Chinese fake Les Pauls

OilCityPickups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QoA44c23A

JayGee

TheGuitarWeasel said:

It still is an offense to but Gibson on the headstock of something that isn't or Fender for that matter. I don;t personally have a problem with the Vintages or Agiles of this world ... who change a few subtle things and give the public a cheaper lookalike. I have A Vintage V100 and an Epiphone flying V ... and they are both. in their own ways fine guitars (espicially now I have upgraded pickups and a Stetsbar on the V ... pics and story to follow soon) but they don't have fake badges ... and I'm happy for everyone to recognise them as copies ... that's different to fakes!
Allowing limited copying is healthy ... allowing blatant fakery isn't.

No arguments here, it's ICBM's more purist position, magazine's refusing to review instruments they perceive as copies, and the neccesity for sellers to resort to ridiculous circumlocutions ("T-Type", "S-Type", etc, etc) in advertising I'm less comfortable with. If (say) Tokai can give us a better strat or LP than Fender/Squier or Gibson/Epiphone can for the same or less money then, at this remove from when the innovations took place place I see no pressing moral issue in going for the better deal and no moral issue with reviewers and sellers drawing comparisons in plain English.

Incidentally I seem to have all the permutations short of outright fakery covered with (amongst other things) MIJ, MIM, and MIA Fenders, a Squier Stagemaster, a Peerless which is an ES295 copy, a '70s CSL Les Paul-a-like, and an Epiphone Dot (did have a Gibson but when push came to shove and I needed to realise some assets it was the Firebird which went...) so I don't think I've got any disclosable interests :-)

DartmoorHedgehog

I think any actual fake is a bad idea, whether it be a fake LP churned out of a factory in China or a Telecaster somebody's built at home from generic parts and stuck a Fender logo on, or a fake Rolex watch.  They could actually fool somebody into thinking they're buying something they're not.

Very close copies, on the other hand, are a bit more difficult.  If Gibson or Fender or whoever want to sue the copier for use of their design then fair enough, but otherwise as long as the manufacturer puts their own logo on them rather than trying to sell them as a Gibson/Fender then I don't have a problem with that personally.  If you think the Gibson/Fender version is better and you don't mind paying the price they ask for it, and/or you don't want to deal with the copy manufacturer because of political/moral reasons then buy the original, otherwise I see no problem with buying an honest copy that isn't pretending to anything but a copy.  I know some people would disagree with me on that (I remember a discussion about Rickenbacker copies on the MR forum).

I've got an old Hondo HL5.  It's clearly a copy of a Gibson L5, and very nicely made, plays very well, sounds excellent.  As it is, it's probably worth low hundreds (I'd guess around £400, possibly not even that much because it's an uncool make, but I have no intention of selling it).  It's a blatant copy, but I don't really feel any guilt in having it (made in Japan AFAIK, so it doesn't have the same political implications, although I do have a couple of guitars made in China).  On the other hand, if I put a Gibson logo on the headstock, fitted more Gibson-like machine heads and put it up for sale as a Gibson L5 for £3000 it would be a completely different matter.  Oh, and picking up on what ICBM mentioned above, it DOES have binding nibs on the ends of the frets like a LP, although I don't know if that's authentic for an L5.

Pyroman

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Pyroman said:

  Lol- I get a big kick out of all the (self)righteous indignation concerning low cost knock offs.  In fact I'm tempted to go buy one just to thumb my nose at the people who are always getting on about it.  But that's just because, at heart, I'm simply an ornery, contrary kind of guy.

  Even though I agree that they should at least put their own logo on them, all the angry videos, the "expose" type stuff and the ranting, railing, and soapbox pontificating  just rubs me the wrong way...

  Devil's advocate here:

  Any time you have a highly desirable product- NOT a boutique or luxury item, but one used to make a living ( or avocation)- and price it through the roof, you'll have imitators.  You see this all the time, and in every part of the marketplace.  This is what happens when Yuppies, hipsters and collectors get into the picture.  Musicians want LP's for the sound and feel.  They want a great guitar they can write and perform with night after night and year after year.  At some point in time, it became "cool" to own and/or play one.  Now everyone wants one, and the price shoots up.  Becoming collectible makes them simply unaffordable to many- even on the used market.

  If the original manufacturer doesn't want to make and offer that product in more affordable versions, others will!  As long as people buy by brand name recognition, and/or consider certain brands to be status symbols there will be others slapping that brand on their items.

  Conversely, as long as an item is popular with the collectible and/or "investment" types, the prices will stay sky high.  No nonretailer  looking for a collectible or a guitar to flip for a profit is going to touch a lower cost model guitar.  The money is in the high end stuff.

  If you don't care WHAT it says on the headstock, as long as it's a single cut, dual humbucker guitar, with high quality and a reasonable approximation of "that" sound, there are  plenty of lower cost alternatives from legitimate big name brands.  There are also plenty of boutique quality versions from smaller builders, too.  However, if you just HAVE to have the "right" label, your options are fewer:  bend over and pay the high price of a new or used one, Convince Gibson to give you some for free, or buy an unauthorized knock off with a fake Gibson brand.  If you don't have 2 or 3,000 bucks sitting around and you aren't a BIG name endorsee...

I too am an anarchist at heart, a punk of the first generation and a 'thumber-of-nose' at 'suit' and authority in general.
However I am also a manufacturer and know the level of commitment it takes to bring products to the market place. Our own Copyright Designs and Patents act 1988 was intended to protect the physical and intellectual copyright of manufactured designs and artwork. Producing a copy and putting a false manufacturer's name on it to deceive is an offense. There is no moral defense to that ... even in implying there is because the original manufacturers 'over price'. They may price it as they wish It's their product. If people want to buy it, fine, if not they will have to settle for another, non branded item of similar function.
This argument is saying 'bad market forces' and 'bad manufacturers' rather than 'bad counterfeiters' ... now I'm as anarchic as the next guy who used to have a purple Mohican, but I'm not naive enough to think that a (mostly) law abiding manufacturer, and some people spending their own hard earned (or ill gotten) money on collectors instruments are as morally reprehensible as a bunch of criminal counterfeiters. Even if the government that harbors those criminals seems to legitimise their activities by turning a blind eye. 

   Hey- I can't let Drew have ALL the fun of throwing the occasional turd into the pool can I?

  That was my way overtired ramble, mostly bitching about how bandwagon jumpers and other market forces drive the costs of stuff up unnecessarily.

  For the record, I'm in the "I don't give a crap what it says on the headstock, as long as it's a GOOD guitar" camp.  I actually own a Schecter knock off- one that they made their own, enough so it's obviously not a Gibson.  For the price, it's a hell of a good instrument.

  I don't approve of stealing someone elses' brand name either- hence the Devil's advocate comment.

OilCityPickups

It's interesting when in some respects the copies are better than the original. I had a Gibson 67 reissue V in the workshop last week and was comparing it to my own Epi 67.
Because the didn't bother to re tool between the 58 V and the 67 one in the Epi factory they gave the 67 the slimmer and more cut away neck joint of the 58. Now, any worries about longevity aside with the shorter tenon 58 joint, the Epi top fret access is smoother and more comfortable than the Gibson one (if you inhabit the dusty end that can matter )  )

Pyroman

  Isn't Epiphone a Gibson brand, like Squier is owned by Fender?   If that's the case, I don't know that I'd call an Epi a copy.

thermionic

Epiphone and Gibson go back a long way, and Epiphone are the only other company who can put "Les Paul" on the headstock (much like Squier are the only other company who can put "Stratocaster" on the headstock). And of course, when Lester Polfuss was trying out his ideas in the 1940s, it was the Epiphone factory (not then part of Gibson) who allowed him to tinker with his "Log" in their factory at evenings and weekends.

It is somewhat disturbing though, how similar the much derided Chibsons are to Epi Les Pauls in terms of constructional details.

ThePrettyDamned

So what's the verdict on expensive, UK or USA boutique built guitars that are clones in every aspect?

I disapprove, they often use the logo and don't put any of their own design in whatsoever. I'd actually say they're worse than a lot of Chinese copies - many of those would be hard to sell as genuine, whereas these boutique ones are cloned in every detail and could be sold as a vintage instrument.

GuitarMonkey

thermionic said:

It is somewhat disturbing though, how similar the much derided Chibsons are to Epi Les Pauls in terms of constructional details.

Worse in my view are the Epi-phoneys which are almost identical to the real thing apart from a few details. Spotting a Chibson is simple but people can more easily be deceived by fake Epiphone guitars.

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

So what's the verdict on expensive, UK or USA boutique built guitars that are clones in every aspect?

I disapprove, they often use the logo and don't put any of their own design in whatsoever. I'd actually say they're worse than a lot of Chinese copies - many of those would be hard to sell as genuine, whereas these boutique ones are cloned in every detail and could be sold as a vintage instrument.

I don't really agree with using the logo on those either, and it's still just as illegal, but I don't think it's as much of a problem as mass-produced fakes since the numbers are tiny and at the prices they are, they probably won't be hurting the sales of new Gibsons since they're actually more expensive even than the top CS prices.

They would also still definitely be fakes unless the builder includes a 'tell' (in a way that can't be removed) - either visible in a discreet place like on the back of the headstock or secretly inside somewhere but which could be found if it was ever passed off as the real thing.

I can't remember what it was but I'm pretty sure I remember Gil Yaron having done that on the super-accurate '59 replica in the blog he did about it.

I still wouldn't buy one though, no matter how much money I had. I appreciate the skill that goes into building one as an example of what can be done but I think it would be better if they stuck to their own logos for actual sales - and preferably changed the design a bit too.

GuitarMonkey

ICBM said:

I can't remember what it was but I'm pretty sure I remember Gil Yaron having done that on the super-accurate '59 replica in the blog he did about it.

I still wouldn't buy one though, no matter how much money I had. I appreciate the skill that goes into building one as an example of what can be done but I think it would be better if they stuck to their own logos for actual sales - and preferably changed the design a bit too.

That's what Gil has done with his "Bone" guitar. It's still at heart a Les Paul but with a different shape and a number of innovative design implementations.

I'd still rather have one of his Les Pauls replicas though. Or even more one of his "ES-335"s