help me to identify this guitar

[binendra]

currently i saw this guitar on a sale it says gibson and looks pretty old any idea of this real or fake?

[ksdaddy]

It’s not a Gibson, sorry. 

[jedzep]

That peghead logo is comical, at best.

[Sgt. Pepper]

That is what we call a fake.

[RBSinTo]

38 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

That is what we call a fake.

Yeah, but really skillfully done.

So tell us binendra, how much was the seller asking for this fine example of the rare Gibson Mockingbird guitar?

RBSinTo

[slimt]

Actually the headstock looks Yamaki.  
 

someone wanted a guitar they would never really get to own.   

[slimt]

43 minutes ago, RBSinTo said:

Yeah, but really skillfully done.

So tell us binendra, how much was the seller asking for this fine example of the rare Gibson Mockingbird guitar?

RBSinTo

Dont give Gibson any ideas about a Mockingbird.  They have the skills to build one.   🙂

[zombywoof]

At least they spelled Gibson correctly.

[Dave F]

This is actually a Martin CEO 000-28-2020 Mockingbird

[Brucebubs]

Love those bridge pins sitting out that far!

[QuestionMark]

There was a resale equipment store (or at least there was) in the village I live in that had a similar looking “thing” in it selling for $500.  It had a sign in it in big letters or something saying Gibson guitar, $500.  I stared at it thinking what the heck is that, an actual counterfeit.  It was on the ground level of hanging guitars, so I picked it up and played it a bit, thinking this is no Gibson.

The next day I brought my grown son to the store and showed him the guitar and with no reservations about it, explained to my son how this was an actual fake Gibson, some other guitar brand doctored to sell to some unknowing person.  I could see the store owner listening to everything I said to my son.

About 3 weeks later I went back into the store.  The guitar now hung way up on the wall of the store where no one could possible reach it.  And, the mentioned sign on it was nowhere to be found.  

I could never figure out if the store owner got bamboozled by someone selling it to the store or if the store owner intentionally tried duping people.  But, I was glad to see at least the owner put the guitar totally out of reach.  I have no clue if someone asked him to bring it down if he would tell them what he heard me tell my son about it being fake.

I don’t plan on going back into the store.

 

QM aka “Jazzman” Jeff

 

 

[binendra]

actually seller was asking for $300 for this and even i disn some reasearch and i found out that this is 1970s japanese made one

I think its a lawsuit copy but still not sure about the logo ive found lot of guitars with the same pickguard design with different brands 

[bugsy]

CMIIW,

apart from gibson logo and Dove-ish pickguard, the shape of the body and headstock is really look like a typical martin copy.

[RBSinTo]

2 hours ago, Bugy Priadinata said:

CMIIW,

apart from gibson logo and Dove-ish pickguard, the shape of the body and headstock is really look like a typical martin copy.

Obviously a counterfeit copy designed by committee.

A Martson Mockingbird guitar. Sweet!

RBSinTo

Edited June 2, 2020 by RBSinTo

[fortyearspickn]

If the neck were any thinner, it would be a mandolin. 

[zombywoof]

45 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

If the neck were any thinner, it would be a mandolin. 

 

I think that about mid- to late-1960s Gibsons.

[RBSinTo]

1 hour ago, fortyearspickn said:

If the neck were any thinner, it would be a mandolin. 

Are you saying this is a bad thing? 

RBSinTo

[jchabalk]

It's the distant cousin to the Dove - the Gibson Pigeon. If you're not careful it'll poop on your head 😉

[bobouz]

14 hours ago, binendra said:

actually seller was asking for $300 for this and even i disn some reasearch and i found out that this is 1970s japanese made one.  I think its a lawsuit copy but still not sure about the logo ive found lot of guitars with the same pickguard design with different brands 

The term “lawsuit copy” gets used all the time, but there was actually only one lawsuit in the ‘70s.  Gibson sued Ibanez (their guitars were still clearly labeled as an Ibanez) for copying characteristics of Gibsons.  It was settled out of court if I recall correctly.

That said, some of the best Japanese acoustic copies in the ‘70s were made by Takamine - in particular, copies of Martins & Guilds.  And the well-established Japanese companies never put another maker’s name on the headstock (edit: although they did stylistically copy logos).

Edited June 2, 2020 by bobouz

[RBSinTo]

1 hour ago, bobouz said:

The term “lawsuit copy” gets used all the time, but there was actually only one lawsuit in the ‘70s.  Gibson sued Ibanez (their guitars were still clearly labeled as an Ibanez) for copying characteristics of Gibsons.  It was settled out of court if I recall correctly.

That said, some of the best Japanese acoustic copies in the ‘70s were made by Takamine - in particular, copies of Martins & Guilds.  And the well-established Japanese companies never put another maker’s name on the headstock (edit: although they did stylistically copy logos).

Unlike the counterfeit Martins and Gibsons coming out of China that are meant to deceive ( secondary) buyers. The original purchasers are obviously more concerned with appearance than quality, as they know what they're getting.

RBSinTo

[zombywoof]

9 hours ago, RBSinTo said:

Are you saying this is a bad thing? 

RBSinTo

 

For some of us - yes.  

[fortyearspickn]

It sure is a good copy.  But the dead give-away is the three screws instead of two in the truss rod cover. 

[Brucebubs]

17 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

It sure is a good copy.  But the dead give-away is the three screws instead of two in the truss rod cover. 

... and the zero fret?

[RBSinTo]

8 hours ago, zombywoof said:

 

For some of us - yes.  

Before I knew any better, I owned a few really bad guitars including a nickel-dime electric that had a "baseball bat" neck combined with action that I could slide my hand under. Understandably, it was rather difficult to play, and it was only when a good friend got an ES-335, that I came to appreciate thin necks and good action. And except for the possibility that a thicker neck would be more stable and less prone to warping, I don't understand why it would be preferred. I'd appreciate if you would enlighten me.

Please and thanks

RBSinTo

[zombywoof]

6 hours ago, RBSinTo said:

Before I knew any better, I owned a few really bad guitars including a nickel-dime electric that had a "baseball bat" neck combined with action that I could slide my hand under. Understandably, it was rather difficult to play, and it was only when a good friend got an ES-335, that I came to appreciate thin necks and good action. And except for the possibility that a thicker neck would be more stable and less prone to warping, I don't understand why it would be preferred. I'd appreciate if you would enlighten me.

Please and thanks

RBSinTo

 

No enlightenment forthcoming  from me,    The point is, builders, in a nod to the growing popularity of electric guitars, started to try and make their acoustics feel more like them and so you get an onslaught of acoustics touting their slim, low action, fast playing necks.    Some people  like them.  .  Others, however, do not.  My favorite Gibson necks  remain the V and Roundback D carves they used in the 1930s and Banners without truss rods.  But even they are dwarfed by the V  neck on say my 1942 Harmony H165 Stella which many folks I know find too formidable to play.  Stability wise, stiffness has less to do with girth than construction (laminate or solid wood without truss rods),  use of bar frets (which served the same function as compression fretting)  and  such.  Problem is even the massive  three piece  laminate necks such as those used by Regal on their 12 strings  (which they advertised as "unwarpable") fell prey  to glue giving up the ghost   

Edited June 3, 2020 by zombywoof