My H-150 Gets a Makeover

[NoNameBand]

 

 

Regarding the post from me that you found to be offensive .. . I agree , it was, and I regret that. I offer an open apology to all here on HOC . . . especially the mods and the admin, for the language I used. It was an overly emotional reaction to what I felt was an attack on all of my friends here on HOC. Unfortunately, in doing so, I lowered myself to that Redking guy's level. Hopefully I'll show better judgment and more restraint if I ever get that pissed off again.

 

Patrick, I read that post and I must say, I had trouble understanding what your point was??? It was very unclear and murky to me. Usually, you are very delightfully direct. However, I trust what ever you say to be in the best interest of the HOC. I'm kidding. We have a lot of semantics here, reading in to interpretations. The bottom line is Scott does such great work that it pissed us off. Some of us are very torn with the whole Gibson/Heritage thing anyway. Some of us feel betrayed by Gibson and so by asking the HOC to opine on the topic of adding a beautiful (trader perceived) Gibson headstock design to a perfectly good Heritage guitar, well lets just say it rubbed us the wrong way. Nothing personal to Scott. I hope Scott accepts the criticism on the headstock and not him. Someday, Scott may come to understand (and maybe adopt for himself) our passion and even defensiveness of Heritage guitars. We are at the least protective of the the Parsons Street gang and I'm sure, will continue to do so.

Scott, I hope you embrace this group as you will ultimately, make some new friends and even new customers as I'm sure there are many paint jobs yet to be done.

All the best,

Mark

[rjsanders]

... The rest of you guys were decent to him, and I apologize to you.

 

BTW, Scott has been basically educating hundreds of guys on how to build guitars (for free) at another forum by posting detailed threads and awesome videos. He is highly regarded over there and by his many customers. ...

 

 

apology gladly accepted here. i'm familiar with some of what Scott's posted on MLP and found much to admire.

[redking]

John, the post isn't worth replying to, Redking doesn't know you and he has obviously fired off a knee jerk re action in defence of his friend, for all we know, Scott is probably wishing Redking would not post such inflamatory posts. Scott seems a really good guy and wondering what this is all about.

 

Redking, if you want to be part of the forum, it's no problem to me, and if you let something as trivial as a post or thread on a forum stop you buying s superb guitar, then step back and think if you are not cutting your nose off to spite your face. But if, as some of us suspect, you are just here to make unpleasant attacks on people who we know to be good guys, this is not what we are about here. The choice is yours, but if you choose to stay, get to know us before you attack us, verbally or otherwise. Ok Fresh starts every one?

 

You are correct. My reaction was a knee jerk reaction, to defend a guy I don't even know on the internet. Crazy huh? Why? Because Scott is a guy that does nothing but share his knowledge and skill with others in an attempt to spread his love of building gorgeous guitars to others. He has no other motives and does not go around bragging about himself and what he can do. Why would he bother taking the time to put together detailed build posts and instructional videos for others for free? Because he is a good guy. He is the kind of guy that builds a guitar that he totally loves and then sells it so that he can renovate his basement and buy his kids a Labradoodle! I respect him for the man that he has shown himself to be, and I appreciate his work and the fact that he teaches others how to build just because he loves to do so. The treatment that he has received here has been crap and you all know it.

 

You are probably correct that he wouldn't have wanted me to come here and be a s#!t disturber because he is too classy for that. Just wanted you to know that you guys were disrespecting a very well respected guy.

[mark555]

You are correct. My reaction was a knee jerk reaction, to defend a guy I don't even know on the internet. Crazy huh? Why? Because Scott is a guy that does nothing but share his knowledge and skill with others in an attempt to spread his love of building gorgeous guitars to others. He has no other motives and does not go around bragging about himself and what he can do. Why would he bother taking the time to put together detailed build posts and instructional videos for others for free? Because he is a good guy. He is the kind of guy that builds a guitar that he totally loves and then sells it so that he can renovate his basement and buy his kids a Labradoodle! I respect him for the man that he has shown himself to be, and I appreciate his work and the fact that he teaches others how to build just because he loves to do so. The treatment that he has received here has been crap and you all know it.

 

You are probably correct that he wouldn't have wanted me to come here and be a s#!t disturber because he is too classy for that. Just wanted you to know that you guys were disrespecting a very well respected guy.

 

We all embraced Scott from the word go and made him welcome, some made critical but not personal points. I once joined a particular forum and after four posts never went back because of the nasty attitude towards newbies by some of the regulars there, and here at the HOC I have been made welcome and befriended from the word go. On a personal level I would have one of his guitars instantly, the pictures were just out of this world, they showed fabulous looking guitars and any one with any appreciation of a classy instrument would see that.

 

If I were you, I would hang around here for a while, read the posts and follow some threads, and you will see just what a great bunch the guys here are.

[mark555]

You are correct. My reaction was a knee jerk reaction, to defend a guy I don't even know on the internet. Crazy huh? Why? Because Scott is a guy that does nothing but share his knowledge and skill with others in an attempt to spread his love of building gorgeous guitars to others. He has no other motives and does not go around bragging about himself and what he can do. Why would he bother taking the time to put together detailed build posts and instructional videos for others for free? Because he is a good guy. He is the kind of guy that builds a guitar that he totally loves and then sells it so that he can renovate his basement and buy his kids a Labradoodle! I respect him for the man that he has shown himself to be, and I appreciate his work and the fact that he teaches others how to build just because he loves to do so. The treatment that he has received here has been crap and you all know it.

 

You are probably correct that he wouldn't have wanted me to come here and be a s#!t disturber because he is too classy for that. Just wanted you to know that you guys were disrespecting a very well respected guy.

 

We all embraced Scott from the word go and made him welcome, some made critical but not personal points. I once joined a particular forum and after four posts never went back because of the nasty attitude towards newbies by some of the regulars there, and here at the HOC I have been made welcome and befriended from the word go. On a personal level I would have one of his guitars instantly, the pictures were just out of this world, they showed fabulous looking guitars and any one with any appreciation of a classy instrument would see that.

 

If I were you, I would hang around here for a while, read the posts and follow some threads, and you will see just what a great bunch the guys here are.

[Patrick]

Patrick, I read that post and I must say, I had trouble understanding what your point was??? It was very unclear and murky to me. Usually, you are very delightfully direct. However, I trust what ever you say to be in the best interest of the HOC. I'm kidding. We have a lot of semantics here, reading in to interpretations. The bottom line is Scott does such great work that it pissed us off. Some of us are very torn with the whole Gibson/Heritage thing anyway. Some of us feel betrayed by Gibson and so by asking the HOC to opine on the topic of adding a beautiful (trader perceived) Gibson headstock design to a perfectly good Heritage guitar, well lets just say it rubbed us the wrong way. Nothing personal to Scott. I hope Scott accepts the criticism on the headstock and not him. Someday, Scott may come to understand (and maybe adopt for himself) our passion and even defensiveness of Heritage guitars. We are at the least protective of the the Parsons Street gang and I'm sure, will continue to do so.

Scott, I hope you embrace this group as you will ultimately, make some new friends and even new customers as I'm sure there are many paint jobs yet to be done.

All the best,

Mark

 

Mark; I agree with the lacking of clarity in that tirade . . . especially Mr. Redking's horse. I never even met the guy's horse and here I go casting expletives upon him. But, in all seriousness, my anger was directed at his so called "friend" who referred to us all as douche bags. I'm glad he later clarified his position and limited it to just John (Kuz) and me, as I'm sure that John and I will just take it in stride. This is our "house" Mark. One cannot just come in to our house, as an outsider, and start to cast insults and aspersions on our family. Redking was wrong to do so and I hope we never see him again here on HOC. However, I do regret my use of profanity. I could have bitch slapped him just as well without it.

 

I have no reason to get overly angry.. . or angry at all towards Scott. I just think he needs to reassess his comments about his love for Heritage . . . to Guido's point. Nothing to be angry about there. I believe that, just as I have become more of a collector than a player and as such now see guitars differently than I did when I was a working musician . . . I think so too does Scott, as a master craftsman level luthier, see things differently than he would if he was only a player.

 

I think Scott was shocked by the reaction . . . but also experienced the emotion towards "The Heritage" in it's entirety . . . including the head stock. I predict that he will stick around here on HOC because of that . . . and his presence will make us an even better forum.

[mark555]

oops...

[mark555]

sorry about the triplicate post guys, had a glitch at the wrong moment, might have been something to do with my earlier blasphemous comments about our revered headstocks....

[mark555]

I really think we are lucky to have Scott join us, can you imagine the help he will be able to give us with his knowledge?

[Guest HRB853370]

There were a lot of uncalled for knee jerk reactions to what was posted in the OP's thread-and not just from Patrick, Kuz and Redking. Why do people flip out so much over something like this? At the end of the day, its an inanimate object, just a guitar! There certainly is no place for profanity and name calling over it, especially on a forum like this. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, both Scott and Redking included, but of course, Redking could and should have tempered his approach and language and so could have Patrick. My God, we are all adults here (I hope) and not schoolchildren. Personally, I couldn't care less what the heck Scott does to HIS guitar, as long as he doesn't do it to mine. As long as he doesn't go putting down Heritage, the folks that make them, and the folks on this forum that play and love them, I am fine with whatever he does. I think this thread should end. NOW.

[Patrick]

apology gladly accepted here. i'm familiar with some of what Scott's posted on MLP and found much to admire.

 

rj . . . thanks for accepting that apology . . . even though this guy still considers Kuz and I "total douche bags" I appreciate you covering our backs like that. Mighty nice of you.

[ExNihilo]

what Scott actually said was "my replicas go way beyond what Heritage and Gibson are putting out". Now that I've revisited the context in which that statement was made, it's clear to me that his statement of "way beyond" referenced his attention to the detail of more accurately replicating the real deal '59 bursts.

 

Thanks Patrick, that is exactly what I meant there. I would not say my guitars are "better". That is a very subjective thing. In terms of historical accuracy to the 58-60s LP Standards, I believe my replicas come very close in terms of wood, glue, binding, inlays, dyes, plastic, pickups etc. It is actually kind of insane really.

 

I also agree with your comments that Scott was trying to turn his 150 into a Gibson. If he chose any design other than a Gibson, I don't think anyone would have cared. . . he just acted before he actually understood the whole head stock issue.

 

 

I think I understand the issue now, but I must say, I do not at all regret my decision and I would do it again. Here is my reasoning:

 

For me, in terms of the ultimate guitar, a 58-60 burst is King. Now the question is: What is the closest I can come to possessing a real burst? Where can I find a guitar today that has that magic (or mojo as we say).

 

Some people would say a Gibson historic/VOS is as close as you can come. I disagree. I cannot begin to tell how many things I don't like about the Gibson historics. I also do not like the way Gibson does business (especially here in Canada).

 

So another option would be a luthier built replica. Such a guitar can come extremely close if the builder knows what he is doing. I have made and sold some of these and they are really cool, but they still (to me) do not have the mojo. I always knew that they were not "the real deal" because I built it.

 

A few months ago I came across some Youtube videos that someone from this forum posted on Heritage Guitars. I later posted them on MPL. I couldn't believe it. I had not even heard of Heritage Guitars. Well, I was hooked. I knew I was going to get one.

 

To me.... and this is important so listen carefully..... to me the Heritage H-150 is "The Real" Les Paul. True, it's body shape, top carve, and a few other things are visually further away than a Gibson historic, but in terms of construction and "heritage" they are the real Les Paul. The fact that my H-150 was assembled using the same machines, tools, and even hands that built the original bursts just tickles me pink! That is THE MOJO!

 

On the videos, I seem to recall (I think it was Marvin Lamb?) say something like "A lot of people say that we are the old Gibson." That is true. That is exactly what I believe. I think that Heritage does as well..... that is why they are "The Heritage." So I see the Gibson of today as a defection to the old/real Gibson.

 

Now comes the headstock question. To me the open book headstock design belongs on real Gibson guitars. That headstock design began and continued in Kalamazoo from the early 20th century. I personally think it is one of the most beautiful headstock designs there is (although, I don't like what happened to it in the 70s). I unashamedly put an open book headstock on my Heritage guitar simply because I see it as THE REAL Les Paul. Period. If I viewed Heritage as a "New" and different guitar company, I wouldn't change the headstock. I would never think of changing ANY headstock on any guitar. But it seems to me that when the guitar has the name "The Heritage" on it, the builders are saying the same thing I am (Viz. this is the real Les Paul... we are the real old Gibson). I am simply putting on my Heritage Les Paul what I think rightfully belongs on such a guitar coming out of Kalamazoo. I did not do it to insult Heritage, rather to emphasize the name "The Heritage."

 

This has nothing to do with me getting use to the Heritage headstock or learning to appreciate it. It has to do with me saying to Gibson, I have a real Les Paul, not one of your over priced computer made clones.

 

Sincerely, Scott

[mark555]

On the nail, Scott. I understood what you were saying from the word go. Please stay around here and join in with us.

[JeffB]

Well its been done before. Go to about 1:49

http://www.guitarsolos.com/videos-heritage-vintage-les-paul-flametop-modified-%5B4TP3hxJQl6Y%5D.cfm

[Guest mgoetting]

Hello Everyone,

 

 

 

 

I hope this does not upset anyone.

 

Sincerely, Scott

 

I nominate this post for HOC historic archiving. In five years it will bring a smile.

[JeffB]

Well its been done before. Go to about 1:49

http://www.guitarsolos.com/videos-heritage-vintage-les-paul-flametop-modified-%5B4TP3hxJQl6Y%5D.cfm

Here it is

[mark555]

just watched your video's on youtube, they were excellent.

[rjsanders]

rj . . . thanks for accepting that apology . . . even though this guy still considers Kuz and I "total douche bags" I appreciate you covering our backs like that. Mighty nice of you.

 

yeahman. this is one o' those "let peace begin with me" opportunities. carry on! (thinking Monty Pyton reference)

 

[Patrick]

Thanks Patrick, that is exactly what I meant there. I would not say my guitars are "better". That is a very subjective thing. In terms of historical accuracy to the 58-60s LP Standards, I believe my replicas come very close in terms of wood, glue, binding, inlays, dyes, plastic, pickups etc. It is actually kind of insane really.

 

 

 

I think I understand the issue now, but I must say, I do not at all regret my decision and I would do it again. Here is my reasoning:

 

For me, in terms of the ultimate guitar, a 58-60 burst is King. Now the question is: What is the closest I can come to possessing a real burst? Where can I find a guitar today that has that magic (or mojo as we say).

 

Some people would say a Gibson historic/VOS is as close as you can come. I disagree. I cannot begin to tell how many things I don't like about the Gibson historics. I also do not like the way Gibson does business (especially here in Canada).

 

So another option would be a luthier built replica. Such a guitar can come extremely close if the builder knows what he is doing. I have made and sold some of these and they are really cool, but they still (to me) do not have the mojo. I always knew that they were not "the real deal" because I built it.

 

A few months ago I came across some Youtube videos that someone from this forum posted on Heritage Guitars. I later posted them on MPL. I couldn't believe it. I had not even heard of Heritage Guitars. Well, I was hooked. I knew I was going to get one.

 

To me.... and this is important so listen carefully..... to me the Heritage H-150 is "The Real" Les Paul. True, it's body shape, top carve, and a few other things are visually further away than a Gibson historic, but in terms of construction and "heritage" they are the real Les Paul. The fact that my H-150 was assembled using the same machines, tools, and even hands that built the original bursts just tickles me pink! That is THE MOJO!

 

On the videos, I seem to recall (I think it was Marvin Lamb?) say something like "A lot of people say that we are the old Gibson." That is true. That is exactly what I believe. I think that Heritage does as well..... that is why they are "The Heritage." So I see the Gibson of today as a defection to the old/real Gibson.

 

Now comes the headstock question. To me the open book headstock design belongs on real Gibson guitars. That headstock design began and continued in Kalamazoo from the early 20th century. I personally think it is one of the most beautiful headstock designs there is (although, I don't like what happened to it in the 70s). I unashamedly put an open book headstock on my Heritage guitar simply because I see it as THE REAL Les Paul. Period. If I viewed Heritage as a "New" and different guitar company, I wouldn't change the headstock. I would never think of changing ANY headstock on any guitar. But it seems to me that when the guitar has the name "The Heritage" on it, the builders are saying the same thing I am (Viz. this is the real Les Paul... we are the real old Gibson). I am simply putting on my Heritage Les Paul what I think rightfully belongs on such a guitar coming out of Kalamazoo. I did not do it to insult Heritage, rather to emphasize the name "The Heritage."

 

This has nothing to do with me getting use to the Heritage headstock or learning to appreciate it. It has to do with me saying to Gibson, I have a real Les Paul, not one of your over priced computer made clones.

 

Sincerely, Scott

 

Scott, I'm glad you're still around and looking in on us. As I said, I knew that you would be. The HOC is like an itch that you just can't get rid of and the only way to scratch it is by logging in. I understand and accept your reasoning. I just don't agree with it. But I accept it from you. It's a funny thing, you see the open book design head stock as fitting and proper on a Heritage 150, for what you think are the right reasons. Some here see it as sacrilegious, for what we believe to be the right reasons. I truly believe in my heart, that you will eventually own additional Heritage guitars. I'm sure you're not going to continue to change the head stock on every Heritage you buy. You will eventually come to understand the psyche behind our "badge of honor" . . . then you're gonna just chuckle to yourself. Please let me tell you where I further disagree with you. I don't think the guys at Heritage set out to recapture the mojo of the real deal '58 - '60 Pauls . . . nor do I agree that they've done so. They set out to, and succeeded in creating their own version of a Les Paul style and type guitar, built with the same quality of standards used 50 years ago. The Heritage 150 has it's own mojo and it's own vibe. Which brings me to my next point. 1960 was 50 years ago. The only set of hands, still at the plant, that MIGHT HAVE touched an original burst would be Floyd's hands. He's the only guy left that's been around for over 50 years. He's upstairs in the finish department . . (spray booth as I like to call it). He is personally responsible for some of the most beautiful shadings ever created for a guitar.

 

As you stick around here, you're going to inevitably see some new member with his first post saying how excited he is about getting his first Heritage and how much he loves it . . . but . . . he really dislikes the head stock.

 

There is another point of contention that usually causes some spirited dialog here . . . and I think I'll open that can of worms . . . especially with a master luthier such as yourself to chime in on. Heritage needs to go to a long neck tenon on their 150 style guitars . . . even if it is limited to only a model they designate the "H150 Classic".

 

C-ya!!!

[rjsanders]

Thanks Patrick, that is exactly what I meant there. I would not say my guitars are "better". That is a very subjective thing. In terms of historical accuracy to the 58-60s LP Standards, I believe my replicas come very close in terms of wood, glue, binding, inlays, dyes, plastic, pickups etc. It is actually kind of insane really.

 

 

 

I think I understand the issue now, but I must say, I do not at all regret my decision and I would do it again. Here is my reasoning:

 

...

 

This has nothing to do with me getting use to the Heritage headstock or learning to appreciate it. It has to do with me saying to Gibson, I have a real Les Paul, not one of your over priced computer made clones.

 

Sincerely, Scott

 

 

xlnt reasoning. & execution, of course. me, i'd be in the custom car camp, i.e., you're allowed to do whatever you can with anything you own to make it what you want. (moustaches on the Mona Lisa not OK, but there the exception proves the rule )

[mark555]

here we go again.....

[DetroitBlues]

note that Brazilian rosewood and some mahoganies are extremely limited, some no longer available legally. just examples. great tone woods are available, but sometimes not the ones used in times past. and certainly the big factories crank out a lot of guits with inferior wood.

 

Not to mention people are using younger trees. There are not a lot of 100 year old mohagany or maple trees out there to be found any more. I have a 60 year old maple anyone is welcome to cut down for the low low price of making me a guitar or two out of it!!!

[Guest HRB853370]

How bout a Steinberger version of the H 150. Think Scott could make it? That would get rid of the ugly headstock problem!

[Patrick]

yeahman. this is one o' those "let peace begin with me" opportunities. carry on! (thinking Monty Pyton reference)

 

 

Are you sure you understood my post to you??

[Guest HRB853370]

Let this thread die (yes, you Patrick!)