is this a fake les paul?

[Dub-T-123]

Yea, but could you spot a fake case?

..maybe we better keep ol rct around after all He could be head of the case dept in the Gibson forum counterfeit detection agency

[Karloff]

..maybe we better keep ol rct around after all He could be head of the case dept in the Gibson forum counterfeit detection agency

 

Head of the case or head case ... nyuk nyuk. (and I say that with all due respect)

[Rabs]

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.

:)

I think the thing you are overlooking here is the collective experience on this forum... I would certainly call some people on here real experts in the field of spotting fakes and knowing the history of the changes various models of Les Paul have undergone over the years. Especially Pippy, when it comes to the Classic model, theres little he doesn't know.

 

So what we have here is expert opinion... Which counts...

 

And as mentioned.. All the OP was questioning was the headstock, which is in a pretty bad state... And that's been proven to be the case on LPs from that era and beyond... So that's the proof.. Why on earth would anyone try and fake a bad gassed logo, wouldn't make any sense at all. Apart from that as mentioned early on.. Classics usually come with uncovered pups so they have been swapped or covers added and the TRC has been changed to a blank one, two very common mods.

[pippy]

I can't believe we're still discussing this.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

Not much harm done.

Photos of the back of the headstock will prove nothing.

Details of the serial number will prove nothing.

Photos of the interior cavities and the pots and backside of pickups will prove nothing.

Information on the location of the sale and the asking price? Why? What on Earth will that prove?

 

Do you really think that if someone had the skill to replicate all the unique details seen here they'd get the serial number wrong?

 

Yes; there is enough data and information to make a firm declaration.

 

If I was the seller and someone whose complete and utter ignorance of the model in question scared of a potential buyer I'd be pretty pissed-off about it.

 

When a novice asks advice on whether or not a guitar is fake, I always operate on the assumption that the guitar is fake...

When a novice asks advice on whether or not a guitar is a fake I always keep quiet unless I actually know what I'm talking about and let others who do know their stuff answer the question.

 

Multiple-choice time.

 

I would say that I...

 

A. Really know the 1960 Classic series because not only have I read up an enormous amount about them over the years but I actually own some examples and have played sh1t-loads more.

B. Know the 1960 Classic series pretty well because I've played quite a few and actually owned one at some point.

C. Know a little bit about them because I've read a lot about them and could detail the various versions available through the 20 year history of the model.

 

If you answered D.........

 

Pip (who answered A).

 

[sparquelito]

The level of anger and animosity on display is astounding, in my objective opinion.

I am quite surprised at it all.

 

We were all presented the same evidence, and we all had the opportunity to weigh-in on whether the Les Paul was fake or not.

Many of you rendered your opinion that the guitar was definitely, without a doubt, a genuine Les Paul, based upon the same evidence that I viewed.

 

I offered my opinion that the guitar should be considered a fake, based upon the same photographic evidence.

Further, I clarified exactly which bits and pieces on the guitar looked sketchy to me.

Even further, I detailed the items of information that should be provided, if we are to truly determine whether the guitar is genuine or not.

AND I offered to apologize if, after the proper authenticating information was provided, and the guitar turned out to be the real deal and not a fake.

I think that is fair.

Even more important, it's fair and it is objective.

 

Where does my attitude of 'assume it's a fake until determined to be otherwise'?

 

I have been playing guitar for well over 40 years.

I have been in and out bands, performing live for nearly that long.

I have held, played, owned, and fondled many genuine guitars, and I have personally examined many fake guitars.

I have been (and still am) a moderator on other guitar web forums.

People from all around the world have counted on me to be objective, fair, and analytical whenever they ask for a guitar vintage check, a guitar valuation, or a guitar authenticity confirmation.

 

The attitude of 'assume it's a fake until determined to be otherwise' is a sound and time-proven approach.

 

Moreover, it's the approach we should all advise to others whenever the authenticity of a given guitar is in question. (Which this one clearly was, from the get-go.)

 

It's different when somebody posts, "Yeah, NGD, I got this fantastic new (or used guitar)," and there is no implied doubt from the original poster regarding authenticity.

That said, we ALL have a responsibility in those rare cases when some poster presents, proudly, their new beauty, and something looks just a little off, to speak up and ask one or two questions.

 

Note: The advent of internet markets like eBay and Craigslist have complicated this topic enormously.

More and more guitars are bought and sold (sight unseen) from and to perfect strangers.

The market is rife with fraudulent merchandise, and quite frankly, I do wish more of you would learn to be just a bit more jaded and skeptical.

 

There is no down side to it, after all.

[Searcy]

The level of anger and animosity on display is astounding, in my objective opinion.

I am quite surprised at it all.

 

We were all presented the same evidence, and we all had the opportunity to weigh-in on whether the Les Paul was fake or not.

Many of you rendered your opinion that the guitar was definitely, without a doubt, a genuine Les Paul, based upon the same evidence that I viewed.

 

I offered my opinion that the guitar should be considered a fake, based upon the same photographic evidence.

Further, I clarified exactly which bits and pieces on the guitar looked sketchy to me.

Even further, I detailed the items of information that should be provided, if we are to truly determine whether the guitar is genuine or not.

AND I offered to apologize if, after the proper authenticating information was provided, and the guitar turned out to be the real deal and not a fake.

I think that is fair.

Even more important, it's fair and it is objective.

 

Where does my attitude of 'assume it's a fake until determined to be otherwise'?

 

I have been playing guitar for well over 40 years.

I have been in and out bands, performing live for nearly that long.

I have held, played, owned, and fondled many genuine guitars, and I have personally examined many fake guitars.

I have been (and still am) a moderator on other guitar web forums.

People from all around the world have counted on me to be objective, fair, and analytical whenever they ask for a guitar vintage check, a guitar valuation, or a guitar authenticity confirmation.

 

The attitude of 'assume it's a fake until determined to be otherwise' is a sound and time-proven approach.

 

Moreover, it's the approach we should all advise to others whenever the authenticity of a given guitar is in question. (Which this one clearly was, from the get-go.)

 

It's different when somebody posts, "Yeah, NGD, I got this fantastic new (or used guitar)," and there is no implied doubt from the original poster regarding authenticity.

That said, we ALL have a responsibility in those rare cases when some poster presents, proudly, their new beauty, and something looks just a little off, to speak up and ask one or two questions.

 

Note: The advent of internet markets like eBay and Craigslist have complicated this topic enormously.

More and more guitars are bought and sold (sight unseen) from and to perfect strangers.

The market is rife with fraudulent merchandise, and quite frankly, I do wish more of you would learn to be just a bit more jaded and skeptical.

 

There is no down side to it, after all.

 

I'm sorry but if you are unaware that the messed up logo in the op is a pretty standard looking Gibson logo than you're not a Gibson guitar expert.

[MississippiBlue]

[Karloff]

 

Lol ! Thanks MB .

[rct]

I think we should have a fukkin rumble and settle this fake sh1t once and for all.

 

rct

[Karloff]

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

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_KOpJ2bE3o

[MississippiBlue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_KOpJ2bE3o

 

Right on Karloff,

 

[Dub-T-123]

I think we should have a fukkin rumble and settle this fake sh1t once and for all.

 

rct

You're freakin killing me rct!

 

I've been in a blind rage ever since Viceland took over H2 and now there's no more Ancient Aliens on tv

[Dub-T-123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_KOpJ2bE3o

[rct]

You're freakin killing me rct!

 

I've been in a blind rage ever since Viceland took over H2 and now there's no more Ancient Aliens on tv

 

I know man. What a stupid move! Viceland? Bullsh1tland is more like it.

 

rct

[BigKahune]

.

I bet it drops out on page 4.

 

 

.

[sparquelito]

.

I bet it drops out on page 4.

 

 

 

That all sort of depends upon whether or not the original poster provides the rest of the requested information and/or photos, I would imagine.

 

And it does appear that those of you who believe in your heart of hearts that the guitar is genuine (based mainly upon a photo of the headstock), and myself (skeptic that I am) alike, are just beating a dead horse until the rest of the information comes in.

 

I have the patience of Job, so I'm willing to stand by and see what develops.

 

:)

[BigKahune]

.

You certainly have plenty of tenacity. . . B)

 

 

.

[rct]

That all sort of depends upon whether or not the original poster provides the rest of the requested information and/or photos, I would imagine.

 

And it does appear that those of you who believe in your heart of hearts that the guitar is genuine (based mainly upon a photo of the headstock), and myself (skeptic that I am) alike, are just beating a dead horse until the rest of the information comes in.

 

I have the patience of Job, so I'm willing to stand by and see what develops.

 

:)

 

I admire the cut of your jib. I will develop zero concerns for any fake guitar, but I have developed a pretty good respect for those that do care about them. So I may poke in your direction or others, but I'm just poking.

 

rct

[sparquelito]

Why, thank you good gentlemen.

 

I do appreciate the good will and the kindness.

 

Now;

Imagine how many pages we would be up to if the original poster had recently begun dating a new girlfriend, and posted just a few photos of her breasts, and asked us all, "are these fake"?

 

Believe it or not, I'm just as big a skeptic in that arena as well.

 

[capmaster]

...

Imagine how many pages we would be up to if the original poster had recently begun dating a new girlfriend, and posted just a few photos of her breasts, and asked us all, "are these fake"?

 

Believe it or not, I'm just as big a skeptic in that arena as well.

I guess that wouldn't happen, but here's a very finicky task:

 

240 years ago today, on 01 May 1776, Canonical Professor Adam Weishaupt founded the secret society Order of the Illuminati in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. After being infiltrated by officials, among them Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the order was prohibited through several decrees during 1784/1785.

 

Regardless some theories say the Illuminati are still active today. Reality or fake?

[Searcy]

Why, thank you good gentlemen.

 

I do appreciate the good will and the kindness.

 

Now;

Imagine how many pages we would be up to if the original poster had recently begun dating a new girlfriend, and posted just a few photos of her breasts, and asked us all, "are these fake"?

 

Believe it or not, I'm just as big a skeptic in that arena as well.

 

 

That's the second time you have mentioned fake boobs in the discussion.

 

Is there something you need to get off your chest?

[jdgm]

Regardless some theories say the Illuminati are still active today. Reality or fake?

 

Fake IMO. Even if active they are mostly a ceremonial order now or more like Freemasons.

 

Light or heat?

[sparquelito]

I guess that wouldn't happen, but here's a very finicky task:

 

240 years ago today, on 01 May 1776, Canonical Professor Adam Weishaupt founded the secret society Order of the Illuminati in Ingolstadt, Bavaria. After being infiltrated by officials, among them Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the order was prohibited through several decrees during 1784/1785.

 

Regardless some theories say the Illuminati are still active today. Reality or fake?

 

My guess is that there is probably a fringe element of the Illuminati still active to this date.

 

 

 

That's the second time you have mentioned fake boobs in the discussion.

 

Is there something you need to get off your chest?

 

No, but I must admit, I am a big fan of smaller, natural breasts, and don't much care for the large, gaudy implanted ones.

I'm old fashioned that way.

 

 

While we are waiting for the information requested of the original poster, I will also share this much:

 

 

* I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter that day in Dallas, though he was influenced (but not controlled) by the Cubans.

 

* I don't believe in wearing brands all over your person, generally speaking.

Riding Harleys, playing Gibsons, driving a Corvette; they are just pastimes or hobbies, not a way of life.

There's no need to advertise 24/7.

(I don't ride Harley Davidsons or drive Corvettes by the way, though I do love Gibson guitars. I am fond of old dirt bikes and enduros, and I favor all wheel drive trucks and cars.)

 

* Life is too short to drink cheap beer or bad whiskey.

:unsure:

[capmaster]

...

While we are waiting for the information requested of the original poster...

My guess is you're secretely trying to buy this guitar.

 

If I considered that, one thing I would want to know is if the pickups are original with just covers added, and which way they were attached. The pictures tell that the neck pickup is "R" spaced, the bridge pickup "T" spaced, and that would match the stock hot ceramic 496R/500T pickups. The 500T comes with three magnets, and soldering covers to the base plate as usual deteriorates the outer magnets' field strength through heat.

 

 

* Life is too short to drink cheap beer or bad whiskey.

:unsure:

I don't drink any beer or whiskey. Cheap coffee and cola do it for me.

[Rabs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_KOpJ2bE3o

Theres no argument too big that cant be solved with a Monty Python sketch :D