LarryUK Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Now. I know I'm pedantic and a moaner, but over $6100 for a Les Paul isn't cheap and this series of guitars advertise themselves as exact copies of the 'said' guitar. I've just been looking on the Wildwood site and there are 4 of the below guitar for sale. I thought I'd look at them and was really surprised that NONE of them matched. Yes, None of them were identical to each other. The guitar in question is the Collector's Choice #12 Henry Juszkiewicz 1957 Les Paul. It's like they've matched a few marks and just bashed it then. I must say I really feel that this needs looking at and Gibson should reply on here why these guitars don't match. They advertise as exact replicas and they clearly aren't. They're just bashed up Les Paul's being sold as it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 12, 2014 Author Share Posted May 12, 2014 Eg. Look at the two scratches above the saddle. Totally different places. Which is real? The dent above the neck volume control doesn't match at all. Why? Is it a 'That'll do' 'They'll never know'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPguitarman Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Looks like all of them need major re-finish jobs. Not a fan of making a guitar look old and dinged up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Now. I know I'm pedantic and a moaner, but over $6100 for a Les Paul isn't cheap and this series of guitars advertise themselves as exact copies of the 'said' guitar. I've just been looking on the Wildwood site and there are 4 of the below guitar for sale. I thought I'd look at them and was really surprised that NONE of them matched. Yes, None of them were identical to each other. The guitar in question is the Collector's Choice #12 Henry Juszkiewicz 1957 Les Paul. It's like they've matched a few marks and just bashed it then. I must say I really feel that this needs looking at and Gibson should reply on here why these guitars don't match. They advertise as exact replicas and they clearly aren't. They're just bashed up Les Paul's being sold as it. Hahaaaa! You Brits have way too much time on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Oh my god ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 sixtyone hunnert and no minituner? rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyMoon Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 sixtyone hunnert and no minituner? rct Well for that price you get a mini me to tune it for You.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-BcRv1LXw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 But why does anyone buy these beat up "new" guitars? I just can't fathom it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I'd like to ask a friendly question. Has anyone who has answered in this thread ever have had any reproduction pictures/paintings/posters/artworks/photographs hung up on their walls? All 'Original' artworks or some reproductions? An original Braque is out of the question for 99.99% of the population. A reproduction isn't. This is a 'close' reproduction of an actual guitar; it's no different from a 'close' reproduction of an artwork. Nothing can be an exact replica. I had a reproduction print of Karsh's portrait of Humphrey Bogart on my wall when I was a photography student. It is a fantastic photograph. It was, believe it or not, an inspiring image to see every day. It made me want to take Great Photographs too. I didn't pretend it was a real Karsh print. Nor, I suspect, do the buyers of these instruments pretend that they have anything but a 'close' reproduction of a '57 G-T. Perhaps playing these (very probably) wonderful instruments will inspire the fortunate owners to apply themselves to the task of becoming 'better' players. It would for me if I owned one. No one is being killed. No-one is being cheated. I couldn't care less if they brought out ten of these editions every week. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4Hayden Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Oh my god ... Couldn't have said it better myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 The term "exact replica" is the point I think. They're not. Well, the buyers don't care, and I also don't as I don't buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 sixtyone hunnert and no minituner? rct They offer these for retrofitting, too, but you would have to bash them yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 No one is being killed. No-one is being cheated. I couldn't care less if they brought out ten of these editions every week. P. True dat. Good ole Pippy,, always the voice of reason. Whilst I don't understand the ridonkulous relic thing I don't really care what people want to spend their money on. I think it's stupid and I will never buy one. But someone must be buying them cuz them keep beating them up and putting them up for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 Gibson say that the strip the guitars down, photograph and measure them to get them exact. Well these aren't exact. So how do they do it? Surely they have a clear template of the top? I know there's a lot of joking here. But over 6k for something that isn't an exact replica is fraud in my book. I'd like a Gibson representative to comment here? Why is there such a difference? Is is 'that'll do and no one will notice'? because it looks that way. I'll be checking some others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 3 backs of the Tom Sholz edition. Why do they not match? I'd like to see the original one as there is a bit of deception going on here. Surely on the back they can get an exact match with a template? It looks like they just look at a pic and bash away to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 Look at the vol/tone cover. There is a dent at the bottom of it. A bit of one on the top pic. Virtually none on the second and a real dent on the third. No uniformity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 Right. Two headstocks. Are they from the same model or different ones? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted May 13, 2014 Author Share Posted May 13, 2014 Tom Sholz model again. Just a random pick of two headstocks. You can see that they're supposed to be the same, yet SO different. This model is more expensive than the first set of pics too. $6650. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'd like to ask a friendly question. Has anyone who has answered in this thread ever have had any reproduction pictures/paintings/posters/artworks/photographs hung up on their walls? All 'Original' artworks or some reproductions? An original Braque is out of the question for 99.99% of the population. A reproduction isn't. This is a 'close' reproduction of an actual guitar; it's no different from a 'close' reproduction of an artwork. Nothing can be an exact replica. I had a reproduction print of Karsh's portrait of Humphrey Bogart on my wall when I was a photography student. It is a fantastic photograph. It was, believe it or not, an inspiring image to see every day. It made me want to take Great Photographs too. I didn't pretend it was a real Karsh print. Nor, I suspect, do the buyers of these instruments pretend that they have anything but a 'close' reproduction of a '57 G-T. Perhaps playing these (very probably) wonderful instruments will inspire the fortunate owners to apply themselves to the task of becoming 'better' players. It would for me if I owned one. No one is being killed. No-one is being cheated. I couldn't care less if they brought out ten of these editions every week. P. Interesting argument but the only part I can agree with is: "Perhaps playing these (very probably) wonderful instruments will inspire the fortunate owners to apply themselves to the task of becoming 'better' players." And if it were to do that then the purpose of buying such a guitar (in my eyes) would be served. As it happens I also paint although my painting may very well be no better than my guitar playing so what adorns my walls and would likely horrify forum members to view but if that didn't get them the assault on their ears would. But I like looking at paintings and so do have some prints by famous artists. I buy them to look at. I buy a guitar to play rather than look at, although yes, I do find some guitars things of visual beauty in addition. But it is not my purpose to buy to look or even simply hold. It is that part of it that I don't get re the whole "relic'ed" trend - why buy a beat up guitar at a higher price than the standard price for the model. But as you suggest Pippy the rationale for buying becomes comprehensible if the psychology of the purchaser is "inspired" by ownership. I still wouldn't want such a guitar in preference to a VOS but I can understand someone who hopes the "mojo" of the original owner / artist will somehow inspire them to greater things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 This reproduction photograph you had did you pay $6000 for it? I am guessing No. Your guess is correct, FZ Fan. Happily I understand why reproducing a photograph is not the same thing as reproducing a Gibson Les Paul and why the latter will cost more than the former. P. EDIT : At the moment the only reproduction photograph I have framed on the wall is one taken by Herbert G. Ponting on the 1910 - 13 Antarctic expedition. It was part of an officially sanctioned edition printed to match the original print and produced from the original glass plate negative. 20 years ago it cost around £400 ($675). A quick google shows that this is approx £700 ($1100) in today's terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Scales Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'm not getting it I'm afraid. I mean, these are 'replicas' of someone's actual guitar right? - so surely the second that 'someone's' original guitar gets a new scratch or knock its not going to be identical anyway... so I can't see that it matters cos there is no such thing as an exact replica. People might buy these for the reasons listed or other - maybe they just love the look of it, maybe they own an original and this is something similar they can use each day - I don't know or care, cos its their business and their money. As for the value - that could be spare change for some people and years' of wages for others - and probably what will be charged for a new LP standard in 10-15 years time (maybe with new improved mini-tune) when maybe these will be worth more (or not) - what somethings worth is unique to the individual. $6K in this case - OK there's probably a lot of people that would accept $854,000 for a house they advertise at $860,000 - thats $6K too - and you didn't get a nice Les Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Mac Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'd like to ask a friendly question. Has anyone who has answered in this thread ever have had any reproduction pictures/paintings/posters/artworks/photographs hung up on their walls? All 'Original' artworks or some reproductions? An original Braque is out of the question for 99.99% of the population. A reproduction isn't. This is a 'close' reproduction of an actual guitar; it's no different from a 'close' reproduction of an artwork. Nothing can be an exact replica. I had a reproduction print of Karsh's portrait of Humphrey Bogart on my wall when I was a photography student. It is a fantastic photograph. It was, believe it or not, an inspiring image to see every day. It made me want to take Great Photographs too. I didn't pretend it was a real Karsh print. Nor, I suspect, do the buyers of these instruments pretend that they have anything but a 'close' reproduction of a '57 G-T. Perhaps playing these (very probably) wonderful instruments will inspire the fortunate owners to apply themselves to the task of becoming 'better' players. It would for me if I owned one. No one is being killed. No-one is being cheated. I couldn't care less if they brought out ten of these editions every week. P. Spot-on! If people weren't buyin' 'em, they wouldn't be makin' 'em! As much as I despise road-worn/reliced/aged/distressed faux used guitar looks, I happen to like the Collector's Choice series. I like their VOS options which are shiny new glossy guitars they way a new guitar should be! I want a CC#1 in the worst way! I've seen reviews on this line of guitars and everyone I've ever seen review them say they are the pinnacle of reproductions and every one that is tried plays like a 1-in-a-million dream... From several very reliable sources too! A) I can't even hope to ever own a real '59 burst or '56 GoldTop... B) a reissue is probably the closest I'll ever get and that seems like a distant dream to me... and C) if I ever hit the lottery I might take a stab at a Collector's Choice because I know it'll be the highest quality, and best playing guitar I can buy... It's a rare and lucky Reissue that falls into the category of perfection that routinely comes in these Collector's Choice models. But a simple reissue can be found that is nearly as good if not exactly as good, but this particular line comes that way in nearly every piece... You don't have to buy the faux used/abused finish, and if you don't like it why waste your time complaining about it... (of which I've found myself quite guilty of too) It's a free country, it's still a free-market capitalist society and culture here, and we should thank God that it is because when it's gone we're gonna lose out on a whole lot more than just Collector's Choice aged guitars... No need ta be hatin' on 'em, just find what U love and be lovin' on those! To each their own! Isn't the plethora of choices wonderful?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 ..I can understand someone who hopes the "mojo" of the original owner / artist will somehow inspire them to greater things... I rather suspect that the reason many aspiring guitarists choose one model over another is due to this very point, pin. How many lads of my generation bought a Les Paul because of Jimmy Page? How many lads of a more recent generation bought a Les Paul because of Slash? How many SGs have been sold because of Angus Young? Tony Iommi? How many folks bought a Strat because of Jimi Hendrix/Rory Gallagher/Ritchie Blackmore/Mark Knopfler? My stance in this debate is pretty much that of 'Devil's Advocate'. I've never bought a deliberately pre-beat-up guitar - nor am I ever likely to do so. I've never been one for idolatry and the prospect of having a LP as close as possible to, for example, J.P.'s #1 doesn't hold any fascination for me. But I can fully understand why some people will get a genuine thrill in having such an instrument - and that goes for all the CC range. And it's not just the 'Spotty Herberts' amongst us who covet these sorts of replicas... In the 'Top-wrapping is an old idea' (or whatever) thread there is a picture of Marc Bolan with his LP. Gibson released an Artist's Sig issue based on a version of this guitar a year or so ago with 100 getting the 'aged' treatment. I know that many players would love to have bought one of these guitars. I believe one person who did buy such an example was Joe Walsh... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Hm... I don`t like this aging thing. However, when it comes to an iconic guitar, made immortal by a legend I admire (AND in case I had the funds) I would buy one - for the display case. But in that case, I`d expect it to be a perfect replica. I wouldn't insist on this particular model's authencity down to the slightest detail, since - with due respect to Mr. Juszkiewicz - He is not among my heroes/idols. (At least not as a guitar legend.) I can imagine two of such guitars: the Randy Rhoads Custom and the Melvyn Franks (Green/Moore) Standard. I think, the customers of this range, are either think that way, or just collect replicas of iconic instruments, for sake of collecting. Nothing wrong with either. There's demand, so there is supply. Keeps the company going, and building guitars, we - mortals - can afford. (Until Gibson decides to relic all guitars made - it is OK as it is). Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I rather suspect that the reason many aspiring guitarists choose one model over another is due to this very point, pin. I believe one person who did buy such an example was Joe Walsh... P. You are of course correct. I remember writing in another thread recently that I purchased my first Gibson (ES345)not because of some famous guitar player but because I used to watch Terry Newman of the East London group "Powerpack" play one. Terry, of course, ended up with one of Paul Kossoff's Les Paul's before selling it on. So I was "inspired" in my guitar choice by another player and in that I am not any different from a great many others. And I might say what is good enough for Joe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.