Alan Ratcliffe wrote
Gibson didn't sue those companies for copying the guitars - they sued them for copying the headstock, which is trademarked. Fair enough, IMO. In fact, they didn't sue many of those companies at all, because most weren't copying the headstock.
I'm a fan of various Japanese guitars, but I still wouldn't say they are producing models comparable with 50 year old models. The majority of them are still mass produced. And the value of any of them is half what it should be on the secondhand market - an important consideration for any guitar in the +20,000 price bracket IMO.
You want to buy a "Les Paul" that is as good as a VOS (arguably better)? Heritage...
Missed this one. Thought I'd waffle some more ?
The majority of Japanese Les Pauls are mass produced - just like the standard Gibson models. The majority. But by no means all. For e.g.,
all Tokais are made in small quantities in a tiny factory with 50 odd employees. The dealer places an order, and then waits a couple of months while Tokai fills it. This even includes the cheap ones. But when you've got money to spend. Then you get an instrument that will compete with any Gibson out there.
Je vous en presente, le Tokai LS 470:
Solid flame maple tops, boutique electronics and hardware, Honduras Mahogany backs and necks. The works. And this is combined with, as I mentioned, a lot more experience making vintage spec guitars than Gibson's custom shop has.
And for the similarly well heeled, ESP's Navigator company give you their top-of-the-line Les Paul:
I discovered that you were quite right about the legal stuff. Apparently Gibson mostly just threatened after they took the American instigator of Ibanez to court over the headstocks in the late seventies.
Those Heritage guitars are clearly fantastically well-made instruments. But there's just something about the complete package of the first 15 years of Gibson electrics that was absolutely perfect.
