I remember clear as day when Gere called Jimmy D'Aquisto to make him a
New Yorker. When Jimmy quoted the price, Gere changed his mind. I
thought that quite odd at the time.
Yeah, I went there. You knew someone was going to.
It does seem strange that someone of his level would hedge at a price.
> I'd stick to the solid-bodies. You never know what he might have
> stuffed into the archtops.
You mean a custom guitar setup? ;)
Super wealthy, is why I thought it odd.
I remember when my first teacher ordered his first D'Aquisto. It cost
the ungodly sum of $4000 (in around 1972) and he had to wait a while
for it. It was a beauty. He ended up ordering several more and sold
at least some of them (I'm sure at a handsome profit) once he retired
Deacon Mark Cleary
"pmfan57" wrote in message
I wonder why he's selling his collection off. Does he need to raise
money for gerbil food?
Probably. Those gerbils are a pain in the. . . .
It is nice that Richard Gere is donating the proceeds to charity.
Regarding your question: 'I wonder how many of us would do the same?',
it is not a fair question, & one that implies lack of generosity among
the group members.
What one does with their money is a personal matter.
I don't mind sharing though - I live in NYC & give money to homeless
people every time I leave the apartment.
That there are homeless people in NYC is a sad issue that I can't
In the past 2 years I have given 5 guitars to people who needed an
instrument, but were short of funds.
I give to cancer & heart research, natural disaster, animal
So, I'm a good guy - among countless others who do the same & more - &
not for the tax deduction or publicity.
The amount of money Richard Gere will give to charity taken in the
context of his net worth, would most likely be equal to the average
contribution to medical research, hurricane/earthquake/etc, relief
The difference is the publicity.
Without a doubt, the monetary value of the press he is getting, will
exceed in dollar amount, the whole take from the auction.
That doesn't diminish the act though.
He is giving, & hopefully the money will reach the people who need it.
But,,,It has no bearing on, nor is a reflection of the private acts of
charity, of anyone else.
Good reply. Gere will also get a nice tax deduction concerning the
charity. The question you replied to is most unfounded, but you did
it, so bravo.
Good for him. I'd do the same, except no one would pay good money for
most of my guitars.
> Hmmm, I seem to have struck a nerve where none was meant to be struck. It
> was a rhetorical question mostly with the idea in mind, not of whether any
> of us are charitable, or whether we would give money relative to our ability
> to do so, or whether we could use the tax deduction or not, but whether we
> would give up guitars of that level and rarity to meet our charitable
> I would give many things for charity, but I would have difficulty giving up
> my rare, impossible to replace, guitars.
> Anyway, someone asked the question of if he needs the money for gerbil food,
> and I thought his true reasons for selling his guitars needed to be
> addressed, to give credit where credit is due to him. That's all. There was
> nothing personal meant it my remark to any individuals, real or otherwise...
You weren't off the wall. I got it. The guy gives up his guitar
collection and is rewarded with ridicule. No good deed goes unpunished!
How you get to determine who "all" is, is certainly beyond my understanding.
Frankly, the remark does not need to be re-phrased. It was a generalized
rhetorical question, targeting no one. Wondering out loud how many of us
would give up our private vintage guitar collection for a charitable cause
does not seem to require any further explanation. However, for the sake of
those who chose to personalize it, I will repeat, it was just about giving
up vintage guitars, it was not directed at anyone in this group or
elsewhere, real or imagined, and certainly included myself as a
self-reflection. If anyone took that benign remark as a personal affront, I
would suggest you look deeper into yourselves because, like, Wow!, I have
been taken aback by this negative reaction, though I realize, on the face of
it, it is a very limited one, and not at all by "all".
I hope we can put this to rest.
FWIW I can understand how someone might read your comment as a
suggestion that those here would be unlikely to commit a charitable
act. I didn't take it that way, and agree with your sentiment that
Gere's behavior was commendable.
Carl, your statement about "how many of us..." was ambiguous, clearly
open to interpretation. Your followup explained it well, but TD is no
moron for having read the original as he did.
I understood your follow up loud and clear. The "moron" remark was due
to you not being a man about wording improperly (original thread ) and
'fessing' up to it. I thought the reaction part of your 2nd post was
simply "moronic." ("Possibility of a misinterpretation"???????) You
said that there was no need for you to have worded your first
statement differently and that myself and merely a few others took
your words the wrong way. You have that quite backwards and you are
dead set on trying to shove 5 lbs of cement into a 2lb bag. You simply
cannot accept being in error or in fact, being wrong in any way,
shape, or form. Incidentally, my initial post was a reply to Joe
Giglio whom I thought resonded to you quite well. We all appreciate
Mr. Gere selling his guitars and donating to charity. Let's not forget
that he is quite well-off and can afford to give away anything he
wishes, including Cindy Crawford. OK, so you are not a moron per se.
But I would be quite tempted to call you one again if you continue to
> It is nice that Richard Gere is donating the proceeds to charity.
> Regarding your question: 'I wonder how many of us would do the same?',
> it is not a fair question, & one that implies lack of generosity among
> the group members.
I think the most unfair part of this silly comparison isn't that rich man
Gere is generous and us non-Hollywood non-fat cats ain't, though that is
certainly bad enough in itself, but that guitars are different things for
a musician (be it a pro, weekend warrior, student or anybody else who is
seriously committed to making music and playing the guitar) and a
Hollywood fat cat with a nice toy collection. Cuz that's what Gere's
guitars are to him --- a toy collection. He isn't even committed enough to
lay down a bar or two on camera, so don't come telling me his guitars mean
anything close as much to him as a musician's instrument means to a
> In the past 2 years I have given 5 guitars to people who needed an
> instrument, but were short of funds.
Now that is commendable! Giving a broke musician a new horn and giving up
said horn yourself, a musician, that's charity on a another level from
selling off your toys and sending the money to whatever organization.
Giving guitars to other players --- that's a personal act of charity ---
better for both you and the beneficiary. Maybe you should start your own
charity? The Joe Giglio Instrument Redistribution for the Poor yet
Talented sounds nice. :P
Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I'd certainly be willing to contribute the proceeds from Mr. Gere's
auction to charity!!! And I'll bet I'm not the only one here who feels
that way. Who else among us would gladly give Mr. Gere's money to
I now see what Carl meant in his comment, & appreciate him clarifying
It struck a nerve in me, for my own reasons.
Hi Greger, just send me your mailing address...lol