$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 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.

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 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.

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZmEvDXqm8s 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puZDmj2QuX8 <--- the manufacturer is moot in this case. No violation of the law, and no foul called, if the item is labeled as 'replica' with the manufacturer's blessing, and the item is not passed off as an original manufactured item. If China suddenly decides to sell their fake Gibsons as 'replicas', then I suspect the Gibson would raise a fuss about that very quickly.

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?

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

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