Terry Morgan 59 Reissue

mburekenge

Bridgehouse said:

mburekenge said:

Bridgehouse said:

mburekenge said:

 This type of Internet moralising really makes me chuckle.

imo, a top draw replica, handmade by an expert luthier with their total dedication  is a 'real' Les Paul, and way closer to a real burst than anything Gibson currently produce.

Indeed, a replica is way more 'real' than some swirly finish, robot tuner laden, zero fret Gibson, churned out by machine like a low quality sausage, using matchbox quality materials and QC that makes an 80's Skoda look like a Bentley.

Who gives a flying monkeys what 'lifestyle brand' corporation owns the IP?

i own fender and Gibson guitars, and I own replicas. All are great! I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.

It's not internet moralising. It's merely a statement that IP law is IP law - whether we agree with it or not - and it states that regardless of how we feel about it, or how 'real' something is, if the person/institution that makes it doesn't hold the IP and it carries the IP holding companies logo then it is a fake. 

If a band releases a cover of a song - even if it's the best cover ever created and it's much better than the original - if they don't have the permission of the copyright holder then legally a cut of the proceeds belong to the copyright holder. That's just the way the law is. Morals have nowt to do with it from a legal point of view.

@Bridgehouse ;;You are absolutely correct on that count... especially when you say morals have nothing to do with the law!

in the most literal, legal sense, the replicas are indeed fakes.

what I don't understand, is why that bothers people (other than Gibsons legal team).

I have to admit - it doesn't bother me that people want to make really authentic copies of classic (and unattainably expensive) guitars for people to enjoy.

What bothers me is that they are close enough to the originals for some unscrupulous buggers to palm them off as originals for their own greed.

And to be clear - it's the tw@ts that do this that bother me and not the guitars themselves - just in the same way that cheap arsed rip-off perfume and beach sunglasses salesmen bother me

Spot on. Tw@ts ruin everything.

monkey42

Orville Gibson created the Gibson company and one of there key products was the Gibson Les Paul. Terry Morgan makes a superb les Paul guitar. But his name is Terry Morgan, and so (as with Gibson) his guitar should surely say it's a Morgan.

again, just my opinion 

p90fool

I've said before that I'm not particularly bothered about small scale infringements on the intellectual property of huge American corporations, but the sad thing now is that @guitars4you now has a reputation as a dealer in fakes, which he didn't have before January the 5th. 

We can wade through this entire thread and read all his previous posts to see what a nice guy he is, but it'll be hard to put this fact back in the box, ie, he's a dealer who's selling illegal products. 

I'm really not bothered personally, but I think it's a very silly thing to do on a public forum. 

We can all express our opinions as vociferously as we like, but it's against the law and you can't be morally selective about it. 

The Stradivarius analogy is nonsense quite frankly, you're comparing ripping off Handel to ripping off U2. 

IvisonGuitars

p90fool said:

I've said before that I'm not particularly bothered about small scale infringements on the intellectual property of huge American corporations, but the sad thing now is that @guitars4you now has a reputation as a dealer in fakes, which he didn't have before January the 5th. 

We can wade through this entire thread and read all his previous posts to see what a nice guy he is, but it'll be hard to put this fact back in the box, ie, he's a dealer who's selling illegal products. 

I'm really not bothered personally, but I think it's a very silly thing to do on a public forum. 

We can all express our opinions as vociferously as we like, but it's against the law and you can't be morally selective about it. 

The Stradivarius analogy is nonsense quite frankly, you're comparing ripping off Handel to ripping off U2. 

So do...

Richard Henry,
New Kings Road Guitars,
Phil's Vintage Guitars
Guitar Avenue
Gary's Guitars (USA)

....all now have this same reputation as they have all sold TM guitars in the past? No, of course they don't. They describe them, as Mark would as exactly what they are.

The real issue with replicas are the few unscrupulous parasites that hide in plain sight in the guitar community who see an opportunity to pass the guitars off as genuine to unsuspecting buyers.

Moe_Zambeek

You can always rely on the Internet to blow things out of proportion...dealer mentions maybe doing a deal on a well-known kind of Les Paul replica and within hours we're knee deep in conspiracy theories and the dealer's reputation has apparently been ruined within a day.

Iamnobody

p90fool said:

@guitars4you now has a reputation as a dealer in fakes, which he didn't have before January the 5th. 

it'll be hard to put this fact back in the box, ie, he's a dealer who's selling illegal products. 

I'm really not bothered personally, but I think it's a very silly thing to do on a public forum. 

I think that's very harsh he doesn't even own the guitar yet and therefore hasn't sold anything illegal.

Anyway rightly or wrongly his potential customers won't see it like that. They will see him being upfront about selling a high end replica. 

Neil

When something is a cheap copy it is rightly known as a fake or counterfeit.

When it is really expensive it becomes a "replica".

Funny isn't it? And indicative of the mindset of people who indulge in high end counterfeit goods.

guitars4you

Moe_Zambeek said:

You can always rely on the Internet to blow things out of proportion...dealer mentions maybe doing a deal on a well-known kind of Les Paul replica and within hours we're knee deep in conspiracy theories and the dealer's reputation has apparently been ruined within a day.

Thanks

mburekenge

p90fool said:

We can all express our opinions as vociferously as we like, but it's against the law and you can't be morally selective about it. 

The Stradivarius analogy is nonsense quite frankly, you're comparing ripping off Handel to ripping off U2. 

Handel didn't use triplet delay, sadly. Or wear a beanie (I think).

crunchman

Whatever the rights and wrongs of making these things, I think Mark ought to steer clear.

My understanding is that is illegal to sell fakes.  If someone from Gibson reads this thread, and calls Trading Standards and they pay a visit to Mark's shop then Mark could be in all kinds of trouble.

I ran into another TM LP in a shop a few months ago.  It was not advertised as such on their website.  It was only when I asked the guy in the shop what it was, and why they wanted £7k for it, that I found out.  They were being very discreet about it.  Having a big thread on a forum like this is the opposite of being discreet.

For Mark's protection I wonder if this shouldn't be moved to SC so it's not publically visible.

IvisonGuitars

crunchman said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of making these things, I think Mark ought to steer clear.

My understanding is that is illegal to sell fakes.  If someone from Gibson reads this thread, and calls Trading Standards and they pay a visit to Mark's shop then Mark could be in all kinds of trouble.

I ran into another TM LP in a shop a few months ago.  It was not advertised as such on their website.  It was only when I asked the guy in the shop what it was, and why they wanted £7k for it, that I found out.  They were being very discreet about it.  Having a big thread on a forum like this is the opposite of being discreet.

For Mark's protection I wonder if this shouldn't be moved to SC so it's not publically visible.

But that's Mark's way and, I for one applaud him for it, I wish ALL dealers were as upfront and honest as Mark, it'd be a FAR better community all round.

I think this is being blown out of proportion a bit. The dealers i've listed above all have had TM Les Pauls listed prominently on their websites (most are still there) and I haven't heard of Trading Standards beating down their doors.

fretfinder

mgaw said:

guitars4you said:

mgaw said:

TM has a great reputation for building LP guitars, so what reason does he have now for not putting his own name on them instead of Gibson?  

I can see merits in the question and as I stated above Sid Poole had a big reputation and put his name on the headstock

Also an interesting view point that it is commonly accepted that single handedly Slash saved the Gibson Guitar business by playing a 'fake' - Yet Gibson place him on a pedestal and make loads of signature models for him - Surely this is a case of double standards, morals, kettle, pot and black on the part of Gibson

Mark you avoided the question totally:)

I think the answer to your question is simply that he wouldn't sell so many guitars, and he's in business and wants to sell guitars. His clientele want a replica with Gibson on the headstock, they don't want one with Morgan on the headstock. 

miserneil said: So do Richard Henry, New Kings Road Guitars, Guitar Avenue (the first 3 off the top of my head) all have this same reputation as they have all regularly sold TM guitars in the past?

Personally I don't believe the fact that those dealers have previously sold Morgan LPs has had any detrimental effect on their reputation - assuming they've always been declared as replicas and they've never tried to pass them off as the real thing. Morgans are a known quantity and rightly or wrongly it seems to be acceptable for vintage dealers to sell them. Those dealers' reputations are far more likely to be damaged by selling a real vintage guitar that has undeclared 'issues'.

It would save some of the problems if Terry would stamp his name or some identifying mark deep into the wood in the control cavity. Then there'd be no doubt about origin and no danger of them being passed off as real. However, I guess he loves the fact that they can almost be passed off as originals and wouldn't want to do anything to damage the mystique.

guitars4you

I was just looking at the start of the thread myself - It started of as a 'fishing exercise' and me trying to acquire some additional information regarding a potential deal - I immediately expressed my concern regarding IP and listing it on my web site as such - all this is nice and clear on page 1 of the thread - Other than that I have never yet said that Guitars4You have purchased it and as such now intend to sell it - I agree that the thread shows intent, but don't castrate me yet as I have done nothing wrong - as usual with a long thread it starts off in one direction then turns left right and centre - I value your input, thoughts and comments and respect the position of FB in the community, including many customers I've known for many years

Here is where I stand

A customer I know has for sale an original 61 Strat - clean example and could I place it for him - Without listing it on my web site I made one phone call and now have the potential sale in place - The potential deal is 9K + the TM 59 in exchange and I make a tidy commission - The TM59 would then have become the property of Guitars4You - However in view of this thread, I've decided to change the deal - The Strat will still be sold and the owner paid accordingly by Guitars4You  - However I will now personally purchase the TM 59 and as such Guitars4You will not own it, promote it, list it or sell it - So the 2 parties involved in the sale and purchase of the Strat are both happy - I think that concludes where I'm at 

Moe_Zambeek

Neil said:

When something is a cheap copy it is rightly known as a fake or counterfeit.

When it is really expensive it becomes a "replica".

Funny isn't it? And indicative of the mindset of people who indulge in high end counterfeit goods.

I'd say in this particular context it's more likely that the replica is in fact a replica, in the sense that it's actually as close in quality / materials / construction to what it replicates as it's possible to get. The cheap copies that are derided are usually getting that treatment because they in no way replicate the originals, other than in vague visual terms. In that sense the cheap fakes are more egregious because what you get is an inferior product and the producer is unfairly earning their money. 

That doesn't mean the replicas are not counterfeits or fake in the literal sense. However at least what you're getting is a quality product

IvisonGuitars

fretfinder said:

miserneil said: So do Richard Henry, New Kings Road Guitars, Guitar Avenue (the first 3 off the top of my head) all have this same reputation as they have all regularly sold TM guitars in the past?

Personally I don't believe the fact that those dealers have previously sold Morgan LPs has had any detrimental effect on their reputation - assuming they've always been declared as replicas and they've never tried to pass them off as the real thing. Morgans are a known quantity and rightly or wrongly it seems to be acceptable for vintage dealers to sell them. Those dealers' reputations are far more likely to be damaged by selling a real vintage guitar that has undeclared 'issues'.

Exactly my point @fretfinder.

Plectrum

crunchman said:

For Mark's protection I wonder if this shouldn't be moved to SC so it's not publically visible.

It's a bit late for that now. This thread will already be cached on numerous systems around the world. Try typing the thread title into Google.

WezV

Gibson do have the option to produce a replica that's of similarly high quality and accuracy.

If they did there would be no need for these other replica builders.  

Gibson could even hire them for the custom shop, or charge them a fee to build under licence.


either way, there is a market for this stuff, people will pay a lot for it, and it will be filled by someone

edit - i suspect gibson realise that any owners of one of these already own a few from their customer shop and maybe even some vintage examples too

richardhomer

fretfinder said:
It would save some of the problems if Terry would stamp his name or some identifying mark deep into the wood in the control cavity. Then there'd be no doubt about origin and no danger of them being passed off as real. However, I guess he loves the fact that they can almost be passed off as originals and wouldn't want to do anything to damage the mystique.

He might 'love the fact' - but he's complicit in people doing that, whether intentionally, or not.

And surely he would want his work to be identifiable, on the basis that if it is 'that' good, more orders will come his way? Plus it would lessen the risk of an inferior forgery - sorry, I mean 'replica' - being passed off as one of his, thereby protecting his reputation.

fretfinder

richardhomer said:

fretfinder said:
It would save some of the problems if Terry would stamp his name or some identifying mark deep into the wood in the control cavity. Then there'd be no doubt about origin and no danger of them being passed off as real. However, I guess he loves the fact that they can almost be passed off as originals and wouldn't want to do anything to damage the mystique.

He might 'love the fact' - but he's complicit in people doing that, whether intentionally, or not.

And surely he would want his work to be identifiable, on the basis that if it is 'that' good, more orders will come his way? Plus it would lessen the risk of an inferior forgery - sorry, I mean 'replica' - being passed off as one of his, thereby protecting his reputation.

I agree, if I was him I'd definitely be stamping an identifying mark in the cavity that couldn't be removed. The fact that he doesn't do that leads me to believe that he likes to maintain the mystique - I can't think of any other reason for him not doing it. I'm not saying he's right to maintain the mystique though, by any means.

WezV said:

Gibson do have the option to produce a replica that's of similarly high quality and accuracy.

If they did there would be no need for these other replica builders.  

Gibson could even hire them for the custom shop, or charge them a fee to build under licence.


either way, there is a market for this stuff, people will pay a lot for it, and it will be filled by someone

edit - i suspect gibson realise that any owners of one of these already own a few from their custom shop and maybe even some vintage examples too

They do already do that with the Collectors Choice models don't they? Or the Tom Murphy aged models, although they don't really look like real ones and I'm not sure they're actually intended to.

usedtobe

If there are no indicators, on the guitar, that it is a fake/copy/replica, and not a genuine Gibson, someone, somewhere down the road, will try and pass it off as the real thing. You can bet your balls on it.
And they might succeed.