An interesting topic I think...

[Andy R]

How much of a Gibson guitar makes a Gibson a Gibson?

 

Ok here is my topic(s)

 

We all pretty much seem to agree ( I think ) that a guitar that was not produced in the USA by a Gibson Factory is NOT a Gibson brand/authorized guitar. Also, for example..Building an Identical replica of a Les Paul even using all the same materials, specs, and Genuine Gibson parts and slapping a Gibson logo on it is still not a Genuine Gibson guitar. Is it wrong to do? For your own personal use and as long as you never sell it then I would say no but that is another topic...

 

My question is how much of a genuine Gibson made guitar has to be present in a guitar to still make it a Gibson? To avoid some initial confusion I set the following classifications I will use as a starting base ... Feel free to suggest tweaks if it will add clarity to the base question I am proposing.

 

1. A museum Piece Gibson - Somebody bought it new, threw it in the case. Has every plastic covering original strings not a single change... ( don't even look at it guitar)

2. A mint Gibson - Pretty much the same as above but has been exceptionally well maintained. No changes other than strings, maybe plastic coverings removed but not a scratch on it. All original 0 to extremely minimal fret wear.

3. An exceptional Gibson - extremely well maintained but played, all original components maybe some light surface scratches.

4. A good condition Gibson - maintained pretty well but was a player. Maybe some scratches, fret wear, etc.. but no mods of any kind except strings maybe a fret level.

5. A modified Gibson - Maybe a replaced pot, direct replacement tuners, pickups, etc... nothing that couldn't be undone You could also sub grade from this level...

6. A decent used Gibson - Probably not babied, some road rash, Non direct tuner replacements etc.. Maybe fretjob or fret replacement, etc.. ( again this level could be sub graded)

7, A modified Gibson, custom paint etc... non factory Trem installed. etc.. ( again this could be sub graded into quality.

 

 

Ok so that should be enough to get the "real topic started" - At what point starting or finishing in modifying an original Gibson made guitar that you could still sell it as a "Gibson" guitar without it being a fake or moving into getting a cease and desist from Gibson or at the very least scorn from your fellow Gibson forum friends. I'm looking at this in a couple of ways. How much of an American bill has to be remaining to keep it legal tender and of the required percentage remaining what has to still be legible or still visible???

 

So I bet most of you are starting to get where I am going with this topic. Not that I am really considering this as I don't see it possible to be profitable but at what point of modifying an original Gibson made guitar should have to remain to still legally and ethically continue to call it a Gibson?

 

Where my thought is with it right now is that at some point the "Original" guitar should have been completely and originally built and sold by Gibson. So now pretty much like I am doing at what modification level does it not become a "Gibson" Guitar that with full disclosure of modifications, maybe even some hard to remove stamping etc... Could you ethically, legally etc... Still sell the guitar with the Gibson Logo and still call it a Gibson if you sold it to someone else? I'm kinda leaning toward the neck minimum with original serial number ( especially if they would go with a VIN style where the Serial says what the base model was and what original features were) and at least some portion of the original body. ( I have later points and questions about this )

 

Regardless in my opinion the guitar had to have been purchased new by someone as a complete guitar ( some regular production guitar) as a starting point. Now... Let's get to some major modifications and see how far we can get before we no longer have something that can be claimed to be Gibson at all.

 

I know a lot of you have seen my thread and what I am doing to my Gibson studio. I am obviously in no way trying to make an exact replica out of it to try to pawn off as original of another model. I did this on purpose. But let's say I want to make a business out of customizing, heavily modifying, or even directly replicating another model of Les Paul starting form say a new or used Les Paul Studio. ( it's to time consuming to be profitable)

 

Let's start with what seems to still be acceptable by most everyone and get more extreme as it goes along and see where you guys think for whatever reason it ceases to be a Gibson and for what reason.

 

Non- original pickups, chrome to gold to black hardware replacement, strap buttons screws, electronics, wiring, pots, bridges, tailpieces, pick guards, nuts, tuning keys, paint, strings, frets, pick up rings, truss rod covers, switches, back covers, knobs.... These all seem to be safe and ( to most acceptable) to do and still safely stick that guitar on ebay and sell it as a Gibson Guitar. Obviously ethics would require disclosure of what is no longer original and depending on how much of this was done and how well it was done would place it in either category 5, 6 or 7 from the list above.

 

Now lets discuss some more Non-traditional and non-bolt on replacements and modifications and see how far we get before somebody cries foul! Again keep in mind this would be with full disclosure and possibly some definitive markings to prevent it from easily being sold as "The Real Deal" Again keep in mind this is some base Studio model. Maybe a Mahogany top or Aspen, faded whatever... New or used... So answer, rate or stop the following questions when it stops being a Gibson and why?

 

1. Replace the original celluloid inlays with MOP inlays?

2. Replace the Rosewood Fretboard with an ebony or some other material fretboard

3. Change fretwire size

4. add binding to neck

5. add neck binding with nibs

6. add body binding(s)

7 add other Gibson style fretboard inlays or custom inlays

8. Replace the painted logo with a MOP logo

9. Add non Gibson custom or Gibson "Custom" Headstock inlays

10. Cut the thin top off and replace with full thickness maple Single piece or bookmatched

11. Alter the headstock to look like another model

12. Modify the whole guitar to completely replicate a higher line model - Keeping the original mahogany body and neck (possibly minus fretboard)

13. All the above and it is still fundamentally a Gibson

 

Now let's take it even further...

 

What If I only had an original neck from a les paul custom. Serial is authentic but it has no fretboard, no veneer, no inlays etc.. Body and fretboard parts etc.. were destroyed and this is all that remains. So I use all gibson original parts build a body to spec with same materials quality etc... Could the finished product still be considered fundamentally Gibson? Could it still fundamentally still be called or sold a Gibson or a Gibson Custom ( Again with full disclosures)

 

What if you had an original custom body and the neck was sawed off and burnt by some crazy loon. What If I knew the serial number and I could rebuild a replacement neck again to spec etc... and provided full disclosure?

 

What if I only had a headstock??? and the rest of the guitar was completely destroyed and I rebuilt the whole guitar from the headstock down? Is it still to some degree a Gibson? Getting pretty close to not much left here... I would say this would be the absolute limit and extremely questionable at best.

 

I mean you can't start with an original knob or splinter of wood. Or a picture of a guitar that was burned in a fire.... and expect to still call it at the very minimum a Gibson. Just interested in where you guys think it stops and is morally, ethically, legally, personally feel it is not a gibson any longer.

 

I find this interesting if you apply this thought to car restorations and modifications, customizations etc... Companies like Saleen and Roush that customize and brand mustangs. Also how much "Legal" right do you have to modify or customize something you own and to what point can still sell it as "Brand X" custom modified by ( insert name here)

 

Let's keep this civil, thoughtful, open minded and somewhat serious please. I think this could be quite interesting... <_< Ok just do the best you can[flapper]

 

 

Andy

[ChanMan]

Too long. Quit reading waaaay before the end.

 

Sorry... I'm not a fan of multi-paragraph questions.....

 

For some folks, as soon as you take away ANY of the original parts it's no longer a Gibson. For others, as long as it says "Gibson" on the headstock, it's a Gibson.

 

For me, any modifications outside of original Gibson parts makes it a "modified" Gibson...

 

 

Make of that what you will :D

[Andy R]

Too long. Quit reading waaaay before the end.

 

Sorry... I'm not a fan of multi-paragraph questions.....

 

For some folks, as soon as you take away ANY of the original parts it's no longer a Gibson. For others, as long as it says "Gibson" on the headstock, it's a Gibson.

 

For me, any modifications outside of original Gibson parts makes it a "modified" Gibson...

 

 

Make of that what you will :D

 

Yeah I know it's long but thought provoking I think. My question goes way beyond modified. It goes to when is it modified so much you could no longer sell it as a gibson...

[Kimbabig]

Yeah I know it's long but thought provoking I think. My question goes way beyond modified. It goes to when is it modified so much you could no longer sell it as a gibson...

 

 

Shut up and get back to work, no one gave you permission to think.

 

 

 

Jk, I think as long as the original body and neck are there than it's still a gibson.

[Andy R]

Chanman get off of here or you know you will be readin' more of my long rambling question!

[ChanMan]

Yeah I know it's long but thought provoking I think. My question goes way beyond modified. It goes to when is it modified so much you could no longer sell it as a gibson...

 

 

I answered that.

 

It depends on the person buying it.

 

Note that I answered it in less than 1000 words.....

[57classic]

Any mods of any kind, short of changing strings, would have to be disclosed. At some point, like your project, you would be left with a guitar that you could only say started out as a Gibson.

[Andy R]

I answered that.

 

It depends on the person buying it.

 

Note that I answered it in less than 1000 words.....

 

 

Well thanks for you concise contribution. I have A.D.D. and tend to write as my brain thinks. Which is a million thoughts per minute.

[DJScott]

IMHO, when a Gibson leaves Tennessee, the only things you should be allowed to use to "adapt" it to your preferences, and STILL call it a Gibson, are a screwdriver and soldering iron. Fret and nut replacement by a qualified individual equate the same as a clutch replacement on your car.

Anything beyond that is "Major" modification, much like what you are doing to that Studio, Andy. (which is AWESOME, bye-the-way)

If you were to take a 1970 Malibu, drop an LS-6 454 in and do the bodywork to make it an SS Chevelle, would it still not be a Malibu instead of a $500,000 dollar Chevelle?

 

Just my .02

[stein]

i am so glad you asked, because this brings up some VERY good points as to what authenticity is all about. one thing worth mentioning is how origional is a les paul from gibson compared to a vintage les paul, or a "real" one? in '68 when gibson reissued the les paul, they were not anywhere close to the origionals that everyone wanted, and this of corse was an issue. they were different because they were not made in the same factory, not made with the same jigs, and not by the same poeple. the result was the body carve was different, the cutaway shape was different, the headstock shape was different, and so on. but they were made by the gibson company. so how valid would it be if someone built a les paul that was closer and more accurate to an origional than what the company was putting out? so, talking about a copy here nonetheless.

now, condidering pickups-we have now, this very day, poeple who make and know how to make a paf pickup that is darn near identicle to a real paf, considering the materiels and construction, and closer to what gibson currently makes. now consider a gibson made model made today and brand new. the wiring and electronics are very not vintage at all. the wire is different, the caps are different. and so if you replace the wiring using the proper type caps and wire, and replace the pickups, is it more of a gibson or less? in this case, technically more, right? (sinse it is supposed to be a copy of, say, a 1956 lp).

but, this presents some problems. in the 80's, "perfect" copies were made of the les paul. then in the 90's, we learned more about them and found there were a lot of things that were not perfect at all. so a more accurate one was made. at some point we paid attention to the materiel the bridge was made of, which was overlooked. (one example). whenever we think we have made the perfect copy (be it gibson or not) we learn more about how it is different. this makes it important to make a discernment between a "copy" and a "forgery". without origionals to study, we can't learn these things, and when we modify a guitar, (or even when gibson repairs them) we run the risk of passing on info that is innaccurate. so, no matter how expert the repair or restoration, it is only ever accurate to disclose just that.

so i think the real answer is not really wheather it is still a gibson or a "real" gibson, but what it actually is.

[Andy R]

Any mods of any kind, short of changing strings, would have to be disclosed. At some point, like your project, you would be left with a guitar that you could only say started out as a Gibson.

 

 

Yes I agree definitely any mods disclosed for sure. Nobody seems to have problems with someone selling a Gibson with common modifications and still consider it a gibson. Maybe a fooked up one or not worth the money etc... but when does it become you no longer have a Gibson anymore at all and have no right to even sell this thing as such... Again I think of Saleen Mustangs or Splawn amps or David Bray Amps etc... People who take base products and modify them into something different then they were.

 

 

So for instance what if I started buying up all the cheapest Gibson studios I can find and turn them in all respects into a "standard" or "Custom" etc... to the point you couldn't tell. Then I sold them ( again with complete disclosure nd maybe even some kind of stamping) Such as les Paul Studio Customized by Andy.

 

In my opinion Gibson got paid for a guitar at one point and if someone is willing to pay let's say $1000 for an Andy Built Studio Custom or Studio Standard ( again not practical just an example) Would people be all up in arms about it?

 

 

Andy

[Andy R]

IMHO, when a Gibson leaves Tennessee, the only things you should be allowed to use to "adapt" it to your preferences, and STILL call it a Gibson, are a screwdriver and soldering iron. Fret and nut replacement by a qualified individual equate the same as a clutch replacement on your car.

Anything beyond that is "Major" modification, much like what you are doing to that Studio, Andy. (which is AWESOME, bye-the-way)

If you were to take a 1970 Malibu, drop an LS-6 454 in and do the bodywork to make it an SS Chevelle, would it still not be a Malibu instead of a $500,000 dollar Chevelle?

 

Just my .02

 

Excellent example and exactly what I am getting at. My point is should you not be allowed to turn that malibu into all accounts an SS Chevelle branding and all so long as your not trying to pass it of as an original SS Chevelle??? Shouldn't you be able to still sell it as an overall Chevy??? And at what point would it not be? My point is you started off with a chevy turned it into what equates to a SS Chvelle... All the fun at a quarter of the price. But should you be stoned by a crowd if you sell it for what it is a modified Chevy malibu?

[DJScott]

Excellent example and exactly what I am getting at. My point is should you not be allowed to turn that malibu into all accounts an SS Chevelle branding and all so long as your not trying to pass it of as an original SS Chevelle??? Shouldn't you be able to still sell it as an overall Chevy??? And at what point would it not be? My point is you started off with a chevy turned it into what equates to a SS Chvelle... All the fun at a quarter of the price. But should you be stoned by a crowd if you sell it for what it is a modified Chevy malibu?

 

No, you should NOT be stoned for selling it, rather, the buyer should be for buying it. If a person does his homework, and CHOOSES to purchase said modification, then, so be it. (like I did with my LP) On the other hand, IF the seller does not disclose, and the buyer does not inquire, where's the foul?

The foul is a MORAL dilemma. If selling it as original doesn't bother you, you have no conscience, therefore, you are scum. If selling it with disclosure doesn't bother you, and the buyer KNOWS what is going down, you are a saint.

[craigh]

I would consider them highly modified Gibson's.

 

Craig

[Andy R]

i am so glad you asked, because this brings up some VERY good points as to what authenticity is all about. one thing worth mentioning is how origional is a les paul from gibson compared to a vintage les paul, or a "real" one? in '68 when gibson reissued the les paul, they were not anywhere close to the origionals that everyone wanted, and this of corse was an issue. they were different because they were not made in the same factory, not made with the same jigs, and not by the same poeple. the result was the body carve was different, the cutaway shape was different, the headstock shape was different, and so on. but they were made by the gibson company. so how valid would it be if someone built a les paul that was closer and more accurate to an origional than what the company was putting out? so, talking about a copy here nonetheless.

now, condidering pickups-we have now, this very day, poeple who make and know how to make a paf pickup that is darn near identicle to a real paf, considering the materiels and construction, and closer to what gibson currently makes. now consider a gibson made model made today and brand new. the wiring and electronics are very not vintage at all. the wire is different, the caps are different. and so if you replace the wiring using the proper type caps and wire, and replace the pickups, is it more of a gibson or less? in this case, technically more, right? (sinse it is supposed to be a copy of, say, a 1956 lp).

but, this presents some problems. in the 80's, "perfect" copies were made of the les paul. then in the 90's, we learned more about them and found there were a lot of things that were not perfect at all. so a more accurate one was made. at some point we paid attention to the materiel the bridge was made of, which was overlooked. (one example). whenever we think we have made the perfect copy (be it gibson or not) we learn more about how it is different. this makes it important to make a discernment between a "copy" and a "forgery". without origionals to study, we can't learn these things, and when we modify a guitar, (or even when gibson repairs them) we run the risk of passing on info that is innaccurate. so, no matter how expert the repair or restoration, it is only ever accurate to disclose just that.

so i think the real answer is not really wheather it is still a gibson or a "real" gibson, but what it actually is.

 

Yes Agreed. I'm just trying to see where peoples "Mercy" point is and literally how little of an original Gibson guitar has to be left before it is no longer a Gibson at all. I realize there are the hardcore lines which I tried to kind of draw out above. But I guess it comes down to this. I think everyone one here agrees that A Chinese Fake or a guy building exact replicas that might be as good or better than an actual Gibson and selling them as a Gibson is a no go for sure. Can't and shoudln't be sold as a Gibson brand guitar at all. Legal threats etc...

But what can you do with a Gibson that was built by Gibson and how much of the original guitar must remain to still be able to sell it as a Gibson again (with a complete list and disclosure) of what has been done to the guitar? So again for example what would happen if I started taking Studios that I was getting for lets say $300.00 and I essentially made an exact copy of a Les Paul Standard out of them. ( not that I am that good) So say then people start saying hey these are great gutars and have all I want and I don't care that they used to be a Studio and I am willing to give you 1000.00 for this. Do you think this is wrong or if someone did this and stuck it on ebay ( again with complete disclosure that this is a homejob custom) they would receive the wrath of the Gibson forum? Again it's just a question... nothing more ...

[Andy R]

I would consider them highly modified Gibson's.

 

Craig

 

Actually me too up to the point that the original body ( Mahogany part ) and neck were used in the custom job. to me that is the Core of the guitar. Having just an original neck or just a body or headstock is probably not enough. But I guess if you found an original body and a different original neck now your back into feasible still a Gibson territory... Not sure That's why I'm asking?///[confused]

[stein]

so, ok. you mean like, "for sale-1996 les paul studio. new top replaced to maple. new fretboard. new binding added. new pickups, wiring, new bridge and tailpeice, upgraded gold hardware, enlarged neck joint, enlarged headtock, new headstock veneer with new gibson logo and inlay. otherwise, 100% origoinal. also headstock never broken. lol.

then, you have to deal with all these questions, like "is the finish new?" "is that the origional finish?" "which studio comes with custom binding. can i get that from musicians freind?"

[pippy]

For me it would be fundamentally important that the body and neck unit should be intact and essentially unaltered.

 

Any instrument which has had either of these modified by anyone (other than, say, for a repair by the Gibson repair shop) pretty much instantly disqualifies it from being called a Gibson.

 

There could possibly be a few exceptions to this, such as;

For one of the first-run LP's which had the neck-set angle wrong. I'd happily allow the re-setting of the neck in that instance.

I'd make allowances for an instrument where the neck has been 'shaved' (as is the case with Page's #1).

Things like Steve Howe's modded 4 p-up Black Beauty is still a Gibson. And I like it!

 

Any other alterations would be considered on an individual basis.

 

Your project, fantastic as it is (and I'm a fan of it), should no longer be called a Gibson IMHO. There's pretty much nothing left whatsoever of the instrument which Gibson crafted in Nashville.

 

If I may, politely, ask the question : What do you feel is still 'Gibson' about your project?

 

P.

[stein]

For me it would be fundamentally important that the body and neck unit should be intact and essentially unaltered.

 

Any instrument which has had either of these modified by anyone (other than, say, for a repair by the Gibson repair shop) pretty much instantly disqualifies it from being called a Gibson.

 

There could possibly be a few exceptions to this, such as;

For one of the first-run LP's which had the neck-set angle wrong. I'd happily allow the re-setting of the neck in that instance.

I'd make allowances for an instrument where the neck has been 'shaved' (as is the case with Page's #1).

Things like Steve Howe's modded 4 p-up Black Beauty is still a Gibson. And I like it!

 

Any other alterations would be considered on an individual basis.

 

Your project, fantastic as it is (and I'm a fan of it), should no longer be called a Gibson IMHO. There's pretty much nothing left whatsoever of the instrument which Gibson crafted in Nashville.

 

If I may, politely, ask the question : What do you feel is still 'Gibson' about your project?

 

P.

that is kinda hard for me. one of the details that make a first rup lp just that is the setting of the neck. and also, one of the things that define one of the 3 years of standards is the neck shape. but, they are still gibsons. (i think we are splitting hairs at what is acceptable, not what makes it a gibson or not).

[pippy]

that is kinda hard for me. one of the details that make a first rup lp just that is the setting of the neck. and also, one of the things that define one of the 3 years of standards is the neck shape. but, they are still gibsons. (i think we are splitting hairs at what is acceptable, not what makes it a gibson or not).

 

Yes, I agree with both your points.

 

The first run neck-set stuff is an historical detail. Both unaltered and modified instruments would be desirable. In the first instance as an untouched piece of history and in the second as a playable instrument! LOL!

 

And the neck-profile thing? Considering there were different neck profiles produced even within the '58; '59 and '60 runs I, personally, don't really consider any subsequent modification (within reason) to be all that important as far as the instrument's 'authenticity' is concerned.

 

P.

[stein]

Yes, I agree with both your points.

 

The first run neck-set stuff is an historical detail. Both unaltered and modified instruments would be desirable. In the first instance as an untouched piece of history and in the second as a playable instrument! LOL!

 

And the neck-profile thing? Considering there were different neck profiles produced even within the '58; '59 and '60 runs I, personally, don't really consider any subsequent modification (within reason) to be all that important as far as the instrument's 'authenticity' is concerned.

 

P.

interesting topic, eh? consider this: of those 3 years that everyone wants, there are only about 1700 made and about 700 accounted for. there is a demand for about, say, 100,000. we all want copies, and further more, we all want to know what makes them so special. we come to the point that we revere these so much that every detail counts. so the question becomes not how valuable the guitar is in whether it will pass the authenticity test by being altered, but rather what we can learn from it to know what makes it so special. so altering an origional in this way devalues our ability to learn an aspect from it that we want to build the other 100,000 or so that we all want.

[57classic]

There is this guy in PA named Larry Corsa who had been modifying Les Paul Standard Fadeds. He does a Peter Green mod. He changes the pickups to some he has made under his own company name, installs them out of phase (and writes a mod serial number inside the pickup cavity), changes the tail piece and bridge, volume and tone pots and tuners if you want. He also buffs out the finish which gives the guitar a great satin shine. He then refers to them as LCPG #xxx Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded. He hasn't done anything structural but it is modded to the point that it takes on a new identity. I guess my "line" is changing anything structural. Lots of players, known and unknown have done similar things as Larry Corsa but he is doing it commercially.

[proparch]

Interesting topic. I wonder how many of the repairs carried out by the Gibson Repair & Restoration people are so extensive that they turn a Gibson into a non-Gibson? (but that again raises Andy's original question .

 

When I read the original post and some of the replies, it reminded me of the old story of the man who inherited his grandfather's axe (the wood-chopping variety). He was proud that it was all-original - "only three new heads and five new handles in 50 years"

[badbluesplayer]

I don't think its very complicated.

 

If you take a Gibson guitar and do something to it its a Gibson guitar with something done to it.

If you take two Gibson guitars and you take the neck from one and the body from another and glue them together then its two Gibsons with the body from one and the neck from another.

If you take your studio - the one you're working on - and do all the stuff to it that you're doing then its a Gibson with a bunch of stuff done to it.

If you take a Gibson and take it apart and throw everything away except one screw and then replace all the parts with something else, then its a Gibson that you took apart and replaced all the parts except one screw.

 

Your question is interesting, but purposely confusing.

 

You can call something a Gibson but it would be more accurate to describe it as a modified Gibson or two Gibsons pieced together or a Gibson that had this and that done to it.

 

That's why they made adjectives.

[damian]

For the question about U.S. money bills....Any bill that is at least 50% origional is legit and will (should) be replaced by any bank with a new one...The serial # is flagged and the half bill is destroyed....

 

Anyways, I tend to agree with badbluesplayer, Craig, and Pippy......I can't really add more to the discussion.....

 

Also, kind of related, is, a Gibson is a Gibson, an Epiphone is an Epiphone; and although an Epi is technically in the Gibson family brand, and some Epis are labeled as " Epi by Gibson ",

it troubles me that some people advertize Epis on E-Bay and else where as Gibsons..........