Musikraft San Dimas replica

[hippietim]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

I agree Sully. How about all the guitar makers exert a little creativity. Leave the Strats and Teles to Fender, the Les Pauls to Gibson, etc. And come out with their own damn shapes. All most manufacturers do is variations of about 5 or 6 basic shapes.

[sully]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

eh, i don't have too much of an issue with the "variations on a theme" kinda thing, but i've never been a fan of dead on copies of anything. if you wanna build yourself a strat or somethin, knock yourself out, but be a little creative. hell, i did a collage guitar not long ago out of a warmoth neck and a chandler body, and i covered it with pix of friends, family, favorite musicians, retarded quotes i saw in magazines, and stuff like that. i did the sully logo ransom note style, and it's probably one of my favorites.

[hippietim]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

So if someone puts a logo on that's a "variation on a theme" then it's cool?

[Chrisb]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
believe me, i was in that boat as well, and i've heard that reason here for years. i don't agree with it for many reasons. to a small extent, i understand the sentiment. however, like it or not, most of these guitars with sentimental logos get sold many times and i'm sure eventually get pawned off for what they're not. not everyone knows what to look for, and in many cases, the only way you can tell a GMW from a charvel strathead is the truss rod nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the idea that "sentimentally logoed" guitars get pawned off or sold as something they are not, at least on a regular basis. I am sure it has happened before and will happen again but what is the point of getting a gig guitar copy or sentimental copy if you are going to sell it? I'd argue there isn't that much sentimental value there if you are going to part with it. If I ever logo'd one I would never sell it and if I did I would make sure people knew it for what it was, a copy. I have seen people try to pass off fakes on ebay but I have also seen people with logoed charvels that pass them off as what they are, fakes with a decal. And I don't support people trying to pass of a fake as the real thing, I think most people here would agree 100% with that statement. Its damaging to the guitar market as a whole and only hurts everyone else. I don't care what the seller's situation is, what it comes down to is you are stealing people's money.

There is alot of grey to this argument as Tim said, but this has yielded a very good discussion in my opinion.

Here is an interesting scenario as well, back in the ebay thread a few weeks ago there was a killer refined 750xl that was painted all bengal (neck, headstock, all of body) aftermarket. The guy who had it done also relogoed it, not with a toothpaste logo but with a charvel san dimas style logo. Why? cause he hated the toothpaste logo (a sentiment many of us share I think) but he was up front in the listing that it was just a 750xl that was refinished. Thats a good example of a situation where I think the decal is used in a perfectly acceptable manner.

[sully]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone puts a logo on that's a "variation on a theme" then it's cool?

[/ QUOTE ]

that kinda ties in with my warmoth logo question. if someone assembles a parts guitar out of aftermarket parts, and it doesn't look like anyone's production line (be it because of body shape or headstock shape variations, is it unlawful to logo it with your own logo or design? i'm as sure as i can be that there is no issue with that, but i'd like to know. i do understand that if one puts together a dead on copy of someone's work (fender, charvel, etc) that could put that person in hot water.

sully

[Shawn Lutz]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

imo putting your own logo on a guitar comprised of other company's parts is calling the kettle black for people who put charvel logos on their charvel replicas. Did sully make the body? No, did sully make the neck? No, did sully make anything, no. He assembled parts together built buy other people. The only thing by Sully is the Sully logo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AK47]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

I think the lawyers are getting too involved they really ruined it.
If you make a superior product people will know your product and buy it not the cheaper knock off.
Charvel and ESP have been making a superior product compared to Fender and Gibson so that is there time to learn and adapt to its customers needs.
We live in a capatilaist society and thats the way it is.
Screw the lawyers.

[sully]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
imo putting your own logo on a guitar comprised of other company's parts is calling the kettle black for people who put charvel logos on their charvel replicas. Did sully make the body? No, did sully make the neck? No, did sully make anything, no. He assembled parts together built buy other people. The only thing by Sully is the Sully logo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

shawn, in the case i mentioned above, that would be correct. however, that's not correct in other cases. again, i'm just asking. if it's poor form, then that's a learning experience. that said, it's not the same situation that we're discussing because there's no value or prestige attached with a sully logo, and there's plenty attached to a charvel (or other brands). anything that i may build or assemble from parts aren't meant to recreate or replicate anything, and i want them to look different from what's out there.

[83SanDimas]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

You can not convince me that it cost "You" Jackson/Fender so much more to make a strathead than a pointy. Sell a $1500 strathead and we will buy it in bulk. We are not going to pay you vintage/collectable prices for a strathead when we do not all agree that the profile of the neck, hardware etc matches that of our conception of the old Charvel. Why the high prices?

Sell parts. Sell us necks and bodies, trems etc. and we would not have to go elsewhere. Don't want to do it? O.K. than understand it creates a merket for someone else. Read "Marketing Warfare" It explains this in detail.

I bought a webber BBQ. How silly would it be if they did not sell "all" the replacement parts. Why I can not buy a strathead neck from "Charvel" when you know unfinished necks do not last forever and are very subject to change is a mystery to me. Maybe marketing? 2500 for an alder or ash thin topped 25th? You sold neer 100 reissues and you milked the crap out of the VH fans. YOu have done nothing for the player. Truely your meeting must consisit of "how much can we make in the short term"

I can name 2 or 3 guys who own more GMWs than you sold in reissues. Why? because of the price point. You missed it. I would have bought several Stratheads if the price point was better. I am not concerened with fenders bottom line. I have been into Charvels longer than Fender has.

Do not think ever Charvel guy is rich. They are not. Stop marketing to yuppies. Make it a hod rod performance parts division. Do not gouge us and we will buy from you.

[hippietim]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
imo putting your own logo on a guitar comprised of other company's parts is calling the kettle black for people who put charvel logos on their charvel replicas. Did sully make the body? No, did sully make the neck? No, did sully make anything, no. He assembled parts together built buy other people. The only thing by Sully is the Sully logo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So then some early Pre-pro's shouldn't be called Charvels should they?

This happens more often than people realize. Even some folks that swear that they build their own stuff and go so far as to post a videos of them building a guitar to "prove" it.

The import market is riddled with this - you can buy two of the "same" guitar by a particular brand and they will have been made by two different companies entirely.

[hippietim]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
anything that i may build or assemble from parts aren't meant to recreate or replicate anything, and i want them to look different from what's out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why the Firebird and Strat bodies? The guitars you built look very nice but they don't look different from what's out there to me.

[sully]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

they're not the same dimensions. actually the firebirds are about an inch shorter than standard (along with other differences).

[hippietim]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

I'm not trying to bust your chops here but those changes are pretty subtle - at least to me. I sure can't tell that they're an inch shorter.

My point is you didn't come up with a new design - just different combinations of woods and paint.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with that. All of the guitars I put together are either Strats or Teles. And whether the parts are actually made by Fender or not is a different thing.

[Tekky]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

[ QUOTE ]
You can not convince me that it cost "You" Jackson/Fender so much more to make a strathead than a pointy. Sell a $1500 strathead and we will buy it in bulk. We are not going to pay you vintage/collectable prices for a strathead when we do not all agree that the profile of the neck, hardware etc matches that of our conception of the old Charvel. Why the high prices?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the flaw in your statement, the use of Jackson/Fender. Technically and in reality, they are both separate companies. They may be owned by FMIC, but their operating practices and manufacturing techniques differ.

In regards to licensing stratheads, it's a question of fair business practices. To offer Charvel stratheads without Charvel paying a licensing fee to Fender would be unfair to all the other companies that they have sued for doing it. Let's face it, the Strathead is a Fender trademark.

Despite the Bigsby guitar that first featured it, Fender mass-marketed the headstock and gained worldwide notoriety with it. It's part of their corporate brand, much like the red and white swirl logo of Coca-Cola. Now, when Coca-Cola revealed the annoying clothing line back in the late 80s, you can bet your bippy that licensing fees were paid. And you gotta be full-gonzo-silly to think that those fees weren't passed on to the consumer.

Well, despite the difference in products, IE soda/clothing - Charvel/Fender, this is two different business entities buying and selling the use of a trademark.

[~K~]

Re: Musikraft San Dimas replica

I think the bigger issue with it is people faking these guitars..and that's why putting charvel logos on them given the market has become the bigger picture