Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Les Pauls' started by delawaregold, Mar 3, 2014.
What say you?
(No personal attacks, please)
So are we going to make this a "catch all" thread, maybe with a"sticky" to pontificate on alleged original 50's Les Pauls???
Let's see where it goes!
Although it would be nice to have a definitive work on the subject.
From the other thread:
The fake Les Paul builders are not stupid enough to do it themselves. They would use a third party to make the authentication murky, like say, a Guitar Center.
OMG, I'm going to try my best to stay out of this discussion , but will be dragged in from time to time as long as this ride lasts. Love it , for real.
Promise to play nice , starting by apologizing for my rude comment made to our esteemed Forum member EE. Sorry ,DD.
I don't think so either. But no one is saying that.
Have experts in many fields authenticated items that were accepted as real only to be ultimately proven to be fake? (I'm not saying this is the case either, I just don't know)
Here is just one example, authenticated by no less than Christie's and The British Museum. Purchased by another museum and later determined to be fake. It was built in a garden shed by a serial forger.
Museum tricked into paying £440k for fake put statue on display to educate visitors | Mail Online
Paintings and artwork are an insane authentication nightmare. GLAD I'm not into that. I can live with "the print."
OK, I'm out for the night...Same bat time, same bat place?
I'm confused about the topic. My thoughts on these other threads that I never got to put in writing are simple. Isn't it funny that we have to look at chewmarks in order to determine whether from here on out we're going to tell ourselves and everybody else" What a guitar!!!!"
I'm serious, nobody except Joe B even entertained the idea that playing 9-0623 would reveal whether it's genuine. I thought it was something that an experienced Burst aficionado would be able to key into. The tone and feel should be the hardest thing to get right, not some fu@#ing chewmarks, if that's all there is to it then we're talking about fetichism.
You might think that's unrealistic but from what I remember about "that" violin blindfolded experiment from a few years ago it is accepted "fact" that an instrument will reveal itself to an experienced player in terms of classification and age. That was what the experiment was trying to validate or refute after all.
I remain firmly convinced that every physical aspect of a mass produced guitar of the 20th century can and, in case of Bursts, has already been perfectly duplicated by now.
So let's say someone duplicates the build, specs, and materials of a 1959 Les Paul to a T. Even got real 50's electronics and hardware for it. Why wouldn't the feel and tone follow suit...or are we talking something that's been accumulated over 50 years?
Funny that Gibson still hasn't gotten it right after 20+ years of the Historic line.
Maybe 9 0623 is just a below average playing/sounding Burst?
I think that guy's facebook page is gone.
I have a theory on old growth woods & why some old Guitars may well be great but if I expand on this theory I will get locked up in the MLPF loony bin.............but I digress.
But seriously Artie IMHO a great idea if we can keep the posts sensible.
For those reading this Thread that may not know, Artie (delawaregold) has been a faithful collector / documentor of information on Historics & Vintage Gibsons. Photos, Serial No.s & provenance etc. I am sure he is not the only one either.
Every verified Historic I have ever owned with BRW has been documented by Artie to add to his already solid database to ensure that we keep track of these Guitars.
I suppose the issue we have with Bursts & Vintage Gibsons is that many owners wish to remain private, although we do have Bursts in the Burst Serial Log.
Frankly if I owned one, I'd be making sure everyone knew about it, had pics & knew the Serial No. It is way harder to sell a Guitar that is not private & well known amongst Guitar collectors, geeks & musicians.
Lastly, there is no doubt in my mind that several builders can get that close you have to ask the question whether it is worth paying the money if you want a player. Having said that I'd pay the money of course.
Just my initial ravings for now.
But hasn't it been fetishism all along...
Btw you should consider reposting that comment on the other forum too....
Just "chewing" the fat here, if I were to hand over a load of $$$$ for a high end Burst I would get Eric & possibly one other to authenticate it for me..........maybe Tom or Lou (even though I do not know them).........but Eric would be first call.
I also have two builders who I know well that I would send pics to & lastly Frank. Frank has a good eye for detail.
My 2c FWIW.
......................maybe I need to get my Replica authenticated............. Sorry I just had to put a joke in.
If I've learnt anything from all my years hanging out here and at the LPF, I've learnt that, when presented with a sunburst Les Paul, there will ALWAYS be at least someone who will kick and scream for eternity that it is fake/real regardless of common sense and the guitar in question. Often it will be a person you would least expect and others will happily jump on that bandwagon once it starts rolling regardless of the facts.
Also if these ultra secret ninja builders were able to duplicate old Gibsons to fool the experts, and they had any sense, they'd build goldtops, customs, specials, SGs, juniors, anything but bursts or korinas!
That's all I Know.
True that....and with black parts.
That would be the most difficult guitar to authenticate. (or a custom.)
Not really enough financial motive to do a Junior, Special or SG. Heck, people are buying SGs and stripping the parts off of them.
Is this the thread? I for one would be very interested to learn what was has been gleaned (so far) from the photos of 9-0623.
If my memory serves me correctly, wasn't there a duplicate Burst serial number that turned up a year or two ago? And the new one was apparently real and the other one was in Japan but that guy never turned up after people in the "know" contacting him about it?
That's one other way a faker could screw up, grabbing an unaccounted for serial number for a guitar that someone owns already but hasn't disclosed.
I would like to understand this as well. The guy who authenticated it quoted numerous, tangible, measurable factor in claiming it was real.
The only tangible thing anyone has pointed to on the fugazi side is:
The arm wear doesn't look right
The finish doesn't look right
The tail posts maybe from a junior.
To me, when someone spends six hours taking detailed measurements and inspecting an item, refuting with "doesn't look right" just doesn't cut it.
And yes, provenance does make a difference. If it cannot be explained by a self marketed replica maker, than that should raise big red flags.