I dig the logo a lot, especially the "rustic" or "worn" look it has (even if the bass isn't reliced). That said, I just don't like the aesthetic of headstock with a blank front. Maybe have the entire logo on the back, and then a bigger vserion of just the "swoosh" on the front?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Rate My Custom Headstock Logo!
- Thread starter -=DanAtkinson=-
- Start date
This seems a little odd to me.
You could always just quote the post. The quote stays the same regardless of how the original gets edited.
If I was to say something somebody didn't like here, they could reply and quote it and it would be there for all to see, even if I decided to delete it.
Ding Ding Ding... this is the easiest way to lock in someone's comments. I've noticed typo's and such I've corrected in threads showing up in others quoted posts. I'm sure it would be even more irritating for the person who is quoted if it's proof of their a**hattery.
.
Why? There's already a bunch of builders out there with non-Fender styles. I say if there's a need; supply those who want it.
- Jun 25, 2006
- 3,226
- 341
- Disclosures
- Owner, Pike Amplification & 3Leaf Audio
I dig it. I don't like the website address though. I'd just put "Custom Basses" or some generic phrase like that. Also, it would be cool to give customers the option of putting the logo on the front or the back of the headstock.
He'd be the one able to buy a round , because all his money isn't tied up in a legal battle.
Seems as Rodent is a builder, and probably knows of what he speaks, it might just be a good idea to at least research what he's had to say.
I know I would if I was building basses such as these where there could be a legal issue.
Heeding advice from someone who's actualy in the business doesn't seem like such a bad plan to me.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V., but if I were in the bass building business, I'd certainly do my homework, and consult a lawyer on that issue.
+1 on the sentiment, but I wouldn't quite go as far as to challenge anyone to do anything.
I personally just wouldn't buy a bass that is a blatant copy of another.
Something unethical about that to me.
I'll probably be looking for a long time to find a well made precision as a tradeoff...
I honestly do not understand how a headstock distinction makes an instrument legally different - it's just splitting hairs - irrespective of the legal argument. Fender invented a classic design - nobody debates this.
Builders have, in some cases, actually taken the design and built superior instruments. Anybody played a Sadowsky or an Alleva Coppolo or one of the traditional design Laklands? Even a diehard Fender fan would have to admit they are quality instruments. Many of these guys loved vintage Fenders and spend time developing their own versions. There is a valid market for classic Fenders and builders who are inspired by the design. I think there is a valid case for builders to add a comment to a headstock that states "Inspired by the Fender Precision" etc. It's not like they are pretending the design is entirely their own idea or calling their basses "Fander"s in the same scroll.
Dan is building me an ash bodied Pbass, with a jazz width maple neck and board, in lake placid blue. It's exactly what I wanted and have looked for. It's not easy to find a bass to this spec. Believe me, I've looked.
I think it's a mistake to consider this an anti-Fender/pro-Fender debate. I also don't agree with the ethical jabs being taken. If you are a 100% born and bred Fender player, thats totally cool. They are fine basses. Fender doesn't/won't cover all options for every player out there. Sooner or later, this legal grip will be broken down and I've been reading that more action is ahead. It's becoming a bit like a guy who invented hamburgers trying to run down every burger bar and take them to court. Or a guy who invented 12 bar blues trying to claim plagiarism
Builders have, in some cases, actually taken the design and built superior instruments. Anybody played a Sadowsky or an Alleva Coppolo or one of the traditional design Laklands? Even a diehard Fender fan would have to admit they are quality instruments. Many of these guys loved vintage Fenders and spend time developing their own versions. There is a valid market for classic Fenders and builders who are inspired by the design. I think there is a valid case for builders to add a comment to a headstock that states "Inspired by the Fender Precision" etc. It's not like they are pretending the design is entirely their own idea or calling their basses "Fander"s in the same scroll.
Dan is building me an ash bodied Pbass, with a jazz width maple neck and board, in lake placid blue. It's exactly what I wanted and have looked for. It's not easy to find a bass to this spec. Believe me, I've looked.
I think it's a mistake to consider this an anti-Fender/pro-Fender debate. I also don't agree with the ethical jabs being taken. If you are a 100% born and bred Fender player, thats totally cool. They are fine basses. Fender doesn't/won't cover all options for every player out there. Sooner or later, this legal grip will be broken down and I've been reading that more action is ahead. It's becoming a bit like a guy who invented hamburgers trying to run down every burger bar and take them to court. Or a guy who invented 12 bar blues trying to claim plagiarism
You can try to justify or minimize it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Fender has the trademark on their headstock design.
You mean like this?
Invalid Link Removed
Which of the two instrument assemblers in this thread made that headstock?
I'm not justifying anything. Just stating my understanding of facts. It's every bit as factual to state that many people prefer Nash basses to Fenders. It probably makes you feel like a vampire in sunlight but it's a fact
I honestly do not understand how a headstock distinction makes an instrument legally different - it's just splitting hairs - irrespective of the legal argument. Fender invented a classic design - nobody debates this.
Builders have, in some cases, actually taken the design and built superior instruments. Anybody played a Sadowsky or an Alleva Coppolo or one of the traditional design Laklands? Even a diehard Fender fan would have to admit they are quality instruments. Many of these guys loved vintage Fenders and spend time developing their own versions. There is a valid market for classic Fenders and builders who are inspired by the design. I think there is a valid case for builders to add a comment to a headstock that states "Inspired by the Fender Precision" etc. It's not like they are pretending the design is entirely their own idea or calling their basses "Fander"s in the same scroll.
Dan is building me an ash bodied Pbass, with a jazz width maple neck and board, in lake placid blue. It's exactly what I wanted and have looked for. It's not easy to find a bass to this spec. Believe me, I've looked.
I think it's a mistake to consider this an anti-Fender/pro-Fender debate. I also don't agree with the ethical jabs being taken. If you are a 100% born and bred Fender player, thats totally cool. They are fine basses. Fender doesn't/won't cover all options for every player out there. Sooner or later, this legal grip will be broken down and I've been reading that more action is ahead. It's becoming a bit like a guy who invented hamburgers trying to run down every burger bar and take them to court. Or a guy who invented 12 bar blues trying to claim plagiarism
Can't wait to see how this looks when Dan is done with it. I place my Jaco tribute body order with him by month end. He's a prompt emailer and easy to work with.
Please do not be offended, as I mean no disrepect, but what's custom about it? The paint job, perhaps? I mean, people put Jazz necks on P bodies all the time. I used to do it regulary until I finally came to appreciate the P width.
Seriously, I'm not trying to start anything here, but I fail to see anything 'custom' in what appears (to me) to be parts basses.
My apologies to the builder and buyers if I am missing something.
By the way, the logo looks fine, with or without the URL.
The American dictionary defines "custom" as:
adj.
1. Made to order.
2. Specializing in the making or selling of made-to-order goods:
You call or email Dan with your specs and its made to order. Sounds pretty custom to me.
You may think that slapping necks with bodies is no big thing, but there are people out there who aren't mechanically inclined or suck at using paints. Hell, some players out there may not have the facility to construct or paint such an instrument. People who offer said "Fenderish" creations provide for this need. Whats to question about that?
Agreed. I guess I could have bought an ash Pbass and a maple neck and board myself and gone through an assembly, fit and finish - but I would have still called the bass my own custom effort. Bear in mind that I don't have a pre-exising Pbass to mod. The custom component for me is trusting Dan to put together what I want and knowing he has way more skill than I do.
