Terry Morgan 59 Reissue

ourmaninthenorth

FelineGuitars said:

I think TM does try to keep these on the hush hush as Gibson "don't encourage" such behaviour

With good reason; they bear Gibson logo's and quite clearly, whichever self deluded way one wants to procrastinate otherwise, they are fake. 

guitars4you

ourmaninthenorth said:

FelineGuitars said:

I think TM does try to keep these on the hush hush as Gibson "don't encourage" such behaviour

With good reason; they bear Gibson logo's and quite clearly, whichever self deluded way one wants to procrastinate otherwise, they are fake. 

I totally see where you are coming from and that is why I'm a touch weary of listing it on my site as and when the deal is finalised - not illegal to own it as such, but as a retailer I'm open to any bad news that trading standards and Gibson's legal team can throw at me - I certainly won't list it as a Gibson Les Paul on the site and indeed will show no pics of the headstock on my web

 So effectively 'Terry Morgan 59 Flame Top Replica' and those who know about it will inquire accordingly - But which ever way I dress it up, I'm in breach of Gibson's intellectual copy rights - Yet I want to be egotistical (is that the right word ?) about selling such a fine guitar - I might end up buying it as my own property and sell it that way accordingly, utilise the likes of FB and or take to many shows I exhibit at and sell it, promote on the QT

Not sure how sites like gumtree, e-bay and reverb go on for such listings be it a Chinese fake or a work of art from TM

Plectrum

ourmaninthenorth said:

FelineGuitars said:

I think TM does try to keep these on the hush hush as Gibson "don't encourage" such behaviour

With good reason; they bear Gibson logo's and quite clearly, whichever self deluded way one wants to procrastinate otherwise, they are fake. 

In which case isn't it a criminal offence to sell one just as it is for the Chinese fakes?

martinw

Plectrum said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

FelineGuitars said:

I think TM does try to keep these on the hush hush as Gibson "don't encourage" such behaviour

With good reason; they bear Gibson logo's and quite clearly, whichever self deluded way one wants to procrastinate otherwise, they are fake. 

In which case isn't it a criminal offence to sell one just as it is for the Chinese fakes?

Of course it is.

However, let's see how the snobbery effect plays out here.

ourmaninthenorth

Mark, I'm certainly not the thought police on this issue...nor do I blanch from expressing my opinion. 

 The whole fake thing is just a little too moody for my tastes...they may be great guitars...one of the Canadian fakes I've played was both scary looking and even scarier sounding ....  I have friends who own them and swear by them. I have friends who sell them, I wouldn't dream of presuming any nefarious intent on their part...none. Indeed, as per your intentions, they go out of their way to describe exactly what is being looked at. 

 Their very existence may well be entirely innocent, and yet something lurks in the back of my mind that all is not ok with them. They are overtly not what they purport to be...that bothers me...for some God unknown reason. 

ourmaninthenorth

Snobbery? mmmm.

Real is Real.

You pays your money and you steers your own ship. 

mburekenge

A great guitar is a great guitar. Who cares whether it is 'real' or not. Do you think that tiny independent luthiers like this bloke put a significant dent in a corporation like Gibson's profits? 

Tbh those in the know will always seek out the best replicas, and the less exposure these guys are given (through threads like this) the less likely they are to get any grief! 

FelineGuitars

mburekenge said:

1)A great guitar is a great guitar. 

2)Who cares whether it is 'real' or not. 

3)Do you think that tiny independent luthiers like this bloke put a significant dent in a corporation like Gibson's profits? 
 4) the less exposure these guys are given (through threads like this) the less likely they are to get any grief! 

1)Agree with you on point 1
2)An amazing guitar is just that regardless of the name on the headstock but some people do care about it's legitimacy and the risk of someone selling a good repro that is hard if not impossible to tell apart from an original
3) no I don't think that the small guy puts a huge financial dent in Gibson's profits but Gibson's attack lawyers have to police the small guys too or they won't be allowed to pursue the big companies whose actions do put a dent in their bottom line
4) agreed and can't help feeling that threads on a highly visible forum like this don't put such people in the cross hairs of Gibson's lawyers. It happened to the late Sid Poole who I was friends with and made some beautiful Les Paul style guitars that found favour with some top players.

Neil

If they are so good why doesn't Terry Morgan put his name on the headstock?

It's a rhetorical question, we all know the reason.

gordiji

The problem here clearly is about Brandname. As Neil rightly says why doesn't he put his name there ? So as a guitar player do you care about the quality of the instrument or the image of the brand or both ?

guitars4you

Sid Poole did put his name on his 'replicas' - players like Geoff Whitehorn and Bernie Marsden owned, toured and played them - I believe Geoff has a TM as well

However I believe the intellectual property right is not just about the headstock name/shape, I think they get shirty about the body shape, 2 humbuckers, 4 control knobs and switch, hence the case against PRS - PRS had enough cash to take Gibson on via a team of lawyers and a court case - Guitars like the Tom Anderson Bulldog and indeed the black/white Duesenberg V, (to name 2 examples) when they get the letter of intent from Gibson, you way up the cost of action v the profit you have made and intend to make over the next 10 years or so, then realise you are better dropping that model and Gibson win with a threat and no more

IvisonGuitars

Having produced a couple of Gibson inspired builds last year had looking to do it 'properly' in 2017, it's a strange one because people who want Gibson style guitar, generally want Gibson on the headstock. As a new builder who will spend hours on each guitar, making them the best they can be, I will use my own name in the headstock, why give someone else the credit?!

BUT I can totally see how it would make them less desirable to some people.

guitarblaster

I get why people want Gibson on the headstock - if it's such an accurate replica, then Gibson on the headstock completes that replication. I think it's the whole idea of having something that is as close as humanly possible to that original 59 that they otherwise could never get. The people buying these must absolutely love Les Pauls. If Gibson were making them as good, then there wouldn't be a market for these. I'm not a Les Paul guy, but that's just what I think. I know a fake is a fake, but I don't really see it in the same way if it's better than the real deal - it's more of an ultimate appreciation of a vintage Les Paul! 

guitars4you

guitarblaster said:

 I know a fake is a fake, but I don't really see it in the same way if it's better than the real deal - it's more of an ultimate appreciation of a vintage Les Paul! 

I know what you are saying - but I do like that quote

Hundreds of Strad replicas are built by 100's of small luthiers and this happens today and has gone on for many many years - Admittedly no one owns the Strad copy right (or so I believe)  - Most are built not to fraud the market and to pass it off as an instrument worth million £ or so - But built as fine replicas for musicians to buy and play and fully appreciate them for what they are - it is acceptable practice in the string business

Twinfan

They're made using copyrighted logos and designs, they're intended to be passed off as the real thing and they're sold in a very shady way.

Gibson make replicas. Other makers using their own logo/name make replicas. Terry Morgan LPs are fakes.

As a shop owner, potentially buying and selling one, I think you're crazy Mark. I wouldn't touch one with someone else's bargepole.

mgaw

and as others have pointed out you have made it "public" now as well, not that i really care, to me it smells of hype, no doubt brilliant guitars but all this cloak and dagger.....enigmatic guitar built by enigmatic genius builder, only really for those in the know hush hush and on the QT........

gordiji

I don't even see it as being a 'fake' in that it's design features & build quality are clearly desirable. That's what people are buying at this pricepoint, but there must be still an attatchment to the brand. 

richardhomer

Twinfan said:

They're made using copyrighted logos and designs. As a shop owner, potentially buying and selling one, I think you're crazy Mark. I wouldn't touch one with someone else's bargepole.

I'm inclined to agree with this - there was a massive fuss on here a while ago when someone advertised a partscaster which 'may' have had the wrong logo on - and someone who enquired about how to advertise a Chinese guitar that 'may' have had a Gibson on it had a similar experience.

Given how litigious Gibson are - and how Trading Standards tend to deal with counterfeit watches/designer goods, I wouldn't go any where near it.

mgaw

richardhomer said:

Twinfan said:

They're made using copyrighted logos and designs. As a shop owner, potentially buying and selling one, I think you're crazy Mark. I wouldn't touch one with someone else's bargepole.

I'm inclined to agree with this - there was a massive fuss on here a while ago when someone advertised a partscaster which 'may' have had the wrong logo on - and someone who enquired about how to advertise a Chinese guitar that 'may' have had a Gibson on it had a similar experience.

Given how litigious Gibson are - and how Trading Standards tend to deal with counterfeit watches/designer goods, I wouldn't go any where nea

ourmaninthenorth

Mark has said it'll be on his website and FB, where has he intimated it'll be for sale on this forum?