Broadcaster help

[Jreb]

Hey guys, fairly new to the Broadcaster thing and would love to know what you think of this? I know there are some fakes out there. It doesn't come with any paperwork but the number does seem to show on the registry I found. Any help or advice much appreciated.

https://vintageandrareguitars.com/produ ... oadcaster/

Thanks
James

[y2kc]

James,

You would think that if there was a known list of fake Broadcasters that someone would post it on this web site. As a curtesy, but it's not.

If there is a "log book" containing info about production you would think it would be available here as well. You would think so but it is not.


Your Broadcaster is real, enjoy.


y2kc

[Jreb]

Ahhh thanks for that! Is there anything that jumps out that tells you it's the real deal?

[yowhatsshakin]

Jreb,

If there is anything it would be the following:

• The unstained ebony board; G&L never stained their ebony and hence it shows its streaks.
• Notwithstanding the "counterfeits" out there, many of those actually were built after Dale Hyatt had retired using genuine G&L parts! Of course there were plenty of bodies and necks at the factory but also left-over Broadcaster decals, stamped neck plates with serial numbers, and even inspection stickers, signed and all. Now having seen several inspection stickers on my own Broadcasters and here on this forum, it is clear Leo's signature is separate from the S/N and date. In all likelihood Leo pre-signed a whole stack of them and the S/N and date were filled out by for instance the person assembling the guitar. Why is all of this relevant? Because the S/N is found in Dale's sales log, as indicated in the Registry, and it would be unlikely to impossible for a S/N to be duplicated.

Hope this helps,

- Jos

[Jreb]

Perfect, thanks for much for the explanation! Out of interest do you think the guitar I linked to in the original post is genuine? Thanks again!

[FZTNT]

You Son of a Silly Person, listen to what they say. The chances that the Broadcaster in the post being a fake is very unlikely. I own three Broadcasters and everything looks legit. I believe that the hand writing on the sticker, other than Leo's signature, is that of George Fullerton, the production manager at the time Broadcasters were made and he G in G&L.

Tom

[y2kc]

Jos,

Please tell us more about the fake Broadcasters. Without a list of serial numbers it just sounds like a story that Dale came up with. It sounds like a urban myth. I am aware of stories about pre-signed tags, extra bodies,necks etc. but I never see any proof. Is there a list, a log or any other form of documentation that can back up this story of fake Broadcasters? Is it just that they do not exist in the "log" book?

If the log Book was made available to the members of this site, it is possible we could all benefit from what it contains. I think we would find that it is incomplete as far a recording every guitar that left the plant and that it is not the final word. It would be helpful and interesting to collectors world wide to see what it contains.

Do you know exactly which Broadcasters are fake? If so spill the beans. So far it is just a story about fake Broadcasters. I have no doubt that the story is possible but I have heard other stories before about the plant that didn't pan out. Let us know in detail about the fakes. Is this just a story you heard or is there something to back it up?

Your knowledge and compassion for these guitars is impressive and readers look to you for information. Please provide more than a passed down story about this batch of Broadcasters. Every time this subject comes up, someone here claims to be an expert on it. They offer the same story and zero details. It gets old.

y2kc

[yowhatsshakin]

Jos,

Please tell us more about the fake Broadcasters. Without a list of serial numbers it just sounds like a story that Dale came up with. It sounds like a urban myth. I am aware of stories about pre-signed tags, extra bodies,necks etc. but I never see any proof. Is there a list, a log or any other form of documentation that can back up this story of fake Broadcasters? Is it just that they do not exist in the "log" book?

Hi Casey,

As you well know there are 2 sales logs off relevance here, one Dale took with him when he retired from G&L on November 4, 1991 and one that stayed with the new owners at BBE. The former log, which is essentially frozen in time, was bought by 2 gentlemen together a bunch of instruments Dale owned from the estate of Dale Hyatt in 2013. Unfortunately I have no direct access to that sales log. The fakes would be identifiable by checking them against Dale's sales log; if they don't show up, they aren't built in the proper time frame or were rejected at the time.

To substantiate the claim, I can refer you to p.17 of the May 2005 issue of 20th Century Guitars where author Greg gagliano writes "Sadly, the popularity of the Broadcaster mong collectors has given rise to counterfeit examples showing up in the marketplace. These forgeries have 1985 or 1986 neck dates, the signed inspection tag, and even proper certificate of authenticity. Caveat emptor!" This statement is repeated on Greg's ggjaguar website. I have gotten confirmation from another reliable authority on all things G&L of the actual existence of "fake" Broadcasters, defined above as S/Ns that do not show up in Dale's sales log, although I have not received a concrete list as such.

However, if there is information substantiating it is "just a story that Dale came up with", I'd be curious to learn about that too of course.

Hope this helps,

- Jos

[y2kc]

So let me get this right, 1.The Broadcaster was selling so fast to "collectors" that "fakes" were created to satisfy the demand.
2. Dale knew this was happening despite the fact that he no longer worked there.
3. We know for a fact that these "fakes" exist because someone says so.
4. We don't know if it is one "fake" or hundreds.
5. We don't know if this was done by a rogue individual or the plant.
6. You can only know if it is a counterfeit if you have access to the log book.

I am trying to wrap my brain around this story and I am sure it is plausible. I just wish there was a little substance. What am I missing?

y2kc

[FZTNT]

So let me get this right, 1.The Broadcaster was selling so fast to "collectors" that "fakes" were created to satisfy the demand.
2. Dale knew this was happening despite the fact that he no longer worked there.
3. We know for a fact that these "fakes" exist because someone says so.
4. We don't know if it is one "fake" or hundreds.
5. We don't know if this was done by a rogue individual or the plant.
6. You can only know if it is a counterfeit if you have access to the log book.

I am trying to wrap my brain around this story and I am sure it is plausible. I just wish there was a little substance. What am I missing?

y2kc

I hear you man. This is as far as I have ever gotten on this site or any other. I have even asked about all the broadcasters that are listed in the registry that say "verified by log book on such and such a date" Who verified these instruments and where are they?

The three Broadcasters I own were not previously registered so if someone had the log book, why weren't they listed? One was owned by George Fullerton, surely that should have been listed in the registry.

You have re-opened the can of worms again and the only real response is silence from the people that should know the answers. It's not that what Jos says is not true, it just holds no substance and just repeats the same story told by others over time. It pisses me off that there is supposedly this document out there that would open up many, many doors and the people that have it refuse to publish it. Like has been said here before, it seems like there can only be nefarious reasons for this. One of those doors leads to fraud in my opinion and that is why you and I can't see the book.

As far as Broadcasters go, they could produce them today and no G&L expert could tell the difference. This is because all the parts including decals, electronics and even signed inspection stickers are readably available on the internet or at least through sources if you have them.

So, I know that the people that have this sales log will read this post. I challenge you to come forward and make this information public or at least admit you have it and give a logical reason for not making it available. Before his death, even Dale would verify instruments for people. Sure, sometimes he charged money to do so but at least you could get credible information if you wanted it.

Rant over...waiting for the worms to come. Tear down the wall.

Tom

[yowhatsshakin]

Hi folks,

If the hypothesis is "no fakes exist", I'd like to point out a particular entry in the Registry which has been there for a long time. Broadcaster BC00088 is registered with the following blurb: "This is a replica Broadcaster made well after the original production run of 869 Broadcasters had ended." I know 2 of its previous owners and they are well known and respected in the G&L community.

Moving on ...

There is an importance difference between "knock-off" and "fake". A knock-off generally is cheap, a fake (like in the art world) can be hard, but not impossible, to distinguish from an original and can be very, very good! So lets focus on the things I know which is less what the fake looks like or what their S/Ns are but rather what a true Broadcaster produced between give and take May 1985 and May 1986 should look like. I list them in order of ease to detect.

1. The original Broadcaster came in a G&G tolex hard-shell case with gold piping. Cases can be replaced of course, so keep that in mind.
2. Non-Kahler Broadcasters have the bullet truss rod nut typical of that time (see picture below).
3. Easily recognizable on those with ebony boards is the "veneer" fingerboards, curved on top and bottom (see picture below). Note it is not a true veneer but a slab piece that was machined to become concave at the bottom and convex at the top.
4. It has a nitro finish, not polyurethane. Nitro shrinks over time, so try to find the glue joint by looking at the body under different angles under good light. Ultimate test would be to use a little acetone in an innocuous place. Nitro would readily soften, urethane would merely haze at most. But be careful.
5. The DC-impedance for the MFDs should be around 4.45-4.65kΩ for the neck pickup and 4.75-4.95kΩ for the bridge, not around or above 5.2kΩ as for BBE-era wide-bobbin MFD pickups. (Data from my vast collection of ASATs)
6. Pots should be CTS pots (R137) with the next 2 digits lower or equal to 85 (could be 86). All but one of mine are 84, the one other is 83. Note that it is not impossible to swap out or use properly dated pots on a fake.
7. It has a maple body, not any other common body tonewood like ash or alder. You'd have to take of the neck and inspect the pocket to detect. But you wanted to see that inspection sticker anyway, right?
8. Pickups use Plain Enamel (PE) wire which looks dark brown. Later pickups use non-enamel (polysol or formvar) wire. You'd have to take out the pickups and take of the covers (not recommended).
9. Verify whether the S/N is in Dale's copy of the sales log. This log has been effectively frozen in time from the moment Dale retired. But as pointed out in posts above, you might have to know people. Too bad, deal with it.
10. Measure the ratio between ¹²C and ¹⁴C and date the ink and paint. Yeah, sure! Even I with a PhD in experimental nuclear physics have to admit that this is going overboard a bit. But it would be a cool experiment ...

I verified my original list with my main source, and he had a couple of additions (items 4, 7, and 8). Thanks!

Example of truss rod nut and ebony "veneer" fretboard.


Hope this helps. Happy sleuthing.

- Jos

[y2kc]

Jos,


Face it, the log book is not the answer to this mystery. If you are looking for definitive answers about the way G&L carried out day to day operations, the log book is a dead end. During one of my conversations with Dale, he had accidentally written down a serial number wrong and subsequently could not locate it in his log. He told me he wasn't surprised because all guitars were not logged. Period.

I have complete confidence in the fact that there is possibly a fake or two out there. I have a hard time believing based on how this story has circulated and the fact that it lacks any real substance that there is any merit to it.

Log Book? We don't need no stinking log book! Just kidding the log book is cool and should be made public. If your two gentleman friends that own the log book would publish this log book here on this site we could stop playing this game. These two philanthropists should open up their vault, push the Picasso's to the side and bring out the "Log Book". That way they we could just all look and make up our own minds about what is scratched down inside. There is no decoding ring, it is just small book.
It is just one small part of G&L history but collectors would benefit. Until then it is just two guys sitting in a dark vault giving us information,based on their view point, drip by drip.

y2kc

[yowhatsshakin]

Casey,

Many of us might miss context here. So tell us more about how G&L operated in the day and why "all guitars were not logged" (although I think you meant not all guitars were logged)? It would help those of us not familiar with that part of the story why there actually are 2 copies of the the sales logs. And after that, would you be so kind to elaborate why the logbook is not the answer to this mystery? Because Dale had "written down a serial number wrong"? But aren't the S/Ns the one thing printed in the logs?

Furthermore, although it indeed would be an act of philanthropy, why should the current owner(s) of Dale's copy, who acquired it from the estate for an undisclosed monetary sum, be beholden to publish this information? How about the owners of the original? Should they be beholden in similar fashion?

- Jos

[y2kc]

Jos,


The value in those guys buying the book was so it didn't get tossed. I appreciate that.

I said that the log book was not complete. This is what I was told by Dale. Thats all. He was just a normal guy and this was before bar codes and computers. He had no problem telling that there are missing guitars. We shared a laugh.

I don't think that the log owners should do anything with the log book that they do not want to. Either you are person that shares or you are a person that doesn't. These are grown men and I am sure they have their reasons. I have a feeling this log will pop up soon one way or another.

y2kc

[FZTNT]

Jos, in point #4, you say the Broadcaster finish is Nitro. I was under the impression that they were all finished in polyester. I have seen this often but the one place I can recall right now is Greg G's website where, on the 1986 Broadcaster page he shows the specs as being a polyester finish. not that he can't be wrong. I have seen a few Broadcasters for sale with noticeable checking usually attributed to nitro finishes but vary few. Most look like Poly. I don't see myself dropping any acetone on any of my guitars right now but when I look at them they sure look and feel like poly. I also am under the understanding that G&L basically stopped using nitro in 1984 except for a few cases but certainly not an entire production run lasting a year.

Could you please elaborate on this more, thanks.

Tom

[Craig]

Hey guys, fairly new to the Broadcaster thing and would love to know what you think of this? I know there are some fakes out there. It doesn't come with any paperwork but the number does seem to show on the registry I found. Any help or advice much appreciated.

https://vintageandrareguitars.com/produ ... oadcaster/

Thanks
James

Since I was out of town for several days, I am late in posting but wanted to add this post: List of the Variations of Broadcasters from HLG and ....

Hope it helps.

[yowhatsshakin]

Jos, in point #4, you say the Broadcaster finish is Nitro. I was under the impression that they were all finished in polyester. I have seen this often but the one place I can recall right now is Greg G's website where, on the 1986 Broadcaster page he shows the specs as being a polyester finish. not that he can't be wrong. I have seen a few Broadcasters for sale with noticeable checking usually attributed to nitro finishes but vary few. Most look like Poly. I don't see myself dropping any acetone on any of my guitars right now but when I look at them they sure look and feel like poly. I also am under the understanding that G&L basically stopped using nitro in 1984 except for a few cases but certainly not an entire production run lasting a year.

Could you please elaborate on this more, thanks.

Tom

Tom,

The time-correct Broadcasters are most definitely nitro! I chalk Greg's mischaracterization up to a "cut and paste" error

However, on one of my 3 Broadcasters I cannot see the seam either, no matter what light source and/or angle, but I know it is legit due to the guitar adhering to other check points. Gabe recently told me there might be one-piece bodies out there. So who knows?

- Jos

[FZTNT]

Now you have me wanting to open up my Broadcasters and drop some acetone in the body pocket...

What do you mean by "time correct"?

Tom

[yowhatsshakin]

What do you mean by "time correct"?

Meant "period correct" i.e. '85-'86 Broadcaster.

And Tom, you do not have to do the acid test if you can glean a seam. As stated, the seam may show up because nitro has a tendency to shrink over time.

- Jos

[Craig]

Jos, in point #4, you say the Broadcaster finish is Nitro. I was under the impression that they were all finished in polyester. I have seen this often but the one place I can recall right now is Greg G's website where, on the 1986 Broadcaster page he shows the specs as being a polyester finish. not that he can't be wrong. I have seen a few Broadcasters for sale with noticeable checking usually attributed to nitro finishes but vary few. Most look like Poly. I don't see myself dropping any acetone on any of my guitars right now but when I look at them they sure look and feel like poly. I also am under the understanding that G&L basically stopped using nitro in 1984 except for a few cases but certainly not an entire production run lasting a year.

Could you please elaborate on this more, thanks.

Tom

Tom,

The time-correct Broadcasters are most definitely nitro! I chalk Greg's mischaracterization up to a "cut and paste" error

However, on one of my 3 Broadcasters I cannot see the seam either, no matter what light source and/or angle, but I know it is legit due to the guitar adhering to other check points. Gabe recently told me there might be one-piece bodies out there. So who knows?

- Jos

As I understand from reading Fred Finisher's post: Finish processes, how we did it then by Fred Finisher

To clear things up about what was used, all G&L guitars before around 1985 were 100% nitro cellulose lacquer finishes.
Around '85 we began to shoot a two part polyurethane for base coats only.

The 1985 instruments had polyurethane base coats with the color coats still being Nitro lacquer.

[yowhatsshakin]

As I understand from reading Fred Finisher's post: Finish processes, how we did it then by Fred Finisher

To clear things up about what was used, all G&L guitars before around 1985 were 100% nitro cellulose lacquer finishes.
Around '85 we began to shoot a two part polyurethane for base coats only.

The 1985 instruments had polyurethane base coats with the color coats still being Nitro lacquer.

Hi Craig,

I am familiar with the claim in Fred's post. Semantically though, "Around '85" does not necessarily mean exactly '85. Could be '84 or '87. Anyway, my Broadcasters are all nitro and the youngest is from 10-18-1985. So the transition to poly did patently not happen before that date, at least not when it comes down to Broadcasters. And Gabe has assured me all '85-'86 Broadcasters are nitro. That is good enough for me (for now) but take it how you want. Tom has a Broadcaster with May 1986 date stamps and per his post hopefully he will be able to confirm or disprove the claim. Go look for the seam, Tom!

- Jos

[DanDoulogos]

This post has given me have Broadcaster envy.

[yowhatsshakin]

This post has given me have Broadcaster envy.

Dan,

Do not look in these places:
Broadcaster NV maple on Reverb.com
Broadcaster Kahler ebony on Reverb.com
another Broadcaster NV maple on Reverb.com
Broadcaster NV ebony on Reverb.com

Otherwise you're doomed Dan! You're doomed!

- Jos

[DanDoulogos]

This post has given me have Broadcaster envy.

Dan,

Do not look in these places:
Broadcaster NV maple on Reverb.com
Broadcaster Kahler ebony on Reverb.com
another Broadcaster NV maple on Reverb.com
Broadcaster NV ebony on Reverb.com

Otherwise you're doomed Dan! You're doomed!

- Jos

That's just evil. Eviiiiiiill.

The right kind of evil mind you.

[Craig]

As I understand from reading Fred Finisher's post: Finish processes, how we did it then by Fred Finisher

To clear things up about what was used, all G&L guitars before around 1985 were 100% nitro cellulose lacquer finishes.
Around '85 we began to shoot a two part polyurethane for base coats only.

The 1985 instruments had polyurethane base coats with the color coats still being Nitro lacquer.

Hi Craig,

I am familiar with the claim in Fred's post. Semantically though, "Around '85" does not necessarily mean exactly '85. Could be '84 or '87. Anyway, my Broadcasters are all nitro and the youngest is from 10-18-1985. So the transition to poly did patently not happen before that date, at least not when it comes down to Broadcasters. And Gabe has assured me all '85-'86 Broadcasters are nitro. That is good enough for me (for now) but take it how you want. Tom has a Broadcaster with May 1986 date stamps and per his post hopefully he will be able to confirm or disprove the claim. Go look for the seam, Tom!

- Jos

Since the color coats of nitro lacquer would be applied over the polyurethane base coats, we are in agreement, they have a final nitro lacquer finish.

[FZTNT]

OK, I looked at BC876 which has a production date of April, 22, 1986 (one of the last produced) and cannot make out a seam at all.

I looked at BC813 which has a production date of January, 02, 1986 and has a very visible seam right up the center on the back. Couldn't see anything on the front, but definitely a seam on the back.

I looked at BC03 which has a production date of April 01, 1986 (also one of the last Broadcasters made) and cannot see any sign of a seam, front or back.

I have high resolution pictures of neck pockets of the two that I cannot see a seam and a low resolution of BC813. Even though it's low res, it does look like I can see a difference in the wood color right where the seam would be. The very high res photos of the other two show a clean surface in the neck pocket indicating it might be a single slab of Maple. All the neck pockets are mostly covered by the inspection stickers so it's a bit hard to say conclusively that there is not evidence of a seam underneath them but they were made days apart so a solid slab is possible.

Put that in your collective pipe, smoke it for a while and let's hear some more thoughts...just for fun. I have no conceptions that either of my BC's are fake but it's a fun and lively discussion to have...

Thanks for all the input,

Tom

[FZTNT]

Incidentally, I just happen to have my black '83 Nighthawk on my bench right now which is a four piece Mahogany body with nitro Finnish and I cannot make out any seam on it either. Did Mahogany seams not open up as much because of it's density? It's definitely nitro. After all this discussion I feel like I can tell nitro just by looking at it. At least black nitro. It does not have the deep luster that all poly finishes have. Almost like there is no depth. It's still shiny and reflective but not that look like a swimming pool that you can just dive into.

Tom

I just now looked at Greg G's site again and on the Nighthawk page it has a link to the most " common being black" and that page shows a black '93 Nighthawk but he says it's a polyester finish (maple body).

Can he go in and edit these pages because they are used as one of the only reference pages for information about these guitars. In most cases there is better info than this site. But when errors like this are found they should be fixed. After all, it is held up to be one of the complete guides to what is what with these guitars.

Tom

[KenC]

I've just checked the ones I could get to quickly, and I can't find a magic cut-off date for visible seams in the finish. A very early ASAT (May '86) has a visible seam, as do a couple of superStrats from later in the summer of '86. Before and after that period are mixed bags. All of my '82-'84 SC guitars have visible seams. My "professional" instruments that are pre-1986 have no seams visible in the finish (aside from slight lines on an '82 S-500), even though several have multi-piece bodies under clear finishes. After 1986, the only really visible seams in a finish are on an ASAT III from 1990. That guitar seems to have an unusually thin finish, so it might have been ordered that way. With the exception of the S-500 (mahogany) and ASAT III (ash), all of the instruments with visible seams in the finish have maple bodies. I'm not sure whether that's a pattern, or just due to my preference for maple guitars.

IIRC, Fred worked in the finish shop until some point in 1986 so that would have been the transition period to poly base coats.

After all, it is held up to be one of the complete guides to what is what with these guitars.

I learned a lot from Greg's site early in my G&L collecting days, and still check it for info when I'm considering a trade or purchase. I have now had direct hands-on experience with several of the instruments featured on the site, and although the overwhelming majority of the descriptions of those instruments are accurate there are some exceptions. By that, I mean that the description doesn't match some detail of that individual guitar. I have also noticed a couple of instances where my own personal observations of instruments do not agree with discussion on the site (for example, having a second-style SC-2 with date stamps from a period when the site says they were out of production). Keep in mind, though, that early G&L production was very quirky and any materials laying around the factory could end up on a guitar or bass. If they shot one or two bodies while experimenting with a new finish product, those bodies would have been used as long as they met current QC standards.

Ken

[KenC]

I should also mention that four of the five non-SC guitars I mentioned above with visible seams have black finishes. The pre-1986 ones that don't have visible seams all have clear or natural gloss finishes. Those may be patterns.

Ken

[BrockLee]

As you well know there are 2 sales logs off relevance here, one Dale took with him when he retired from G&L on November 4, 1991 and one that stayed with the new owners at BBE.

There are other's in various forms.

Leo's side maintained a production log. This is where they attempted to catch duplicate serial numbers. It also listed all repair/warranty work, the actual assembly date, the invoice # to G&L sales, the order, numbers, etc. This is likely still at G&L.

There were "load sheets" created daily with instruments incoming to G&L sales immediately after assembly. It lists the basic details of the instrument and serial number, and the amount owed to Leo. Those still exist, but have been broken up. Someone out there owns the 1985 sheets with Broadcasters listed, I own most of the rest.