Historic guitar reissues

**tfaux** · 05-05-2017, 11:14 AM

Maybe this is already a discussion here but I haven't seen it.

Gibson has been recreating some of their wonderful old instruments for some time now, and many of them now have finish checking, yellowed binding and other signs of aging. They are meticulous recreations, imitating certain banner years, and even with vintage serial numbers inside. And of course, dealers are getting top dollar from guitar players who want to touch the magic.

So where is the ethical line here? For buyers unaware of the linguistic marketing subtleties, does this amount to counterfeiting, or at least, does it lend itself to unscrupulous selling by some dealers? The company is rather tight-lipped about the small details that differentiate these instruments from the originals. Is there any real life difference anymore between "vintage," true vintage," and "authentically and historically true vintage"?

Am I late to this conversation?

Tom

**ThatRhythmMan** · 05-05-2017, 11:27 AM

I am only personally familiar with one model of Gibson, having played a few instances each of the actual vintage guitars and the reissues, that being the ES-175.

In my experience, while the '59 reissues are very good reproductions, there are some very distinct differences between them and an actual late 50s 175. Of those I've held and played, the reissues, while fairly light are still noticeable heavier. The lacquer also seems to be thicker. Probably as a consequence of those two factors, the reissues have been far less resonant. The vintage examples I've played make reasonable acoustic instruments.

Those are the things that have stood out the most to me. The reissues can be very good and are not surprisingly less prone to feedback which can a real advantage.

**Klatu** · 05-05-2017, 11:33 AM

I'm not clear on what you think might be unethical about the reissue process. If new guitars are being sold as authentic vintage collectibles, that would certainly qualify as fraud, but there should be no problem with designing any new product to look aged.

I recently spoke with a gentleman who specialized in furniture restoration, and he told me that artificially aging furniture is all the rage in his industry. For whatever reason, people don't mind faking vintage.

**lawson-stone** · 05-05-2017, 11:56 AM

I own a VOS1959 ES 175, as well as a 1990's era ES165. Some years ago, I owned an early 1990's ES175. I don't remember the 90's ES175 clearly enough to compare with my re-isssue.

But... I love the VOS1959. The more I play it, the more I like it. This is not usual for me. Often if I don't "take" to a guitar in the first few weeks with it, I never like it, but find it gets on my nerves more and more as I play it. The VOS1959, though, intrigued me, and over time, I've enjoyed exploring its range. It is a good bit lighter than its non-VOS counterparts (I can't say about the original).

The VOS seems to have a greater range somehow. People say it's "bright" but that's easily tamed. Playing through my little open-back Polytone BabyBrute, my VOS has a very thick, chunky tone that I enjoy enormously.

But these are guitars that for some reason, many people "love to hate." Bring up the VOS1959 ES175, and you will immediately get a bunch of people picking away at it. That's fine, but overall, mine is a super-well-made guitar with a lighter feel than its modern counterpart, with a really nice vintage "plain jane" wood grain and finish that I like, the aged pickup covers are cool too. It plays wonderfully, was set up perfectly out of the box on arrival day, and it has a tonal range I enjoy playing with.

In addition, the railing of the purists against it has lowered prices on some of these, and I got mine brand-new for a bargain price.

**docbop** · 05-05-2017, 12:03 PM

I would like reissues of spec's from popular years and model, but without the relic'ing. A new guitar with classic spec's and finish. It's only an ethical issue for the owner and if they are trying to pawn it off as original or being materialistic about paying too much for a guitar IMO. Relic'ing a guitar isn't going to get it to settle in to a great instrument that only time and playing will do.

**Top of the Arch!** · 05-05-2017, 12:10 PM

On the point of outright fraud, I dont believe anyone would think one of the reissues would pass for an original. Theres way to many red flags for the vast majority of buyers/players to be fooled. I would think anyone spending a large amount of cash for a vintage or supposed vintage guitar would do their homework before laying out big bucks!! Bob

**vinlander** · 05-05-2017, 12:12 PM

Reissue are only that, reissue, they are close but not the real deal.
No matter if they want to recreate a vintage instrument they can't 100% because they are bound by nowaday environmental laws, warranty concerns and lets not forget availability of good naturally seasoned wood supply.
With that said, I have no problem with lightly artificially aged instrument, as long as they don't fall into the heavy relicing thing that I can't stand.

**jads57** · 05-05-2017, 12:19 PM

I currently have a 1958 Historic ES-335 TD in sunburst. Best 335 I have ever owned since the Historic 1963 ES-335TDC I sold to fund my '58. I'm 60 years old and have owned just about every Gibson imaginable both Vintage and New Nashville & Memphis.

Gibson is consistantly producing THE most consistant great guitars ever in their history. I'm also a professional guitarist for over 40 years and use these as tools to make a living. The one drawback is certain models especially Les Pauls, and Archtops are extremely prohibitively expensive!

**tfaux** · 05-05-2017, 01:13 PM

Thanks for the great discussion!

The reason I made the original post is that I recently bought a 1959 ES-225TD online from a dealer. Part of the deal was that I traded a 1956 ES-225T (and some $$). I had absolutely no reason to distrust the reputable dealer, but the new guitar was in pristine, almost like-new condition: the build quality was better than the 1956, and the pickups sounded noticeably better, the finish was unblemished, and I wondered whether it might be a reissue. I've never seen one of those so I don't really know how closely they resemble the originals, but the marketing says that they're accurate reproductions.

Long and short, I sent pics to Gibson, and they wrote back immediately that the instrument is the real thing, and naturally I'm very happy with the guitar, and the dealer I bought it from (Mike and Mike's Guitar Bar in Seattle.)

But the whole thing started this train of thought. I have owned and bought and sold many old guitars over the years, and I would have thought I'd be pretty confident about something like this, but the repros are really good. The build quality and pickup winding can out 50s the 50s guitars, and after a few years the repros even pick up the patina of age and mojo.

I certainly don't think there is counterfeiting on the part of Gibson, but I do think that once you start putting old serial numbers in new guitars there is room for some confusion, especially as the new ones age. After all, the whole old-looking guitar thing is partly about creating such confusion.
Maybe it's more obvious than it seems, as I say, I don't really have any experience with the reissues.

Tom

**tfaux** · 05-05-2017, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Top of the Arch!

On the point of outright fraud, I dont believe anyone would think one of the reissues would pass for an original. Theres way to many red flags for the vast majority of buyers/players to be fooled. I would think anyone spending a large amount of cash for a vintage or supposed vintage guitar would do their homework before laying out big bucks!! Bob

Thanks Bob. What would the red flags be in a perfectly preserved 1959, vs. a repro 59?

Tom

**John A.** · 05-05-2017, 01:17 PM

My problem with the whole reissue concept is that if indeed the perfect Les Paul (or Tele, or 335, or whatever) is the one they made back in 1958, and they know how to reproduce this to 99.9% fidelity, why not just make that the "base" model? This business of massive upcharges for marginal, differences strikes me as mighty cynical, especially when every few years they announce the new variant that finally truly, no kidding, we mean it this time, gets it EXACTLY like the original. Gibson and Fender have been doing this for 35 years. Enough already.

John

**lawson-stone** · 05-05-2017, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

My problem with the whole reissue concept is that if indeed the perfect Les Paul (or Tele, or 335, or whatever) is the one they made back in 1958, and they know how to reproduce this to 99.9% fidelity, why not just make that the "base" model? This business of massive upcharges for marginal, differences strikes me as mighty cynical, especially when every few years they announce the new variant that finally truly, no kidding, we mean it this time, gets it EXACTLY like the original. Gibson and Fender have been doing this for 35 years. Enough already.

John

Perhaps some people prefer the new models. Vinny1K here really loves the most recent ES175, others like the older style. I think having a current model and then flagging models made to older specs as "re-issue" or "historic" is a reasonable marketing strategy. Many people I know like the heavier current ES175. If you have two very different models of the same instrument, you have to differentiate them. If one is distinctive because it employs features of an earlier era, why not market it as a historic or re-issue model? I see no real problem with that.

Some people buy leather jackets and jeans made of "distressed" material, others like them new and stiff. Why not speak to both markets?

**Hammertone** · 05-05-2017, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by tfaux

… Am I late to this conversation?

You are 24 years late to this conversation. While Gibson did make reissue guitars prior to 1993 that approximated the overall look/feel/feature set of earlier instruments, they got into the "Historic Reissue" business seriously in 1993. At the time, their focus was on their flagship and most famous models, they eventually got around to most of the back catalogue.

Over the years, the lineup has encompassed almost all of their hollow and semi guitars, including the ES-5, ES-5 Switchmaster, ES-175, ES-225, ES-295, ES-330, ES-335, ES-345, ES-355, L-5, L-5CES, L-5WES, Super 400, Byrdland, Trini Lopez Standard, the L-7C out of Bozeman, and probably a few others.

Most of the action since 1993 has been focused on Les Pauls, of course - the Les Paul Standard, Les Paul Custom, Les Paul Junior, Les Paul Special, and more - I'd recommend spending a few days reading through the hundreds of thousands of posts about them in the "Historic Reissue" sections of the Les Paul Forum and the My Les Paul forum, that have been written since 1995, when the Internet because a more widespread communications tool.

**John A.** · 05-05-2017, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Perhaps some people prefer the new models. Vinny1K here really loves the most recent ES175, others like the older style. I think having a current model and then flagging models made to older specs as "re-issue" or "historic" is a reasonable marketing strategy. Many people I know like the heavier current ES175. If you have two very different models of the same instrument, you have to differentiate them. If one is distinctive because it employs features of an earlier era, why not market it as a historic or re-issue model? I see no real problem with that.

Some people buy leather jackets and jeans made of "distressed" material, others like them new and stiff. Why not speak to both markets?

I think it's fine to offer different features. But the premium they charge for these features is wildly out of whack with the production cost differences. I mean is there really a $2000 difference between 2 guitars made by the same workers in the same building out of the same materials? That and the way they keep releasing new versions that they claim are the most authentic yet speaks to a basic predatory character to the whole endeavor.

John

**jads57** · 05-05-2017, 05:35 PM

So I agree with the above post 100%! Problem is it isn't just guitars, it's almost everything from McDonald's hamburgers to medical procedures. In my opinion (whatever it's worth,LOL!) We've unleashed way too many people with Marketing Degrees, which need to justify their salaries!

**Stringswinger** · 05-05-2017, 06:12 PM

When a company markets a product as the best version ever, it often is their best version at that time. Like all human endeavors, there is almost always room for improvement.

Historic reissues will always differ from the originals because the materials and production process will vary over time.

The material cost and labor cost is probably higher to make a guitar to historic specs. That said, guitar makers might hope to increase profits by going for a higher margin on those guitars. If they can get their price, more power to them. They are after all, running a business, and the aim is making a profit.

I own a few historic reissues from Fender and Gibson and think they are great guitars. And others must like them too, or they would not remain on the market for very long.

**Hammertone** · 05-05-2017, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

I think it's fine to offer different features. But the premium they charge for these features is wildly out of whack with the production cost differences. I mean is there really a $2000 difference between 2 guitars made by the same workers in the same building out of the same materials? That and the way they keep releasing new versions that they claim are the most authentic yet speaks to a basic predatory character to the whole endeavor.

Originally Posted by jads57

So I agree with the above post 100%! Problem is it isn't just guitars, it's almost everything from McDonald's hamburgers to medical procedures. In my opinion (whatever it's worth,LOL!) We've unleashed way too many people with Marketing Degrees, which need to justify their salaries!

Yep! Their job is to extract the maximum amount of dollar juice from your wallet. Your job is to fork it over. Your can choose not to fork it over, or buy used.

I'm one of those people with marketing degrees, and I've helped companies make big bags of money selling stuff that costs way less to make that the prices for which it sells. It's new, it's improved, it's old-fashioned! Step right up! Change your life, change your life, change into a nine-year-old Hindu boy, get rid of your wife!

Coincidentally, I also own a few Hysterical Gibson reissue guitars, and they're pretty damned good guitars. I buy them used - I'm way too cheap to pay the sucker prices Gibson charges for new guitars.

Hooray for profit! Hooray for good guitars! Hooray for people who can afford them!

**lawson-stone** · 05-05-2017, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by John A.

I think it's fine to offer different features. But the premium they charge for these features is wildly out of whack with the production cost differences. I mean is there really a $2000 difference between 2 guitars made by the same workers in the same building out of the same materials? That and the way they keep releasing new versions that they claim are the most authentic yet speaks to a basic predatory character to the whole endeavor.

John

It's true, but pricing is not about cost of production, but what the market will actually bear and how they want to position a product. I'm not saying I like it, but that is how it works, I fear.

**deacon Mark** · 05-05-2017, 06:56 PM

I am not sure about the marketing but in my mind a guitar is only vintage when the guitar is at a certain age ( take your pick) and has held up as a standard to compare. Just take a late 50's 175 and that guitar has all the vibe. Anything made later to replicate that guitar is simply an attempt to make the guitar again as it was, but that can never happen. All the details, materials, methods of construction, and even employees are not the same. So you could get close and maybe even a winner but never more than a reissue.

Now take a reissue that was done and good. Add 20-25 years to that reissue and then maybe the reissue could be vintage in a sense and meet the requirement. So now you have a reissue of a reissue, at least the reissue stands the test of time.

I clearly think the current market of classic carved top archtops is the best it has ever been. Lots of choices, lots of prices, and exceptional work from a pretty large number of guitar builders. In the end no matter what they cannot make a 1955 D'angelico NY, or a 1950 Super 400 even if the guitar they make is actually better sounding and playing. You cannot go back in time unless you have what was going on at the time. Frankly if you are a player then you probably use what is the best you happen to like. I remember when Bill Hollenbeck told me he had a guitar that a player really like and said could Bill make him another one just like that, but he wanted a sunburst. Bill ask him if he like the way the guitar sounded and played. He said, no mistake he loved it. So Bill said, just buy this one now because I cannot make a guarantee that the next one will be just like this, except it would be sunburst. Even refinishing the guitar might change things a bit and of course that would cost extra. The fellow bought the guitar.

Bottom like is if you find a guitar that fits the parameters of what you like then get it and worry less about what vintage it is. I know that is not going to happen but sometimes very plain guitars can be overlooked because they lack the bling. One of the best sounding guitars I ever played was a non-cutaway GIbson L7 from the last 1940's. This guitar was unreal, perfect neck, tone and power, and it was in tremendous shape. At the time some 25 years ago I just keeping thinking, "wow this guitar is not a cutaway, not at least a L5, and they were not hot items." It was not expensive almost dirt cheap but all I could think then was....no.

I sure wish I had it now even though I do not need a guitar. It had it all and I just.....................

Also in my mind if I buy a new guitar no matter what, even vintage reissue, I want it to look new. I have lots of choices of old guitars that look old. That to me is just crazy.

**citizenk74** · 05-05-2017, 07:07 PM

I can't remember who said this (IIRC, a long-time Fender dude) - "We don't make them like we used to, and we never did". I think there's some truth in that. And there is a dollar to be made in the glow of nostalgia for qualities that exist largely in myth, legend, and the vast terrain of wish-fulfillment. 'Twas ever thus, as Ollie said.

**jads57** · 05-05-2017, 11:37 PM

Funny there sure isn't a rush 1950's Cars or TV's, technology other than what we all craved as kids, or what kids now believe are magical!

**citizenk74** · 05-06-2017, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by jads57

Funny there sure isn't a rush 1950's Cars or TV's, technology other than what we all craved as kids, or what kids now believe are magical!

In our neck of the woods, Cruise-Ins are a staple of summer. All kinds of classics either meticulously maintained, lovingly restored, or hot-rodded. On any given Saturday or Sunday, downtown begins to look like Cuba. Pretty cool stuff. I myself hang fuzzy dice from the mirror of the Toyota.

**docbop** · 05-06-2017, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by citizenk74

I can't remember who said this (IIRC, a long-time Fender dude) - "We don't make them like we used to, and we never did". I think there's some truth in that. And there is a dollar to be made in the glow of nostalgia for qualities that exist largely in myth, legend, and the vast terrain of wish-fulfillment. 'Twas ever thus, as Ollie said.

Leo Fender was aiming to make guitars and amp the working man could afford. He used commodity parts of the day and sometimes changed spec's to accommodate a run of parts he got a deal on. I guess you can say part of Leo's magic came from keeping things simple to keep costs down.

I prefer to have nostalgia for the musicians of past not their gear. Like the time Barney Kessel finished a set and went to dressing room and put his guitar in a stand. A fan came back to talk to Barney, but kept talking about how great Barney's guitar sounded. Barney gets ticked and points to the guitar in the stand and says "how's it sound now???"

**lawson-stone** · 05-06-2017, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by jads57

Funny there sure isn't a rush 1950's Cars or TV's, technology other than what we all craved as kids, or what kids now believe are magical!

Actually in home appliances and furnishings we do get a periodic revival of 50's or 60's styles. Vinyl albums and turntables are coming back, very popular. Recording to magnetic tape still has certain virtues, and many photographers still swear that film captures elements of scenes that digital fails to render. Artists still use oil, though some like acrylic, and Venice Turpentine is still their choice for protecting the surface of oil paintings, something that has been used for centuries.

The guitar itself is a technology that is pretty old as well.

So no, not a "rush" but it depends on the domain. Some things obsolesce, some things don't. In science, the latest is the greatest, but this is not the case in arts and only partly the case in crafts.

**John A.** · 05-06-2017, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by jads57

Funny there sure isn't a rush 1950's Cars or TV's, technology other than what we all craved as kids, or what kids now believe are magical!

Not the same phenomenon as guitar reissues, but there are attempts at resurrecting 50s-60s car design aesthetics (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, PT Cruiser, Beetle, Mini). Retro is definitely a thing in products other than guitars.

John