In the last post we looked at some possible explanations leading to the existence of the Epiphone Matsumoku Les Pauls. They were:
1. An outright fake from someone not associated with Gibson/Epiphone
2. A genuine Epiphone from a later era that is mistakenly dated to the 80s
3. A Les Paul copy by Matsumoku that was badged as Epiphone
4. A small run of Les Pauls commissioned by Epiphone that was never catalogued or officially released
In this blog post lets go through the first scenario in that list.
An outright fake from someone not associated with Gibson/Epiphone
Could counterfeiters have come up with a run of these guitars? To consider this as a likely scenario, it would help to come up with answers to the following questions:
Is there a market for these guitars? In other words, is someone standing to gain profit from making a copy of an Epiphone Les Paul?
The answer to that, in my opinion, is a resounding NO. One would stand to make a far greater profit by creating counterfeits to expensive guitars or hugely popular guitars. Profit would be gained by using cheap materials or build techniques and selling them at a premium price or volume that comes with the name.
The Epiphone Les Paul, be it from Japan or Korea or even China, are generally good guitars but they would never command a price that a Gibson would.
If it is a counterfeit, does the guitar have the typical characteristics of a cheap fakes? Are there any signs that point to it being a cheap counterfeit?
The guitar has no scarf join on the headstock/neck, 2 piece mahogany body, 2 piece mahogany neck and a 1 piece neck.
I've got nothing against scarf joins, they are not an inferior technique - my '95 Korean Epi with a scarf joint is a very stable neck and has been for 20 years. I believe (being an amatuer woodworker) that scarf joins are actually stronger than a 1 piece neck. But you will see this technique being used on cheaper Asian guitars - which from my perspective (I'm no a luthier/manufacturer) suggests that it is a cheaper process due to either labour savings or less waste of wood.
Same thing for the 2 piece body. There are MANY different counterfeits out there, and I'm sure there are countless ones with 2 piece or even 1 piece bodies and necks. However there are still many more that are made with multiple joins of cheap wood, because less waste = more profit. The 2 piece body with a very nicely made join in the centre is not something I would expect to see on a typical counterfeit. That's just based on my experience, yours may be different.
Another peculiarity is that the serial numbers on these guitars do not correspond to Epiphone MIJ serial numbers. One would assume that if you were going to counterfeit a guitar, you would pick a serial number range and then build/copy according to the specs that range. This serial number does not correspond to any Epiphone MIJ range specs wise.
Is it a recent counterfeit that was relic'd? Or is it a fake that was created decades ago?
Well this is an interesting one. Consider that most of the notorious(ly bad) counterfeit guitars are made in China and (I could be wrong here) have only started coming into prominence in the past 10 years or so. If we can reconcile the era in which this guitar was manufactured, we can make better assumptions on its origins. Of course there were the famous MIJ lawsuit guitars of the 80s (I wouldn't call these counterfeits as these were not labelled Gibson oftentimes), then there are the more modern counterfeits (where you think you're buying a Gibson but you're being fooled). Which era does this guitar belong to?
For one thing, it looks and feels old. Don't get me wrong...there are VERY convincing relics out there made by very talented people. I have seen/played quality relics with my own eyes/hands. Even though I've never been up close with a guitar from the 50s, I have played and inspected many guitars that are 2-3 decades old. I am familiar with telltale signs of a decades old guitar. Let's go through what makes this guitar in particular look like it's 30 years old (pictures included below):
Finish yellowing - I believe the finish on this is poly and not nitro. It feels like poly. I have yet to take the swab test to it, and I may never do, but it does not matter - poly yellows just as nitro does. The yellowing is not the real telltale sign, as anyone can spray ambered finish over new wood/plastics to make something look yellowed.
The devil is in the detail - yellowing occurs in plastics and in clear coats because of exposure to UV. So you would expect to see areas that are covered (under the pickguard, under the pickup mounting rings) to be lighter than exposed areas. On this guitar, even the area under the bridge and tailpiece are noticeably lighter.
To me that would suggest that an ambered coat was not used, as this sort of detail is usually missed (especially under the tailpiece). Not to say that it would be impossible, because you could cover those areas and spray an amber coat over the area, but that would be more work. You could also simulate years of yellowing by exposing it to intense UV lamps..but again more work, time and money.
Plastics yellowing - Same as above, in an older guitar you would expect to see a darker shade on plastics that are exposed (top half of pickup rings) vs a non exposed area (bottom half of pickup ring, obscured by pickguard). Again you could spray some finish on it to make it yellow, but I would expect there to be a raised edge where that finish stops (there isn't). And more importantly I would not expect someone to spend the time to do this.
Note on plastics: Some plastics will appear to fade after prolonged UV exposure. This is caused by the dyes that fade. However some plastics will appear to get tanned...also from UV exposure. This is the result of the flame retardant additive bromine reacting with UV and coming to the surface. Bromine only started to get used in the 70s so earlier plastics would have a different reaction.
General wear - With wear you can generally tell when something is simulated badly, even if you have no experience doing a relic job. You may pick up a new relic and it just doesn't feel...old! You may not know why at first...but it may be many little things that are only registering subconsciously at the time - the feel of any finish/plastics chips are too jagged and not worn down, the look of the wear patterns are a little off, the hardware is a little too scratched up while the surrounding finish is not. The smell. Even the case it comes in.
This guitar just looks and feels old. It doesn't feel like it's going to fall apart, but it feels right for 30 years, although it probably got a lot more sun exposure than usual, maybe it was hung up on display.
As I mentioned earlier it is not impossible to do a very convincing simulation of an old guitar. There are many relics that will easily fool me. However, in trying to establish if this was a counterfeit relic...I'm pretty sure it's not. No counterfeiter in their right mind would go through those sorts of details just to get a few hundred bucks for their work.
Conclusion: Unlikely
So from the ramblings above (sorry), it's my opinion that this is not a cheap counterfeit guitar. There's no reason to counterfeit Epiphones, there's no reason to make said counterfeit with more expensive materials/techniques, and it is most likely from the 80s and not a recent relic so that rules out Chibson style counterfeiters. Doesn't rule out MIJ manufacturers, which is what this guitar's "MADE IN JAPAN" sticker claims...but we'll get into that in further detail in later posts.
Cheers!
Alex
