI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp4D6KmjtoI[/video]


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

... and Fender Mexico is an interesting tour.

http://youtu.be/T_ayKlYfeZ8


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

... and a cutting edge China facility.

(Edited: Korea rather...)

http://youtu.be/nFFvrHHct70

Which operation do you think produces the best product and which has the most costly investment?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

... and the Epiphone plant more representative of a modern guitar manufacturing operation.

http://www2.epiphone.com/FactoryTour/qdtour24.html


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

... and more Epiphone plant photos.

http://www.ikebe-gakki.com/web-ikebe/epiphone_GQ-EQ-factory-tour/EQ.html


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2014)

and now for something completely different.

[video=youtube;tc6gv-fbUDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6gv-fbUDs[/video]


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

... and some more China guitar factories.

This place does it old school - pin routers, shapers, slack belts. Note the health and safety standards throughout the operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4CxbwgdxXk


The following Yamaha factory in China is notably up-to-date compared to off-brand and counterfeit producing facilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyFZmvvalMo


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

What is alarming in China is not the old school way of doing things , its the poor work habits that can be changed, everything is disorganized , work benches are a mess, they put nothing between the sanded bodies so, they will get ding and marked up.. Nothing in the line of dust collection, or guarding....
This is all on management, there are accidents and heath issues waiting to happen.. if somebody gets a finger cut off, i am sure he would be out and other in his place in just mins.

Even though the Gibson plant is up to date, there work ethics are what they should be.. As you see in the video, there is alot of hands on work involved making a guitar, machine can only do so much, people have to set up the machines, this set up can take longer then actually making the product.





dradlin said:


> ... and some more China guitar factories.
> 
> This place does it old school - pin routers, shapers, slack belts. Note the health and safety standards throughout the operation.
> 
> ...


----------



## doblander (Dec 8, 2019)

Today is January 22, the year of our Lord 2021. I'm adding to a topic that is no less relevant than it was 14 long years ago. I'm retired, 73 years old. I discovered at age 65 that I am obsessed with guitars. I took lessons for a few months before quitting with that. So I'm self (un)taught, I know no theory. I have long since come to terms with the fact that I have no talent. But my obsession rages! I play for at least 2 hours every day and my guitar fetish has branched into repair, refinishing and setup of cheap guitars that I buy from Kijiji. I have over 30 now and my guitar acquisition syndrome is finally behind me. BUT: I didn't have an offset guitar. Namely Jazzmazter or Jaguar style. These simply DO NOT show up on Kijiji Regina. Long & Mcquade sells Squier models of Jag for $700, taxes in. Out of the question! So I found a Chinese ripoff Jag $265 shipped to my door. I gritted my teeth and clicked "buy now". 2 months and 11 days later my Chaguar arrived. Says Fender on the headstock and has a real Fender serial number. The finish was terrible, the wiring was incomplete with some switches not even having wires attached. No problem. I got what I paid for. The neck is perfect. Smooth fret ends, it fits the pocket like a real Fender should. The string reveal is perfect, the truss rod is good. The neck of a guitar is everything. I was the happiest sob in Regina when I saw that neck and how it fit the Chaguar! I put a beauty new rattlecan black finish on the body, painted the pickguard and switch covers gold. I paid a local hobbiest/luthier to install 2 new 2 conductor pickups (originals were single wire). He made all switches functional including their ability to split the buckers. The new pups and his labour cost $130. Now my total investment is $395.00. I count my time and rattlecans as zero dollars because that's my hobby, my fun. I can tell you I would sure buy another Chinese replica guitar. Mine is a beauty to behold and it sounds wonderful through my Boss Katana 50 watt amp. If you can't do any work yourself to any guitar forget it! This Chag would have been a poor investment. They are essentially kit guitars that you have to modify/finish yourself. My Chag makes me smile every time I strap it on but it's not a guitar that would serve reliably as a professional guitarist's instrument. I am grateful to China for making my Chag available. I have no right to bellyache about the imperfect guitar they sent Me. I knew what to expect. I was lucky to get the quality basic components that I parlayed into a dam fine instrument. I would do it again. Now to learn guitar wiring! These Chinese replicas have enormous potential for hobbyists who can refinish AND rewire guitars. P.S. I will ensure that my fake Jaguar is identified as such by using my woodburning tool to inscribe "replica" on back of headstock. I'm not a cheat. I have no intentions to sell.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I bought one fake Gibson , it was in with a whole lot of music gear somebody was selling in Toronto , he had bought everything new thinking he was going to learn, but gave up on it , so I took the 2 hr drive and bought everything he had.. 

The fake Gibson he had took to a music store to have work done on it , He wanted them to replace the three pickups with new super dimarzo pickups , but the music store would not touch the fake gibson.......so he found somebody to do it along with new grover tuners , frets leveled..
everything that was done to the fake still did not make it much better in playing and sounding .. it was not even in the same level as my 82 LP Custom, and he had more money in the upgrades then the cost of the guitar.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Similarly to above, my local L&M have said very clearly if a customer walks in with a fake they are calling the cops. I get it, that's their bread & butter. They have a reputation and stand behind the products they sell (bloated prices are subjective I suppose) so if they can aid in the removal of one fake, they up their chance to sell a real one. This conversation was specifically about Gibsons, but I wonder what they think of Fender rip offs?? A friend and I had an idea for a Filtertron Tele. We scoped all the good aftermarket sites for the highest quality parts to build this thing. It was to be his, so he fitted the entire bill. It was a sweet, sweet guitar. A few years ago he wanted to move it, and to "keep it in the family" I bought it. He went the full distance and bought a decal "Fender- Customer Telecaster". I have no idea where he custom ordered it. And I don't care. I personally hate that fact its there. But he varnished over it, so there it is. I worry if I ever need to move it, it may end up in circulation (to the unknowing) as a real Fender. I suppose I could mar it some way to indicate it is not a Fender, but that's not necessary now, as I have no intention to get rid of it.


----------

