$12,000 FAKE Gibson Guitars being sold by reputable stores 

1. The quality is key. A standard chibson sucks when it comes to electronics, tuners, bridge, etc. The white collar fakes are painstakingly crafted to original specs. These guitars don’t insult the brand. The only crime is putting Gibson on the headstock IMHO 2. They should not be selling these guitars with Gibson on the headstock. The luthiers should’ve just put their own brand on it.

The irony is, imagine if you had thought you had bought an authentic Derrig Guitar only to discover you have a 80's Gibson?

To be fair, Gibson said "Play Authentic" and didn't say "Buy Authentic."

You should get Mark Agnessi on the phone to talk about this, he's just sitting around in his leather jacket and bare feet doing nothing all day.

The use of the gibson name and logo and the disign of these guitars are owned by Gibson, so these guitars are counterfeits and there is a law prohibiting making fake copies. This has nothing to do with the build quality

I was a person friend of Terry's, and saw first hand the guitars he created. Most of his customers brought Terry's guitars because of Gibson's wayward quality control. His attention to detail was incredible. His death is a sad lose to all his family and friends, and the guitar building community

I own a replica 58 Les Paul I bought from a luthier 10 years ago. It's branded a Les Paul there's no serial on it. This guy went to town and built it from the right woods and a set of 58 plans. The guitar is amazing and I made the pickups and done 50's Peter Green wiring. I am not going to discuss guitar price but I got a good deal. Morally is it wrong probably but so long as you are honest about the instrument it is what it is. What about people cloning marshall amplifiers. People can't afford the real equipment and many will settle for replicas. What about Gibson custom shop doing reissues those are replicas technically. Chibsons only exist cause people can't afford the real guitars these companies see a gap in the market and exploit it. I don't have a problem buying a chibson, chickenbacker, etc and modifying these guitars for me and I gig them and beat the puddings out of them and leave my valuable guitars at home. If you spend 300 on a guitar what do you expect really. If you wind pickups for instance a set of replica pafs are about 150 quid upwards, fret level and setup another 100+ you are a price of a budget Gibson there and then you might still have a setup fee as well. I just think if these companies cared truly about their customers they would do something about their QC and pricing and people won't be thinking about buying replicas.

thank you for posting this brother! great info!

There is a great difference between a counterfeit item, and a 'replica' item. The replica is NOT sold as a true item, made by the manufacturer. It is sold as a replica of that item -- a KNOWN impostor. There are many automobiles that are replicas, and the original manufacturers don't raise a peep. Here's just one example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aZmEvDXqm8s.html There are many. It's up to the original manufacturer of the replica item to dispute the item's authenticity, if they so desire. However, if the replica is labeled as such, and the workmanship exceeds the original item, then there is absolutely no reason to complain about it, and virtually no original manufacturers do complain. The law is all about COUNTERFEIT items: Items that are claimed to be made by a certain manufacturer, but are not. These items are notoriously of lower quality, and passed off as an original. So...these high-quality guitars are NOT counterfeits; they are replicas, and there is a difference. As long as they are sold as replicas, I see no reason to be upset. Here's yet another example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-puZDmj2QuX8.html

I have no problem with them as long as the seller is being open and honest about its origin.

These Guitars were all advertised as replicas, it's up to you if you're prepared to pay that kinda money for them, The problem comes if you try to pass off a chibson/fake/replica as the real deal.

lot to think about there!! Mike Thanks!!

I was looking at the Gibson website yesterday and noticed almost all of their models are now out of stock. Gibson is now making it's own copy of their 1957 Les Paul Junior. When they were first produced they were considered a beginners guitar and were priced below $200.00. The price of their reproduction of that same model guitar is now at the ridiculous price of $3,799.00. That's really$3,800.00 with the taxes in most states it could be about $4,000.00 for a 1 pickup guitar with no binding on the neck or the body with cheap Klusson tuning pegs. It's ridiculous. I recently bought a Harley Benton version of this late 50's LP Junior. It was $329.00 with hard shell case and shipping. The one improvement I can say for the Harley Junior models has over the Gibson is the neck and body joint. The HB has the joint beveled so you can move your hand easier to access the lower end of the fret board. It doesn't have that big block of wood to get in your way like the Gibson does. I've owned a few original late 50's and early 60's Gibsons which included ES 335's ES 175's Les Paul Specials, Les Paul Juniors and SG Juniors and SG Specials. I know the difference in quality each of them have. Gibson is pricing Les Paul Juniors above or at the same level as their new Les Paul Standards and definitely above their studio models. Gibson is crazy this is what happens when corporate people try to run a music instrument company and they're not musicians. Now wonder people buy copies. The regular working guitar player can't afford these prices. Gibson Les Paul Juniors are good but not for $4,000.00

Thanks for watching my video.... please put a link in your description...Cheers

Gibson would have a hard time winning any court case Vs these luthiers who are making 59’ burst replicas, even with the Gibson logo, for several reasons. 1. They are not mass produced, they are essentially built upon order, and are built by a single luthier who takes a good amount of time to complete. 2. They are never representing them to the buyer as anything other than a replica. 3. They usually have “secret” markings to identify them as not authentic and identify who the builder was. 4. They are usually substantially more expensive than all of Gibson’s offerings. 5. They are not of “lesser quality”, so they won’t damage the Gibson brand. These guitars are made to replicate an item that very few authentic’s still exist. It falls more into paying someone to replicate your old Dutch master painting or expensive jewelry, so the original can be kept safe in a vault. As long as it isn’t sold “as a Gibson”, they are not defrauding anyone or damaging the Gibson trademark, sales, or overall brand through infringement. Essentially, no one is buying one of these replicas instead of buying a new Gibson. Gibson also worked with several of these luthiers when they started doing their historic recreations, so that would also work against Gibson taking any type of legal action.

I think selling a replica (even with a Gibson logo) is totally fine morally and ethically *AS LONG AS* there is strict transparency in every transaction, no lying or funny business (should be labeled as a replica somewhere clearly visible, preferably where you'd place a seriel number). I can appreciate patent and trademark law to an extent, but someone making a more affordable and better replica i think should be rewarded instead of suppressed. Gibson's QA is shit now because they spend more time litigating competition than they do actually trying to compete with them at the market level.

Being a Gibson lover and owning over 45 Les Pauls I do believe in authentic guitars as I build my own guitars and really would not want a fake or replica of my builds selling for 25% of what I can sell the real ones for. However I do own 2 Max Les Pauls as well as the Derrig shown in this video at Zimm's. The Max Barranet Les Pauls and Kris Derrigs are incredible replica guitars that are very accurate at a fraction of the value of my own 59 burst. As for those who sell them as Gibsons this is unfortunate. P.S. thanks for using the footage of the Derrig we shot at Zimm's Guitars. :) By the way the pic with Slash in it ay 2:58 into the video is not Kris Derrig, it is a pic of my friend Max Barranet and also my good friend Slash.

Thanks, CGS. I got the last of the Chinese counterfeits, brother. A beautifully made creme Gibson SG custom with 3 pickups and gold hardware. Also a Les Paul Custom: with quilted top green burst. Both with perfect Gibson headstocks. Both for under $500. delivered. Pictures didn't show the Gibson headstock. But when they came, I was not displeased. The shop: Luckinmusic as with all others in China are shut down now. I never knew how fat and clean a single melody line could caress my acoustic nerve until this SG arrived. Although not harmonically balanced for chords like my Grote semi-hollow flame 12-string set up for 6, but single lines: sweeter than honey, bro. Some instruments produce no listening fatigue such as a great violin or classical guitar. That SG custom is right there with them.

Great video brother

I remember years ago, a seller selling replica Les Paul's at a guitar show. They were however stamped "into the headstock" "Replica".

I think one of the big differences is the full disclosure. The big problem with the Chibsons, and I own 2 (SG & LP), is people selling them as the real deal. I think a REPLICA or TRIBUTE brand on the back of the headstock would be a good compromise on all of them. I've actually looked into getting a brand to do this to the ones I own.

I completely respect skilled luthiers making masterpieces that show off their craftsmanship. However, a fake is a fake. Why put Gibson on the headstock unless your intent was to fool someone into believing it was a "real" Gibson? Also, fakes dilute the market value of the real instruments they copy. I'm not trying to jump on some moral high-horse, but if we look at the reasoning behind the fake and are honest about it I think we would all come to about the same conclusion. Great video as always Mike! God bless and rock on.

So many guitar companies, and guitar builders make copies of well known guitar models, Tele, strat, LP etc. They may not be replicas, but everyone recognised those shapes

I'm rewatching this video on December 16th 2021 and I have to say , Mike who ever cut your hair did a wonderful job because your hair looks fantastic .

Good story! If chibsone were 12k then it would be allright, right?

To answer the questions posed in the video: 1 - Quality. The workmanship, materials and finish on UK and USA luthier made guitars typically tends to be better than Fender and Gibson themselves let alone the far east knock offs. The prices asked reflect this and if the proper paperwork is obtained then anyone selling on later will get a return (or at least not lose much) on their money. Chibsons are cheaply made and finished with the potential to lose an unwary buyer a lot of money. This is highly unlikely to happen with USA/UK made items as the prices will always be so much higher. 2 - Agreed. The trademark infringment is exactly the same. They are only "getting away with it" because no one is making an issue out of it and complaining to Trading Standards. If they did then I'm sure that the guitars would have to be removed from sale....should this happen or should there be a different standard be in place for higher quality guitars? Perhaps Gibson and Fender could operate a licence system to allow a select few of the best luthiers to make custom pieces if they felt it doesn't harm their own business in anyway. At the end of the day it is up to them to protect their IP.

hey again friend.. haven't heard from you in a while.. i wish you success... long time fan..

Good video! It amazes me how everybody trashes Gibson but everybody continually copies them. A real Les Paul is a true treasure. Anybody who has ever owned one can spot a fake by simply holding one. I tried many times over to help people by modifying Epiphones and Chinese fakes and no matter what you do you can’t make them play or sound like a Gibson Les Paul. There truly is something special about a Gibson Les Paul. Wether you call it a anointing or luck or the perfect combination of materials doesn’t matter, the fact is they are unique and even the haters are truly jealous of them. Most people who hate them have never owned one. Put a Les Paul in the hands of a hater and they will change their tune real quick.

If a store claims it's an actual Gibson, knowing it's not, that would be fraud. If the store tells you it's a Gibson copy or replica, not fraud. The manufacturer is the one infringing on Gibson's name and property. But, it wouldn't be financially beneficial for Gibson to take legal actions, especially if produced in another country and in small quantity. And, it's not like these copies are hurting Gibson sales by outselling them. Chances are it prompts more people to want to buy Gibson guitars.

I have a Les Paul copy made in the Samick factory, where the first Epiphone Les Pauls were made. It is branded as Stellar Mercury 06 single cut electric guitar. Got it on ebay for $199 in a hardshell case. Amazing guitar, Cherry Sunburst, bound top, neck and head stock, chrome covered alnico pickups.

I believe these guitars should be built the same way they’ve always been built, however they shouldn’t be branding them as “Gibson” guitars.

It is not illegal to buy one of these, but it is a criminal offence in both the UK and USA to sell one without permission from Gibson (the Trademark owner). Penalty in both countries is up to 10 years in Jail and a massive fine ($2,000,000 in USA). All of these sellers can and should be prosecuted and go to jail. Google, Ebay, Facebook, Craigs List, Gumtree, et al should be fined ($2,000,000 per guitar) for assisting an offender if they carry any listings for these items. Same for anyone selling replica decals with Trademarks on. Do this to a couple of companies and the fake guitar problem goes away, certainly it will be impossible to find them online as the big IT companies won't want to pay out $2M per guitar often. I have no problem with them selling these guitars for £12K and putting the luthiers name on it, but they should remove the "Gibson" and "Les Paul" from them. Without these cavalier retailers and the online product listing sites, Chibsons and other fakes would not even be seen by most people.

My question to everyone is, if you see a white collar 59 Les Paul and a real vintage Gibson Les Paul, not 59 but vintage in the same price on Reverb or eBay, which one would you buy?

100 or so guitars were just seized in the US. You made a good point when you said "the headstock only matters to players and players will know its a fake" that talked me out of a chibson. Now I do want one thats on DH gate but I want my own logo on it.

I own one of those 2010 Gibson AFD LP's, (my better half bought it as a surprise for my 40th & it arrived with the fretboard damaged in shipping lmao). I think it's down to Gibson to defend their trademark but another part of the argument is that some of the more infamous luthiers who built replicas also did work for Gibson in their Custom Shop, so you could argue that Gibson sold their guitars lol (of course you could also say they stole from their employers in that regard but Gibson obviously respected their work enough to employ them, knowing they'd built replicas). Personally, I have no issue with replicas, unless they're being sold as the real thing undisclosed, of course. That's where I draw the line but given how many replicas now exist, one should always exercise a degree of 'caveat emptor' when buying any high end guitar.

I enjoyed this. I hadn’t really thought of it this way with the high end replicas, but you are right. It’s hypocritical of Gibson to go after other builders who even hint at a Gibson design but say nothing of these more expensive ones. I’m sure they are fantastically built, but surely applying a Gibson logo is illegal?

Great video and I do not distinguish between the legality of Chibsons or "white collar" forgeries. Both are equally in violation of the law. From Gibson's point of view, the rationale is probably that the low quality and low prices of the majority of Chibsons can harm the value of their brand, while the high quality, limited supply and outrageous prices of a Derrig or Max oddly helps their brand. Can't afford the buy-in for the "burst club", Derrig, impossible too find, still too steep of a price tag? Well buddy boy, Gibson has just what you are looking for, a $7,000.00 "official re-issue" of the classic 50s Les Paul Burst.

It’s important to put the price of £12k into context, the original 50s Gibson parts on this replica push the price up by several thousands. It would be a lot less without the original 50s parts

Gibson just doesn't want NEW guitars competing with their NEW guitars. They aren't chasing older fakes because it would be too labour intensive.

Part of the reason for 'branding' is to protect a reputation for quality compatibility, spares, etc ... In the case that there is no real damage to reputation as a result of a copy companies like Gibson would find it difficult to establish what their 'loss' was as a consequence ... in these cases, arguably actually a profit and improvement in their reputation and standards ... The fact that there is no financial benefit to any litigation might make a Court consider this as vexatious litigation, maybe with a lot of cost! Furthermore, follow the money again would say that there is no point in using a tiny operation copying, as it would cost a big sum of money in costs , without any chance of a payout ... The principle is not to bother suing 'a man of straw'. It does make sense to sue a factory ... Brand dilution is another issue and this is a painfully costly headache for Brands, who often feel obliged to sue, even though they know that it is not in any way a threat to their business. McDonald's do this often. Finally, there is PR. Very negative publicity would likely have resulted from Gibson suing a high quality limited edition rival and might have negatively affected sales ... So, in summary, technically your implication is correct in that Gibson ought to have historically and now currently litigate, but then they establish a nightmare of having to litigate individual music retailers every time one of these comes onto the market. That's a lot of cost monitoring the industry and lawyer costs for small quantities with no reward and not necessarily a win (which Would dilute the brand !). Shop owners are selling to a specialised knowledgeable Customer base at these prices and their intentions are clearly not to profit from illegality. The guitars have not got any serial number, which is where anyone buying this sort of guitar will, if responsible, look first and even check (if one has been subsequently added for re-sale). Despite technical breach of the Law's strict liability, the law was designed to also protect from profiting from copying brands to sell them as the brand itself. Not the case here. Gibson are probably wise to stay out of this and although Courts might be forced by Law to rule against shops, they might be very reluctant and qualify any ruling ... which would actually help the re-sale market for other copies ... If the shops are obstructed, then private sales will result anyway ... so what would be achieved by stopping the Stores being honest ? Nothing really ... Guitar manufacturers need to be seen to be working with the retail industry. Music Stores being sued for being honest doesn't really work ... but creates advertising for these quality copies. Irrespective of enforcing a technicality under strict liability, these guitars will inevitably end up on the market somehow. It's just a mess, but no-one gains by making difficulties for the Music Stores in these cases. Excuse the length of my contribution of 'thoughts' ... 😴

Thanks! Blessings!!!!

Clone, tribute, replica call it what you want....just sugar coated words for fake, all driven by vanity and curtain twitching. They want the Asda Smartprice purchase price but, they want the 'looky me' romance of the puka item which, unfortunately comes at the premium they can't afford. No different to the fake Rolex watch and, designer handbag market, all these fake products are all designed to catch those with the same mind set. Where the value is depends on the depth of the pocket. Excellent video 😎

Look at Shelby Cobra it’s one of the most replicated sports car in the world with many fakes rolling across the auction block at Barrett Jackson every year, but they are reported as replicas before they are sold so the buyer knows what they’re getting.

I feel really mixed on this one. Making a beautiful, top notch replica of any item from the past is somthing I do really admire, be it a guitar, an old car or whatever. However, not prominantly including your own logo in a non removable place and making it so realistic that it could be mistaken for the real deal feels pretty dodgy! I shoot at a UK gun club, and there are lots of types of older, highly valuable firearms which with changing laws get reclassed as 'grandfathered' where you can keep it, but you can never sell it, perhaps a similer thing should apply here!

Why would you want a hand made custom built guitar that looks like a production line guitar? The reasoning baffles me! If you have bought a custom made replica made by a master why wouldn't you want the masters name on the headstock?

I think a huge part of it has to do with knowing and admitting it's a fake. I think it is kinda childish in a way to hide the fact that it's not a Gibson by putting their logo on it and a serial number, etc. However I do understand that it completes the look of the original and as a luthier I can see why someone would like to go the extra mile to get as close as they can just for the sake of pushing their skills and craftmanship. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable either selling or buying a fake Gibson but I have no problem buying an exact Les Paul replica with a different logo and headstock. As a player, to me it all comes down to price, looks, feel and sound. I could care less about authenticity. I just wouldn't feel 'safe' owning a fake if people are so protective on their trademarks. It also works the other way around: I would like to own an affordable vintage Gibson (Norlin era or something) but I'm too afraid to buy one since it could be a fake. So although I like certain Gibson's, the change of accidentally being illegal puts me off.

I believe that if it didn't come off the Gibson floor, it should be nameless, or maybe a tiny asterisk next to the trademark. Or even small initials from whichever one of the two builders you mentioned, placed by logo. The guitar world would know that it may have not come from Gibson builders, but are assured it is as good a high quality product or better than the trademark product.

You're talking about Derrig but you show a pic of max baranet (another replica builder slash bought from)

It is all down to the Logo Brand Name at point of sale , lots of companys sell les paul shaped guitars with their own brand names on ,same as Fender shaped guitars you can go online and buy the Logos of Gibson and Fender to stick on any guitar and that doesn't seem to be a problem for the company that sell these stickers ?

I wish the head stock had his name on like other small makers. Great vid as always

So how can Gibson sue for copyright infringement and then allow this? Can they legally sue someone and allow this?

In responce to the ATB guitars video about Terry Morgan, he made the comment that Terry was the premiere of Les Paul replica building. Technicaly, well literaly that statement is wrong. Gibson have been making replicas ever since the first LP was crafted. That very first one is the proto original and therefore all guitars subsequently modeled on the original are technicaly replicas and that is true of all makes and models. If Terry was in Nashville working in the custom shop his efforts wouldn't be classed as fakes.

From Gibson's perspective it's about reputation. It would look seriously bad for their brand if they went after well respected Luthiers who are putting out better quality instruments than they are. Think "play authentic" X1000 in terms of backlash. The really smart thing to do would have been to: A. Hire the luthier. B. Offer them some sort of licensing deal to use their logo/headstock. Such as fender do with their headstock shapes with charvel and warmouth etc. It's most likely Gibson tried these measures and got a solid no in response. In which case they were forced to accept the fakes or face the backlash. Either way the authorities that deal with counterfits have their hands full dealing with dangerous fake items such as faulty electrical equipment and consumables with poisonous ingredients. This is pretty low down on their list of priorities. Is it right? No. Is it serious? Also no. Ultimately the quality of the product is all that will matter to the consumer. Trademark infringement and copyright are there to protect businesses and more importantly, the consumer. If the consumer is happy then it's up to Gibson to do something about it. The government certainly shouldn't be wasting money persuing this if Gibson can't even be bothered.

The thing is, as long as there is no Gibson on the headstock, or it doesn’t have the Gibson shaped headstock, then it’s fair game. The US Supreme Court has ruled that body shapes cannot be trademarked. So any similar shaped guitar body made by a luthier is fine legally. Let’s be honest here, there is only so much wiggle room with a guitar body shape. Now, a Gibson logo on a non Gibson made guitar is of course not ok.

Personally, I don't see how they can sell anything with the Gibson logo on it, regardless of what they call it. It's obvious that it's a Les Paul clone and I thought that Gibson also trademarked that exact SC body. Other such as Harley Benton offer SC style guitars, but the cut is different and they're not going to fool anyone down the road. Can anyone explain how these 'clones' can be legally sold when the copyright/trademark specs are so identical to the real thing?

1) The problematic ones are fakes that are of lesser quality, that can tarnish the brand name, that are passed off as 100% authentic. However, these are of the highest quality, so no insult to the brand there, and, at least in these examples, they are clearly advertised as being replicas built by Terry, so no one is trying to fool anyone here. These guitars have every bit of the quality and attention to detail as an actual Gibson, and then some, unlike the Chibsons. 2) Enforcement of copyright and trademark laws is not a completely automatic process, at least not here in the US (other than in customs maybe), nor should it be. The copyright/trademark holder has to take issue with any specific usage of their copyright/trademark, and then take legal steps to deal with it. If the copyright/trademark holder is fine with a specific case, even though it is technically in violation of their copyright/trademark and a case could be pursued, they absolutely have the right to ignore that and allow its use.

At least they’re describing them as “replicas”, and not authentic Gibbys. Granted I’d never pay over $1500 for a guitar anyway 🤷‍♂️ And also maybe Gibson has granted license to these high end replicas?

No one was buying Les Pauls in the superstrat era. Slash's replica absolutely reversed Gibson's fortunes and Les Pauls once again became the hip guitars. I think the reason Gibson tolerates the high-end replica is that they actually help the brand. There are several builders that make these and they are almost always of much higher quality than the Gibson Custom Shop. They also typically are more faithful to the design of the vintage Les Pauls oftentimes with the exact same parts, woods, and finishes of a real '59 burst. If Gibson went after the high-end replicas they would just disappear into private collections and would be traded on the black market instead of openly.

Ugh, those luthiers should have just put their names on the guitars. Like Nash guitars are copies of all Fenders, and I would love to have a Nash. Collings guitars went even further and redesigned the guitars they copied, and I think they are the finest guitar company. 🍔🍟

I don’t have too much of a problem with it providing the purchaser knows what they are buying. The issue comes when someone is buying a les Paul thinking it’s a Gibson. Personally though if I had £12k for a guitar I’d buy a custom shop les Paul rather than a replica

1) They are not. It’s either an authentic Gibson built/commissioned by them or it is not, regardless of its craftsman standard. 2) Equal Justice under the Law No one should not get away with it, even with the states “prosecutorial discretion.” So much effort/time ($) has been put forth by the state authorities to stop the acts over less valued equipment. There are many reasons (to keep it short) Good for 1 good for the other.

Seppo says: as a professional lutheir for several decades, I find it an insult to my craft to purposefully clone existing instruments, be they brand new or vintage. I build "renditions" of existing models being sure to engineer and improve the quality and eliminate errors built into the originals. Eg: early teles with both E strings falling off the fretboard further up the neck. 'Nuff said.

I got me a 2020 Epiphone Les Paul Standard....my conscious is clear.

Great video mate. Really enjoyed it. Crazy prices for a real Gibson let alone a replica. I bought a Fake Telecaster before..It said 1968 made from the numbers but all fake. Bought that at an auction in North London years ago..Never seen a fake Telester before and I was surprised. A Gibson was for sale on the same day.

btw...i don't think of derrig as a "fake" builder..but rather the builder of rock history.

Derrig built those Les Paul's from a kit that Ibanez made in the early 80's They were an unfinished body/neck ... you glued in the binding and finished the guitar yourself, they were $195 and sold through several mail order catalogs.

I think its objectively true that it's wrong to build and sell a replica for profit. I don't think it's wrong at all to build one for yourself. I do feel in some ways that Gibson has brought this on themselves by never putting the effort into truly nailing vintage specs on their historic lines, while simultaneously charging almost double the price with inflation factored in for an R9 than a burst would have sold for in 1959. For those who've seen and played the real deal, even on the newest and most accurate reissues there are many things Gibson doesnt get right and there is always an aftermarket option that is closer to the real thing. You want the closest thing to a PAF? It's not going to come on a Gibson. You want the right inlays and binding material? Not on a Gibson. Even the Gibson headstock inlay itself isnt the right font on a historic and there are aftermarket parts sources that sell MOP inlays that are closer to vintage spec.

A fake is a fake no matter how good it is.

The minute you slap "Gibson" on the headstock is the moment your replica turns into a fake and you forfeit that work as your own, to profit (or not) from someone else's brand.

Considering Gibson’s quality control of late, fakery would practically be contract labor.

1. They are master luthiers with a tonne of knowledge and experience. (Some aren’t). There are plenty of fake ‘bursts’ but these luthiers didn’t push 100 guitars a day. The numbers are quite limited and I’m sure that the builds are more a compliment to the Gibson brand rather than an insult from the Chinese counterfeits (who can’t even drill an abr1 in correctly). 2. I am in Australia, so it all depends on the stores jurisdiction. It would be a scummy move on Gibson’s behalf to go after the estate of a deceased luthier. Imagine that? I think the shops view them as historical pieces which aren’t on the same level as the crap being pushed out of China. I can see your point and this is a great video for a discussion on the ethics of a builder, shop and brand. Good stuff buddy.

This is, in my opinion, the equivalent of a Shelby Cobra kit car vs a real Shelby Cobra. One is 50k the other 500k. Both should perform well and the newer kit build may even outrun the original. It’s not being sold as an original but a replica so I don’t see the issue here. I would have a problem if there was any misrepresentation or deceit of any kind on the part of the seller. I don’t think fakes are good for the industry or the consumer at large but we are way past the point of stopping counterfeit merch from being made and sold. Buyer beware I suppose

I own and use a 60th Royal Teaburst R9. I play the shit out of that guitar, If Gibson made a Morgan level replica Burst for $12k, I would be saving money to buy one.

My feeling on this is very simple, if you put a fake name on any product you have made then it’s a fake as it is designed to defraud by imitation. However if you make a replica, say it is and put your own logo on it saying this is a replica of a Gibender then that’s fine. You can even say ‘Compare this to the real deal it’s at least as good!’ Eastman have done this with their excellent range of guitars. I have a E486B BK. It’s a fantastically made instrument and compares to the equivalent Gibson Custom shop ES335, it even has genuine Seymour Duncan Phat Cat P90s but what it does NOT do is pretend to be Gibson product. I’ve also played their SB59, which surprise surprise is an excellent remake of a 59 Les Paul, again with Seymour Duncan 59 pups, a wonderful instrument. Sorry for this being longwinded but I feel strongly about this something that purports to be something it’s not is a fake no matter how good it is, unless it is marked with the trademark, name etc with the full approval of the original manufacturer and it is indelibly marked as a replica made by Joe Bloggs that way it cannot be passed off as the real thing at a later date.

Very interesting video, thanks for taking on the topic my good man. It's such a gray area but as you say, where do you draw the line? The copier of a copier is still a copier. At the end of the day we all copy those that we see around us as we grow up to learn how to do things. When we start into vocational activities or creative activities then we also copy to learn. If we didn't have something to shoot for, how to do we know if we've done it properly or not? If there were a way to claim a copyright as we do with music or a revenue share or a simple way to offer that revenue share when making products, then it helps everybody and encourages new people to get into the game. The original copyright holder may lose if the copier does a crap job though. Granted, it's bound to help them in a huge way such as the AFD situation. Man, you're asking some tough questions here :P. Thanks for the thought provoking video! #NAMM2021

I think it’s absolutely wrong to sell a guitar with the Gibson logo on the headstock and it’s not actually a Gibson. I don’t care about the quality, it’s irrelevant. They really should have either put their own name on the headstock or their own company name on the headstock. Gibson is allowing this to happen, they shouldn’t. As far as the ones that have already been made by these master luthier’s I don’t know what the answer is. Should we destroy or deface these works of art? I can’t see destroying them, I don’t know what the answer is. I’m mad at Gibson for allowing this to happen.

Its a Great made and sounding Great as Gibson Does, I guess that helps..Very Respectable to the people...Well done..

The Slash replica, is the equivalent if a friend of mine was building a AAR 'Cuda, and selling it to me, or giving it to me. It's a clone, but no one was duped and was not titled as it to be an actual AAR 'Cuda. The Gibson thing about building some of its own counterfeit guitars.. weird and unethical.

The only thing I can think of is: Chibsons are made to fool you into thinking it’s something worth 10 times as much as it is. “White Collar” replicas don’t hide the fact of what they are and they’re better (subjectivity I guess) built than new Gibson Custom Shop guitars.

As with all, in the loose term of "repica," can only be as the buyer beware. It is insane to purchase these items at given cost. I guess a Picasso "relic" is next? Oh my...am I living as Peter Gabriel eloquently stated in the "Humdrum?"

I'd feel better about it if the headstock had some different branding. It's just a better quality of knockoff, otherwise. There is now the chance to enter into a licensing arrangement with Gibson and make authorized copies, like Banker Custom's Flying V and Explorer. Highly exact copies of early Gibsons in every respect but the brand name on the headstock, and Gibson approved. That route seems to be a win for everybody, whereas high end fakes just confuse the issue. It's all way out of my budget range, anyway.

Buyer be aware is the only way you can explain this.Terry Morgan made a replica, and that's what it's listed as.No problems.But if he listed it as a real deal ,what do you do.Most would've figured it out.But what about the guy that knows little .Always research your buys,is what we should all do. Good to see you back at it.! 👍😷

Can they put a piece of tape over the *cough*headstocklogo*cough* and sec it that way? Kind of like how pickup makers would sell double-cream hum buckers, but with covers on so as not to infringe on DiMarzio's double-cream copyright?

As long as you are not advertising it as a real Gibson you can legally sell it, it is not breaking the law. Anyone can make a replica and call it that. Chibsons are put together fast and don't always pay attention to detail, a professional Luther making one can get you as close to the original as possible without paying a crazy price

I have no issues with people building great replica guitars, just have an issue with them putting a gibson logo on it.

I didn't see any ads for luthier built copies that claimed to be from Gibson so I don't know what law is being broken. Copyright infringement is for Gibson to take action about or not and as far as the price is concerned I guess folk can pay whatever they think a particular guitar is worth

As long as they are not trying to pass it off as a Gibson and openly telling people that it is a replica made by ... Luther they are legally skirting the edges of selling fakes. They are selling a replica. It is the same in the classic car circuit with the Our Sang. It isn't sold as a genuine Bugatti but a replica.

I don't like them if they have a branded logo on the headstock. Somewhere out there is a guy whose dreamed of owning a really good guitar, like a Les Paul, etc, and he's saved up his money, and it's gonna be a piece of crap when he gets it. And he'll be stuck, because he can't get the money together to buy another one.I'm not talking about a few high end copies, but there are THOUSANDS of Chibsons out there that aren't worth the match to strike to burn them.

My guess is that whike collar fakes contribute to raise the value of the originals up, while low end chinese copies take it down

We as consumers should be concerned!!!! Just ask yourself why is ?? Gibson spending so much time replicating the BURST'S When there are now COLLECTORS in the Management team Why open up a Murphy LAB ???? Instead of forging ahead with NEW PRODUCTS and worthy designs

Billy Gibbons favourite tobacco burst is a Tokai. It's all very well however when Gibson are selling mid level knock off 1970s standard guitars as genuine Gibsons where does that leave the consumer? Do Gibson advertise that your fifteen hundred buys you a short tenon weight relieved differently carved upper horn Les Paul? No however they are charging you top dollar for what is actually the same spec as a mid level Antoria copy from the seventies.

1 - A fake is a fake, regardless of who made it or how good it is, so a 'white collar' fake is no better than a Chibson. 2 - I can only conclude that Gibson are not worried about these due to the small quantity and high quality involved - neither of which applies to a Chibson of course.

There is something to be said about a copy that are not mass produced where the builder can pay attention to detail and keep an eye on the guitar while being built Most Chibsons are a different story A first run of a Chibsons might be ok but once they get a foot in the door QC drops big-time Most of the white collar guy's use some of the methods Gibson used to do but can't anymore I rarely buy a guitar w/o playing it first myself

Gibson doesn’t worry about the elite copies because they were not production guitars like ChiComs/Chibsons are

Well that's the thing Mike and like I've said in previous videos: It's Ok if it's made in the USA. Morally, it's no different to a Chibson. Quality wise they're probably worlds apart. I still take the same stance in that, buying a replica is up to the individual if that's what you're after as long as they're aware it's not genuine. Buying a Chibson's no different than going into a luthier and commissioning a custom build - except the price. But unless it's licensed from Gibson, it's fake regardless of where it's made. Personally I'd buy a $300 knock off, not a $12K knockoff. I'm sure the $12K guitars are every bit as good as they say. But that's the appeal to me in I can have fun upgrading a $300 guitar and I haven't lost too much money on the project. I'd buy a $300 Epiphone if they we're in that price range. That's why I think Tokai are great value if that's the style you're after compared to an Epiphone. I very rarely muck around with my higher end guitars. But, you're also right that fakes can make it into the wild and then it's out of control. You have to ask the question "Why are there fakes around"? To me it's obvious, Gibson haven't got a price range for their lower end guitars like Fender, PRS etc and their higher end is very much hit and miss. Again, why would you buy a high end fake guitar if there wasn't issues? Address those two problems and a lot of your counterfeit woes go away. Epiphones going in the right direction, but again they still look off. Gibson refuse to listen to what their customers want and that's to their detriment. Other manufacturers have taken up their slack.

I don’t see any difference between these guitars and the Chibson’s when it comes to the law. However, perhaps because they aren’t marketed as “Gibson’s “ and because the quality is excellent, Gibson turns a blind eye. As you mentioned in your video the Slash fake increased Gibson sales and spawned their own Slash model. Maybe Larry and Terry built guitars are viewed in the same way.

The difference is these replicas are handmade with the highest quality woods, and electronics, and craftsmanship. Cheap chibsons are just that. Cheap guitars made to turn quick profits. Complete with fake serial numbers. “Boutique” guitar builders (the really good ones anyway) always mark their builds. Either on back of headstock or in the pickup cavity. With that said, Gibson is finally making the best burst replicas, after only 50 years. I played a ‘60 replica custom shop in my local guitar store a couple weeks ago. It was the best playing and sounding Les Paul I’ve ever seen. Only 6500.00 dollars. I still can’t afford it. Had Gibson, been making these since 1960. They’re wouldn’t be a market for “fake” but great Les Paul’s.

Overly expensive guitars IMO are a waste of money and anything past the cost of materials, cost of labour and "reasonable" profits for the company are excessive and insulting. Look at Vaschenko Les Pauls. Handcrafted and wonderful sounding and playing and yet maybe around $3000. Eastman SB59 les Pauls for around $2500. Reasonable and wonderful. We should judge on individual guitars quality and not names as Gibson has made their share of shit over the years.

Thinking about it, these are yet another example of how the '58-60 burst' obsession really has gone way too far, these 1980s fakes are worth almost as much as some genuine Gibson 1950s goldtops & customs! I know which I'd rather have!

These builders should've put their own brand/logo/or name on the headstock. I really don't care if it sais the Gibson name. I care more about the actual contours of the guitar, overall build and finish. Take Jaydee guitars for example. They make superb SG's one which I would pay the extra price for and they build them with their own name.