Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

JohnnyReb

Members
  • Posts

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JohnnyReb

  1. As far as I am aware, the originals in the 1930s were made with Indian Rosewood, not Brazilian.

     

    My AJ is great! I had wanted one for a long time. Then one day four years ago I walked into Guitar Center and they were blowing them out for $1500! They had three of them. I played all three and chose the best one. I even had a $50 off coupon, so got it for $1450! I still love the guitar!

     

    I agree with the above post that the "Historic Collection" is just a marketing thing and the guitar is probably no different than any other AJ.

     

     

    No sir the originals were Brazilian rosewood, just like the D28. Gibson only made roughly 300 AJ then and was the first rosewood dread for them. The OJ ( original jumbo) was mahogony

  2. It's and AJ. Mo more, no less. Prices vary, but bursts tend to net more than nat'l tops. They can be found in the 14-16 range, sometimes for less, depending on how eager the owner is to depart from it. They tend to go up for re-sale a lot, not sure why , but I;m guessing its mostly (A disappointed Martin D28 fans who want more more low end rumble and (B disappointed J45 fans who dont like the long scale and the deeper bass.

     

     

    That hasn't been true around here at all. I live in the Nashville Tn area and it is VERY rare to see a used AJ for sale. I got mine used 9 months ago and haven't seen another one for sale since. But different area and different people. It makes a difference I suppose.

     

    Op.... Yea it's just a plain AJ. Gibson is all over the place about that sorta thing. Some are reissues, some historic collection, ect. A marketing thing I suppose. Mine is a 2010 and it just says Advanced Jumbo on the label. They are pretty close to the original 1937 model no matter what you call them minus the Brazilian rosewood. Somebody once said something about making a AJ true vintage like the J45TV....but the AJ is already about as true vintage as it gets.

  3. Pretty one dimensional thinking. Spending money/time on the problem may or may not include expensive legal action. There's other more economical strategies to pursue like letters from corporate attorneys to media companies advertising counterfeits. Let me refer you to Vincent's comment quoted below. I don't believe Gibson wants links so they can add them to Santa's naughty list - do you?

     

    Trademarks are wisely protected by their owners to protect their brand - that can easily translate into money. This comes up often here on these Gibson forums, and Gibson always wants the info.

     

     

    I don't call it one dimensional thinking, it's reality. This guy is a small fish in a mud hole. And this " counterfeit" guitar is being referred to like its a hot 100 dollar bill. Not the same thing. We're talking about copyright infringement here. This guy isn't responsible for any copyright infringement. Did he make the guitar and use Gibsons trademark for a logo? I think not. If I were producing them in my garage and labeling them with a trademarked logo without permission, there would be a problem. The producers of the instrument who use the logo are the responsible party. And since there in china what do you do?

     

    Media companies advertising them, I agree. But here is where the money comes into play. A company making profits of advertising and selling trademark violations. This would also be a responcible party and I would expect Gibson to legally pursue them. A trademark lawsuit=money....and preventing monies made off their name. Going after a small fish in a mud hole, joe blow in the local trailer park with a Gibson copy doesn't fix the problem or gain anything. Plus it wouldn't be very good customer relations to try to intimidate individuals.

     

    I'm not trying to beat the drum in defense of the guy. I just give him benefit of a doubt that he got suckered into it by somebody, and now he's trying to sell it and at least being honest about it. The fact that he has possession of it doesn't make him a criminal, it's not a crack rock rolled in a counterfeit Ben Franklin. The producers of the instrument, and the party responcible for distributing them to a unknowing public is the guilty party. Forming a lynch mob after a individual person just trying to sell a guitar isn't solving the problem as far as Gibson is concerned.

     

    However, to be UN ONE demonsional I think the guy does have a responsibility to contact Gibson and provide information about where it come from originally. This helps track down the real problem here. If he knowing bought a fake, and sold it as the real deal, well I'd say he was a peice of you know what. And some of you may be correct in saying him selling it is illegal. May be. I'm just trying to make the point that it won't help to pursue a individual nobody and throw him behind bars. A good investigator knows the small fish lead to the big pond.

  4. Illegal or not, do you really think Gibson is going to spend time and money on legal fees and lawyers to pursue some guy for selling a fake he acquired for 400 bucks??? If he were selling hundreds of these and making thousands of dollars, yes. But the burden is on Gibson here to pursue this. If you call the local pd and say somebody is selling a fake Gibson there not going to break this guys door in and arrest him. It is up to the violated party to press charges.I think the fish is way to small for Gibson to be concerned about it and spend time and money to prosecute this guy. Trademark violations are about money, and there's none to be made here

     

    I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a college degree in criminal justice and some legal system studies. I also have a law enforcement background, but it just wasn't for me. I learned real quick that the system wasn't about taking criminals off the street, it's about making money

  5. I actually emailed the guy about this. He stated that he found out it was a fake from calling Gibson to verify the serial number. They told him it was a counterfeit. He said Gibson was unconcerned about it and told him to get rid of it if he wished. My guess is the guy bought it and got scammed. This is the real problem with these things. At least he is honest enough to say its fake, a lot of novice guys probably would never know

    • Upvote 1
  6. Well I love the tone of the Hummingbird, both vintage ones and the current versions and have played many very good ones. But this one just was not what I heard in many other birds, especially TV Birds. The guitar needs to be balanced, you cant have the three top strings sounding bright and sparky while the bottom three sounding dead and lifeless.

     

    I also played that guitar pretty hard afterwards, but it just actually sounded even worse as teh contrast bettween the top and bottom was even greater. Played some bluegrass strumming and the top end just rung out like hell, while the bottom end was just totally dead. I mean its impossible to get anything out of those bass strings.

     

    When I have time I might get back in there and ask the boys to try out a new set of strings.

     

    btw: if you have time please take a listen this recording of BobbyB's rendition of Bron Y Aur Stomp and listen to the bass notes (hope you dont mind Bobby). They still have the classic Gibson 'thump' but the tone is much richer and projected, unlike the spaghetti tone that comes out of the bass notes on this particualar Bird'

     

     

     

    Fair Enough sir. I was kinda worried you would take take my posts as being a little aggressive. not meant to be at all [biggrin] Glad you took it all in good humor. Keep us posted I'm curious as to what a string change will bring. Maybe a jangly set of 80/20s will wake it up

  7. Maybe...But I don't know that the 'typical' HB sound is so dark.

     

    I think what he is referring too is that "wet noodle" tone that a lot of guitar seem to have. I don't think THAT sound is typical of any particular type or model.

     

    I have heard this on a lot of higher-end new Martins as well.

     

     

    Well I can't disagree with that. Another thing that came to mind was the OPs playing style. But nobody else said anything so I didn't either. I'm fairly confident a heavy handed bluegrass picker like me Could pull a little more sound out of it. Not knocking his playing at all, but sometimes a new tight guitar needs a little extra oomph

  8. It sounds like every other Hbird I've played. Which is why I don't own one. I dont think there's a thing wrong with it, it's just not your cup of tea or mine either. I've always felt the same way about j45s too. Which is largely why I wrote off Gibson when looking for my first high end guitar. After owning a few Martins a stranger introduced me to a Advanced Jumbo and I was hooked! But anyway, I never thought anything was wrong with the Hbirds I played or j45s, just not my ear flavor. But ALOT of people do like it. So if it appears to be fine and the strings are fresh, maybe it's just that you flat out don't like a hummingbird.

×
×
  • Create New...