Al Romano Mad at Gibson (Ace Frehley Burst)

BBD

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
4,212
Reaction score
22,160
Al feeling bad for the public about being lied to by G
This is absolutely crucial but remains the bit I am not clear about. Did Gibson lie to the public? If so, what exactly was the false claim?
 

Norton

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
731
Reaction score
685
He lost me with white socks and sandals. But the thin pick and the sunglasses didn't help either.

Although he did have so much more "tone" when he put the shades on.
 

JimmyAce2006

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,029
Reaction score
5,932
The original post was posted by Al on his Facebook page a few days ago. I have been friends with Al on Facebook for a few years. I don't always agree with what he says, but I have a listening ear. When I read his post, the first thing I thought was that it was another re-hash of what went down with him and Gibson, and he's still angry about not getting compensated properly. Understandably so.

I made a couple of comments on the thread. My first comment explained that Gibson Custom Shop was not shut down or out of business and that they do still make reissues, and will continue to make reissues; they just call them something different now (Les Paul Standard). And I told everyone to call Wildwood to get a better explanation.

My second comment was one where I tried to convey to Al that I remember when all of this first started, and I agreed that he was not treated fairly, etc. And then I stated that I don't think it is fair to say that owners of the guitars got ripped off. And I stated I don't think it is right to knock our guitars because many of us paid a lot of money for them & it could hurt our "investment" if he did that. So I asked him nicely not to knock our guitars.

The next day, Al blocked me from his friends on Facebook. Hmmm.....something I said in my cordial response must have really angered him. Well, so sad, too bad. I was very polite, and everything I stated was right on.

Al contradicts himself a couple of times. First he says he had a contract, then he says he didn't. From the very beginning, he always told me he never had anything in writing and he just trusted Gibson to do what they said they would do. That was his mistake, and therefore the whole thing is his fault. Should he be compensated? YES. Is it his fault if he does not get compensated? YES. Al also refers to the Frehley burst as "my guitar", as though he still owns it. Yet, his listing on Uncle Lou's web site states the guitar was sold, and Al told me privately how much he sold it for. So why does he refer to it as "my guitar" to this day? Did the sale fall through?

Gibson had two press releases for this run. The first one was a NAMM press release in January 2015 before the guitars were released and it stated that Al and Ace worked together closely with Gibson to get the guitar exactly as it should be, and it said the guitars are Murphy aged. Then Al did not get paid. So he threatened a law suit. The run's release was delayed about 6 months because of this.

I submit that many of the guitars were already built before Al got mad, and they were built to the specs of Al's original burst. But to cover themselves from a lawsuit, Gibson changed the wording of the press release to say that the guitar was built to Ace's memory (which anyone who is familiar with Ace knows he himself states he remembers nothing from that time because he was too drugged / drunk). And Sweetwater had the old press release on their web site for months after the guitars had been selling. The only thing that is really different is the aging; Gibson left off a few scratches. And the guitars were aged in-house, not by Murphy. But they did a great job on the aging. You can even check Gibson's web site. They posted the output of the pickups, and I confirmed with Al when the guitars came out that those readings match his original burst.

Al states in the original post that the guitars are nothing like his guitar. Yet, I have private communications from him stating that he played signed #20 at a guitar store and stated "Felt like mine for sure...Sounded close too". And I have a video of him shredding on the guitar. Doesn't sound consistent with what he stated in the original post. So in my opinion, the guitars are exactly as they were intended to be, except for a few scratches in the aging.
 
Last edited:

Truth011

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
301
Reaction score
237
In all seriousness I have never heard of this guitar being referred to as the Romano/ Frehley Burst by Gibson.

When the CC#1 came out it was referred to as the Melvyn Franks Burst with a noted connection to Green and Moore. Had Mr. Romano loaned Gibson his guitar to be measured for the run he would have had his name on it! Or it would have been dealt with when the run came out 2 years ago while he still owned it.

BITTER GRAPES
 
Last edited:

Its Luke

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2012
Messages
791
Reaction score
567
The original post was posted by Al on his Facebook page a few days ago. I have been friends with Al on Facebook for a few years. I don't always agree with what he says, but I have a listening ear. When I read his post, the first hing I thought was that it was another re-hash of what went down with him and Gibson, and he's still angry about not getting compensated properly. Understandably so.

I made a couple of comments on the thread. My first comment explained that Gibson Custom Shop was not shut down or out of business and that they do still make reissues, and will continue to make reissues; they just call them something different now (Les Paul Standard). And I told everyone to call Wildwood to get a better explanation.

My second comment was one where I tried to convey to Al that I remember when all of this first started, and I agreed that he was not treated fairly, etc. And then I stated that I don't think it is fair to say that owners of the guitars got ripped off. And I stated I don't think it is right to knock our guitars because many of us paid a lot of money for them & it could hurt our "investment" if he did that. So I asked him nicely not to knock our guitars.

The next day, Al blocked me from his friends on Facebook. Hmmm.....something I said in my cordial response must have really angered him. Well, so sad, too bad. I was very polite, and everything I stated was right on.

Al contradicts himself a couple of times. First he says he had a contract, then he says he didn't. From the very beginning, he always told me he never had anything in writing and he just trusted Gibson to do what they said they would do. That was his mistake, and therefore the whole thing is his fault. Should he be compensated? YES. Is it his fault if he does not get compensated? YES. Al also refers to the Frehley burst as "my guitar", as though he still owns it. Yet, his listing on Uncle Lou's web site states the guitar was sold, and Al told me privately how much he sold it for. So why does he refer to it as "my guitar" to this day? Did the sale fall through?

Gibson had two press releases for this run. The first one was a NAMM press release in January 2015 before the guitars were released and it stated that Al and Ace worked together closely with Gibson to get the guitar exactly as it should be, and it said the guitars are Murphy aged. Then Al did not get paid. So he threatened a law suit. The run's release was delayed about 6 months because of this.

I submit that many of the guitars were already built before Al got mad, and they were built to the specs of Al's original burst. But to cover themselves from a lawsuit, Gibson changed the wording of the press release to say that the guitar was built to Ace's memory (which anyone who is familiar with Ace knows he himself states he remembers nothing from that time because he was too drugged / drunk). And Sweetwater had the old press release on their web site for months after the guitars had been selling. The only thing that is really different is the aging; Gibson left off a few scratches. And the guitars were aged in-house, not by Murphy. But they did a great job on the aging. You can even check Gibson's web site. They posted the output of the pickups, and I confirmed with Al when the guitars came out that those readings match his original burst.

Al states in the original post that the guitars are nothing like his guitar. Yet, I have private communications from him stating that he played signed #20 at a guitar store and stated "Felt like mine for sure...Sounded close too". And I have a video of him shredding on the guitar. Doesn't sound consistent with what he stated in the original post. So in my opinion, the guitars are exactly as they were intended to be, except for a few scratches in the aging.
WOW...

Thanks for posting that John.

That pretty much sets the record straight on the situation.
 

Truth011

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
301
Reaction score
237
[QUOTE="JimmyAce2006,


Al contradicts himself a couple of times. First he says he had a contract, then he says he didn't. From the very beginning, he always told me he never had anything in writing and he just trusted Gibson to do what they said they would do. That was his mistake, and therefore the whole thing is his fault. Should he be compensated? YES. Is it his fault if he does not get compensated? YES. Al also refers to the Frehley burst as "my guitar", as though he still owns it. Yet, his listing on Uncle Lou's web site states the guitar was sold, and Al told me privately how much he sold it for. So why does he refer to it as "my guitar" to this day? Did the sale fall through?

John, I was posting my reply just as yours came through so I didn't have your information yet. You obviously believe that Gibson had Romano's guitar to make the run. Do you have any concrete information other than Al Romano's word?
 

Shadow Explorer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
240
Reaction score
236
Hmmm found him on wiki.
Among other things, it reads:
Promoter[edit]
Romano is a vintage guitar collector.[4] Among his collection are guitars of Jimi Hendrix, Ace Frehley's 1959 Les Paul, Eddie van Halen, Leslie West, Hello Kitty, Eric Clapton, and others.

Seems like a sad dude already, he has all of these guitars and none of them is actually his....
 

JimmyAce2006

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,029
Reaction score
5,932
[QUOTE="JimmyAce2006,


Al contradicts himself a couple of times. First he says he had a contract, then he says he didn't. From the very beginning, he always told me he never had anything in writing and he just trusted Gibson to do what they said they would do. That was his mistake, and therefore the whole thing is his fault. Should he be compensated? YES. Is it his fault if he does not get compensated? YES. Al also refers to the Frehley burst as "my guitar", as though he still owns it. Yet, his listing on Uncle Lou's web site states the guitar was sold, and Al told me privately how much he sold it for. So why does he refer to it as "my guitar" to this day? Did the sale fall through?

John, I was posting my reply just as yours came through so I didn't have your information yet. You obviously believe that Gibson had Romano's guitar to make the run. Do you have any concrete information other than Al Romano's word?

Absolutely. Al provided photos to one my friends who also happens to be a forum member. Why would you question that? I believe they had his guitar in the digital scanner for about 4 hours.

I can show you the 2015 January Winter NAMM press release that states Gibson and Al and Ace all worked together to get the guitar right. They published a second press release when they began selling the guitars that stated they were made based on Ace's memory. Al was in daily contact with Gibson. The guitars were due to be released in March. That is the same time that Al found out he was not getting any compensation and he threatened to sue Gibson. So many of the guitars were already made by that time.

Check out the January 2015 winter NAMM press release attached. It states that the original burst was replicated “through hands-on study of the original at the generous lending of her current owner, Al Romano. Both Al and Ace collaborated throughout the development of this landmark ’59 and both have authenticated the final results.”


 

chasenblues

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,332
Reaction score
32,247
The original post was posted by Al on his Facebook page a few days ago.
I went to his FB page to look for the post and couldn't find it. Do you think that he removed the post on the advice from his lawyer because of this?

" do not trust Henry at Gibson or VP Rick Gambar, Kevin Van Hammel and those other criminal people at Gibson who were involved in this Ace Frehley 59 burst guitar sham. "
 

jlb32

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
5,201
Reaction score
4,375
I understand that other owners have been compensated but in this case obviously something happened, as Romano was mentioned in the early posts about this guitar.

I seriously doubt Gibson decided to leave out Romano for compensation purposes only. His compensation would be pennies in the overall selling of the model.

I think there may be 2 sides to this whole story and one side we may never hear about from Gibson.
 

Truth011

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
301
Reaction score
237
[QUOTE="Jimmy Ace:

Check out the January 2015 winter NAMM press release attached. It states that the original burst was replicated “through hands-on study of the original at the generous lending of her current owner, Al Romano. Both Al and Ace collaborated throughout the development of this landmark ’59 and both have authenticated the final results.”


[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting this. i had only seen Gibson's press release stating the guitar was made from Ace's memory.
 
Last edited:

mudface

Non-Deadbeat/Non-Prominent
Double Platinum Supporter
Premium Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
7,784
Reaction score
24,636
Absolutely. Al provided photos to one my friends who also happens to be a forum member. Why would you question that? I believe they had his guitar in the digital scanner for about 4 hours.

I can show you the 2015 January Winter NAMM press release that states Gibson and Al and Ace all worked together to get the guitar right. They published a second press release when they began selling the guitars that stated they were made based on Ace's memory. Al was in daily contact with Gibson. The guitars were due to be released in March. That is the same time that Al found out he was not getting any compensation and he threatened to sue Gibson. So many of the guitars were already made by that time.

Check out the January 2015 winter NAMM press release attached. It states that the original burst was replicated “through hands-on study of the original at the generous lending of her current owner, Al Romano. Both Al and Ace collaborated throughout the development of this landmark ’59 and both have authenticated the final results.”


I did not know that this guitar had a mahogany neck with a maple spline......
Are they referring to the maple strip under the fret board that covers the truss rod or like a Fender showing on the neck under the truss rod?.....
 
Last edited:

jamman

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
9,403
Reaction score
7,639
Maybe An "Obsessive amount of detail" means more today ,then it did yesterday ....
Plus ,Human memory is not as reliable as some think it is ....
Plus , As we get older .... What seems to be remembered , isn't always as it was
I'm betting some Age related issues are in play here ...."My guitar" ????
Plus .. With a $1.00 and a dream ( and a Lawyer) you could go far .....

Sellers remorse might have a hand in all of this nonsense ....
seeing what some prices have gone to(vintage world) .. Selling a guitar a few years back
might make you sick today ...
screaming so loud about $$$ you didn't get says to me ...someone short of cash on hand ....
Have Pity ... If he won the case , after the lawyers cut ,, is it worth the time ????
Loose /Loose . Lawyers love these kinds of cases ...

Better to move on, as life's just to short to live in the past . What's done , is done and gone .

If I only hand bought a few Bursts in the early 70's , when I walked past them on Music Row. If I knew what they'd be worth today ... I'd be rich ... Dreams are cheap and easy ...

Now the real question is .. Can we make this a 100 Page Thread , or not ?
 

Norton

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
731
Reaction score
685
You own a "famous" 1959 les paul? Oh you own a BUNCH of them? And a pile of other extremely valuable vintage gear? Ok, so that's some serious discretionary spending right?

I mean you still eat food, and wear clothes, and live in some sort of secure structure with plumbing and heat?

Well then......pardon me, but I'm going to have trouble feeling sorry for you and your way beyond 1st world "problems". Sounds like you and Henry J are a match made in douche bag heaven
 

JimmyAce2006

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,029
Reaction score
5,932
I went to his FB page to look for the post and couldn't find it. Do you think that he removed the post on the advice from his lawyer because of this?

" do not trust Henry at Gibson or VP Rick Gambar, Kevin Van Hammel and those other criminal people at Gibson who were involved in this Ace Frehley 59 burst guitar sham. "

Yeah he has called them criminals many times. Could be libel........
 




Top