Why is Gibson still so prevalent and Heritage not so much on the major player scene?

[tbonesullivan]

Most of Billy Gibbons guitars are ghost built. They say gretch, gibson, fender, etc, but they are not made by them. he has them weight relieved in ways that the companies never wood, and in finishes that they are simply not able to do, or don't want to do.

 

One of the most famous 'les paul' guitars of the 80's was Slash's with the Alnico Pro II pickups, and that also was not built by Gibson.

 

As for why Heritage doesn't have more endorsers, coverage, etc? I think it's simply a matter of production numbers. Gibsons production numbers make Heritage's look like a drop in the bucket, and Heritage seems to like being small.

[Guest HRB853370]

Most of Billy Gibbons guitars are ghost built. They say gretch, gibson, fender, etc, but they are not made by them. he has them weight relieved in ways that the companies never wood, and in finishes that they are simply not able to do, or don't want to do.

 

One of the most famous 'les paul' guitars of the 80's was Slash's with the Alnico Pro II pickups, and that also was not built by Gibson.

 

As for why Heritage doesn't have more endorsers, coverage, etc? I think it's simply a matter of production numbers. Gibsons production numbers make Heritage's look like a drop in the bucket, and Heritage seems to like being small.

Ghost built? What does that mean, undisclosed manufacturer? How does that happen without Gibson sueing? We all know Gibson loves to sue! And why would the real maker not want THEIR name on it? Why would they want to benefit Gibson? I can't see the big 3 makers putting up with that.

[SouthpawGuy]

Ghost built? What does that mean, undisclosed manufacturer? How does that happen without Gibson sueing? We all know Gibson loves to sue! And why would the real maker not want THEIR name on it? Why would they want to benefit Gibson? I can't see the big 3 makers putting up with that.

 

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/The_Legend_of_Slashs_Appetite_for_Destruction_Les_Paul

 

"" That review also pointed out something that Slash fans and internet forum users had known all along: The Slash Appetite Les Paul is actually a replica of a replica— because the instrument Slash rocked on the iconic album wasn’t actually a Gibson. The “original,” as Slash calls it in the videos, was made by California luthier Kris Derrig ""

[Guest HRB853370]

 

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/The_Legend_of_Slashs_Appetite_for_Destruction_Les_Paul

 

"" That review also pointed out something that Slash fans and internet forum users had known all along: The Slash Appetite Les Paul is actually a replica of a replica— because the instrument Slash rocked on the iconic album wasn’t actually a Gibson. The “original,” as Slash calls it in the videos, was made by California luthier Kris Derrig ""

I smell a lawsuit brewing...........

 

Well, my Heritages are really not made by Heritage either. I have them custom made by a local guy with the logo "The Heritage" embossed on the headstock. The boyz at Parsons Street would never know the difference!!

[HANGAR18]

Ghost built? What does that mean, undisclosed manufacturer? How does that happen without Gibson sueing? We all know Gibson loves to sue! And why would the real maker not want THEIR name on it? Why would they want to benefit Gibson? I can't see the big 3 makers putting up with that.

 

 

I smell a lawsuit brewing...........

 

Well, my Heritages are really not made by Heritage either. I have them custom made by a local guy with the logo "The Heritage" embossed on the headstock. The boyz at Parsons Street would never know the difference!!

 

 

And now to really mess with your head... Heritage has done ghost builds for other manufacturers in their history.

[peterbright]

Amazing

[jimsoloway]

Ghost built? What does that mean, undisclosed manufacturer? How does that happen without Gibson sueing? We all know Gibson loves to sue! And why would the real maker not want THEIR name on it? Why would they want to benefit Gibson? I can't see the big 3 makers putting up with that.

 

There were lot of years when Gibson was either not making historically accurate versions of the most desirable Les Pauls or not doing a very good job on the ones they did build. A hand full of very talented builders took advantage of that fact by building some extremely accurate recreations. One of the most famous Les Pauls of the last 40 years (and an icon in the Les Paul historical lineage) was a ghost build/recreation. In fact, it was the guitar that is most often credited with the resurgence of the Les Paul in the 80's. The builder was a one man shop who became something of an underground legend for his LP replicas. He got an enormous amount of money for them (which would explain his interest) and Gibson got the benefit of having what appeared to be one of their guitars in a very prestigious and high profile gig.

[Gitfiddler]

 

There were lot of years when Gibson was either not making historically accurate versions of the most desirable Les Pauls or not doing a very good job on the ones they did build. A hand full of very talented builders took advantage of that fact by building some extremely accurate recreations. One of the most famous Les Pauls of the last 40 years (and an icon in the Les Paul historical lineage) was a ghost build/recreation. In fact, it was the guitar that is most often credited with the resurgence of the Les Paul in the 80's. The builder was a one man shop who became something of an underground legend for his LP replicas. He got an enormous amount of money for them (which would explain his interest) and Gibson got the benefit of having what appeared to be one of their guitars in a very prestigious and high profile gig.

 

Exactly! Roger Giffin was one of these builders. Granted, he built many custom one-offs during his stint at Gibson's Custom Shop, but he continued building guitars for the stars long afterwards.

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/jimmy_page_pics.htm

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/gibson_custom_instruments.htm

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/client_list.htm

[Guest HRB853370]

 

 

 

 

And now to really mess with your head... Heritage has done ghost builds for other manufacturers in their history.

That is common knowledge...........Gretsch, D'Angelico, and others...

[Guest HRB853370]

 

Exactly! Roger Giffin was one of these builders. Granted, he built many custom one-offs during his stint at Gibson's Custom Shop, but he continued building guitars for the stars long afterwards.

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/jimmy_page_pics.htm

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/gibson_custom_instruments.htm

 

http://www.giffinguitars.com/client_list.htm

But he doesn't put GIBSON on the headstock after he left the custom shop!! That would invite a lawsuit!

[Guest HRB853370]

 

There were lot of years when Gibson was either not making historically accurate versions of the most desirable Les Pauls or not doing a very good job on the ones they did build. A hand full of very talented builders took advantage of that fact by building some extremely accurate recreations. One of the most famous Les Pauls of the last 40 years (and an icon in the Les Paul historical lineage) was a ghost build/recreation. In fact, it was the guitar that is most often credited with the resurgence of the Les Paul in the 80's. The builder was a one man shop who became something of an underground legend for his LP replicas. He got an enormous amount of money for them (which would explain his interest) and Gibson got the benefit of having what appeared to be one of their guitars in a very prestigious and high profile gig.

I read about that, can't remember the guys name though. But he could not rightfully use the Gibson name on the headstock without their express permission, correct?

[Guest HRB853370]

 

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/The_Legend_of_Slashs_Appetite_for_Destruction_Les_Paul

 

"" That review also pointed out something that Slash fans and internet forum users had known all along: The Slash Appetite Les Paul is actually a replica of a replica— because the instrument Slash rocked on the iconic album wasn’t actually a Gibson. The “original,” as Slash calls it in the videos, was made by California luthier Kris Derrig ""

Sorry SP but I will have to disagree. This from the Gibson website:

 

Slash Appetite Les Paul

Bursting onto a scene rife with poodle hairdos, spandex pants, and pointy headstocks, Slash and Guns N' Roses saved rock in the mid ’80s by bringing back the grease, leather, attitude, and some seriously heavy guitar chops. Their 1987 release Appetite for Destruction became the biggest-selling debut album of all time, with 28 million and counting sold worldwide, and the big riffs of "Welcome to the Jungle," "Paradise City," and "Sweet Child O' Mine" fired up the airwaves across the globe—riffs fueled by the most powerful rock tool of all time: a Gibson Les Paul.

So where does this Kris Derrig get credit? Nowhere.

[jimsoloway]

But he doesn't put GIBSON on the headstock after he left the custom shop!! That would invite a lawsuit!

 

If it happened today, yes, it would invite a lawsuit. Gibson was not nearly as litigious several years ago especially if there was a PR benefit to them. But it also ought to be said that we're mixing two very different concepts here: counterfeit/replicas and ghost building. The ghost building that Heritage did was by contract to the named manufacturer and was fully authorized. Thats really more a case of sub-contracting than ghost building. What the well known Les Paul ghost builders were doing were unauthorized copies (and yes, many included the logo). Two very different things with very different moral and legal implications.

[Guest HRB853370]

 

If it happened today, yes, it would invite a lawsuit. Gibson was not nearly as litigious several years ago especially if there was a PR benefit to them. But it also ought to be said that we're mixing two very different concepts here: counterfeit/replicas and ghost building. The ghost building that Heritage did was by contract to the named manufacturer and was fully authorized. Thats really more a case of sub-contracting than ghost building. What the well known Les Paul ghost builders were doing were unauthorized copies (and yes, many included the logo). Two very different things with very different moral and legal implications.

When you use the term ghost builder, you are implying that the builder is undisclosed, correct? It is indeed well documented that Heritage built guitars for other companies through the years....

 

Another thought-if Gibson was not litigious several years ago, why did they try to sue Heritage back in 1986 for producing the H-150? It forced Heritage to change the upper horn slightly.....

[jimsoloway]

When you use the term ghost builder, you are implying that the builder is undisclosed, correct? It is indeed well documented that Heritage built guitars for other companies through the years....

 

Another thought-if Gibson was not litigious several years ago, why did they try to sue Heritage back in 1986 for producing the H-150? It forced Heritage to change the upper horn slightly.....

 

I was not saying that they were not litigious in those years but rather less litigious than they later became. At some point, legal action for them seems to have changed from an option to an reflexive response. In the cases that I was referring to with the ghost builders, there was a very real benefit to Gibson from turning a blind eye, so they did.

[tbp0701]

Slammer - Remember also that late 80s Gibson had new management, a recent move and many of the company's products weren't selling very well, as more shredder-oriented guitars were popular and instruments made in the 60s were only a couple decades old and didn't command anything like the prices they can now. In the midst of all that Guns N Roses becomes huge, people start running to buy Les Pauls again and the new Gibson owners see a resurgence in sales and popularity. In the midst of that I doubt they wanted to file a suit essentially announcing, "Hey! That's not really one of ours!"

 

Now I guess they figure can do that at will.

[skydog]

I thought it was because of the Beano album

[Vanschoyck]

I thought it was because of the Beano album

 

While there's certainly other appearances and artists that would make a long list, I think that's the closest to the actual explanation.

[tbp0701]

I thought it was because of the Beano album

 

Well, it was but that was a couple decades earlier. Then the 60s and 70s were filled with all sorts of Les Paul goodness with Duane Allman, Billy Gibbons, Peter Green and a lot of others, the late 70s/early 80s had this Ed dude show up with a pieced together Charvel/Stratish thing, then there were a lot of pointy guitars, neon colors and then Satriani and Vai show up playing these funky looking Ibanez things. So everyone wanted to shred. In the midst of all that this top hat wearing turns up with a Les Paul (or at least that's what it looked like) with classic gut-punch tone and all sorts of attitude and even played riffs which were a whole lot easier to learn than Eruption.

[pressure]

Lets hypothesize. Suppose you have a major rock star, pick your favorite player, McCartney, Gibbons, Paisley, Clapton, the artist formally know as Prince
and they play a guitar with your headstock logo on it in front of millions and millions of fans and potential customers worldwide, would you sue them? If so why?

Now lets say you are a foreign or domestic musical instrument maker and you want to sell a boat load of guitars to these fans.
Easy. Just make your inexpensive, inferior guitars look just like the guitar major rock stars play, instant free advertising! And that would be a good reason for a lawsuit IMHO.

Who am I kidding I don't have a humble opinion. Same thing applies to NASCAR. Do you really think those are stock Chevys?

[Vanschoyck]

Same thing applies to NASCAR. Do you really think those are stock Chevys?

 

What?! Well . . . shoot a pickle.

[Kuz]

 

Sorry SP but I will have to disagree. This from the Gibson website:

 

Slash Appetite Les Paul

Bursting onto a scene rife with poodle hairdos, spandex pants, and pointy headstocks, Slash and Guns N' Roses saved rock in the mid ’80s by bringing back the grease, leather, attitude, and some seriously heavy guitar chops. Their 1987 release Appetite for Destruction became the biggest-selling debut album of all time, with 28 million and counting sold worldwide, and the big riffs of "Welcome to the Jungle," "Paradise City," and "Sweet Child O' Mine" fired up the airwaves across the globe—riffs fueled by the most powerful rock tool of all time: a Gibson Les Paul.

So where does this Kris Derrig get credit? Nowhere.

 

This is incorrect, SP is correct. It is very common knowledge that the Slash guitar on AFD was a ghost-built replica. Slash has stated this many times.

[Guest HRB853370]

This is incorrect, SP is correct. It is very common knowledge that the Slash guitar on AFD was a ghost-built replica. Slash has stated this many times.

Funny how Gibson will not admit it publicly. I'd call Ghostbusters if I were them...

[Guest HRB853370]

Lets hypothesize. Suppose you have a major rock star, pick your favorite player, McCartney, Gibbons, Paisley, Clapton, the artist formally know as Prince

and they play a guitar with your headstock logo on it in front of millions and millions of fans and potential customers worldwide, would you sue them? If so why?

Now lets say you are a foreign or domestic musical instrument maker and you want to sell a boat load of guitars to these fans.

Easy. Just make your inexpensive, inferior guitars look just like the guitar major rock stars play, instant free advertising! And that would be a good reason for a lawsuit IMHO.

Who am I kidding I don't have a humble opinion. Same thing applies to NASCAR. Do you really think those are stock Chevys?

So you are saying that Gibson allows these undisclosed guitar builders to build a replica or clone, if you will, of their most famous model, the Les Paul, explicitly for an artist (because the artist may want the higher quality perhaps, or the custom shop at Gibson is not interested??) AND put Gibson's FAMOUS logo on the guitar, just so Gibson will reap the rewards of worldwide exposure? Is this what you are saying?

[jimsoloway]

So you are saying that Gibson allows these undisclosed guitar builders to build a replica or clone, if you will, of their most famous model, the Les Paul, explicitly for an artist (because the artist may want the higher quality perhaps, or the custom shop at Gibson is not interested??) AND put Gibson's FAMOUS logo on the guitar, just so Gibson will reap the rewards of worldwide exposure? Is this what you are saying?

 

Allowed ... past tense. I'm not positive but I believe it ended quite a while ago, probably when the replica builders started spreading their customer base into the high end consumer market.