Ghost Builders - The True Story?

[BassHappy]

An important point was brought up. "Then they get permission to throw the logo of the original guitar company on the headstock". If a manufacturer gives permission then the instrument is official. Not standard but official.

Good Post APII

Yes, there is a definite distinction in my mind between the company subcontracting the luthier directly to do the build, and the artist using his favorite guy for the build - and after the fact - going back to the company for approval. I am sure it happens both ways, and from time to time there may be advance approval if the artist, company and luthier agree to agree.

 

[knumbskull]

Great thread. I'd actually never heard of this concept, really interesting to hear a bit about it.

I'd read somewhere that Slash played his Appetite parts on a cheap Les Paul copy - probably a Chinese-whispers type story based on the fact that it wasn't a "real" Gibson - and this has been part of many pub conversations on how tone is all in the fingers, and so on. Now I know it was a very high-end ghost-built instrument, I feel like a bit of a chump

In term of signature models, I guess if you want to buy a sig model, these days you can just spend 10 mins on the internet and find out if that's actually the model the endorser plays. Anecdotally it seems some are, some aren't.

Also interesting where you would draw the line between custom shop and ghost-built.

 

[sikamikanico]

I don't know, I think this just reinforces the notion that each guitar should be evaluated based on its own performance, not what's on the headstock or who endorses that line. I think it would be silly to expect all Fenders or Gibsons to be alike, or that pros and stars play the average production-level models... There is quite a bit of variation in the outcome even if the components and the production process follow the same specs (unlike, say, with iPhones, where variation is negligible). When someone says they used a production-line instrument, it is most likely a carefully selected instrument from a sea of similar ones. And then modified further. And, as this thread shows, it may have been a ghost build all along.

So, it really doesn't matter who plays what... in the end, you have to evaluate each instrument on its own.

 

[ThePresident777]

Hmmmm...................let's consider some facts, or what I think are facts.

0) Decades ago, there were no big box stores. It was much harder to get a good guitar, even though guitars are mass produced. A lot of famous musicians used to shop in places like Manny's in NYC. They would walk in off the street and try instruments right off the self just like any of us would do.

1) Decades ago, when guitars were produced without CNC machines and more hand work, there was less consistency among instruments, or so it seems. There are stories of guitarists gifting and passing instruments around to each other. Instruments that were "the one". Even today with all the advances in automation, some instruments just feel right and others feel wrong, out of the same production run.

2) Musicians have always wanted to customize their instruments, not just cosmetically but functionally too, and even their precious ones. Hotter pickups, thinner necks, etc.

3) Decades ago, the mass producers didn't have custom shops.

4) Endorsements...................

Take all these facts together and it's easy to see famous musicians taking their favorite instrument to a lutheir for repair. Then, the musician talking about what he loves and hates about his favorite instrument and the crap the manufacturer sends him through the endorsement deal. Then, the luthier impressing him with how well he can make a crap instrument play, sound, and look. It's not hard to imagine a luthier stripping everything off an instrument provided via endorsement and making the instrument great. In the end, the instrument still has the manufacturer's logo, but could be totally refinished, pickups rewound, magnets changed, neck shaved down. Hell, even the body might be brand new, from the luthiers wood stock. So, even if the luthier didn't produce a totally completely new instrument with a perfectly forged logo, the result is still practically ghosting. The only really difference is that the logo was original.

Even though major manufacturers have custom shops now, if they're busy, then people have to go elsewhere. I saw a sweetwater interview with Bill Kelliher where he stated that it took months of phoning Gibson before they finally agreed to make him a custom instrument. So, it's not hard to imagine ghost built instruments, even with RFID chips or some other identifying magic. I imagine a good luthier could just port the ID device over to a completely new instrument. Why not? If Alembic can build an instrument out of 20 different sandwiched piecies of wood, what's to stop some one with the skill to cut off the ID device and graft it onto a new instrument? The only obstacle I can see is matching wood grain, which is not an issue with an opaque finish.

 

[Bob_Ross]

Townshend's Tele's

I'd like to know more about which Telecasters Griffin [edit: sorry, that's Giffin] built for Pete Townsend; the only Teles I'd ever seen Pete use (in the Kenny Jones era) were very obviously -- or seemingly obviously, at least -- Schecters. Definitely not Fenders, and not something trying very hard to look like a Fender.

 

[BassHappy]

I'd like to know more about which Telecasters Griffin built for Pete Townsend; the only Teles I'd ever seen Pete use (in the Kenny Jones era) were very obviously -- or seemingly obviously, at least -- Schecters. Definitely not Fenders, and not something trying very hard to look like a Fender.

Hey Bob

Thanks for your post. I certainly don't know, but you could try sending Roger an email and ask him. If he remembers, he will tell you if he has the time. You can google him and send an email via his website - and by the way it's "Giffin" not "Griffin".

 

[JIO]

Hmmmm...................let's consider some facts, or what I think are facts.

0) Decades ago, there were no big box stores. It was much harder to get a good guitar, even though guitars are mass produced. A lot of famous musicians used to shop in places like Manny's in NYC. They would walk in off the street and try instruments right off the self just like any of us would do.

As it was many years ago before the term "urban legend", I recall reading that whenever Entwistle was in the US he'd go to Manny's and buy every T-bird they had as the necks were prone to breaking at the skinny part. Not sure if that was true but it added to his legend!

 

[Clark Dark]

Thanks BassHappy
PBC guitars, Dave Bunker would be the guy to approach about an Ibanez ArtCore ThunderCat model bass which is why Ibanez doesn't have it cataloged. But the similarities between the Alembic Series models and the Fernandes Masterhand models makes me raise an eyebrow.

 

[JIO]

By the way, there's also a lot of this nefarious subcontracting stuff going on in the small boutique builders' world. That's one of my specialties. About 2/3 of my business is custom work for other pro Luthiers. I build neck structures, truss rods, and all kinds of custom hardware for them, as well as custom tooling and fixtures. Some of my clients give me public credit, but most don't. Which is okay, as long as I get paid. That's why I'm so slow completing my own model basses! It's a small community, and most of us have known each other for years. We'll do joint projects, or pass some jobs to whoever has the specialty experience.

I trust you used "nefarious" with tongue firmly in cheek…

 

[Norwegian Bass]

This isn't exactly new information in the guitar world. And it's not so mysterious either; most of the ghosts have stepped into the light already. And to have replicas made is not so controversial; Les Paul replicas for instance. Have you played a 70s or 80s Les Paul? That's the answer right there; why replicas exists. A late 50s spec Les Paul when Gibson wouldn't or couldn't provide one.
Now they're not really needed anymore, since both the Custom Shops of both Gibson and Fender is doing stellar stuff.

 

[Eilif]

By that logic, Apple is a ghost brand.

I think the point is more than defining what constitutes "built by" can often be pointless or situation based.

The fact is that very few major brands are still owned by the name on the headstock and for even fewer does anyone with the headstock name actually have a hand in building the guitar. In most cases when you buy a brand, you could be paying for a guitar built by any number of people in any number of locations. Put another way, you're not paying for Leo Fender to build you a guitar, you're paying for a guitar that the Fender corporation has put their name on and stand's behind.

The salient point is that when you buy a guitar of a certain brand you're getting that brand's seal of approval that it meets their approval and (usually) that they stand behind it. Whether made "in house" at the house of a contractor is fairly irrelevant unless it in some way results in a lower quality instrument.

 

[Eilif]

I have no doubt about all that, my concern is proving it. Does Gibson allow others to use their serial number system to prove it was sanctioned and allowed by Gibson? If it was a oneoff, and it belonged to Sally Superfamous, you would need some kind of proof of ownership. The same with Norman Notsofamous. It may be built better than a Gibson, but may not be as valuable for whatever reason. Not that its likely to happen,so probably of no real concern for the majority of mankind, it just got me thinking.I probably watch pawn stars too much!

My assumption is it would have a serial number or some other identifying mark, but even if not, then Gibson should be able to verify the provenance of a given instrument.

I do agree that proof of origin or famous ownership in the form of a letter or certificate is an important factor, especially if the guitar doesn't have any identifying marks. Companies do change ownership and there's no telling what knowledge about a certain unique instrument may or may not wind up in the dustbin.

 

[Indiedog]

Though golf is definitely a different subject, it is still very similar in this respect. All those guys on tour don't play "off the rack " clubs. The tour vans of their different sponsors, such as Titleist, and TaylorMade, have custom shafts, many of which are unavailable to the general public. In fact, even the ball makers make balls to different specs for their top players who might prefer a little softer feel, or a little more spin, or a touch more distance. Basically, you can't buy the same ball and or clubs Tiger Woods plays, even though it's supposedly the same make and model. I wouldn't be surprised to see the guitar companies do the same thing, only they are literally farming it out rather than retooling the assembly line. It just makes good sense. Chuck Rainey actually nixed a few "Signature Models" from the likes of Ibanez etc. because they insisted on using cheap pre amps, and weren't too happy about his ideas about pickups either.

Great point.

And this is a great thread, Rick.

Similar things happen in professional bicycle racing. Often, it says "XYZ" on the decal and even looks mostly like what it should be but in reality it is a custom frame made by someone else. As with guitars, sometimes this is with the permission/knowledge of the builder and sometimes without.

 

[Indiedog]

By the way, there's also a lot of this nefarious subcontracting stuff going on in the small boutique builders' world. That's one of my specialties. About 2/3 of my business is custom work for other pro Luthiers. I build neck structures, truss rods, and all kinds of custom hardware for them, as well as custom tooling and fixtures. Some of my clients give me public credit, but most don't. Which is okay, as long as I get paid. That's why I'm so slow completing my own model basses! It's a small community, and most of us have known each other for years. We'll do joint projects, or pass some jobs to whoever has the specialty experience.

Thank you very much for your posts in this Thread! I have learned all sorts of interesting things from you!

 

[Bass Growler]

Ghostbuilding or not, I can remember reading those threads about Slash's Derrig, Max and pre-Appetite Hunterburst on whatever guitar forum it was, and loving every single letter of it. Along with the Sweet Marshall O'mine those were the best worldwide stories of 2010/11. ☺

 

[BassHappy]

Hey thanks for all the posts - the thread seems to be winding down - just wanted everyone to know how much I appreciate their contributions. I love this place.

 

[howlin]

Then there's [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] . . .

 

[Berniez40]

As a loyal Partscaster player, I love this thread. My main axe is a Warmoth Body, Alembic Pickups, Bartolini Pre Amp, and De Armond Neck. My back up is a De Armond Pilot with electronics completely gutted and filled in with Bartolini Pickups Pre Amp and Pots. Yes my local tech put them back together to my specs, and he does amazing work. Even my uprights are Partscasters. They are 4 strings converted to 5ers....so out with the original Tailpiece, Bridge, Nut, Tuners, and Sound Post. They were put together by my local luthier. Some of these local guys truly know what they are doing, and if you know what you want, they can certainly put it together for you.

 

[Arizona Jones]

Then there's [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] . . .

He's a hack.

 

[Axstar]

This is an interesting issue. I've previously been quite wound up trying to work out who made what and for whom. I will say this: there is a bit of an old boys' network, especially in Les Paul circles. Firstly you get all those luthiers who think they are the poopie, and on their (consistently terrible) websites you find scans of old photos where they pressed one of their creations into the hands of Famous Guitarist A, and then claim that Famous Guitarist A plays their guitars. Kelton Swade (a partscaster manufacturer with an ego problem) is notably bad for this. Ambushing a guitarist after the gig isn't cool.

You find people (goldbrickers, probably) claiming they know who made the Les Paul Slash really used on Appetite, or whatever. When guys start to refer to luthiers by initials alone you know you are going a bit deep into the green ink. If absolutely nothing else, if you faked up a Les Paul in 1980 and put a Gibson logo on the headstock, you would probably get away with it. Artists gigged these mystery guitars, and what? Some kid in the audience got a polaroid of it, runs down to the pawnbrokers and buys a Norlin-era Les Paul as a result. No harm, no fowl. But in the last 20 years or so Les Pauls have come under a lot of scrutiny, and the obvious fakes, re-tops, conversions and bodges are more obvious. Skilled professional guitarists used to buy fakes from seedy dudes turning up backstage (John Entwistle is among that number). Take a dead Flying V, a Dead Les Paul Jr and a slab of old Korina, and create a rare 1959 Gibson factory prototype... sell it to the dude from Cheap Trick! Players now, such as Joe Bonomassa, seem a lot more clued in. Plus Les Paul forums have been carefully outlining where and how the fakers have been getting it wrong over the years.

I will say this; I don't trust vintage Fenders. Anything that can be broken down and reassembled by a monkey with a screwdriver is open to forgery in an especially pernicious and low-effort manner. And again, the Fender fans have been teaching the fakers where every router snafu, pin hole, tear out and decal shimmer should occur on a vintage instrument. Probably if you jumped in a time machine back to 1997 you would laugh at what people were calling '60s Fenders, but now it isn't so simple.

On a more mundane note, Samick and Peerless both build guitars in the '90s that said 'Epiphone' on the headstock. This is hardly noteworthy, and beyond the big US-built lines this is so common as to be the rule rather than the exception. Whoever made my recently purchased Burns "of London" Marquee was certainly not 'of London' and I probably would be able to pronounce the name. They did a terrible job, either way.