Gibson Artist Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The logo dont look right, is that just a shaky camera, or part of natural wear and tear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 It may have fallen out and you see the results of gluing it back in. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Besides the logo the guitar looks fine to my layman eyes. Looks like moisture may have penetrated it somehow? I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 The guitar looks real to me. Bubbles under the clear coat sometimes occur on Gibsons with time, even under appropriate environmental conditions. They are mostly found around inlays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Real post circa 1994 1960 Classic which has had it's original TRC swapped-out. It's also had either a p'up swap or covers put on the originals. As it has the ABR-1 version of the Tune-o-matic it dates from the mid-period of the model (they were produced from 1989 to 2008). They are usually very, very good guitars. Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Top wrapped, definitely fake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Good grief that logo looks...bad...the S and the joins in between letters (sorry don't know correct term)....surely must have been replaced but how could it have fallen out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson Artist Posted April 29, 2016 Author Share Posted April 29, 2016 Top wrapped, definitely fake! you serious or joking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Top wrapped, definitely fake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 . Genuine Gibson. What you see around the "Gibson" headstock logo inlay is common - the two materials, the wood of the headstock and MOP of the inlay, expand and contract differently to heat and humidity. Over the years this can cause the look your seeing around the inlay. If you're interested, a good tech/luthier can repair that. Here's a pic from venerable GuitarHQ (Home Provide Net) - notice the headstock logo on the right - http://guitarhq.com/gibson.html - scroll down to "General Vintage Gibson Specs" "Pegheads" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted April 29, 2016 Share Posted April 29, 2016 Good grief that logo looks...bad...the S and the joins in between letters (sorry don't know correct term)....surely must have been replaced but how could it have fallen out? Probably it has not been replaced. It happened most likely by chance due to air and/or humidity trapped around the inlay through finishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparquelito Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 If I ever err, I err on the side of caution. In 2016, given the opportunity to pay top dollar for a guitar, a car, a truck, or a motorcycle that is undeniably genuine and real, I will always proceed cautiously, and I may or may not buy. In 2016, given the opportunity to pay top dollar for a guitar, a car, a truck, or a motorcycle that is questionable and hinky in any way, I will always proceed cautiously, and I will never buy. There are plenty more genuine fish in the sea. Just saying.... That headstock logo looks questionable and hinky to me. :mellow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparquelito Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 And it goes without saying, the original poster did not provide: * adequate photos of the back of the guitar and the back of the headstock * the serial number * photo of the serial number * geographic location of the guitar in question * the asking price and * the contact details of the seller (why selling, how desperately wishing to sell, and why do the tiny screws on the truss-rod cover look so cheap and non-Gibson??). :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparquelito Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 And the fit and finish of the nut (and the paint and veneer above and below the nut) look like a 12-year-old Indonesian child glued it in, while suffering from a wicked soju hangover. Fake as a hooker's titters. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I Just saying.... That headstock logo looks questionable and hinky to me. :mellow: And it goes without saying, the original poster did not provide: * adequate photos of the back of the guitar and the back of the headstock * the serial number * photo of the serial number * geographic location of the guitar in question * the asking price and * the contact details of the seller (why selling, how desperately wishing to sell, and why do the tiny screws on the truss-rod cover look so cheap and non-Gibson??). :unsure: Fake as a hooker's titters. :unsure: Read post #4, #5 and #10. These are all correct. The poster didn't ask anything other than fake or real. Asking price, location, price, none of that applies. It's obviously a genuine Gibson, in fact, the "hinky" looking logo only serves to support that. I will repeat what has been said, that this is common for Gibson's. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot like this one shows. I can say this from experience, from the many I have seen, and might add the 3 I have now ('61, '96 and '08) all show this as well. Besides the logo, everything else seen in the photos shows clearly it's the genuine article, so much so, that our own PIPPY is able to identify the guitar fairly close to year without the aid of the serial#. I couldn't, but I can say without a doubt it's a Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I don't have the knowledge you folks have on guitars but it sure looks awfull darn close to my gold top. Except the logo. I'd say it's real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Pity there isn'ta pic of the back of the heah to see if it's got the two pieces of wood on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparquelito Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 The poster didn't ask anything other than fake or real. Asking price, location, price, none of that applies. stein, I am a man of science. And as a man of science, I can only make a judgement or evaluation based upon a complete and compelling body of evidence. True, my strong opinion that this gold top is fake is based upon just a few of the critical elements of such a process, but those few bits are quite compelling; The headstock logo looks poorly copied, the small screws on the truss rod cover look cheap, and the fit and finish around the nut is atrocious. The very best and most complete evaluation would involve holding and examining the guitar in person, but clearly that's out of the question here. Failing that, a purely photographic evaluation would be complete, provided only that we are able to: * see the back of the headstock and investigate the serial number * from there, determine the date of manufacture, and see if that year group of factory Les Pauls shared (with other such guitars) similar anomalies * examine the interior cavities and view the pots, pickups, and wiring and yes, * evaluate the potential for fraud based upon what the seller is asking for the guitar, and the location of the seller's market. Yes, all that applies, because it really does matter. Not looking for an argument here, just offering some sound advice to the original poster. To wit; "At first glance, there are too many questions regarding that guitar's authenticity. Therefore, further examination is recommended, but in the meantime, do not buy that guitar until you are satisfied that it is the genuine article." :mellow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 ...The headstock logo looks poorly copied, the small screws on the truss rod cover look cheap, and the fit and finish around the nut is atrocious... With the greatest of respect, Sparky, there isn't the slightest doubt (in my mind) that it's a genuine Gibson. Headstock logos from the '80s through to the turn of the century were frequently poorly done on the USA-line models. My '91 is a case in point. The small screws on the TRC are cheap. Just the same as on all my own Gibsons, in fact. The fit and finish around the nut? I've had two nuts replaced (steady there) so would ignore this completely in 'authenticity' terms. On the 'plus' side it has the Les Paul CLASSIC silk-screen, an ABR-1, bound fret-ends, 'correct' for the model Kluson posts, narrow (again, correct for the model) peg-head, aged inlays which are unique to the model, the hardware is nickel-plated and - not that it's proof of authenticity of course - it still has it's original hot-stamped and foil-blocked '1960Classic' pickguard. The TRC has been swapped for a regular Gibson USA-style blank version and is of the two-screw variety - not common amongst fakes. NONE of the above is commonly seen on a fake. Some of it never. To have them ALL on one instrument - and specifically a 1960 Classic - is unheard of IMX. One tell-tale sign (to me) is the slightly assymetrical shape of the two sides of the headstock below the 1st and 6th tuning pegs where the h'stock curves first out to a point and then down to form the body of the neck at the nut. Both my '95s are EXACTLY the same and, furthermore, the assymetry is as seen here; i.e. the distance from the 1st tuner to the outside-lower 'point' is slightly longer than is the same distance below the 6th tuner. Not the other way around. Have a look! But, yes, pics of the rear would indeed confirm these points. Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 ... I can only make a judgement or evaluation based upon a complete and compelling body of evidence. ... A reasonable statement . . . . unfortunately you are judging this guitar a fake when you haven't seen a "complete and compelling body of evidence". This suspicion should've been couched as "concerns" or "questions" without claiming the guitar fake. <sigh> I'm asking again - Please don't condemn an instrument as fake unless you're SURE it's a fake. The statement below is much, much better. Thank you. ... At first glance, there are too many questions regarding that guitar's authenticity. Therefore, further examination is recommended, but in the meantime, do not buy that guitar until you are satisfied that it is the genuine article. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 stein, I am a man of science. And as a man of science, I can only make a judgement or evaluation based upon a complete and compelling body of evidence. True, my strong opinion that this gold top is fake is based upon just a few of the critical elements of such a process, but those few bits are quite compelling; The headstock logo looks poorly copied, the small screws on the truss rod cover look cheap, and the fit and finish around the nut is atrocious. The very best and most complete evaluation would involve holding and examining the guitar in person, but clearly that's out of the question here. :mellow: Ah, I see. I misunderstood you were calling it a fake (or rather judging) because of the lack of info and other pics. But yea, it's good to have that stuff. I too, am a man of science. To me, there is only one question, is it made by Gibson, or not made by Gibson? Sometimes, more or less evidence or proof is needed, and in this case, there is more than enough proof, and the rest of the presented evidence backs it up. Where we are coming to different conclusions, is the headstock photo. But I am telling you (and the poster) that I could CONFIRM this is a genuine Gibson based on that photo alone. The only "faults" seen here, which I think are finish cracking, are COMMON Gibson traits. If it was copied, it would not be a poor one, but a very good one to go so far as to even get the "faults" correct, which is unbelievable to me someone would go to such extremes to copy a "Classic" model. There is enough detail in the photo to show the logo, silkscreen, and slightly narrower headstock to see they are accurate, and they belong together. To suggest someone knew to make all these correct, and go through the effort is outside reality for me. And if they were THAT good to be able to copy such an accurate "Classic" headstock, I would think they would copy something else instead. Someone with enough knowledge and skill could certainly make a '59 or some other more desirable and expensive model, but I doubt they would make the effort. I wish I knew how to do photos, because I could show you a '96 Special with a Logo that's checked nearly as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 You can go into just about any music store with vintage Gibsons and see this. It is normal and not an indication of a fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 With the greatest of respect, Sparky, there isn't the slightest doubt (in my mind) that it's a genuine Gibson. Headstock logos from the '80s through to the turn of the century were frequently poorly done on the USA-line models. My '91 is a case in point. The small screws on the TRC are cheap. Just the same as on all my own Gibsons, in fact. 100% right. Here is my 1989 Chet logo that looks horrible. If you had a late 80's Gibson with a great looking MOP logo I would think THAT was fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 stein, I am a man of science. And as a man of science, I can only make a judgement or evaluation based upon a complete and compelling body of evidence. True, my strong opinion that this gold top is fake is based upon just a few of the critical elements of such a process, but those few bits are quite compelling; The headstock logo looks poorly copied, the small screws on the truss rod cover look cheap, and the fit and finish around the nut is atrocious. The very best and most complete evaluation would involve holding and examining the guitar in person, but clearly that's out of the question here. Failing that, a purely photographic evaluation would be complete, provided only that we are able to: * see the back of the headstock and investigate the serial number * from there, determine the date of manufacture, and see if that year group of factory Les Pauls shared (with other such guitars) similar anomalies * examine the interior cavities and view the pots, pickups, and wiring and yes, * evaluate the potential for fraud based upon what the seller is asking for the guitar, and the location of the seller's market. Yes, all that applies, because it really does matter. Not looking for an argument here, just offering some sound advice to the original poster. To wit; "At first glance, there are too many questions regarding that guitar's authenticity. Therefore, further examination is recommended, but in the meantime, do not buy that guitar until you are satisfied that it is the genuine article." :mellow: It's still genuine. I would say that photography always hugely accentuates cracks like these. It's definitely a genuine Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparquelito Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 I'm asking again - Please don't condemn an instrument as fake unless you're SURE it's a fake. The statement below is much, much better. Thank you. . To be fair, BigKahune, I only offered the opinion that it was fake because: * my gut tells me it is so * those three bits of evidence that convinced me that it is fake were compelling on the face of it all and * a few other posters declared definitively that the instrument was genuine, based upon the same (minimal) data and information upon which I was operating! Perhaps we were ALL wrong to declare so emphatically that the guitar was either genuine or fake, give that key and crucial bits of information and evidence were absent from the discussion. But to be fair, and let's admit this much; The original poster simply asked the question, "Is this a fake Les Paul?" A bunch of us obediently answered that question, each in our own way. It isn't as though any of us have done any damage in our declarations. Nobody is being slandered. Nobody's life or reputation is being ruined. Some guy on the internet is either going to buy a guitar or he isn't. :mellow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.