Help with identifying a Gibson acoustic

[Beavis]

Hi there,

 

I was wondering if anyone could identify this Gibson acoustic I am looking at purchasing.

 

The seller said the sticker inside the sound hole is missing. so I only this picture to go on before going to try it out tomorrow.

 

Many thanks

 

[Danner]

I would start by assuming it is counterfeit.

[E-minor7]

Unfortunately I'm not expert enough to tell what model it is. But one thing I can say : Someone should take care of this guitar – it looks very lonely.

[Beavis]

I am going to try it out tomorrow,

 

Any tips for making sure its a real Gibson?

 

Beavis

[albertjohn]

I would start by assuming it is counterfeit.

 

I'm no expert either but it's unusual. A sort of hybrid of several guitars. And no label! You'll need to provide more, better quality photos for some more info. In particular, headstock front and back, back of the neck, soundhole showing the back bracing, neckblock from inside the soundhole, top, back and both sides.

 

Does it have its original case?

 

Inspect it with someone who knows what they are looking at before parting with any money.

 

Please let us know how you procede with this one.

 

Cheers

[EuroAussie]

Looks like a counterfeit, and if its a Gibson a pretty ugly one IMO.

[tvguit]

It looks (at least from that one picture) like the neck is probably a real Gibson neck. The counterfeits usually have 3 screws in the headstock while that one only has 2. But the body geometry and appointments look all wrong.

[albertjohn]

I am going to try it out tomorrow,

 

Any tips for making sure its a real Gibson?

 

Beavis

 

If you can, take some photos and post them here.

[BigKahune]

... But the body geometry and appointments look all wrong.

 

Yes, check it out well. It might be the angle of the pic, but it also does appear to me to have body geometry/shape not consistant with Gibson models.

[bkharmony]

I cry fake, as well. I think you'd be able to see some bracing in the soundhole, unless it's one of those arched backs, like a Gospel, but I dont think they made those with a cutaway.

 

Let me guess - the price is surprisingly affordable?

[drathbun]

It looks like a Gubson or a Glibson, can't tell which.

[tvguit]

Would it be safe to say that it looks like the back is laminated? If you look through the sound hole the wood looks very light- almost like maple. But the sides are definitely mahogany.

[ksdaddy]

It looks like a J-30 Cutaway but I think they all had dot inlays. Maybe someone ordered one with a Bird/SJ board?

[Danner]

I wonder if it's some kind of low end Songmaker?

[Beavis]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies so far,

 

Just received some more photos

 

 

Any ideas?

 

beavis

[E-minor7]

This guitar shows signs of anaemia and severe depression. It needs sunshine, a gentle hand, some hot picking and hours of merciless strumming. It should never sleep in a case, but simply in your bed next to you.

 

Apart from that I think it's a Gibson okay -

[Red 333]

It looks like a Hummingbird Pro, without the pickguard.

 

Red 333

[Red 333]

Hummingbird Pro Link

[ksdaddy]

Looks exactly like it. Sometimes they leave the pickguard in the case, maybe they never put it on.

[BigKahune]

Looks like a Gibby- BUT -

 

Besides the body shape seeming to be a bit off . . .

 

The Gibson script on the headstock - the bottom of the "G" extension should be a lot closer to the D string peg.

 

That case is not for that guitar, and it's not a Gibson case.

 

Odd that the seller doesn't know what model they have. What's the seller asking price?

 

From Gibby H'bird Pro webpage-

[Beavis]

Looks like a Gibby- BUT -

 

Besides the body shape seeming to be a bit off . . .

 

The Gibson script on the headstock - the bottom of the "G" extension should be a lot closer to the D string peg.

 

That case is not for that guitar, and it's not a Gibson case.

 

Odd that the seller doesn't know what model they have. What's the seller asking price?

 

From Gibby H'bird Pro webpage-

 

I have been studying head stocks over the last 24hours and something doesn't seem right. I agree the G on the logo should be closer to the D string machine head. I also noticed the detail in the middle of the headstock is very plain and unlike any other Gibson.

 

The seller said someone gave it to him and he thinks its Chinese made. I think I will skip it.

 

He is asking $480 Australian Dollars

 

Beavis

[albertjohn]

It looks like a Hummingbird Pro, without the pickguard.

 

Red 333

 

That's what I thought too. But the lack of pickguard, the split para inlays (dots on the HB Pro? EDIT: It has split paras) and the tulip machine heads put me off. But I was just going from pics on various sites as I have no direct experience with them. Could have been some optional alternatives.

 

Personally, I learn more from these threads than any other sort. I know there is a theory that, as a public forum, the tips for spotting a fake should not be discussed openly, but if it stops people like the OP being ripped off, then it's a good service IMO. We've all read the posts elsewhere, when the LP boys rip apart a fake. It's fascinating.

 

If this is a fake, would anyone care to add to the case for the prosecution? I'll start the tips:

 

No label

Lack of OHSC

$480 AUS!

Someone gave it to seller :blink:

[Danner]

I have been studying head stocks over the last 24hours and something doesn't seem right. I agree the G on the logo should be closer to the D string machine head. I also noticed the detail in the middle of the headstock is very plain and unlike any other Gibson.

 

The seller said someone gave it to him and he thinks its Chinese made. I think I will skip it.

 

He is asking $480 Australian Dollars

 

Beavis

 

You made the right decision.

[Red 333]

It's hard to tell from the photos, but several details do sway me that the guitar in question might be genuine, or at least not a cheap knock off.

 

First, the bridge looks to made of very high quality rosewood. The bridges on most budget-priced import guitars (which is what most copys are modified from) are made from lesser stuff, and are lighter (and uniform) in color, and have open grain. The bridge in the picture also has MOP dots; you don't typically see those on import gutars (Epiphones don't have them) or copy guitars.

 

Second, the neck also seems to be one-piece. You will NEVER see that on a cheap copy; it's much too expensive. Most imports and knock offs have a clealy visible joint somehwere below the headstock, and another joint where they add the neck heel extension. Even the top quality Epiphones with one-piece necks, like the Masterbilts or even the MIJ Elitist acoustics, have neck heel extensions.

 

Third, the headstock angle looks correct. Imports or copys have 14 degree or less angles; Gibsons are 17 degrees.

 

How close the logo is to a tuning peg doesn't concern me much. If you line up 100 Gibsons in a row, the logos will not be in the same place. The logo on the guitar in question looks like MOP, too, which is another plus. (Logo placement CAN be a rip-off tip-off, though, in some cases: Gibson logos are often high on copy guitars that start life as Epiphones. The forgers cut off the top of the larger Epiphone paddle headstock to modify it into a Gibson shape. The forgers then refinish the top of the heastock and apply a new logo over the old one. Being cheap, they don't want to refinish too much of the headstock, so they locate the new logo over the old one, which is now very close to the top edge of the new headstock shape.)

 

As to the tuners not being Grovers (as in the Hummingbird Pro pics): I think Gibson issued various configurations of this guitar under a couple of names for different dealers over the years. I don't know that for a fact, but that's how I remember it. The tuners on the guitar in question look genuine, though. Copys typically use very large washers on the tuning pegs, while the ones on the guitar in question look the correct size.

 

Forgers are getting a little savvier about truss rod covers, but most still use either a three screw cover or an oddly shaped two-hole. The one on the guitar in question looks fine.

 

Then there's the rosette: just a few modest rings, and the same number and position as the offical photos of the Hummingbird Pro. Now, I don't know why this is exactly, but most imports and copys have a crazy number of rings around the sound hole. Even official Epiphone copys of Gibsons invariably have the wrong number. It's only very recently that Epiphone has got this under control with their Texan reissue.

 

Of couse, without seeing it in person, it's impossible to tell. The price does seem too good to be true, too. But, while the guitar in question does have some features (like no label) that deserve more scrutiny, it does not display the typical, obvious signs of a fake. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand...

 

Why don't you get the serial number off the headstock and contact Bozeman to see what model it belongs to?

 

Red 333

[albertjohn]

It's hard to tell from the photos, but several details do sway me that the guitar in question might be genuine, or at least not a cheap knock off.

 

First, the bridge looks to made of very high quality rosewood. The bridges on most budget-priced import guitars (which is what most copys are modified from) are made from lesser stuff, and are lighter (and uniform) in color, and have open grain. The bridge in the picture also has MOP dots; you don't typically see those on import gutars (Epiphones don't have them) or copy guitars.

 

Second, the neck also seems to be one-piece. You will NEVER see that on a cheap copy; it's much too expensive. Most imports and knock offs have a clealy visible joint somehwere below the headstock, and another joint where they add the neck heel extension. Even the top quality Epiphones with one-piece necks, like the Masterbilts or even the MIJ Elitist acoustics, have neck heel extensions.

 

Third, the headstock angle looks correct. Imports or copys have 14 degree or less angles; Gibsons are 17 degrees.

 

How close the logo is to a tuning peg doesn't concern me much. If you line up 100 Gibsons in a row, the logos will not be in the same place. The logo on the guitar in question looks like MOP, too, which is another plus. (Logo placement CAN be a rip-off tip-off, though, in some cases: Gibson logos are high some copy guitars that started life as Epiphones. The forgers cut off the top of the larger Epiphone paddle headstock to modify it into a Gibson shape. The forgers then refinish the top of the heastock and apply a new logo over the old one. Being cheap, they don't want to refinish too much of the headstock, so they locate the new logo over the old one, which is now very close to the top edge of the new headstock shape.)

 

As to the tuners not being Grovers (as in the Hummingbird Pro pics): I think Gibson has various configurations of this guitar under a couple of names for various dealers over the years. The tuners on it look genuine, though. Copys typically use very large washers on the tuning pegs, while the ones on the guitar in question look the correct size.

 

Forgers are getting a little savvier about truss rod covers, but most still use either a three screw cover or an oddly shaped two-hole. The one on the guitar in question looks fine.

 

Of couse, without seeing it in person, it's impossible to tell. The price does seem too good to be true, too. But, while the guitar in question does have some features (like no label) that deserve more scrutiny, it does not display the typical, obvious signs of a fake. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand...

 

Red 333

 

Case for the defence is a good one.

 

On the tuners, the bass E tuner looks out of line, from the photo of the reverse of the headstock. Could be just the quality of the photo of course.