Counterfeit Guitars

I did not mean it to turn into a debate about about how high American Guitars are and didn't want Gibson to turn into the whipping post.
After all there were Fender clones and Taylor clones there too, some of them get pretty pricey also, I know just picked up a Taylor Monday a little under $2000.

What gets me going there is a very good chance that most of them are for one buyer who would then sell them as the real thing, THATS WHAT PISSES ME OFF!
That is the person who should have there balls ripped off. (Deceiving people)
I am also not crazy about fakes either, it does not just apply to guitars. D'Addario was complaining about it a few years ago. Guitar strings and their packaging was being cloned.

As for the clones you like them better than the real thing, fine I don't have a problem with that. Play what you like!
But the manufacture having someone elses name on the headstock is just wrong.

Like sixstring said Rondo builds copies but with their name on the headstock, and they do play pretty good, I don't have a problem with that.
 
The fakers even make knock-off Epiphones!

A high-ticket guitar I can perhaps understand, but a copy of something that is already relatively inexpensive..?
shrug.gif


Still, I suppose even a £1 / $1 / €1 made is a £1 / $1 / €1 more than they initially had...


I can spot them a mile off, but I see countless ebay / Gumtree listings etc whereby the seller is either completely unaware, or just going for it anyway. As for the unsuspecting buyer..?
mellow.gif
 
6L6C said:
What gets me going there is a very good chance that most of them are for one buyer who would then sell them as the real thing, THATS WHAT PISSES ME OFF!
That is the person who should have there balls ripped off. (Deceiving people)
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
6L6C said:
I did not mean it to turn into a debate about about how high American Guitars are and didn't want Gibson to turn into the whipping post.
Click to expand...

Sorry Bro! that was my fault as I kind of lead into that in my post. Many other things need to be figured into that comment like the quality of woods, electronics and hardware used and labor being the the major one. When you are competing with a lobor force that works .10 on the dollar it's going to tuff to compete with price so one needs to back it up with quality and craftsmanship.

One of the reasons I have jumped on to the Carvin boat. The way I see it is someone should be able to get a quality U.S. made guitar, to your specs for the most part for 2K and under. Companies like Suhr and PRS who used to be in that category have priced them selves in to the high end or collector market place with their nice offerings and replaced that with over seas offerings that are limited in style, appointments and specs.
 
Sixstring said:
One of the reasons I have jumped on to the Carvin boat. The way I see it is someone should be able to get a quality U.S. made guitar, to your specs for the most part for 2K and under.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. What some people don't know too is that EBMM will custom build you a guitar with current specs. I couldn't find the JP6 I wanted and they built it for me. I waited three months for it, but MAN, it is an amazing piece of craftsmanship and was WAAAY under $2K. It sounds and plays like buttah.
 
Sixstring said:
Sorry Bro! that was my fault as I kind of lead into that in my post. Many other things need to be figured into that comment like the quality of woods, electronics and hardware used and labor being the the major one. When you are competing with a lobor force that works .10 on the dollar it's going to tuff to compete with price so one needs to back it up with quality and craftsmanship.

One of the reasons I have jumped on to the Carvin boat. The way I see it is someone should be able to get a quality U.S. made guitar, to your specs for the most part for 2K and under. Companies like Suhr and PRS who used to be in that category have priced them selves in to the high end or collector market place with their nice offerings and replaced that with over seas offerings that are limited in style, appointments and specs.
Click to expand...
No problem and I get it, Gibson HAS, DOES & WILL continue to be a less than stellar company especially when it comes to customer service and pricing.
And although things do happen for the money that Gibson charges there should be allot less problems. I have two Les Paul’s and I love them one is 1980 standard (I am the original owner) and I also have 2007 Custom shop (which I acquired in 2009)Not that I looked hard core but through the years after my first Les Paul I was kind of looking for another. The problem some played not all that well, and others were fine but just did not measure up to what I had. I have been told through the years my standard is exceptional and have had many offers, not just playability but tone. And then of course a few years ago I acquired the Custom. But if you think about it-- It took me all those years to find another not saying allot for Gibson. But when you find that special one, nothing like it so to say. But with the prices you should not have to hunt like that in the first place. Bottom line Les Paul’s are for me.

As for a luthier making a one off copy, ok I can see that were someone my like it better. But these mass produced clones I have never tried one that was close, (not that I have tried everything on the planet) and I am talking tone not playability. I think wood selection is what they put their hands on and that’s it.
 
Kidsfeet said:
It was a copy made by a reputable luthier in LA who made it to exact Gibson specs. It was probably not far off the price of a REAL Gibson and made from quality woods, with expert craftsmanship. It wasn't some knock off he got off the shelf of a pawn shop for $50.
Click to expand...

It was obviously enough of a price difference that Slash could afford the guitar as opposed to the $800 to $1,000 that a Gibson Les Paul standard was commanding new in the late 80's. Again, it was a cheaper knock off than the original otherwise logic would dictate that Slash would have bought a genuine one if the cost the same. The luthier was renowned at the time for making knock offs, if you read up on the history of that guitar. It is not like Slash walked into a random luthier and asked him to knock off an LP.

The fact that Gibson made an AFD guitar that was a tribute to a knock off is a bit of a farce. They might as well have made a tribute to the Ibanez lawsuit guitar, since it was as much a Gibson as the AFD original was.

Most knocks offs I have seen use Asian mahogany, maple cap, and rosewood or ebony fingerboards, seeming quality woods. These aren't the plywood travesties of 8-10 years ago.

The things they usually screw up on are the bindings, the tuner spacing, the volute angle, and they have that scarf joint by the head stock. Sometimes the proportions of the body are a little compressed. The pick ups are crappy and the tuners need to be replaced, but my brother needed to do that on his '59 burst reissue, so that ain't saying much.

Henry J. is killing that company with the overpriced wares and under delivering in the value department. I remember when I bought my Dusk Tiger new, I was having problems with the registration for the bonus software that the registration number was not working. They never replied to e-mails. Phone messages were not returned. I basically had to shame them on their own message board to find a solution to my issue. Once I publicly posted about it, amazingly they found my phone number and gave me good customer service & a resolution within a day. A Dusk Tiger was not an $800 LP Studio either, it was their flagship instrument of the year that the traditionalists were making fun of, so they had every reason to give good customer service when someone took a leap of faith buying one and had a problem.

I would buy a used Gibson, but never a new one again as long as that collection of dill rods are running the place.

Something to think about: If the LP studios were really made out of quality wood, why would they paint them rather than stain them. unless they were embarrassed with the quality of the wood?
 
dr bonkers said:
It is not like Slash walked into a random luthier and asked him to knock off an LP.


Something to think about: If the LP studios were really made out of quality wood, why would they paint them rather than stain them. unless they were embarrassed with the quality of the wood?
Click to expand...

If memory serves, Slash was given the guitar and didn't purchase it. Les Paul couldn't even tell it was a knock off. That says a lot of the builder, no?

LP Studios don't have the flamed maple tops like the Standards do and they keep the price down by NOT painting them all fancied up. As I said, the differences are mostly cosmetic.
 
Kidsfeet said:
If memory serves, Slash was given the guitar and didn't purchase it. Les Paul couldn't even tell it was a knock off. That says a lot of the builder, no?

LP Studios don't have the flamed maple tops like the Standards do and they keep the price down by NOT painting them all fancied up. As I said, the differences are mostly cosmetic.
Click to expand...

That sure does. But that is my point that if one could get an affordable knock -off, it doesn't make it any lesser of a guitar from a music making standpoint.

So the cork sniffers who say all copies from China are crap are deluding themselves. 10 years ago, that may be the case, but now the wood materials and are narrowing the gap.

And whether your knock off is made by someone in LA, Las Vegas, or Guangdong, it is still a fake. The parts that are the dead giveaway now, you can mostly swap out if your point is to have an affordable player and knock about guitar. Once the Chinese figure out how to make the neck without a scarf joint like US replica makers, I would shake in my boots if I was Henry J, because the Asian copies get better every year.

My point about the Studios is, you don't know if the wood is the same grade because it is covered in opaque paint. So while the color is cosmetic, the quality of the wood itself is an unknown and some would say helps contribute to the tone. So the debate is does one drop $800-$1,100 on something you can't see the quality of the wood on or do you drop a lesser amount and see the quality of the wood with a decent finish and a binding job as good as the Epiphones or cheaper LP's?
 
Reminds me of the time I was searching for a 7vwh JEM and couldnt tell the difference from a fake. Now its sort of a dead give away, gold knobs, gold tremelo bar, bolt spacing wrong. I have come across a few websites, even located in the states, that will offer to build you "custom" guitars from scratch modeled after the signature guitars of real famous guys for like under 500 bucks shipped. For that reason alone, ive started having my deals set up at my local luthier shop to check for its authenticity. If the guy doesnt want to meet there and prove its real, then no deal. Its a shame you need some sort of middle man to officiate a used gear deal now a days.
 
dr bonkers said:
So the debate is does one drop $800-$1,100 on something you can't see the quality of the wood on or do you drop a lesser amount and see the quality of the wood with a decent finish and a binding job as good as the Epiphones or cheaper LP's?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy a lower end Gibson... but I suspect that's because I've never personally once lusted after a Gibson in 25 years of playing. I appreciate them totally and love that other people are really into them, but it's just never flicked that switch for me...perhaps that's purely down to the price tag..?

However, at something like 10% - 15% the cost, I don't know how to look past an Epiphone!





 
dr bonkers said:
My point about the Studios is, you don't know if the wood is the same grade because it is covered in opaque paint. So while the color is cosmetic, the quality of the wood itself is an unknown and some would say helps contribute to the tone. So the debate is does one drop $800-$1,100 on something you can't see the quality of the wood on or do you drop a lesser amount and see the quality of the wood with a decent finish and a binding job as good as the Epiphones or cheaper LP's?
Click to expand...

Let's talk about this for a second or two. The wood that makes the body of a Standard or a Studio is the same. The Standard has a mpale "cap" put over the wood which acheives two objectives. The first is purely cosmetic. It looks better and especially lights up with a nice clear type finish. The second is the tone. The maple makes the tone a little more bright. That's it. So truly "the quality" of the tone wood to make the actual body of the guitar is also hidden on a Standard. It's hidden under a maple cap but is very likely and almost surely the exact same body as a Studio, with a bit more wood shaved off to fit the cap on it.

As far as how they can do this for the cheaper Epiphones, goes, it's a photo. It's not real wood that makes the cheaper guitars LOOK like the more expensive ones. Fender had a bunch of these called "Foto Finish" which looked exactly like their more expensive, flashier American counterparts.

Your theory doesn't fly. As I said from the outset, for the most part, the more expensive Gibsons are all flash, little substance. Little difference, too. There is no special pile of bodies on one side of the factory that are earmarked for "Standards" or "Studios". They all come from the same pile (of...).
 
Kidsfeet said:
Let's talk about this for a second or two. The wood that makes the body of a Standard or a Studio is the same. The Standard has a mpale "cap" put over the wood which acheives two objectives. The first is purely cosmetic. It looks better and especially lights up with a nice clear type finish. The second is the tone. The maple makes the tone a little more bright. That's it. So truly "the quality" of the tone wood to make the actual body of the guitar is also hidden on a Standard. It's hidden under a maple cap but is very likely and almost surely the exact same body as a Studio, with a bit more wood shaved off to fit the cap on it.

As far as how they can do this for the cheaper Epiphones, goes, it's a photo. It's not real wood that makes the cheaper guitars LOOK like the more expensive ones. Fender had a bunch of these called "Foto Finish" which looked exactly like their more expensive, flashier American counterparts.

Your theory doesn't fly. As I said from the outset, for the most part, the more expensive Gibsons are all flash, little substance. Little difference, too. There is no special pile of bodies on one side of the factory that are earmarked for "Standards" or "Studios". They all come from the same pile (of...).
Click to expand...

The other thing that can and should be considered is the moisture content and in some cases the tone quality of the wood. This one thing I know that companies like Gibson, Fender and many other reputable companies like Suhr and PRS take in to consideration when building the U.S. or Custom shop guitars.

So as to the way the wood looks... it's only half of the deal. What dr bonkers is saying is partly true if you cover up the wood with a pretty color paint job for all any one knows it could be a plank of plywood or a hunk of pine or more likely the rejects fron companies like Gibson, Fender, Suhr and PRS etc that didn't make the grade.
 
Years ago I walked into a guitar shop in Chatanooga, TN. And saw this old school Explorer hanging on the wall.
I pulled it down and plugged into a Deluxe Reverb and was blown away by the tones/growls this guitar was throwing out. Plugged into a Marshall, etc.
Looked at the price tag and it was$300. I was momentarily thinking I had done the score of a lifetime until I saw it was a Dillion.
I ask about it and the owner said it was one of those "lawsuit" guitars.
I bought it and never looked back. Sounds better than a real Gibson I own.
2 years ago, same thing - found an Epiphone V for $375 at a shop and plugged it in. Was dumbfounded at the tone. Grabbed that also. Let my buddy who owns over 50 collectible Gibsons, Fenders, etc play them and he says they are better than the V's and Explorers he owns. I agree. Big fan of knock offs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think if a guitar is made of a decent chunk of wood (many Epiphones are) and you put decent hardware on it, there is no reason it can't play and sound as good as any other guitar if set up correctly.

A few weeks ago in a shop I tried a bunch of guitars, including Gibson and PRS. If I did a blindfolded test and had to guess which one was the most expensive, I would have picked the Music Man Axis. It just felt so amazingly well made. All the other guitars I tried cost £500 or more than it.

You just like what you like. Another time I spent ages in a shop trying to persuade myself I liked the Suhr Strat more than the Fender one. I was honest with myself in the end and bought a Fender.
 
The main point for me with Dillions or the old Ibanez lawsuit guitars is that they said Dillion or Ibanez on them. No one thought they were buying a Gibson or Fender when the purchase was made. I work in law enforcement and have had the unfortunate duty of telling several owners their "$5000" Les Paul Supreme was a fake, or their Telecaster was a copy... some were upset, some actually got mad and accused me of lying. That's what bothers me... they are being foisted off on unsuspecting buyers as the genuine article and they aren't.

By the way, I did see two of these stripped of their finish, and they are crap wood and really cheap electronics under the pretty paint. I'm not talking about mismatched good wood. I'm talking about wood that I wouldn't want on a shipping pallet. Paul Gilbert already proved you can get good sound out of plywood, but then again... that's what he wanted and you can tell it's plywood! It's the idea that a person thinks they buy a Les Paul, think they're getting quality woods and components, and they're getting junk. Even if it sounds good, it isn't what it represents itself to be. I'd be just as pissed if I bought a real Gibson, stripped it and found green, knotty pine wood below instead of the maple and mahogany that is supposed to be there. Deceit is deceit, no matter what it sounds like.
 
Rick said:
The main point for me with Dillions or the old Ibanez lawsuit guitars is that they said Dillion or Ibanez on them. No one thought they were buying a Gibson or Fender when the purchase was made. I work in law enforcement and have had the unfortunate duty of telling several owners their "$5000" Les Paul Supreme was a fake, or their Telecaster was a copy... some were upset, some actually got mad and accused me of lying. That's what bothers me... they are being foisted off on unsuspecting buyers as the genuine article and they aren't.
Click to expand...

That's the bottom line with counterfeit products.

They are 'brand' forgeries being deceitfully represented as manufactured by the company who is being counterfeited to increase their perceived value in order to defraud the customer.
 
Why not scrape the name off and donate them to poor kids or a music school or poor kids in Africa or something?
They're already made, it would be a shame to destroy em all. What a waste. These would make
Some poor kids very happy and introduce them to making music etc. Too much work? Easier to pile em up, douse em
With gasoline and light them up? Guess so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom