Poll: Moore or Montrose who should keep it??

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by tonebone

i heart guitar: NEWS: Wanna buy Gary Moore's 1958 Les Paul?

"2 comments:

guitar collecting said...

Is Gary Moore quickly trying to offload the "stolen" Les Paul that Ronnie Montrose wants back?

http://guitarcollecting.co.uk/2009/05/20/ronnie-monrose-sues-gary-moore-over-theft-of-59-les-paul/"

different guitar I believe

fletch

[tonebone]

Ronnie Monrose sues Gary Moore over theft of ‘59 Les Paul | Guitar Collecting

"In a downer moment that must have left countless concert-goers blinking, shaking their heads, and bellowing, “drag, man!” Guitarist Ronnie Montrose actually stopped a show in mid-song, had the house lights turned on, and scoured the theater when his 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard was stolen right off the stage.

Montrose, a San Franciscan, hasn’t seen his guitar (which he bought from J. Geils) since that night on Oct. 10, 1972 when he played Dudley, Mass. with the Edgar Winter Band … until now. The San Francisco musician — who has played with Herbie Hancock, Van Morrison and others — claims that after 37 years of scouring and thousands of dollars spent on private detectives, his guitar has turned up in the possession of British musician and guitar collector Gary Moore — and, last week, Montrose filed suit in San Francisco District Court."

"Reached at his home in Brighton, England, Moore refused to discuss the matter, saying only that the “whole thing is a sham” and “I’ve had that guitar for more than 20 years.” Montrose doesn’t dispute that notion, but he insists that doesn’t change the fact that Moore is in possession of his stolen guitar and must return it. An angry Moore refused to comment further on his tussle with Montrose over the decades-old instrument."


"Montrose’s hunt for his guitar has been rife with false leads, missed opportunities and dead ends. In January 1977, someone contacted one of Montrose’s bandmates about the guitar’s whereabouts, only to disappear when Montrose hired a private investigator to look into it.

The hunt regained steam in the early 2000s when Indelicato was given a photo of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul by another guitar dealer at a Texas guitar show and told that Montrose’s instrument was in the hands of an English guitar player. The photo showed the guitar’s serial number, and Indelicato claims that an Internet search for the serial number sent him to a forum thread on the Gibson Web site that connected Moore and the serial number for Montrose’s missing guitar.

But it was the November 2007 issue of the British magazine Guitar Buyer that ignited the standoff between Montrose and Moore, who once played for Thin Lizzy as well as being a well respected solo artist.

The publication featured a multi-page spread on Moore and his guitar collection, including several photos of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard. The Sunburst guitar is known for its distinctive maple wood face with unique wood grain patterns. Montrose claims a photo showing a pin-sized hole in the back of the guitar is the proof, as he drills such holes in all of his guitars."

[tonebone]

Originally Posted by Fletch

different guitar I believe

fletch

I believe you're right, it's the comment that caught my eye and led me to another web site...

[tonebone]

I finally found when Monstrose found out Moore had it, and the interaction between the two guys.

Less than 10 years ago.

[tonebone]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/18/Guitar.pdf

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by tonebone

Ronnie Monrose sues Gary Moore over theft of ‘59 Les Paul | Guitar Collecting

"In a downer moment that must have left countless concert-goers blinking, shaking their heads, and bellowing, “drag, man!” Guitarist Ronnie Montrose actually stopped a show in mid-song, had the house lights turned on, and scoured the theater when his 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard was stolen right off the stage.

Montrose, a San Franciscan, hasn’t seen his guitar (which he bought from J. Geils) since that night on Oct. 10, 1972 when he played Dudley, Mass. with the Edgar Winter Band … until now. The San Francisco musician — who has played with Herbie Hancock, Van Morrison and others — claims that after 37 years of scouring and thousands of dollars spent on private detectives, his guitar has turned up in the possession of British musician and guitar collector Gary Moore — and, last week, Montrose filed suit in San Francisco District Court."

"Reached at his home in Brighton, England, Moore refused to discuss the matter, saying only that the “whole thing is a sham” and “I’ve had that guitar for more than 20 years.” Montrose doesn’t dispute that notion, but he insists that doesn’t change the fact that Moore is in possession of his stolen guitar and must return it. An angry Moore refused to comment further on his tussle with Montrose over the decades-old instrument."


"Montrose’s hunt for his guitar has been rife with false leads, missed opportunities and dead ends. In January 1977, someone contacted one of Montrose’s bandmates about the guitar’s whereabouts, only to disappear when Montrose hired a private investigator to look into it.

The hunt regained steam in the early 2000s when Indelicato was given a photo of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul by another guitar dealer at a Texas guitar show and told that Montrose’s instrument was in the hands of an English guitar player. The photo showed the guitar’s serial number, and Indelicato claims that an Internet search for the serial number sent him to a forum thread on the Gibson Web site that connected Moore and the serial number for Montrose’s missing guitar.

But it was the November 2007 issue of the British magazine Guitar Buyer that ignited the standoff between Montrose and Moore, who once played for Thin Lizzy as well as being a well respected solo artist.

The publication featured a multi-page spread on Moore and his guitar collection, including several photos of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard. The Sunburst guitar is known for its distinctive maple wood face with unique wood grain patterns. Montrose claims a photo showing a pin-sized hole in the back of the guitar is the proof, as he drills such holes in all of his guitars."

there is no doubt it is the same guitar. and if Moore really said those things, he's a chump! i hope Montrose gets it back.

[Olli]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Could you possibly be any more uninformed? Did you even read this whole thread? .............

Why do you ask these questions? You think I´m stupid or what?

I said that someone coming forward with a claim that he sold something to someone over three decades ago is not gonna cut it. That does not proove anything.
You mention a police report...... Ain´t gonna cut it either. Unless it says the serial number in there and after reading the counterclaim pdf, this does not seem to be the case.
Gary has lawyers too you know - they´ll see to it that he can keep his guitar.
I highly doubt that Montrose can prove without a doubt that Gary´s guitar is the one that was stolen from him.

Thanks for calling me uniformed BTW. Always good to know who is posting here and who is judging other people on what grounds.

[Nigel Tufnel's tech]

Originally Posted by Olli

I highly doubt that Montrose can prove without a doubt that Gary´s guitar is the one that was stolen from him.

I posted these on another thread.



What do you think Olli?

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by Olli

Why do you ask these questions? You think I´m stupid or what?

I said that someone coming forward with a claim that he sold something to someone over three decades ago is not gonna cut it. That does not proove anything.
You mention a police report...... Ain´t gonna cut it either. Unless it says the serial number in there and after reading the counterclaim pdf, this does not seem to be the case.
Gary has lawyers too you know - they´ll see to it that he can keep his guitar.
I highly doubt that Montrose can prove without a doubt that Gary´s guitar is the one that was stolen from him.

Thanks for calling me uniformed BTW. Always good to know who is posting here and who is judging other people on what grounds.

He does not have to prove "without a doubt". He only has to prove based on the preponderance of evidence, as stated earlier in this thread. So no, I was not calling you stupid. I was merely making an observation that you seemed to rush in with an opinion on the matter without having read the entire thread where many of these facts have been presented. And since J. Geils sold him the guitar, and there are pictures of Montrose with the guitar, I do believe that Montrose can easily prove it is the same guitar. It is a no brainer regarding the fact that it is the same guitar. And in the USA, where this trial will take place, it is illegal to possess stolen goods, no matter how honest the buyer was or how reputable the dealer was. None of those people should have ever had the guitar since it is Ronnie's guitar that was stolen from him.

[nicolasrivera]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel's tech

I posted these on another thread.



What do you think Olli?

Clearly is not the same, look at the pickups and no pickguard in Gary's LP!!!!!

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by nicolasrivera

Clearly is not the same, look at the pickups and no pickguard in Gary's LP!!!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....I suppose Gary painted his top to look exactly the same too!

[ZampraZ]

Hmm I think Montrose should have it because Gary took off the pu covers and pickguard I don't like that...

[diceman]

Originally Posted by Olli

...
I highly doubt that Montrose can prove without a doubt that Gary´s guitar is the one that was stolen from him.

...

As mentioned a few times, the standard is the preponderance of the evidence - which just means "more likely than not" - which is easy for Montrose to prove. A police report and a couple of photos (and this mysterious hole that he drilled in it) are more than enough to satisfy this "scale tipping" test.

The reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal matters only.

[billy]

It would be interesting to see if any party decides to trace back the guitar...

It has already been said a couple of times in this thread who allegedly sold it to the dealer who sold it to Moore... If true, at the moment the buck stops with him and with this issue been in court and getting talked about alot on both forums, i'm pretty sure he will want to pass that "buck" on and say who he got it off.

...also nobody has said anything to contridict the fact that Moore bought this guitar in good faith and knew nothing about it been stolen... So "if" Montrose does get the guitar back surely Moore can go after the dealer who sold it to him, then the dealer go after.....etc.(you get the picture)

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by billy

So "if" Montrose does get the guitar back surely Moore can go after the dealer who sold it to him, then the dealer go after.....etc.(you get the picture)

Absolutely. Unfortunately for Moore, that is the way that the law will tell him to go if he has to give the guitar up to Montrose. And most likely, he would only be able to get what he paid for it (assuming he wins a judgment against the seller and is able to collect). He would probably spend a lot more on legal fees than what he might be due to collect from the seller....and that is assuming the seller is still around.

[stinger]

That court document certainly corrects a few of my beliefs. It also answers a couple questions raised here.

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by stinger

That court document certainly corrects a few of my beliefs. It also answers a couple questions raised here.

which ones?

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by tonebone

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/18/Guitar.pdf

Thanks for posting... this is good information. If you voted for GM you should definitely give this a read. If this goes to a jury trial in the States, GM might as well just send the guitar. Despite what his fans think here...

What is amazing is that RM is asking for damages for the condition of the guitar. Despite what all the intentional relic'ing guys think on here, to some it is a travesty to see a guitar like that. Back in 1972, it was probably in pretty pristine condition.

What a shame...

fletch

[stinger]

One question answered is why he took so long to file. Answer was that he didn't know the actual name of who had it. Just that it was in England. I had assumed wrongly that he had the name. I think people on the LPF knew who had it long before RM did if the info I had read on the LPF is accurate.

It seems to confirm that RM knew in the early 2000's of stripes whereabouts but not the guy who had it. I remember reading a RM interview in 2002 where he stated he knew an Englishman had it. I assumed he had a name and was not divulging the name but it turns out he did not have the name at all!

It also answers the question of his ever giving up the search. Apparently he had some people keeping an eye out for it and that is how he found out who actually had it.

It also confirms what I had heard that he made contact, or tried to make contact with GM but was ignored, at least according to the claim.

What I did not know was this pin hole thing mentioned. Some kinda mark he makes on his guitars? Must have had a good picture to have noticed that.


What it doesn't say is who will end up with it and it doesn't show the evidence to us so we can not really guess how this will turn out.

[stinger]

Originally Posted by Fletch

Thanks for posting... this is good information. If you voted for GM you should definitely give this a read. If this goes to a jury trial in the States, GM might as well just send the guitar. Despite what his fans think here...

What is amazing is that RM is asking for damages for the condition of the guitar. Despite what all the intentional relic'ing guys think on here, to some it is a travesty to see a guitar like that. Back in 1972, it was probably in pretty pristine condition.

What a shame...

fletch

Thanks to Tonebone for that post. Removes alot of speculation. But I don't think this document shows us anything really. Just tidys up a few questions we've been wondering about and shows the nature of the claim. The evidence is not there for us to look at so we cannot see how strong that evidence really is. Nor does the document tell how all the legalities that must be considered such as statute of limitations, etc. The doc doesn't give us a clue how this case will swing.

We'll just have to wait and see how the judge rules.

[Fletch]

What's most interesting is that it seems like the LPF was quoted in that document!!! If that's true then it was GM's own fans who dimed him out, so to speak...

fletch

[340swinger]

Originally Posted by Fletch

What's most interesting is that it seems like the LPF was quoted in that document!!! If that's true then it was GM's own fans who dimed him out, so to speak...

fletch

Poetic justice

[zplapplap]

Originally Posted by stinger

...we can not really guess how this will turn out.

Actually, ALL we can do is guess how this will turn out.

[zplapplap]

Originally Posted by diceman

As mentioned a few times, the standard is the preponderance of the evidence - which just means "more likely than not" - which is easy for Montrose to prove. A police report and a couple of photos (and this mysterious hole that he drilled in it) are more than enough to satisfy this "scale tipping" test.

The reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal matters only.

I love how people constantly misuse legal terms of art.

[billy]

I noticed that the document doesn't state a known fact, that Gary Moore bought the guitar legally unaware it was stolen. It just says he is in posession of it... but i suppose it is for his legal team to put his case forward.

[River]

Originally Posted by Fletch

What's most interesting is that it seems like the LPF was quoted in that document!!! If that's true then it was GM's own fans who dimed him out, so to speak...

fletch

But "it's just the Internet"!

[Fletch]

Originally Posted by billy

I noticed that the document doesn't state a known fact, that Gary Moore bought the guitar legally unaware it was stolen. It just says he is in posession of it... but i suppose it is for his legal team to put his case forward.

Makes no difference how he got it. Just because he paid money legitmately for it doesn't change the fact that it is stolen property. If that was the case then anything that was ever stolen could be "cleaned up" so to speak, by simply selling it once!!!

fletch

[snaredrum]

Originally Posted by JimmyAce2006

Your argument is a mute point; the jurisdiction is in the USA since the theft took place there. It doesn't matter if the guitar was in a magazine. Nobody is calling Moore a thief. In fact, he is a victim. Sadly, the guitar belongs to Montrose. It was never legally sold to Moore in the first place. The only thing that might be on Moore's side is the statute of limitations. But they might be more lenient towards Montrose. Moore's claim would be against the business who sold it to him.

i agree, but it's "moot" point, not mute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness

[JimmyAce2006]

Originally Posted by snaredrum

i agree, but it's "moot" point, not mute.

Mootness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for the correction!

[River]

Originally Posted by snaredrum

i agree, but it's "moot" point, not mute.

Mootness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why are we dragging moose into this?



(just thought a little levity wouldn't hurt)