is this a fake les paul?

[Karloff]

HEY ! HOW 'BOUT THEM O'S ! ? HUH ?

[sparquelito]

HEY ! HOW 'BOUT THEM O'S ! ? HUH ?

 

While we are waiting for the OP to respond;

 

When I served in the Army at Fort Leavenworth, my wife and I and friend would regularly travel down to Kansas City, and sit in Kaufman Stadium and watch the hapless Royals play baseball.

We would usually only go down there when there was a good team in town.

 

One of my fondest memories was when the O's visited, and it was Cal Ripken Jr's last trip to The K as a professional ball player.

The fall or late summer of 2001 probably.

 

The Orioles were a quality ball club, and have generally remained so ever since.

I would love to see them play in Baltimore, but I am a bit spooky about visiting that town in recent years.

 

[Karloff]

While we are waiting for the OP to respond;

 

When I served in the Army at Fort Leavenworth, my wife and I and friend would regularly travel down to Kansas City, and sit in Kaufman Stadium and watch the hapless Royals play baseball.

We would usually only go down there when there was a good team in town.

 

One of my fondest memories was when the O's visited, and it was Cal Ripken Jr's last trip to The K as a professional ball player.

The fall or late summer of 2001 probably.

 

The Orioles were a quality ball club, and have generally remained so ever since.

I would love to see them play in Baltimore, but I am a bit spooky about visiting that town in recent years.

 

 

Getting to Camden Yards is easy. It's right on the edge of town. Easy in, easy out. Plus Babe Ruth birthplace & museum is just blocks away.

My 1st game was in 1970. Got to see Brooks, Frank, Boog ... Memorial Stadium.

Aside from Camden Yards I've been to the old Yankee stadium, Fenway park, 3 Rivers stadium & the Reds Riverfront stadium. I want to make it to Wrigley field someday.

[sparquelito]

Getting to Camden Yards is easy. It's right on the edge of town. Easy in, easy out. Plus Babe Ruth birthplace & museum is just blocks away.

My 1st game was in 1970. Got to see Brooks, Frank, Boog ... Memorial Stadium.

Aside from Camden Yards I've been to the old Yankee stadium, Fenway park, 3 Rivers stadium & the Reds Riverfront stadium. I want to make it to Wrigley field someday.

 

I do so love the old ball parks.

 

As a lifelong NFL fan, I am glad to say that I managed to make it to a Chiefs vs. Dolphins game sometime the next year, in Arrowhead Stadium.

Also one of the grand old venues, I must say.

:)

[quapman]

 

I am sure that photos of the backs of the pots and pickups are a bit of a stretch, but the serial number could certainly help to put this matter to bed, once and for all.

 

 

 

You're not giving up are you dude.

I'm just curious. Can you please explain what it is you need to see by having a picture of the back of the

head stock showing the serial number? What are you looking for? Do you disagree that counterfeiters are

using genuine serial numbers? Do you think you can authenticate it with a serial number?

Or are you wanting to see the quality of the stamp or if it's inked?

At which point your science is no better than what has already been offered. I also think it's real.

The ABR alone is enough for me. As some have already stated. Fakes are not that common.

I have only ever seen one that I know of. It was a LP custom. Cheap. New, with screws holding down the ABR.

That one jumped right out. I didn't have to see much more than that.

 

If you can give even a half a$$ed reason for your request maybe the OP would humor you.

At this point he owes you nothing and is in no way obliged to humor your request with any further pics.

 

 

Not sure if you care or not but this is right from the horses mouth.

 

http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/beware-web-sites-722.aspx

[Big Bill]

I think it's obvious that he has a very difficult time admitting he is wrong. Best thing for him to do at this point is not to respond any further. Each response digs the hole of ignorance even deeper. Perhaps the hole is bottomless?

[Mr. Gibson]

Professor Plumb in the Library with the Lead Pipe???

Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick

[Retired]

I said I believed it to be real on the first page and am enjoying reading through the posts. By far, I'm not a guitar expert of no means. But I was wondering, by what means do they put the Les Paul signature on the head stock? Is it painted on by a machine? I'm an artist, and have taken art all through school and had an scholarship when I graduated. I was comparing the Les Paul signature on my Gibson and the guitar on the first page. They both are exact duplicates. That would be almost impossible to duplicate on a fake copy unless they hade the same means of applying it. Everything to me on that headstock looks authentic Gibson. The logo only looks messed up around the b and s. But Hey, that's just me. I am definitely an amature and wondering how many more pages this can go, but that's my two cents worth.

[Mr. Gibson]

HEY ! HOW 'BOUT THEM O'S ! ? HUH ?

I like the Twins myself.

[sparquelito]

quapman,

 

Gibson offers top-notch advice in that link.

Thank you for posting it.

 

I requested the photo of the guitar's serial number, along with (and this is asking a lot) photos of the back side of the pickups and the pots.

This much is true, and I still wish to view all that.

 

Determining whether a guitar (the authenticity of which is already in question, right?) is real isn't just a matter of a cursory glance at the headstock sticker or laminate.

Once the guitar's pedigree is in doubt, you need to evaluate all the various bits and pieces in order to make an educated determination.

 

RE; THE GUITAR'S SERIAL NUMBER:

There are only a few years of manufacture where one might expect that completely jacked-up headstock logo to make an appearance.

A credible photo of a serial number that MATCHES one of those years of manufacture would certainly go a long way in helping to determine whether or not this guitar is genuine.

 

I think that is a fair assessment of the situation here.

And I stand by my earlier judgement that the axe in question should be treated as a fake until compelling evidence is provided that demonstrates otherwise.

 

And, at the risk of repeating myself, the very moment that the evidence is provided that supports the popular opinion that this is a genuine Gibson Les Paul, I will gladly apologize.

 

Simple, really, isn't it?

:mellow:

[sparquelito]

I think it's obvious that he has a very difficult time admitting he is wrong. Best thing for him to do at this point is not to respond any further. Each response digs the hole of ignorance even deeper. Perhaps the hole is bottomless?

 

Big Bill,

 

Your contributions to this discussion are nebulous at best.

 

I appreciate any and all input, don't get me wrong.

A man of science knows full well that a credible study outcome, data analysis, report crafting, peer-review, editing, and presentation of the final report depends upon a full and complete body of evidence and quality peer input.

So, that said, your prickly and snarky comments are still welcome, as useless and vapid as they may be.

 

Can you work on the quality of your content more though, and your volume less?

 

Thanks in advance, and again, your input has been duly noted.

 

Humbly, kindly, and politely yours,

Sparquelito

 

:)

[stein]

Well, i thank everyone for their opinion, who knew this would go 6 pages lol. I believe it to be genuine, but i always appreciate others input.

 

 

 

To Farnsbarns' query:

 

 

To that end, I have PM’ed the original poster, Gibson Artist, and made a personal request for him to post the requested photos and/or information.

To his comment:

Well, i thank everyone for their opinion, who knew this would go 6 pages lol. I believe it to be genuine, but i always appreciate others input.

 

To the point of my PM, is it possible for you to provide a photo of the back of the headstock, detailing the serial number?

 

That still doesn't put it to rest? I didn't think so either.

 

I don't think this is a discussion about the guitar being genuine, it's more about how YOU determine it is or isn't. It's more about why you need the serial# and why you think that will solve anything.

 

My curiosity, is having been wrong so many times here relying on serial#'s and "Guitar Dater" and such, why you would still insist it would solve anything?

[stein]

 

 

 

 

Determining whether a guitar (the authenticity of which is already in question, right?) is real isn't just a matter of a cursory glance at the headstock sticker or laminate.

Once the guitar's pedigree is in doubt, you need to evaluate all the various bits and pieces in order to make an educated determination.

 

 

 

That's already been done. You are ignoring the fact that others have already given evidence in many details, including from the other pics, the guitar is genuine.

[stein]

 

RE; THE GUITAR'S SERIAL NUMBER:

There are only a few years of manufacture where one might expect that completely jacked-up headstock logo to make an appearance.

A credible photo of a serial number that MATCHES one of those years of manufacture would certainly go a long way in helping to determine whether or not this guitar is genuine.

 

 

Wrong. There are more than a few years where this occurs. 80's and 90's very common, 70's common, and can and does occur on 50's/60's, as well as 2000's.

[Dub-T-123]

I said I believed it to be real on the first page and am enjoying reading through the posts. By far, I'm not a guitar expert of no means. But I was wondering, by what means do they put the Les Paul signature on the head stock? Is it painted on by a machine? I'm an artist, and have taken art all through school and had an scholarship when I graduated. I was comparing the Les Paul signature on my Gibson and the guitar on the first page. They both are exact duplicates. That would be almost impossible to duplicate on a fake copy unless they hade the same means of applying it. Everything to me on that headstock looks authentic Gibson. The logo only looks messed up around the b and s. But Hey, that's just me. I am definitely an amature and wondering how many more pages this can go, but that's my two cents worth.

The gold "Les Paul" signature is screenprinted. The "Gibson" logo is usually inlaid, but sometimes screenprinted on lower priced models.

 

It's possible to duplicate the logo, all you need is a perfect image of the logo, which is probably available online. At that point it is easy to transfer to a screen and print. The inlay is more difficult, but not impossible.

 

The counterfeit guys usually aren't that good..

[Dub-T-123]

I personally think this can happen to the headstock of a Gibson built in any year. The type of finish hasn't changed, why expect the result to change? I see this happen to a lot of Gibsons.. I think it's not only the finish but also the temp and humidity that the guitar experiences.

 

At any rate it isn't an indication of a fake. If it were, I think a whole lot of 59 Les Paul, etc owners would be disappointed

[quapman]

 

Simple, really, isn't it?

 

 

Yes it kinda is. That's why it's puzzling that you are making it difficult.

I'm sorry but your persistence just screams ego. Why do you care at all.

I really don't care what you or anyone else does with their hard earned.

I really don't.

Enjoy your exercise in futility.

quapman out!!

[capmaster]

Can you work on the quality of your content more though, and your volume less?

Try to set a good example and do the same yourself first.

[Retired]

1462329968[/url]' post='1766492']

The gold "Les Paul" signature is screenprinted. The "Gibson" logo is usually inlaid, but sometimes screenprinted on lower priced models.

 

It's possible to duplicate the logo, all you need is a perfect image of the logo, which is probably available online. At that point it is easy to transfer to a screen and print. The inlay is more difficult, but not impossible.

 

The counterfeit guys usually aren't that good..

Thanks Dub T, I was wondering. I do know about screen printing, we did some of that in high school.

[Dub-T-123]

Thanks Dub T, I was wondering. I do know about screen printing, we did some of that in high school.

I did some screenprinting in high school too. One thing is for sure, computers have changed it completely!

[Retired]

1462335366[/url]' post='1766517']

I did some screenprinting in high school too. One thing is for sure, computers have changed it completely!

 

Oh, I know. Everything seems to be computer done these days and I'm terrible with them. My biggest fear is that I may hit a wrong button and screw the whole thing up and then get lost of what to do next. Lol

[Mr. C.O. Jones]

Uhm....,

Let's try it this way, it won't proof anything but it doesn't hurt either.

 

Well actually I trust the expert's here and only with Pip giving his OK I would buy it if interested.

And I trust in myself too, I'm 99,9% sure that counterfeiters don't build guitars like the one we are talking about.

It makes no sense, it would be a too good copy.

They would spend too much time and effort to make it that good. And then putting some genuine US hardware on it, why?

All shapes are spot on, never seen that on a fake.

 

They don't have to make em like that, they know most people that buy a fake know perfectly what it is.

They just buy it because it looks similar to the real deal, it makes them happy to own a "guitar" with the Gibson logo on the headstock.

And then there are those who are curious about those "guitars" : Are they really that crapy?

Could I upgrade it and have a nice "instrument" for very little money?

 

Here is a good example, please Sparquelito, compare on post #26:

 

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/41038-very-curiousi-bought-a-fake-gibson-there-is-my-review/page__st__20

 

Again compare, this is where those bricks come from:

 

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Free-shipping-custom-shop-true-historic-1957-les-goldtop-electric-guitar-AAA-figured-maple-top-paul/32660044793.html?spm=2114.40010208.4.113.w9XGEK

 

Can you see the difference?

[btoth76]

I personally think this can happen to the headstock of a Gibson built in any year. The type of finish hasn't changed, why expect the result to change? I see this happen to a lot of Gibsons.. I think it's not only the finish but also the temp and humidity that the guitar experiences.

 

At any rate it isn't an indication of a fake. If it were, I think a whole lot of 59 Les Paul, etc owners would be disappointed

 

Exactly. My 2011(!) Classic Custom already developed these marks around inlays. As it seems, the lacquer doesn't likes to stay on MOP and acrylic surfaces.

 

The guitar on the pictures is a genuine Gibson.

 

Bence.

[Searcy]

Yes, I know it's a definition, sir.

 

blah blah blah..

 

My point was that it would be incorrect (and patently-bull$hit) to characterize somebody like me as an internet troll.

 

 

Not really.

Truth be told, I am a lifelong student of human psychology, and a creative writer.

 

I'm pretty much just entertaining myself with this,

 

 

When someone acts like a troll I just assume that they are a troll until they provide adequate proof with proper documentation that they are not said troll. Better safe than sorry.

 

So if you could just go ahead and post your latest psych evaluation here we can know for sure. Until then I'm not convinced.

 

Toodels!

[sparquelito]

On my way to work now, gents.

 

As usual, I appreciate all the valuable and heart-felt input and advice.

The feeling of love and friendship on this web forum grows by the day, and I consider myself quite blessed to have made so many wonderful friends here.

 

It now appears that the requested photos and information will not be forthcoming.

The OP, a genuinely nice fellow named Gibson Artist reports:

 

"I dont have the serial, the seller kind of stopped messaging me so maybe he found a better deal or second thoughts i dont know?"

 

So.

We may never know.

And it appears we are at an impasse.

Many of you feel that the mystery guitar was genuine, and I still remain unconvinced.

 

Many sincere thanks to Gibson Artist for closing the loop on this matter.

 

 

Here's my gift to you all, as a way of hopefully closing out this dreadful thread.

A delightful and entertaining video of a Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers song, 'I Won't Back Down'.

 

Video features Tom Petty and Mike Campbell, with cameos by Ringo Starr, George Harrison, and (the producer of the record) Jeff Lynne.

Sort of a Wilbury's jam, if you will.

 

Trivia contest:

Can somebody name and describe some of the history of the most unbelievably-valuable guitar in that entire video?

 

Cheers,

 

 

:)