Why is Gibson allowed to do this?

[Melodyman]

We all know the story of how Les Paul decried the SG body style and as a result ordered that his name be taken off the instruments after the 61 debut.. So, how is Gibson allowed to now use the Les Paul inscribed truss rod cover again on these reissues?
I actually own a real 61 BTW..

 

[Wally]

???? Maybe they made a deal with the heirs of Les Paul's estate to use his name???? Money talks, right?

 

[garywright]

I'll guess that beings the truss rod cover is an interchangeable part rather than a permanent fixture ...unlike a painted headstock.

 

[Xpensive Wino]

There sure have been a lot of Les Pauls made with various body shapes made since then...Les knew about 'em.

The story is that he saw a '61 in a store window and told Gibson to take his name off, so they changed the model name to SG.

I also heard a story that Les didn't want the endorsement $$$ while his divorce from Mary was pending. :hmm

Anyway, you could ask Gibson.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

We all know the story of how Les Paul decried the SG body style and as a result ordered that his name be taken off the instruments after the 61 debut...

I have heard this as legend or supposition, not fact.
Do you have anything that proves this? :hmm

Besides, Gibson left it on into 1963 on LP SG Juniors. :ganz

 

[Big Al]

We all know the story of how Les Paul decried the SG body style and as a result ordered that his name be taken off the instruments after the 61 debut.. So, how is Gibson allowed to now use the Les Paul inscribed truss rod cover again on these reissues?
I actually own a real 61 BTW..

This is a myth. Les never said anything negative about the SG styled guitar back then. He and Mary featured them in photo's used to promote them, as well as record covers.

That "story" about the window thing was never told pre '67 and was a Les Paul tale told to promote the reissue of the discontinued single cut models.

Les's original agreement with Gibson was renewable in 5 year segments, as his third royalty segment was about to be negotiated, Les and Mary's marriage fell apart in a very nasty and bitter way. By law Mary would be able to make a claim on the royalty payment, as Les was seeking way's to hide assets before the divorce he declined renewing the deal with Gibson.

Gibson had designed an excellent guitar and the British invasion would spark a huge demand for guitars and amplifiers. Not willing to vacate a growing market, Gibson simply renamed the guitars and amps that bore the Les Paul name and sold as many as they could make.

 

[garywright]

I'm not up on reissue SGs ..do any of them have Les Paul painted on their headstock ?

 

[Xpensive Wino]

I'm not up on reissue SGs ..do any of them have Les Paul painted on their headstock ?

NAFAIK. Just truss rod covers and in some cases on the pickguard.

The original Juniors were another story:

​

 

[Melodyman]

Well this is the story I have heard for decades.. and while they did indeed use his name until 63, I was just curious as to how they were allowed to put it back on for the reissues..

Fromthe Gibson Custom SG page..

SG Standard Reissue
The introduction of the remodeled Les Paul models of the early 1960s sought to bolster Gibson’s reputation as a quality builder of electric solid body guitars, something the Les Pauls of the late 1950s had failed to do. And although those Les Paul models of the late 1950s would eventually become the world’s most iconic six-stringed instruments, the introduction of the redesigned models in 1961 would also signal an important new era in electric solid body design. Characterized by a much thinner body with two cutaways, pointed horns, beveled edges and no body binding, the new Les Paul failed to achieve the full approval of Les Paul himself, which lead to the removal of Les Paul’s name in 1963 in favor of its new name, the SG. A painstaking recreation of the original, the SG Standard Reissue takes you 50 years back in time to a rare and powerful slice of rock history.

 

[sgtJoe]

There's an interview in a Guitar Player mag or some other mag where he said Gibson got it all wrong with the SG, he said there wasn't enough wood in the neck/body joint and he didn't like the "horns" saying a guy could get hurt on those things, or something to that effect. He also said he told Gibson to take his name off of it.

 

[Big Al]

SG Custom and Standard have pearl inlay on the headstocks, so no silkscreen, same as on the 50's Customs.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

Well this is the story I have heard for decades.. and while they did indeed use his name until 63, I was just curious as to how they were allowed to put it back on for the reissues..

Fromthe Gibson Custom SG page..

SG Standard Reissue
The introduction of the remodeled Les Paul models of the early 1960s sought to bolster Gibson’s reputation as a quality builder of electric solid body guitars, something the Les Pauls of the late 1950s had failed to do. And although those Les Paul models of the late 1950s would eventually become the world’s most iconic six-stringed instruments, the introduction of the redesigned models in 1961 would also signal an important new era in electric solid body design. Characterized by a much thinner body with two cutaways, pointed horns, beveled edges and no body binding, the new Les Paul failed to achieve the full approval of Les Paul himself, which lead to the removal of Les Paul’s name in 1963 in favor of its new name, the SG. A painstaking recreation of the original, the SG Standard Reissue takes you 50 years back in time to a rare and powerful slice of rock history.

Gibson's statement here is not entirely accurate, on several factors.
It is merely advertising, written by someone who doesn't know all the details.

BTW: The "SG" name showed up in 1959. :ganz

 

[garywright]

that would be some absurd advertising ..meaning there's no positive selling point

 

[Melodyman]

So then why did they change it from Les Paul to SG?

Also, did anyone ever hear the reports that when Gibson started reissuing the Les Paul in 67-68, the first several units were made from pre cut mahog bodies they had stored from 1960 and never used when they switched over? heard this from Milt Owens back in the early 70's..

 

[Big Al]

So then why did they change it from Les Paul to SG?

Also, did anyone ever hear the reports that when Gibson started reissuing the Les Paul in 67-68, the first several units were made from pre cut mahog bodies they had stored from 1960 and never used when they switched over? heard this from Milt Owens back in the early 70's..

I explained the name change. It is well documented. The fact is that the original double cuts where made and sold as Les Paul models. They are Les Pauls.

The body thing is another myth.

 

[Ed Driscoll]

We all know the story of how Les Paul decried the SG body style and as a result ordered that his name be taken off the instruments after the 61 debut.. So, how is Gibson allowed to now use the Les Paul inscribed truss rod cover again on these reissues?
I actually own a real 61 BTW..

Since Gibson and Les Paul resumed their relationship in the mid-1960s resulting in their making various new Les Paul models since 1968, I'm sure it would have been easy for them to clear any questions about what bore the name with Les himself. And/or the agreement with Les allowed Gibson to use the name again on whatever guitars they like, provided Les received a royalty.

Which raises another question: does Gibson maintain friendly relations (and/or royalties) with Les's heirs?

 

[Elliot Easton]

I remember a story about Les going through his divorce with Mary, and taking his name off the guitars for a few years so it wouldn't show as an asset. Then, in '68 they resumed building Les Pauls. I find this more plausible than him not liking the SG shape. After all, he left his name on in '52 when the guitar had a bad neck angle, a tailpiece/bridge that prevented hand muting, etc. etc. I think it was more about $$$.

 

[oldflame]

Also, did anyone ever hear the reports that when Gibson started reissuing the Les Paul in 67-68, the first several units were made from pre cut mahog bodies they had stored from 1960 and never used when they switched over? heard this from Milt Owens back in the early 70's..

The body thing is another myth.

+1...and I can't believe that old chestnut is still out there.

 

[reswot]

Well, hell... There are still folks who believe that Les Paul designed the Les Paul guitar!