posted 03-21-2004 10:01 AM            

The other comment I thought I would choke on from Big Joe was the amazing revelation that we as customers are responsible for quality control. Dang thats a nice one. I couldn't disagree more.

Gibson quality is what has made the 30 day money back guarantee a household term.

I do vote with my pocket book but that is NO excuse for Gibson to ship machine head holes drilled so the strings touch the posts, holes and cracks around inlays, twisted necks, bad neck angles, finishing flaws, Poor setups with nuts so high you can slide a half dollar under the strings on the first fret.

I think if Gibson quality was where it should be we wouldn't even be having this conversation but instead dealers are telling all of us the real stories with Gibson.

QUOTE FROM ONE OF THE LARGEST X GIBSON DEALERS IN THE USA ----> http://www.buffalobrosguitars.com/gibsona.htm

QUOTE
"The most consistent thing about Gibson is their inconsistency."
Thus spake one of the 'gurus' of guitar collecting. And we quite agree.
Certainly the system of serial numbers is at best 'confusing' ~ nevertheless,
Gibson has made some fine guitars since it's inception in the late 1800s.
We are very selective of the guitars we carry and
limit ourselves to used and vintage instruments only."

posted 03-21-2004 02:35 PM            

I have played & owned more than a few Gibson guitars since 1976 (among many other brands) and I can tell you that they definitely are not the best when it comes to mass produced instruments. To this day, you can walk in any local music store that carries the gibson brand and see such a disparity in quality - it makes you wonder who is "watching the store?". One is more likely to believe in the "don't get the guitars built on monday" myth when viewing the same models side by side.

I have not noticed an improvement in quality in a consistent sense but in a sporadic one.

These companies all build more consistently than Gibson:

PRS (they have declined in the spectacular
woods appearance dept, but still have
the best consistency for construction).
They are also the high-priced kings for
what you get in a guitar compared to
other, less well known makers.

Fender
Carvin
Ibanez
and a more..

Gibson is a genius only when it comes to marketing. They have fooled the masses into believing that their guitar is the one to have and to pay ridiculously high (read obscene) prices for what are simply plywood guitars and a of course the "carved" solid wood models. Where else could you pay someone 7 or 8 thousand dollars to take a perfectly good guitar and then have it "authentically aged" (beat up and abused)?

posted 03-21-2004 04:55 PM               

Now if I run out and buy that red P-90 PRS cut away, is it going to become a rare lawsuit guitar and gain value at a higher rate than usual????

posted 03-21-2004 05:22 PM            

Maybe something new and different?

posted 03-21-2004 06:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by WmMichael:
Stupid question I'm sure but why can't builders come up with their own freakin' designs?

Maybe something new and different?

Call me crazy...

---

Wm- Let me ask you this question...what guitars do you own? Are you playing on a flattop other than a Martin? What body shape is it? If it's a steel string flattop, the odds are it uses a bracing system derived from a Martin design. If it's a Gibson SJ or mini jumbo style, those are Gibson shapes...but they still derive their strength and much of the tone from the X bracing pattern.

Everything in the guitar design business is interrelated.

I do not fault Gibson for protecting their trademark; I believe that the PRS singlecut IS as DIFFERENT from a Les Paul as a Ditson/Martin dreadnought is from a J45; the J45, while not EXACTLY copying a Martin design, IS HOWEVER, derivative of that design, much the same way the PRS is derived from the LP...I don't agree with the judge, and it appears to me that Henry J is looking more for PRECEDENT than actual damages as this opens the floodgates for new and continuing litigation. It scares the hell out of me, as I make guitars and the end result could interfere with my livelihood.

I have tried to be creative in my design...although my guitars do use a humcancelling pickup(derived from a Gibson design), and an adjustable truss rod(ala Rickenbacker), a bolt on neck(Fender). Is that enough for someone to bring suit?

posted 03-21-2004 07:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaveWendler:

I have tried to be creative in my design...although my guitars do use a humcancelling pickup(derived from a Gibson design), and an adjustable truss rod(ala Rickenbacker), a bolt on neck(Fender). Is that enough for someone to bring suit?

---

Dave, the fact that a builder copies others' designs doesn't give those others the right to sue. Gibson sued PRS because PRS violated a trademark legally obtained by Gibson.

If you're copying trademarked designs you are at risk. From what you described above I don't think you have to worry. However, if you're honestly concerned you might ask Gibson, Rickenbacker, and Fender...

posted 03-21-2004 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by WmMichael:
Dave, the fact that a builder copies others' designs doesn't give those others the right to sue. Gibson sued PRS because PRS violated a trademark legally obtained by Gibson.

If you're copying trademarked designs you are at risk. From what you described above I don't think you have to worry. However, if you're honestly concerned you might ask Gibson, Rickenbacker, and Fender...

---

posted 03-21-2004 08:24 PM               

I don't think David W was repsonding to the trademark issue as much to your post about us luthiers coming up with our own designs. Really...what is new now a days? I'd be interested to hear what guitars you own too since your seemingly opposed to people using others designs... you may have just meant "why can't people come up with their own freakin' designs that aren't trademarked" but you did not say that and it did not seem that way. It seemed, and probably was, a indirect comment saying that we Luthiers are just a bunch of copy cats. Which in a way we are, but we all develop our own ways and styles.. and what's wrong with that? the way I see it PRS developed their own style of guitar loosely based off a Les Paul, just as the Les Paul was based off another guitar that was based off another....ect...

posted 03-21-2004 09:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JM:
I do have a question here. When did Gibson file the trademark? Has anybody reviewed the granting of the trademark to determine if they had a just claim for it? (I would assume so, but I am very surprised by ths decision and have my doubts about the judges knowledge base here.)

---

Gibson applied for a Trademark on their body shape in 1987. It was granted in 1988.

posted 03-21-2004 10:25 PM               

Then when I try to edit or delete I get:
Sorry, but you are not authorized to perform this function. Use your Back button.

posted 03-21-2004 10:28 PM               

Then when I try to edit or delete I get:
Sorry, but you are not authorized to perform this function. Use your Back button.