is this a fake les paul?

[Retired]

Well, I really enjoyed reading through every post here. I joined the forums to learn more about guitars and have learned more stuff reading the posts then I ever knew. Even parts of the guitar. I always said, I know nothing! like Seargent Shultz of Hogans Heros. Lol I've known since the day I joined that experts abound here. Pippy, capmaster, Milod and a few others amazed me with their wisdom from the start. Sometimes I wonder if I even belong here but I have picked up friends and tend to like these forums more then Facebook. One of the biggest things I've learned from this thread is to keep your mouth shut unless you Know what your talking about! Even I said in two posts, and not knowing much at all that it looked real to me. At least so much, if I was going to buy it, I would have without question. But I agree with what a few others have already said about it going on and on, and Sparky has taken a pretty good beating. If I were an referee, you guys won the debate! Unless your goal is to see how many pages you can all get.

[sparquelito]

That my friend, was a trick question.

 

Your evidence WAS "Hinky logo, bad nut work, and cheap truss rod screws".

 

If this logo is a normal Gibson thing, you HAVE to at least conclude it's more likely genuine than fake, even if you aren't sure.

 

BTW..I predict you will eventually come around and realize you were in error and it's genuine, but I am thinking like 24 pages?

 

 

That is not going to happen, friend Stein.

 

In science, much as in our legal system, whenever a shadow of a doubt remains, you cannot make such a declaration.

 

We remain a hung jury, sir.

11 good men say innocent, and 1 stubborn (clinically-objective) jerk says guilty.

 

I'm not sure why this upsets people so;

Aren't we taught from an early age to question authority, to buck the system, and to resist going along with the popular fads and trends?

 

You people shouldn't be denigrating me and criticizing so;

Rather, you should be celebrating my maverick spirit, praising me, and hanging posters of me on your bedroom walls!

 

:)

 

[Karloff]

I think y'all r nuckin futz!

 

 

On weighing up the scientific evidence available - I think your finding is sound Quap!

 

I concur, indubitably.

[Karloff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY

[pippy]

OK, my last time here. Promise.

 

Firstly, the OP didn't mention that he was even considering the guitar as a purchase; just that he thought the peghead logo looked a bit 'off' and asked for info from those with more experience of the model. I think we can all agree that this has been shown to be fairly common on Gibson guitars over the years and therefore his question was answered in a satisfactory manner.

 

...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...

I think that this, too, has been fairly well covered.

 

I do not recall, to be fair, where I ever claimed to be an expert.... I wasn't aware we even had qualified, credentialed guitar appraisal experts on these boards...

Sometimes, Sparky, it isn't necessary to have a bit of paper listing a formal qualification to be able to discern a self-evident truth.

 

The jacked-up condition surrounding the Gibson logo on a number of older Gibson is definitely common enough, and it is indeed a normal Gibson thing...

So if you accept the logo then that leaves the TRC screws and the nut from your original doubts?

 

Here's a pic of another Les Paul 1960 Classic with swapped-out-for-authentic-plain-Gibson-brand TRC complete with cheap-looking round-headed screws and a replaced nut.

Just for good measure it also has the proverbial 'hinky' Gibson logo and, as if that wasn't enough, a poorly-executed Les Paul MODEL silkscreen into the bargain;

 

 

If Sparky would like to see the serial number then, on this occasion, that can be arranged.

 

...Let's agree that we are free to disagree, and then move on....UNLESS...You would like for me to post a poll, and then everyone can vote on it.

I'd vote for;

 

g. Sparky is a funny, cool guy who writes many very entertaining posts on a wide variety of subjects. He couldn't tell a Les Paul Classic if it were to jump up and bite him on the bum but what does that matter, really?

 

Pip.

[Karloff]

Lol. Sparky you're alright with me. But Pip you know this isn't the end. Lol.

[sparquelito]

Thank you, pip and Karloff.

 

I appreciate your perspectives, your good humor, and your train of logic in that last post, pip.

You have always been a good and fair person.

 

To your points, and I'll try to be brief;

I fully understand that train of logic, and yes, (as I have conceded) the hinky-looking anomaly is common enough.

But it and in of itself is not enough to convince me, especially when the authenticity of the OP's guitar in question was in doubt from the get-go.

(Remember the title of this thread, "is this a fake les paul?".)

 

That set off my red flags, and made me more of a cynic than I probably already am.

 

 

Here's a analogy;

In military aviation, we have come to accept that there are three broad categories of human qualities that go into the making of what we would call a 'good pilot'.

 

* Smart

* Good control touch

and, most importantly,

* Possessing of good common sense and sound judgement

 

I have come to know some aviators, over many years, who were plenty smart, and had the great control touch, but the third element was absent.

(They could pass the check ride oral exam just fine, and flew the aircraft skillfully and smoothly, but, left to their own devices while unsupervised, they did stupid, dangerous things.)

And so they eventually left the career field.

Or got killed, one or the other.

 

All too often the career-assignments guys would assign a half-baked aviator to a position of teaching at an aviation school-house, based solely upon how well their personnel folder looked, how good they looked in their official photograph, and the fact that they had a beating heart and a pulse! (In other words, critical assignment decisions were being made with incomplete information.)

 

 

My own evaluation of whether a guitar is fake or not, similarly, could never be made satisfactorily based upon just one or two visible elements.

If the authenticity of the guitar is in question from the very beginning, you really need to see all the evidence, or else you have to default to the position that the guitar is a fake (as I did), until more evidence is made available.

 

Is that fair, or (as many posters have decreed) am I off-base here?

Or, is there really any harm in being cynical in this particular situation?

Who gets hurt?

:unsure:

[stein]

That is not going to happen, friend Stein.

 

In science, much as in our legal system, whenever a shadow of a doubt remains, you cannot make such a declaration.

 

 

 

 

So then, you can NOT declare it fake either, as both the guitar and the owner are innocent.

 

Same science and ethics should apply to fakes as it does genuine.

 

Can you at least declare you aren't sure it's a fake?

 

This can open your mind.

[stein]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that fair, or (as many posters have decreed) am I off-base here?

Or, is there really any harm in being cynical in this particular situation?

Who gets hurt?

:unsure:

Good question.

 

Yes, I think someone COULD get hurt just as one would buying a fake.

 

The guitar has an owner, and in particular if the owner has the guitar for sale, he gets hurt (potentially) by having his genuine guitar declared a fake, to the same amount as does a buyer of a fake. Possibly even more so.

 

Here's some math: A buyer buys a fake, and pays maybe 500 bucks. Call it at total loss.

A seller has a genuine Classic, worth about 1400 bucks. Thinks it's fake, sells it for 200 bucks.

 

0+500= 500 bucks

1400-200= 1200 bucks

 

Total damage done in difference: 700 dollars more declaring a genuine a fake as oppose to a fake genuine.

 

That's algebra ain't it?

[Karloff]

I love this f'n thread.

[sparquelito]

So then, you can NOT declare it fake either, as both the guitar and the owner are innocent.

Same science and ethics should apply to fakes as it does genuine.

 

Can you at least declare you aren't sure it's a fake?

 

 

Of COURSE I can declare that I'm not sure it's a fake.

(Just as you and the others can declare that you're not sure it's genuine, give the evidence that we were all presented.)

 

But as I have stated a number of times, whenever the evidence is inconclusive, there are things that look wrong to me, and the guitar in question is presented right up front with doubts regarding authenticity, then I will alway failsafe to the 'it's a fake' position. At least until more evidence is presented.

Again, the title of this thread is "is this a fake les paul?".

 

 

0+500= 500 bucks

1400-200= 1200 bucks

 

Total damage done in difference: 700 dollars more declaring a genuine a fake as oppose to a fake genuine.

 

That's algebra ain't it?

 

Arithmetic, technically, but yes your math is sound and your point is valid.

 

I would think that, if I posted onto some fellow's website where he's trying to make a sale, and declared his genuine guitar a fake, that could do that fellow some harm.

I can concede that.

 

But that isn't our situation here.

The original poster was in communications with some un-named third party, and the OP's query was to us here on this Gibson web forum, not on the seller's auction site.

We have no idea who the seller was, where he lived, or what he was even asking for the questionable guitar.

 

I see no harm done, good sir.

 

I can sleep in good conscience this evening.

[BigKahune]

.

^ ^ ^.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw

 

.

[sparquelito]

If only it were that easy, BigKahune.

 

Say, if we make it to 13 pages, do we get some sort of prize, like a Gibson ball cap, or some mylar balloons?

 

[Dub-T-123]

That is not going to happen, friend Stein.

 

In science, much as in our legal system, whenever a shadow of a doubt remains, you cannot make such a declaration.

 

We remain a hung jury, sir.

11 good men say innocent, and 1 stubborn (clinically-objective) jerk says guilty.

 

I'm not sure why this upsets people so;

Aren't we taught from an early age to question authority, to buck the system, and to resist going along with the popular fads and trends?

 

You people shouldn't be denigrating me and criticizing so;

Rather, you should be celebrating my maverick spirit, praising me, and hanging posters of me on your bedroom walls!

 

:)

 

You realize that your "guilty 'til proven innocent" mindset would exclude you from being able to participate in a US jury, right?

 

And since we're going with science and law, and not just your gut feeling, I'm sure we'd all appreciate if you'd review your 12 pages of posts and find us ONE example of a legitimate piece of evidence you have posted which supports your gut feeling. Even one piece of evidence over the entire 12 pages of posts would be acceptable. Can you do that?

[bluesguitar65]

 

 

In science, much as in our legal system, whenever a shadow of a doubt remains, you cannot make such a declaration.

 

 

 

[stein]

Of COURSE I can declare that I'm not sure it's a fake.

(Just as none of you can absolutely declare that it's genuine, give the evidence that we were all presented.)

 

But as I have stated a number of times, whenever the evidence is inconclusive, there are things that look wrong to me, and the guitar in question is presented right up front with doubts regarding authenticity, then I will alway failsafe to the 'it's a fake' position. At least until more evidence is presented.

Again, the title of this thread is "is this a fake les paul?".

 

 

 

 

 

 

So then, here is the impasse: Claiming something as fake is not a "failsafe" position. "Failsafe" would be at the very least, "Not genuine", or better would be "Don't know".

 

Just as in a jury, it's "not guilty" unless proven guilty. Regardless of proven genuine or fake, it can be neither until proven. One declaration is no better than the other. Wether someone comes from the position or "prove my guitar is fake", or "I want to know this is genuine".

[stein]

If only it were that easy, BigKahune.

 

Say, if we make it to 13 pages, do we get some sort of prize, like a Gibson ball cap, or some mylar balloons?

 

No, you can't have a prize until you get it right.

 

If you are able to either see you are not good at evaluating fake/real, or LEARN how to do it, you then may qualify for a prize.

[sparquelito]

I know the legal system fairly well, my good and analytical guitar friends.

 

I have served on a jury twice in my life, and I was jury foreman of one just six or seven years ago.

And, unfortunately, I have a good friend who is a lawyer, and she regales me with tales upon tales of all the justices and injustices out there.

 

This isn't life or death, and nobody is facing a lengthy prison sentence as a result of our speculations;

This is some guy posting to a web forum wanting to know whether a guitar is fake or not.

 

My gut feeling?

Aside from the three bits of physical evidence already discussed ad nauseum, and aside from the name of the thread, 'is this a fake les paul'?

 

Sure, I give it to you.

* The body of the guitar in question is in much better condition than the headstock as far as finish and apparent age. That looks odd to me.

* The speed with which everyone else declared, absolutely and without a doubt, that it was genuine. I'm a non-joiner, so sue me.

* The lack of other critical bits of information from the outset. Asking price, location, serial number, stated age of the guitar, how many owners. Sparse information doesn't make my gut very happy.

 

The three visible items were my scientific foundation, I gave you my gut feeling concerns, and, no matter how long we flog this old nag, nothing is going to convince me to change how I view potentially fraudulent (counterfeit or cobbled-together, phony-baloney) guitars. I am a learning, growing, and evolving human being, and capable of learning and even evolving.

 

But my critical sense of what looks right and what looks wrong is fairly well developed at this age.

And if it might be fake, and I'm not presented with enough evidence to convince me that it's not, then I proceed on the notion that it's fake.

 

[sparquelito]

No, you can't have a prize until you get it right.

 

If you are able to either see you are not good at evaluating fake/real, or LEARN how to do it, you then may qualify for a prize.

 

That's your opinion, and I will fight to the death for your right to express that thoroughly inappropriate (and wrong) opinion, good sir.

 

:)

[Guest Farnsbarns]

This is boring now.

[sparquelito]

This is boring now.

 

 

Thank God.

 

I thought I was the only one who was getting tired of this nonsensical bickering.

 

I do appreciate your having my back on this matter, Farnsbarns.

 

:)

[stein]

 

Sure, I give it to you.

* The body of the guitar in question is in much better condition than the headstock as far as finish and apparent age. That looks odd to me.

* The speed with which everyone else declared, absolutely and without a doubt, that it was genuine. I'm a non-joiner, so sue me.

* The lack of other critical bits of information from the outset. Asking price, location, serial number, stated age of the guitar, how many owners. Sparse information doesn't make my gut very happy.

 

 

 

 

That's your opinion, and I will fight to the death for your right to express that thoroughly inappropriate (and wrong) opinion, good sir.

 

:)

The speed of which it was declared genuine is because of the evidence in the photos, which made it possible to easily and surely conclude it was genuine.

 

The difference here, between you and every other person who was sure, shows that without a doubt, you are not good at judging fake vs genuine Gibson, for sure as far as

Classics. I offer this as PROOF you are in error of your abilities, and that your methods do not result in making good determinations.

 

BUT...if you are capable of learning and evolving, (and it's a wide gap here on this particular subject), then, yes, in my opinion, deserving of a prize.

 

It's a tall order, yes. But given the evidence of your other (non guitar authenticating/dating postings in threads), I believe you to be a stand-out as an individual and capable of this considerable hurdle. Many are not.

[sparquelito]

The speed of which it was declared genuine is because of the evidence in the photos, which made it possible to easily and surely conclude it was genuine.

 

The difference here, between you and every other person who was sure, shows that without a doubt, you are not good at judging fake vs genuine Gibson, for sure as far as

Classics. I offer this as PROOF you are in error of your abilities, and that your methods do not result in making good determinations.

 

BUT...if you are capable of learning and evolving, (and it's a wide gap here on this particular subject), then, yes, in my opinion, deserving of a prize.

 

It's a tall order, yes. But given the evidence of your other (non guitar authenticating/dating postings in threads), I believe you to be a stand-out as an individual and capable of this considerable hurdle. Many are not.

 

 

We disagree on many points, and chiefly that of the notion that I am no good at spotting fake guitars, but I appreciate your civility.

 

Perhaps we can just agree to disagree, and then we can all agree to finally let this thread die now.

It has lost it's entertainment value to the others, and unless somebody wants or needs for there to be some sort of drama or high entertainment shenanigans (and I'm a very inventive writer, trust me, I can go down that road further), this needs to end.

 

 

OKAY, CHANGE OF SUBJECT:

 

I am a long time web forum moderator, and I understand the need for good order and discipline on a website.

Spammers need to be identified and weeded-out.

Abrasive, profane posters occasionally need to be suspended for brief periods of time, especially when they refuse to obey the house rules.

Ugly disagreements need to be reeled-in and contained, etc.

 

It seems to me that what this Gibson Guitar Board mainly seeks to maintain is an aura of credibility, professionalism, and even prestige befitting the good Gibson company name.

 

If indeed some of you feel that my advice to the visiting posters is somehow lacking, or that I am in the habit of handing out bad advice, I truly and with all humility recommend one of a few courses of action for you to consider.

 

* Identify and badge senior, insider posters with sterling technical credentials, and only allow THEM to pass out advice to visitors.

 

* Restrict my posting privileges to harmless comments like, "Gee, that's a pretty SG," or "I sure do love puppies and kitties".

 

* Subject my posts to a Moderator or Admin review before they become viewable by the public at large. (This is actually work-intensive for the Mods and Admins, so I don't feel this is a very practicable course of action.)

 

Or, simply,

*

* Ban me outright, for the good of the web forum.

 

I don't really have much ego regarding my posting here, or on too many other web forums for that matter.

One or two that I owned and maintained, yes.

One of the two guitar web forums where I currently moderate also yes, but only because I have been contributing there for so many years, and have a devoted following there.

 

But here?

I doubt I have even been on here all that long.

In the end, if it is best for forum.gibson.com to get rid of an opinionated cynic like me, then what is best for the forum is what matters most.

You guys pay the bills and keep the plants watered, I only wander in every now and then.

 

Standing by for your thoughtful consideration of this proposal and/or these measures for the good of the boards.

 

Peace and much love,

John Sparkman

Harvest, Alabama

:)

[rct]

I first read it as "I sure do love puppies and titties".

 

rct

[sparquelito]

I first read it as "I sure do love puppies and titties".

 

rct

 

Well, sure.

Who doesn't?

:unsure: