FS: Gibson Les Paul Copies

[Mr_GoodBomb]

 

I understand that. I guess my real question should be as follows: When you buy a MIM strat is looks like an American When you buy a Squier it looks like an American When you buy a Korean PRS it looks like one made in the US When you buy a Korean Hamer it looks like one made in the US When you buy a Slammer is looks like a USA Hamer When you buy an epiphone... ...IT HAS THAT STUPID {censored}ING HEADSTOCK!!!!

 

 

Every company does this.

 

The headstocks on Epis are a little different. The bodies on Squier teles are just slightly off. The headstocks on Squier strats are 70s style and cheap looking. The hardware of Epi Explorers and Vs are always gold. The newer LTD headstock logos are silly-looking. Import Hamers have big, gaudy headstocks by comparison to the US models. PRS SEs are so shiney, they're corny-looking. There's always some visual undercut in the budget model that someone petty enough to be bothered by it, and with a pocket will of cash, will justify, "well, I would, but it's ugly, but now I want one, so I'll get the real deal." It's the same reason you can sometimes walk past an Epi at a store and think it's a Gibson, or a Fender and think it's a Squier, but in stock photos on Musician's Friend and other stores, there's a distinct visual difference between lower-end and higher-end gear, and the cheaper the price, the cheaper they look.

[Benjamin3156]

Every company does this. The headstocks on Epis are a little different. The bodies on Squier teles are just slightly off. The headstocks on Squier strats are 70s style and cheap looking. The hardware of Epi Explorers and Vs are always gold. The newer LTD headstock logos are silly-looking. There's always some visual undercut in the budget model that someone petty enough to be bothered by it, and with a pocket will of cash, will justify, "well, I would, but it's ugly, but now I want one, so I'll get the real deal."

 

 

1. Epi headstocks are completely different and disgusting.

2. A logo I can fix with a piece of electrical tape

3. The body differences are VERY subtle and that's not true about all the squier headstocks. (And let's not forget that Fender headstocks actually looked like that once)

4. And hardware can be changed relatively easy.

[Mr_GoodBomb]

 

1. Epi headstocks are completely different and disgusting. 2. A logo I can fix with a piece of electrical tape 3. The body differences are VERY subtle and that's not true about all the squier headstocks. (And let's not forget that Fender headstocks actually looked like that once) 4. And hardware can be changed relatively easy.

 

 

1 and 2. I highly doubt someone who would be so bothered by a subtle difference in headstock would be the same person to find electrical tape a solution for an aesthetic issue.

3. The lower-end Squiers are actually pretty different, and the bodies are none-the-less noticably different from the original designs, which turns a lot of people off and diverts them to the MIMs. The Squier "big headstock" looks cheaper than the originals, as well, most likely on purpose.

4. If you can justify spending another 100-200 dollars to swap the hardware purely for aesthetic reasons, you can justify spending a few hundred more on a Gibson (especially the kind of person who takes their guitar to a shop and pays to have parts replaced and mods made), which is probably the design logic, which is my original point.

[Benjamin3156]

1 and 2. I highly doubt someone who would be so bothered by a subtle difference in headstock would be the same person to find electrical tape a solution for an aesthetic issue. 3. The lower-end Squiers are actually pretty different, and the bodies are none-the-less noticably different from the original designs, which turns a lot of people off and diverts them to the MIMs. The Squier "big headstock" looks cheaper than the originals, as well, most likely on purpose. 4. If you can justify spending another 100-200 dollars to swap the hardware purely for aesthetic reasons, you can justify spending a few hundred more on a Gibson (especially the kind of person who takes their guitar to a shop and pays to have parts replaced and mods made), which is probably the design logic, which is my original point.

 

 

I understand your point comepletely. My point, however, is that all of the other manufacturers leave the possibility for you to modify these aesthetics (except for the logo, but like I said, a piece of tape wouldn't bother me).Reshaping a headstock is not particularly easy especially when it's bound. And I again assert that the difference is not subtle. They are shaped completely different and it looks stupid. I'm more pissed off than anything because they know exactly how stupid it looks.

[Mr_GoodBomb]

I understand your point comepletely. My point, however, is that all of the other manufacturers leave the possibility for you to modify these aesthetics (except for the logo, but like I said, a piece of tape wouldn't bother me).Reshaping a headstock is not particularly easy especially when it's bound. And I again assert that the difference is not subtle. They are shaped completely different and it looks stupid. I'm more pissed off than anything because they know exactly how stupid it looks.

 

 

So do they. And that's the point. The fact that the other aesthetics are easy to modify (which they aren't, really... cheap looks means a repaint, improper sizes means... a lot of work with a saw, hardware means a good chunk of change to replace, etc, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) means that the company didn't succeed in their attempt at adding an attribute that might sway you to something higher-end because the difference ISN'T "moddible" (since a lot of the difference between, say, ESP and LTD are easily upgraded, like pickups and hardware). Epi just succeeded. However, they didn't sway you into purchasing a higher-end model, they just swayed you into owning neither. Every strategy has it's cons.

[Benjamin3156]

So do they. And that's the point. The fact that the other aesthetics are easy to modify (which they aren't, really... cheap looks means a repaint, improper sizes means... a lot of work with a saw, hardware means a good chunk of change to replace, etc, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) means that the company didn't succeed in their attempt at adding an attribute that might sway you to something higher-end because the difference ISN'T "moddible" (since a lot of the difference between, say, ESP and LTD are easily upgraded, like pickups and hardware). Epi just succeeded. However, they didn't sway you into purchasing a higher-end model, they just swayed you into owning neither. Every strategy has it's cons.

 

 

That makes total sense. It just seems silly to me. Epiphones have soooo many other short comings. It seems to me they could have left the headstock alone and the lesser electronics, {censored}ty neck binding, and {censored}ty finish would have encouraged those with money to purchase a Gibson. It seems to me that if I have to settle for something that isn't a Gibson, it could atleast look like it. Which brings us back to the counterfeit situation. The copies aren't as good as Gibsons, but they can be as good as Epiphones. They also realize that people who can't afford the real deal and are willing to put up with lesser quality still like for it to look like they want. If Gibson would make a lesser quality guitar that still looked like a Gibson, people would have no reason to buy a counterfeit but no less reason to buy a better quality Gibson. I love Gibson, but they brought this on themselves. They can't act like the victim now.

[gtrjones]

Gibson can do whatever it pleases with it's intellectual property (the name, and the headstock). The fact that they won't make a cheap guitar with a headstock you like is no justification for counterfeiting or trademark infringement.

Rickenbacker doesn't have an import line at all, and is up to 6 months behind on filling orders. But they also aggressively protect their trademarks.

Gibson IS the victim here, and just because you don't like the way they run the company, the prices they charge, or the products they deliver (I don't), doesn't mean they 'brought it on themselves'. That's just stupid.

I mean if the corner store didn't have any inexpensive beer, that's justification for stealing the beer they DO have for sale? Puhleeze.

[Shooter1371]

Are you sure? Counterfeit Gibson Guitars Strike a Sour Chord with Harnett Judge PDF Print E-mail Sunday, 08 July 2007 RALEIGH: June 28, 2007 - Steven F. Sexton, 48, of Lillington pleaded guilty Monday in Harnett County Superior Court to two counts of criminal use of a counterfeit trademark for selling fake Gibson guitars. Superior Court Judge Frank Lanier gave Sexton a 45 day suspended sentence, 18 months of unsupervised probation, and ordered him to pay a fine of $250. The judge also ordered Sexton to pay $2700 in restitution to his victims. Sexton was charged in March following an investigation by the North Carolina Secretary of State

[Shooter1371]

I understand that. I guess my real question should be as follows: When you buy a MIM strat is looks like an American When you buy a Squier it looks like an American When you buy a Korean PRS it looks like one made in the US When you buy a Korean Hamer it looks like one made in the US When you buy a Slammer is looks like a USA Hamer When you buy an LTD is looks like an ESP When you buy an epiphone... ...IT HAS THAT STUPID {censored}ING HEADSTOCK!!!! WHY!?!?!

 

 

The answer to your question is because these companies licensed foreign manufacturers the use of the headstock shapes logos etc... Obviously for a price. If you look at most epi's it will say "by Gibson" or just "Gibson" on the truss rod cover.

[Shooter1371]

The seller in NC was convicted of "Criminal Use of a Counterfeit Trademark"... that's EXACTLY what's going on here, too - counterfeit use of a trademark isn't related to disclosure. If it's not a gibson, it can't have the logo, whether it's 'disclosed' or not. And, I was countering the previous post that indicated "If you try to sell it as an authentic Gibson, you are not guilty of trademark infringement, but you are committing fraud, which is a criminal offense"... which is incorrect. And another case, so it's not just North Carolina... "Fake Guitars Seized From Oakdale Music Shop (Counterfeit Gibsons) Newsday ^ | 18 Sep 07 | Joseph Mallia Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:14:02 PM by Drew68 An Oakdale music store owner was arrested Monday for selling fake versions of the legendary Gibson guitar at his Montauk Highway shop, the Suffolk police said. Investigators seized 15 fake Gibsons from the store, the police said. Bernard Musumeci, 44, of 2 Domino Way, Centereach, surrendered to the police Monday night, and was charged with trademark counterfeiting. After he was released, Musumeci turned over another 18 guitars from his home, and Gibson Guitar Corp. experts will determine whether they're authentic. The arrest came after a two-month investigation by Fifth Squad detectives, working in conjunction with the Nashville-based Gibson company. After authorities were alerted that Musumeci may have been selling fakes at Oakdale Music, at 925 Montauk Hwy., an undercover security expert from Gibson determined that several guitars from the store were, indeed, counterfeit. Suffolk detectives applied for and executed a search warrant earlier this week and the 15 guitars, all of which were determined to be counterfeit, were seized at the music store."

 

 

Again, he was passing them off as authentic Gibsons. It doesn't matter if its in a store or out of a garage. Maybe you should take a law class, or attend a police academy then you might understand the difference between criminal and civil. I know it can get pretty confusing, even for most cops because the differences can sometimes be subtle.

[Shooter1371]

Ill tell you what gtrjones, if you can find me a case on the internet where someone was prosecuted for possessing or selling a fake WHEN THE BUYER KNEW it was a fake by disclosure, then we'll see. Otherwise you can post all of the criminal cases involving tradmark violations which is by the way fraud, that you can find online, but we will still be at the same argument that I originally posted. But you have to stick to those elements.

[HaloJem]

Lastly, I can't be the only one here that's thinking, if they can produce these copies for $100 how can Gibson sucker folks into paying thousands of dollars for one of their copies? Yes, Gibsons are better, but 10 times better? 30 times as good?

 

 

Ok, let's dissect this one and look at what costs the most for producing a Les Paul:

 

a. How do you know the woods used in these are the SAME as Gibby's? A real Mahogany body & maple neck and/or top probably costs as much as these chinese {censored} axes cost in total to produce (at least). Did you have them analyzed by a lab? Who is to say one batch has the same wood as another batch a month later?

 

b. What is the top made of? Has that been analyzed too? I'll make a wager most HC'ers would NOT bet the top on these is actual maple.

 

c. What is the hardware made of? Did you have that tested too? Base metal is very cheap & you can get it with many diff. "nice looking" finishes.

 

d. The Pups? Oh boy, don't REALLY get me started...

 

If you have a pro rig & play a cheap guitar thru it - you can hear a difference between a real Les Paul & a copy/counterfeit. period. If you don't care about that, fine. But if you question if a Gibson is worth the guitar it is just because China can make a ripoff for $100 - you are talking apples and oranges. I have some baby formula with melamine for you, and also some dog food for your pet, too.

[Keelbolts]

I'm not saying that a Gibson is not better than one of those Chinese fakes, I am saying that I doubt they are that much better. I think my premise is hard to argue with. We can talk about how to measure 'better' or if it is or isn't worth it to pay 20 times as much money for a guitar that is, let's say, 2 times as good. I have or have had a boat load of guitars over the last 40 years and I think I'm just not as brand conscious as I once was. In most things, I don't care about what it claims to be, I care about what it is.

Again, we all discount Chinese ability to manufacture good products at our peril. I'm old enough to remember when "Made in Japan" meant Jap crap. Detroit learned, too late, to take them seriously and compete with them head to head & dollar to dollar. If the Chinese weren't capable of producing decent guitars, do you think Gibson would have moved the lion's share of Epiphone production there? Remember, it's all about labor costs.

Don't get me wrong, Gibson came up with the Les Paul, I believe it's theirs to sell at whatever price it will bring, and nobody should be able to produce exact copies of their guitars. I even think that the 'problem' with the 'high price' of Gibson guitars isn't a problem of corporate greed, but of inflation. When I was in HS you could buy a LP Custom for $600, but that was 36 years ago. You could also buy a VW Beetle for about $1,200. I think what's changed is that there are now a number of fairly high quality guitars around at low prices.

[shooterkc]

I'm sure the quality it decent. Look at the Epi's. I've owned two that had action and played as nice as a Gibby does. The pickups were switched to SD Alnico Pro II's and it was a great guitar. I'd try one and switch the pickups out just for a cheap axe to jam. Just my two cents. Oh and not a $500 one, LOL that's just stupid.

[lndianScout]

worst Fender copies I've ever seen,,

[Benjamin3156]

Gibson can do whatever it pleases with it's intellectual property (the name, and the headstock). The fact that they won't make a cheap guitar with a headstock you like is no justification for counterfeiting or trademark infringement. Rickenbacker doesn't have an import line at all, and is up to 6 months behind on filling orders. But they also aggressively protect their trademarks. Gibson IS the victim here, and just because you don't like the way they run the company, the prices they charge, or the products they deliver (I don't), doesn't mean they 'brought it on themselves'. That's just stupid. I mean if the corner store didn't have any inexpensive beer, that's justification for stealing the beer they DO have for sale? Puhleeze.

 

 

It is not my intent to steal merchandise. It's just my opinion that Gibson stands to make a lot more money making a line that discourages buying a fake than they do hiring lawyers. They are only the victim as a result of their own stupidity which lowers the amount of sympathy I can feel for them. Gibson can't just sue everyone forever. Sooner or later they are going to have to beat these people at their own game.

[HaloJem]

I'm not saying that a Gibson is not better than one of those Chinese fakes, I am saying that I doubt they are that much better. I think my premise is hard to argue with. We can talk about how to measure 'better' or if it is or isn't worth it to pay 20 times as much money for a guitar that is, let's say, 2 times as good. .....


Remember, it's all about labor costs.

When you assign numbers to how a guitar can be "2 times as good", your arguement is VERY easy to argue with! Your comment about labor is nearer the mark, as you can't compare today's inflation, material prices - wood & metal prices across several countries fairly - and then top it off with the span of time since Gibby's were not that much dough.

I can tell you those chinese knockoffs are not just "1/2 as good" as my Les Pauls - or whatever fraction you want to base the "goodness" on due to the price discrepancy. Anyways - this is redundant.

Final answer: Chinese IMITATION les pauls may be fine for some - its not the real deal at any price. period.

[Benjamin3156]

Final answer: Chinese IMITATION les pauls may be fine for some - its not the real deal at any price. period.

 

 

This is part of my point as well. Gibson could make their own Chinese LICENSED guitars, edge out the counterfeit market, and still have the customers(like many of us) who aren't going to settle solely for a Chinese Les Paul.

 

They could even put epiphone on the headstock and people wouldn't care. Just like people don't care if it says Greco or Burny or Tokai or Edwards. It's the look they are after. The best Japanese or Chinese fakes rival the quality of the best Epi's. So, Gibson doesn't need to retool a factory, they just need to provide that look at a lower price for the "some" mentioned above. I'll still buy Gibson USA...but maybe I would like a guitar that doesn't look like a turd to abuse.

[khastra_ksc]

This guy still isn't banned?

[q-4000]

 

It is my understanding that its not criminally illegal to own or possess a copy. It turns criminal if you turn around and knowingly try to fraudulantly pass it off by selling it as an authentic gibson. Copyright and trademark infringements are civil in nature and subject to civil tort law (simple possession only). The only criminal violation I can see is the actual reproduction of the gibson trademark by the Chinese manufacturer, in which the U.S. has no juristiction.

 

 

wrong! owning one is also illegal just like if the cops caught you with counterfeit money dosnt matter if you try to use it or not possession of counterfeit items is 100% illegal! and yes the US has no jurisdiction on where they are made BUT IMPORTING them is a crime if a counterfit item is shipped through the USPS it is a felony!! and reciving the package from any shipper is a felony. its traficing counterfit goods. most people are not charged due to the fact that they mostly go looking for drugs being shiped in.

 

 

one of the reasons that Gibsons are getting so expensive is because these counterfits are out there and there are more and more of them every day! im sure im not the only one that sends these to Gibson. and I hope most of you do!!! yea yea Gibson is a big company but it hurts us when they have to jack up the price to cover there lawyer fees due to some dip {censored} selling fakes!

[jairic]

one of the reasons that Gibsons are getting so expensive is because these counterfits are out there and there are more and more of them every day! im sure im not the only one that sends these to Gibson. and I hope most of you do!!! yea yea Gibson is a big company but it hurts us when they have to jack up the price to cover there lawyer fees due to some dip {censored} selling fakes!

 

 

 

+1

[Shooter1371]

it is illeagal to sell OR IMPORT them second hand or not! they are not selling imports as the real thing! moding a guitar and selling it is not illegal wrong! owning one is also illegal just like if the cops caught you with counterfeit money dosnt matter if you try to use it or not possession of counterfeit items is 100% illegal! and yes the US has no jurisdiction on where they are made BUT IMPORTING them is a crime if a counterfit item is shipped through the USPS it is a felony!! and reciving the package from any shipper is a felony. its traficing counterfit goods. most people are not charged due to the fact that they mostly go looking for drugs being shiped in. one of the reasons that Gibsons are getting so expensive is because these counterfits are out there and there are more and more of them every day! im sure im not the only one that sends these to Gibson. and I hope most of you do!!! yea yea Gibson is a big company but it hurts us when they have to jack up the price to cover there lawyer fees due to some dip {censored} selling fakes!

 

 

So I take it you can provide the federal criminal statute for possession of counterfeit guitars? Can you also post the federal criminal statute for felony use of the U.S. Postal Service by accepting a counterfeit item? I'm not disagreeing with you about the ethical question of copies, all I am saying is that I've never seen or heard of anyone being prosecuted CRIMINALLY for mere possession of a Gibson copy. However there are several cases which have already been documented about people trying to fraudulently pass of copies as authentic, but that is an entirely different thing.

[q-4000]

this about covers it! no there is no statue for possession of a Gibson Copy but there is for ANY counterfeit product!

 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html

 

some highlites

 

"(a) Whoever intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000. In the case of an offense by a person under this section that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this section, the person convicted, if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000."

 

"(2) the term

[q-4000]

 

So I take it you can provide the federal criminal statute for possession of counterfeit guitars? Can you also post the federal criminal statute for felony use of the U.S. Postal Service by accepting a counterfeit item? I'm not disagreeing with you about the ethical question of copies, all I am saying is that I've never seen or heard of anyone being prosecuted CRIMINALLY for mere possession of a Gibson copy. However there are several cases which have already been documented about people trying to fraudulently pass of copies as authentic, but that is an entirely different thing.

 

 

real or not a counterfeit is a counterfeit doesn't matter if you tell the person or not!

[lndianScout]

 

nuff said

 

GTFO