BigKahune

I'm just a poor boy with no legal training, but that headstock sure looks like it's branded "Gibson" to me.

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.

It doesn't matter what the guy says, or what he advertises, or what he says Gibson told him - the item in question is obviously infringing on Gibson's rights by displaying counterfeit/fake trademarked Gibson logos/names. Unless this guy has a documented licensing agreement with Gibson, that's against the law. To be a legal sale, the seller would have to remove the trademarked Gibson names/logos from the guitar. .

. Yes, selling with a copyrighted Gibson logo is against the law, even if the counterfeit guitar is a terrible fake. Wily - I suggest a cool soak for your fried niblets. . B) .

. Some members might recall this issue with J200s has been discussed here at least a couple of times since I joined. J200s should be looked over carefully for this issue before purchase, especially those with four ribbon bridges. In the past I recall someone commenting that Gibson should be setting the 4 ribbon J200s' neck with more back angle than they do to allow for a higher saddle and sharper break angle. .

. Four ribbon bridges have the extra bling factor, and also a longer distance between the saddle and the string holes, making for a more obtuse break angle over the saddle. I have a 2 ribbon bridge on my J200 and the break angle is good. You might have to look at a few four ribbon bridge models to find one with good action and plenty of room (height) left in the saddle. I'm curious to see what Gibson has to say - good luck. Below is a pic so you can get a look at the saddle height on mine -

Yes, I had it for quite a while before I gave up on the tusq, maybe a year. I hung on because I play it amped some of the time and tusq is allegedly one of the best saddle materials for UST usage. After I made the change to bone I liked the acoustic sound so much better and the amped sound was as excellent as ever. As I mentioned, a few months later the guitar sounded even better as it had finally opened up all the way. BTW, a ToneRite was not used in the maturing of my instrument.. :P And I hope that delicacy waiting for you in the fridge turns out to be a feast for the senses. . B) .

. Colosi bone saddle. . . . . . . . . . (Since I was getting the saddle, I ordered bone pins too.. B) ) The bone saddle made a very noticeable difference. It sounded much better. And then to my surprise, a few months down the road the guitar opened up and man it sounds so good now. I made the change after Buc posted about a tusq for bone swap he did that he was very happy with. If you've got a UST, pull the saddle and make sure the transducer and channel are clean and that the transducer is laying flat in the channel. Check to make sure the bottom of the saddle is flat - completely flat, and then set it in the channel making sure it's flat against the transducer and doesn't rock (which would indicate something isn't flat). Sorry to sidetrack your thread EA. . .

Agree - try new strings. Also, I find some new Gibson acoustics sound tight on the low end when compared to the high end on the same guitar, especially with a tusq saddle. I've got a 200 that I swapped out tusq for bone saddle and it sounded much better. Still took a few months to "open up" all the way on the low end. .

"Pretty" ..... except for some of those pesky "special" models like the Les Paul Classic and "centennials", and the move from 8 to 9 numbers in 2005. . B) .

No argument here. I don't think the cause is worry about counterfeits. Gibson's history with serial numbers is a nightmare. They've tried to clean it up since the mid-70s, but they keep sticking in changes for limited/special runs/editions, reissues, commemorative editions, signature editions and Custom Shop pieces. And to make matters worse, the documentation of these 'out of normal format' numbers is lacking to say the least. Unfortunately the community and customers are the last to know what's going on - sometimes by years. .

. Welcome. In case you missed it by his avatar - Stijn is with Gibson C/S. I have a ES Memphis guitar I bought last year - CS05xxxx .

. Gibson finishes its guitars (elec & acoustic) with nitrocellulose lacquer. One drawback is that it's not as flexible as poly, so when temperature and humidity cause the wood to expand and contract, the nitro finish will crack - know as checking or crazing. This is not considered a problem when it appears on old instruments. However, if it is seen on a guitar of recent manufacture, it would be a sign the owner was not careful about the environmental changes (temperature/humidity) the instrument has been subjected to. .

. Wow . . . gorgeous rosewood back on that one. Nice job picking out that rosewood Ren. . .

. None of my original concerns are resolved by these bigger pics. Can't quite make them out for sure, but the pup ring mounting screws look like round-heads - they should be flat-heads. I'm still concerned about this LP being a genuine Gibson - send the pics (2mb limit) and the serial to Gibson.

. I can't see much in those tiny pics. But I have a concern about the guitar being genuine: . The center of the volume knob next to the stop anchor should be slightly below the line the two stop anchors make, and it's not (check the pic below of the legit LP from the Gibson website). Also, I can't quite see if there's wings on the headstock, and the plastic of the control cavity cover appears to be textured. I recommend you email Gibson ( service@gibson.com ) with the serial number and ask for the details of the guitar on record - just to be safe. Maybe someone else will chime in and verify it's legit. . . . <edit> . Maybe not. .

. A nice find - someone in the Lounge posted it. And, if you click through to YouTube you can play it full screen HD. Hope you eye clears up soon. . B)

. I just ran across this in the Lounge - A rehearsal vid which includes HD playback up to 1080p. Among other things, it contains an good look at the headstock very near the start (0:14), as well a a good look at the real depth of the guitar from the side near the end (2:35). Check it out. . . . <edit> . Click to YouTube to watch it full screen HD 1080p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsldsSLO-o

Okay, another one for Larry - from the proper perspective it looks like a Byrdland of normal depth -

Okay - one on the loops, and one on the engraving - yep you can see engraving right where the word Byrdland should be on the tailpiece - case closed. Regarding Craig's comment above - yes, it looks quite like the photo of the 1969 Byrd I posted earlier on the thread. And, apologies to Roger, "malign" was perhaps a bit rough in regards to his comments on Clapton's memory/sobriety.

Here you go. The inlay is clearly NOT a crown, so what are you claiming it is? I see a flower pot. And as I have examined the video more closely for that screen cap - on a computer with good video capability, white printing on the TRC can be made out running from top to bottom, and binding on the F-holes. What I'm seeing is - Clapton has said it was a Byrdland, there's a flower pot inlay, white printing on the TRC that runs from top to bottom, binding on the F-holes, and a tail piece that NOT from a 350 but looking like a Byrdland tailpiece. On top of that, another member has reported a Byrdland with split parallelogram markers - This guitar is a Byrdland.

Here's the link for that info on that pic so you can verify the date for your nice collection of pics = http://www.guitarcenter.com/In-Store-Vintage-VINT-1969-GIBSON-BYRDLAND-NAT-104061098-i1721711.gc BTW, that's a beautifully subtle burst on your Byrdland.

. Roger (RogerGLewis) claims Clapton was too out of it to remember what guitar he had. As far as your neck/pup closeness - here's a 1969 with the usual block and flower pot inlays -

Obviously you haven't looked the Bangladesh video JimR posted in fullscreen HD 720 - Open your eyes now. Click to the and play it in full screen 720 HD and take a look. At 4:00 the headstock has a FLOWERPOT inlay and the tailpiece is a Byrdland. . It's a Byrdland!And while people are looking, near the end of the video, check the body depth - It's a Byrdland. . Just as Clapton has said, and he certainly looks straight and sober in the video. No need to malign the guy to fit your incorrect hypothesis. Here's the whole 1959 350 guitar you mention - It's got a crown inlay on the headstock and a 350 tailpiece - http://www.300guitars.com/2011/07/franny-beechers-1959-gibson-es-350t/ -