06-17-2005 10:35 AM
06-17-2005 11:01 AM
06-17-2005 11:32 AM
06-17-2005 02:30 PM
06-17-2005 02:50 PM
06-19-2005 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Big Hair
marshall stack purple - £340.....
imagine how much now if it were a 67 JTM100 with matching Pinstripe 4x12s with 20w celestions....nice
10-30-2005 01:55 PM
10-30-2005 02:01 PM
10-30-2005 02:03 PM
Originally posted by rch427
I just discovered this thread, and was fascinated by the exchanges here (not to mention by the listing itself).
I had a similar situation a few years ago. At an estate sale here in San Francisco, I found an old guitar case in the garage. There was no guitar inside, but it was a nice old case, so I bought it anyway, for $20. After getting it home, I started looking at it more closely. I posted a picture of the case to an on-line vintage guitar board, and immediately got responses identifying it as belonging to a Rickenbacker, and dating to the mid-to-late '60s. There was an old mailing label taped to the outside of the case, addressed from Columbia Records to a DJ at what was then the main local rock radio station here in SF. I tracked down that DJ, and asked him if he remembered having a guitar shipped to him in that timeframe. He sure did: in 1967, the Who were in town to play the Fillmore and the Monterey Pop Festival. The Who's US label needed to get one of Pete Townshend's Rickenbackers to him, so they shipped it to the radio station, where the Who were about to be interviewed.
OK, so that was pretty interesting! But I had a hell of a time getting in touch with the heirs to the estate, to see if they could tell me anything. I left many messages to try to get anyone to call me back. Finally, I got through to the son of the man who's house it was. He claimed that he would tell me everything he knew about that guitar case, but it was going to cost me $500. What a wanker! If he thought the case was valuable, why didn't he keep it? Or why didn't he just ask for a percentage of the sale price? For all I knew, he was going to take the $500, then say "my dad had the case, and now he doesn't. That's everything I know. And thanks for the $500!" He wouldn't see it from my perspective, and I wasn't going to give him anything up front, so that lead was dead.
And so, I had a '60s Rick case that almost certainly belonged to Townshend in his prime. The guitar itself was probably destroyed on stage. But--without definitive provenence--it was just a case. I eBayed it with as much of the story as I could piece together, and it sold for $180. If I had only had proof that it was Townshend's case from the MPF, what would it be worth today--a few thousand? It sucks, but that's the reality of attributions.
There are only 3 ways to authenticate something like that case or this amp:
1. The original owner has to be willing to step up and say "this was mine", like Clapton did with his guitars that Christie's auctioned. Not the situation with this amp.
2. There has to be absolutely verifiable, unbroken provenence, such as if this alleged ex-Hendrix amp had been given by Hendrix' stage manager to Hendrix' immediate family right after his death, and had stayed in their possession until now, AND Marshall had stamped a hidden serial number inside it that was unknown to anyone else, but was kept in their records (watch companies do this to combat fakes). Again, not the situation with this amp.
3. Someone with a huge reputation has to be willing to say "we guarantee that this is authentic". That's what Christie's and Sotheby's have to do when they sell something. When they sold Jackie O's or Marilyn Monroe's estates, they had to be willing to buy back anything that could later be shown to be doubtful in authenticity. And they weren't willing to do that with this amp.
A bill of sale from a shop that claimed that 30 years ago that the amp had belonged to Hendrix is worthless, unless they can prove it had belonged to him, which they couldn't. A photo of Hendrix with a similar amp is also worthless towards establishing this amp's authenticity. If I had that photo and a Marshall 100, I know for a fact that I could replicate the amp in the picture, down to the tiniest detail. Stickers, broken nameplates, scuffs--these can easily be faked, and the photo and a few tools are all it takes. As was pointed out, the aluminum chassis, etc., could be faked as well.
This auction smelled funny from the get-go. There is a slight chance that it actually was Hendrix' amp, but why was it pulled from the auction? Legal fears? If it was legit, why not auction it through a major house, like Christie's or Sotheby's? The seller's claim about their commission being too high is absolute rubbish. EBay takes a percentage too, but the amp (in its dubious state) would sell for a fraction there of what it would sell for in a legit auction house. So, if it sold on eBay for $20K and eBay took 5%, or it sold through Christies for $500K, and they took 10%, what's the difference? The seller still ends up with far more money in his pocket. His claims about looking out for the interests of the buyer are laughable. If he really cared about how much the buyer would have to pay in commissions, he could always reimburse them out of his own fat pocket, or donate the amp to the most deserving person, or sell it at a fixed price. Instead, he sits on the amp, waiting for the "right price", while at the same time, claiming he can't keep it because he can't afford the $25,000 for its insurance. Well, which is it?
My conclusion is that the seller knew full well he couldn't verify Hendrix' ownership, and discovered he was in way over his head when he was deluged with questions and suspicions. If it's an out-and-out forgery, then the seller went about selling it all wrong, but that doesn't mean it *isn't* a forgery. Frankly, I doubt we'll ever hear anything about the amp again. Curiously, Marshall still has no mention of it on their website, even on their page about their reissue of the 100. If they were convinced it was the one they built for Hendrix, they'd be talking it up alread, to prepare for launching exact replicas. But at least the guy gets the ego boost of thinking he owns The Amp, and he's generated some buzz for his band, for whatever that's worth. The lesson to be learned here is--don't make claims of definitive authenticity if you can't back it up. You just end up looking foolish.
10-30-2005 03:14 PM
10-30-2005 04:27 PM
10-31-2005 04:57 AM
10-31-2005 12:02 PM
11-02-2005 06:24 PM
HarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.