Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Classic fake?


nmorales30

Recommended Posts

Hi, It is supposed to be a classic 2008, but why the serial number only has six digits?

 

gibson_les_paul_gold_top_reissued_1960_D_NQ_NP_749516_MLV26086061482_092017_F.jpg

 

Classics have six digit ink serial numbers instead of stamped like most modern LP.

 

EDIT: mine has a five digit (mine’s a 95) and I just read some also have six or even 4 digit (I don’t know if that’s true or not, I’ve never seen one with a 4 digit number) serial numbers.

 

Apparently Gibsons started putting “Made In The USA” on them later, mine doesn’t have that stamped on it.

 

Without seeing more of the guitar I can’t tell if it’s fake. From fakes I’ve seen they often use the same serial numbers so I’d do a search and see if that number has popped up on fakes before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What looks “hinkey” about it to you?

 

The serial number.

 

Look.

I have been participating in guitar web forums, and even moderating on a few other guitar web forums, for many years now.

 

When somebody comes in from the get-go with the question, "Is this guitar fake or not", I begin operating from the assumption that it's a fake.

Until the evidence accumulates to the point that it demonstrate that it's not.

 

 

The serial number looks weak and decidedly non-Gibson-like.

That is all.

 

If the guitar is a genuine article, nobody will be happier than I.

 

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The serial number.

 

Look.

I have been participating in guitar web forums, and even moderating on a few other guitar web forums, for many years now.

 

When somebody comes in from the get-go with the question, "Is this guitar fake or not", I begin operating from the assumption that it's a fake.

Until the evidence accumulates to the point that it demonstrate that it's not.

 

 

The serial number looks weak and decidedly non-Gibson-like.

That is all.

 

If the guitar is a genuine article, nobody will be happier than I.

 

:unsure:

 

I wasn’t challenging you dude, I was genuinely curious what seems fake about it to you. People ask if guitars they’re considering buying are fakes all the time. A lot of counterfeits out there these days.

 

Just from a pic of the back of the headstock I can’t tell a fake from a real one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The serial number.

 

Look.

I have been participating in guitar web forums, and even moderating on a few other guitar web forums, for many years now.

 

When somebody comes in from the get-go with the question, "Is this guitar fake or not", I begin operating from the assumption that it's a fake.

Until the evidence accumulates to the point that it demonstrate that it's not.

 

 

The serial number looks weak and decidedly non-Gibson-like.

That is all.

 

If the guitar is a genuine article, nobody will be happier than I.

 

:unsure:

 

I just pulled out my 95 Classic for reference and it has a 5 digit serial and no “made in USA” stamp.

 

I have no idea if Gibson changed that later or not though. I’ll have to find some pics of later Classics and check out their headstocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just pulled out my 95 Classic for reference and it has a 5 digit serial and no “made in USA” stamp.

 

I have no idea if Gibson changed that later or not though. I’ll have to find some pics of later Classics and check out their headstocks.

 

 

I went on an internet search of similar-vintage Gibson Classics (2008, similar to the original posting), and examined the back-headstock photos carefully.

 

I must say, the photo provided by the original poster doesn't resemble those of any of the other items found there.

 

The missing links here are photos of the front of the OP's mystery guitar.

There might be a lot of clues to be found there.

 

In the end, if you held a gun to my head, and made me declare, "Fake" or "not a fake", based strictly on the original photo, I would vote "Fake".

 

[crying]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Looks correct to me. The same ink stamped type serial as found on reissues. The wings make it look genuine as well. I'd be very surprised if it were a fake.

 

Photos of the front would help though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's real. There is absolutely nothing "hinkey" about it whatsoever.

 

It's all very well having an opinion but if you don't know for sure one way or the other - and clearly, Sparky, this means you - it would be better to simply keep quiet.

If you don't know why you think it's a fake then don't say you think it's a fake. Just say YOU DON'T KNOW and wait until someone who knows what they are talking about can give out the correct information.

 

Just to clarify the numbering system used on the 1960 Classics;

The "1960 Classic" model was introduced in 1989. Guitars made in 1989 have a serial number 9 XXX. The 9 stands for 1989 and the XXX would be the serial number of the instrument. There were fewer than 1000 examples made in '89 which is why there are only four digits in total. After 1990 they were stamped with a 5-digit number; the first was the last digit of the year of manufacture and the rest were the serial number, hence Allan's '95 will be 5 XXXX. In 2000 the numbering system was changed to a six-digit version where the first two digits were the last two digits of the year of manufacture so the guitar in the OP was made in 2008.

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's real. There is absolutely nothing "hinkey" about it whatsoever.

 

It's all very well having an opinion but if you don't know for sure one way or the other - and clearly, Sparky, this means you - it would be better to simply keep quiet.

If you don't know why you think it's a fake then don't say you think it's a fake. Just say YOU DON'T KNOW and wait until someone who knows what they are talking about can give out the correct information.

 

Just to clarify the numbering system used on the 1960 Classics;

The "1960 Classic" model was introduced in 1989. Guitars made in 1989 have a serial number 9 XXX. The 9 stands for 1989 and the XXX would be the serial number of the instrument. There were fewer than 1000 examples made in '89 which is why there are only four digits in total. After 1990 they were stamped with a 5-digit number; the first was the last digit of the year of manufacture and the rest were the serial number, hence Allan's '95 will be 5 XXXX. In 2000 the numbering system was changed to a six-digit version where the first two digits were the last two digits of the year of manufacture so the guitar in the OP was made in 2008.

 

Pip.

 

 

Pip,

 

I find your attitude vaguely confrontational and antagonistic, but I forgive you, good friend.

 

To be clear, my response about the hinkey serial number had nothing to do with the number of digits in the serial number, nor any other notions that the digits were somehow period-incorrect.

That wasn't the point.

 

What looks hinkey is the fact that the digits in the original poster's photography are weakly-applied and fading off.

I did an internet search and examined the serial numbers applied to similar or identical models of the same year of Classic Les Pauls, and those serial numbers were strong, solid, and showed no signs of fading or wearing-off.

 

I just looks fishy that the numbers on this particular guitar, one that the original poster admittedly found questionable, would fade away like that.

 

And, again, when the original poster queries, "do you think this thing is real or fake", and they present precious little photographic evidence other than the back of a headstock?

I must fail-safe to the 'assume it's fake' position.

Until further compelling evidence is presented.

 

I apologize if my position wasn't clearly-enough stated (re; serial numbers fading away versus somehow-wrong), but I am comfortable offering the OP the same advice, and I stand by it.

 

I value your opinions, and I value your internet friendship, mate.

 

You say tomato, and I say tomahto, and in the end, the world isn't going to end if one of us is wrong.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Pip,

 

I find your attitude vaguely confrontational and antagonistic, but I forgive you, good friend.

 

To be clear, my response about the hinkey serial number had nothing to do with the number of digits in the serial number, nor any other notions that the digits were somehow period-incorrect.

That wasn't the point.

 

What looks hinkey is the fact that the digits in the original poster's photography are weakly-applied and fading off.

I did an internet search and examined the serial numbers applied to similar or identical models of the same year of Classic Les Pauls, and those serial numbers were strong, solid, and showed no signs of fading or wearing-off.

 

I just looks fishy that the numbers on this particular guitar, one that the original poster admittedly found questionable, would fade away like that.

 

And, again, when the original poster queries, "do you think this thing is real or fake", and they present precious little photographic evidence other than the back of a headstock?

I must fail-safe to the 'assume it's fake' position.

Until further compelling evidence is presented.

 

I apologize if my position wasn't clearly-enough stated (re; serial numbers fading away versus somehow-wrong), but I am comfortable offering the OP the same advice, and I stand by it.

 

I value your opinions, and I value your internet friendship, mate.

 

You say tomato, and I say tomahto, and in the end, the world isn't going to end if one of us is wrong.

 

:)

 

I think your approach is fine, as long as you say that in the post in which you say it looks hinkey. I've seen loads of stamped serials where the stamps looks a little weak so it doesn't worry me, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your approach is fine, as long as you say that in the post in which you say it looks hinkey. I've seen loads of stamped serials where the stamps looks a little weak so it doesn't worry me, personally.

 

I didn't make myself clear the first go-round, this much is true.

 

I will endeavor to do better, Farnsbarns.

 

 

There was a lot going on in the house last night, and brevity was the order of the evening.

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip,

 

I find your attitude vaguely confrontational and antagonistic, but I forgive you, good friend...I value your opinions, and I value your internet friendship, mate...

My apologies if I came across that way, Sparky; it certainly wasn't my intention and I, likewise, very much enjoy and value your own contributions here so we're all good.

 

msp_thumbup.gif

 

I understand your point of view as regarding trying to make folks aware of the possibility of fakes but I still maintain the viewpoint that unless anyone has a genuine, fact-based reason built on actual knowledge, to doubt the authenticity of a guitar then it's better to be completely non-committal. There are plenty of folks hereabouts who can spot a fake with near-100% certainty so, IMO, it's probably best to let those people respond in the first instance.

 

This, too, probably comes across as arrogance - and so I apologise in advance to save some time(!) - but it's not meant to be so; just I would always much rather facts and knowledge held sway over supposition and guesswork.

 

msp_smile.gif

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all good, Pip.

Thanks for the genuine and heartfelt response.

 

I will try to do better in the future and avoid definitive statements when it comes to matters of either opinion or 'counterfeit' declarations based upon sparse information.

 

Truth be told, had the OP provided the original back-stock photo, a full frontal photo of the guitar, and a close-up of the front of the headstock, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

In that case, I probably would have said something like,

 

"You know, everything looks genuine and in good order here. It is troubling that the serial numbers are wearing off so, compared to other Classics from the same year, but that's not an indictment of the authenticity of the guitar. Good luck with the negotiations, and let us know what you find out."

 

 

I'm off to work now.

Have a great day, good sir!

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pip,

 

I find your attitude vaguely confrontational and antagonistic, but I forgive you, good friend.

 

To be clear, my response about the hinkey serial number had nothing to do with the number of digits in the serial number, nor any other notions that the digits were somehow period-incorrect.

That wasn't the point.

 

What looks hinkey is the fact that the digits in the original poster's photography are weakly-applied and fading off.

I did an internet search and examined the serial numbers applied to similar or identical models of the same year of Classic Les Pauls, and those serial numbers were strong, solid, and showed no signs of fading or wearing-off.

 

I just looks fishy that the numbers on this particular guitar, one that the original poster admittedly found questionable, would fade away like that.

 

And, again, when the original poster queries, "do you think this thing is real or fake", and they present precious little photographic evidence other than the back of a headstock?

I must fail-safe to the 'assume it's fake' position.

Until further compelling evidence is presented.

 

I apologize if my position wasn't clearly-enough stated (re; serial numbers fading away versus somehow-wrong), but I am comfortable offering the OP the same advice, and I stand by it.

 

I value your opinions, and I value your internet friendship, mate.

 

You say tomato, and I say tomahto, and in the end, the world isn't going to end if one of us is wrong.

 

:)

 

Why would the guy only posting a pic of the headstock make you think it’s fake? He’s asking if it’s fake not trying to sell it.

 

Why is your “fail safe” “it’s fake”? If I don’t know if a guitar is fake or real my “fail Safe” is “I don’t know”.

 

Like I said, from the pic I didn’t see anything one way or the other that determined fake or not but after doing some quick research nothing stood out as obviously fake about it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2008 Classic Antique has a 9 digit serial number [confused]

That's because it's a 'Classic Antique', Ian; not a '1960 Classic'.

The guitar in the OP is the latter and the numbering system subsequently discussed relates uniquely to this model.

 

msp_thumbup.gif

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

And hey look, my posts have been downvoted Lol.

 

I wonder who could it be?

 

Not me. And I've proved it by voting them all back up to zero for you. They're all quite reasonable so I don't know why they were voted down. Perhaps you irritated someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I don't know why they were voted down...

Certainly someone is acting the mischievous sprite.

Sparky's reply (#15) to my first post was also "minus'd" for reasons known only to themselves so I plussed him back up.

 

The + button can be a useful tool in some ways; the - less so IMO. I doubt I've -'d more than once in the last two years (or however long the system has been back in place).

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...