Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Les paul classic fake?!


turtle

Recommended Posts

.

The seller says all original except the pups, but the knobs should be gold, not amber, but they could've been changed. The TRC should have "Classic" on it, possibly changed.

 

Other than that, nothing jumping out - it looks okay to me.

 

Appears to be in good shape for a 25 year old LP. Price seems a tad high.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

The seller says all original except the pups, but the knobs should be gold, not amber, but they could've been changed. The TRC should have "Classic" on it, possibly changed.

 

Other than that, nothing jumping out - it looks okay to me.

 

Appears to be in good shape for a 25 year old LP. Price seems a tad high.

 

 

.

Serial#, tuners, binding, gibson on headstock look a bit off. Headtock seems thin width wise?? Something seems off. And yes it's high$$. My gut is if it looks off don't get it. But he really likes it and don't wanna scare him off a guitar he wants is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Looks genuine to me. The transition from headstock to neck looks odd but those kind of things are often just due to lighting in the pix. I think the logo is OK despite the angle making look perhaps a little skewed. I think the knobs have been replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serial#, tuners, binding, gibson on headstock look a bit off. Headtock seems thin width wise?? Something seems off. And yes it's high$$. My gut is if it looks off don't get it. But he really likes it and don't wanna scare him off a guitar he wants is all.

 

"Serial" - that's how Classics are numbered and that one is a low 3 digit number - they have their own formula: 0 xxxx = 1990 - http://www.gibson.com/Support/Serial-Number-Search.aspx

 

"Tuners" are correct for 1990 Classic.

 

"Binding" is correct for that all-gold model.

 

"Gibson headstock script inlay" - as Farns mentioned - the pic angle is a bit odd; and the inlay has separated a bit, but it looks okay to me.

 

"Headstock deminsions" look okay to me.

 

"Something looks off" - again, most of the pics are taken at angles which can skew the appearance of the shapes.

 

If you're still concerned, wait for some other responses.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points jumped out on me in an instant. To make sure, I compared the guitar in question to pictures of guitars I know of they're legit. I feel free to mention them oddities openly here: The truss rod cover is definitely too wide - perhaps to hide two more screw holes? - and the spacing of the machine heads is too small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks perfectly fine to me.

 

Serial; tuners; binding; logo all look fine.

The knobs originally fitted on my '91 were amber. I think the ones on the Bullion are original.

 

Peghead width is fine, too. The early 1960 Classics had a narrower than usual peghead.

Here's a snap of my '93 R9 (right) compared with the '91 1960 Classic mentioned earlier;

 

Front.jpg

 

Furthermore it will be noticed that the 'Gibson' logo is just as crap as the one in the ad...

Check out the shape of the traps; they have sharp-points. Not even the re-issues had sharp-point ends at this time - only the 1960 Classics.

 

The original TRC would indeed have had the Classic script but other than that it looks 100% original.

 

As far as Cap's concerns about the distance between the pegs goes I think it's a visual effect due to the narrower head.

 

Lastly; £1,200 might seem steep to those of you in the US but it's been years since an early 1960 Classic could be had that cheaply in the UK.

Both of mine cost quite a bit more - and one of them very much so.

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points jumped out on me in an instant. To make sure, I compared the guitar in question to pictures of guitars I know of they're legit. I feel free to mention them oddities openly here: The truss rod cover is definitely too wide - perhaps to hide two more screw holes? - and the spacing of the machine heads is too small.

 

Agree with the TR cover being too wide. Very fishy. Also, the bridge looks too narrow, the tops of the thumb-wheel studs seem too recessed in the bridge (they're normally about flush with the top, and the tailpiece seems an odd shape at the ends.

 

Also, that logo is definitely distorted. If you look at the ends of the tuning pegs they are pretty much straight-on to the camera (if anything they're pointing very slightly below the lense), so the logo should be bang-on aligned with the lense, in which case it shouldn't look like that. JMO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good info by Pippy.

 

I would also say, besides this looking like a genuine Gibson, if it WASN'T a Gibson, it would be a VERY good copy of one.

 

But also, the details and construction add up to being what the seller says it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good info by Pippy.

 

I would also say, besides this looking like a genuine Gibson, if it WASN'T a Gibson, it would be a VERY good copy of one.

 

But also, the details and construction add up to being what the seller says it is.

 

My comments crossed with pippy's. Looks like the logo may be legit after all, but that Gibson QC guy shouldn't be let out again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with the TR cover being too wide. Very fishy. Also, the bridge looks too narrow, the tops of the thumb-wheel studs seem too recessed in the bridge (they're normally about flush with the top, and the tailpiece seems an odd shape at the ends.

 

Also, that logo is definitely distorted. If you look at the ends of the tuning pegs they are pretty much straight-on to the camera (if anything they're pointing very slightly below the lense), so the logo should be bang-on aligned with the lense, in which case it shouldn't look like that. JMO's.

TRC is a regular, genuine, Gibson replacement.

Bridge is an ABR-1. That's what an ABR-1 looks like.

Logo is typical of the time.

 

Trying to help is noble, Hawkesman, but if you don't really know what you are talking about you could put a buyer off a genuine Gibson with ill-informed scare stories.

Worse still from the viewpoint of the seller you might put off potential buyers. This is wholly unacceptable.

 

Please read up much more about the instruments before you call something out as a fake.

 

BTW; No offence intended to yourself, I assure you, Hawkesman. This reminder is for everyone who would like to help; and we do need people who would like to help others from buying counterfeit instruments.

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments crossed with pippy's. Looks like the logo may be legit after all, but that Gibson QC guy shouldn't be let out again!

Much of that is due to age.

 

Firstly, there is no "proper" placement and alignment of the logo on a Gibson- only what is typical for that era. They can be a little crooked, a little high or low. In particular of "vintage" Gibsons.

 

One thing to know about these guitars, how they were/are made, is the headstocks have a veneer, and some filler around the MOP logo, with also a nitro clear over it. These materials will shift and crack over time, and will not look "clean" after many years. BUT- that's one way to tell a genuine Gibby, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. Much help. I think the angles of Geetar are throwing me off. I'll have my friend ask him send more pics. Cheers all.

Turtle👍

More pics?

 

I know some above may have said the pics are bad or throwing things off, but I personally feel that the seller has done a good job of taking pics of everything, and the guitar is clearly visible.

 

I do believe in "more pics" as a general rule, especially if there is something specific you want to see IF you are wanting to actually buy, or if needed for authentication. But there comes a point where it's wasting ones time, and sellers who DO a good job on pics can get a little put-off when people keep asking for pics and efforts on their part.

 

Not trying to tell you what to do, but just making a point the seller HAS shown enough pics to show the guitar is authentic, and it clearly is authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRC is a regular, genuine, Gibson replacement.

Bridge is an ABR-1. That's what an ABR-1 looks like.

Logo is typical of the time.

 

 

But these were precisely my points of concern. The TRC doesn't look original, because it isn't (even if it is a genuine later replacement); the logo quality is the poorest I've ever seen on a Gibson (although I accept, from what you've demonstrated, that it is not unique, and that it is the real thing); I've never seen a ABR-1 bridge where the tops of the studs are set so low down. I've seen them set a bit lower than a Nashville, to be sure, but not that low. I accept, however, that it is not as narrow as I thought on first viewing.

 

I certainly didn't call it a fake, but was just pointing out what were, to my eyes, some perceived incongruities. As I said in my post, JMO's. Regards, H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guitar looks legit to me. There is no better expert to ask than Pippy on this sort of matter.

 

To some the logo will look a bit off but if it's like the logo on my 89 Gibson Chet that's just because of how they were done then. On my Chet there is a huge blocky MOP inlayed into the headstock. Then the detail of the Gibson logo is masked off. Once painted the masking is removed reveling a rather funky looking "Gibson" logo. They didn't do this long thankfully.

 

ev1a3dltcdmeiv4mlrre.jpg

 

 

p5_uyxyqj53d_ss.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

But these were precisely my points of concern. The TRC doesn't look original, because it isn't (even if it is a genuine later replacement); the logo quality is the poorest I've ever seen on a Gibson (although I accept, from what you've demonstrated, that it is not unique, and that it is the real thing); I've never seen a ABR-1 bridge where the tops of the studs are set so low down. I've seen them set a bit lower than a Nashville, to be sure, but not that low. I accept, however, that it is not as narrow as I thought on first viewing.

 

I certainly didn't call it a fake, but was just pointing out what were, to my eyes, some perceived incongruities. As I said in my post, JMO's. Regards, H.

 

Pippy's point is that if you have little or no knowledge of a model, as you obviously have (not attacking you here, but it is obvious) there's really no point in sharing your thoughts on it if others who do know already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

As far as Cap's concerns about the distance between the pegs goes I think it's a visual effect due to the narrower head.

...

Pip.

This is what made me think - two headstocks compared, front and back views:

 

ev1a3dltcdmeiv4mlrre.jpg

 

Gibson_2002_Les_Paul_Classic_Light_Burst_Fab_Gear_Headstock.gif

 

pchlix4vya4vgknsvyr8.jpg

 

Gibson_2002_Les_Paul_Classic_Light_Burst_Fab_Gear_Back_Headstock.gif

 

It's the spaces between the machine heads, not a trick of the light or the angle. Could be spec changes or manufacturing tolerances though. Anyway, it makes me feel unsure about the guitar in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what made me think - two headstocks compared, front and back views:

 

ev1a3dltcdmeiv4mlrre.jpg

 

Gibson_2002_Les_Paul_Classic_Light_Burst_Fab_Gear_Headstock.gif

 

pchlix4vya4vgknsvyr8.jpg

 

Gibson_2002_Les_Paul_Classic_Light_Burst_Fab_Gear_Back_Headstock.gif

 

It's the spaces between the machine heads, not a trick of the light or the angle. Could be spec changes or manufacturing tolerances though. Anyway, it makes me feel unsure about the guitar in question.

 

 

 

 

.

I'm not quite sure which spacing you're talking about, but curiously the headstock in that bottom pic doesn't have a Classic serial# - does it?

 

 

.

I am not quite the expert that Pippy is on the Classic, but I can tell you that you are correct in the change of spec, or the way they made them.

 

The EARLY classics DID have a different headstock size and shape than the standard Gibson models when they first came out, and that was part of what distinguished a classic from a standard or whatever. It wasn't until later, when all or most of the regular Gibson LP's went back to a more "origonal" shape did the Classic adopt the same headstock shape as the rest of the LP models.

 

And THAT's what these pics are showing.

 

It might be interesting to note, that if we were to compare ORIGINAL 50's and early 60's LP's that we would see also differences, and the headstocks of the early Classic shown here might seem to some to be closer than what is being made now. That is, taller at the logo part of it above the tuners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...