is this a fake les paul?

[sparquelito]

All that said, if you guys need to ban me or suspend my posting privileges for being a heretic, I will fully understand.

 

[Dub-T-123]

The photos show enough to convince me that it's real

 

The hardware (especially bridge) looks like a genuine Gibson or high quality replica. I have never seen a fake that used the correct bridge hardware.

 

The headstock appears to have the correct shape, finish, logo, as well as aging

 

The pickguard has the 1960 emblem indicating it is a classic model, which as stein said is not a particularly desirable model to counterfeit. Considering the finish checking around the logo it is extremely unlikely that a counterfeiter would go to that level of detail for a Classic model when they could easily duplicate a higher priced model with that level of skill

[capmaster]

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.

...

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.

...

Like you I'm a man of science trying to prove right or wrong what my guts try to tell me. Be sure, my statement is based on evidence and experience, and I felt sure to post a definitive opinion without emphasizing anything.

 

Anyway, I freely admit that I can't compete in expertise on that particular subject with lots of other forumites, in particular Pippy whose evaluation is exceptionally well based and covering all the details shown by the pictures provided. Additionally, besides in-depth knowledge of the particular guitar, Pippy is a professional photographer and has an unrivaled ability to judge things by view due to his experience with focal lengths, lighting, and their impact on human perception.

 

All in all I think that Pippy cleared it all up entirely.

[rct]

I am a man of superstition, rumor, and innuendo. Hows the case for that thing?

 

rct

[Dub-T-123]

I am a man of superstition, rumor, and innuendo. Hows the case for that thing?

 

rct

[stein]

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:

Well, here again, not to be on your case about it (although I am...but not because you are rude or a bad guy), but this what you say just isn't according to reality.

 

"Science"...so to speak...lol.

 

Our "gut" isn't proof or evidence of anything, although one could state a gut feeling.

 

Those 3 bits of evidence you used to determine it was a fake caused you to make the wrong determination because you have your facts and/or knowledge wrong (Doesn't make you a bad guy, or stupid in any way, ONLY that you are in error).

 

Those that declared the instrument was definitely genuine did so BECAUSE the info was there to accurately determine that. It isn't minimal, it's abundant. (Again, read above, in particular PIPPY's contributions).

 

As a man of science, you should appreciate that you were in error, both in your determination and the fact you clearly stated it was fake as a fact rather than an opinion. Errors do occur in science, and even from those with higher intelligence and/or ethics.

[stein]

I am a man of superstition, rumor, and innuendo. Hows the case for that thing?

 

rct

You are also a man of irony, contradictions, and humor, able to contribute high levels of comedic value demonstrating a prowess of knowledge and ignorance that can only come from an abundance of intelligence or extreme effort of brain usage.

 

Completely logical and wise you would ask about the case, as I think the standard cases for that era were generally better built and highly regarded.

[capmaster]

I am a man of superstition, rumor, and innuendo. Hows the case for that thing?

 

rct

Dang! Your post made my day!

[capmaster]

You are also a man of irony, contradictions, and humor, able to contribute high levels of comedic value demonstrating a prowess of knowledge and ignorance that can only come from an abundance of intelligence or extreme effort of brain usage.

 

Completely logical and wise you would ask about the case, as I think the standard cases for that era were generally better built and highly regarded.

What should I say - I agree completely!

[rct]

You are also a man of irony, contradictions, and humor, able to contribute high levels of comedic value demonstrating a prowess of knowledge and ignorance that can only come from an abundance of intelligence or extreme effort of brain usage.

 

Completely logical and wise you would ask about the case, as I think the standard cases for that era were generally better built and highly regarded.

 

Those were all nice things to say I think. Maybe. But really, I wouldn't know a fake from three feet away. Seriously. That's how much I don't care. My guitars are all real, that's all I know and all I care about. Like me, everyone else is on their own, you just have to work it out for yourself when confronted with something you aren't sure about. I know what makes a guitar real from three companies, so I'm good.

 

I honestly think it is because I come from a time that with the exception of the guitars brought back from The Nam, you never heard of a fake guitar from the three companies. But when you did run into a sailor or soldier with one, it was always funny! Copies, yes. Fakes, no.

 

rct

[BigKahune]

All that said, if you guys need to ban me or suspend my posting privileges for being a heretic, I will fully understand.

 

Absolutely no need for suspension or banning. I apologize if I was heavy hand in my comments. Your opinion is fine and you made some valid points. It's just that you've run into the face of a defacto rule here - you shouldn't claim fake unless you're sure. Instead it would be better to note concerns or questions which can be explained or debated. In this case, you learned something about the headstock logo inlay you apparently weren't aware of, and you also looked at items which many owners change or replace. While you may need to see everything about a guitar to decide it's authenticity, there are folks here who can identify a Gibson counterfeit by seeing one incorrect item. Similarly, there are folks who can tell a guitar is genuine by seeing just a few items - because they are well acquainted with the errors Gibson counterfeiters make. This may change in the future if counterfeiters work to improve their products.

 

 

.

[Dub-T-123]

Those were all nice things to say I think. Maybe. But really, I wouldn't know a fake from three feet away. Seriously. That's how much I don't care. My guitars are all real, that's all I know and all I care about. Like me, everyone else is on their own, you just have to work it out for yourself when confronted with something you aren't sure about. I know what makes a guitar real from three companies, so I'm good.

 

I honestly think it is because I come from a time that with the exception of the guitars brought back from The Nam, you never heard of a fake guitar from the three companies. But when you did run into a sailor or soldier with one, it was always funny! Copies, yes. Fakes, no.

 

rct

Well boy do I have a good deal for you. I have Gipson Les Paul Custom $200 Chickenbacker 360 $250. You buy now!

[jdgm]

Well boy do I have a good deal for you. I have Gipson Les Paul Custom $200 Chickenbacker 360 $250. You buy now!

[lol]

 

Mr Dub build you killer atomic pedal, you step on, BOOM! No BS!

 

[sparquelito]

Just to be clear, the entire body of evidence on THIS particular guitar has yet to be presented.

 

Photos of the back of the headstock.

Details on the serial number, and confirmation that similar Gibson guitars of a similar vintage all shared the same jacked-up anomalies that I have detailed.

Photos of the interior cavities and the pots and backside of pickups.

Information on the location of the sale, and the asking price.

 

On this alone, I stand by my assessment that this is probably a fake, and I reject the knee-jerk chorus of voices that declare definitively that this particular guitar is genuine.

 

NONE of us have enough data or information to make such a firm and declarative statement.

 

If and when the appropriate evidence is presented, and it is determined that I was wrong, then I will humbly concede that I was wrong.

But I respectfully decline the notion that I am somehow wrong (based strictly upon my earlier postings and the evidence to date), and that I need to be chastised.

 

If I am wrong, the original poster fails to buy a guitar that might have been real.

Not much harm done.

 

If YOU are wrong, the original poster buys a guitar at top dollar that might turn out to be a fake.

A LOT of harm done.

 

Original poster?

Please pony-up with the requested photos and details.

It is only by that means that this little disagreement can be settled.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Retired]

1462027718[/url]' post='1765471']

 

 

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.

 

Stein. We need to be friends! I love it when I'm not the only one here that still can't post photos. I try and try. Just never works for me and I've studied and tried so many times. Guys tell me how and it seems I'm doing everything correctly. Just doesn't work. Has to be this computer. I'm also amazed at you experts that see all this stuff. I went back and examined that guitar very closely, blowing it up. Still can't see where you folks see bubbles and cracks and lines and nut problem. Lol I mean, I am amazed you guys can see this stuff. Guess I can see stuff like in paintings and such I grew up with. And when I got my first LP I called Gibson service and gave them model and serial numbers of my Gold Top and they looked it up and told me where it was made, What year it was made, Les Paul Standard Gold Top, 60's slim taper neck profile, no warranty on used instruments, back in 2007, the MSRP for this model was $3,448.00. Regards, Bob Burns, Gibson Cistomer Service. I paid, $1,454.66 for it and it was actually new mint condition, no signs of being played. Bought it Summer of 2013. Thought I got a great deal on it.

[stein]

Those were all nice things to say I think. Maybe. But really, I wouldn't know a fake from three feet away. Seriously. That's how much I don't care.

 

Copies, yes. Fakes, no.

 

rct

 

 

Well boy do I have a good deal for you. I have Gipson Les Paul Custom $200 Chickenbacker 360 $250. You buy now!

Yea, but could you spot a fake case?

[Guest Farnsbarns]

Just to be clear, the entire body of evidence on THIS particular guitar has yet to be presented.

 

Photos of the back of the headstock.

Details on the serial number, and confirmation that similar Gibson guitars of a similar vintage all shared the same jacked-up anomalies that I have detailed.

Photos of the interior cavities and the pots and backside of pickups.

Information on the location of the sale, and the asking price.

 

On this alone, I stand by my assessment that this is probably a fake, and I reject the knee-jerk chorus of voices that declare definitively that this particular guitar is genuine.

 

NONE of us have enough data or information to make such a firm and declarative statement.

 

If and when the appropriate evidence is presented, and it is determined that I was wrong, then I will humbly concede that I was wrong.

But I respectfully decline the notion that I am somehow wrong (based strictly upon my earlier postings and the evidence to date), and that I need to be chastised.

 

If I am wrong, the original poster fails to buy a guitar that might have been real.

Not much harm done.

 

If YOU are wrong, the original poster buys a guitar at top dollar that might turn out to be a fake.

A LOT of harm done.

 

Original poster?

Please pony-up with the requested photos and details.

It is only by that means that this little disagreement can be settled.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

But you are wrong so it's a moot point. That guitar in that photo is a genuine 1960 classic. None of the things you mentioned would help to prove or disprove that any further because it's an absolute.

[badbluesplayer]

Just to be clear, the entire body of evidence on THIS particular guitar has yet to be presented.

 

Photos of the back of the headstock.

Details on the serial number, and confirmation that similar Gibson guitars of a similar vintage all shared the same jacked-up anomalies that I have detailed.

Photos of the interior cavities and the pots and backside of pickups.

Information on the location of the sale, and the asking price.

 

On this alone, I stand by my assessment that this is probably a fake, and I reject the knee-jerk chorus of voices that declare definitively that this particular guitar is genuine.

 

NONE of us have enough data or information to make such a firm and declarative statement.

 

If and when the appropriate evidence is presented, and it is determined that I was wrong, then I will humbly concede that I was wrong.

But I respectfully decline the notion that I am somehow wrong (based strictly upon my earlier postings and the evidence to date), and that I need to be chastised.

 

If I am wrong, the original poster fails to buy a guitar that might have been real.

Not much harm done.

 

If YOU are wrong, the original poster buys a guitar at top dollar that might turn out to be a fake.

A LOT of harm done.

 

Original poster?

Please pony-up with the requested photos and details.

It is only by that means that this little disagreement can be settled.

 

Thanks in advance.

Being wrong is not scientific.

[Searcy]

 

I am a man of science.

 

* my gut tells me it is so

 

Don't these two statements cancel each other out?

[capmaster]

Don't these two statements cancel each other out?

I think so, and that's what I tried to express very carefully in my post #28.

[sparquelito]

...and if the original poster provides a photo of the serial number and it turns out to be from a '2010 Les Paul', not a 1980's vintage one, and your headstock icon assumptions are all blown?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

 

..and if the original poster provides photos of the backs of the pots and the pickups, and they turn out to be Indonesian junk?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

You guys can attack me and attempt to discredit me all you like, but until all the evidence is in, I remain a skeptic.

 

Skeptics are occasionally found to be wrong, this much is true.

But they never support some naive guy buying a top-dollar guitar that might later turn out to be counterfeit.

 

 

When a novice asks advice on whether or not a guitar is fake, I always operate on the assumption that the guitar is fake until compelling evidence is presented that demonstrates that it is not a fake.

It's a tried and proven attitude, and I stand by it, because there is no down side to it.

 

The fact is, there are far too many counterfeit Les Pauls floating around the internet, and many more fake Stratocasters.

Better cautious than sad and heartbroken, I always say.

 

:mellow:

[capmaster]

...and if the original poster provides a photo of the serial number and it turns out to be from a '2010 Les Paul', not a 1980's vintage one, and your headstock icon assumptions are all blown?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

 

..and if the original poster provides photos of the backs of the pots and the pickups, and they turn out to be Indonesian junk?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

You guys can attack me and attempt to discredit me all you like, but until all the evidence is in, I remain a skeptic.

 

Skeptics are occasionally found to be wrong, this much is true.

But they never support some naive guy buying a top-dollar guitar that might later turn out to be counterfeit.

 

:mellow:

You may put your mind and your guts at ease. Seriously.

[sparquelito]

You may put your mind and your guts at ease. Seriously.

 

 

Ha ha ha ha, it's all good Cappy.

 

My guts are not in a knot over this, and I certainly won't lose any sleep over holding the minority opinion on some website of opinionated guitar enthusiasts.

 

We are all friends, after all, and I do hope in this case that I am wrong.

But I don't believe that I am, not until all the evidence is presented.

:)

[stein]

...and if the original poster provides a photo of the serial number and it turns out to be from a '2010 Les Paul', not a 1980's vintage one, and your headstock icon assumptions are all blown?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

 

..and if the original poster provides photos of the backs of the pots and the pickups, and they turn out to be Indonesian junk?

Remember, you haven't seen all the evidence, but still your minds are firmly made up.

 

You guys can attack me and attempt to discredit me all you like, but until all the evidence is in, I remain a skeptic.

 

Skeptics are occasionally found to be wrong, this much is true.

But they never support some naive guy buying a top-dollar guitar that might later turn out to be counterfeit.

 

 

When a novice asks advice on whether or not a guitar is fake, I always operate on the assumption that the guitar is fake until compelling evidence is presented that demonstrates that it is not a fake.

It's a tried and proven attitude, and I stand by it, because there is no down side to it.

 

The fact is, there are far too many counterfeit Les Pauls floating around the internet, and many more fake Stratocasters.

Better cautious than sad and heartbroken, I always say.

 

:mellow:

If it DID turn out to be a 2010 model (which it isn't), it would still be a Gibson then?

 

If it turns out the electronics were replaced, and/or the pups, would the guitar then be fake or genuine? What IF you replace the electronics with cheap "Indonesian" stuff? Obviously that doesn't change the origin or builder of the guitar, but HOW then would you determine that?

 

You ARE aware that serial# could be faked, I'm sure. In fact, when it became obvious folks were relying on them to determine authenticity, the counterfeiters simply began using real serial#'s. So what then?

 

I see it one of two ways: we can either just assume genuine Gibsons are fakes when it becomes impossible for all to tell, OR we can look beyond serial#'s, swapped parts, and rely on those with more knowledge/experience/eye for details.

 

The basic question to you is, HOW should we be determining authenticity? What should be the criteria?

[BigKahune]

... When a novice asks advice on whether or not a guitar is fake, I always operate on the assumption that the guitar is fake until compelling evidence is presented that demonstrates that it is not a fake. ...

 

First off, the OP is NOT a novice. He's been around here for years. You have misunderstood this from the beginning. He's simply asking if the "hinky" headstock logo inlay indicates the guitar might be a fake. NO. This is normal and has been explained several times. A coupla pics have been posted showing other incidents of this "hinkiness" on genuine Gibsons.

 

Where did - assume it's fake - come from? Not here. It's innocent until proven guilty. Unless you have compelling evidence, you have concerns to check out - not "probably fake". Have you noticed there's not one other poster that's questioned this guitar outside of Quapman's joke. Stein's last post points at things you need to study on as what to look at and look for when determining a counterfeit.

 

 

.