Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[billy]

Originally Posted by tonebone

And if the guitar serial # Montrose is seeking points to a 59, this "58" nonsense doesn't mean squat. He's not a collector.

.....if the serial number (9 2227) isn't on the actual police report where does he go from there??

[tonebone]

hmmmm, looking at the court doc (page 5, http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/18/Guitar.pdf) looks like Monstrose didn't get the serial# till 2007.

Guess the whole enchilada hinges on the photo records.

No two burst's are alike...Montrose still has a chance...a slim one, though.


Mexican sounds good. Anyone hong-gry?

[billy]

Originally Posted by tonebone

hmmmm, looking at the court doc (page 5, http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/18/Guitar.pdf) looks like Monstrose didn't get the serial# till 2007.

Guess the whole enchilada hinges on the photo records.

No two burst's are alike...Montrose still has a chance...a slim one, though.


Mexican sounds good. Anyone hong-gry?

But won't the photos only prove that Montrose once held/played the guitar???

I've mentioned before in this thread that i've seen loads of pics of Jimmy Page playing the "Keith burst" but that doesn't mean he ever owned it, which he didn't.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by billy

But won't the photos only prove that Montrose once held/played the guitar???

I've mentioned before in this thread that i've seen loads of pics of Jimmy Page playing the "Keith burst" but that doesn't mean he ever owned it, which he didn't.

He has J.Geils as a witness since that is who sold it to him.

[stinger]

Originally Posted by billy

But won't the photos only prove that Montrose once held/played the guitar???

I've mentioned before in this thread that i've seen loads of pics of Jimmy Page playing the "Keith burst" but that doesn't mean he ever owned it, which he didn't.

J. Geils sold it to him and might be witness to RM owning it.

There is evidence to support Montroses claim to some extent. I can only assume RM and his lawyers feel it might be enough to bring this case to court with. What we do not know is what that evidence is and if it is good enough to convince a jury.

[River]

Originally Posted by stinger

J. Geils sold it to him and might be witness to RM owning it.

There is evidence to support Montroses claim to some extent. I can only assume RM and his lawyers feel it might be enough to bring this case to court with. What we do not know is what that evidence is and if it is good enough to convince a jury.

No, we don't. Good point. Most interesting to me in that vein would be to find out if the lawyers are on contingency.

If they are, they have a strong case.