Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Wiring
Nov 13, 2019 14:26:35 GMT -6
dnic likes this
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 14:26:35 GMT -6
Remember the old Teisco guitars? They were know on some of their guitars that had all kind of switching on them. I feel that is were some have come up with all this stuff.
I remember playing one that had so many buttons and switches on it there is no way one could have ever used all of the things it could do. I really do think this is were it all started. So many configurations back in them days. It seemed the more a guitar had on it the better. LOL!
A lot of people knock these old guitars but they were doing things that no one else was doing at the time. Now over time people have copied a lot of the things that was going on then, but people think that they were the ones that came up with all this in phase out of phase, and so on.
Kind of like EVH getting the credit for string tapping. But the truth is he was not the fist one that did it. Some of the jazz players from many years before EVH was even around had already been doing it. I even knew people back in the 60s that were doing tap playing long before EVH ever was. Now a lot of people do it and no one really thinks about were it came from.
I see a lot of stuff going on with guitars, such as wiring, that people think they came up with it. But I bet if one was to look really hard they would find out that it's not a new idea. Just a reworked idea at best.
I was just talking to one of my car buddies on this subject about how people would do things to a car, sell that car and the next guy takes all the credit for what was done. He gets away with it because no one really knows that he didn't do the work.
So anyway I feel like a lot of the same stuff goes on in the guitar world. I even seen a guy make an argument that Les Paul copied the LP design from someone else. I asked him to back up his claim but he has not offered any info. Hum...
I know I rambling on but here is another one; the open book design that Gibson seems to think they have a right to, was copied form an other maker from a guitar builder that was around before Gibson was. That was proven in court. Gibson lost that lawsuit.
And the same thing with fender and their head stock design. They were not the first to use the design that they use on Teles and Starts. But yet they think so. And they too have lost some of their lawsuits.
But I said all that just to show that many things out there are not new, just rehashed at best. I wonder what guitar builders and tinkers will come up with in 50 years from now. I wonder how many will be doing the same old things and saying they came up with it? LOL! Human nature!
EB
|
|
|
Post by antares on Nov 13, 2019 15:57:31 GMT -6
I reckon that guy was thinking of Paul Bigsby's "Merle Travis" guitar? The body shape evolution from that to the Les Paul is easy to see. However, Lester Polfuss was an innovator and he would have taken the old Gibson design and thought "It needs a cutaway for upper fret access". It would have been a pragmatic decision. Well, it would have been- but I understood that Les developed "The Log" which was a crude and basic test bed for his invention(s)? I think it likely that once persuaded of the future of the electric guitar, Gibson themselves took their old pre-war spanish acoustic archtop profile and added the cutaway? Now, it would be impossible to copyright the ubiquitous spanish guitar profile, and simply introducing a cutaway is not grounds for levelling an accusation of plagiarism on top of all the other woes Gibson have.
Years ago (before the internet) I read that it had been.established (probably in The USA?) that body profiles could not be patented or copyrighted, but headstock designs were to be seen as some manifestation of corporate identity? Accordingly, most manufacturers became very precious about their supposedly distinctive headstock image. Coincidentally, that very same Paul Bigsby guitar bore a headstock sporting a profile that was notably similar to the flavour that we would come to recognise as a Leo-Type. In turn, the Bigsby bore a striking resemblance to a much earlier European instrument's headstock. As Eddie said- nothing new under the sun? Leo Fender was aware of this accusation and always strenuously denied the influence. Again, Leo was a pragmatist and looked for a way to minimise tuning instability. He chose the straight string pull and that kind of limits your options. I don't believe that either of these magnum entities owe anything to Paul Bigsby, but at the same time I don't reckon they should have that cake and eat it either.
It's news to me that Gibson and Fender lost lawsuits trying to secure rights to their headstock shapes, but given the nature and extent of litigation in The USA it's no surprise. I'll just have to stop thinking that manufacturers are able to assert such property rights over their headstocks, or at least research it before holding forth any longer on the subject.
There's a lot stached away in this old skull, but it's not a bad idea anyway! ;<D
e&oe ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Wiring
Nov 14, 2019 10:51:00 GMT -6
dnic likes this
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 10:51:00 GMT -6
I reckon that guy was thinking of Paul Bigsby's "Merle Travis" guitar? The body shape evolution from that to the Les Paul is easy to see. However, Lester Polfuss was an innovator and he would have taken the old Gibson design and thought "It needs a cutaway for upper fret access". It would have been a pragmatic decision. Well, it would have been- but I understood that Les developed "The Log" which was a crude and basic test bed for his invention(s)? I think it likely that once persuaded of the future of the electric guitar, Gibson themselves took their old pre-war spanish acoustic archtop profile and added the cutaway? Now, it would be impossible to copyright the ubiquitous spanish guitar profile, and simply introducing a cutaway is not grounds for levelling an accusation of plagiarism on top of all the other woes Gibson have. Years ago (before the internet) I read that it had been.established (probably in The USA?) that body profiles could not be patented or copyrighted, but headstock designs were to be seen as some manifestation of corporate identity? Accordingly, most manufacturers became very precious about their supposedly distinctive headstock image. Coincidentally, that very same Paul Bigsby guitar bore a headstock sporting a profile that was notably similar to the flavour that we would come to recognise as a Leo-Type. In turn, the Bigsby bore a striking resemblance to a much earlier European instrument's headstock. As Eddie said- nothing new under the sun? Leo Fender was aware of this accusation and always strenuously denied the influence. Again, Leo was a pragmatist and looked for a way to minimise tuning instability. He chose the straight string pull and that kind of limits your options. I don't believe that either of these magnum entities owe anything to Paul Bigsby, but at the same time I don't reckon they should have that cake and eat it either. It's news to me that Gibson and Fender lost lawsuits trying to secure rights to their headstock shapes, but given the nature and extent of litigation in The USA it's no surprise. I'll just have to stop thinking that manufacturers are able to assert such property rights over their headstocks, or at least research it before holding forth any longer on the subject. There's a lot stached away in this old skull, but it's not a bad idea anyway! ;<D e&oe ...
one of the lawsuits was in the UK. It was Gibson. not only lost that head stock suit but the body shapes of two designs. That was not too long ago. But here in the USA it turned out the same way. For Fender and Gibson.
Gibson sewed a guy here in the US that is pretty much known as a hobby builder. The builder used the open book design on an LP looking guitar. The builder used his name on the guitar not the Gibson logo.
The guy posted it on You Tube and the next thing he knew he was in court. This is one that Gibson lost. Because the guys lawyer proved in court that Gibson did not have the rights over that open book design. They showed earlier works of guitar makers that had already been using the design. So Gibson has no rights over that design. The only rights they have is on the name Gibson.
I don't know why Gibson went after a small time builder. Why don't they go after all the counterfeit guitars being sold under the Gibson name? I know that customs have cracked down on a lot of it here in the USA. But Gibson, Fender, PRS and many others let it go on.
Maybe these big name builders think it's easier to go after a small time person. I have to also wonder how kit guitars get away with designs like the open book and the Fender head stock? Hum...
EB
|
|
|
Post by antares on Nov 14, 2019 13:46:34 GMT -6
Thanks for that EB, I didn't know that either. The lawsuit result in the UK doesn't surprise me (the jurassic judge probably turning to one side and asking the clerk of the court what a guitar is!) although why Gibson should sue someone in the English courts does seem a bit odd. No wonder they're on the back foot with having to fund all these litigation losses?
Maybe you remember the hummer to dogear P90 conversion that I did on my double cut "Gordon Smith" "Gypsy One" guitar? Dating from 1980-ish, that one has an open book headstock. Of course that profile goes back a lot further than 1980.
Speaking of plagiarism, some of those Chibsons do look über sweet in the online DHGate pictures though. I just wonder what they're like in the hand? I still feel that you're only fooling yourself with those guitars. However, all the big guns have some stock made where labour costs are lower and as you've noted elsewhere, those Epiphones are as good and often better than Gibsons you've played. My own USA knocked up 2007 Firebird stands testament to that sorry situation. What's in a decal then?Another 500% load up on the retail price? Really? The price is nothing like realistic and is set by what the market will withstand and to some extent rigged by supply against demand? (I'm only guessing there.)
Look at the sheer quality of instruments that Dane and yourself build (not to mention many other artisan builders) and yet you achieve a lower sale price than the mass produced homegrown product? Where's the logic in that? Just a decal? All this being the case, the only thing that upsets me is when some low-life knowingly passes them off as the real deal. That I cannot countenance.
I know we've done this to death in the past but it's no surprise it keeps coming up.
e&oe ...
|
|
|
Post by dnic on Nov 14, 2019 18:56:28 GMT -6
And to add a bit more to this Steve, folks just feel safer buying an established brand. And resale of an established brand is likely to be better as well. Regardless if my quality is better than the known name guys I’m still an unknown quantity. Until Carlos or Brad P buys one of my truly amazing builds nobody will shell out hard earned cash for a no name rig. I sold my ES-335 for 4K which I was quite happy about and Gibson sells theirs for the same money. But if you consider mine was completely hand made with no existing fixtures. And a carved top and back instead of pressed laminated while paying full retail for materials and about a 120 for a very nice case. Whom do you think made a profit? Oh well enough about me.
|
|
|
Post by antares on Nov 15, 2019 5:23:30 GMT -6
But four large is nothing to be ashamed about and you have that good feeling that you get when you realise it would never have existed but for your insight and effort. I know that feeling because I like making (all sorts of) things.
e&oe ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Wiring
Nov 15, 2019 11:23:25 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 11:23:25 GMT -6
And to add a bit more to this Steve, folks just feel safer buying an established brand. And resale of an established brand is likely to be better as well. Regardless if my quality is better than the known name guys I’m still an unknown quantity. Until Carlos or Brad P buys one of my truly amazing builds nobody will shell out hard earned cash for a no name rig. I sold my ES-335 for 4K which I was quite happy about and Gibson sells theirs for the same money. But if you consider mine was completely hand made with no existing fixtures. And a carved top and back instead of pressed laminated while paying full retail for materials and about a 120 for a very nice case. Whom do you think made a profit? Oh well enough about me. This is something I have talked to a lot of people about. "Custom made guitars" Seems there are a lot of people that don't understand the word "Custom" At least to me they don't. I can't tell you how many people I get into heavy discussions about custom made over production made.
I get it that name brands will always hold a higher resale because of the name. But! This is not the reason to buy a custom made guitar. To buy a custom made form a builder like you or me is having the chance to own a work of art that no one else has.
When I was building guitars for customers I would build to them to what they wanted in the guitar. After all it was their dream guitar I was building not mine. So I worked super close with the customer to get them what they wanted.
I have under sold a lot of build due to the man hours I would put into a guitar. If I charged for all the hours I put into a build they would end up costing $10,000. But some people would have a cow when I told them by base price was $2,000.00 For my neck through guitars and my set necks. For me neck through guitars were easier to build than a bolt on. LOL! I know a guy that he starting price is $10,000.00 and you are put on a 4 to 6 year waiting list and you have to put half down to get on the list. The nice thing is if you get one and don't like it he will replace it or give you your money back. No questions asked.
I always stood behind my work. Anyone that owns one of my custom built guitars can always come back to me if they start having issues with he guitar and I will fix it. I have one right now that I sold like 6 years ago and it has a finish issue. So I am in the process of fixing it for free.
Wonder how many name brand would back up a finish 6 years later?
So for someone to get a custom from me, they are getting a service they would not get from a name brand guitar.
EB
here are two of my neck through. The "Rose" Is one I built that was $2500.00 when done. The customer had the rose wood and bought all the hardware and pickups for the build. Took me a year and half to build. Was some of the hardest wood to carve. Took me 3 weeks to carve the neck on it. Went through 3 band saw blades and 4 router bits. And almost cost me my fingers. LOL!
the other one I built for myself. It has John's custom pickups in it with push pulls.
It is an amazing playing and sounding guitar. It made of cherry and maple. But guitars will sustain for days. and both have super low action. The rose wood guitar is heavy but sound and plays super well! The owner of the guitar likes it a lot. It is his main go to guitar and he too owns a lot of guitars. He likes it better than any of his USA made production guitars. I build him 2 custom neck through guitars. He like them both. But the rose has a feel to it and a MOJO that is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Wiring
Nov 15, 2019 22:44:20 GMT -6
Post by dnic on Nov 15, 2019 22:44:20 GMT -6
Absolutely agree Steve, I am very pleased with the finish product on the ES-335. I've built a lot of guitars and that one was really next level. So I was very proud when I heard from the client how happy he was with the guitar. Yes it's a great feeling when you build something from raw materials and it not only looks like a piece of art but is fully functional and playable and sound amazing.
Eddie, I just posted a video on my YT channel where I restrung and cleaned up an LP I built about 8 years ago. I didn't charge my client for that or the pick guard I added to the build.It was still in the drawer from 8 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Wiring
Nov 16, 2019 12:25:35 GMT -6
dnic likes this
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 12:25:35 GMT -6
Absolutely agree Steve, I am very pleased with the finish product on the ES-335. I've built a lot of guitars and that one was really next level. So I was very proud when I heard from the client how happy he was with the guitar. Yes it's a great feeling when you build something from raw materials and it not only looks like a piece of art but is fully functional and playable and sound amazing. Eddie, I just posted a video on my YT channel where I restrung and cleaned up an LP I built about 8 years ago. I didn't charge my client for that or the pick guard I added to the build.It was still in the drawer from 8 years ago. yes I did see that video. I look at all your videos. That's cool! See I don't think you can get that from too many music stores around. Not many would do it for free after 8 years.
EB
|
|