I proudly play my Tokais on stage, but there is some reverse brand snobbery involved; they are distinct from later versions by their headstock shape and are recognized as early 'lawsuit' (sic) basses and are recognized for their quality by those in the know. Would I play (i.e. buy in the first place) a later version? Probably not, because I love the classic Fender look and I hate the '80s look of the later ones.
Am I vain and shallow? To a degree, yes, maybe very much so. My buying habits in all things are a strange mixture of snobbery, image consciousness, reverse snobbery (buying 'hip' cheaper versions of something, or patting myself on the back for not being sucked in by an expensive brand's image), quality, suitability, features, etc. Most of us are like this but few will admit it. But having marketed services and products for years maybe I'm a little more aware of how perceptions shape reality and am a bit more realistic about how I make my own decisions because I've studied how others do the same, and I tend to be ruthless about my own moral shortcomings and tendencies (or at least the ones I'm aware of).
Morally I wouldn't defend putting a Fender decal on a non Fender bass, but really don't care either way if or why someone chooses to. Let Fender defend their own brand, it's their image and profitability at stake, as paying to protect a brand is a necessary operating cost that is engendered by the very desired success of the brand itself.
scmd, I have a very particular example I was wondering what you would think of, since this seems to be a particularly important moral debate for you. If I had a stock Fender and wanted to replace the neck with a licensed Allparts one for a specific reason (e.g. different profile, etc), because Fender doesn't sell replacement necks, would putting a Fender decal on it still be a heinous crime?
If so, say I took a Fender bass and replaced the body with an aftermarket one, should I then have to scrape the Fender decal off?
The only reason I can see that this whole topic is so important to some people (unless they are involved with FMIC) is that they fear the cachet of their own instrument will somehow be diluted by these fakes. What else could possibly make it such an emotive subject. So I ask the folk here that want to sweat a confession from the 'posers' if there is not just a little of the same vanity and pretension in themselves as in those they are accusing?
Am I vain and shallow? To a degree, yes, maybe very much so. My buying habits in all things are a strange mixture of snobbery, image consciousness, reverse snobbery (buying 'hip' cheaper versions of something, or patting myself on the back for not being sucked in by an expensive brand's image), quality, suitability, features, etc. Most of us are like this but few will admit it. But having marketed services and products for years maybe I'm a little more aware of how perceptions shape reality and am a bit more realistic about how I make my own decisions because I've studied how others do the same, and I tend to be ruthless about my own moral shortcomings and tendencies (or at least the ones I'm aware of).
Morally I wouldn't defend putting a Fender decal on a non Fender bass, but really don't care either way if or why someone chooses to. Let Fender defend their own brand, it's their image and profitability at stake, as paying to protect a brand is a necessary operating cost that is engendered by the very desired success of the brand itself.
scmd, I have a very particular example I was wondering what you would think of, since this seems to be a particularly important moral debate for you. If I had a stock Fender and wanted to replace the neck with a licensed Allparts one for a specific reason (e.g. different profile, etc), because Fender doesn't sell replacement necks, would putting a Fender decal on it still be a heinous crime?
If so, say I took a Fender bass and replaced the body with an aftermarket one, should I then have to scrape the Fender decal off?
The only reason I can see that this whole topic is so important to some people (unless they are involved with FMIC) is that they fear the cachet of their own instrument will somehow be diluted by these fakes. What else could possibly make it such an emotive subject. So I ask the folk here that want to sweat a confession from the 'posers' if there is not just a little of the same vanity and pretension in themselves as in those they are accusing?
