Every now & then there is something special about a Guitar JJ & you're lucky you have that special one.
Well in that case, I've got a burst I can sell you.....I'll part with it for, say, eh, 75k! Seriously.....I know it's only January, but I think Adinol just won dumb post of the year.
.I think it does? Can you say *chibson*, for instance? The point being,there is a market value already attached to authenticity. Demonstrated,real. We all work within this value system.Like it or not.It does matter.
You're not going to make many friends here with a statement like that but I do agree on a certain level. However it really does matter on several levels regardless of whether you or I think it shouldn't. We just use that theoretical example as a way to rationalize for ourselves that spending that kind of money for a guitar is foolish while having no skin in the game. That equation works very differently when you do have skin in the game.
I agree with you totally on those points, this video was made to be a generic over-view. The "nitpicking" was thoroughly unwarranted. I've known Tyler for a long time, and ECG is a first class Vintage operation and authority. I've been a Luthier since the late 70's, started as a Production Lead (supervisor) at Fender until the late 80's and then opened a warranty repairs and vintage restoration shop for Gibson, Rickenbacker, Guild, Fender, etc. after leaving Fender. Tyler KNOWS his stuff, far more than the "amateurs" that sound off on this forum.
Kindly express your differences in opinion without using insulting words, such as "dumb". We don't know each other.
My point was, I would personally never consider paying 1/4 million or even 75K for any guitar, for the sake of having an instrument. If I had 75k on my disposal I would invest into a Burst, if I knew 100% that it was genuine, but not because I think I would somehow be able to play better music. It would be an investment because I know I would be able to sell it, sooner or later for 1/4 Million, or whatnot. So, there is a difference between making an investment for profit and making the decision to pay extra because the instrument is worth it (not to be confused with the market value, which is like the tulip mania market in the 1600's Netherlands).
Yes, I do understand that. The guitar that Jimi Hendrix set on fire, on stage must be worth thousands, too. The mind set is what I was questioning. It is just the fact that we "believe" it is genuine that drives the price up. Like the Rembrandt painting that I mentioned. If a guitar was believed to be a genuine Burst there would not be a shortage of people that would love that guitar. Then, if one day someone "proved" it was fake many of the same people would not think much of that same guitar. And if one day it turned out to be genuine after all, many of the same folks would live it again.
I don't want to make enemies and don't want to ruffle feathers. Just debating another aspect of the value of these instruments.
Which was precisely the only point I wanted to discuss.
And yes, I do understand how it is important on the level of not being duped. I am actually against counterfeiting and I also would never buy a Chibson or anything o that sort. The main reason being, that I do not want to encourage counterfeiters.
I didn't know about that. Thatn's for sharing. And, yes, it is an example of what I was trying to say.
I have no idea what you are going on about in the second part of your post. Sounds like you are more into psychology talk than instrument talk. There have been plenty of people duped on vintage guitar purchases that were excited to get and play the guitar. Why don’t you ask them how they felt when they discovered they got screwed. I’d venture to say none were of the “oh well, I love the guitar so who cares” attitude. Sorry, but it doesn’t take an expert psychologist to figure that out.
Which is exactly why those of us that see a video named "Vintage Guitar Authentication - 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard "Burst," expect it to have germane Burst content.
fair enough , maybe not guitar collectors but take the case of the New York art collector who decided to keep his $7,000,000 fake Max Ernst painting because he thought it was one of the best he's ever seen.
I think you are correct. It is a psychology issue but it is specifically about guitars and wanting to have specific guitars. There is a lot of psychology taking place when buying guitars because we obviously all love guitars. So, many can get priorities mixed up when making decisions, in this case, about how much to pay.
There is a proverb, you can't cheat an honest man.
You are correct and I believe we all know that. But it is exactly what I was saying. Those people were not looking for an instrument to play. They were looking for something specific. They are tricking themselves into thinking that it is THAT MUCH better than some other guitar they might like for other reasons. So, they love the guitar until they find out it is not genuine.
Not at all. But it does take some debating to figure out what mechanisms are at play.
Wealthy people don't "venture into the unreasonable price range." The price is unreasonable to YOU!
This, and this!
What other choice did he have?
I assume that he bought the painting through a reputable dealer so he could ask for his money back for starters. I'm sure he has competent legal counsel to explain to him exactly what his options are to recover his loss but he chose not to. Wealth apparently can afford you the ability to look beyond the price and how it's affected by authenticity or lack thereof. The painting appears to be worth the price of a real one to him, who's to say there isn't an owner of a fake Burst out there feeling the same way.
Assume is a dangerous word. As far as the last part, you can file that under “anything is possible”, but that is pretty damn far fetched.
