Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

is this a fake les paul?

Gibson Artist

By Gibson Artist
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Guest Farnsbarns

Guest Farnsbarns

Posted
Posted

Oh no! We are still not there...

 

Can't you even count. Now there's 20 posts on page 10 and this will be page 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply
btoth76

btoth76

Posted
Posted

Can't you even count. Now there's 20 posts on page 10 and this will be page 11.

 

No, I can't. I have been watching part numbers all day long. I hate numbers. :D

 

Anyways, we did it! Hurray!

 

Bence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Farnsbarns

Guest Farnsbarns

Posted
Posted

I sure enjoy this forum. You guys crack me up.

Perhaps you're finished in nitrocellulose too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparquelito

sparquelito

Posted
Posted

OK, but can we at least agree that what was observed on the OP's logo is a normal Gibson thing?

 

You have been presented with evidence of similar looking logos from a wide variety of years.

 

Of course we can agree on that.

I concede that gladly!

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.

 

That alone and in of itself just wasn't enough to convince me that we weren't looking at a fake is all.

 

The example I believe I gave much earlier would be if the serial number on the back side of the guitar in question were to be from a 2012 or new Gibson Les Paul. (Where such degradation around the Gibson logo wouldn't even be possible.) Or from a much older Gibson Les Paul, from a year group not particularly noteworthy for having such a degraded condition around the Gibson logo.

 

I'm just jaded when it comes to guitars presented with the question RIGHT UP FRONT, "is this a fake?".

That causes me to be very skeptical, obviously.

And I wish more of you were that way, quite honestly.

 

Say.

Eleven pages.

This is indeed impressive.

 

I am honored to be a part of this forum's history in the making.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rct

rct

Posted
Posted

The example I believe I gave much earlier would be if the serial number on the back side of the guitar in question were to be from a 2012 or new Gibson Les Paul. (Where such degradation around the Gibson logo wouldn't even be possible.) Or from a much older Gibson Les Paul, from a year group not particularly noteworthy for having such a degraded condition around the Gibson logo.

 

If I use your Les Paul, no matter how old or new, for halfa dozen gigs, I only take that and an acoustic, and I hit the cymbals my usual amount, I will cause that in your Les Paul, no matter how old or new, fairly quickly. Might take a season change, but knicks along the edges will allow enough humidity to get under there to condense enough to push the lacquer up, or, one or both of the wings will get knocked enough to cause the same.

 

Most folks don't beat on the cymbals with a Les Paul/SG, they usually have plastic-y tulips on that end, like my SG. My Les Paul has meaty Grovers, so I'm all about damaging someone else's cymbals. Someday I'll knock it enough to damage that end bad enough I guess, but I'm a lot more careful with that guitar than I am with my Fedners.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparquelito

sparquelito

Posted
Posted

Brilliant meme, rct.

 

Very well done, sir!!

:)

 

 

To everyone else's point, I am ready for the thread to die.

I do believe we have beaten this dead horse for far too long.

 

Many of you believe the original poster's (proposed purchase) guitar was genuine, based solely on the condition of the logo on the headstock, and I respectfully disagreed.

No more evidence is forthcoming, and we certainly aren't going to sway each other over to the other's way of viewing this issue.

 

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.

 

a. Sparky is a total a$$hole and should be banned from the forum forever.

 

b. Sparky is an arrogant jerk, and his posting privileges should be limited to discussing cute puppies and kittens only. All discussions as to whether guitar are fake or not should be left to a secret committee of like-minded senior posters who have MUCH more than 40+ years of guitar experience. But definitely not Sparky. No SIR.

 

c. Sparky is okay. He can be kind of a ****, but let's let bygones be bygones.

 

or,

d. Sparky is groovy, and I want him to father my children. He should be promoted to the status of forum moderator.

 

It's up to you guys.

I can go either way.

 

A scientific, object poll (where everybody gets to vote) might just be the best way to settle this, and then the community can move forward in a positive direction.

I care more about the well-being of this web forum than I do my own ego or sense of prestige.

Really.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'Scales

'Scales

Posted
Posted

I vote for e) An 'Ask Sparky' forum to be set up.

 

I'll start...

 

Dear Sparky,

My Gibson has the wrong logo. The serial number has gone too - seems both as a result of a dodgy headstock repair prior to my ownership. Now I'm worried it might be a fake as a hooker's titters! Can you please tell me whether any Gibson has ever had a headstock break and need to be repaired? I'm hoping so cos that might explain it.

Respectfully Yours,

Worried.

 

 

 

MM_zpsf64c07f6.jpg

 

 

[biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparquelito

sparquelito

Posted
Posted

Worried,

 

I'll need more photos, and some images of the serial number (in great detail) in particular.

And some snap-shots of the interior of the guitar, if you please.

 

And a brief history of your time spent with this highly-suspicious guitar.

 

 

And, (and I know this will seem to many of you as indelicate) I would require some recompense right up front, mate.

 

You see, this business of e.) Ask Sparky .....

It stands to be a cash-cow, and I would be a fool to offer up this sort of quality advice for free.

 

[crying]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dub-T-123

Dub-T-123

Posted
Posted

I vote for F) redefine the scientific method

 

Here's the new scientific method:

 

1: Trust your gut feeling

2: Ignore any information which contradicts your gut feeling

3: Fabricate information to support your gut feeling

4: Profit off of your internet foes by making them antagonists in your next hit novel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

Of course we can agree on that.

I concede that gladly!

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.

 

 

 

Say.

Eleven pages.

This is indeed impressive.

 

I am honored to be a part of this forum's history in the making.

:)

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
quapman

quapman

Posted
Posted

Excellent!

Burns2.jpg

 

 

Well, when you put it like that, I have no choice but to side with you on this.

It's totally fake. Burns fingers have confirmed it. This discussion is complete.

No further evidence is required. The fingers have spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...