Les Paul Mega thread

[gearHed289]

However, remember how it became en vogue at one time to reverse split coils so the E and A would be picked up nearer to the bridge and the D and G closer to the neck, adding focus to the deeper strings and more fullness to the others?

I always thought that was a good idea. I played a Guild Pilot for years set up like that, and Spector (later copied by Warwick) had that arrangement as well.

[chromium]

remember "the claw" bass?

[Barklessdog]

Saw this on Talkbass
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/show-your-les-paul-style-bass-571332/index3.html

Looks like an LP Double cut or EB-0 copy thats in Flame Mahogany. Must be a custom bass?





Still a great looking bass.

[Dave W]

^^^ It's 100% counterfeit. No real Gibson parts. It was made from an import Hamer. Really sad that a guy who is in the guitar making business would pass this off as a real Gibson. And of course it's not a "classic" since there was never an EB-0 like this.

[stiles72]

Looks like a Chinese counterfeit. To the TB members credit, he didn't claim it was real - it was just posted in a thread about LP shaped basses. A friend of mine bought a Chinese fake Les Paul guitar from a pawn shop that was indistinguishable from an Epiphone Les Paul Custom, except for the headstock shape and logo. Good enough guitar for knocking around seedy bars on weekends, but definitely not a real Gibson.

[Dave W]

Looks like a Chinese counterfeit. To the TB members credit, he didn't claim it was real - it was just posted in a thread about LP shaped basses. A friend of mine bought a Chinese fake Les Paul guitar from a pawn shop that was indistinguishable from an Epiphone Les Paul Custom, except for the headstock shape and logo. Good enough guitar for knocking around seedy bars on weekends, but definitely not a real Gibson.

Just because he didn't directly claim it was real doesn't excuse him, IMO. He posted a pic of a bass with a Gibson logo and a TRC made to look like a Gibson, and he didn't make it clear that it's not. That's intentionally misleading.

[Iome]

I remember seing those pics in a tread about Hamer slammer basses. The guy (dont know who he is) showed how he made it looks like a Gibby by changing the headstock profile and changed the bolt on neck to a set in. In that case he clearly showed the before and after pics and sure didn't clame it to be original. I don't know if it's the sema guy though. Nice job anyway.

[Dave W]

It is the same guy. I saw the construction thread at another forum, and he didn't hide what it was back when he was building it. But that still doesn't excuse him from giving the impression later that it's a real Gibson by failing to tell the truth about it.

[Iome]

Your absolute right in that, not cool to just show pics of the bass and the gibby headstock without specs.

[clankenstein]

it makes you wonder why gibson are not building this.its not like they would have to create the bridge or pickups from scratch.

[Pilgrim]

...and this Hamer/Gibby situation is the reason that I and many others don't approve of people removing Squier decals and replacing them with Fender decals.

- First, it's at best easily confusing, at worst dishonest.
- Second, it implies status-climbing on the part of the doer (even if only in their own mind)
- Third, even if the current owner is honest about it, what happens when it's sold?

[nofi]

i don't like the decal change either. who cares what it says on the headstock. 

[Dave W]

...and this Hamer/Gibby situation is the reason that I and many others don't approve of people removing Squier decals and replacing them with Fender decals.

- First, it's at best easily confusing, at worst dishonest.
- Second, it implies status-climbing on the part of the doer (even if only in their own mind)
- Third, even if the current owner is honest about it, what happens when it's sold?

i don't like the decal change either. who cares what it says on the headstock. 

Agreed and agreed. Of course plenty of people will disclose the truth when they sell, but there are many undisclosed fakes out there.

Aside from that, the problem is that the TB thread is a Les Paul thread. True, it says show your Les Paul style bass, but Les Paul is a Gibson trademark. When you show a fake that's a clone of a Gibson body style, with Gibson logos, in a thread about a Gibson trademarked product name, then you're intending to mislead everyone if you don't tell the whole story.

[stiles72]

Just like Jello is a brand name and so is Kleenex.      If the person posting that photo was selling it and not disclosing it, that's one thing. But they were just showing a pic of their bass.  That's all.  Not any different than the many Bach or Epiphone Thunderbird owners who have pimped or modded their birds to look like Gibsons and have posted photos of them on the internet without a list of disclosures and caveats.

[Dave W]

Just like Jello is a brand name and so is Kleenex.      If the person posting that photo was selling it and not disclosing it, that's one thing. But they were just showing a pic of their bass.  That's all.  Not any different than the many Bach or Epiphone Thunderbird owners who have pimped or modded their birds to look like Gibsons and have posted photos of them on the internet without a list of disclosures and caveats.

I don't think your analogy holds. Jello is used to mean gelatin, Kleenex for tissue, but "Les Paul" is not a substitute term for guitar. On the flip side, when someone says Kleenex, you don't think of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, but when someone says Les Paul, that name is identified with Gibson and vice versa.

I've seen guys post pics of their modded Bachbirds without saying that it's not a real Gibson, but only in Bachbird-related threads, not elsewhere. I haven't seen anyone trying to mislead anyone about it.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you're selling. It's a matter of being ethical, and IMHO by saying nothing, this guy isn't.