Gibson or Not?

[guitar guy]

Hi
Thank you for letting me join. I have always wanted a mandolin so I bought one. After getting it home I decided to see if I could date it. After looking at it I could not find any label or date stamp. I started looking around the internet and seen a few post about counterfeits. So now I'm worried. I have posted pictures of it any help to identify it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

[JeffD]

Do you have a picture of the label inside?

[Ray(T)]

He says there is no label. Doesn't look right to me but I'm no expert - wrong tailpiece for starters. How much did it cost aand where from?

[Vernon Hughes]

import copy.

[davidb1]

The case looks like late 70's /early 80's Ibanez. "The Gibson" inlay does not look right. I think japanese made ..late70's/early 80's

[guitar guy]

Hi
Thank you for letting me join. I have always wanted a mandolin so I bought one. After getting it home I decided to see if I could date it. After looking at it I could not find any label or date stamp. I started looking around the internet and seen a few post about counterfeits. So now I'm worried. I have posted pictures of it any help to identify it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

So I took it to the local music store and had them look at it. They said it looked like the tuners and tail piece had been changed but they think it is a Gibson. I have looked at a lot of F5's and I don't think it is. I also never paid near the price for it that you would expect to either. The one thing that throws me is there is no binding on the head stock and on the left side of the head stock if you look at the scroll it's more straight then the others I have looked at.

[AlanN]

Clearly a copy. Just look at the scroll.

[tburcham]

Looks very similar to my Aria Pro II in design and construction. Case is also identical to my Aria.

[Astro]

That Gibson's first name was left off the headstock.

Should have read

Notta Gibson

[MikeEdgerton]

I suspect that is an Aria M-700 (or similar model with an unknown brand from the same factory in Japan) from the 70's that has been altered. Everything that has been changed is readily available online including the inlay on the headstock.

[Buck]

So I took it to the local music store and had them look at it. They said it looked like the tuners and tail piece had been changed but they think it is a Gibson.

This is why we don't must be informed consumers. Sometimes local music store people are quite competent with this sort of thing, other times not. An average retailer is a retailer, not a vintage instrument expert.

If you looked at any part of this instrument except the name on the headstock, it would scream Asian import. And that is what it is. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're not paying for a Gibson.....

[pfox14]

Definitely NOT a Gibson. Headstock shape and scroll are way off. Inlay not correct. Hardware also not correct. Sunburst on back looks awful.

[Timbofood]

It looks way yonder too much like my Alvarez from '75. I don't think I would bank on it's being a Gibson.

[guitar guy]

So is there any value to it ?

[MikeEdgerton]

Hundreds, not thousands. Do a happy dance if you get more than $400.00 for it.

[Jeff Mando]

I also never paid near the price for it that you would expect to either.

You don't say exactly what you paid for it, but I think price is a big clue. Once in a while we hear of someone getting an old Gibson at a pawn shop, but usually they pay up for it. The days of getting a $5000 instrument for $500 are all but gone with all the information available on the internet--and that's how pawn shops, thrift stores, estate sales, etc., are pricing their stuff. Today a bargain would be getting a $5000 instrument for $3750 because you have a motivated seller--that type of thing. Bottom line--if you got it for a few hundred--its FAKE. (but, it is certainly a nice looking mandolin, just the same)

[allenhopkins]

Looks to me like you bought a c. 40-year-old Asian-made mandolin that's had Gibson inlays added to its headstock. If it were a Gibson, it would have a label inside giving the model number and serial number. The finish looks wrong, the scroll carving likewise. And the case is definitely like the ones that came with Alvarez and similar Japanese instruments back in the 1970's.

May well be a decent instrument; Japanese instruments of the period tended to be solid wood (a good thing), and to have a fair amount of hand-work in their construction -- perhaps not as mass produced as later ones. If you didn't pay a "Gibson price" for it, you may be OK with it for a first mandolin. It looks well above some of the "learner" instruments new mandolinists are sold.

[guitar guy]

Hey Thanks everyone O appreciate all the input

[Ron McMillan]

It's not so dissimilar to my no-brand, no-label, probably late-70s, probably Japanese F5 (the one in the avatar to the left, whose finish was refurbished a few years ago). Which is a very decent instrument, so as long as you didn't pay a Gibson price, you likely have a good mandolin to enjoy.

[Perry Babasin]

The Ibanez scroll is more open and the details are slightly different. I think it's probably an Aria or Alvarez. It still might be a pretty nice sounding mandolin.

[f5loar]

Here's the good news: It's probably a better mandolin than Gibson was making at the time this one was made. Here's the bad news: The Asian imports of this era copied the worst Gibson mandolins ever made. This means even if it's pretty good it's still pretty bad. I'm not surprised a dealer said it was real. And 9 out of 10 pawn shops would say it's a real Gibson. The signs are all there it's not a Gibson including the rather lame fake replica of a Gibson logo. Yeah you got a good deal if you got it under $500. At least now you know to ask here first before buying a Gibson.

[Timbofood]

Nice point Tom, that's why I bought my Alvarez in'75. It was very affordable and the guys who were around the store when I was skipping my high school accounting class thought pretty highly of them. Here is is all these many years later and it's still providing me with solid service. Nope not a gibby but, didn't cost like one even then.

[stevedenver]

The "The" looks odd, the headstock binding with what appears to be an edge bevel is way weird, the volute looks oddly sharp and a bit elongated, and the bottom of the f holes looks a bit large, and of course as noted that headstock scroll, and the body scroll looks a bit open too.

The block inlays are something I have never seen without the more current "Gibson" block inlay logo. While I think I have seen that type of burst on a Gibson, I cant say its ever been on a mando, but more like a mid seventies ES 150 etc.


Hindsight is easy.

Now other than dubious pedigree, lets get to it:

Hows it sound and play?

[Skip Kelley]

It lloks like a bad 70"s copy. The transititon from the nut area of the fretboard to the peghead is terrible. The "the" in the inlay is all wrong.

[journeybear]

I don't understand. Do you want to keep it? Or do you want to return it and get your money back? Who did you buy it from? Have you tried to get your money back? Are you happy with it, even though you have it on good authority from a lot of very knowledgeable guys that it's not a Gibson?