Amps

[DRIVING FORCE]

It has been suggested that most of the equipment was sold by the roadies and other's who were owed money. We only have vague memories of the shop owner to go on....

[fret15]

Hey, I don't know whether this has already been mentioned, or if you know (which you probably do), but I think there's an article in the new GuitarPlayer magazine discussing it a little. I'm at work, so I can't check right now, but I wanted to make that known.

[DRIVING FORCE]

Thanks, i havent heard of that one! where is the magazine based? if you have it i'd love a scan!
cheers

[Loghead]

Unless the value is proven, this whole “discovery” thing is a very old type of scam. Why do I think this is a scam? Because these people are creating such a firestorm of talk before anything has been firmly established. The more “talk” can be drummed up, the more they can ask for it.

It is one thing to make the claim that you’ve got an amp that may have been Hendrix’s. It’s another thing to ask for a million pounds for it.

I don’t doubt that there is some millionaire moron who is willing to throw his cash at this thing, but it isn’t legally what it appears to be if there is no provenance proving Hendrix’s ownership, and provenance is everything when it comes to price tags this large.

With things that carry this sort of price tag, a professional assessor, like those who work for Christie’s or Sotheby’s, are the sort of people who can legally authenticate the thing. That’s part of the reason that Christie’s or Sotheby’s charge what they do (take that huge cut); their imprimaturs can assure the value of the object. Of course, they’re not foolproof, but that is the nature of the game.

I suspect that there are very few people with a million dollars to throw around who are going to buy this without considering the value assigned to the amp. Maybe there are a couple of millionaire idiots out there who would buy such an object without considering the legal holes, but even these people usually have lawyers who yank on their leashes when they’re about to do something really stupid.

Anyone who buys this would be foolish not to insure it, and the bill of sale for an item like this doesn’t automatically establish its value. So, if the amp was stolen or destroyed in a fire, the insurance adjustor would say, “prove that it’s really worth as much as you paid for it.” Anyone who regularly buys things worth millions is going to know this.

By the way, Marshall has every incentive to pump this story for all the advertising it’s worth. They’re not in a position to claim the most objectivity, particularly if they’re coming out with a Hendrix model.

I’m not saying that Marshall would do the following, but the possibility is why an independent assessor/auditor is necessary in these sorts of situations. Supposing that the Rich Dickinson people and the Marshall people decided to make a deal whereby if Marshall authenticates it, Dickinson gives them some percentage of the cash. It’s a very old con. Again, I’m not saying that Marshall would do this, but it’s part of the reason that one takes huge ticket items to a place like Christie’s or Sotheby’s.

Lastly, there are probably at least a few people out there with bona fide, authenticated pieces of Hendrix’s gear who are cheering this guy on. They would be quite happy to have this guy jack up the value of all things Hendrix.

[DRIVING FORCE]

Where do i start.....

There has been several independant experts involved in this and all have come to the same conclusion as us. It is the real thing.
There is little that can be done to control the press and what is written, the press pushed this further than we could have wanted or hoped! we are, after all, just a family with an Amp.....
When did we ask a Million for it? i thought we were putting it in an auction or something....
Provenance has been provided using photographic evidence and audio (allthough we may have some more soon). dont forget, he only bought two of these early Amps and they sound very different to the later ones! also we have the reciept from 71 when we bought it and the paper it was advertised in.....
I have only been researching this Amp for 3 months so i think we have done pretty well!
for the insurance you just get guaranteed value insurance.

i think that covers most of it....
I had actually forgotten we had the original reciept, will put that on our website later! Site

[Big Hair]

marshall stack purple - £340.....
imagine how much now if it were a 67 JTM100 with matching Pinstripe 4x12s with 20w celestions....nice

[DRIVING FORCE]

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

That was a hell of a lot of money then! about 3 months of the average wage......

[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.

[wanky]

wouldnt it be smarter to sell it at a vintage guitar shop or vintage instrument auction place or something? hendrix's amp on ebay sounds like a joke

[Big Hair]

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.

interesting post

[DRIVING FORCE]

Hi all,
Long time since i have been here.....
I have had a good read of the latest post from rch47 and think that maybe some of the details which were perhaps better known at the time have long since passed.

When we listed the Amp on ebay originally we had no proof whatsoever that Jimi had owned it apart from our bills of sale from 1971 and the J.H.EXP still stamped on the top.

You are right about the difficulty of proving/authenticating these old items whatever they are but due to the massive interest we decided we had to try. i personally spent at least 4 months researching allmost full time and we havent really stopped since but fortunately Marshall got involved early on (this is why it was pulled from the auction) to find the evidence we needed. They asked us to pull it so they could research and inspect the Amp to date it and try and identify it. Between us we found many identifying details and all the component dating matches up without doubt. many photo's of jimi using the amp have also been found.....

if you have particular questions feel free to email me or post a question in our chat forum!
did you know we gave the Amp it's 1st live performance in years last night?

our website

[psychodave]

So are you going to sell it? Or did you already sell it?

[rch427]

>>"fortunately Marshall got involved early on (this is why it was pulled from the auction) to find the evidence we needed. They asked us to pull it so they could research and inspect the Amp to date it and try and identify it. Between us we found many identifying details and all the component dating matches up without doubt. many photo's of jimi using the amp have also been found..."<<

So why has Marshall been silent about this? It's been what--6 months--since they first contacted you?

And more photos, while nice, still don't prove that the amp you own is the same as the one in the photo. How many reproductions (or outright fakes) of famous guitars are there? How difficult would it be to take a stock guitar from whatever date, make up a fake neckplate, and relic it to exactly match the readily available photos of a guitar that Hendrix or Clapton or EVH or anyone else is known to have played? That is exactly what forgers do, you know. They take whatever information they can find, and they build their creation around it.

There was a famous painter in 17th century Holland named Johannes Vermeer. There are literally hundreds of paintings that have been attributed to him by various people--among them, many famous curators, dealers, etc. The problem is that less than 35 paintings can be definitively attributed to him (such as those which were sold by Vermeer's widow to Britain's royal family). But the market is so strong for his work, that forgers are willing to spend literally years to produce one work that can be passed off as his. The most recent sale of a "genuine" Vermeer was last year. A tiny painting (9" x 10"), it still sold for $30 million.

I'm not accusing you of forgery. What I'm saying is that a million photos of Hendrix playing an amp that looks identical to yours still don't PROVE that the two amps are one and the same; merely that they now look very similar.

As Carl Sagan once famously said--"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". While the evidence you've provided is interesting, it stops well short of proving your claims. Good luck to you.

[DRIVING FORCE]

Marshall had a statement on thier website for about 2 months after they 1st looked at the Amp, they had the Amp while it was still on ebay which is why we removed it from the auction.

The Amp could not have been forged unless it was Marshall themselves who did it because they had it safely stored away while all the research was carried out, we had pictures of it and looked for old pictures with the same damage, there are at least 6 definite points of interest just on the front of it. Back in 1971 when the Amp was purchased the possibility of somone bothering to falsely 'dress it up' would have been stupid because it was actually worth less in the shop than one which had not been abused by Jimi. we have a picture of the Amp being played in about 1973 by my father (Rich Dickinson) which shows some of the damage which proves it.

in reply to psycodave: yes we still own it but are looking to sell it earlyish next year

[danbronson]

this thread is STILL going?:rolleyes:

[DRIVING FORCE]

looks that way.... sorry!

[psychodave]

I personally hope it is real and I hope it is blueprinted so that Marshall can make copies and most of all I hope you get a ton of money for it.

[DRIVING FORCE]

for the 1st time tonight i had the chance to read through this entire thread...... Loghead, you are just that!

it has been one hell of a time for us in the Dickinson home for the last 6 months or so......

as i mentioned a while ago, the Amp must be sold. due to the fact's we now have the Amp cost's £15,000 a year to insure and this, for us, is just too much! it was sat in a wardrobe for a long time and it was never even considered to be any more than 'Jimi's amp in the wardrobe'. now we realise that it was Jimi's 1st Marshall and worth a few quid......

This Amp may be at NAMM in 2006 and we may look to sell it soon after. We have never sold anything at auction and would appreciate some input into what can and can't be done, who is best, and HELP! generally.....

anyone?
thanks!

[ncook]

[SIZE=1]can I have it?[/SIZE]

[DRIVING FORCE]

if you can afford it, of course!