cjsinla Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Actual 58s' had ink stamped serial numbers. I'll let you take it from there. What Axe says. The serial number is not real to 1958. And any session player would know what it's worth and would've taken better care of it. It may sound good because it has good pick ups in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Seriously? There's brush marks in the patina my friend. I'm going to say what everyone else is thinking... We start with a neck, clearly wrong with photos that look like they were taken very carefully to avoid the most important details, then the photo's in the neck post vanish and a possible 58 LP turns up which is a funny shape and has a patina that's been applied with a brush or cloth, some wear on the back that looks like nothing I've seen happen naturally, wire wool strokes in the pickups, and the pick guard, which appears to have a rounded edge and some way over the top mummification of the plastics that makes it all look like it's been in an oven, or a nasty chemical,a serial number that doesn't match, and is stamped like no stamp I've seen. Please forgive the scepticism but this is all very odd. If you really do want to get it appraised on the grounds it could be a 58 LP then Southerbys or Christies might be the place. I don't know what they charge but I think it might be more than the valuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Cheers Pippy, you're probably right Yup. ...there is a nagging feeling within me that it may actually be genuine. Seriously? Not one of the postings has explained in any detail exactly why it isn't. Yup. I acquired it from a musician who has been a session man all his working life (and his Google/Wikipedia profile confirms this) Details, please. Oh, PLEASE ! ! ! I can hardly wait for that info to come to light ! ! ! I'm going to take it along to an expert. As an alternative to taking it to the Police? Do you know any, in England? Cheers. Yup. But do you REALLY want to take that POS along to an expert? Your call. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm more interested in the 64 Les Paul now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If it comes to a bidding war I'll let you win.... lolz! P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 lolz X deaux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I wish I was that good!! No-one, in my humble opinion, would have spent the time adding and applying the gunk that's in all the cavities (you wouldn't believe how mucky it is!) and how does it manage to produce such a sweet tone? Depends on what you call "good". If the intention is to make something that looks, or has the 'appearance' of an old beat up '58, I think it captures that in a sense, like from looking at it on a stage. If it is any way meant to make someone actually question if the damage was real, or for close up, the relic job is isn't very good at all. But, "...added time adding and applying the gunk that's in all the cavities..." should speak volumes. What speaks to me, is the photos themselves. If you TRULY want to know if it has a chance of being geniune, then there should be photos that show more detail, body shapes, etc. These photos are cropped, are missing a great deal of the guitar, and to be blunt, don't show the parts one would want if wanting to show a REAL one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 It's uncanny how you manage to crop the important bits of these photos. The horn looks a very odd shape from behind but, low and behold, you've managed to take a very strange photo of the front from a very strange ange, cropped to an odd size, which doesn't show it. This seems to be common theme with these photos you post. An amasing coincidence. There's still many many things that give this away as a FAKE. What I can't work out is why such a bad fake? You'd think cutting the body out to approximately the right shape would be guitar faking 101. I'm not going to give you any more clues than that as to what you're getting wrong with these fakes, which seems to be high on your priorities list. So, who is this lifetime session musician that we can look up on Wikipedia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I've been looking at some cheap copy LPs today. I think this most likely started out life as a Westfield? I can see how you would arrive at that headstock shape trying to turn the Westfield headstock into a Gibson one and the horn shape matches. This was a great wind up although it didn't work but beware, what you have there can land you in trouble and if you made it, which I suspect you did if I'm honest, it can land you in prison. Especially if you try to pass it of as a 58 because then the fraud concern becomes a lot more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm going to take it along to an expert. Do you know any, in England? Take it to Vintage and Rare. Take it to Chandlers. Or any shop in Denmark St. I'm sure they will give you their frank and honest opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If it were me, (and it's not), and I thought I had a genuine '58 (which I don't).... I would 1) take LOTS of GOOD pictures, of EVERY part of the guitar. Including the cavities, backs of pups, the hardware, etc. 2) I would be taking pics that show as MUCH of the guitar as I possibly could show, with the intend that someone viewing them could see as much of the guitar as possible, and SHOW them on the 'net. 3) I would be posting those pics in as much places as I could, not just for authentication, but to generate INTERESET, because if it's real, that's where the offers are gonna come from. At least, it greatly improves my chances. But...if I was in a position to have a guitar I was afraid wasn't genuine (I don't), and was wanting to, say, unload it before I knew for sure (I wouldn't), or, wanted to sell something as genuine that wasn't (I definitely wouldn't), I would NOT do these things. Now...if I wanted to test the success of my relic job or skill in that area.....I'd at least offer a prize, an "attaboy" at least for those that could spot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Oh...2 places I wouldn't go: To a "vintage" expert, or the police....lol. Unless of corse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I wasn't going to bother adding anything else but a chance 'phone chat with Farns brought me back to this example of a 'burst. If anyone, anywhere, is interested to know where, exactly, the goal-posts are positioned as far as making 'replicas' or 'fakes' is concerned, here is just one snap of what is, IMHO, the most convincing Rep I have EVER seen. Just Sublime. This was originally a 2004 R9 which was given the full Kim LaFleur Historic Makeovers 'A' package and I believe Mr. Johnson did much of the work. So please, Mr. Blackburn, take note. As in how to spot a 'fake' from a 'Real Fake', of course. Enjoy your retirement. Wisely. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Cheers for your reply but can I ask why you're so sure? Yes, you can ask that, but I can't really answer that. I've been around guitars for a very long time, so when I look at them I look at them in a sorta funny way that maybe you don't. If you had asked me before you bought it I would have talked to you about what's wrong with the appearance of that guitar. What I can see of it, that is. But since you used the word "purchased" in the past tense, any conversation with you about that guitar will quickly become an argument, because I'm also pretty sure that anyone that buys a 58 les paul without knowing anything about them is not going to want to hear what is wrong with what they just bought. Good luck with it. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Blackburn Posted March 23, 2013 Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 To all of you who have replied, many thanks for your kind (and sometimes unkind comments) they have been most helpful. It seems that I have been had and am now a little concerned about being in receipt of what could be described as counterfeit goods. The guitar was bought in good faith, I thought I knew how to pick out a fake from the real thing. The price I paid, was in my view, reasonable for a guitar in an extremely poor condition, reasoning that, no-one anywhere, at anytime, would spend so much time and effort making something so poor, so it had to be genuine. The fact that the seller is a musician lent some credence to the whole thing. I'm sorry some of you think the photos I've taken suggest some kind of blag or cover-up as if the intention was to dupe......very far from it!! What I am looking for is genuine feedback from experienced owners and players; my photographic skills probably mirror those of my guitar purchasing, not very good! I'll try and post some more of the pick ups and cavities and other important bits, that is, if any of you are still remotely interested? Sorry, while I'd like to because I feel I've been duped, it's probably not ethical to post the seller's name on a public site. It could be done by PM, again, if any of you are interested. I'm going to keep the guitar anyway, try and tidy it up and play it cos it sounds brill. Thanks again to you all. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsinla Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 To all of you who have replied, many thanks for your kind (and sometimes unkind comments) they have been most helpful. It seems that I have been had and am now a little concerned about being in receipt of what could be described as counterfeit goods. The guitar was bought in good faith, I thought I knew how to pick out a fake from the real thing. The price I paid, was in my view, reasonable for a guitar in an extremely poor condition, reasoning that, no-one anywhere, at anytime, would spend so much time and effort making something so poor, so it had to be genuine. The fact that the seller is a musician lent some credence to the whole thing. I'm sorry some of you think the photos I've taken suggest some kind of blag or cover-up as if the intention was to dupe......very far from it!! What I am looking for is genuine feedback from experienced owners and players; my photographic skills probably mirror those of my guitar purchasing, not very good! I'll try and post some more of the pick ups and cavities and other important bits, that is, if any of you are still remotely interested? Sorry, while I'd like to because I feel I've been duped, it's probably not ethical to post the seller's name on a public site. It could be done by PM, again, if any of you are interested. I'm going to keep the guitar anyway, try and tidy it up and play it cos it sounds brill. Thanks again to you all. Alan No, feel free to post his name publicly, he is a con-man and needs to be exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 No, feel free to post his name publicly, he is a con-man and needs to be exposed. Exactly. Let's be quite clear on this matter. Someone here is a would-be fraudster and counterfeiter. If it isn't you, Mr Blackburn, then it's the 'famous guitarist' from whom you bought the guitar. Name him. Once again; your choice. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 +1. Infact, it's your duty to name him. If you choose not to then you had better expect a label you don't want. You might not like that but all the while you protect this A-hole you look like the bad guy. I won't hold back ( you'll get to realise I never do if you hang about). At the mo I think you're a liar and a fraudster, you have an opportunity to prove me, and hundreds of others, wrong. DO IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibSinCity Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I've been looking at some cheap copy LPs today. I think this most likely started out life as a Westfield? I can see how you would arrive at that headstock shape trying to turn the Westfield headstock into a Gibson one and the horn shape matches. ? http://www.westfieldguitar.co.uk/westfield/prod_details.asp?ID=136 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Yes, you can ask that, but I can't really answer that. I've been around guitars for a very long time, so when I look at them I look at them in a sorta funny way that maybe you don't. If you had asked me before you bought it I would have talked to you about what's wrong with the appearance of that guitar. What I can see of it, that is. But since you used the word "purchased" in the past tense, any conversation with you about that guitar will quickly become an argument, because I'm also pretty sure that anyone that buys a 58 les paul without knowing anything about them is not going to want to hear what is wrong with what they just bought. Good luck with it. rct Having been 'Up To The Back Teeth' with this post I didn't spot this 'till now. You got a +1 and, if the rules were different, you would have gotten quite a few more from here. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 The price I paid, was in my view, reasonable for a guitar in an extremely poor condition, reasoning that, no-one anywhere, at anytime, would spend so much time and effort making something so poor, so it had to be genuine. Reasonable? What did you pay, pray tell? A 1958 Les Paul in the very worst possible condition imaginable (short of having no neck) will still be worth upwards of $80,000 . P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Never mind P. Even I can see this is total joke b.s. Not a single clear picture (why not?) and it's been refretted I think. Hoax. "no-one anywhere, at anytime, would spend so much time and effort making something so poor, so it had to be genuine." It's worse than that, Jim...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Jacob Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I always had a sweet tooth, however, there is a nagging feeling within me that it may actually be genuine. I think I found an ultra-rare 1964 Double-Cut Gibson Les Paul guitar, if you are interested I will sell it for $450 USD. (see the pic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Sutherland Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think I found an ultra-rare 1964 Double-Cut Gibson Les Paul guitar, if you are interested I will sell it for $450 USD. (see the pic) I thought they only offered the Floyd Rose on the '65's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I guess I missed the photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.