I find this offensive - am I wrong?

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 30 Jul 2006 3:41 pm

I can objectively understand that provenance is everything with autographs and other collectibles but this just seems in such bad taste and so wrong - whether it's legit or not.
http://www.momentsintime.com/Lennon.htm

The same company is trying sell "Robert Johnson's" guitar for a cool 6 million! Light reflection? Yeah, right. I've got
Jimi Hendrix's spare guitar in my closet. How do I know? It's white - just like the pictures.
http://www.rjguitar.com/

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 30 Jul 2006 4:14 pm

You're right Andy. This is morbid and bizarre. Unfortunately there is a subgenre of Collecting nowadays called "Killer Collectibles"... Items owned by infamous murderers. It doesn't appeal to me, but evidently some people enjoy collecting such items. I compare this to collecting Nazi memorabilia... it's probably even worse than that. I wouldn't want the stuff in my house, but I guess some people are fascinated by it. This John Lennon item would Not appeal to Beatles collectors IMO.

more on serial killer collectibiles

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 30 Jul 2006 4:33 pm

This seller can Not verify that this L1 is actually Robert Johnson's guitar. Their so-called proof is not convincing. They compare this L1 to one old photo. There are no distinctive markings on the guitar, none that can be seen in the picture, although they are trying to convine us otherwise. These guys are fishing for a fool.

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 30 Jul 2006 4:36 pm

Somebody call us? We'll take it!

[This message was edited by Jon Light on 30 July 2006 at 05:36 PM.]

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 30 Jul 2006 4:40 pm

but seriously---it leaves a real bad taste---it's in real bad taste (the Lennon thing) but assuming it's all legit, there really are no moral or ethical issues. The bad taste thing is an emotional reaction and nothing more. Ultimately even ambulance chasing lawyers serve some sort of purpose, scummy though they may be.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 30 Jul 2006 4:47 pm

Disturbing. When I opened the link and started reading, I felt a hollow pit in my stomach. That's just the lowest. To Lennon's close friends and relatives, that must be like December 8th all over again. What a sin.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 30 Jul 2006 5:04 pm

Jon, be careful about cross-pollination of stupid guitar players into other posts. That sort of thing could lead to inbreeding!

[This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 30 July 2006 at 06:06 PM.]

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 30 Jul 2006 5:42 pm

there really are no moral or ethical issues. The bad taste thing is an emotional reaction and nothing more.

Maybe here isn't the best place to engage in this conversation, but I have difficulty seeing the difference. When you come down to it, aren't all moral/ethical issues really based on an "emotional reaction"? Isn't that why killing and stealing (not steeling) are 'bad'?

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 30 Jul 2006 7:56 pm

There's money to be made in most anything
with a history.

That doesn't make it right.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 30 Jul 2006 8:32 pm

It's pretty cold and heartless, for both seller and buyer.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 30 Jul 2006 8:35 pm

They use to sell death masks of great composers after they died.

No way is that L1 the guitar in the Robert Johnson photo. Lighting-schmiting. The lighting in that photo is remarkably even, with very little glare. Johnson was well known for selling his guitar when he was broke, and buying another used one when he got some money. That L1 in the photo is a prime example. It is beat to hell and back, with pick marks all over the top, arm wear near the right arm, and wear at the top of the headstock. I can't see a single one of their almost mint guitar's unique aspects in Johnson's photo. Any wear on any of his guitars would tell as much about the previous owners' playing style as about Johnson's. I didn't see a word about the ownership trail of their guitar. I'm holding on to my 6 million. Next thing you know, they will have a restored Terraplane up for sale.

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

Mike Shefrin · Post by **Mike Shefrin** » 30 Jul 2006 8:50 pm

Andy V,
I find it offensive also and I don't think youre wrong.
As to Robert Johnson's guitar... has anyone
really inspected the scratch marks? We know that Robert Johnson only used a thumbpick when he was playing in the lydian mode and the scratch marks seem to indicate otherwise.

[This message was edited by Mike Shefrin on 30 July 2006 at 10:24 PM.]

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 30 Jul 2006 10:03 pm

I'm not really into going all philosophical. But I'll stand by my statement. I hate this Lennon thing. As he did to many of us, he meant a lot to me. I despise this. But I don't see myself getting in the seller's face and calling him scum. I just wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I have stronger feelings about the ethics of the CEO of a tobacco company or something, regarding blood money. But unless this seller is ripping off a legit owner, it's disgusting but entirely within his rights.
Except for how much this upsets us (and, after doing some googling, a whole lot of other people), nobody is being harmed. A greedy scumbag is getting richer, a sick collector is getting a trophy, and we can ponder the trash that dwells around and among us. And we shouldn't pretend to be surprised.
Disgusting is not necessarily unethical.

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 30 Jul 2006 10:49 pm

Lennon's killer bought the gun at a sports shop on King St. here in Honolulu and it sucks to pass by as I do frequently, thinking of what we're missing from somebody who was having a spectacular rejuvination of his musical mind.
One can only 'imagine' what he would of produced in the various political climates we've suffered thru since that fateful day.
He deffinately made a difference, a good one.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 30 Jul 2006 11:50 pm

It’s true that nobody is being harmed, and the seller is within his rights, but I do think that this seller is a scumbag, considering the sensational nature of his ad. Not only is he seeking to profit from misery… he’s stoking the fire with a BS sales pitch. He’s like a seller of Porn… no different. He sells trash. He’ll take money anywhere he can get it. What kind of ethics is that? Business ethics is one thing, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Unfortunately there is a market for sick things like this, and that is a sad commentary on our society. I hope a Lennon fan buys this album and destroys it, so future bloodsuckers can’t profit from it.

Charlie McDonald · Post by **Charlie McDonald** » 31 Jul 2006 3:19 am

What's offensive to me is the MIDI version of 'Imagine.'

Andy Volk · Post by **Andy Volk** » 31 Jul 2006 5:17 am

Doug, I couldn't agree more. It may be legal, it may be ethical, but I wouldn't want to meet or know either the seller or the buyer.

Mark Lind-Hanson · Post by **Mark Lind-Hanson** » 31 Jul 2006 8:13 am

Well, it's worth something because it is John's signature, but who would want to own it? My OWN reaction might be "it's one of John's worst recrods, let's buy it just to chuck it!"
But this is a society that tends to capitalize on the most outrageous things it can, so, I am sure they WILL eventually find someone to buy it. Maybe Rush Limbaugh or G Gordon Liddy? hey- just kidding.

Mark Lind-Hanson · Post by **Mark Lind-Hanson** » 31 Jul 2006 8:19 am

On SECOND thought, maybe someone ought to buy it & present it to MDC so he can stare at it for the rest of his days in his cell...

Colm Chomicky · Post by **Colm Chomicky** » 31 Jul 2006 9:29 am

According to the website:

The album, originally acquired by the gentleman who found it in the front gate flower planter outside the Dakota, home of the late John Lennon in 1980 was made famous when pictures of Lennon signing the album for Chapman appeared in the newspapers and on TV stations around the world.

I would think there would be a question of ownership ? "Acquired" - that is rather a over polite way of stating it. Hardly seems like a clean title.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 31 Jul 2006 3:01 pm

The seller probably signed it himself. Remember, this is the guy who is asking 6 Million dollars for an old guitar that looks like Robert Johnson's!

Rick McDuffie · Post by **Rick McDuffie** » 1 Aug 2006 6:35 pm

What a load of hooey on the "Robert Johnson" guitar. What WOULD be convincing is actual documentation showing an unbroken line of ownership back to Johnson.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 1 Aug 2006 10:09 pm

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Mark David Chapman go back to his hotel room between the afternoon signing and the evening murder? I could be wrong, but it was my assumption that the album was not in his possession when the shooting occurred.

More bull#$%^. Anyone who wants to buy this is more of an idiot than a sadist.[This message was edited by Chris LeDrew on 01 August 2006 at 11:11 PM.]