Clapton's 'The Fool' Gibson SG

[Barklessdog]

Certainly not exactly todays Airbrushed, digital art is it. More like LSD inspired finger painting.

Ed Roman makes bass versions I believe-

http://www.edroman.com/guitars/gibson/fool.htm

[Chris P.]

Dare I say it's fugly...

It was the psychedelic sixties Rob!

[Basvarken]

Certainly not exactly todays Airbrushed, digital art is it. More like LSD inspired finger painting.

Ed Roman makes bass versions I believe-

http://www.edroman.com/guitars/gibson/fool.htm

not a very convincing Photoshop job...

It was the psychedelic sixties Rob!

That is still no reason to make ugly things

[Rhythm N. Bliss]

Think about it this way: if it weren't for The Fool's paint job messing up the electronics of the Bass VI, he might still be happily using it. He might not have ever bought the EB-3. Warwick might never have had its best known endorser.

That paint job changed history! Just not in the way they intended.

Well said. 

Jack was a FOOL to let 'em touch it. hahaa haaaa

[Dave W]

It was the psychedelic sixties Rob!

I think Rob was talking about the replica, not the original.

The replica doesn't look right to me. It's about as realistic looking as a Foto-flame J-bass. It screams fake.

[gweimer]

Dare I say it's fugly...

Blame it on the acid..   

[Bernardduur]

Yesterday I saw a program on this "Fool" on Dutch TV

Had to go to a date so I couldn't finish the program

[Chris P.]

It was on Nova. I even missed the first minutes of Never Mind The Buzzcocks to see it:)

[Basvarken]

I think Rob was talking about the replica, not the original.

The replica doesn't look right to me. It's about as realistic looking as a Foto-flame J-bass. It screams fake.

Errrm... sorry Dave
I find the original ugly enough as it is. The replica is even worse.
No matter how "historically important" it may be. It just looks like a painting by someone with not enough talent. The shapes, the colours: it all looks so clumsy.

[Chris P.]

Early Beatles songs sound clumsy too:)

[Dave W]

Errrm... sorry Dave
I find the original ugly enough as it is. The replica is even worse.
No matter how "historically important" it may be. It just looks like a painting by someone with not enough talent. The shapes, the colours: it all looks so clumsy.

I don't like the originals either. Clumsy is a good description. Even so, the replica looks like a computer-generated clumsy imitation.

[Chris P.]

Men, we're talking legendary guitars here! You also don't say some temples made before Christ are clumsy built, you don't complain about the bad perspective in medieval paintings! You don't complain about the clumsy Beatles 4-track recordings and drumming of Ring. You have to see it in a historic context,

Dave and Bavarken are just two grumpy old men;)

[Basvarken]

Men, we're talking legendary guitars here!

I don't give a hoot if they're "legendary". The guitars are still the same guitars except with an extra layer of paint (a clumsily applied layer that is)
The ony one that is really legendary is of course the person that played the damn thing.

I wouldn't dare make the comparison to real art, real architecture, Beatles songs
and these badly executed paintings by a few inebriated hippie artists...

And yes I am a grumpy old man. I turned 40 this summer so I am officially entitled to grumpiness.

[Chris P.]

 

[Dave W]

Your grumpy argument doesn't work with me, Chris. I thought they were goofy looking 40 years ago.