Bayou Talker - Posted - 11/05/2009:  10:46:34

---

Being new to banjo and even newer to vintage banjos I have a question for you pros. I read on here and the classifieds daily about "Gibson" banjos....Only they are part Gibson or a copy thereof. So my question is When is a Gibson not a Gibson?? How many parts can be changed and it still be a Gibson? Also is a COPY of a Gibson actually a Gibson?

Any clarification will be appreciated.

Cliff Hebert
Bridgeport, AL

jethrobodine - Posted - 11/05/2009:  10:51:30

---

I brought popcorn, who's bringing the beer!

scott

---

Edited by - jethrobodine on 11/05/2009 10:52:20

Bill Rogers - Posted - 11/05/2009:  10:55:04

---

Copies aren't Gibsons. Period. That said, there are many old threads on the Hangout about this issue. You can read them for a month I imagine. Briefly, and this is simply my opinion, if you have a repro neck on an all-Gibson shell, it's still a Gibson. [e.g., Earl Scrugg's Granada]. But if you put a Huber tone ring on it, or a rim from Cooperman, then it's no longer a Gibson. I once had a banjo that was originally a Gibson PB-1 from 1928 or so. I had the rim cut, and a genuine Gibson Mastertone ring installed, along with a Gibson RB-100 neck. So it was a genuine Gibson banjo without doubt, but a "parts model" for sure. Note that parts such as tuning pegs, tailpieces and bridges have no effect on the provenance of the banjo. Players debate whether resonator and flange changes are similar or can make a Gibson into a "parts banjo."

Bill

2many5s - Posted - 11/05/2009:  10:56:15

---

Can of worms, Cliff. Can of worms.

Many discussions here and many differing opinions.

Welcome!

mainejohn - Posted - 11/05/2009:  10:57:39

---

I have a "reverse conversion", that is to say, it has a gen-u-ine Gibson PB250 neck, but the pot assembly is made up of newer FQMS/Cooperman/Cox parts. I call it a "33% Gibson".

Cheers,
John Coleman
Scarborough, Maine

Nosferatu - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:08:19

---

If you replace replaceable parts like frets, it's still a Gibson. It's a Gibson with non Gibson parts up 49%, after that it becomes a Gibson copy with Gibson parts.

If it's an old/new Gibson with old/new Gibson parts, it's what it is, a old/new Gibson with old/new parts.

Thank you,
"Count" Hugh


"I bent over him, and tried to find any sign of life, but in vain." -- Jonathan Harker, Dracula

---

Edited by - Nosferatu on 11/05/2009 11:10:26

jethrobodine - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:10:19

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mainejohn

I have a "reverse conversion", that is to say, it has a gen-u-ine Gibson PB250 neck, but the pot assembly is made up of newer FQMS/Cooperman/Cox parts. I call it a "33% Gibson".

Cheers,
John Coleman
Scarborough, Maine

---

I changed the ring in my gibson, stew-mac ring in the first place. Since I changed from a factory installed after market ring to an after market ring, I guess it's still 100% Gibson?

scott

Bill Rogers - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:25:12

---

Hugh wrote: "...If you replace replaceable parts like frets, it's still a Gibson. It's a Gibson with non Gibson parts up 49%, after that it becomes a Gibson copy with Gibson parts."

49% by weight, Hugh?

Scott asked: " I changed the ring in my gibson, stew-mac ring in the first place. Since I changed from a factory installed after market ring to an after market ring, I guess it's still 100% Gibson?"

I wouldn't call it that. If Gibson didn't install the ring, and it's not one they did use, there's no factory connection. Gibson's always used rings made by others, but there are many rings they did not use.

Bill

---

Edited by - Bill Rogers on 11/05/2009 11:30:39

Nosferatu - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:26:39

---

Half a neck, one third a rim.

Thank you,
"Count" Hugh


"I bent over him, and tried to find any sign of life, but in vain." -- Jonathan Harker, Dracula

jhedblom - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:28:44

---

In guitars originality is the standard Anything that alters that state detracts from value and collectability.This pertains even if the repair or addition is done by the original builder.There are a number of stories in circulation on this subject.If a maker puts anothers name on a neck without marking it a copy and not what it appears on the surface the deception is clear. The piece is a forgery. In this case a copy may have functional value. It may have a value as a collectors piece for other reasons but from my point of view its not an original ,real, Gibson. If the intent of the labeling was to decieve its a forgery.This is the rule in the art world as well. Jack

Bill Rogers - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:34:22

---

"Original" and "genuine" are two different standards, as noted in my first post. By Jack's definition, there are probably no original Stradivari violins existing, since they've had neck transplants.

Bill

flange5st - Posted - 11/05/2009:  11:57:42

---

....everyone has their own take to this question therefore their own answer...if the banjo is like it was from the factory i.e the main parts: neck, rim, flange, tone ring, resonator, tension hoop....then I'd say it's "all" the makers brand....if not ,then you have to start qualiyfing your statements with explainations.....and honesty is the best policy about such things.......it does make for good banjo conversation.......IMHO.....peace

......ad fontes..........

f5loar - Posted - 11/05/2009:  12:01:50

---

If it's "all original" or even just "original" I would think that would be how it came from the Gibson factory. Anything changed out or replaced by Gibson or others it becomes a Gibson "parts" banjo. Repo neck or resonator/rim it now becomes a "copy" of a Gibson. I would call Earl's a Gibson "parts" banjo as he no longer has the "original" parts to the banjo as it came from the factory when it was born.
But because what we say here is rather complicated it's no wonder unknowledgeable ebay sellers don't know what to call it so they just say it's a Gibson banjo and then let the buyer figure out what is not Gibson factory about it.
Bottom line: Just because you bought a Gibson banjo don't mean you bought a Gibson banjo.


Tom Isenhour

partyofone - Posted - 11/05/2009:  12:18:24

---

So my replaced 5th string peg makes my rb800 a parts banjo? What about the replaced tailpiece bracket?

If we weren't all crazy, we'd all go insane. -Jimmy Buffett

Surveyor - Posted - 11/05/2009:  12:37:36

---

I love this.

Bitting my fingernails...

Mr. B

Wind me up and watch me go!

Couchie - Posted - 11/05/2009:  13:03:04

---

If you think it's a Gibson, then it is a Gibson.....even if it isn't a Gibson....

Don.

O=='=(::}

http://www.doncouchie.com

steve davis - Posted - 11/05/2009:  13:57:13

---

I have a Gibson that's half Cox
or is it a Cox that's half Gibson?

justryin2play - Posted - 11/05/2009:  13:58:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by f5loar

If it's "all original" or even just "original" I would think that would be how it came from the Gibson factory. Anything changed out or replaced by Gibson or others it becomes a Gibson "parts" banjo. Repo neck or resonator/rim it now becomes a "copy" of a Gibson. I would call Earl's a Gibson "parts" banjo as he no longer has the "original" parts to the banjo as it came from the factory when it was born.
But because what we say here is rather complicated it's no wonder unknowledgeable ebay sellers don't know what to call it so they just say it's a Gibson banjo and then let the buyer figure out what is not Gibson factory about it.
Bottom line: Just because you bought a Gibson banjo don't mean you bought a Gibson banjo.


Tom Isenhour

---

Head, Strings, and Bridge are they parts or consumables ?

jhedblom - Posted - 11/05/2009:  14:40:33

---

Bill is right about the strad violin. The scale of the instrument in use changed over time and the necks were changed. Common knowledge. I am only suggesting that an altered object is not original. Further I think the neck of a convereted banjo should carry the name of its maker.My jag with a chevy engine is no longer a jag120 Its a hot rod based an a jag platform. There is a reason for the cost of factory produced 5 string pre war Gibsons.I am not devalueing the wodk of those who have done the conversions I just think Gibson should be the only ones to use
their name and trademark. These things have their own functional value. Jack

steve davis - Posted - 11/05/2009:  14:49:36

---

I wanted my conversion to say Cox on the neck,but Jimmy said he
couldn't do that because of the the Gibson pot,so it says Gibson.

I guess that is ok with Gibson...they never told me to change it.
I don't care one way of the other what it says...I just like to play it.

Bayou Talker - Posted - 11/05/2009:  16:26:22

---

Good answers friends.

My original post says Gibson but it could just as easily relate to a Fender or Stelling or any other brand. In my opinion it should only be considered "insert brand here" if all of the parts were originally used by the manufacturer to build a banjo. If they were used in the same configuration on a stock built model then it would be an "original". This would naturally exclude heads, strings, frets, etc that are replaced due to normal wear. Any replacement of original parts with after market parts that were never used together by the manufacturer should be considered a "parts" banjo only.

I know this has been hashed out before and I have read some of them but I think the answers given on this discussion describe it as well as any. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Cliff Hebert
Bridgeport, AL

jethrobodine - Posted - 11/05/2009:  17:27:02

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

I have a Gibson that's half Cox
or is it a Cox that's half Gibson?

---

I guess mine is 3/4 Gibson, 1/4 JLS(or whatever percentages fit). Of course all Gibson had to do in the 80's was to properly fit a ring such as the JLS#4. Then I would not have a parts banjo now.

scott

mainejohn - Posted - 11/05/2009:  17:31:51

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steve davis

I have a Gibson that's half Cox
or is it a Cox that's half Gibson?

---

...at the risk of you going off half-cocked, which half is the Cox?

Cheers,
John Coleman
Scarborough, Maine

---

Edited by - mainejohn on 11/06/2009 04:10:08

Jim D - Posted - 11/05/2009:  17:57:05

---

I have wondered about this issue... what part or parts constitute the "soul" of an instrument to the level that if only they remain, the instrument is still called by their name. I kinda get the impression that there are those who'd get down to the rim without recognizing their instrument as any thing but "original".

I am reminded of the old joke about the museum that has Daniel Boone's tomahawk... of course the handle's been replaced about 20 times and it's had 3 new heads.

I'll go back to sleep now.

Jim
Linwood, N.C.

mdenny4 - Posted - 11/05/2009:  19:36:39

---

Isn't the only thing original on Earl's banjo the rim,ring,and resonator? If 35% originality is good enough for him, it's sure good enough for anyone else (and besides if it sounds good then it is good IMO)).

That a boy, Luther!

steve davis - Posted - 11/05/2009:  19:39:31

---

I wonder if it bothers Earl that his banjo isn't all original.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 11/05/2009:  20:24:51

---

The Kingston trio: "This is an old folksong; we've changed the tune and the lyrics."

Bill

lightgauge - Posted - 11/06/2009:  04:26:11

---

In my opinion, it is the rim and resonator that is the key element to being a "Gibson". I think all changes should be identified to avoid deception, and no claims of all original should be made if altered, but I'll take most any 30's OPF rim/reso, put the ring of my choice, build a neck, and be quite comfortable that I am playing a Gibson banjo.

rexhunt - Posted - 11/06/2009:  05:48:47

---

When is a Gibson not a Gibson? --- When it's a Stelling? But seriously, I have a pre-war conversion that by some measure is just a parts banjo. The arch-top tonering on mine has been swapped out for a flathead conversion ring otherwise known as a low profile flathead ring. Gibson used low profile rings and would have gladly swapped one out for you back in the 30's with whatever ring they had at the time. Just how essential is the tone ring in making the banjo a Gibson? Is it like the automobile analogy of replacing the Jaguar engine with a Chevy or is it more like replaceing a Chevy's Delco alternator with some other brand. The alternator was still built for a Chevy. My conversion ring was built for a Gibson and put on a Gibson with no other modification, just not done at the factory or dealer. Either way, I still like my Gipson.

Rex

NYCJazz - Posted - 11/06/2009:  07:46:11

---

What's the difference between singers and banjoists?

Singers don't spend all their time sitting around talking about their throats.

Nosferatu - Posted - 11/06/2009:  08:02:59

---

I guess you haven't around very many singers NYC.

Thank you,
"Count" Hugh


"I bent over him, and tried to find any sign of life, but in vain." -- Jonathan Harker, Dracula

NYCJazz - Posted - 11/06/2009:  08:59:56

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nosferatu

I guess you haven't around very many singers NYC.

---

Actually...

My ex's mother is a singer at the Metropolitan Opera!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

3fingers - Posted - 11/06/2009:  17:25:23

---

I always kind of considered the neck, rim, and resonator the 3 major parts of a banjo and if 2 of the 3 are original then it was still a Gibson. Now if you change the flange or the ring or tailpiece or something its still a Gibson but it's not a original Gibson. This is MY way of thinking anyhow, I think it really comes down to what the person buying the banjo considers to be a Gibson.

Craig
http://www.myspace.com/borrowedtyme2
Come along down to the barnyard lets have us a little banjer pickin
Jeremiah 6:16
Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8 10:9, 10:13, 1st John 5:10-13.

Bayou Talker - Posted - 11/06/2009:  18:40:09

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rexhunt

When is a Gibson not a Gibson? --- When it's a Stelling? But seriously, I have a pre-war conversion that by some measure is just a parts banjo. The arch-top tonering on mine has been swapped out for a flathead conversion ring otherwise known as a low profile flathead ring. Gibson used low profile rings and would have gladly swapped one out for you back in the 30's with whatever ring they had at the time. Just how essential is the tone ring in making the banjo a Gibson? Is it like the automobile analogy of replacing the Jaguar engine with a Chevy or is it more like replaceing a Chevy's Delco alternator with some other brand. The alternator was still built for a Chevy. My conversion ring was built for a Gibson and put on a Gibson with no other modification, just not done at the factory or dealer. Either way, I still like my Gipson.

Rex

---

Sounds like your 'jo can be rightly called a Gibson as all of the parts were used by them to build banjos. I feel that if it is something that could have been ordered from Gibson then there is no doubt as to what it is.

Cliff Hebert
Bridgeport, AL

gdoc - Posted - 11/06/2009:  21:45:48

---

I think, (I think? watch out!) ehem... I think the whole pot essembly makes the most important part.. I had many years ago a 26 gibson BB with a converted neck. Everyone called it "a Gibson, with a neck conversion". Everyone "did" make it clear it was converted. No problem, the bulk of the original sound came from the pot.

I just purchased another 26 Gibson BB, and this time I have the neck conversion, but I also have the original neck.

Bottom line, I love the sound of the 26 Gibson BB. To me, and unless I sell it, it's a Gibson.. if I sell it, well it's open to disscussion.

(sorry about my spelling if I missed something, Never could spell)

gdoc

Couchie - Posted - 11/08/2009:  13:23:10

---

Would I be a better singer if I got a new neck?

Don.

O=='=(::}

http://www.doncouchie.com

rexhunt - Posted - 11/08/2009:  13:42:55

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Couchie

Would I be a better singer if I got a new neck?

Don.

O=='=(::}

http://www.doncouchie.com

---

I know I couldn't be any worse!

Rex

HighFive - Posted - 11/09/2009:  15:57:22

---

I think that the answer lies in the fact that it needs to be broader than "Gibson" or "Not Gibson." There are lots more types. 4 string to 5 string conversions, Archtop to Flathead conversions, no tone ring to tone ring conversions, and combinations of the above. They are all Gibson's but as in any vintage instrument sale, the alterations and modifications need to be explained in detail.

Mike Casey - Posted - 11/09/2009:  16:07:00

---

When the person who thought he was buying a Gibson finds out he didn't... which BTW happens quite often.

Mike Casey
and Hillbilly Dynamite

steve davis - Posted - 11/09/2009:  16:37:58

---

I was very pleased to find an original tb2 that I had noticed in this
music store since 1975.I couldn't know a Gibson tenor any better than
this one.
I didn't touch it and simply delivered it to Jimmy Cox for the conversion.

I love being sure of every piece that's in it.

bowfinger - Posted - 11/09/2009:  19:46:08

---

I've always thought It kind of followed Earl's so called example. The tone ring and RIM and resonator define most of the sound of the banjo. Of course how much? That can't be quantified. I also think you should always explain what you've got in a banjo since there are so many replaceable parts.

I have a copy I've collected over the last year or so. Now it looks so good since I had Mr. Cioffi work on it, I feel I should put a sticker in it to explain what it really is made of. It has Mostly (LOL) top quality parts. Should I get one of those Gibson stickers and type on it where each section or big part came from? It does have a Gibby ring. I wish it just said "Parts" on the headstock now.
But a modern Gibson is made too of "mostly " top quality parts right?



Superman wears Tim Tebow pajamas.

DHutchens - Posted - 11/10/2009:  04:34:30

---

Folks you are talking about apples, oranges and watermelons here.

Do you want originality, collectability or functionality.

The folks at Gibson started all this in the 60's(I'm saying 60's because before that very few folks new what the models were, most folks called them silver or gold mastertones) by not offering (because of what ever reason{that could be its own thread}) what people wanted. This caused many folks, myself included learning skills that would allow us to create instruments that looked like what we really wanted.

Earls banjo neck was replaced because he ask them to slim the original down. His exact words were "they told me it would warp, but I thought a piece of wood that old....I just didn't want it the way it was. They were right and after a few weeks it warped and I had G.W. Gower to make a new neck."
Earl needed a playable instrument and Gibson at that point, which continued from 1948 or 49 until 1986, had little interest in correctly recreating conmonents or instruments of the past.

In the late 60's when Wayne Henderson and Nelson Edmonds showed me how to get shells and what jewelers saws were, there were many of us who would have bought a Hearts and Flowers, wreath pattern or what ever. But what were we offered......weak, cryptic waterdowned banjo attemps. Why? (that could be its own thread as well)

It all boils down to Gibson forced another "Industry" to develop by not offering what the buying public wanted.

Call them what you wish, many of the "copies" were of more a pre-war nature that anything coming from Kalamazoo after the 50's.

There are many many good copies out there, now when one is sold like many have as original that is fraud, but many times the makers never intended fraud (to them it was a challenge of recreation) but when the piece leaves their hands they loose control of the storyline.

I'll sit back and be quite now.

Doug

steve davis - Posted - 11/10/2009:  05:15:49

---

Doug reminds me of why I will never get into the prewar banjo
investment business.
I won't care what someone calls my conversion after I'm gone.

beegee - Posted - 11/10/2009:  05:16:05

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DHutchens
This caused many folks, myself included learning skills that would allow us to create instruments that looked like what we really wanted.

It all boils down to Gibson forced another "Industry" to develop by not offering what the buying public wanted.

Call them what you wish, many of the "copies" were of more a pre-war nature that anything coming from Kalamazoo after the 50's.

There are many many good copies out there, now when one is sold like many have as original that is fraud, but many times the makers never intended fraud (to them it was a challenge of recreation) but when the piece leaves their hands they loose control of the storyline.

---

Many of the early copies are now 40-50 years old and the folklore that follows them has created a problem for subsequent buyers. I don't know how many people I've encountered who have an "original" "custom" Gibson banjo that "my uncle bought it from a friend who said Gibson told him that it is a _______ from_______ and that it was played on the Grand Ole Opry and Earl Scruggs sold it out the back door of the Ryman because Uncle Joe was such a promising and needy banjo player." Of the 250 or so original flathead 5-strings produced by Gibson, only 15,000 are known still to exist and only 75,000 ex-archtop banjos all have cut labels where there were sent back to the factory to have flatheads installed.

I actually have people get mad at ME when I tell them the original Gibson banjo they bought is a fake. Don't shoot the messenger.

Gibson has always been its own worst enemy and the company has no feet to stand on from constantly shooting itself in the foot. Many people err by believing that Gibson is a musical instrument company. Gibson is a mass-marketer concerned with volume sales. Too bad they haven't figured out that product quality and customer service are the best ways to improve the bottom line. Funny that small makers can make Gibson-style banjos of higher quality and sell them at lower cost than Gibson, whose mass-production capabilities should enable them to provide quality at lower cost. The irony is that the Gibson name enhances and maintains value even when other banjos provide better value.

__________________________
"It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing." -Seneca

---

Edited by - beegee on 11/10/2009 05:20:02

Cabin_Hill - Posted - 11/10/2009:  06:09:33

---

It has been said on forum many times that most prewar banjos were made after the war. The feeding frenzy of owning a prewar banjo became larger than owning a new Granada. There were and still are some people who take advantage of the desire to own a prewar. Every day you hear or read about builders coming up with ways to distress metal or age the finish of the wood to make a banjo look old. In the right hands the prewar looking banjo is marketable. In the wrong hands these instruments are a crime. Beegee is right. Most copy banjos were made 40 years ago. These banjos are equal to Earl’s banjo in the 60's as far as age. The natural aging process has taken place. Today only the experts can tell which are real or fake.

Gibson was smart. They sat back while builders made Gibson a household name for them. Gibson charged double for 1/2 the work for all those years while the little guy thought they were getting away with murder making or buying a copy. Now the market is diluted with banjos that hardly anybody knows if they are real or not. The only way to be sure is to buy a banjo from Gibson direct. Any other way you don't know what you’re getting. Gibson was smarter than we think some times. They made a lot of money over the years.