Max Baranet

[nuance97]

I know a 50s original goldtop is alot cheaper than that and where my money would go on second thoughts I'd be having a lovely holiday

The price is nuts

Same

 

[GBLEV]

Not that it’s particularly relevant, but Gibson didn’t really “reverse engineer” anything…they just picked some wood that vaguely resembled the Slash/Max guitar, carved the neck to the same (or very similar) profile, and painted it in some similar shades. It was otherwise any other run-of-the-mill Custom Shop LP.

Just for the record, Gibson did not make a Slash/Max guitar, but rather a Slash/Derrig guitar.

 

[nuance97]

Just for the record, Gibson did not make a Slash/Max guitar, but rather a Slash/Derrig guitar.

In any case…it was just a historic with a similar top and paint job…not some unique reverse engineered one-off

 

[GBLEV]

In any case…it was just a historic with a similar top and paint job…not some unique reverse engineered one-off

I agree, and the same with the Slash goldtop that came out a few years before that one. Nothing special about them other than they have the Slash tag and Slash pickups.

 

[ARandall]

Is this supposed to be an example of Max's attention to vintage accuracy??? If I was going to cough up a lot of $$$$, I'd want at least accurate flame to vintage, as well as the right inlay swirl pattern.
And that horn is looking a little funky with the photo angle too.

 

[cmjohnson]

I don't care how good your replicas are, if you're putting Gibson's headstock and name on it and selling it, you're in violation of the law and you are legally, morally, and ethically in the wrong to do so.

If you do it and the guitar never leaves your possession until it's time for your inheritors to inherit, I have nothing to say about that. But straight up replicas made to sale? That's just wrong no matter how amazing the workmanship is. If you're that good you should have your own brand on the headstock anyway. (Like I do...regardless of whether or not I'm that good.)

I know, it's hard to come up with good looking and distinctive body and headstock shapes these days. There are only so many ways to alter a basic shape and have it look like something. I think we all have to contend with that.

Legally, Gibson ALONE has the legal rights to use their headstock, their trademarked body shapes, and their logos. Nobody else. Whether or not you (or anybody else) should be using them isn't even a question. Of course not, unless you have a notarized letter from the President of Operations for Gibson that grants you the authority.

I agree with Chris, no new built guitar is worth 30,000 dollars. I'm not even sold on the idea that a "vintage" instrument can be worth that. The vintage market is not something I really have much common ground with. I can't worship a guitar because it was made in 1959 or was played even by a personal guitar hero of mine.

I figure that if I were to build my own branding and reputation for ultimate quality by building a run of great guitars that sold out quickly and had people begging for more, I'd feel like a heel if I ever asked more than 7500 dollars for literally any guitar I could possibly build with no constraints on time or materials. I just don't see any solidbody electric as being worth more than that. I know the materials and parts cost and the labor commitments. 7500 is extreme profiteering even at that level.

 

[mdubya]

C'mon. This is a capitalist society. He started building replicas at a time when Gibson did not. He was answering demand. And for many years, what he built was closer to the real thing than Gibson could or would build. And for that reason, his guitars now have historical value.

Supply, demand, profit where other could not.

He never built a Firebird X and tried to pass it off as a real Gibson.

Morals and ethics? In capitalism?

 

[cmjohnson]

A GOOD capitalist respects the IP rights of others.

Incidentally, my biggest complaint about the Fireturd X is that Gibson tried to con us into thinking it was a guitar worthy of the Gibson name. (Plus I hate everything it was about, trying to "modernize" an instrument that doesn't need any of that.)

 

[LtDave32]

Enough of the damn soapbox speeches.

This is not for the Luthier's Corner.

Next time I see this sort of "editorial", I'm going to take measures to ensure I don't see it again.

 

[Shelkonnery]

Regardless of our economics system, it’s not like Baranet was advertising his replicas all over the place. It’s a very closed circle based on recommendations, commissions and trust. And the price already has a “really, you’re gonna make me do it, aren’t you?” fee. So it’s pretty clear that all parts involved are aware of what’s going on.

And honestly, if his replicas have been mistaken for Bursts, it says more about the acclaimed gatekeepers experts than it does about Baranet.

 

[boogieongtr]

I've owned 4 Max guitars, they all had the COA from Max with the notary seal like stamp. I sold them about 12 years ago.

 

[dspelman]

I guess you could detail out a Picasso--Canvas=$30. Tube of black paint=$12. Bottle of wine to give the Farmer for making the bull stand still =$20. Already owned the brushes. Should be $62.

It gets better, when it comes to Picasso.

Several years ago I was photographing a room set for a large department store catalog. We'd been told by the owner of the location we were renting that we could use any of his artwork collection in our photographs. I had an Austrian stylist who'd found an oval plate with what looked to be a fish skeleton motif, and she was trying to balance it with a brick behind it. It kept slipping, in part because she was one-handing it with a cigarette in the other hand (also against the location rules). When the owner came by, she doused the butt, and he commented, "Cool -- you're using my Picasso plate!"

"What? Picasso?"

"Yeah. Picasso would finish his lunch, press the leftovers of his fish into the wet clay of a plate, sign it, then fire it up and charge ten grand for it. I won't tell you what I had to pay for it."

And then he wandered out, leaving us all with bugged-out eyes and a whole lot more care handling that stupid plate.

 

[dspelman]

I nearly bought one of Peter's "kits" -- for some years after he'd told everyone he'd sworn off building replicas, there were still a few bodies and necks that he made available for anyone who wanted to complete their own. I had recommendations for finding bits and pieces and for a painter who would do a period-correct paint (and very light relic) job. Given everything, it would likely have made some of the experts sweat a bit. And I've played several of his completed guitars (and about 30 different serial numbers of original '59 bursts). And I'm still far from an expert, but I probably would have purchased one of his replicas at the time if he were still making them.

Later, I was up at Rumble Seat Music when they were still in Ithaca, NY. They had two original '59s -- one was the raunchiest thing you'd ever seen (looked like an alligator had donated to the finish) and the other was near-perfect, an under-the-bed survivor with almost no fading at all. I was interested in the pretty one and nearly traded a vintage Italian sports car for it and a Travis Bean I liked. I backed out of the deal, kept the car (still have it) and the burst went elsewhere. I decided I didn't want to be a caretaker after all.

These days I still have access to a few originals (thanks to some friendships made), but I'm a lot less interested in them or excited to play them. I've never understood why Gibson can't/won't build a few Max-quality replicas; the crap they offer never comes close. There are guys building bang-on replicas in their garage workshops in Israel, but Gibson can't manage it. WTF is that all about?

 

[mdubya]

It gets better, when it comes to Picasso.

Several years ago I was photographing a room set for a large department store catalog. We'd been told by the owner of the location we were renting that we could use any of his artwork collection in our photographs. I had an Austrian stylist who'd found an oval plate with what looked to be a fish skeleton motif, and she was trying to balance it with a brick behind it. It kept slipping, in part because she was one-handing it with a cigarette in the other hand (also against the location rules). When the owner came by, she doused the butt, and he commented, "Cool -- you're using my Picasso plate!"

"What? Picasso?"

"Yeah. Picasso would finish his lunch, press the leftovers of his fish into the wet clay of a plate, sign it, then fire it up and charge ten grand for it. I won't tell you what I had to pay for it."

And then he wandered out, leaving us all with bugged-out eyes and a whole lot more care handling that stupid plate.

Quite a fish story.

 

[cmjohnson]

Do me a favor and don't quote my posts if they're already the subject of attention by a moderator or staff member.

I'm sure nobody here who makes guitars under his own brand name, with his own unique designs, would appreciate finding out that there's some Chinese company making ripoffs of his models.

 

[LtDave32]

Since the rest of you can't seem to take the direct request to end the arguing, I'll have to do it myself.

Thread closed.

If I see it pop up elsewhere, there will be a problem.