Chinese "Les Paul" Workable?

[LESPAULTWEAKN]

deleted...

[LESPAULTWEAKN]

It does seem like there is a big drive for luthiers to make exact copies of especially the 59 sunbursts even down to relic work and vintage retro parts. I gotta wonder if these guys are actually hoping to fool someone into paying off their mortgages. These Chinese replicas don't seem aimed at ACTUALLY fooling anyone but more like getting a comparable guitar at a significantly lower price. For instance note the prices...

[Who]

Originally Posted by LESPAULTWEAKN

....These Chinese replicas don't seem aimed at ACTUALLY fooling anyone but more like getting a comparable guitar at a significantly lower price....

I think they are aimed at fooling a buyer (or sold to someone who expects to resell them to someone who is fooled). Most of these are not aimed at U.S. buyers. They are being sold all over the world.

I guess I could be wrong. The "Coach" bags, and fake Rolex/Oakleys... they are probably going to people who know they are fakes, but just want the look.

[funkybunch]

@ slapshot I dont believe this gentleman is considering the purchase of a fake les paul with the intention of reselling as a gibson there for it is not illegal to do so. He is buying this fake guitar with full knowledge that it is in fact fake so he is not getting ripped off either. Now Im not saying it is the best choice i for one own a copy les paul by jay turser and i also have one i built my self and in my opinion the jay turser sounds great although i added seymore duncan pickups and had to rework the bridge to get a buzz out but those "chinese" built guitars such as my jay are very workable one thing u might not think about if you do choose a copy les paul rather than a fake gibson a lot of them change the position of the strap button by the neck moving it just slightly away from the bridge the problem with this is unless you use locking buttons the angle makes the strap come off the button from time to time not fun to watch your guitar fall while playing so i recomend moving the button closer to the neck

[rockstar232007]

Originally Posted by LESPAULTWEAKN

It does seem like there is a big drive for luthiers to make exact copies of especially the 59 sunbursts even down to relic work and vintage retro parts. I gotta wonder if these guys are actually hoping to fool someone into paying off their mortgages. These Chinese replicas don't seem aimed at ACTUALLY fooling anyone but more like getting a comparable guitar at a significantly lower price. For instance note the prices...

How many 'burst replicas do you see selling for $80K+ (roughly the equal to the price difference between a current LP vs. a fake)?

Most luthiers, as well as their clients, are usually very up-front about what they're making/buying. Are there some that slip under the radar, parading as genuine 'bursts? Yes, but not nearly on the scale of the Chinese counterfeits.

[funkybunch]

after reading this i regress a little I didnt think about the longevity of any guitar and the fact that in most cases the guitar outlives the owner and if i were to purchase a guitar made in china that said gibson on it then even though i know its fake my family may sell the guitar as real now that is a very strong argument not to purchase these guitars. I know a gentleman that purchased a gibson zack wylde sig guitar on ebay and when he began working on it setting it up and such his tech discovered it was a fake so i know how devastating that can be and I for one would never want that to happen to anyone so although i see nothing wrong with purchase of a chinese copy such as the jay turser or whatever copy brands are out there so long as it dont say gibson btw the copy i built i think is the coolest and probalby the guitar im the most proud of and it dont say gibson or didly on the headstock. lol

[funkybunch]

my fake les paul

[thestratdude]

The Chinese Les Pauls are great as project guitars, and are actually pretty good guitars in and of themselves. No, they're not as good as a $2,500 Gibson, but they're certainly worth more than the $280-$340 that many of them cost, which includes shipping. I have one that played great upon arrival. Gibson snobs like to bash them, but they'll easily hold their own against an Epiphone that costs twice as much. I was a Gibson snob myself for well over a decade, but let's face it - in the 1980's they were crap. I had a 1982 white Custom that sucked compared to my Chinese "Les Paul Supreme". Oh, and the notion that there are rock guitarists here preaching about it not being moral to buy a Chinese Les Paul is absurd. Think about it - rock guitarists preaching morals. WTF????

[garweft]

[slapshot]

this is the very reason why anyone caught trying to give these pieces of shit from china any sort of good rap in any way shape or form needs to be set straight.

Anyone want to take a guess as to what this was??

Originally Posted by funkybunch

@ slapshot I dont believe this gentleman is considering the purchase of a fake les paul with the intention of reselling as a gibson there for it is not illegal to do so.

stopped reading right there holmes.
it's illegal to buy them
it's illegal to import them

thanks for playing

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

The Chinese Les Pauls are great as project guitars, and are actually pretty good guitars in and of themselves. No, they're not as good as a $2,500 Gibson, but they're certainly worth more than the $280-$340 that many of them cost, which includes shipping. I have one that played great upon arrival. Gibson snobs like to bash them, but they'll easily hold their own against an Epiphone that costs twice as much. I was a Gibson snob myself for well over a decade, but let's face it - in the 1980's they were crap. I had a 1982 white Custom that sucked compared to my Chinese "Les Paul Supreme". Oh, and the notion that there are rock guitarists here preaching about it not being moral to buy a Chinese Les Paul is absurd. Think about it - rock guitarists preaching morals. WTF????

What, are you twelve years old? Rock guitarists can't be moral? You got any more stereotypes in your bag of tricks? Or -- what if I play blues on my guitars? Does that give me the right to rail against copies, now?

That is how stupid your line of reasoning is.

Oh, and here, check out this Chibson. This is the crap wood your copy was made of, in all likelihood:





<pointing and laughing>

[Who]

I'm all for mocking the Chinese Gibson fakes, but that one guitar gets posted every time, and I've yet to figure out how that top means it sounds bad. This one also has pine "character", think it's inexpensive, or bad quality?


There has to be a little more evidence out there than that.

I'm not sticking up for fakes that look like they're made from the pallets they ship on.

I'm half-tempted to actually buy one, and pul it under the sawzall, to make some new pics.

[Mr Teeny]

Originally Posted by Who

I'm all for mocking the Chinese Gibson fakes, but that one guitar gets posted every time, and I've yet to figure out how that top means it sounds bad.

Can you not figure out if they're using crappy offcuts of wood to make the bodies/necks it's not as if they'll compensate by giving you top quality electrics to make up for it

These guitars are only made to deceive and their USP is the fact they have a gibson logo, nothing else. They aren't being churned out as quality instruments so don't think spending $400 on one is going to give you a $400 guitar, if they wanted to trade on their quality they'd have their own logo like many of the other chinese guitar makers are doing.

[slapshot]

and if you think they're gonna spring for kiln dried quality hardwoods yer ****ing mistaken.they make plywood out of shit like that.
and trying to compare a slab of yellow pine to a packing crate is ludicrous.
kit guitars are in the same ballpark too.
I know "eden mart" ones are

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by Who

I'm all for mocking the Chinese Gibson fakes, but that one guitar gets posted every time, and I've yet to figure out how that top means it sounds bad. This one also has pine "character", think it's inexpensive, or bad quality?
http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/a...pinebigsby.jpg

There has to be a little more evidence out there than that.

I didn't say that that top meant that it must sound bad. You're reading meanings that aren't present.

How many glue joints does that Tele's body have? That is where improperly-cured wood makes the difference. I think the comparison being drawn is inapt, and that's one reason why.

There is probably much more evidence out there, but I'm not going to busy myself tracking it down, and I'm certainly not going to spend three hundred bucks buying a knockoff.

eta: Here's the thread from which I drew those pictures.

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

What, are you twelve years old? Rock guitarists can't be moral? You got any more stereotypes in your bag of tricks? Or -- what if I play blues on my guitars? Does that give me the right to rail against copies, now?

That is how stupid your line of reasoning is.

Oh, and here, check out this Chibson. This is the crap wood your copy was made of, in all likelihood:





<pointing and laughing>

Not to shock you, but the whole reason we have solid finishes (gold tops, etc.) on Gibsons is because they want to hide substandard wood. It doesn't affect tone, but nobody wants to look at it. Also, I'm 45 and have been playing Gibson's since my 20's and I'm quite aware of the types of behavior I've seen from musicians playing the club circuit (yes, myself included). So, YES, it is silly to watch rock musicians preach about morals of any type, especially regarding whether or not one should purchase a Chinese Gibson. "I just banged 3 chicks with VD and snorted a rail of coke before going onstage, but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging copyright infringement!" Ridiculous.

[Mr Teeny]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging copyright infringement!" Ridiculous.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick, either intentionally or not, this is the other Les Paul forum ffs, all our guitars are pretty much infringing Gibsons copyright

No one cares about Gibson getting ripped off or copyrights infringed we just don't like see see other guitarists getting ripped off with some piece of crap that'll most likely be bent as a bannana in a couple of years. These aren't some bargain buys where the money's been pumped into the parts, if you want to convince yourself you haven't been ripped off with some pos that's fair enough just don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

[Who]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

.... "I just banged 3 chicks with VD and snorted a rail of coke before going onstage, but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging trademark infringement!"

Quote-worthy. Signature worthy.

[BillB1960]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Not to shock you, but the whole reason we have solid finishes (gold tops, etc.) on Gibsons is because they want to hide substandard wood. It doesn't affect tone, but nobody wants to look at it. Also, I'm 45 and have been playing Gibson's since my 20's and I'm quite aware of the types of behavior I've seen from musicians playing the club circuit (yes, myself included). So, YES, it is silly to watch rock musicians preach about morals of any type, especially regarding whether or not one should purchase a Chinese Gibson. "I just banged 3 chicks with VD and snorted a rail of coke before going onstage, but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging copyright infringement!" Ridiculous.

[Kezman]

Originally Posted by Boyinblack

.

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by Mr Teeny

You're getting the wrong end of the stick, either intentionally or not, this is the other Les Paul forum ffs, all our guitars are pretty much infringing Gibsons copyright

...if you want to convince yourself you haven't been ripped off with some pos that's fair enough just don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

I don't think I'm getting ripped of by purchasing a $250 fake Les Paul. Now, if it were $400 or more, approaching the price of an Epiphone, I wouldn't buy it obviously. The Chinese Les Pauls aren't junk, but they're not "works of art", either. I will say that the best Les Paul I ever owned was a 1992 Standard heritage cherry sunburst that I picked up brand new at Guitar Center for $1,199. It WAS worth that price, even back then. But the prices have gone up - not just a little, but a LOT, and the quality of the new Gibsons while good has not kept up with the price increase. However, if money were not an issue, and I could lay down $3,400 for a Les Paul Supreme, heck yes I'd do it! They're beautiful guitars.

Oh, anybody who wants a framed, autographed print of that "banging 3 chicks with VD" quote, let me know. Demand is high, so there's a waiting list....

[Mr Teeny]

I'd have disagree on that , I've yet to see a brand new guitar with a price point of $250 that isn't junk, guess we all have different ideas of quality though.

[slapshot]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Not to shock you, but the whole reason we have solid finishes (gold tops, etc.) on Gibsons is because they want to hide substandard wood. It doesn't affect tone, but nobody wants to look at it. Also, I'm 45 and have been playing Gibson's since my 20's and I'm quite aware of the types of behavior I've seen from musicians playing the club circuit (yes, myself included). So, YES, it is silly to watch rock musicians preach about morals of any type, especially regarding whether or not one should purchase a Chinese Gibson. "I just banged 3 chicks with VD and snorted a rail of coke before going onstage, but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging copyright infringement!" Ridiculous.

1.i'm shocked you're 45
2."substandard wood"? try "finish flaws".they're still eastern maple not packing crates.and any number of people have stripped both new & old gold tops to reveal amazing tops.
3.i've seen this "club circuit" too.it was full of powder puff pansies in lycra.as dangerous as a fart in the bathtub
4.rock musicians are silly for having morals?too much baby laxative in that coke I think buddy.
5.so lets say you're amazing club bar band wrote a killer top 10 track.lets call it "Gibson".Now there's another new band starting around well aware of you're existence and they start playing their new song called ... "Gibson" .... badly .... they start chopping those complex chord changes out,throw in a sloppy solo in A pentatonic instead of that blistering appregio finger tapping mixadycolostomy scale you worked so hard on.What if they sell the rights for a 12 bar soundbite for some sports centre intro music?They won't make the same cash from a top 10 hit but that few cents they make from the airplay will add up to a tidy sum over the years.Is it ok they do that?Would that be morally wrong?

you're move champ

[HOT-BRIT]

They are workable as a combustible fuel

[matmont1305]

I just bought a $3 fake Harley t-shirt in Thailand, bloody thing shrunk two sizes. Hope the same doesn't happen to your Chibson .

Moral to the story: You get what you pay for.

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by slapshot

1.i'm shocked you're 45
2."substandard wood"? try "finish flaws".they're still eastern maple not packing crates.and any number of people have stripped both new & old gold tops to reveal amazing tops.
3.i've seen this "club circuit" too.it was full of powder puff pansies in lycra.as dangerous as a fart in the bathtub
4.rock musicians are silly for having morals?too much baby laxative in that coke I think buddy.
5.so lets say you're amazing club bar band wrote a killer top 10 track.lets call it "Gibson".Now there's another new band starting around well aware of you're existence and they start playing their new song called ... "Gibson" .... badly .... they start chopping those complex chord changes out,throw in a sloppy solo in A pentatonic instead of that blistering appregio finger tapping mixadycolostomy scale you worked so hard on.What if they sell the rights for a 12 bar soundbite for some sports centre intro music?They won't make the same cash from a top 10 hit but that few cents they make from the airplay will add up to a tidy sum over the years.Is it ok they do that?Would that be morally wrong?

you're move champ

I think you may have misquoted me in a few places. Anyway, one band stealing another band's songs for profit would be legally wrong if there were copyrights involved. Again however, does some dude who shoved a spoon up his nose before going onstage, and drove home drunk after the gig was over with three married fat chicks who proceeded to "service" him with their mouths have a leg to stand on when discussing the legalities or morals of anything? Point: Clean up our own backyards before pointing the finger at others.

Also, it's hilarious (and I've mentioned this other places as well) that a manufacturer can make a legit identical copy of a Les Paul, same wood, same stain, same body shape and weight, etc., and that's ok - but put those six magic letters on the headstock and all of the sudden it's an atrocity. Anyway, I am in no way saying these Chinese fakes are great guitars; however, they ARE good guitars. And for many of us on tight budgets, we'll settle for a good guitar. I've owned "great" guitars before (Gibsons primarily). Some were great, some sucked. I've paid my due$.

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by Mr Teeny

I'd have disagree on that , I've yet to see a brand new guitar with a price point of $250 that isn't junk, guess we all have different ideas of quality though.

I concur. Other people have shown me cheap guitars that I thought were complete crap but I was too polite to say anything. So I guess crap, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by matmont1305

I just bought a $3 fake Harley t-shirt in Thailand, bloody thing shrunk two sizes. Hope the same doesn't happen to your Chibson .

Moral to the story: You get what you pay for.

You're right. If my Chibson falls apart or shrinks in the dryer, I'm out a small amount of ca$h.

[slapshot]

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Not to shock you, but the whole reason we have solid finishes (gold tops, etc.) on Gibsons is because they want to hide substandard wood. It doesn't affect tone, but nobody wants to look at it. Also, I'm 45 and have been playing Gibson's since my 20's and I'm quite aware of the types of behavior I've seen from musicians playing the club circuit (yes, myself included). So, YES, it is silly to watch rock musicians preach about morals of any type, especially regarding whether or not one should purchase a Chinese Gibson. "I just banged 3 chicks with VD and snorted a rail of coke before going onstage, but if you buy a Chinese Gibson you're encouraging copyright infringement!" Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by slapshot

Originally Posted by thestratdude

I think you may have misquoted me in a few places.

where?

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Anyway, one band stealing another band's songs for profit would be legally wrong if there were copyrights involved.

anyway one companies stealing another companies name for profit would be legally wrong if there were copyrights involved.
see where you're coming unstuck?

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Again however, does some dude who shoved a spoon up his nose before going onstage, and drove home drunk after the gig was over with three married fat chicks who proceeded to "service" him with their mouths have a leg to stand on when discussing the legalities or morals of anything?

yeah.again with trying to inform us that you lived that oh so exciting wild & crazy life?It's relevant how?

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Point: Clean up our own backyards before pointing the finger at others.

oh so that's the point?because everyone who plays guitar is some drugged out drunk who like fat chicks?Make sense.

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Also, it's hilarious (and I've mentioned this other places as well) that a manufacturer can make a legit identical copy of a Les Paul, same wood, same stain, same body shape and weight, etc., and that's ok - but put those six magic letters on the headstock and all of the sudden it's an atrocity.

yes it is.considering they're not identical copies and they're trading on their own name not someone else's copyrighted name.See how it's actually a legal issue?

Originally Posted by thestratdude

Anyway, I am in no way saying these Chinese fakes are great guitars; however, they ARE good guitars. And for many of us on tight budgets, we'll settle for a good guitar. I've owned "great" guitars before (Gibsons primarily). Some were great, some sucked. I've paid my due$.

so they're not great but they're good but companies that make their own copies are bad so you'll settle for a fake with a known brand name on it as opposed to a copy with some unbranded name?Makes sense.

You do of course realise that the entire copy industry was born out of the need for lower cost instruments right?You could no doubt thank the british invasion in part for that given the influx of bands starting & demand increasing during said time period.

Anyway.It's been fun champ

[thestratdude]

Originally Posted by slapshot

where?

so they're not great but they're good but companies that make their own copies are bad so you'll settle for a fake with a known brand name on it as opposed to a copy with some unbranded name?Makes sense.

Uh... what?? I'm sorry. Let me look at that question again. Ok, I think I got it. The answer is "yes". Or "no". I'm not sure - let me read the question again. Alright, I think I'm going to say "yes" here. Wait, I'd have to say "no" because you misquoted me again (I never said that companies who make fakes with a known brand name were "bad"). So, uh... I don't know how to answer your question. Sorry, I tried.