Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

Washburn T24 Taurus

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by barroso, Jan 30, 2003.


  1. barroso

    barroso

    Aug 16, 2000
    Italia
    i have a lot of students and i am interested in a good priced bass.

    i found this Washburn that looks stunning.



    have you ever played one?


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. RAM

    RAM

    May 10, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Hmmm...looks awefully similar to Jerzy Drozd...
     
  3. j-raj

    j-raj Bassist: Educator/Soloist/Performer Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jan 14, 2003
    Atlanta, GA!
    Drozd all the way, the body shape looks like the Mastery model. the slant-back tunes and the top horn are totally one of Jerzy's ideas... That is so Ironic. Who would have thought that Washburn and Jerzy Drozd would have had something in common? Is it something like what Cort does with Greg Curbow or Rob Elrick's basses?
     
  4. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck

    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta / Macon (sigh)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
    Actually this is a rip off job. At the Musik Meese show, the people from Washburn came over to the Jerzy Drozd booth and measured their basses' dimensions. The people from JD were flattered, but Dan Lenard told them that something like this would happen. Washburn also makes a Marleaux knock off as well.
     
  5. j-raj

    j-raj Bassist: Educator/Soloist/Performer Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jan 14, 2003
    Atlanta, GA!
    Oh NO! Washburn is turning into a Jay Turser!
     
  6. Christopher

    Christopher

    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    No, people just aren't patenting or trademarking their designs.

    In the absence of IP protection, no one's ripping anyone off.
     
  7. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck

    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta / Macon (sigh)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
    Whether it's copyrighted or not, it's still a rip off.
     
  8. j-raj

    j-raj Bassist: Educator/Soloist/Performer Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jan 14, 2003
    Atlanta, GA!
    Right on Woodchuck... regardless if it is merely a technicality or not, it is still horrible to copy a work of art from Jerzy with a washburn....
     
  9. RAM

    RAM

    May 10, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    I've heard some say their theory of how Washburn came up with the name is even something of a ripoff. Taurus is a bull, right? Bulls are significant in Spain, which is where Jerzy Drozd makes his basses. It might be a stretch, but it doesn't seem to be a big one...

    BTW: You cannot patent a body shape without jumping through tremendous legal hoops. In most cases, it's still not patentable. Headstocks, on the other hand...
     
  10. j-raj

    j-raj Bassist: Educator/Soloist/Performer Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jan 14, 2003
    Atlanta, GA!
    RAM,

    It is just too bad... that's all.
    j
     
  11. mark beem

    mark beem Gold Supporting Member

    Jul 20, 2001
    New Hope, Alabama
    Would you say that also to Sadowsky or any of the other thousands of P-bass and J-bass clones out there??

    Where would any of us be today had it not been for all those Hondo and Lotus P & J rip-offs that we all started on??

    How about Warwick Streamers and Spectors.....
    rip-off?
     
  12. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck

    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta / Macon (sigh)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!
    No, Warwick signed a licensing agreement with Spector to use the body shape. As much as this shocks you, people do rip other people off. Read my first post in this thread. To go over to the JD booth and take measurements of thier basses, and then the VERY next year, come out with a "new" line of basses that look EXACTLY like JD's. Yeah, now that I think about it, I could see how it could be a coincidence. :rolleyes: As for Roger and others of his ilk, they made no secret of their inspiration, they simply felt that they could improve on a classic, and some of them did.
     
  13. mark beem

    mark beem Gold Supporting Member

    Jul 20, 2001
    New Hope, Alabama
    Im sure all the builders of the many P & J clones took plenty of measurements on the originals too....

    I just don't see your point that it's somehow different in this case...

    I see very similar body styles in both cases.... Why in your opinion is one a rip-off and one not?
     
  14. RAM

    RAM

    May 10, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    I'll take a stab at this...

    In the case of the Washburn, their Taurus is clearly trying to be identified as being similar to a Jerzy. It's a ripoff because their trying to feed off of people who cannot afford a Jerzy but want something as similar as possible.

    Fender, and Fender clones, are in a different category for different reasons. First of all, the Fender niche is enormous...so big, that at one point, bassists in the musicians' union could check off boxes of instruments they played: bass, electric bass, or Fender bass. Other luthiers have come on the scene to try to improve on Fender basses, while keeping some of the integrity (the looks). However, just because they saw room for improvement doesn't mean they're trying to be identified as Fenders. They're just trying to classify themselves in the Fender category.
     
  15. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    US-NY-NYC
    I believe that in the early days of electric bass (and this is supported by credits on albums), you either played "bass" (meaning acoustic upright) or "Fender bass" (meaning electric). I don't think the situation was "bass, electric bass, or Fender bass"- Fender bass meant electric bass.
     
  16. Christopher

    Christopher

    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    Fender ripoffs technically aren't ripoffs either. The only aspects of Fender designs that are IP-protected are the headstock outlines and the Fender logo. It's not an infringement to copy the rest of the instrument.

    While the Taurus is clearly a copy of Drozd's design, I'm not necessarily certain that Washburn's doing a disservice to Drozd or the general public. Most of the people who would actually want to purchase and play a Drozd would never buy a Washburn, regardless of how well it's made. Conversely, most of the people who would buy a Washburn Taurus I'm guessing either have never seen a Drozd or wouldn't have the cash to buy one. Unless those two markets overlap, I don't see much harm to it.
     
  17. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    US-NY-NYC
    If Hyundai started making a car that was shaped exactly like a Corvette, I bet Chevrolet would be pretty upset.

    I think the difference in doing a J or P bass copy is that those designs are so ubiquitous, both from Fender and from the clones that have always been there, that copying the design is similar to copying the shape of a bus- "of course it looks that way, they all look that way."
     
  18. pilotjones

    pilotjones Supporting Member

    Nov 8, 2001
    US-NY-NYC
    While I agree that legally it's not an infringement to copy a Fender body shape, I still feel it's a theft of the design, even if it's not prosecutable.

    I always wondered how it was that Fender was able to get protection for the headstock shape, but not for the body shape. Perhaps the body shape was not original, and something close had already been done by someone else?
     
  19. I can't compare this case to the fender copies..

    for obvious reasons that were already listed.

    Why doesn't Washburn design completely their own products? I mean.. The body design is an artistic creation of Jerzy Drozd.. A man who is still working almost on his own to create original fine instruments, and make a living out of it.

    It is not the same to copy his designs than to copy fender's, thus the P and J basses have been trademarks of the instrument itself since its invention.
     
  20. jello

    jello

    Apr 13, 2004
    Cumming, GA
    It was when the first guy copied it. Something doesn't become ubiquitous and defacto without a lot of people copying it first. Imho, unless it's actually close enough to fool someone (which it obviously isn't in this case) or they are being misleading in their marketing I'm okay with it. Copying good ideas is called society.