Lp 1959/deluxe/studio Start To Finish.. Well Almost (first Build)

[JonnyC]

Removed due to people crying to much...

Just for reference

Gibson Logo To Be Removed

Edited December 30, 2006 by JonnyC

[jer7440]

Lookin' really nice. The only problem I see is you built it backwards!

[rhoads56]

This is my first build. I'm a real big fan of Les Pauls, currently i own a Gibson LP Standard and an Orville by Gibson 59 Reissue LP. Being a carved top, this is probably not the most suitable guitar to build for a first timer but i don't really want anything else

I've always been a fan of the Studio LP for its no frills simplicity, and the fact it doesn't have binding would make my job a little easier as i have no experience building guitars before this. I also wanted to have a long neck tenon as used in my ObG 59 Reissue. Ontop of that, i also like the large headstock found on Customs and Deluxe models.

Yes, the Gibsons do have a good product design. I like them too.

Now this is the bit which will probably cause a bit of controvesy on the build, but i really don't want a flame war here. I bought a Gibson Headstock Overlay on eBay purely for the reason i don't want my own name on a Gibson guitar. Like i say, i don't want to go into a big discussion about if this should be allowed or not, i'm just after constructive critism and if im lucky maybe even some praise

Here we go... It never ceases to amaze me why someone can go to ALL THAT TROUBLE to build a guitar, then are too ashamed to put their own name on the headstock. If you arent interested in our opinions on fraud, dont post on a public forum. Simple as that. What you've done here is wrong. You've support a crime (purchasing the overlay), and committed fraud (regardless of if you do or dont plan to sell the guitar, under any false pretences). You know that, we know that, so dont give me the "i dont want to hear it" rubbish.

The guitar in the pictures is obviously not 100% finished, however as i don't have the equipment to finish, i decided to send it off to Rob Williams (Woodworm Guitars) as i know he will do a sterling job, and hide any mistakes i may have made

You know, just once, id like to hear about a luthier that took the higher moral stance when it comes to this sort of thing. Am i the only one who refuses to work on guitars that are quite obviously fraudulently branded? Am i the only one who steps forward to say "no, i cannot work on that and help you commit a crime"?? Do these guys NOT RESPECT the heritage of these brands? I wonder how quickly their opinions would change if someone started using their name on a fake.

[Setch]

Am i the only one who refuses to work on guitars that are quite obviously fraudulently branded?

No.

Edit:

I was so busy being terse I forgot to add - really nice looking work. So nice, you should put your name on it

[Doeringer]

No Perry, you are certainly not the only one, but maybe one of the few that speak up. I make custom waterslide labels for the ebay world, and my ads clearly state that I will not make other companies labels. I get at least one email daily from some clown that wants to argue the point or says something like, "what if we change it just a little bit?"

JohnnyC your guitar looks great especially for a first build. Take the extra time, scrap the headstock and put your name on it. Be Proud Man!

[JonnyC]

rhoads56, i appreciate your comments and understand where you are coming from, but quite frankly there's no reason to talk down to someone treating them like a kid.

The reason this guitar says Gibson on the top is precisely because i respect the brand. You talk about professional luthiers not having respect for the heritage of a brand, quite frankly, thats a bit deep, i'm just asking the guy to paint something.

Theres absolutly no point spouting out stuff to do with heritage etc when you're talking about big corparations though. They are there to make money, from selling a quality product. The only time Gibson mention heritage and their roots these days are when they are trying to sell you a Custom Shop/Historic model.

Another reason your comments frustrate me is because being a left handed player, it is very difficult to get guitars i like, most of which aren't even produced, why? becuase it doesn't make good financial sense to companies, hardly fair on the consumer though.

Slash played a replica Les Paul with Gibson on the headstock for years, i don't think Gibson lost much sleep over that. Because of him the amount of money Gibson must have made is immense.

With regards to fraud etc, you have a valid point, but it is only valid if i sold the guitar without telling the buyer it wasn't actually made in Nashville, or if i was a company churning these things out under false pretences.

I have a whole lot of respect for the original Les Paul era, i just wish they put as much time and effort into their Standard lines these days. Everyone knows the 59' was a cracker, so wots with Standards these days having weight relief holes in the body and not having long neck tenons?

My name will not be on the head purely because i believe it is just as much as a crime. The design is that of an exact Les Paul, with my name on the head it would be suggesting i came up with the guitar. If i had altered the shape etc then yes my name would be up there but Gibson / Les Paul deserve the credit, it would be like putting a Fiat badge on a Ferrari.

It an age old debate i don't think will ever be settled, so lets just leave it at that. Everyones entitled to their own opinions. Comments/critism on the build would be much more useful. Thankyou

Edited December 29, 2006 by JonnyC

[Doeringer]

JohnnyC, when I read your first post, I thought, Ok, this guy is new, he didn't think it through, didn't realize... and we all were giving you feedback. Now after your last post I find that you are just plain wrong and you are trying to defend with incorrect statements.

With regards to fraud etc, you have a valid point, but it is only valid if i sold the guitar without telling the buyer it wasn't actually made in Nashville, or if i was a company churning these things out under false pretences.

Wrong, It is fraud either way. There is no debate.

You seem to have a good handle on building a guitar, Perry and the other people here are the people that can help you get to the next level... and they do it for free. When someone gives you sound advise, even if it is not what you want to hear, don't act so defensively.

[Matt]

First of all.. great job!!

Second, I actually support JonnyC here, Although I respect you very much Perry, I find your comments sometimes harsh and not constructive at all.

To my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with putting a gibson decal on it as long as he is not going to sell it or profit from it in any way. The whole point of fraud is using someone elses reputation to gain profit from and in this case he's not.

I can see for a professional luthier this is a bit different, but for a hobby there is no problem.

I just checked with my father who is a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute (i.e. he knows his stuff) and he says theres nothing wrong as long as hes not gaining any sort of profit from it.

keep up the good work bud.

Matt

[rhoads56]

rhoads56, i appreciate your comments and understand where you are coming from, but quite frankly there's no reason to talk down to someone treating them like a kid.

Im not talking down to you like you're a kid, im talking down to you as if you are a fraud and trying to rip someone off. Regardless of your "beliefs" thats exactly what you are doing. You know that, but you're able to somehow justify yourself enough to think its ok.

Monatory value has absolutely no bearing on the subject. Regardless of if you are selling the guitar, or if Slash has one like it, this is wrong. You can choose to brush it off like the rest, but ONE DAY, someone is going to stand up at fender/prs/gibson and decide enough is enough, and rip you to shreds. You dont need to have ever even ATTEMPTED to sell a fake to be sued.

[JonnyC]

Thanks Matt for your kind words.

And i do appreciate comments good or bad, thats why i am here. Although i haven't posted much, i've used the forums extensivly for research / techniques etc for a while now, and for that i thank you all. I just didn't want to get into a debate over a name and rather more focus on the build.

Anyway, tis all good learning. My next creation will be a cross between a San Dimas and an N4 (as Bill Lawrence sent me the 500XL not long ago ). So to keep all you professional luthiers happy, no controversial names will be placed on this one

[rhoads56]

Second, I actually support JonnyC here, Although I respect you very much Perry, I find your comments sometimes harsh and not constructive at all.

Yup, you're right mate, i should have given him glowing support for "getting one up the big boys!"...

To my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with putting a gibson decal on it as long as he is not going to sell it or profit from it in any way. The whole point of fraud is using someone elses reputation to gain profit from and in this case he's not.

Well, lets all do it then Maybe you need to do a little research into fraud. Try you local law register/archives.

I just checked with my father who is a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute (i.e. he knows his stuff) and he says theres nothing wrong as long as hes not gaining any sort of profit from it.

Try asking a lawyer the same question. Your beloved dad (sure he's a nice bloke) has no idea what he's talking about, although no doubt, he has the best intentions. Ask you father what he would do if someone was impersonating him, without trying to make money, running around the streets, or advertising himself under your fathers name/job title. What would he say then?

[Southpa]

it would be like putting a Fiat badge on a Ferrari.

I see someone putting a Ferrari badge on a Fiat (Fix it again Tony). It doesn't matter what sort of item it is, be it vaccuum cleaners or pretzels, you don't put someone else's name on it. Obviously, you want someone to think its a Gibson. Thats fraud, whether you propose to sell it or not. Eventually the guitar will change hands and someone down the line will try to pass it off as the genuine article. There are lots of suckers out there who covet that name on a guitar, and most of them don't know the difference.

[rhoads56]

A few months ago, i was down buying some new stuff at the big hardware wharehouse, and the guy at the gate noticed the signs on my car.

"you make guitars huh?"

"Yup"

"my mate makes guitars too, which brands do you make?"

"Umm, Ormsby, thats me..."

"yeah, but do you make other brands too?"

"ummm, what? no..."

"Oh, ok, well, my mate makes ALL of the big brands"

[Jon]

You mean people make COMPLETELY CUSTOM GUITARS?! Blasphemers!

[JonnyC]

Great story....

To me there's something more important than the name here with regards to fraud, the guitars shape / build contours etc. The essence of the actual piece is more important than the name, the only reason you're picking on this is because it's the only thing you can as the LP / Strat etc has been copied a million times over already and to attack from this angle... well, where do you begin? Other than aesthetics, one of the reasons the Les Paul had a carved top in the first place was to make it harder to copy. I suggest you get down from your high horse for a second and look at the guitars you have on your site. As much as i respect your work as a luthier, the majority are copies of already successful brands. Just because they have Ormsby on the head, doesn't make it any better in my mind.

Don't just jump on the band wagon attacking one element of copyright, because you missed out the main bit, the design. Because you are guilty of this yourself, i really don't think you should be giving lectures on the matter.

Why do you have a copy of RR Polka Dot on your site? For the same reason great guitars get replica's made, People wanna live the dream!

[RAI6]

The reason this guitar says Gibson on the top is precisely because I respect the brand.

Do you really respect the brand?

What if your guitar turns out to be a complete turd...?

Anyone who picks up that guitar are gonna go "W*T*F!?!?!?!? This is a Gibson? They suck!"

Your "respect" just put a big dent in someones opinion about the brand.

It looks like you know what you're doing, so step up, be proud, and put your name on it.

Or at the very least, leave the headstock blank.

Good luck!

[Guest AlexVDL]

.

[rhoads56]

Great story....

To me there's something more important than the name here with regards to fraud, the guitars shape / build contours etc. The essence of the actual piece is more important than the name, the only reason you're picking on this is because it's the only thing you can as the LP / Strat etc has been copied a million times over already and to attack from this angle... well, where do you begin? Other than aesthetics, one of the reasons the Les Paul had a carved top in the first place was to make it harder to copy. I suggest you get down from your high horse for a second and look at the guitars you have on your site. As much as i respect your work as a luthier, the majority are copies of already successful brands. Just because they have Ormsby on the head, doesn't make it any better in my mind.

Don't just jump on the band wagon attacking one element of copyright, because you missed out the main bit, the design. Because you are guilty of this yourself, i really don't think you should be giving lectures on the matter.

Why do you have a copy of RR Polka Dot on your site? For the same reason great guitars get replica's made, People wanna live the dream!

There are no trademarks being violated by copying, or taking inspiration from an existing body design. The same cant be said for logos and headstocks (when trademarked).

If you truelly believed your own rubbish, you'd have done something totally different, like "Dedicated to Les Paul" or something simular that pays tribute, WITHOUT committing fraud. But you didnt, because thats not the real story here, its just a version you made up to try and discount the Gibson brand being there, after you copped flak about it.

There is a HUGE difference between building a guitar inspired by others before it (or even being authorized to build a replica), and blatantly stamping someone elses name on the headstock to MISREPRESENT AND DECIEVE. Delete the Gibson brand, and you'll get nothing but respect. Keep it there, and the only person who thinks its cool, is you. If you get off on passing your own work off as someone elses, well, so be it. Im proud enough to stamp my work with my own name, never someone elses.

Up to you in the end though, if you feel better by having the gibson brand there, keep it. But i, and the majority of people here that respect themselves, think its weak. But, what do i know...

[Guest AlexVDL]

.

[Southpa]

Borrowing a design is a far cry from actually putting the originator's NAME on the headstock.

[rhoads56]

No, i didnt. Any simluarity in an unclear photo is purely coincidence, and my "scoop" headstock is nothing like the garcia guitar. Would you like to see a MUCH clearer photo, that shows they are totally different? Alex, you can bring up this same argument again, im sure you have previously. Furthermore, i own the trademarks for my headstocks. Gibson has trademarked their headstock, and its no longer fair game. Fender have. Prs has too... Jackson hasnt, ESP hasnt, BC rich hasnt, as they dont think its worth it. Thats their choice.

Regardless, no one is buying a guitar because it has a headstock simular to a known brand, same as no-one will by a single cut PRS thinking its a Les Paul. But they WILL mistake a custom built guitar for a Gibson, if thats what it states on the headstock. This entire argument cetres around one guys belief, that a Les Paul inspired guitar MUST have a gibson brand on it.

[wwwdotcomdotnet]

Even though I'm currently working on my first guitar, I'd like to offer my opinion, which is somewhat in between both sides of the arguement. Before everyone stops reading thinking that I am a newbie I have to add that I have more than adequate credentials, but this is the internet, and who cares, right? Anyways, I am working on making a neck through SG since the shape itself is the only style of guitar that has done it for me. I understand Gibson came out with it in 1961 (speaking of which, 1961 SG Junior…best guitar ever? I say yes) and since that year countless companies have tried to replicate it. People will always be trying to recreate what was successful. Maybe those of us who are hand building their own guitars, whether its for ourselves or not, aren’t as creative as those of you who come up with their own designs, but I know what I like and I’m sure JohnnyC knows what he likes so he’s going with it. I personally love the shape of a Gibson headstock, and agree that it is blasphemy to do anything but that on a Gibson shaped body, however I am making my headstock different, even though I think it looks misplaced. My reasoning is that I do not want people saying, “Wow, nice Gibson,” but I want people saying, “Wait a minute, that’s not a Gibson, what is it?” Then I can explain that I made it, and brag.

And about putting the Gibson logo on the headstock, I have to say that I don’t think you should have put it on there, but to each his own. It doesn’t bother me that you did, but personally I would rather brag about making a guitar than having someone else take credit.

-Jason

Edited December 30, 2006 by wwwdotcomdotnet

[RGGR]

it would be like putting a Fiat badge on a Ferrari.

I see someone putting a Ferrari badge on a Fiat (Fix it again Tony). It doesn't matter what sort of item it is, be it vaccuum cleaners or pretzels, you don't put someone else's name on it.

I can't imagine seeing this car with any other brand then the Ferrari brand.

http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/...a-ferrari-p4-5/

Edited December 30, 2006 by RGGR

[Mickguard]

I love this one.

Sorry JohnnyC, but your real motivation is to have a guitar with the Gibson name on the headstock. No point in bullshitting us, or yourself, for that matter.

There are plenty of ways to capture the spirit and respect of a guitar brand, without flat out using their logo. Especially since it's fairly easy to 'adjust' the Gibson logo --- I like "Gidson" or "Gisbon" but there are other ways to go about it. That way, you would have respected the design factor without trying to fool anyone--if only yourself--that you were playing the 'real thing'. I agree that the design of the logo is part of the overall design of the guitar though.

But I'm willing to take this discussion one step further and scratch my head over ANYONE who builds an exact replica of ANY guitar. It just makes no sense to me, and personally I'd have real difficulties playing a fake or a copy, no matter how expertly built it is.

And placing one's own logo on an exact copy doesn't make much sense to me either.

What I do appreciate, and what I try to do myself, is to incorporate my own ideas and design choices into existing guitars --I like to recognize the history that came before me, even while I try to adapt it to something more of my 'own'.

And I'm willing to use branded parts --I have a build in progress using a Fender neck and plate....but the rest of the guitar won't ever be mistaken for an actual Fender.

[Matt]

Try asking a lawyer the same question. Your beloved dad (sure he's a nice bloke) has no idea what he's talking about, although no doubt, he has the best intentions. Ask you father what he would do if someone was impersonating him, without trying to make money, running around the streets, or advertising himself under your fathers name/job title. What would he say then?

The reason I asked my 'beloved dad' as you so kindly put it, was that he is respected and highly certified in his field and for the past 15 years of life he has had to deal with legal proceedings of one the most professional establishment's in the world. So THATS why I asked him, not becasue 'I wanted to know what Daddy thought', but because he does actually know wat he's taliking about.

AND I have asked a lawyer (albiet she not quite got her degree yet, but she was sure that as long as the guitar WILL NOT be passed on in any way. There is nothing wrong).

So Im afraid I will have to disagree Perry, I trust my sources not becasue 'I trust my daddy and friends', but becasue I trust the person who has had well over 15 years dealing with buisiness conduct and court proceedings more than yours.

Matt