Caveat Emptor
Looks like the real thing doesn't it? The fingerboard and frets look too clean for the amount of "wear". Also, those knobs are awfully shiny.
For those of you who weren’t subjected to Latin 101, it means “let the buyer beware”. I’m pretty sure you all know what that means-probably through the harsh light of reality meaning you got screwed on a purchase. Don’t feel bad, it’s easy to fall for scams and fakes. I almost did and I was tipped off by the seller. The guitar was a 335 listed as “maybe” a ’61. I spoke to the seller on the phone and he said he thought it might be either a fake or a different year. He said the label had the wrong font for the serial number. I’ve seen all manner of different
This looks pretty good except for the font for the serial number.
fonts as well as handwritten serial numbers, so I asked for photos. The first set of photos showed a black ES 335 with heavy checking and a lot of chips and scratches. Strangely, it showed very little fret wear and the plastic looked too clean. On the other hand, the tuners looked dead on for a ’61. So, I thought, OK, it’s probably a recent body that’s been relic’d amd had some vintage parts put on it as well as a fake label. Fake labels are pretty common. Next, I asked to see the pickup backs and the routs and this threw me a bit. The pickups had PAF stickers but they looked like the stickers on a burstbucker not on a PAF-the font was too wide and open. But the rout looked dead on for a Historic 59. There was no block cutout and the rout looked very clean. because there was no cutout, I was able to eliminate the possibility that it was a Memphis dot neck and was
Certainly not a real PAF but quite possibly a real Gibson.
leaning toward it being a black historic 59. The price was very reasonable for a Historic and I was ready to pull the trigger but I hesitated. Ya know, I haven’t seen the headstock or the logo and that’s a really good way to spot a fake. The photo arrived in my email yesterday and it looked wrong. There’s a little bit of variation in the logos especially if you aren’t certain of the year but this one just looked a bit off. It was the “s” in Gibson that gave it away. It was tilted. I went back and looked through the logos of recent Historics. The flowerpot was lower back in the 90’s and the “s” was a bit lazy, too. But the dot in the eye was still wrong and the connection between the “o” and the “n” was low like an 80’s. Too many wrong details for me so I wrote back to the seller who, to his credit, told me he thought it could be a fake. It was just that I thought it might not be that I got so far along in my quest to buy it. Chinese fakes are everywhere and they are getting harder and harder to spot. It doesn’t seem like such a difficult thing to get the logo right. I’m sure it won’t be long before they are able to do a fake that will convince even me that it’s the real thing. I don’t get to see very many new Gibson’s so I’m at a bit of a disadvantage. I don’t think they’ll be turning out fake 59’s for awhile yet. It’s hard enough to verify the real ones due to the incredible lack of consistency on the part of Gibson. maybe they were doing us a favor.
This really threw me. That rout looks awfully good. Of course, not having the cutout means the guitar would have had to have been a Historic. That made things a bit easier. Now all I had to do was compare the logo to the logo on a 59 dot neck Historic.
Finally, something definitive. Why is the dot in the "i" too high and what's with the lazy "s"? The "flowerpot" logo is in the low position as well which tells me it can't be recent.
