Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Les Pauls' started by ddh101, Aug 1, 2014.
Eric, no "dead horse beating" here, my intend was merely to directly comment on single cut 54's observation...
...by pointing out that the hype around a certain authenticator was largely created much the same way that it was dismantled, namely the "echo chamber" effect. One might call it "self manufactured reputation" but those are differences in semantics only, IMO.
I'm not saying it was done by the same main characters (off course not) but much by the same "mentality", mostly on part of the semi informed first proclaiming that "In Ganz we trust, he's the go-to guy, according the the MLPF" and later"hey, it's official, Joe G is a hack, I read it on the forum".
Not everyone has the restraint and wisdom of RevWillie when it comes to this stuff.
There's a lot of momentum on forums that can swing either way really quickly, I wouldn't want to be next guy having to face that. Would you?
If you disagree with that, fine, but that's how it looks to me.
Not wanting to be ''Cliche Man'' but.......... You live by the forum, you die by the forum.
I'm just thankful I don't have to scroll past Jack Nicholson again to read the next message!
Glad it's cooled down a bit.
Yes, it appears that way and that was my point.
Now you realize Bill is a personal friend of Ganzler, right?
Not at all a criticism. (Maybe just the opposite.) Just pointing out his tenor is inspired by loyalty.
Quite right. They also tend not to set out their stall as being "authenticators" of vintage guitars - more as guitar dealers with experience of vintage guitars (in my limited dealings with them).
It's unfortunate, but with the right experts two is quite possibly more than enough. With the wrong experts you could have unlimited appraisals of an instrument and still be no closer to the truth. I'm in the fortunate position of being able to have a cup of tea, a bacon sandwich, and an open and honest chat about what seems right or wrong about any vintage guitar I have bought up to now. Doesn't half seem convivial compared to the "trial by internet forum" that lot seem to put themselves through.
I don't know if I'm right, but I have a gut feel that owning a few 50's Gibsons from further down the food chain, handling/playing a load more that others have bought, and doing so over a period of a few years probably gives you a really big head-start in knowing whether the vintage Gibson in front of you is real, and what doesn't seem quite right about it. It also builds a few contacts that are happy to discuss things with you, because they know you are probably not just window shopping.
In the words of the late great U.S.A. President, Abraham Lincoln..... "The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine."
Eric, I really have to wonder about your intend here
I actually had no clue, or should I say "recollection", and I don't see the relevance either.
Btw, that "loyalty" thing is a horse that truely has been besten to death in this saga.
FWIW, I'm certainly not bound by loyalty in this matter.
I have a lot of friends, including you Eric. BTW I've always admired the tenor - I played alto in 7th grade.
If you look at my quotes in post 1824, it doesn't take much to figure out that a lot of it is directed at Ganzler, and the rest at certain people that take way too much glee from another person's mistakes or fall. To paraphrase Game Of Thrones "Any man who must say, 'I am an expert' is no true expert."
Those that think they are perfect certainly aren't, karma will bite you in the ass. We all fvck up, we all make mistakes. Every one of us. "I may be wrong today, but you may be wrong tomorrow - then what?"
Acknowledge... and move on. - surfer dude
+ 1, well said Bill.
My first comment re experts, is that X is an unknown factor & spurt is a drip under pressure.
My second comment is.....................no $hit you played Alto. So did I, all through Secondary School. My Son did the same thing. Got the shock of his life when he handed me his Sax in High School & said bet you can't play anything now. .................I showed him a thing or two but he is a better player than I ever was.
IMHO anyone that wants to improve their Guitar playing re phrasing etc. etc. should listen to John Coltrane.
John was a Master musician & extremely talented, we were certainly blessed to have this man playing Sax for the time he was on this Planet.
Every time I see a pic of him or hear him I think, man I have to get a Tenor one day.
Apologies but I had to digress a little & John Coltrane was certainly Vintage.
Coltrane is to saxophone what Hendrix is to guitar.
Love Coltrane, can't stand Hendrix. Oh well.
Here are my 2 cents from Argentina...you buy a cheap Gibson guitar from the same year and with the same paint (Lap steel, es 125 etc) you just need two paint samples and a spectrographic analisis...if the numbers are the same ... you have a solid proof...there are two other ways but ...I don't believe in smell, provenance, words , instincts...just HARD FACTS FIRST..then the rest of the measurements and A/B parts cables pick ups etc etc...Forensic stuff...simple... a profesional lab technician without music skills can do it...after that...then you can smell the guitar and have all the provenance stories and comparative analisis...important too.
I've not read the 62 pages here, so I'm only giving my 2pence to the OP's original question... I have never touched a Burst, seen a many played in the 70's... but nevr up real close.
First of a lot of it is not "only" about looking at the details of the guitar you have in your hand..its about a history lesson.
facts tell un between 58 and 61 about 1600 burst were made, a big percentage are catalogued, so access to this information is very important. Of course the trained eye can probably be 95% sure fro a fist look, but than I think the guys that really know their stuff are part detectives, know the music industry and who palyed these instruments.
The fun probably starts when a new find appears...unless its a one owner guitar with something to back it up then I guess detective work kicks in again.
I guess what I'm saying is that inspecting the physical guitar in front of you may well be an advantage with a certain check list... but I doubt any two were the same. Production technology and pure numbers weren't there, these were semi hand made, if something had run out that day you took a part from another line...
So I think its more down to detecting the history and verifying that history than the pure physical inspection of an instrument.
like I said just my 2p.
Do you have a scientific background or are you just guessing?
I thought your playing would be at least 58%, 59% or 60% better.
In some respects, he has a valid point Werner, I can think of a number of non destructive tests & tests that you'd not really damage the parts that could, IMHO, be done to help validate the age / materials on a Burst.
The key of course would be to have several known Bursts as reference samples to build a data base. Then you'd need to know how to interpret the results correctly but it can be done. Much like the analytical work performed on Painting, Artifacts & Antiques.
I think he has a very valid point. I just wanted to find out if our friend from Argentina speaks from experience and education or from "internet learning" and guesswork.
FWIW, I've been criticized heavily on the LPF for suggesting that the scientific method might take a lot of the guesswork out of this stuff. The prevailing thought by the "authorities" is that a qualified Burst expert doesn't need no stinking science. Folks seem quite insulted if you suggest otherwise, go figure.
I have to defer to their wisdom because I don't have the background to proof otherwise but I'd be very interested in finding out what is possible.
..............so you don't have the right Handshake on LPF?
IMHO anyone that thinks Scientific examination of a Burst cannot bring something to the table is either foolish or just plain stupid IMHO.
As an example, XRF on all metals used on a Burst is totally non destructive & scientifically valid.
You could also carry out GCMS on minute shavings of Plastics / Nitro. The Wood can also be tested but again you'd need minute shavings. You would need a very small sample but it is doable, especially when you take in to consideration the state of many Bursts.
There would be some other tests that are possible with FTIR & Scanning UV but I'd have to think about that one. If you have access to all the equipment it is pretty straight forward.