How to sell a guitar, lesson 1: insult the customer

Skipped · October 2014

not_the_dj said:

There was an adolfhipster/chibson thread that got a bit heated ;-)

Also when that Gil Yaron '59 turned up in the classifieds...I don't recall that getting nasty at all (it didn't have GIbson on the headstock IIRC), but it opened up the discussion

If you recall....the forum member was selling a Yaron. And also a second high end copy with a a Gibson logo.

And I think there were forum members who thought they were both droolworthy.
If I owned Gibson....I would make it clear that I tolerate Yaron's use of the Les Paul design (down to astonishing detail) because he puts his own rather clever logo on the headstock.

JDE · October 2014

MLPF, on the whole (trying not be too generalistic), is in love with the mythology of, particularly, the 59 bursts. Since an R9 is not *spectacularly* close to a 59, especially not the aged 59 of their favourite bursts or whatever, and since Gibson can be seen to be quite expensive for not a whole lot of quality control (not starting that argument, either - it's just what I read). I've yet to see a high dollar copy of, say, a non-Beck related red Les Paul. Or a non-Randy Rhodes White custom. I see a shit tonne of 59 burst replicas and the odd gold top. Black? No. Tobacco sunburst? No. Natural? Nope. If it's not "idol related" (see the Iommi SG replicas. Or the aforementioned Beck/Rhodes/Slash LP's - copy of a copy, that one!), then it's a burst, pretty much.

I'd personally love to see a Recording replica and honour the great man, rather than see a replica based entirely on a guitar which is photographed in the beauty of the burst book, while the actual original sits in a vault in Tokyo.

impmann · October 2014

Reading it from a 3rd party standpoint, it did come across as a little pious and snidey tbh (I'm not knocking you, fella, I'm just giving you a 3rd party perspective) - so I think the response was in keeping with the mail. Whether or not you intended that is a moot point, but realistically you need to understand that if you send a mail that can be taken as such, don't be surprised when you get a snotty response. :-)

I personally think some people get a little high and mighty about all this bobbins. If you don't like a guitar, or you think its suspect... don't buy it. But hey, that's just my opinion. :-)

DiscoStu · October 2014

Tbh I hate getting in to online spats as they wind me up and get me stressed. You won't find me arguing on here. At least I don't think I have? Something didn't add up about the logo given that I have seen Ransom guitars before and they bear his own logo or none at all, so I questioned it. He could have explained it without name calling as he has now derailed his own advert. I could rip in to him but why waste my energy?

VimFuego · October 2014

I'm not sure I get the if you think it's a suspect guitar, just don't buy it thing. If someone is trying to defraud someone I kinda think we all have a bit of a duty to point it out, to protect those who (like me) don't know stuff. To me it's a bit like if you saw someone getting mugged or beat up would you just walk on by?

jellyroll · October 2014

Perfectly reasonable of Stu to pull him up. The guy is selling a fake - it might be dressed up as a speciality build with the F logo (but only because the customer wanted it) - but it's still a fake. The subtleties of the description might make sense to guitar nerds but won't necessarily make sense to everyone.

I don't like the attitude of "don't interfere." Sure, if it's just a case of optimistic pricing, leave the seller to it. But selling a product with the wrong logo - even if it is declared in the small print - can be misleading (and is probably illegal). Stu was right to pull him up.

impmann · October 2014

OK - I just don't involved, then. :-) I'll leave it to be policed by the rest of you! :P

richardhomer · October 2014

viz;394613" said:
Apart from restoration of the decal itself, surely it can never be ok to buy a decal for an object that you don't have the rights to, and then sell it as an original? A non-endorsed luthier has no business in acquiring fender logos. Even if you sell it as a 'fake', partscaster or whatever, you have no control over it in the market where it could be used deceptively, which is why letting a counterfeit loose into the world is wrong, even when it's not done for immediate financial gain, IMO.

I completely agree - though it is not without president. John Suhr built Mark Knopfler a white 60s style 'Strat' out of 'left-over Schecter parts' in the mid-80s and put a Fender logo on it - TGIs was some years before he worked for the Fender Custom Shop.

The guitar was often photographed with MK - it had a tortoiseshell guard - presumbly everyone thought it was a Fender.

imalone · October 2014

richardhomer said:

viz;394613" said:
Apart from restoration of the decal itself, surely it can never be ok to buy a decal for an object that you don't have the rights to, and then sell it as an original? A non-endorsed luthier has no business in acquiring fender logos. Even if you sell it as a 'fake', partscaster or whatever, you have no control over it in the market where it could be used deceptively, which is why letting a counterfeit loose into the world is wrong, even when it's not done for immediate financial gain, IMO.
I completely agree - though it is not without president. John Suhr built Mark Knopfler a white 60s style 'Strat' out of 'left-over Schecter parts' in the mid-80s and put a Fender logo on it - TGIs was some years before he worked for the Fender Custom Shop.

The guitar was often photographed with MK - it had a tortoiseshell guard - presumbly everyone thought it was a Fender.

Mark Knopfler for president!

impmann · October 2014

Mr Gilmour's black strat bore a Charvel neck with a Fender logo for some time... does that make it a 'fake'?

The Les Paul Custom that Jonathan from Feline repaired recently with a completely new neck that he made - he put the original headstock face on that - is that a 'fake'?

Is my 1972 Tele a 'fake'? It has an Allparts neck on it (Fender licenced - that's burned into the heel of the neck) and that has a Fender decal on it.

Where do you draw the line?

jellyroll · October 2014

impmann said:

The Les Paul Custom that Jonathan from Feline repaired recently with a completely new neck that he made - he put the original headstock face on that - is that a 'fake'?

See "Trigger's broom"

Philly_Q · October 2014

I've got a Fender neck which had an early '60s spaghetti logo, I had that removed and replaced with a mid '60s transition logo.

So it's a fake Fender logo on a real Fender neck (on an MJT body with mostly Fender parts and hardware).

We start getting into grey areas.

Personally I don't think it's a big deal putting a Fender decal on a copy, so long as no-one actually tries to pass it off as the real thing. I'm conditioned into thinking a Strat or Tele headstock doesn't look right without a Fender logo. I know some people have guitars saying "Fecker Testicaster" or whatever, and fine if they're happy with that, but personally I think it's shite. And I haven't been able to come up with any alternative names or words which look or feel "right" to me.

WezV · October 2014

Any one have an issue with"ghost builders"?

in the MK example above, did the high quality fender fake hurt fenders business?

has slash hurt the sale of les pauls.

is Jake E Lee's converted 74 hardtail strat a fake charvel?

...

don't blame the builders for making what people want.

frankus · October 2014

Wasn't the Fender promo picture of SRV and a strat, actually SRV and a Tokai Springy Sound with the logo airbrushed over? It was

fretmeister · October 2014

Putting a copyright logo on an instrument is legal.

Selling that instrument EVEN WITH A DISCLAIMER is not legal.

fretmeister · October 2014

WezV said:

Any one have an issue with"ghost builders"?

in the MK example above, did the high quality fender fake hurt fenders business?

has slash hurt the sale of les pauls.

is Jake E Lee's converted 74 hardtail strat a fake charvel?

...

don't blame the builders for making what people want.

I have an email somewhere from Fender's own legal team.

A guitar, made from official fender parts (everything - necks, pickups, wiring, pots etc etc all bought from Fender) is still not a Fender guitar. It is a guitar assembled from Fender parts.

That is the proper state of the law.

Bogwhoppit · October 2014

fretmeister said:

WezV said:

Any one have an issue with"ghost builders"?

in the MK example above, did the high quality fender fake hurt fenders business?

has slash hurt the sale of les pauls.

is Jake E Lee's converted 74 hardtail strat a fake charvel?

...

don't blame the builders for making what people want.

I have an email somewhere from Fender's own legal team.

A guitar, made from official fender parts (everything - necks, pickups, wiring, pots etc etc all bought from Fender) is still not a Fender guitar. It is a guitar assembled from Fender parts.

That is the proper state of the law.

^ This, I can even show you the paperwork from Fender, UK Trading Standards and the county court when action was taken in a court of law back in 2006.

impmann · October 2014

OK... so let me get this straight... if you have a Fender guitar that you have never taken apart in any way, or form... that is a Fender.

If you build a guitar from Fender parts - that is not a Fender guitar.

So...

If you repair a Fender guitar with genuine Fender parts, at what point does it cease to be a Fender?

So does that mean that by the letter of this, the Black Strat - a guitar that arguably is responsible for MANY MANY people wanting a Fender instrument is no longer a Fender?

Does that mean that Rory Gallagher's Strat ceased to be a Fender when he swapped the neck for a less worn out one in the 1980s?

And Clapton's "Blackie" Strat, which by his own admission was built out of the best bits of about six 1950s Strats in the early 70s... not a Fender, eh? Perhaps Eric will be taken to court over misrepresenting his "Fender" when it sold for a record amount at auction...

Bear in mind in all of this that Leo's design was modular so that you could replace the bit that wore out... including the neck. So based on this sort of thing, and the ACTUAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE GUITAR... at what point does a Fender stop being a Fender because a repair has taken place?

not_the_dj · October 2014

I'm guessing they'd be a "repaired Fender" or a "modified Fender" /\

No idea how that stacks up legally of course.

GuitarMonkey · October 2014

What about a Fender guitar that when new had the neck swapped in the shop because a buyer wanted this colour body with that maple (or rosewood) neck?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

How to sell a guitar, lesson 1: insult the customer

Comments