The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 32 of 32
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bluejaybill View Post
    In any case, it is not an instrument that MB was primarily associated with during his prime, even if it was his.

    His original burst and telecaster, both of which he was known for using during recording and live playing at his peak, have a much stronger historical association as part of Bloomfield's signature sound. And so they would be more valuable. This is true of most "celebrity" guitars.
    Yeah, one can at least make sense of the outrageous prices of authenticated celebrity guitars but the fact that so & so (fill in famous name) owned a guitar doesn't make it more valuable, might even make it less so if s/he was a drug addict or alcoholic who didn't take care of it.

    I mean, my Dad once bought a car owned by Lenny Bruce (from Honey Bruce, his former wife), which didn't hold up well, probably because it wasn't maintained properly.
    Last edited by Mick-7; 06-11-2024 at 06:04 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Mick-7 View Post
    Yeah, one kind at least make sense of the outrageous prices of authenticated celebrity guitars but the fact that so & so (fill in famous name) owned a guitar doesn't make it more valuable, might even make it less so if s/he was a drug addict or alcoholic who didn't take care of it.

    I mean, my Dad once bought a car owned by Lenny Bruce (from Honey, his former wife), which didn't hold up well, probably because it wasn't maintained properly.
    I had a guitar owned by John Sebastian (suffice to say not the one he played on "Summer in the City"). Did nothing for me when I sold it. But then again it did nothing for the shop that sold it to me either, so fair is fair.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzshrink View Post
    Actually, I see an experienced mental health professional every day (in the mirror). I have great respect for a few members here. Most others I generally respect until they prove unworthy of my trust and respect (but that can change with good deeds). Funny thing, you've been on my ignore list for months. You absolutely love to argue with other members and often do so in a disrespectful manner. Borrowing your own words, you can come off as a "dick" imo. That's your right, but frankly I think it does more harm to the community than anything I've said. But maybe you're right. I do tend to be fairly suspicious (occupational hazard), but I'm not the one who raises the specter of money laundering (on several occasions). Yes, it exists, but is it happening here? Tell me, how do you launder money without a sale? Granted, other people might be satisfied with "someone who knows told me so". I guess that's not me. I will try to be more respectful in the future, and I will continue to ignore those who might not deserve the effort.
    I find myself living inside your head, rent free. Never mind. If I have mentioned money laundering on several occasions, it is because I know something about it, and it is relevant for anyone who buys and sells guitars. This is how it works.

    Commodities have use-value and exchange value. The use value of a 1963 Stratocaster and a modern equivalent are much the same. You plug them into amps and they make guitar noises. But the exchange value of the 1963 guitar is much higher. I could buy ten brand-new Strats, with warranties and case candy, in my local store for the price of one old Strat on Reverb. I could also buy a new copy of a Strat made by Suhr or James Tyler for about double the price of a new Fender Strat. In this Barnum and Bailey world, a copy can cost more than the real thing, and a smelly old guitar is worth much more than a new one. The guitar market is irrational, driven by whims, fads and a fetish for authenticity. This peculiar buying behaviour makes the guitar market ideal for money laundering, since you can fake a sale for a large amount of money and nobody will notice (except for people on guitar forums, who occasionally remark on the absurdly high price a guitar has made, but do not question whether the sale is real).

    The guitar market is also particularly useful for money launderers, since it is unregulated. Money markets in most countries are regulated by organisations such as the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority, which is concerned to ensure that transactions comply with the law on AML/CFT – Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism. For the consumer, this means, “Businesses covered by the rules (such as foreign exchange dealers, financial advisers, banks, investment advisers or fund managers) will ask for proof of identity when you start doing business with them.” But the online markets for commodities are unregulated: anyone can set up an account for buying and selling. Rather than putting your ill-gotten gains into a bank, you should arrange a bogus purchase online. It is called ghost laundering:

    In exchange for routine sales of street drugs, portions of the debts owed could be repaid through a single purchase or a series of purchases through an online vendor. A book could be listed as a rare, first, or limited edition at a falsified price of anywhere from $1 to $1,000 and sold repeatedly. The reality is that for ghost laundering, merchandise doesn’t even have to be sold. A collusive merchant could arrange the online transaction through a vendor like Amazon or Alibaba and forward the profits of the transaction at the drug dealer’s discretion.

    Guitars, real and imaginary, can be bought and sold in false transactions that are impossible to distinguish from genuine exchanges. I can see a 1963 Jazzmaster on Reverb that is being offered for $30,000 NZD, about twice the price of the other 1963 Jazzmasters on the site. I do not know whether the vendor is optimistic, opportunistic or deluded. I also do not know whether the offer is real or fake. And if the sale is conducted with PayPal or a similar system, no observer will know who was involved.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Mick-7 View Post
    Yeah, one can at least make sense of the outrageous prices of authenticated celebrity guitars but the fact that so & so (fill in famous name) owned a guitar doesn't make it more valuable, might even make it less so if s/he was a drug addict or alcoholic who didn't take care of it.

    I mean, my Dad once bought a car owned by Lenny Bruce (from Honey Bruce, his former wife), which didn't hold up well, probably because it wasn't maintained properly.
    Kurt Cobain did not take care of his cardigan, but it sold for $334,000: "It has not been cleaned since he last wore it." Everything once owned by a celebrity has more value than its quotidian equivalent, because we are obsessed with celebrities. Lenny Bruce's car would have low use value, but today would have high exchange value.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick View Post
    Kurt Cobain did not take care of his cardigan, but it sold for $334,000: "It has not been cleaned since he last wore it." Everything once owned by a celebrity has more value than its quotidian equivalent, because we are obsessed with celebrities. Lenny Bruce's car would have low use value, but today would have high exchange value.
    Lenny Bruce's car, eh ? That really reminded me of the Seinfeld Episode, w/ Jon Voight's '89 Chrysler LeBaron that George buys.......: )


  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Everybody take a deep breath, a sip of coffee if you need it, go outside for a moment, and touch grass.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis D View Post
    Lenny Bruce's car, eh ? That really reminded me of the Seinfeld Episode, w/ Jon Voight's '89 Chrysler LeBaron that George buys.......: )

    LOL, maybe the guitar in the Reverb ad was actually owned by Michelle Bloomfield, no relation to Michael.