Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Historics & Reissues' started by cherryburst59, Oct 10, 2017.
Anything to make a buck.
The guitar was physically at the Custom Shop, there are photographs of it there. Observed and scanned are two different things. It's a 59, there aren't that many variables. Not many hat would actually make any kind of difference any way.
I have had my share of artist runs and CC's, and they are nice guitars. That being said, if you think I was under the impression that I was getting an exact replica of real thing for my money, you are mistaken.
I had a couple of "Goldie's"....nice guitars. I also had my hands on the real one....you can copy the looks, but not the feel. Those Ace guitars would have sold anyway you sliced them, they didn't need to be scanned to sell, or come reasonably close looks wise to the real one.
Good points. I don't own any "historic" guitars so I don't know what to expect as far as how they "sample" the original model. This round belongs to you.
Et Tu Henry J !!!
....................obviously Gibson grated Romano the wrong way.
Exactly. Isnt the whole point of these reproductions that Gibson measures or digitally scans the original guitar so they can create EXACT copies and so other owners can get the approximate experience of playing the original?
How can it be accurate if its only created from people's hazy memories and photos?
Gibson's marketing material basically claims these guitars are exact copies of the original. If i bought one of these and it turns out these aren't exact copies i would be majorly pissed off. Could just buy an R9 and save thousands.
Just needed to quote Julie Newmar. Ahem.
To me, a guitar--by nature of being wood-- is a living, breathing entity. And like a human, no two are ever going to be the same.
CNC comes very close, but there are other factors involved that make room for differences in lots of different areas.
So, close as they may come to the original, Im sure a skilled individual could feel a noticeable difference.
But, what do I know?
They don't need to do any such thing, they can just take an R9, mimic the color and wear from photos and sell it as CCs. How would Joe public know if the neckshape is right or the PU impedance is right?
I've never understood the value some people, and Gibson, place on these modern copies of older guitars. I don't see much added value to begin with, and when the argument descends to measuring the extent to which the detailed visual appearance of a guitar was studied and faked, I'm outta there. What does this have to do with music? My own view, with which others surely disagree, is that there is only fantasy value in duplicating visual details, and those details are worth only imaginary dollars. I think the whole CC approach is a massive ripoff. I can see making the best LP possible, structurally, etc., but the value of faking another guitar? Huh? I'm sorry people are so wound up about this.
First of all, it is documented that the guitar WAS in fact at the Custom Shop, so eyes were laid on it.
Second point....how can buyers be disappointed when they have no basis for comparison? Care to guess the percentage of buyers that have had the original in hand to compare the replica to?
Third, don't be disillusioned. R9's, R8's, R7's, artist runs and CC's.....it doesn't matter much. The only noticeable variance in these guitars within any given production year is neck size.
What do you think they do for these artist runs and CC's that is so special? Have you ever compared the tops on the Reissues to the actual guitar it is based off of? 8 out of 10 times it's not even close. Neck carve is a joke. Did you know there were several "Skinnerbursts" that left the factory with the stencil marks left in the wood before it was cleared over?
I had a candid conversation with a gentleman on this forum who knows vintage axes as good or better than anyone around, and he agreed that the necks on these Reissues are sooo far off of the real one's. It's not even close, and I have only had my hands on 4 actual bursts. He, however, has had a much better sampling.
I'm not a Gibson hater. In fact, the opposite. I love the guitars for exactly what they are in their own right. Well built, dependable, beautiful instruments that sound frickin awesome through a high quality amp.
I owned a very high number of artist runs, CC's, and collector pieces because I was able to get really good deals on them. I personally like the Aged guitars. Murphy does incredible work. After owning literally 100's, guess what I have left? My players. A 2011 R9 that kicks every other guitars ass I have ever owned. A 2013 R9, a 2003 R7, and a CC shanks. The Shanks run was very consistent, and the pickups for that run were excellent.
Keep in mind that out of the 10's of thousands of owners of these Reissues, it's probably fair to say that 5-10% of owners have ever had a real 59 burst in their hands for ANY kind of comparison, yet 70% of people will argue about "historical accuracy". It's kind of funny, actually.
Just to add to my above statement, funny enough, guess which of the guitars I owned came closest to the feel of a burst neck wise?
The Ace! Now to be fair, I'm not saying it matched the original, as I have never had that one in hand, but the others I have fondled all had similar feeling necks. Second place, FYI, the Shanks.
Since I can’t really think of anything intelligent or clever to say..........
Kinda sounds like you're more wound up than others, no?
I think they assumed that as they "as GIBSON" couldn't put their hand on the real one, no customer will ever be able to do so
That's terrible, it doesn't look anything like Romano. Its the wrong colour, texture, everything. Did they even scan the real thing before selling this to the poor unsuspecting buyers
I think you and I may be having 2 different conversations.
It doesn't matter whether a buyer has ever held a real burst or not. It doesn't matter whether or not a buyer has a basis for comparison.
The fact is that Gibson is marketing these models such as the Ace burst and various CC models as exact copies of the originals. That is why they can charge many thousands more for one of these, versus an R9, R0 etc.
To create such an exact copy of an original burst, it would be safe to assume that the physical features of each guitar would need to be measured, whether by a 3D scanner or obsessively detailed hand measurements. Mahogany body blanks with similar weight characteristics to the original guitar would also need to be chosen. Neck profile and top carve would have to be done exactly.
Truth be told, the best way for Gibson to achieve all this would be if they did all these models with a CNC machine, programmed for each artist model, rather than trying to do it all by hand (but that's a different conversation...)
Anything less than what is described above - what is the point? Its simply a guitar endorsed by a famous person - its not actually a copy of the famous guitar.
The truth is that if Gibson hasn't properly copied these guitars in the way described above they are actually flirting with fraud.
Why would anyone pay $11,000 for an Ace burst instead of just buying a dirty lemon R9? Why would anyone buy a CC model instead of just an R model in the same colour? Because buyers think they are getting an "exact copy" of their hero's guitar. That is the point. They are buying an expensive fantasy.
No one is saying these aren't nice guitars in their own right. But that's not the point. They're not meant to be just nice guitars, they are meant to be exact copies of the originals. Top carve, neck profile, weight, flame pattern, pickups etc as close as possible to the original. That's what you're paying for.
People with enough money to buy expensive fantasies don't like to get ripped off. Interesting to see where this goes. If the CC models and the Ace bursts really are so inaccurate, maybe there could be some lawsuits on the horizon.
........now that was a slick reply mate.
Same conversation, and I'll address each point. We will stick to the Ace as this is what this thread is about.
First off, show me where the marketing says "exact replica", or that the original was "scanned". I'll help you out, here is the link from the Gibson site....straight from the horses mouth, if you will. NOWHERE does it say any of that. It says "pays homage" to the original, and, "accurate aging". Here is the link. http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Ace-Frehley-1959-Les-Paul-Standard.aspx
Next, you use the words "it would be safe to assume". No, it wouldn't. The weights range on these. It's wood, and try as you might, you ain't gonna duplicate wood from 1959. The tops....again, it's IMPOSSIBLE to replicate a wood grain pattern on 200 gutars. Some are close, yes, but most.....no. I have had two of these in hand, and I will say that the neck on these feels most similar to the 59's I have held. They did a nice job on the necks. Top carve, unless you have the original in hand for comparison, you, me or the man on the moon won't be able to tell if that's accurate or not, and honestly, it won't affect the playability, so who cares?
Gibson DOES use a CNC machine on all of the Reissues, regardless if they are artist models, CC's, or regular Reissue's.
They are not "flirting with fraud". Read the Gibson ad.
Why would anyone pay 11k? Good question. If you are paying MAP, or close to it, you are doing it wrong. People buy them because they are distinctly different in look, finish, and feel than a "regular R9", and because they like Ace. I don't think anyone is disillusioned enough to think they are getting an "exact copy". If they are, they need to read Gibson's ad.
They ARE NOT meant to be "exact copies" of the original, as you keep inferring. You are correct in one sense, and that is, it would be a fantasy to think that. Again, it's IMPOSSIBLE to replicate flame pattern in the wood, exact weight, and vintage pickups/harness's, etc.. What you are paying for is a limited run guitar that "pays homage" to Ace's burst. You are paying for the extra man hours involved in replicating the color, aging, and paying the artist per copy, and the fact that it is a limited run.
I have yet to see one person chime in that owns one that is disappointed, or wants to start a class action law suit. LOL. Other than the disgruntled guy quoted in the OP that is.
I owned 2, and both were very nice guitars with a distinctly different feel to the neck, frets, and finish. I have also yet to see anyone that owns one chime in saying they feel duped. Weird.