Fakes, copies, and tributes...

[angst178]

I have noticed that there is good advice and bad on here about the idea of buying a bass that looks like something else. I would love to sort out the differences between them.

So the first catagory is fakes.
Fake basses are exact copies of real basses. They use parts and logos that look real. These are for people trying to scam or impress others. They can be well made or firewood quality. The people that knowingly buy or sell these should be shunned. You are hurting others buy having these on the market.

The other is a copy. This is similar to a fake, but is marked with a different brand. Licensed or not, a copy can be total garbage or a beautiful gem. A Lotus is a good example of this. As is a Sadowsky. Both are at different ends of the quality. But neither try to be exactly the same as a Fender.

The last is a tribute. This is where some Chinese basses fall. Especially the Rickenbacker basses that are out there. Now before you dismiss this as a fake hear me out. All that I have seen are Ric like, but not an exact copy. The diffences can be more or less frets, different scale, etc. This can be a good substitute for a bass that is out of your price range or just not available. Or if you like the look, but not the feel or sound of the real one. Again they can be trash or beautiful. But they shouldn't fool anyone trying to buy it. It should be obvious that it isn't the real thing at first glance.
If you want a copy or a tribute, go for it. Nothing wrong with either as long as you understand what you are getting. Good or bad, it should be obvious that it isn't the original.

Fakes should be avoided and so should people that sell them. They create confusion on the market and can hurt people financially. Either by being scammed or by driving down the prices of real ones.

I own copies and tributes. I would never own a fake.

 

[mbelue]

 

[Gluvhand]

If telling yourself that makes you feel better, great. I don't see a difference between what you call copies and tributes. As far as fakes being "exact" copies, I disagree. In most cases they don't look, sound, or play like the original.

 

[5544]

G&L Tribute series throws your point of view out the window.

 

[MarkoYYZ]

I think your categories of "copies" and "tributes" might have been reversed.

For example... a Sadowsky is not an exact copy. The necks and bodies have specs or options that are different than Fender, and that's exactly why people want them. In this case, the styling of the bass is a "tribute" to the original that inspired it, while adding twists or improvements of some kind.

The Chinese Ric copy I guess is similar, but often times the different scales or pickups are not deliberate, they're just unable to copy it properly since the pickups are hard to reproduce and/or they don't change the specs from their other necks, etc... They are trying to copy, rather than pay tribute.

IMO.
.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

I don't think a Sadowsky is a copy of anything. Is a MAC a copy of s PC? No, it's just a different take on a once proprietary design. And the world 'fake' is way too played out on TB. They're called counterfeits. This term implies a more deceitful intention which is what they're trying to do.

 

[angst178]

If telling yourself that makes you feel better, great. I don't see a difference between what you call copies and tributes. As far as fakes being "exact" copies, I disagree. In most cases they don't look, sound, or play like the original.

There isn't a huge difference, but its

I think your categories of "copies" and "tributes" might have been reversed.

For example... a Sadowsky is not an exact copy. The necks and bodies have specs or options that are different than Fender, and that's exactly why people want them. In this case, the styling of the bass is a "tribute" to the original that inspired it, while adding twists or improvements of some kind.

The Chinese Ric copy I guess is similar, but often times the different scales or pickups are not deliberate, they're just unable to copy it properly since the pickups are hard to reproduce and/or they don't change the specs from their other necks, etc... They are trying to copy, rather than pay tribute.

IMO.
.

Good point. Either way, you aren't going to fool anyone that knows what they're looking for. You might con someones grandma, but that could probably be done with anything. That's why you can find the movie Transmorphers on Amazon.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I appreciate the OP's "hair splitting" analysis.

We all draw our own lines as to what's acceptable to us personally. And I think everybody's on the same page as to the "fakes." That's just wrong.

SmoothBass88: It IS indeed a question of "intent."

 

[Malak the Mad]

Is a MAC a copy of s PC? No, it's just a different take on a once proprietary design.

It must be New Year's Day. Many, many cans o' worms being opened up to ring in the New Year. In this case, it's one more being cracked open in a thread that is bound to get some hackles raised already.

 

[SteveCS]

From what I have read here, the only consistent discriminator seems to be country of origin. If it is a US brand, e.g. Sadowsky, then it is accepted as 'improvement on a great idea'. Irrespective of quality, if it is of international origin then it is frowned upon. Unless you recognise the Lakland oval bridge, from a distance a Lakland P looks just like any other P-bass. Without a Fender logo it is clearly not a fake, but is it a copy or a tribute? Either way it is neither Fender nor original. What would be the collective's view on the same instrument with a Chinese maker's mark?

 

[ThaCoast]

I have noticed that there is good advice and bad on here about the idea of buying a bass that looks like something else. I would love to sort out the differences between them.

So the first catagory is fakes.
Fake basses are exact copies of real basses. They use parts and logos that look real. These are for people trying to scam or impress others. They can be well made or firewood quality. The people that knowingly buy or sell these should be shunned. You are hurting others buy having these on the market.

The other is a copy. This is similar to a fake, but is marked with a different brand. Licensed or not, a copy can be total garbage or a beautiful gem. A Lotus is a good example of this. As is a Sadowsky. Both are at different ends of the quality. But neither try to be exactly the same as a Fender.

The last is a tribute. This is where some Chinese basses fall. Especially the Rickenbacker basses that are out there. Now before you dismiss this as a fake hear me out. All that I have seen are Ric like, but not an exact copy. The diffences can be more or less frets, different scale, etc. This can be a good substitute for a bass that is out of your price range or just not available. Or if you like the look, but not the feel or sound of the real one. Again they can be trash or beautiful. But they shouldn't fool anyone trying to buy it. It should be obvious that it isn't the real thing at first glance.
If you want a copy or a tribute, go for it. Nothing wrong with either as long as you understand what you are getting. Good or bad, it should be obvious that it isn't the original.

Fakes should be avoided and so should people that sell them. They create confusion on the market and can hurt people financially. Either by being scammed or by driving down the prices of real ones.

I own copies and tributes. I would never own a fake.

As mentioned before, Fake is used widely & loosely. It's counterfeit, cause Copies are fake & tributes are fake by standards.

If the guitar/bass built is replicating a known brand to the bone visually (with logos & detailing) & being sold off as the real deal for pennies, Counterfeits.

If the guitar/bass built is replicating a known brand under a different name (Squier to fender, Epiphone to Gibson, or various such as SX, etc.) then it's a copy.

If the guitar/bass built is replicating a known brand, under a different name, almost to the bone visually, then it's a "tribute".

From what I have read here, the only consistent discriminator seems to be country of origin. If it is a US brand, e.g. Sadowsky, then it is accepted as 'improvement on a great idea'. Irrespective of quality, if it is of international origin then it is frowned upon. Unless you recognize the Lakland oval bridge, from a distance a Lakland P looks just like any other P-bass. Without a Fender logo it is clearly not a fake, but is it a copy or a tribute? Either way it is neither Fender nor original. What would be the collective's view on the same instrument with a Chinese maker's mark?

+1. I'm sure all of us have played various guitars/basses that are chinese built. Many of which have sucked but others that sounded & felt good. I own a few chinese built instruments including a rick copy (even though it says canadian made, i'm sorta guessing outsource) But they play/played great (played cause i've modified one extensively to my needs - reshaping neck profile, sealing up unwanted control holes, etc.)

& i know it's almost oranges to apples, but it's like playing Fender MIM to MIA. Both are visually the same, both may have same wood materials. But at least to my ears they sound relatively the same, although MIA fender has "better" hardware & electronics. But i prefer MIM because it's inexpensive, & the tone is similar.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

It must be New Year's Day. Many, many cans o' worms being opened up to ring in the New Year. In this case, it's one more being cracked open in a thread that is bound to get some hackles raised already.

Happy New Year!

 

[Malak the Mad]

Happy New Year!

Right back at ya! <He typed upon his trusty MacBook that he's had for seven years with nary a breakdown, only one run-in with an inconsequential virus and is still going strong. >

 

[Gougedeye]

This is certainly a slippery slope! There is a lot of gray area that needs to be covered. However, I believe we would all agree, a bass made to look like something it is not, say a 1965 P bass, and sold as such, is a fake! I believe there is quite a bit of disdain here on TB for these instruments and the people that push them.

In the case of Fender selling a reissue 1965 P bass, is that considered a fake? Probably not. More like a copy, but is it a copy or a tribute? Or do we introduce a new category, the reissue?

Fake is fake and should be treated as such and dealt with accordingly. The rest are just shades of gray. Instruments made by established companies, marketing their own brands, trying to fill a market niche are just tools for a job.

 

[SteveCS]

This is certainly a slippery slope! There is a lot of gray area that needs to be covered. However, I believe we would all agree, a bass made to look like something it is not, say a 1965 P bass, and sold as such, is a fake! I believe there is quite a bit of disdain here on TB for these instruments and the people that push them.

In the case of Fender selling a reissue 1965 P bass, is that considered a fake? Probably not. More like a copy, but is it a copy or a tribute? Or do we introduce a new category, the reissue?

Fake is fake and should be treated as such and dealt with accordingly. The rest are just shades of gray. Instruments made by established companies, marketing their own brands, trying to fill a market niche are just tools for a job.

Actually I think you have brought clarity. Fake is fake and should be treated as such - anything else is fair game provided IP is respected. And this is where the fog descends again... in bass guitar evolution most of the fundamentals (no pun intended) are public domain.

 

[lfmn16]

What an eloquent way to put stealing someone else's legally protected idea.

Let the rationalizations continue!

 

[M.R. Ogle]

I have a question...

I have worked in (and with) a couple of different industries that ALSO have the problem of being knocked-off by manufacturers in other countries with (ahem) less-than-conscientious trade practices.

In he Radio-control car industry, we had a very weak "national" manufacturer's association that was mainly interested in hosting multiple trade-shows every year to get as deep into the manufacturer's pockets as possible, and had NO plans or suggestions as how to combat the knockoffs, fakes, forgeries, or whatever you'd want to call them. In fact, they WELCOMED these companies into their trade shows (money talks) to show their knockoffs, sometimes in adjacent booth spaces to the originators!

In another, the gaming industry, they were adamant and aggressive about stopping counterfeit computer/videogames "at the harbor" and I knew someone who was employed by a company to do JUST that, and she was part of a multi-manufacturer's trade group that retained lawyers on a continuous, vigilant basis.

So, which of these examples is NAMM?

 

[Gougedeye]

So, which of these examples is NAMM?

I've been to a few NAMM shows and I've never seen a fake Rickenbacker, Gibson, Fender or any other name brand fake there. However, the downstairs, (Hall E) I think, is filled with....copies, tributes, knock-offs? I don't know what to call them. Loads of cheap instruments that look like the real deal, but not named after them. In your example, I think NAMM is certainly the first. Obviously, these companies are invited and probably pay for the right to be there.

 

[SteveCS]

What an eloquent way to put stealing someone else's legally protected idea.

Let the rationalizations continue!

Not a bit if it. If there is protection in place then it is not fair game... If not, tough... As Fender know all too well.

 

[DavC]

as players , we might care . But the average audience does not . Our own personal definitions and buying choices won't impact the world much .

Smart shoppers Rule .. !