Winter NAMM 2019 (ultra Pic-heavy)

[alaskaleftybass]

I was wondering if anyone at NAMM could do me a huge favor and go to the RIC booth and ask if that lefty 4003S Walnut will be a production bass or just a one off? I've wanted one forever. They do not come in lefty; that is the only one I've ever seen.

Amen Brudda! I've also been interested in that lefty Ric for years.

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Hi hypercarrots



Good idea to make them short (not kidding, a lot of folks love shortscales)

but:



View attachment 3299090

$2000 is not "light" for a passive bass! That' s rather heavy (IMHO)

Wise(b)ass

As another TB'er mentioned on another thread— About the MSRP: They sure are proud of their basses!

 

[pbass6811]

Hi hypercarrots



Good idea to make them short (not kidding, a lot of folks love shortscales)

but:



View attachment 3299090

$2000 is not "light" for a passive bass! That' s rather heavy (IMHO)

Wise(b)ass

I was really thinking the same thing, and I'm playing 'Ray's currently. I can't say I've never paid $2k+ for a passive bass, because I have.

I hope they sell a ton of them, but it does seem a bit exorbitant.

 

[Blankandson]

Quote: "I can't say I've never paid $2k+ for a passive bass, because I have." I played one this morning. Worth every penny.

 

[B-Mac]

otherwise all the p- and j-clone makers would have a problem

Sadowsky, Lakland, SX, Eastwood, etc.

 

[Wisebass]

They sure are proud of their basses!

Hi Will

I hope you are fine! (long nights )

I think that pride has nothing to do with money!

a playalong for the long Sitka nights




Wise(b)ass

 

[alaskaleftybass]

Hi Will

I hope you are fine! (long nights )

I think that pride has nothing to do with money!

a playalong for the long Sitka nights




Wise(b)ass

@Wisebass you are indeed too cool!

 

[pbass6811]

Quote: "I can't say I've never paid $2k+ for a passive bass, because I have." I played one this morning. Worth every penny.

The $2k passive bass that I owned was also worth every cent...

 

[Jim C]

You are being corrected: They are not 'counterfeit' if they are not passing themselves on as something they are not.
None of these basses have names on the headstock as the ones you have listed.
While they certainly are 'in the style of' the basses you have listed they are copying the style but they are not 'counterfeit' as they are not claiming to be any of those brands and feature their own brand on their headstocks.

Really? Then why was Fender able to cut the headstocks off of Tokai, Fernandez and other copy basses when the landed on shore in California?
Because the shape of the headstock was patented and a registered trademark.
The only way to buy that headstock now is if the manufacturer pays Fender a royalty fee.
Like all the Warmouth (and other bass necks) that say something along the lines of "licensed product" and when they describe a Start headstock there is an R in a circle which denotes this as a registered trademark.

Otherwise many basses would have used the original design.

 

[B-Mac]

Really? Then why was Fender able to cut the headstocks off of Tokai, Fernandez and other copy basses when the landed on shore in California?
Because the shape of the headstock was patented and a registered trademark.
The only way to buy that headstock now is if the manufacturer pays Fender a royalty fee.
Like all the Warmouth (and other bass necks) that say something along the lines of "licensed product" and when they describe a Start headstock there is an R in a circle which denotes this as a registered trademark.

Otherwise many basses would have used the original design.

You are getting the terms 'counterfeit' and 'trademark infringement' and 'copy' confused.

The brands you just mentioned copied too closely and as a result of litigation they had to make some revisions to headstock shapes. That is hardly a 'counterfeit'. These brands still clearly had their own names displayed on the headstock.

Again, a 'counterfeit' is where the builder tries to pass off something that it is not, like what you see from 'Ali Baba' and else where with name brands being deceptively displayed.

For instance, Eastwood makes remakes of basses that are defunct or if they aren't the make them slightly different to avoid trademark infringement like the Eastwood EB-1 which is 32" scale and not the original Gibson 30" scale.

Sadowsky, Lakland and SX as well as others make P and J basses but they are explicitly prohibited from copying the headstock shape of the Fender basses they are based on. However they still clearly show their own brand name on the headstock. That is also not 'counterfeit'

Dillion has been asked, not litigated, a few times by Rickenbacker and Gibson to cease production of certain basess because they're simply made too close to the bass they're copying even though the headstock clearly indicates 'Dillion'.

No one would confuse the name brand Dillion with 'Rickenbacker' or 'Gibson', but this is also not 'counterfeit'; it is 'trademark infringement'.

'Counterfeit', 'Copy', 'Trademark Infringement' are all different terms and are not interchangeable.

Based on your original post using the word 'counterfeit' many manufacturers would be out of business. In your second post you use the words 'copy', 'licensed product' and 'registered trademark', where many manufacturers had to change specific shapes not to cause 'trademark infringement' or they had to purchase a license from the original manufacturer that they were copying so closely as is the case with Warmouth since they make necks to specifically replace Fender necks.

Again, no one is trying to pass something off in a deceptive way to gain profit from blatant misrepresentation. That is the difference between 'counterfeit' and 'trademark infringement'.

None of those basses in your original post displayed 'Rickenbacker' or 'Kala' , etc. on the heastocks to pass them off as something they are not. They certainly did appear to copy iconic body shapes and headstock shapes, but that is not 'counterfeit'.

An example of 'counterfeit' is the chinese 'Chibsons' That clearly display the name brand 'Gibson' in a deceptive way in order to gain profit and take away profit from the manufacturer they are copying from.

I for one detest 'counterfeit' and would never purchase such an instrument.

But I would certainly buy a Sadowsky, Lakland, SX, Dean, Dillion, etc. version of a P or J bass.

 

[JtSD619]

5-string Rick

 

[Jim C]

Not that it matters but I was not the original poster.
So, if a company can not copy the Fender headstock without with permission, I would assume that Richenbacker and Vox have the same protection.
Sounds like the bottom line is if it is altered enough (like Sadowsky, etc.) then there are no issues.

I'm assuming that Richenbacker has had success with stopping others either because they used the Rickenbacker name, or one that was considered misleading. The other reason being that the headstock, body shape, whatever was exactly the same or close enough to allow for legal action.
Correct?

You are getting the terms 'counterfeit' and 'trademark infringement' and 'copy' confused.

The brands you just mentioned copied too closely and as a result of litigation they had to make some revisions to headstock shapes. That is hardly a 'counterfeit'. These brands still clearly had their own names displayed on the headstock.

Again, a 'counterfeit' is where the builder tries to pass off something that it is not, like what you see from 'Ali Baba' and else where with name brands being deceptively displayed.

For instance, Eastwood makes remakes of basses that are defunct or if they aren't the make them slightly different to avoid trademark infringement like the Eastwood EB-1 which is 32" scale and not the original Gibson 30" scale.

Sadowsky, Lakland and SX as well as others make P and J basses but they are explicitly prohibited from copying the headstock shape of the Fender basses they are based on. However they still clearly show their own brand name on the headstock. That is also not 'counterfeit'

Dillion has been asked, not litigated, a few times by Rickenbacker and Gibson to cease production of certain basess because they're simply made too close to the bass they're copying even though the headstock clearly indicates 'Dillion'.

No one would confuse the name brand Dillion with 'Rickenbacker' or 'Gibson', but this is also not 'counterfeit'; it is 'trademark infringement'.

'Counterfeit', 'Copy', 'Trademark Infringement' are all different terms and are not interchangeable.

Based on your original post using the word 'counterfeit' many manufacturers would be out of business. In your second post you use the words 'copy', 'licensed product' and 'registered trademark', where many manufacturers had to change specific shapes not to cause 'trademark infringement' or they had to purchase a license from the original manufacturer that they were copying so closely as is the case with Warmouth since they make necks to specifically replace Fender necks.

Again, no one is trying to pass something off in a deceptive way to gain profit from blatant misrepresentation. That is the difference between 'counterfeit' and 'trademark infringement'.

None of those basses in your original post displayed 'Rickenbacker' or 'Kala' , etc. on the heastocks to pass them off as something they are not. They certainly did appear to copy iconic body shapes and headstock shapes, but that is not 'counterfeit'.

An example of 'counterfeit' is the chinese 'Chibsons' That clearly display the name brand 'Gibson' in a deceptive way in order to gain profit and take away profit from the manufacturer they are copying from.

I for one detest 'counterfeit' and would never purchase such an instrument.

But I would certainly buy a Sadowsky, Lakland, SX, Dean, Dillion, etc. version of a P or J bass.

 

[B-Mac]

Not that it matters but I was not the original poster.
So, if a company can not copy the Fender headstock without with permission, I would assume that Richenbacker and Vox have the same protection.
Sounds like the bottom line is if it is altered enough (like Sadowsky, etc.) then there are no issues.

I'm assuming that Richenbacker has had success with stopping others either because they used the Rickenbacker name, or one that was considered misleading. The other reason being that the headstock, body shape, whatever was exactly the same or close enough to allow for legal action.
Correct?

You nailed it! And they obviously have to name it per their own brand and model.

Naming a Precision copy as 'Precise' would probably cause an issue as probably naming a jazz copy as 'Jazzy' or something similar would also probably cause an issue as well.

 

[two fingers]

Thanks to all who have contributed..... especially @wintremute


Great thread!

(Of course, its getting derailed like we always do here. But that's part of our charm, I suppose. )

 

[Jim C]

Somewhere is this monster thread (and thanks to all who have contributed) I saw a few pictures from Lakland.
Did they have any new instruments?

Also, how amazing is it that a guy who could not play a musical intrument got it so right the first time that his pickup designs are still copied over 50 years later.
Is this because the manufacturers cater to the market, or is it this design just happened to be magical and changing the shape, design, style, etc. did not alow for a "new or better" sound?
I can only assume the former and find it amazing that what looked like the majority of instruments are based on early Fender designs.
Interesting that the Italians and Russians don't seem to follow this trend.

 

[MobileHolmes]

From the lehguitars.com website:

"Not a novelty: the first thing you'll notice about the LEH 4-String is the unique 3-knob slider preamp. At the root of the system is a 3-band Nordstrand Preamp, modified for boost only with three Bornes faders. "A fader is a more visual way to dial in your eq," notes Lisa Ellis Hahn (the LEH in LEH guitars). "Knobs can be hard to see onstage and it's easy to second guess your settings. With sliders, you can instantly "see" your sound."

Somebody in the early 80s was making a preamp like this. I knew two guys with basses that had them

 

[B-Mac]

Thanks to all who have contributed..... especially @wintremute


Great thread!

(Of course, its getting derailed like we always do here. But that's part of our charm, I suppose. )

Sorry for the derailment but in defense of NAMM 2019 I just felt there was no way they would allow any manufacturer that would be guilty of outright 'counterfeit'

It would be interesting to hear from any TB-ers who attended this show if they saw the specific booth that initiated this derailment that is now back on track

I certainly don't want to take anything away from this awesome thread created by my friend @wintremute !

 

[hypercarrots]

Sorry for the derailment but in defense of NAMM 2019 I just felt there was no way they would allow any manufacturer that would be guilty of outright 'counterfeit'

It would be interesting to hear from any TB-ers who attended this show if they saw the specific booth that initiated this derailment that is now back on track

I certainly don't want to take anything away from this awesome thread created by my friend @wintremute !

i saw the booth. many of these chinese booths were in hall e below the infamously loud hall d. there were also a lot of acoustic, ukulele and wood booths in that hall.

 

[B-Mac]

Thanks to all who have contributed..... especially @wintremute


Great thread!

(Of course, its getting derailed like we always do here. But that's part of our charm, I suppose. )

I'm still picking up my sorry butt from off the floor from watching that 8 year old play.

 

[B-Mac]

i saw the booth. many of these chinese booths were in hall e below the infamously loud hall d. there were also a lot of acoustic, ukulele and wood booths in that hall.

What did you think?
Any pix?
Impressive? Laughable? Disgusted?