No mate, it's not a fender, it's a partscaster

Philly_Q

guitars4you said:

Just got me thinking - In the 70's it was common amongst all guitar shops to cut/paste stock as required - You ask any dealer who was around back then, or indeed any/many customers who purchased Fender Guitars back then - You didn't have dealers with 20/30 USA Strats in stock then like you do now - So chances are we'd have a black Strat with a rosewood board, but today the customer wanted to buy a black Strat with a maple board - No problem - Give us 30 mins and we'll swap over the neck - This happened maybe once a month in a small shop in Derby - It would have happened once a week, or more in a bigger Denmark St store - But this was common culture in the 70's - Can't recall it in the 80's, especially once we got to Corona - Not sure why 'the culture' changed - Maybe a better supply of stock from Fender and a bigger commitment from the appropriate dealers

The late Jeff Pumfrett (RIP) of Machinehead/World Guitars did that for me in the mid-'90s.  I didn't ask him to, but I wanted a sunburst Strat with a maple board, and that's what he gave me.  I guess technically it was a fake, albeit with 100% Fender parts.

If I put together a partscaster now, with a Fender neck and body, I would certainly think of it as a Fender - even if it had some non-Fender pickups and hardware.  But I guess I would dismantle it again if I wanted to sell it.  Which is what I've done a couple of times when I've sold partscasters previously. 

(I did sell that sunburst Strat with a maple board as a sunburst Strat with a maple board, I must admit.)

OilCityPickups

guitars4you said:

But such market thrives as we all think it is just a bit of 'harmless fun' - And/or the big corporate companies deserve to be shafted, in part due to their 'shit quality control' in part due to their 'shafting the customer pricing policy' - Be it a Klon copy, Gretsch as per above, Chibson etc etc 

We have a strange attitude to fraud in this country - I swear part of our DNA still admires the trickster, the sly fox, the jack the lad who is able to pull off a victimless crime, Artful Dodger, Robin Hood. The trouble is there really is no such thing as a victimless crime ... fiddle the tax man and someone down the line ends up paying more to cover the shortfall ... buy a Chibson and unless you plan to be buried or cremated with it ... chances are at some point in its history it will be used as part of fraudulent sale. 

HAL9000

Genuine question - at what point does something become a fake? If I changed the tuners, bridge, pickups, etc on my Strat I’d still be able to sell it as a Fender, right? 

What then if I swap the neck or body for another Fender item (as Leo probably intended or, at least, expected), then presumably it’s still a Fender? How about a putting a non-Fender body or neck onto a Fender neck or body then? The finished item would still have a Fender serial number on it somewhere wouldn’t it? 

prowla

I'm normally pretty hot on the matter of selling of fake kit pretending it's real, but I don't think the genuine Fender logo on the genuine Fender neck makes the sale of that partscaster illegal and nor should it be removed.

By way of illustration, here's a Frankenstein (yep!) bass of mine, which has a Status Graphite logo on the headstock, but it is not a Status Graphite instrument in its entirety.

There is no way that (a) selling that bass as-is would be illegal and (b) anybody should even contemplate removing the logo.

I similarly have a Fender Telecaster project which comprises a Fender body I bought at a guitar show and a Fender Telecaster neck I bought from @guitars4you at this year's Bristol show; the parts logos and makers marks are very much staying put.

Back to the item in question: the neck is a genuine Fender item and it left the factory with that logo, so there is no legal basis for defacing it.

The potential issue with the partscaster here is that somebody could misconstrue its bonafides down the road and I support the "no fakes" rules here in that context; however, they are not the law.

Also, this is radically different from putting a forged Fender logo onto an unauthorised 3rd party neck.

OilCityPickups

HAL9000 said:

Genuine question - at what point does something become a fake? If I changed the tuners, bridge, pickups, etc on my Strat I’d still be able to sell it as a Fender, right? 

What then if I swap the neck or body for another Fender item (as Leo probably intended or, at least, expected), then presumably it’s still a Fender? How about a putting a non-Fender body or neck onto a Fender neck or body then? The finished item would still have a Fender serial number on it somewhere wouldn’t it? 

I mentioned this earlier ... it's not 100% clear cut, butthe general consensus seems to be that the neck and body should start out together and stay together for it to be a Fender. 

Philly_Q

HAL9000 said:

Genuine question - at what point does something become a fake? If I changed the tuners, bridge, pickups, etc on my Strat I’d still be able to sell it as a Fender, right? 

What then if I swap the neck or body for another Fender item (as Leo probably intended or, at least, expected), then presumably it’s still a Fender? How about a putting a non-Fender body or neck onto a Fender neck or body then? The finished item would still have a Fender serial number on it somewhere wouldn’t it? 

I think if you look back over the last four pages of discussion that's been covered once or twice.  Or umpteen times.  Pretty sure it's a fake.  And I don't think the serial number argument holds much water - on some old Fenders it would be on the neck plate.  Putting that neck plate on a Marlin wouldn't turn it into a Fender.

Strat54

How about a £28k partscaster......possibly the most expensive MJT ever.

https://reverb.com/item/77563312-1950-fender-broadcaster-blackguard-butterscotch-blonde-w-hsc?utm_source=rev-ios-app&utm_medium=ios-share&utm_campaign=listing&utm_content=77563312

guitars4you

Strat54 said:

How about a £28k partscaster......possibly the most expensive MJT ever.

https://reverb.com/item/77563312-1950-fender-broadcaster-blackguard-butterscotch-blonde-w-hsc?utm_source=rev-ios-app&utm_medium=ios-share&utm_campaign=listing&utm_content=77563312

Read all the info/details - Puts it all in perspective doesn’t it

digitalscream

guitars4you said:

It was a while ago now, but I recall a long chat with a senior member of Fender EU about this topic and what is the basis of a fake, and what is legal or illegal

But...and this is really important...Fender do not write the laws in this country. It doesn't matter what Fender are willing to tolerate in terms of their trademark. Under the definition of "counterfeit" in UK law, this guitar is a counterfeit.

Intent doesn't matter, descriptions don't matter, trademark owners' opinions don't matter - it's only the physical item in question that matters, and in the case of a guitar...the logo on the headstock is the primary source of authenticity.

prowla said:

I'm normally pretty hot on the matter of selling of fake kit pretending it's real, but I don't think the genuine Fender logo on the genuine Fender neck makes the sale of that partscaster illegal and nor should it be removed.

It really, really does. Every legal expert I've sought advice from (both officially and unofficially) says the same. It's not even a grey area or slightly ambiguous. The neck is legal to sell, the body is legal to sell, but only as parts. Put them together as a guitar, and they form a counterfeit item.

timmypix

For those still in doubt, here is Section 92 of the Trademarks Act 1994 in all its glory

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/92

Interestingly - and I think this often gets overlooked - it covers a sign "identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark".

So I think that then also casts a shadow on anything that, for example, uses the Fender font but actually says something different when you're up close.

soma1975

I own a strat with my old Fender strat neck complete with logo, plus an SC relics body and aftermarket hardware. 

I'd never sell it but I certainly don't think if it as being a Fender. However, when I had a classic player 60s strat and changed the nut, the scratch plate and the pickups and jack I certainly still did consider it a Fender. 

prowla

digitalscream said:

guitars4you said:

It was a while ago now, but I recall a long chat with a senior member of Fender EU about this topic and what is the basis of a fake, and what is legal or illegal

But...and this is really important...Fender do not write the laws in this country. It doesn't matter what Fender are willing to tolerate in terms of their trademark. Under the definition of "counterfeit" in UK law, this guitar is a counterfeit.

Intent doesn't matter, descriptions don't matter, trademark owners' opinions don't matter - it's only the physical item in question that matters, and in the case of a guitar...the logo on the headstock is the primary source of authenticity.

prowla said:

I'm normally pretty hot on the matter of selling of fake kit pretending it's real, but I don't think the genuine Fender logo on the genuine Fender neck makes the sale of that partscaster illegal and nor should it be removed.

It really, really does. Every legal expert I've sought advice from (both officially and unofficially) says the same. It's not even a grey area or slightly ambiguous. The neck is legal to sell, the body is legal to sell, but only as parts. Put them together as a guitar, and they form a counterfeit item.

The question is whether the logo on the headstock means the whole instrument is that brand.

What about if the body also had a (different) brand on it?

I don't know the particular conversations you've had, of course, but the question "Could I be held accountable if an instrument sold via my website turned out to be a counterfeit?" is quite different from "Is it illegal to sell an instrument assembled from branded parts?".

Next time you're having the discussion, perhaps you could ask them about my Status-necked bass, where the neck was made specifically to be put on other brand's bodies.

I've got another bass with a Status Graphite neck and a Warmoth branded body; again, the parts were manufactured for the specific purpose of mix'n'match assemblies, so the idea that the law can say they are illegal doesn't make sense.

Going beyond musical instruments, is it therefore illegal to sell a watch with a 3rd party replacement strap?

A Dell computer with a replacement SSD and RAM?

A set of tools with another brand's spanner in there?

A pair of Loake shoes which have been re-soled?

A car which has replacement body panels fitted and has had a respray? I saw a rust-bucket E-Type jag on sale for £35k; if it's done up will it be illegal to sell?

Parts guitars cannot logically occupy a special niche in the law; it doesn't make sense.

(Again, I'm not questioning the rules here on the site, but rather the assertion that the item is illegal to sell per-se.)

prowla

timmypix said:

For those still in doubt, here is Section 92 of the Trademarks Act 1994 in all its glory

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/92

Interestingly - and I think this often gets overlooked - it covers a sign "identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark".

So I think that then also casts a shadow on anything that, for example, uses the Fender font but actually says something different when you're up close.

In this case, the Fender logo is genuine, so that doesn't apply.

OilCityPickups

digitalscream said:

guitars4you said:

It was a while ago now, but I recall a long chat with a senior member of Fender EU about this topic and what is the basis of a fake, and what is legal or illegal

But...and this is really important...Fender do not write the laws in this country. It doesn't matter what Fender are willing to tolerate in terms of their trademark. Under the definition of "counterfeit" in UK law, this guitar is a counterfeit.

Intent doesn't matter, descriptions don't matter, trademark owners' opinions don't matter - it's only the physical item in question that matters, and in the case of a guitar...the logo on the headstock is the primary source of authenticity.

prowla said:

I'm normally pretty hot on the matter of selling of fake kit pretending it's real, but I don't think the genuine Fender logo on the genuine Fender neck makes the sale of that partscaster illegal and nor should it be removed.

It really, really does. Every legal expert I've sought advice from (both officially and unofficially) says the same. It's not even a grey area or slightly ambiguous. The neck is legal to sell, the body is legal to sell, but only as parts. Put them together as a guitar, and they form a counterfeit item.

I think the reason there are multiple pages of folks arguing the toss here is that people get confused between the law, and what they wish the law was. They look at what they personally consider morally correct, and not what the law actually says. It's upsetting that someone might consider your treasured partscaster a fake ... and so they try to argue around an unambiguous point with lots of 'what if's'.
The bottom line is that In the eyes of the law in the UK a partscaster with Fender on the headstock is a fake and cannot be sold without the logo removed. End of story. 
As to whether that's 'right' morally ... that's a whole other ballgame, it's a bit harsh I'll grant you, but to overturn the current state of affairs would require a change to the law - a law that works perfectly well for pretty much all other consumer products - so I can't see it happening. 

guitars4you

Strat54 said:

How about a £28k partscaster......possibly the most expensive MJT ever.

https://reverb.com/item/77563312-1950-fender-broadcaster-blackguard-butterscotch-blonde-w-hsc?utm_source=rev-ios-app&utm_medium=ios-share&utm_campaign=listing&utm_content=77563312

Looked at that listing 2/3 times now - Don't know about you but I can't see any merit at all in spending 2.8K let alone 28K on such a guitar - What am I buying at 28K - Granted I haven't played it, so there may well be some hidden asset there, but what is 'kosher' about it

At least the guitar in question on this thread has some merit to it at £1800 and I know it would sell for more than that in parts

But that Broadcaster at 28K is the TRigger's Broom 

OilCityPickups

guitars4you said:

Strat54 said:

How about a £28k partscaster......possibly the most expensive MJT ever.

https://reverb.com/item/77563312-1950-fender-broadcaster-blackguard-butterscotch-blonde-w-hsc?utm_source=rev-ios-app&utm_medium=ios-share&utm_campaign=listing&utm_content=77563312

Looked at that listing 2/3 times now - Don't know about you but I can't see any merit at all in spending 2.8K let alone 28K on such a guitar - What am I buying at 28K - Granted I haven't played it, so there may well be some hidden asset there, but what is 'kosher' about it

At least the guitar in question on this thread has some merit to it at £1800 and I know it would sell for more than that in parts

But that Broadcaster at 28K is the TRigger's Broom 

That advert is just Reverb bullshit to be honest ... indicative of nothing but the greed of the seller :-)

guitars4you

OilCityPickups said:

guitars4you said:

Strat54 said:

How about a £28k partscaster......possibly the most expensive MJT ever.

https://reverb.com/item/77563312-1950-fender-broadcaster-blackguard-butterscotch-blonde-w-hsc?utm_source=rev-ios-app&utm_medium=ios-share&utm_campaign=listing&utm_content=77563312

Looked at that listing 2/3 times now - Don't know about you but I can't see any merit at all in spending 2.8K let alone 28K on such a guitar - What am I buying at 28K - Granted I haven't played it, so there may well be some hidden asset there, but what is 'kosher' about it

At least the guitar in question on this thread has some merit to it at £1800 and I know it would sell for more than that in parts

But that Broadcaster at 28K is the TRigger's Broom 

That advert is just Reverb bullshit to be honest ... indicative of nothing but the greed of the seller :-)

Yup, I don't have an issue with a refurbished/rebuild as some guitars need it - And as we know, many player grade old guitars can be better players than an original model - But that price - Looks like the only original parts are the p/ups and scratch plate 

guitars4you

Okay - So I'll take on board many comments from the 'opposition' after reading the above posts - But a question now back to the floor - Triggered in some ways by @strat54 's post - Refin a genuine old Fender neck, so now add a new replacement logo (which I assume is from a source that is not Fender) - What is the score ref fake/okay etc

Likewise repair a broken Gibson headstock - I don't mean the one with just a small break that is easily 'touched up' - I'm on about a rebuild as the original is totally fucked (and yes that is a technical term) - So a new Gibson logo/inlay and appropriate inlay/transfer for 'Custom diamond inlay' or Les Paul or crest etc - Again, what is now the score 

digitalscream

prowla said:

The question is whether the logo on the headstock means the whole instrument is that brand.

I've answered this at least four times already in this thread. Yes, it does.

prowla said:

What about if the body also had a (different) brand on it?

If that logo was in a place visible without disassembling the guitar, then it wouldn't be a fake. If you need to remove the neck, the scratchplate, cavity covers etc then it's hidden and not obvious, and therefore it's a counterfeit.

prowla said:

I've got another bass with a Status Graphite neck and a Warmoth branded body; again, the parts were manufactured for the specific purpose of mix'n'match assemblies, so the idea that the law can say they are illegal doesn't make sense.

Obviously, from the above, if the bass has a Status logo - in the same way that a Status bass would - and the body doesn't, then it's a counterfeit under UK law.

The bass isn't then illegal - it's totally legal to own it. It's just not legal to sell it as-is; you can disassemble it and sell all of those parts in the same state as they were purchased. You just can't sell the whole instrument without removing the Status logo.

prowla said:

Going beyond musical instruments, is it therefore illegal to sell a watch with a 3rd party replacement strap?

A Dell computer with a replacement SSD and RAM?

A set of tools with another brand's spanner in there?

A pair of Loake shoes which have been re-soled?

A car which has replacement body panels fitted and has had a respray? I saw a rust-bucket E-Type jag on sale for £35k; if it's done up will it be illegal to sell?

Parts guitars cannot logically occupy a special niche in the law; it doesn't make sense.

Watch with strap: Dunno.
Dell computer: RAM and SSDs are standard upgrades, like pickups. Actually, strictly-speaking, SSDs are consumables. So no.
Tools: Spanners bear logos, so no (but if sold as a complete Snap-On set, then that would be false advertising).
Loake shoes: Soles are a common wear item like strings, so no.
Car: Again, common wear item, but if sold as original...false advertising.

@OilCityPickups makes a good point here - the law isn't what you'd wish it is. I don't claim that it makes sense in all edge cases, and that's why it has the backup that if disputed, it can be tested in court.

guitars4you said:

Okay - So I'll take on board many comments from the 'opposition' after reading the above posts - But a question now back to the floor - Triggered in some ways by @strat54 's post - Refin a genuine old Fender neck, so now add a new replacement logo (which I assume is from a source that is not Fender) - What is the score ref fake/okay etc

Likewise repair a broken Gibson headstock - I don't mean the one with just a small break that is easily 'touched up' - I'm on about a rebuild as the original is totally fucked (and yes that is a technical term) - So a new Gibson logo/inlay and appropriate inlay/transfer for 'Custom diamond inlay' or Les Paul or crest etc - Again, what is now the score 

In both those cases, you're still working with the original major components, and the operations on them would be counted as "restoration". Still wouldn't be counted as "original", though...although any legal action taken over that would be civil rather than criminal.

prowla

OilCityPickups said:

digitalscream said:

guitars4you said:

It was a while ago now, but I recall a long chat with a senior member of Fender EU about this topic and what is the basis of a fake, and what is legal or illegal

But...and this is really important...Fender do not write the laws in this country. It doesn't matter what Fender are willing to tolerate in terms of their trademark. Under the definition of "counterfeit" in UK law, this guitar is a counterfeit.

Intent doesn't matter, descriptions don't matter, trademark owners' opinions don't matter - it's only the physical item in question that matters, and in the case of a guitar...the logo on the headstock is the primary source of authenticity.

prowla said:

I'm normally pretty hot on the matter of selling of fake kit pretending it's real, but I don't think the genuine Fender logo on the genuine Fender neck makes the sale of that partscaster illegal and nor should it be removed.

It really, really does. Every legal expert I've sought advice from (both officially and unofficially) says the same. It's not even a grey area or slightly ambiguous. The neck is legal to sell, the body is legal to sell, but only as parts. Put them together as a guitar, and they form a counterfeit item.

I think the reason there are multiple pages of folks arguing the toss here is that people get confused between the law, and what they wish the law was. They look at what they personally consider morally correct, and not what the law actually says. It's upsetting that someone might consider your treasured partscaster a fake ... and so they try to argue around an unambiguous point with lots of 'what if's'.
The bottom line is that In the eyes of the law in the UK a partscaster with Fender on the headstock is a fake and cannot be sold without the logo removed. End of story. 
As to whether that's 'right' morally ... that's a whole other ballgame, it's a bit harsh I'll grant you, but to overturn the current state of affairs would require a change to the law - a law that works perfectly well for pretty much all other consumer products - so I can't see it happening. 

I'm not sure if it has been posted, but can you give a link to the law which states your end of story assertion?