Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Backstage' started by Kemper59, Sep 30, 2017.
That doesn't look like a Gibson headstock to me.
*insert OUCH here*
Well oddly enuff 21 I read on this forum most members writing about their Gibson Les Pauls
not their Suhr Les Pauls or their " insert name " Les Pauls.
You may have noticed that!
What's your point?
read more of the forum, you'll see Epiphones, FGN, PRS single cuts, Burny, Tokai, Edwards, Agile, Greco, ESP, LTD, Grass Roots, Ibanez single cuts, luthier built 'no names', Heritage, etc.
many LP style guitars are on this board besides Gibson.
"Insert guffaw here"
Enough of this BS
Not the same guitar.
The name "Les Paul" is the property of (the estate of) Lester Polfuss and may only be used by permission; permission which has been licensed to Gibson and nobody else.
Which isn't this?
Looks pretty similar to me.
But, he had a couple early-production H-150s. Whether or not this is one of them, IDK?
Also, notice the convinient crop-job, of leaving the headstock just out of frame.
On the Gibson Les Paul and Historic Les Paul sub-forums, and likely the Custom Shop, Tonefreaks, Squawk Box and Backstage sub-forums as well. But step into the Epiphone Les Pauls and Other Single Cuts subforum and you'll see different guitars discussed.
I hope you don't seriously think "Les Paul," as commonly used on the forum as a whole, refers strictly to Gibson guitars carrying the name rather than all guitars built according to the design. This isn't a forum dedicated to a silkscreen on a headstock, it's a forum dedicated to a guitar.
Point is there is more to a guitar than what is on the headstock and more reasons to buy upmarket branded guitars other than to play.
If one of my Gibsons is stolen I'd be gutted because they cost a lot of money but I would claim on the insurance and replace it. If the Vintage is stolen I'd be gutted because I wouldn't be able to replace it without playing a lot of guitars and spending considerably more money.
So, I'm new here and this is a good point for me to get clarified. I've owned Les Pauls and Les Paul copies over the years (I'm an old guy) and that's the way we always referred to them; a real Les Paul is a Gibson, everything else was a copy. Is this a forum where your assertion above is the prevalent opinion and an imported (or even American made) "copy" is afforded equal standing with the real thing? It would be good to know up front, thanks.
Are you including "Replica's" in your question?
no it's not afforded 'equal footing',..most guitars are judged individually,...but most Les Paul copies for the sake of argument/understanding are pretty much still called LP's or Les Pauls.
Just like there's a million Strats made by companies other than Fender, but they're still called Strats, or Strat Copies.
Only a Gibson/Epiphone is a "Real" Les Paul,....but a single cut Ibanez that looks exactly like a Les Paul still tends to be called a Les Paul or Les Paul copy. It's just a designation of that particular body style so people know what you're talking about. If you say, "I have an Ibanez Les Paul", no one with half a brain considers it a "real" Les Paul,...but they know right away what you're talking about,..a guitar made by Ibanez that looks like a Les Paul.
For a while I used to say, "LP" for copies and "Les Pauls" for a Gibson,...but eventually I realized everyone just seems to call that particular body style/design 'Les Paul',..regardless who makes it.
but everyone knows only a Gibson or Epiphone is a 'Real' Les Paul.
...though people will even argue that only a Gibson is the real thing.
...people just like to argue.
One of the "Vintage Pre-Lawsuit" ones i'd guess..
That's the way I always refer to them. A MIJ or MIC LP isn't a Les Paul which is a Gibson. Nothing wrong with LPs but it was more of someone trying to pass off something as a Gibson that wasn't.
And in some circles when they first came out the Studio and The Paul were not considered real Les Pauls, two models I wish I had picked up.
That's not an argument, that's a fact!