Fake 59 Gibson

[AlexR]

If you make a guitar as a complete clone merely as an exercise in seeing if you can do it - the physical accomplishment of making something so accurate that even an expert would be in doubt, then I have no issue with it. Copyright and trademark laws only actually apply to something that has been bought or sold so technically making a clone 59 Gibson that is never sold and is in the possession of the builder for its life breaks no laws.
Of course as soon as you go about making for sale, then thats where the distinction lies for me.
But this is still a level above the Chibson. If you were to buy a luthier made clone you'll be getting something way 'better' just as a musical instrument, or more accurate, or with much higher QC and fit/finish than what even Tom Murphy will do.

[beaubrummels]

There's a forum somewhere with middle-aged men still ragging on the quality of them cheap Chinese Stradivarious violins

[Mincer]

I dunno . . . Slash did OK playing his knock-off Gibson in Guns N'Roses.

Sure, people can do OK with a good guitar. I am all for people playing good music on good guitars. I don't like counterfeiting someone else's work.

[Leon Of Late]

I think it's super groovy, for personal use, or sale on the used market with full disclosure. Otherwise, it's fraudulent.

I think this. As long as it’s disclosed as a Gibson copy, I don’t care what it says on the headstock. There are some great Gibson copies out there that I would love to own.

[ehdwuld]

Maybe the Luthiers name IS Gibson And he did put his name on it

naw the Chinese Luthiers make copies everyday
It's still wrong

Blank headstock or something

[GuitarStv]

Sure, people can do OK with a good guitar. I am all for people playing good music on good guitars. I don't like counterfeiting someone else's work.

Slash's guitar for AfD was 100% counterfeiting Gibson's work . . . right down to the fake 'Gibson' on the headstock.

[Gtrjunior]

Like Gil Yaron?

it’s so funny how irrational humans are. If a luthier could guarantee an exact copy of a 1959 Les Paul, made with lumber from the era, pickups and electronics from a gibson of that era and the exact glues, dyes and finishes.... but the headstock had to look like an Epiphone and the body had a slight tweak at the cutaway, more players than not would pass in favor of the one that says Gibson and has the exact shapes. I mean, I do it with Strats.... Suhrs are amazing guitars but that beak headstock would make me think twice if I was ever going to drop $3500 on a Strat.

Not that I have that kind of money, but I’d drop $3500 on a Suhr way before I would on any Fender.

[superpete]

Slash's guitar for AfD was 100% counterfeiting Gibson's work . . . right down to the fake 'Gibson' on the headstock.

ironically, that counterfeit probably sold more real les pauls in the 80s than anything gibson themselves did

[Spirit of 76]

Sure, people can do OK with a good guitar. I am all for people playing good music on good guitars. I don't like counterfeiting someone else's work.

True. If you can play really well, you can make a Wal-Mart guitar sound good. But I agree here, counterfeiting is wrong...making clones or knock-offs, so long as they are positioned as a copy is fine...but trying present it as the real deal when it's fake is just shady AF.

[skud707]

Many luthiers enjoy the challenge of trying to create a copy or their take on what a perfect Les Paul should be.
Selling it is illegal. Passing it off as a real Gibson is illegal and shameful and would certainly guarantee a trip to the hospital if ever found out.
There are “fakes” that are impossible to tell apart from a real Les Paul. 99% of LP copies don’t pass 30 seconds of critical inspection. It’s the 1% that can look perfect and pass complete scrutiny...So play what you love, remember it’s 3 chords and THE TRUTH for a reason.