# General Mandolin Topics > General Mandolin Discussions >  Gibson threatening the mandolin and guitar luthier community

## Mandolin Cafe

Time this became public because, well, it already is.

This has been going on for several months now and we were content with keeping under wraps what we knew but it's public now in a not so subtle way so fair game for discussing here. And don't worry, it's going to be discussed everywhere soon. Some information I'm going to link to is mainly directed at the guitar community but it is a fact that a number of prominent mandolin builders everyone here would recognize have also received threatening letters from Gibson's law firm that represents them. Sorry, not our job to share the names of those builders. We are also aware of one larger manufacturer that has received similar communication from Gibson.

Some of you will have questions what this is all about, I'm not the person to answer those for you but others are welcome to. This is simply more of what Gibson has been doing, mostly unsuccessfully, for years.

Quote from one of the very most famed and respected members of the vintage instrument world to me, and I'll not name him: "the new Gibson management team makes Henry look like an amateur when it comes to threatening builders with legal action."

First, read this:

https://www.gearnews.com/gibsons-mar...er-copyrights/

Then watch the original video which Gibson subsequently pulled from YouTube but was downloaded and saved:

https://www.reddit.com/r/guitars/com...pulled_off_of/

So that we're clear here, we believe information of this nature should be shared and discussed in a mature way and by posting this here we have no interest in taking sides in the matter.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Beanzy, 

Bob Clark, 

Dave Martin, 

David Lewis, 

Jess L., 

Jill McAuley, 

lflngpicker, 

LKN2MYIS, 

Mike Crocker, 

MikeZito, 

oliverkollar, 

Randi Gormley, 

Rick Jones, 

Robert Mitchell, 

Simon DS, 

SincereCorgi, 

soliver, 

Timbofood, 

WaxwellHaus, 

William Smith

----------


## Demetrius

:Disbelief:

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

Po-tayto, Po-tahto...Agnesi, Avenatti... Let's call the whole thing off.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Pete Summers, 

Timbofood, 

Tripping Springs

----------


## 20MartinA

I have never owned a Gibson product. Considering this action, I probably never will. May they achieve the bankruptcy they so richly deserve.

----------

DHopkins, 

Jess L., 

John Bertotti, 

Phil Goodson

----------


## Chris Gray

I'm not a luthier but I do have ambitions to build some day. What precautions should a builder take after reading this? No more flower pots or fern inlays?

----------


## sblock

Well, Gibson has not enforced its supposedly "trademarked" design for the F5 mandolin model (f-holes, carved body shape, 2 points, scroll, curlicue headstock, etc.) in almost a full century. Independent luthiers have been making F5-design-inspired instruments with these same characteristics for more than 50 years. 

Trademarks are not forever, and they are not guaranteed! Under the law, trademarks have a use-it-or-lose-it property. The brand must be *properly and continuously maintained*. If a trademarked item (or characteristic) loses its "distinctiveness" (e.g., gets diluted by the ubiquitous prevalence of similar copies) or becomes "generic" (think of former brand names like 'aspirin' or 'escalator') or doesn't get used for three or more years in a row (think of the torch-and-wire and flower pot inlay patterns, for example), then any associated trademark rights are forfeited. That's what the law says.

IMO, Gibson wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court claiming that it had trademarked the F5 design (or F4 or A5 or A4 designs, either).  Their past failures to protect the brand aggressively over the last half century will work against them, and ensure that the F5 design remains in the public domain. This is a courtroom loser.

This would seem to be a case of too little, too late. But that doesn't mean that Gibson's lawyers can't reach out to threaten and intimidate independent luthiers and small shops that don't have similarly high-powered legal representation, and cannot afford the time and trouble to fight back. IMO, this starts to look like a form of extortion. _Shame on Gibson! _ May they suffer for their bad attitude.

Support your local luthier, I say!

----------

Chica, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Eldon Dennis, 

Elliot Luber, 

Jill McAuley, 

Joe Dodson, 

Joey Anchors, 

lflngpicker, 

Paul Kotapish, 

Phil Goodson, 

TC-in-NC, 

Timbofood, 

zoukboy

----------


## zoukboy

What sblock said above... Fender did not protect its copyrights to the Telecaster and Stratocaster designs and so lost the right to do so. Rickenbacker, on the other hand, has done their due diligence and so have retained their rights. 

Gibson has been lax and ham-handed and now seems to want to put that copyright genie back in the bottle, but simply changing their corporate leadership and upping the @$$hole factor is not going to do it this late in the game. I eagerly await their courtroom losses. 

Crowdfunding for legal expenses for independents who are attacked by Mr. Agnesi and his corporate overlords, anyone?

----------

Paul Kotapish, 

Ryk Loske, 

Steve-o, 

Timbofood

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Some companies that aren't worried are probably the overseas ones. Gilchrist, Duff, Northfield etc.

----------


## Drew Egerton

Wow, I had heard a lot of good things about the recent changes Gibson from various guitar YouTube channels. It sounded like things were heading in a better direction but this certainly will tarnish that in some folks eyes.
I had no interest in a Gibson anything prior to this and will continue that on.

----------


## Gruntfish

I haven't had anything Gibson in several decades, I ended up in the Fender camp solely on tone. That being said, goofy ideas are what is killing GIBSON. The auto tuning guitar was laughable and they lost their backside on it. They desperately want to be the Harley Davidson of the guitar playing world, and inasmuch as old guys decide to take up guitar at 50, what do they buy? I meet a lot of them with Les Paul's... 

I'm not knocking Gibson, but I think things are getting desperate over there, and they are looking for anything they can lay hands on to stop hemorrhaging money.

----------


## foldedpath

> Gibson has been lax and ham-handed and now seems to want to put that copyright genie back in the bottle, but simply changing their corporate leadership and upping the @$$hole factor is not going to do it this late in the game. I eagerly await their courtroom losses. 
> 
> Crowdfunding for legal expenses for independents who are attacked by Mr. Agnesi and his corporate overlords, anyone?


It will be interesting to watch this play out, but I can't see Gibson taking anyone to court.

That video was the equivalent of the cease-and-desist letter a lawyer sends when they know they don't have a case that would hold up in court, but they'll try to scare off the competition anyway. The letter (and that video) costs nothing, compared to engaging in a costly court case with a very good chance of losing. It's a maneuver intended to cause fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the market, pushing more customers to choose something with Gibson on the headstock.

The best indication that they know they don't have a case, is that they very quickly took the video down. This smells like someone in a lower level department of the new Gibson (maybe this guy?) took an initiative, without checking with the higher-ups or the actual legal team.

----------

Ryk Loske

----------


## Tom Wright

I doesn’t seem that copying Antonio Stradivari’s design has hurt the value of the original items. I think it can be argued both Fender and Gibson have thrived by their designs being ubiquitous. How popular is Rickenbacker beyond its retro niche?

----------

Jwblanton

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> Well, Gibson has not enforced its supposedly "trademarked" design for the F5 mandolin model (f-holes, body shape, 2 points, scroll, curlicue headstock, etc.) in almost a full century. Independent luthiers have been making F5-design-inspired instruments with these same characteristics for more than 50 years. 
> 
> Trademarks are not forever, and they are not guaranteed! Under the law, trademarks have a use-it-or-lose it property. The brand must be *properly and continuously maintained*. If a trademarked item (or characteristic) loses its "distinctiveness" (e.g., gets diluted by the ubiquitous prevalence of similar copies) or becomes "generic" (think of former brand names like "aspirin" or "escalator") or doesn't get used for three or more years in a row (think of the torch-and-wire and flower pot inlays, for example), then any associated trademark rights are forfeited. That's what the law says.
> 
> IMO, Gibson wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court claiming that it had trademarked the F5 design (or F4 or A5 or A4 designs, either).  Their past failures to protect the brand aggressively over the last half century will work against them, and ensure that the F5 design remains in the public domain. 
> 
> Under the law, this would seem to be a case of too little, too late. But that doesn't mean that Gibson's lawyers can't reach out to threaten and intimidate independent luthiers and small shops that do not have similarly high-powered legal representation, and cannot afford the time and trouble to fight back. IMO, this starts to look like a form of extortion. _Shame on Gibson!
> 
> _Support your local luthier, I say!


Sadly this is not so (Gibson not enforcing their mando trademarks).  I recall I believe it was Ren Ferguson reminiscing about how Flatiron came to an end (and he came to Gibson employ) after a meeting at NAMM with Henry.  Admittedly beyond that; I do not know about any enforcing of their trademarks within the mandolin business.

In my opinion, this will be a tricky position for Gibson and I see why they pulled the video after the outrage.  I feel the biggest issue (and I'm admittedly focusing on guitars, which I have the most knowledge about and is certainly their biggest business) is that the instruments aren't made well enough to command the dollar they are after for them.  Some of the Gibson stuff runs on par monetary wise with Collings and I wouldn't give a second look to any Gibson offering that Collings has a similar build to.  
And I have heard enough luthiers/tech who's work I highly regard talk endless about the guffaws of the new Gibson's.  And most I pick off of a wall a so badly set-up unless I'm at a shop where they do the work themselves...which seems such nonsense to me for instruments of such a price.  And in Canada, Yorkville Music (the national distributor) has killed the lifetime warranty and limited it to a year.

I've heard the rumblings of this for a few months now but this is the first I'm made aware of the mando community under the radar too.  I hope it costs Gibson a lot of money and for not.  Isn't it said that copying is the greatest form of flattery?  There will always be those that want a "Gibson".  I don't think they're going anywhere and as an iconic American music partner; I wouldn't want to see them go.  But I do wish for the "little guys" to win in this case.

And just as a notice; Gibson has in very recent years followed through with proposed legal action on their copyrights.  Hamer had to kill their Vector (Flying V) and Standard (Explorer) models after a $1M lawsuit: http://www.musicinstrumentnews.co.uk...rademark-wars/

----------

Alan Lackey, 

Yeet

----------


## Mandobar

> Some companies that aren't worried are probably the overseas ones. Gilchrist, Duff, Northfield etc.


Don't make that assumption, as companies register trademarks overseas as well, and Northfield has a presence here in the US and makes some models in their Michigan facility.  

To be honest, I think that Gibson is looking not to shut down these operations, but to have other companies and builders license their trademarks.  They gave Kevin Kopp (a guitar builder who used to work for them at one time in Montana) a very hard time a while back, and I believe that is what they asked for in the end.  Kevin is back up and building after a lengthy negotiation.  

Collecting fees from other builders could provide a good stream of income for them, and let's be honest, they have a lot of people working there who come from venture capital and financial marketing backgrounds who believe that the same approach in making toasters works for building instruments.  I've seen some of the social media comments their CMO, Cesar Guiekian has made on some guitar builder pages (Instagram) and he's just tactless.  As some might say, he's a bull in a china shop.  These efforts do nothing for the brand or the company's public image.  Although, as was stated above, a lot of what appeared on social media has been taken down.

Just an FYI: CMO=Chief Merchant Officer

My old boss used to tell us when we complained about his boss that we could do worse, and we probably will.  I hate to say it, but it always turned out that way.  We'd trade one madman for an even worse one.

and the last time I checked, Bank of America owned the Flatiron trademark.  It was taken as collateral for loans made to Gibson, under Henry, along with Dobro, and a few others when the company was in financial (and legal) trouble and BofA started calling in loans.  I have not checked the database lately, but the last time I looked it still stated that BofA owned these trademarks.

----------

Curt Palm, 

Tom Sanderson

----------


## Timbofood

“Director of Brand Experience”!??? I should be so lucky! What a nebulous title. So, if there is a revolution, his tail gets slammed in the door. Brilliant corporate direction.
I feel a sense of scapegoat for this guy, no dog in the fight, no chance of it.
I could not open the reddit link, but the two guys for the first ones make valid points, the basic one is simply:
“If the company made better instruments at reasonable pricing more people might buy them.”
The guy from BD Guitars needs to learn to read a little better, it was McCarty not McCartney but, that’s neither here nor there. 
I do find it interesting that there was no history prior to the Les Paul era for the guitar world in general.
I am just waiting for a factory rep to walk into the low level gigs that I play and yank my Mandolin out of my hands.
I will watch but, for now, it’s cocktail hour!

----------


## tmsweeney

Sounds like they are trying to fight a battle they have already lost.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> and the last time I checked, Bank of America owned the Flatiron trademark.  It was taken as collateral for loans made to Gibson, under Henry, along with Dobro, and a few others when the company was in financial (and legal) trouble and BofA started calling in loans.  I have not checked the database lately, but the last time I looked it still stated that BofA owned these trademarks.


I'm sure I've seen a video as well but this link will educate you as to what I mean happened.  NAMM '87 (actually 3 months afterwards) Henry put into motion shutting down Flatiron.  It even discusses the woes Mandolin brothers had after Henry did it and what steps Stanley Jay took to rectify the situation:  https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...ilder-1?page=2

----------


## BradKlein

So much manufactured outrage! I watched the video and frankly it doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me. Gibson will talk big, and will enforce what it is legally able to enforce. What it can not enforce through trademark or copyright it will try to guilt others into using their own  designs,  rather than the ones created and made famous by Gibson.  And they will try and collect  Royalties for use in other media  just like  Computer makers and carmakers do.  I will not pretend to have enough knowledge to say whether the F5 mandolin or SG guitar designs are in the public domain,  but we will all eventually find out I suppose.

----------

BoxCarJoe, 

brunello97

----------


## zoukboy

Makes me happy that the only corporate instruments I own (and I own quite a few instruments) are Fender and Godin.

----------


## Smiley

The iconic Chuck Taylors really add a certain cool factor to the video. Certainly someone in Legal at Gibson reached out to Converse in preproduction, right?

----------

kookaburra

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The only thing I have seen Gibson do on the mandolin side of things over the years was to send nasty grams to a few builders regarding the flower pot, nasty grams to a few distributors over the bell shaped truss rod cover and the whole open book headstock design across the board (The Lawsuit that is famously mentioned for everything except what it was about). Do I think this was a silly video? Yeah. Will it put them out of business? No. I'm not going to set fire to my mandolin. I might consider cutting the logo out of the headstock but that would be more for the Mojo of doing what Bill did.

----------

Mandobart

----------


## Benski

Makes me even happier to play my Red Diamond.

----------


## sgarrity

Maybe they should spend their time working to make quality instruments that people actually want to buy?  I mean, do they actually think this strategy is going to endear them to musicians?  Sad!

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Bill McCall

Interesting that they trademarked the scroll peghead and fern inlay but not the A or F body designs.  The fact they waited 90 years to do that and got it over opposition, if there was any, is interesting.  They are clearly Gibson designs, but lack of enforcement might be a hindrance going forward.

No matter if they are right or wrong, they certainly aren't winning the PR battle.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Maybe they should spend their time working to make quality instruments that people actually want to buy?  I mean, do they actually think this strategy is going to endear them to musicians?  Sad!


No but they might think it will endear them to their stock holders.

----------


## Mandobar

Not sure they have stockholders, but I’m sure they have plenty of lien holders.


And the game has changed since so many people use social media to voice their opinions.  So, while they may think the bully tactic will work, we may see some new Chiefs soon.  Although the corporate titles they gave them wreaks of “making jobs for your friends” activity.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

It's a private corporation but they still have stock holders. Otherwise Henry would still be there. Somebody pushed him out. Henry didn't own the company outright.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/s...rivcapId=28990

----------


## Austin Bob

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea if the "use it or lose it" sentiments above will hold up in court. I really have no fault with Gibson trying to protect their intellectual property. But I can say the video in the OP did not sit well in my gut. I don't want to get personal, however the camera did not seem to be Mr. Agnesi's friend. 

I agree, in principal, WHAT Gibson is trying to do, but I'm not a fan of HOW they are trying to do it.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## rcc56

One of their employees has told me that they are planning to build a new corporate office.

That seems to be an unwise expenditure for a corporation that is emerging from bankruptcy, has closed down a manufacturing plant, and still has pending lawsuits by disgruntled creditors.

For this reason, and many others [including their relationships with potential retailers and potential customers], I give them two, maybe three years until they are once more on the chopping block.

----------


## Mandobar

> It's a private corporation but they still have stock holders. Otherwise Henry would still be there. Somebody pushed him out. Henry didn't own the company outright.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/research/s...rivcapId=28990


There were a multitude of money people who bought in, including venture capital folks from what I read when the deal to oust Henry was put together.  These folks want a return, like all investors.  I’m sure Cesar brought in funding as well.  He has worked exclusively on the funding side for various VC groups.  Totally different mindset.  Not sure why he’s in a marketing position now, but someone is censoring his social media activity too now.

In another life I was a corporate banker.  For the most part Gibson’s creditors had a lot to do with demanding Henry be removed, along with the bankruptcy process.  I think the name was worth enough for others to try and save what was there. Otherwise it would have gone into liquidation.

Mark, from the video, used to work at Norms Guitars in LA.  I’m not sure why they hired him, because most of what he did at Norms was make demo videos.  I don’t think he has a clue what damage can be done to a brand with a 5 minute video.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

What's shameful is people who are not creative enough to come up with their own designs so they take someone elses..Gibson has created some very successful designs and other people just jump on the band wagon.Whether they get anywhere or not,I think they should try to protect their creations..

----------


## sgarrity

> What's shameful is people who are not creative enough to come up with their own designs so they take someone elses..Gibson has created some very successful designs and other people just jump on the band wagon.Whether they get anywhere or not,I think they should try to protect their creations..


So no one should ever make an F5 except Gibson?  I reckon we should stop all guitar builders from using the dreadnaught, OM, 000, 00, etc. body shapes too???

----------


## rcc56

The last time I checked, new Collings mandolins were being advertised at prices 5% - 10% less than equivalent Gibson mandolins.  That is, if you can find a new Gibson mandolin.  As far as I know, new Gibson mandolins are available only from Guitar Center/Musician's Friend and just two brick and mortar retailers.

----------


## Mandobar

The opening in the market for better made and quality instruments was created by the companies who initially offered these products.  Gibson made some pretty shoddy instruments over the last 50 or 60 years.  

If there were no Eastmans, or Kentucky’s what would folks who can’t afford $4k play?  That said, there’s a lot to proving an intellectual property case.  Yes, Gibson can pummel folks with paperwork, and create an annoying environment for builders.  But is that good PR, and in fact, in the end, they might not prove they own the F5 trademark.  It could hurt them more than help them.

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

I was asked to post the following information but wasn't told if I can use the author's name. I'm in Europe at the moment so possible I might not get their OK until about midnight U.S. time (because I like to sleep) so sorry, but that individual is concerned a lot of incorrect information is being posted. Only seeing this now because I got a text that woke me. If OK to share the author's name I will later.

---------

There are some basic facts that forum posters should be aware of...

1. Despite the generally understood premise of trademark law - use it or lose it - Gibson has been able to retroactively obtain trademark protection for designs that had been in use, and in some cases out of use, for decades. 

2. Gibson's cease and desist letters are not idle threats. Gibson has sued numerous companies. Almost all the suits were settled - the exception being PRS, who prevailed in an appeal.

3. Gibson has been granted numerous trademarks, including the dove-wing headstock shape and the body shapes of the Les Paul, SG, Flying V, Explorer and 335 guitars. Gibson has been granted trademarks on the flowerpot inlay (1975), the bell-shaped truss rod cover (1978), and the scroll headstock with fern inlay (2015). Here are links to the website of the US Patent and Trademark office:

flowerpot, 1,008,797...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.2.2

headstock and fern, 4,706,482...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.3.1

truss rod cover, 1,822,637...
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...803:w70uy6.6.3

EDIT: now in posting those links I see they are no longer valid as they expire. To be continued...

----------


## oliverkollar

This really ticks me off....... :Disbelief:

----------


## chuck3

Not a good look.  I bought a new Gibson mando not long ago and, at a similar price point, it's not as good as my Collings mandos.  Not sure what they think they *currently* have to brag about - obviously, from a historical perspective, they've been amazing with both guitars and mandos.  But things change, and this does not make me a fan of their company.

----------


## Greg P. Stone

The new investors will shake every tree for money. These lawsuits may or may not have merit. Even if they have no merit they will still usually get $5,000 to $100,000 from each defendant to settle so that they may avoid the higher costs of going to court. In many cases this decision will not be made by the bigger defendants but by their insurance companies. Small builders are in the worst position and some will simply take the leap into their own designs.  

My experience in these matters is from a different industry but the principle is the same.

----------


## John Adrihan

I really don't have an issue with them being pissed off. No one is taking Gils, Nuggets, or Kimble's apart and taking measurements. No one had a flower pot before them. No one is making a mandolin and putting some one else's name on it and calling it a clone. Are there instruments (mandolins) over priced? maybe? but that is because folks are paying $7000 dollars for Northfield's and others that honestly in my opinion are over priced. Again I think that a $9000 dollar price tag on a Fern is ludicrous and the fact they seem to want to fix their financial problems by selling less for more, which could be debated as a business model. However, We have are own selves to blame for the prices we pay through Eco 101; supply and demand. But.... way to many times have seen... In the Les Paul style, In the Tele style, voiced after... if we have to pay royalties for a song, shouldn't builders pay a royalty?

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

BillytheB, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## chuck3

> The new investors will shake every tree for money. These lawsuits may or may not have merit. Even if they have no merit they will still usually get $5,000 to $100,000 from each plaintiff to settle so that they may avoid the higher costs of going to court. In many cases this decision will not be made by the bigger plaintiffs but by there insurance companies. Small builders are in the worst position and some will simply take the leap into their own designs.  
> 
> My experience in these matters is from a different industry but the principle is the same.


Gibson is the plaintiff.  I think you mean the defendants.

----------


## John Adrihan

Before anyone calls it out I know that a Tele would be a Fender. My point is they should do the same thing as Gibson.

----------


## Greg P. Stone

> Gibson is the plaintiff.  I think you mean the defendants.


Darn dyslexia, I get everything reversed. Corrected my post.

----------


## Mandobar

Abbott Labs did this around 2003.  They shook the tree until they made it affordable for the defendants to pay royalties.  A few years later they were eaten by a larger company.  But for years they sent cease and desist letters to small biotech companies, many of which filed these notices in the circular file.

----------


## Luna Pick

The links above expired, but in the meantime, I'm curious if anyone knows if the the Patent/Trademark is for the headstock with the fern inlay only, or each either together or separately? E.g. a headstock with a non-fern inlay pattern would be included.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> The links above expired, but in the meantime, I'm curious if anyone knows if the the Patent/Trademark is for the headstock with the fern inlay only, or each either together or separately? E.g. a headstock with a non-fern inlay pattern would be included.


Here's a link to their trademarks etc: https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks

----------


## Mandobar

I wouldn’t trust something from their website.  Check the US trademark database to verify who really owns whatever you are interested in.  I don’t see a trademark for either an A or F style mandolin.

The last listed owner of Dobro is still Bank of America, yet Gibson’s webpage states it is theirs.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...809:o24l8g.2.5

----------


## walter carter

> I wouldnt trust something from their website.  Check the US trademark database to verify who really owns whatever you are interested in.  I dont see a trademark for either an A or F style mandolin.
> 
> The last listed owner of Dobro is still Bank of America, yet Gibsons webpage states it is theirs.
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...809:o24l8g.2.5


Stymied again by the expiration of the link. To view the tradermarks, go to uspto.gov, then mouse over Trademarks. In the drop-down menu, click on TESS, which is their search engine. Just put in the trademark number, without commas.

----------

oliverkollar

----------


## Mandobar

Sorry, Walter.  I checked it and it worked, but they must expire pretty quick.

----------


## Mandobar

Peg head and fern trademark is described as: Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a peg head of a stringed musical instrument with a curved swirl on the top left and top right, and with a fern design within the peg head in the center and a second fern design within the lower portion of the peg head.

----------


## Scotter

While I had seen Mark as the new face of Gibson in several videos recently, it wasn't until reading the comments here that I finally realized that this is the same guy who was in all of those "Guitar of The Day" YouTube videos for Normans Rare Guitars.

----------


## rcc56

New management, same old stuff.

Gibson seems to have difficulty adapting to a changing market and manufacturing environment.
Electric guitar sales are down world-wide.  Electric guitar oriented rock music is declining in popularity.  The demand for Les Paul's and SG's is shrinking.

Acoustic instruments are gaining in popularity.  Buyers are expressing considerable interest in mandolins, banjos, and ukuleles.  Gibson is making only a handful of mandolins.  It's been over 10 years since they assembled a banjo, and they haven't made a uke since the 1960's.

Younger buyers are less disposed to pay high prices for new instruments, and are less concerned about whether or not an instrument is made in the US.

Many of Gibson's suppliers were badly burned in the bankruptcy settlement.  They are going to be less inclined to offer favorable prices and easy credit terms to the "new" Gibson.    . . ."And that'll be cash on the barrelhead, son."

Because of Gibson's restrictive policies, most dealers are not interested in adding them to their product lines.  If Ares Management, the owner of Guitar Center/Musician's Friend, decides to liquidate their unprofitable retail chain, Gibson will lose over half of their dealers.

It would seem that Gibson needs all the friends that they can get.  They're not doing a very good job of winning any.

Although Martin and Taylor are both primarily building flat-top guitars, they seem to co-exist without threatening each other.

I give Gibson two to three years before they hit the wall again.

I don't know why I waste my time thinking and writing about this.  I have better ways to spend my time than concerning myself with Gibson.

----------

Benski, 

John Lloyd, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## BillytheB

This video is pretty awful. On the other hand I remember when Fender successfully defended the headstock shapes for strats and teles but not the body style. I have always been surprised that the gibson f style mandolin headstock has been so liberally copied. Generally speaking, if they did try to defend a claim on the points, scrolls and other body items I think it would be fairly difficult for them to effectively protect them as builders could make very minor changes that would defeat any design specifics. Gibson would either have to be so general as to not get granted a protection or so specific that a slightly smaller or larger scroll or point would be safe. IP is a legit asset and I think that Gibson has at least a right to try to protect their designs. It doesn't matter how lame some instruments might have been, a lame CEO, high prices, etc. There's a reason everyone is copying their designs and they have some right to own certain aspects of them. That might be an unpopular opinion but being original is the high ground. Making a shitty video that basically explains it in the worst possible way only makes the hill steeper for them.

Also, if they are successful then all the existing instruments featuring protected gibson design elements will be more valuable.

----------


## Steve Sorensen

:Popcorn: 



Steve

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Br1ck, 

Doug Brock, 

Em Tee, 

Jill McAuley, 

Jimmy Kittle, 

John Lloyd, 

Johnny60, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

Scotter, 

trodgers, 

William Smith

----------


## Simon DS

> Steve


Nice one Steve, thanks!
-and there, I was just about to write, ‘Gibson, Gibson, Gibson, Gibson, Gibson Gibson’! 
This Trade Mark thing got stuck in my head  :Smile: 

(it is an interesting debate)

----------


## almeriastrings

Strange video. Peculiar angles of view. The bulging eyes and almost fanatical delivery does not create a very good impression (to say the least).

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

From the post made several hours ago here, since you can't link to those database searches without them expiring I took screen shots of the three which are posted below. I believe in that post, the contents of which were sent to us by a third party, the trademark number for the truss rod cover was incorrect so I used the one that was part of the letter sent to one of the builders that received this communication. Hoping some of them will weigh in here but won't hold my breath on that one.

You may need to click the images below to see all of the text contained within the images.

----------

Beanzy, 

Benski, 

LKN2MYIS, 

Ryk Loske, 

seankeegan, 

Simon DS, 

Verne Andru

----------


## Daniel Nestlerode

Some thoughts...

1) What bothers me most about this video is that the message violates the camaraderie and the cooperative nature of the luthiery community.  Gibson is taking a go-it-alone and me-first approach when most of the rest of the individuals and companies that make guitars, mandolins, banjos, etc talk to each other about all aspects of building an instrument. 

They could adopt a cooperative approach, develop that intellectual property as a service, and start charging for it.

2) Agnesi does not look comfortable.  A bit too intense.  I wonder if there's some disagreement inside Gibson about this approach.

3) As a songwriter, I believe in protecting intellectual property.  I fully supported Metallica's rants about Napster, et al back in the day.  I think they were necessary, if a bit heavy handed, to alert people to the issue.    And to be fair they had a revenue stream being eroded right in front of them.

But I think Gibson are going about this in exactly the wrong way. Gibson has effectively ignored things that can be considered trade marked or trade mark-able designs for decades.  New ownership or not, screaming about it now comes off as bullying and will probably hurt its business.

Daniel

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## HoGo

> But I think Gibson are going about this in exactly the wrong way. Gibson has effectively ignored things that can be considered trade marked or trade mark-able designs for decades.  New ownership or not, screaming about it now comes off as bullying and will probably hurt its business.
> Daniel


Agree. I hate to see when things change from simple human logic to pure law & cash flow dictate. That's what is happening in many other areas - we probably don't know how many such issues and bullying (or lawsuits etc.) are going in the more profitable areas like IT (Scott surely knows more). Companies collecting patents and forcing others to pay royalties (pay or we'll sue you...) for patents that probably shouldn't have been issued in the first place or are not really applied but companies will pay because lawsuit, even won, would cost more... Current Trademark and patent laws are wild and create opportunities for such (humanly wrong, IMO) behavior and Gibson tries to jump the train... Fortunately Gibson is not in very good financia position to really dig deep into this so thay are more of trying to "pick the crumbles from ground" they lost many years ago. Maybe they think thay can earn more just collecting fees than actually making instruments. They could just rent the designs and/or name for others to produce.

Just on the side note... is there a legal way to attack validity of those old trademarks? We all know there are hundreds of other brands' instruments per one Gibson bearing those "trademarks". For majority of folks (except the few Gibson die hards) they are no longer connected to the brand. Perhaps crowdfunding initiative with a good lawyer...
A good time to dust off my old headstock design...

----------

Benski, 

Drew Egerton, 

Jill McAuley, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Timbofood, 

WaxwellHaus

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> Some companies that aren't worried are probably the overseas ones. Gilchrist, Duff, Northfield etc.


Northfield is not an overseas company, they are a company that happens to have founders in two different countries. Gets further complicated: at least one individual builder that received the letter is based outside of the U.S. Everyone can draw their own conclusion from that.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Douglas McMullin

I don't have much to add to the discussion other than this reminds me why I don't own any instruments from legacy brands like Gibson.  If I had the money, I might "play authentic" as Mr. Agnesi suggests, but to me authentic means the instruments Gibson built a long time ago. 80-100+ year old mandolins and acoustic guitars and 60 year old electrics.  Perhaps if their quality had been more consistent I would have some interest in their more modern offerings, but in my opinion others have done it better for a long time now.  I won't say never and will see what future quality is like, but at the moment I can't imagine myself buying a modern Gibson guitar or mandolin. A company presence like what they are showing only serves to further drive me away from their brand.

----------


## David Lewis

> What sblock said above... Fender did not protect its copyrights to the Telecaster and Stratocaster designs and so lost the right to do so. Rickenbacker, on the other hand, has done their due diligence and so have retained their rights. 
> 
> Gibson has been lax and ham-handed and now seems to want to put that copyright genie back in the bottle, but simply changing their corporate leadership and upping the @$$hole factor is not going to do it this late in the game. I eagerly await their courtroom losses. 
> 
> Crowdfunding for legal expenses for independents who are attacked by Mr. Agnesi and his corporate overlords, anyone?


The interesting thing is that strats and telecasters are now covted in a way that rickenbackers (very fine instruments) arent.

----------


## Doc Ivory

Ive been a Gibson fan for quite sometime but this rawly ticks me off.
Concentrate on making better guitars Gibson and less on your oittle snits.

----------


## tmsweeney

> Electric guitar oriented rock music is declining in popularity.


Not sure that is a defend-able statement? I was just posting how while visiting Nashville I was expecting a plethora of county and bluegrass acoustic acts, what I found was the opposite, most live music being rock oriented cover bands playing electric instruments. Same is pretty much for my home region, classic rock/pop and top 40 still reign supreme over styles like folk, bluegrass, acoustic jazz and classical, and live music is mostly electric guitars, electric bass and drums with whatever else.  Even country music is produced with predominately electric guitars and basses.
Doesn't mean they are buying Les Paul's and SG's, at least not new ones anyway. 
But I don't think Electric Guitar music is on the decline at all. When I was growing up, maybe 1 or 2 kids out of 10 had electric guitars, now its more like 5 or 6 out of 10 have electric guitars, whether or not they actually study guitar on them is a different story.

----------

Doug Brock, 

Douglas McMullin, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Richard Mott

Just watched the video.  Legally and from a PR perspective, it seems like the worst of both worlds for Gibson:
1) Legally, issuing a broad threat by video if they don’t back it up only further dilutes future claims to trademark infringement; and
2) In terms of public good will, they further liquidate their brand equity by appearing to intimidate builders and players.
0 for 2.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

A company doesn't have to have a defensible legal right to IP (copyright, trademark, patents, trade secret) in order to threaten legal action. See the Intellectual Ventures vs. Carbonite case from a few years back. Many small shops will get scared of the legal costs it would take to defend against a suit from a big company with deep pockets, and rightly so. You may be in the right, doesn't mean they can't put you out of business if you try to fight them.

Just another good reason for folks to come up with their own designs...

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Dave Kirkpatrick

----------


## Mandobar

> Just watched the video.  Legally and from a PR perspective, it seems like the worst of both worlds for Gibson:
> 1) Legally, issuing a broad threat by video if they don’t back it up only further dilutes future claims to trademark infringement; and
> 2) In terms of public good will, they further liquidate their brand equity by appearing to intimidate builders and players.
> 0 for 2.


Landmark libel civil case decision just occurred in Ohio. The message is, you need to back up your assertions with facts and control your employees activities or you pay, and pay big time. Juries don’t like bullies it seems.

As for the brand, companies pay big bucks to build brands.  But some just can’t seem to maintain them, and social media adds a dangerous element to the mix. Look at how many people have seen that “Mark Authentic” video, and it’s still roiling around long after it was deleted, out there in internet-land.

----------


## Mandoplumb

I can also agree in principal with Gibson, but while we are going historical let's look at why the F5 was so universally copied. I've been a mandolin nut since a kid and remember if you had the money in late 60's early70's ( which a lot of us didn't have) you could not buy a new mandolin that was any good, there was none being made. Several builders started getting reputations as making good mandolins, but they had to copy Gibson even to the point of Gibson name on the peg head. The first I saw of these was Roland White's that even had the Gibson label inside with the style F5 listed. A small word "copy" put to the right. Shortly after Johnny Hutto, who was playing in a band that i was playing guitar in started building mandolins with Gibson on the peg head. I asked why if he could do the job he was doing sound and fit and finish why give the credit to Gibson. He said if he varied design or put different name he couldn't give them away. Why Gibson didn't try to "nip it in the bud" at that time I don't know. I know now that we as players have come to accept the true builders name on the mandolin instead of Gibson. But how many would buy a new body style regardless of how it played or sounded, me being one of the last to change. At this point with so many still in spite of everything, wanting real Gibson I can't see how being hard nosed now will help Gibson any and if anything will cause only hard feelings.

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## MikeZito

I had to laugh to myself as I was watching the video and thinking; '_If they are really concerned about originality, maybe they should start by putting an end to making the Epiphone Staratocaster and P-bass copies_'.

My overall opinion: Although Gibson does have a fair point about their products, it is unfortunately way, way to late to start enforcing these trademarks.  There are now countless manufacturers making Gibson-like products, and if Gibson was really serious about going after these other makers, their legal fees alone would cause them to go bankrupt in no time.

Sorry Gibson - I have been playing your guitars for almost 40 years, but this time (as the old saying goes) you're probably a day late and dollar short . . .

----------


## Doug Brock

It's easy to just see Gibson as a bully (and they're definitely acting like one), but I also see a dying company that is desperately trying to find any ways to survive. Sad.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Bob Buckingham

I think they are getting killed (and it is their own fault) in the guitar market where everyone and their brother is making a Les Paul styled guitar or 335 or L00 or slope shoulder jumbo,etc. Who is a mandolin dealer besides The Mandolin Store for Gibson?  Their share of the market is probably much smaller than copy cats like Eastman and others.  What does it mean for C F Martin and their CEO models that are definitely take offs on classic Gibson designs?  Meanwhile, we the players are buying what is available and works for our needs.

----------


## DHopkins

I have to agree with some of the others:  it's too little, too late.  If they had made even a half-hearted attempt to defend these designs from the beginning, it might mean something but they didn't and it doesn't.  

If you want a perfect example of how to defend a design, look at Coca-Cola.  They have a division that does nothing else and it seems to be working.

----------


## bbcee

This was from the press release when Mr. Agnesi joined Gibson:

_“I am excited to bring Mark onboard at such a pivotal stage for Gibson,” said Gibson CMO Cesar Gueikian in Gibson’s official announcement of the hire. “He is the perfect fit to help us turn our vision into a reality and I can’t wait to see what Mark will bring to our team, our brands and our business”._

Hope there's more to the Gibson Vision than this.

----------


## Mandobar

Ugh, so I’m thinking Cesar was a customer at Norms.....it wreaks of “let me hire all my friends” and give them swell jobs with made up titles.  I’m sorry, but maybe the judge should have disallowed the Chapter 11 filing and pushed them into liquidation.

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

_"Hey everybody... Mark here. I'd like to demonstrate my profound respect for iconic instruments like this one I'm holding...The Big Daddy of them all. 

To do so I decided to put on a jacket with the most zippers, metal buttons and buckles I could find."_ 

Rebel Without a Clue.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Benski, 

dave vann, 

Drew Egerton, 

foldedpath, 

Mandobar, 

mando_dan, 

MikeZito, 

Ryk Loske, 

Scot Thayer, 

Timbofood, 

WaxwellHaus, 

William Smith

----------


## tim noble

I recall Martin going in a diametrically opposite direction in supporting Dick Boak and others in forming the Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans (ASIA). At the first symposium held in 1988 in Easton PA, Dick, Chris, Dave Musselwhite and others from Martin were there praising and encouraging a small group of luthiers who, for the most part, were coping Martins designs. Dick encouraged me to demonstrate my 2nd build - my version of a 1930 OM 40S. Martin was even selling parts and kits of their most popular designs and I believe that Chris's attitude was that the health and breadth of the instrument community was good for the industry as a whole. Martin has flourished while Gibson struggles with bankruptcy.
Tim

----------

almeriastrings, 

J.Albert, 

John Bertotti, 

John Lloyd, 

mandotool, 

sgarrity, 

William Smith

----------


## John Bertotti

> I recall Martin going in a diametrically opposite direction in supporting Dick Boak and others in forming the Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans (ASIA). At the first symposium held in 1988 in Easton PA, Dick, Chris, Dave Musselwhite and others from Martin were there praising and encouraging a small group of luthiers who, for the most part, were coping Martins designs. Dick encouraged me to demonstrate my 2nd build - my version of a 1930 OM 40S. Martin was even selling parts and kits of their most popular designs and I believe that Chris's attitude was that the health and breadth of the instrument community was good for the industry as a whole. Martin has flourished while Gibson struggles with bankruptcy.
> Tim


Not just loving the Martin tone, I actually quite like the Gibson Hummingbird sound, but I love the company as well. Martin has been a pleasure to communicate with when I had the need. A side story when my dad died he left me some money, very nice of him. So I adopted a daughter and was commissioning a Martin CS guitar. The dealer sent my specs in Martin emailed them and me. I gave the last a bit more info and my likes and she says, "If you can do without the inlay and don't mind a sunburst we already make the guitar you're looking for. The 000-18 GE which came with a 1937 Sunburst. The CS was big bucks, at the time $5700 for what I spend. The 000 was literally 2500 less. I went with it and until it came almost regretted it because I had sold myself on the inlay. In the end, I am much happier with this instrument. Now, do you think Gibson would have gone to these lengths to keep a customer happy at the cost of their profits by the tune of 2500$? I seriously doubt it. Too many times friends would buy an LP and spend a small fortune on an instrument with issues then write it off as well that's just the way it is with Gibson. That's BS.

----------


## bigskygirl

Hasn’t Gibson always been a bunch of (I can’t say on  a family friendly forum) when it comes to their business practices?  I was at the Bozeman acoustic facility the day the Tennessee facilities were raided for illegal wood and the then CEO blamed partisan politics instead of poor supply chain procedures (correct me if I’m wrong but no other manufacturer was raided like Gibson was).

Seems to me that since 1969 the company has always been all about the money first, quality...ehhh, maybe.  It wasn’t until 1978 that Roger Siminoff and his crew brought back the F5L as a quality mando.

We don’t know how the legal issue will play out - they probably have a good case or they wouldn’t be doing this.  It’s straight out of the deep pocket investor playbook though, maybe they figure they’ll do this and come to a bunch of settlements with other manufacturers.  I don’t think this current crew really cares about the brand or the legacy they just want their investments back.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> What's shameful is people who are not creative enough to come up with their own designs so they take someone elses..Gibson has created some very successful designs and other people just jump on the band wagon.Whether they get anywhere or not,I think they should try to protect their creations..






> So no one should ever make an F5 except Gibson?  I reckon we should stop all guitar builders from using the dreadnaught, OM, 000, 00, etc. body shapes too???



I don't  think that is exactly what he was saying Shaun?  

Of course others can make a mandolin and even call it an F-5 if they want to I guess.  

But I don't see why other builders have to slavishly *copy* Gibson's designs down to the minute details such as "The Gibson" on the head stock, or an exact copy of the flowerpot & truss rod cover? Or even how the scroll is shaped/carved?  

The reason why the early makers of F-5s (60s and 70s) copied the Gibson F-5 Loar design down to the smallest detail is because musicians demanded that they look the same as Monroe's mandolin (and the actual Gibson mandolins of the day were lacking)?

I agree Gibson was foolish for not stepping in back then and 1) enforcing a copyright or patent on their designs and 2) getting off their butts and actual start building a decent sounding Gibson F-5 again.

It wasn't until Roger Siminoff came along in 1977 and showed them what a disgrace that their current mandolins were that the company seemed to get religion again?

I find it interesting that many musician who defend intellectual property rights about music/lyrics/tunes to the death are not sympathetic about designs and intellectual property in other areas of work?

----------

Elb2000, 

Hudmister, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Seter

Gibson owns Kramer and Kramer makes Stratocaster copies under the Kramer Focus model (except for slightly different headstock). They're guilty of the same thing they're accusing other companies of.

----------

Glassweb, 

William Smith

----------


## Mandobar

You can defend what you own, not what you think you own.  As for doing it because they have a good case, people file lawsuits they know they cannot win all the time.  Don’t assume that companies act responsibly.  

I just think there’s a better use of time and money than bashing people into submission.

----------

darylcrisp, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> _"Hey everybody... Mark here. I'd like to demonstrate my profound respect for iconic instruments like this one I'm holding...The Big Daddy of them all. 
> 
> To do so I decided to put on a jacket with the most zippers, metal buttons and buckles I could find."_ 
> 
> Rebel Without a Clue.



Ha ha -  that is pretty funny.  But he (Mark) has always seemed to me to be a pretty nice guy - I  looked forward to his ventures into "the vault" of the Norm's Great Guitars to pick out a great old classic guitar or mandolin to demo and play.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Mandobar

He’s out of his depth at Gibson.  It will end badly for him.

----------

almeriastrings, 

sgarrity

----------


## Beanzy

If Gibson were getting out of the in-house manufacturing model and thinking of franchising out to a selection of high end builders this is probably how they would approach things. Assert your rights, spend some money on duffing over a few copyists, then reach a settlement that enables the select highest bidders to go forward fulfilling the orders.

----------


## Simon DS

And not asserting their Trademark rights earlier on in the game was maybe a way to corner the market. They wanted, and encouraged people to copy them so that the word guitar could be defined as looking or not looking like a Gibson. Dominating the other manufacturers is, I guess part of being successful.
Whatever. 
Though Im happy people dont say for example: In our band we have a fiddle, a banjo, a mandolin, a bass and a Gibson.
It didnt go that far.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I expect this is what they're going to go after long before they deal with mandolins. A friend of mine played Denver last weekend with the most beautiful sunburst J-45... except it was an Eastman.

----------


## DaveGinNJ

This is great news for litigation lawyers

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## mtucker

I hate to be blunt folks but... that's exactly what you get when the company's majority owner (and COB) is KKR and the CEO running the joint is a guy who formerly worked in the jeans department at Levi Strauss.

----------


## Bill McCall

Thinking of Gibson getting a trademark for the fern peghead in 2015, would anyone be surprised if they tried, and maybe succeed, in getting the F5 body trademarked?  Watch that space.  

And imagine the shoe on the other foot, ie, small builder gets design copied by BIG Music.  We’d be screaming to protect the originator in that case.  Or imagine someone building a car with the Rolls Royce Spirit of Ecstasy hood ornament on their econobox.  Outrage is easier seen there.

Such is life.

----------


## Eric Platt

It's a small thing, but I'm worried about the threat to television and movie folks. I understand licensing and product placement. But are they going to expand this to others? If I use my Gibsons for a video posted to YouTube, am I now in violation? 

Am also worried about the statement that an arched top with f holes is also trademarked. That doesn't seem to be possible.

Of course I've been wrong before.

----------


## Bertram Henze

If Gibson's reasoning was right that these "counterfeit instruments" destroy their market, then why do they join the fray by posing as bad-tempered Scrooges in front of the musicians they want to sell their product to, instead of being the generous and attractive design role model they've always appeared to be? 

It's a bit like Santa suing parents for giving gifts to their children before he had a chance.

I guess that's when you find out you lost focus.

----------

Benski

----------


## MikeZito

> It's a small thing, but I'm worried about the threat to television and movie folks. I understand licensing and product placement. But are they going to expand this to others? If I use my Gibsons for a video posted to YouTube, am I now in violation?


Why on earth would you NOT want somebody to play your guitars on television, movies, videos, etc.?  Hello - free advertising!  Remember back in the late-60 or early-70's when Fender made the head stocks bigger so that the name could be seen better on television?  Now that's a smart move.

----------

Eric Platt

----------


## JonZ

Americans are paying billions in tariffs and risking a recession partially in an effort to protect intellectual property rights.

All intellectual property owners should be paid for the use of their work product. In the end, it drives innovation by giving innovation value.

Reasonable licensing fees will be more profitable to Gibson than putting copiers out of business. The copies add to the cache of the originals, if the originals are well executed. This is no more a threat to small builders than telling them they have to pay for their wood.

The video is ham fisted PR. But, yeah, enforce your trademarks and copyrights.

----------

Hudmister, 

KMaynard, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Br1ck

Having worked for a company owned by KKR, I can assure you their only goal is money. Period. If they could sell Les Pauls for $4000 that were made of balsa wood and sawdust, they would. Their goal is always to flip the company for a profit in three to five years.

Mark has sold his soul to KKR, wittingly or not, for money. He will have to live with that. When, not if, his usefulness to Gibson ends, the scrap heap awaits. KKR has no conscience or loyalty to anything but money. That highly skilled employee of thirty years who may build fine instruments has value only if deemed to make the company more money than the ten year guy standing next to him.

----------


## JonZ

Welcome to America.

----------


## Kevin Winn

> Having worked for a company owned by KKR, I can assure you their only goal is money. Period. If they could sell Les Pauls for $4000 that were made of balsa wood and sawdust, they would. Their goal is always to flip the company for a profit in three to five years.
> 
> Mark has sold his soul to KKR, wittingly or not, for money. He will have to live with that. When, not if, his usefulness to Gibson ends, the scrap heap awaits. KKR has no conscience or loyalty to anything but money. That highly skilled employee of thirty years who may build fine instruments has value only if deemed to make the company more money than the ten year guy standing next to him.


"Meet the new boss...... same as the old boss......"

----------


## Tom C

I say we start referring to ALL guitars and mandolins as gibsons. Make it as generic as Hoover is to Vacuum in England.
Couldn't somebody prove that design became generic?

----------


## NursingDaBlues

> "Meet the new boss...... same as the old boss......"


Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

EDIT: Lyrics by Peter Townshend
Won't Get Fooled Again lyrics © Spirit Music Group
Guitar: 1959 Gretsch 6120 Chet Akins

----------


## DHopkins

> I say we start referring to ALL guitars and mandolins as gibsons. Make it as generic as Hoover is to Vacuum in England.
> Couldn't somebody prove that design became generic?


You make a good point.  Think of Kleenex, Band-Aid, Cellophane, Dumpster, etc.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> I hate to be blunt folks but... that's exactly what you get when the company's majority owner (and COB) is KKR and the CEO running the joint is a guy who formerly worked in the jeans department at Levi Strauss.


What kind of statement is that? Your knocking him because he worked at,Levis? He was not some guy but president of global affairs and I've read he did great things for Levis,and he's doing great things now,for Gibson.They are producing now some of best instruments in their history,don't believe me,first go try a new Les Paul '60''s standard,,rave reviews across the board.I can't wait to see the new acoustic line unveiled next month J.C. has taken the Gibson bull by the horns and part of that I imagine is trying to  protect what's theirs..Gibson is driving full steam ahead and taking no prisoners

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Dillon

I've got, I mean my friend has a Les Paul mandolin, his he safe?

----------


## THart

> You make a good point.  Think of Kleenex, Band-Aid, Cellophane, Dumpster, etc.


...Dobro

----------


## DHopkins

> What kind of statement is that? Your knocking him because he worked at,Levis? He was not some guy but president of global affairs and I've read he did great things for Levis,and he's doing great things now,for Gibson.They are producing now some of best instruments in their history,don't believe me,first go try a new Les Paul '60''s standard,,rave reviews across the board.I can't wait to see the new acoustic line unveiled next month J.C. has taken the Gibson bull by the horns and part of that I imagine is trying to  protect what's theirs..Gibson is driving full steam ahead and taking no prisoners


I sort of agree with you.  Management skills are management skills but I believe the powers-that-be at Gibson are chasing their collective tail by wasting their resources trying to finance a battle that they're likely to lose.

----------


## Jim DeSalvio

As a mostly guitar player, I have never really been a big fan of Gibson.  However, I recently picked up a J-45 Standard, ordered through a new Gibson dealer in Fishers, IN.  We went through the Custom Shop, with the only "custom" feature being deletion of the electronics.  I have to say, the guitar arrived with very good fit and finish, and a very nice set-up.  It plays nicely, and is the only mahogany back/sides guitar I own.  So right now, I am pleased with it.  Of course, this was all done before all of this erupted.

I can honestly say, it will be my one, and only Gibson.

Jim D

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Having worked for a company owned by KKR, I can assure you their only goal is money. Period. If they could sell Les Pauls for $4000 that were made of balsa wood and sawdust, they would. Their goal is always to flip the company for a profit in three to five years.
> 
> Mark has sold his soul to KKR, wittingly or not, for money. He will have to live with that. When, not if, his usefulness to Gibson ends, the scrap heap awaits. KKR has no conscience or loyalty to anything but money. That highly skilled employee of thirty years who may build fine instruments has value only if deemed to make the company more money than the ten year guy standing next to him.


Sold his soul?  Is it really that dire?  Is the man marked for life now?   :Smile: 

I'll bet Mark comes home from Gibson every day and is nice to his wife and kids and still smiles when he meets his friends. Just like he did when he worked for Norm's Great Guitars.  And I'll bet if the job at Gibson does not work out he'll find another job just fine?

The point has been made and it seems true to me -- Gibson is making great instruments again (mandolins and electric guitars are good examples) and that people at the top do not seem to be causing problems but fixing them?  Let's wait and see what the future holds for Gibson?

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Greg P. Stone

> I've got, I mean my friend has a Les Paul mandolin, his he safe?


that should be protected as satire

----------


## Greg P. Stone

...

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> As a mostly guitar player, I have never really been a big fan of Gibson.  However, I recently picked up a J-45 Standard, ordered through a new Gibson dealer in Fishers, IN.  We went through the Custom Shop, with the only "custom" feature being deletion of the electronics.  I have to say, the guitar arrived with very good fit and finish, and a very nice set-up.  It plays nicely, and is the only mahogany back/sides guitar I own.  So right now, I am pleased with it.  Of course, this was all done before all of this erupted.
> 
> I can honestly say, it will be my one, and only Gibson.
> 
> Jim D


On the other side of the coin I own 7 Gibson instruments right now and since the early 70's I've owned at least another 30 or more other Gibsons, both old and new, mandolins, mandolas, mandocellos, flattops, arch tops, 12 strings, banjos (tenor, 5 string and MB) I even had a Gibson violin once (really). I LOVE Gibson instruments.  

I don't love everything the company does or has done and for sure and they have made their mistakes and I have called them out many times on this very forum --e.g.,  for building poor quality instruments, for their lack of customer support, to their shoddy record keeping, and in the past their bullying and cheating small parts and wood suppliers.  These are the faults of individual people not the company.  Gibson is not perfect but they are not some minor level of Dante's hell either.

Gibson is a great company with roots why back to the days of Orville and Lloyd and owning one means you have a link to America's musical past - just like owning a Martin guitar.  

If I keep living I'll probably be owning other Gibsons instruments too.  These legal actions (subject of this thread) are not a show stopper for me at least.  

Others might see it differently and that is fine too.

----------

KMaynard, 

lflngpicker, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## NursingDaBlues

Originally Posted by Tom C: "I say we start referring to ALL guitars and mandolins as gibsons. Make it as generic as Hoover is to Vacuum in England.
 Couldn't somebody prove that design became generic?" 


Well, in a sense the mandolin industry already has...as in "F"- and "A"- styles.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

> Why on earth would you NOT want somebody to play your guitars on television, movies, videos, etc.?  Hello - free advertising!  Remember back in the late-60 or early-70's when Fender made the head stocks bigger so that the name could be seen better on television?  Now that's a smart move.


If I understand correctly, most companies pay for product placement in television and movies.

----------

Eric Platt

----------


## Steve Sorensen

I suppose copied forgeries of great work are the most complimentary form of larceny.

To my mind, there is a big difference between the post-post-modern nostalgic referencing of superior precedents, and blatant plagiarism of entire foundational designs created by another artist or business.  

Making a "bench-copy" of a great instrument to see if you have the chops to meet the qualities of a top-tier builder is a fine test of skill, but a terribly immoral long-term business plan. 

Gibson may be wrong in their approach with this video, but the ethical underpinnings of their message are right-on.

Steve

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

John Lloyd, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Mandobar

That might be true, but I hope they check their business model and make sure they are not infringing on anyone else’s trademarks.  I know there are some models on their production line that infringe on other makers trademarks.  Like they say, people in glass houses should not throw stones.  So, if you want to take out the rule book, you need to follow it too.

----------


## Bill McCall

> I suppose copied forgeries of great work are the most complimentary form of larceny.
> 
> To my mind, there is a big difference between the post-post-modern nostalgic referencing of superior precedents, and blatant plagiarism of entire foundational designs created by another artist or business..........  
> 
> Gibson may be wrong in their approach with this video, but the ethical underpinnings of their message are right-on.
> 
> Steve


While I agree with this sentiment, deciding what is treading on another's IP is a slippery slope for sure.  How much of an A or F style would it take to violate a trademark (which admittedly doesn't exist YET) may prove to be a very relevant question.  But the trademark exists for the scroll peghead and that's problematic for many.

----------


## John Bertotti

Levi's, I wouldn't call great things, I won't buy another pair of their jeans. Whole other topic mostly banned here but if that is what you get with this guy running things then I sure wouldn't expect the best of things with Gibson.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

I have nothing to back this up, but I don’t believe this video or Gibson’s desire to retain/regain ownership rights to certain design elements will impact or affect the average stringed-instrument buyer. Someone wanting a Gibson product will purchase one. In my opinion, the information discussed in this thread and within similar threads on other forums just won’t touch most of the guitar and mandolin buying population. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Gibson will feel threatened by handful of folks on a handful of forums expressing indignation. 

The folks I feel for are  the independent luthiers who may receive strongly worded notification inferring trademark/patent infringement. Such notification could be something that they can’t afford to contest – regardless of whether the allegations are valid. Probably the first counsel from a defendant’s attorney will be how long and how expensive a patent/trademark battle can be.  

While I don’t personally know if such notifications have been sent or are even being considered, I do feel a certain amount of sadness that the “shot across the bow” delivered in the video was necessary.  I believe in originators’ owning their intellectual properties. I just wish that it had not come to this.

----------


## foldedpath

> If I understand correctly, most companies pay for product placement in television and movies.


Right, that's the usual arrangement. 

What may be happening here, is that some film and video companies are taping over the logo on musical instruments because they _don't_ want to make it look like they're getting paid for product placement. Especially if it's an indie film targeted at a certain audience that is very aware of those arrangements. And it wouldn't be just a Gibson logo but any logo. Guitars are somewhat unusual as a musical instrument in having very prominent logos. The only other example I can think of is a piano.

From Gibson's perspective, of course they want those logos visible. They can't force it though. A film or TV production company that was averse to having too many obviously branded items would just choose a different brand.

----------


## Mandobar

The way the message is being delivered is tacky.  The outrage that ensued surprised the company, and they removed it. Most companies would be doing damage control.  Not these guys. They seem to be stuck in the 1980’s.


And if you go over to the electric guitar forums I think you will find Gibson has lost quite a few customers.

There are better ways to build a customer base and safeguard your IP.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

----------


## oldwave maker

I was honored to get the Charlie D. flowerpot cease and desist email long ago, never heard back about the redesigned  FUHJ Arizona pipestone flowerpot or the disturbed master scrollectomy model. Just lucky I guess....

----------

Bertram Henze, 

ccravens, 

Dave Sheets, 

Douglas McMullin, 

Drew Egerton, 

Greg Allen, 

Jill McAuley, 

John Bertotti, 

lflngpicker, 

Mandobar, 

oliverkollar, 

Steve-o, 

trodgers

----------


## oliverkollar

> I was honored to get the Charlie D. flowerpot cease and desist email long ago, never heard back about the redesigned  FUHJ Arizona pipestone flowerpot or the disturbed master scrollectomy model. Just lucky I guess....


Bill.....you ARE the man!  :Wink:

----------


## Greg Allen

I have had a few Gibsons but none were modern. Quality in the modern ones  was not there based on the price imho. Don't own one now and after watching that video likely never will again. A manufacturer can build long term  brand loyalty based on consistency of quality. They can also destroy future sales by acting like they just did. Oh so happy with my Collings. Bye bye Gibson for me.

----------


## Mandobar

> I expect this is what they're going to go after long before they deal with mandolins. A friend of mine played Denver last weekend with the most beautiful sunburst J-45... except it was an Eastman.


Im thinking this may have set them off and running.  Eastman is a pretty big target.

----------

lflngpicker

----------


## Bertram Henze

Builders may avoid the conflict by modifying proportions. There's famous examples...

----------

Timbofood

----------


## William Smith

All this really doesn't bother me, I love all my old Gibson mandolins and the like even a modern Harvey signed mandolin. I'm more into the old stuff anyway but as far as their newer mandolins, I think they are building some of the best and have been for quite sometime. I can see their point but it may be too late as everyone/almost everyone has copied the F-5, A-5, flowerpot and fern? Just like Martin I've seen counterfeit instruments "mainly guitars" that say came from China "Chibson's" They even say Gibson on them? I'll always be interested in the vintage Gibson stuff, never really liked their electric guitars as I'm a Telecaster man! To our home grown builders who make F-5's and the like, I think its an honor that they are making instruments to pay homage to Gibson? If you want a Gibson buy a Gibson. I don't think they'll or can go after every builder? As long as say Mr or Miss whoever aren't inlaying the Gibson name in the peg head? I know the first few of America's independent builders did this ages ago like Randy Wood, John Monteleone etc....So in short I won't boycott Gibson products old or new if I can get a deal!

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## TheMandoKit

> ... the disturbed master scrollectomy model....


Bill:

You're killin' me, man! 

Now everyone is going to want one. 

John

----------


## Stompbox

The lawsuits have begun:

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...&utm_campaign=

----------


## Phil Goodson

> The lawsuits have begun:
> 
> https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...&utm_campaign=


Looks like leather jackets are the new Gibson uniform.

----------


## Scott R

Looks like the Gibson Vs. Dean Guitars lawsuit broke today:

They are accusing Dean's parent company, Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, of trademark counterfeiting, 7 counts. Gibson can pursue up to $2 million for each count, $14mm total.

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-infringement/

----------


## Stompbox

> Looks like the Gibson Vs. Dean Guitars lawsuit broke today:
> 
> They are accusing Dean's parent company, Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, of trademark counterfeiting, 7 counts. Gibson can pursue up to $2 million for each count, $14mm total.
> 
> https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-infringement/


Two posts up.

----------

Scott R

----------


## Scott R

Well--I was reading through for info on Dean before I posted, yours didn't mention dean.  Sorry about that  :Wink:

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Weird they would go after flying V's and Explorers. How much of a market is there for those these days?

----------


## Daniel Nestlerode

> The details of the filing are equally interesting. Rather than only accusing Armadillo of infringing trademarks, the filing accuses it of Trademark Counterfeiting  in effect accusing Armadillo of trying to deceive or mislead the public into thinking that the guitars made by Dean and Luna are in fact Gibsons, or have some connection to Gibson.


https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-infringement/

This paragraph made me laugh.  I don't think ANYONE who has ever thought about purchasing a Dean guitar (V or Z) has ever said to themselves, "I'll get that Gibson."

Equally, no one who has ever seen my Gary Vessel mandolin has ever confused it with a Gibson.

Daniel

----------

William Smith

----------


## Bertram Henze

> https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-infringement/


If they win the Flying-V argument based on that far-fetched similarity, Grumman and Boeing are next on their list...

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Builders may avoid the conflict by modifying proportions.


I am taking that back. The Dean lawsuit demonstrates that it would not stop them.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

> If they win the Flying-V argument based on that far-fetched similarity, Grumman and Boeing are next on their list...


Libraries, too.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

Summer NAMM should be interesting.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Regarding the Dean headstock, they look exactly alike if you're a total moron and on mind altering drugs.

----------

Bob Clark, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

dave vann, 

Douglas McMullin, 

Jill McAuley, 

MontanaMatt, 

SincereCorgi, 

Timbofood

----------


## Tom Sanderson

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-fl...-fuel-20190603


I wonder if they know about this?

----------


## Ancient

Best thing to do is don’t buy Gibson products.

----------

mando_dan, 

sgarrity

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Then there's this headstock shape, purportedly a 1905 model. They should have never prevailed on the open book design in the first place. It was already in use many decades before they adopted it.

----------

Jim Garber

----------


## Bertram Henze

> http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-fl...-fuel-20190603
> 
> 
> I wonder if they know about this.


If you won't tell them, I won't.  :Whistling:

----------

Tom Sanderson

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Best thing to do is don’t buy Gibson products.


Another good thing might be to buy instruments from those "counterfeiters", because they're going to need the money. Telling Gibson's management that you need to play an instrument to be able to understand musicians, i.e. those customers you depend on.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> Another good thing might be to buy instruments from those "counterfeiters", because they're going to need the money. Telling Gibson's management that you need to play an instrument to be able to understand musicians, i.e. those customers you depend on.


So you support counterfeiting ?

----------


## sgarrity

There’s no counterfeiting going on here.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Bob Clark, 

Douglas McMullin, 

JEStanek, 

Jill McAuley, 

mando_dan

----------


## sblock

Some MC readers would do well to recall the definition of counterfeit:

1)  made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.
2)  a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery.

The purpose of a counterfeit is to deceive. There is no counterfeiting whatsoever involved in an F5 mandolin that carries a headstock inlay prominently displaying name of its maker, and which says something other than "Gibson:"  Collings, Weber, Gilchrist, Nugget, Northfield, etc., "F5" models are not counterfeits. Not by any stretch of the imagination. 

As we have heard, Gibson was able to obtain some _highly questionable_ trademarks for its fern and flowerpot inlays on an F5-style headstock, despite the long history of dilution of these patterns in the free marketplace (by others) and the 3-year limitation. The USPTO is not infallible, however, and it makes mistakes all the time. The granting of these trademarks does not necessarily mean that they are valid, because they have yet to be tested in a court of law.  My own feeling is that they would never stand up in court, if properly challenged.

That said, it costs a lot of money to go to court, and that leaves Gibson's lawyers free to try to extract (and some might say "extort") monies from other mandolin makers, regardless of whether their trademarks are valid or not. It's often less costly to pay up than to defend against a lawsuit, and this is often a business decision that does not necessarily reflect the merits of the case.   

But in my book, Gibson does not have the moral high ground, here. What they're now doing is shameful, IMO.  

If they want to make more money for their stockholders, _let them make and sell a better product_, and not try to rest on their laurels from the 1920's, by seeking to wring a bit of extra cash from their competitors!

----------

Bertram Henze, 

Bob Clark, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Jill McAuley, 

Phil Goodson, 

Ryk Loske, 

sgarrity, 

Simon DS, 

Timbofood

----------


## JonZ

Praise publicly.
Threaten privately.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> So you support counterfeiting ?


no, that's why I put the word in quotes. They are not really counterfeiters. But they're practically accused of being that.

----------

Simon DS, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Bob A

I've written and deleted without posting at least three posts already in this thread. Maybe this one will stick.

Any big company that spends this much on lawsuits and general alienation of their customer base is heading for failure.

Spend the money on improving product, lowering prices to a reasonable level, and support the efforts of dedicated human talent (which is to say, production employees). Failure to address the issues in question for over a hundred years and then scrambling to recover ground lost to those who have actually improved on the original products is both missing the boat, and possibly drowning in its wake.

I have a bunch of Gibson products, from 1915 to about 1968, and I enjoy them immensely. I can't say much for the stuff they've produced since 1970, as I've not been attracted to them, nor do I need them, as the older stuff covers my needs and wants.

It would be sad to see the company go into the tank again, but thankfully their legacy is still around. They made tons of good stuff, and much of it is readily available. The burden of loss will fall on the shoulders of their current employees, who are not to blame for the company's problems.

----------

LadysSolo, 

PDMan, 

sblock

----------


## KMaynard

No matter which side of this issue you think is right, I think there's a couple points we need to consider before drawing to many conclusions.

Let's consider, does Gibson own this IP and these Trademarks legally? If yes, no matter how we feel, they have the right to defend those, even if it means taking a nice person to court. Gibson is an iconic brand and in the past have been very innovative. We at least owe them the benefit of the doubt while this gets sorted out legally. Just my opinion.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## John Beesley

Simmer down mando peeps.  While Gibson isn't doing their brand any favors with these actions, I am heavily tied to the music legal industry, and I can tell you with 300% confidence that there is NO TEETH behind these threats.  This happens all the time in business. People leave jobs with non-competes and get threatening letters.  People use the same 3 chords of a Beatles song, and get letters.  People make a similar logo and get these letters.  If there was any substance behind Gibson's claim, they would simply take them to court, period.  Also, these are not the actions of the front line luthiers who build for Gibson, it's their management.  Don't hate the whole company, they have made, and continue to make some of the best guitars and mandos out there.  If you really want to have an impact on something like this, let artists who are sponsored by Gibson or who play a lot of Gibsons know, and they can help shut them up.

----------

Bob Clark, 

Jill McAuley, 

John Lloyd, 

sblock, 

Scot Thayer

----------


## sblock

> No matter which side of this issue you think is right, I think there's a couple points we need to consider before drawing to many conclusions.
> 
> Let's consider, does Gibson own this IP and these Trademarks legally? If yes, no matter how we feel, they have the right to defend those, even if it means taking a nice person to court. Gibson is an iconic brand and in the past have been very innovative. We at least owe them the benefit of the doubt while this gets sorted out legally. Just my opinion.


Two points here that you seem to be missing:

1) Just because the USPTO granted a trademark to Gibson does not make it "legal," in the restricted sense that the trademark is somehow valid and binding. Existing patents and trademarks can be ruled invalid (in part or in whole) by the courts for various reasons -- and they frequently are. These disputes are commonplace, in fact, and it is not correct to assume that simply because Gibson managed to get something trademarked, it is legitimate IP and will stand up against a challenge. In short, we do _not_ "owe them the benefit of the the doubt."  No way.

2)  Does Gibson have a _right_ to defend its IP? Well, _of course_ they do! Every person or corporate entity has the right to defend their patent or trademark.  But *no one* here on the MC, to my knowledge, has claimed that they don't have this right, so you seem to have missed the point altogether, by complaining about something that doesn't exist!! Instead, some of us are questioning the _wisdom_ of taking this tack -- not the legal right! In my view, what Gibson is doing is highly _inadvisable_, because it spreads ill will throughout the luthier (and player) community, it stands to negatively impact the (small) mandolin market, it offers comparatively little in the way of a short-term monetary gain for them (and zero in the long run), and it does nothing whatsoever _to make Gibson-made mandolins more competitive_. It is a shameful and short-sighted act, in my opinion, and one that may well backfire.  

So *NO*, we do not owe Gibson any sympathy when it takes "a nice person to court," as you wrote.   :Disbelief:

----------


## JonZ

> This has been going on for several months now and we were content with keeping under wraps what we knew...


Why?

So odd what the Cafe thinks it needs to protect us from.

----------


## Bob A

> Why?
> 
> So odd what the Cafe thinks it needs to protect us from.


Maybe hundreds of rambling posts about a topic on which we can have no impact?

----------


## Scott Rucker

I feel bad for Dave Harvey.  I imagine he isn't in the most comfortable position at the moment.  I don't know the man but have always appreciated his input here, mutual friends all seem to hold him in high regard, and he also builds a mighty fine mandolin.  So, my sympathies to him if he is reading this.

That's about all I have....

----------

Bob Clark, 

darylcrisp, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Ryk Loske, 

sblock, 

sgarrity, 

William Smith

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Much like Bob A., I've written a couple of posts and never posted them. 
We used to hash this same stuff out here 10+ years ago, but what I try to get across is other guitar companies, especially offshore corporations make Gibson clones because they are popular but they can offer them at a more affordable price.
But that's not why F-5 mandolins were ever made by individual builders and later larger companies. It was Gibsons abdication of making a quality version of their own invention at a time when a demand for these instruments slowly began to gain steam.

----------

Eldon Dennis, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## foldedpath

> Much like Bob A., I've written a couple of posts and never posted them. 
> We used to hash this same stuff out here 10+ years ago, but what I try to get across is other guitar companies, especially offshore corporations make Gibson clones because they are popular but they can offer them at a more affordable price.
> But that's not why F-5 mandolins were ever made by individual builders and later larger companies. It was Gibsons abdication of making a quality version of their own invention at a time when a demand for these instruments slowly began to gain steam.


A similar scenario where an owned property was allowed to lie fallow for years, has played out more recently with the Dobro brand. Gibson bought it, and seemed to take it seriously for a short while. Then they gradually slacked off and allowed it to die on the vine with no new models, just the cheaply made and imported Hound Dog left. I'm not sure even that one is still around. 

Independent luthiers took up the slack on high-end models based on the original Dobro design with improvements here and there, but basically just high quality builds. Cheap imports filled in the entry level. 

Gibson abdicated, although they still control the name. I suppose there must not be a solid Dobro mechanical design trademark in existence along with the name, or else they'd be out there harassing all the "spider cone resonator guitar" makers.

----------


## rcc56

Beard seems to be doing a fine business making resonator guitars.

Nobody cares about the Dobro name anymore.  The resonator guitar community has moved on, and now relates the Dobro brand to instruments of mediocre [at best] quality.

As far as the "iconic" Gibson name in the resonator banjo community, they have also moved on, and have a great selection of fine new banjos to choose from.  The banjo world is getting along just fine without new Gibsons.

And the mandolin community has no shortage of good new instruments to choose from.  And for those who insist upon a modern Gibson F-5, Carter's has a dozen used ones in stock.  Some have been there for quite a long time.

Gibson is not showing much interest in making mandolins.  They are not even listed as an available model on their website.

These legal threats are an attempt to raise capital and scare competitors.  They may succeed in winning some judgements and raising some capital and knock some competitors out of the way, but their problems will remain.  And their brand may not be as "iconic" as they would have us believe.  If they go under, there will be enough used Les Pauls to meet the demand for many years.

Gibson must adapt to a changing market to survive.  They would be better off trying to earn good will from the musical community than attacking the rest of the industry.  They might start out by making instruments that people want at a price they can afford.

If they go after the mandolin makers and win, the mandolin makers can adapt and make a product that meets legal muster.

If Gibson loses the suit against Dean, Gibson will be in a worse spot than they are now.

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

Is Henry back ?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Is Henry back ?


I'm pretty sure Henry will look a whole lot better than these guy will and that is really amazing.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## rcc56

Maybe he's "consulting."  They _are_ paying him a "consulting fee" as part of the settlement.   :Grin: 

Kudo's to Gibson for winning the "good will of the year" award.   :Disbelief:

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Br1ck

One of the ways KKR operates is to have a company they own buy goods and services from another company they own, so perhaps they have a stake in a large law firm, who they then hire to do litigation and thus prop up the law firm value. They do this with software. They will have Gibson buying productivity software from a company they own, paper from a company they own, buy real estate from a company they own, computers from a company they own,and on and on.

----------


## multidon

I wanted to jump in here. Why not? Everyone else has!  :Smile: 

Not much to add to whats already been said about the threatening letters, but I did want to comment in response to comments made about Gibsons instrument quality. To me, the shining star of their company is the Montana Acoustic shop. The folks working up there really have it going on. They make absolutely fantastic guitars at pretty reasonable price points. My absolute favorite guitar right now has been and still is a 2016 J-29, which they unfortunately no longer make. J-45 slope shoulder body shape, Gibson short scale, spruce over rosewood, gloss natural finish, simple appointments but it exudes quality and understated elegance. Built in electronics too. It was 2200 street, I got for much less, and Ill bet Taylor or Martin would charge 3500 for a similar guitar. My wife has the J-15, spruce over walnut, and its very nice too. Ive tried a lot of recent guitars of theirs that I didnt buy, but most were tempting and there wasnt a clunker ever. Its always seemed to me that, at least up to now, the corporate types left the Montana shop alone to do what they thought best. Now theyre adding an entry level line, the G-45 in a standard and studio version. If they can deliver on their promise of a USA made solid wood Gibson guitar for under a thousand, I dont see how theyll be able to keep up with demand.

Now, the Nashville factory is a different story. I love Les Pauls, but I have bought a few that have been returned due to electronics issues. What is up with that? Electric guitars dont have very sophisticated circuits. Youd think they could get that right. That said, if you get a good one, you just cant do much better than a Les Paul.

Ill admit, their old adage  Only a Gibson is good enough rings a little hollow these days, because we live in an unprecedented age of high quality instruments at all price points, but Im still a fan and they really know how to make a fine guitar when they want to. The mandolins, well, I havent had the opportunity to play many. But Im sure their fine too. You know, folks complain about having to pay extra for the name on the headstock. Have those folks priced other brands lately? Taylor guitars used to be much more reasonably priced years ago. Now I think theyre charging for their name, too.

----------

T.D.Nydn, 

William Smith

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

"I'm pretty sure Henry will look a whole lot better than these guy will and that is really amazing."

A"greed".  


I have owned and enjoyed more than a dozen fine Gibson instruments over the years.  However, Gibson has alienated me with their antics  which I find a deterrent to purchase. 
I might suggest focusing on producing top quality instruments at fair prices and stop the corporate nonsense fueled by greed.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

From guitar.com published late yesterday: Gibson's claims are entirely baseless: Dean Guitars CEO responds to Lawsuit

----------


## Br1ck

The Harvey era mandolins I've played are very nice, and the signature Gibson tone is bluegrass heaven. The newer acoustic guitars are also very well built, my only gripe being I like the very dry tone of the older ones. The new J 45 that rocks my boat is the j 45 vintage, which I would have bought had I not found my 65 Epiphone Texan.

I think the danger is in destroying what is good by chasing a quick buck.

----------


## Bill McCall

We’ve all forgotten to note the suit against Dean was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the favorite jurisdiction of patent trolls.  I’m sure Gibson has a substantial business presence there and wasn’t just shopping jurisdictions.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

Just a little bit of extra information. One item I didn't know or overlooked was that Gibson sent a letter to Dean and Luna dealers. 

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-need-to-know/

----------


## mtucker

> We’ve all forgotten to note the suit against Dean was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the favorite jurisdiction of patent trolls.  I’m sure Gibson has a substantial business presence there and wasn’t just shopping jurisdictions.��


 Apparently it's been going on for a few years with Dean pre bailout. 
https://guitar.com/news/the-key-date...-dean-guitars/

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Looks like leather jackets are the new Gibson uniform.


From the looks of it, all of these corporate big shots are owed a 'Cease and Desist' letter from Marlon Brando.

----------

almeriastrings, 

bstanish, 

Phil Goodson, 

seankeegan, 

Timbofood

----------


## tmsweeney

I know large corporations are filing copyright infringement law suits all the time, but I know an individual who after one small success suing for income, decided to make it a  career, needless to say that didn't workout so well for them. 
I see $99 Fender Squires and Bronco Basses everywhere - hint hint Gibson.

----------


## stevojack665

If non-gibson makers were on the ball, they'd start a group legal defense fund to combat these threatened lawsuits. It would do them all good to put some money together to assist Dean to take the suit to court and invalidate the patents. At the very least, it might make Gibson stop extorting them if they think there is a chance they might have to put real money behind defending their suit.
Best, Stevo

----------


## sblock

According to the source linked in post #166, Dean Guitars was making instruments with flying-V and explorer-inspired shapes for some 20 years before Gibson managed to somehow convince the USPTO to grant a trademark on these. Given this history, it will be nearly impossible for Gibson to prevail in any trademark dispute should this  matter go to court, because trademarks are invalid if they are 'diluted' by previous/other users, nor are they valid _ex post facto_.  You cannot, for example, go out and trademark the classic shape of a wine bottle!

It seems that Gibson is doing some loud posturing here, signifying little. _One wonders what their practical motivation could possibly be?_ Yes, they might be able to scare off a few small-shop luthiers here and there, but they're not going to be able to extract any payments from larger companies that can retain lawyers, like Dean Guitars. So this is not going to be a money-winner, and it is not going to inhibit competition in the marketplace, either.  Furthermore, Gibson is garnering a whole lot of very bad publicity -- not to mention *bad karma*! -- which is not going to help their brand.

Of course, the new Gibson management could just be acting stupidly.  I would not put that past them.

----------


## foldedpath

> It seems that Gibson is doing some loud posturing here, signifying little. _One wonders what their practical motivation could possibly be?_ Yes, they might be able to scare off a few small-shop luthiers here and there, but they're not going to be able to extract any payments from larger companies that can retain lawyers, like Dean Guitars.


The motivation, at least judging from the YouTube video that was pulled, seemed to be aimed not just at small shop luthiers, but at driving guitar buyers to buy the Gibson brand through FUD tactics (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). 

"_Hey guitar buyers out there, maybe the brand you're buying will go away and you won't get warranty support, after we sue them into the ground. Maybe it won't be worth much on resale when everyone thinks it's a counterfeit Gibson. Maybe we'll send black helicopters in the dead of night to take away your counterfeit copy of a Gibson guitar._"

None of this said out loud, but it can be read between the lines in that video. Maybe aimed at store owners too, suggesting dark outcomes if they continue to stock "non-authentic" guitars. Although enough store owners are PO'd at Gibson's distribution tactics that they probably don't care.

----------


## BillytheB

There's no such thing as bad press. They are front and center in just about every music publication. One can debate the wisdom of attracting this type of coverage but there have been many stories that should have torpedoed the subject that didn't. I seriously doubt this is the sole motivation but if the goal is to attract attention they have succeeded.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## NursingDaBlues

> Maybe aimed at store owners too, suggesting dark outcomes if they continue to stock "non-authentic" guitars. Although enough store owners are PO'd at Gibson's distribution tactics that they probably don't care.


Do you think Martin is pleased that they’re promoting “Authentic” guitars? Think I’ll comply and drag out a D-18 1937 Authentic.

----------


## John Bertotti

You know what I find odd? I don’t remember getting emails from Gibson before but today I did. I deleted and hit the unsubscribe button but I have no memory of ever having signed up for emails from a company that has products I have never been interested in.

----------


## soliver

Ultimately, this has no effect on me, but I have found all the reading to be very interesting and fun to discuss with Guitar-aficionado friends.

And I must say there is something of a sociopathic glare in the eye (as well as in the timber of his voice) of the leather clad Guitar bearer of that video.

It's like watching a subcultural history unfold... or implode.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

It's a tough business... This is making the rounds now.

----------

Jill McAuley, 

oliverkollar, 

Ryk Loske, 

seankeegan, 

sgarrity, 

T.D.Nydn, 

trodgers

----------


## GTison

After reading Dean Guitars reply to Gibson.  I hope that mandolin builders join in the consortium or form their own to undo or fight these claims.

----------

Jonathan Reinhardt

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I must say there is something of a sociopathic glare in the eye (as well as in the timber of his voice) of the leather clad Guitar bearer of that video.


I'll say. Someone is trying to look like Rob Halford.

----------

almeriastrings

----------


## f5loar

> It's a tough business... This is making the rounds now.


Funny you would post of photo of a Gibson Flying V.  A 1958 Flying V just sold a few weeks ago for $395,000.  About all I can say about Gibson and their mandolins is they are indeed making some of the finest they have made since late 20's.  As far as Gibson guitars both acoustic and electric, they do seem to be getting their fair share of the market in Rock and Roll and today's Country (which is just a spin off of Rock & Roll).  The current Gibson Co. is too big to be small and too small to be big.  That's not a good place to be in today's changing world wide market.

----------

Brad Grafton, 

brunello97

----------


## rcc56

Gibson just closed their Memphis plant.  They are getting smaller.  However, my young friend who works for them again mentioned that they are building a new corporate office in downtown Nashville.  The 60 employees who lost their jobs when the Memphis plant was liquidated probably are not too happy about that.

The few recent issue Gibson flat-tops I have played are hit or miss-- some were "good enough" [sorry about that] but not great, some are pretty weak because of heavy build and finish.  None were in the class of a good early '50's J-45 or a good '30's L-00, though.

The modern flat-tops with pickups do make good stage guitars.  The electronics are pretty good.

It's not easy to find an F-5 made in the last 10 years.  They have only been made in very small numbers.  Out of the 14 modern era F-5's for sale in the major Nashville stores right now, one was made in 2007.  The others were made in 2001 or earlier.

----------


## foldedpath

> Do you think Martin is pleased that theyre promoting Authentic guitars? Think Ill comply and drag out a D-18 1937 Authentic.


I'll join you and drag out an "authentic" mid-1930's, steel body fiddle-edge, roundneck Dobro. The last from what used to be a small collection I had. The brand name that Gibson killed.

It's a shame these '30's metal Dobros are in the wastebasket of history, unloved although they sound fantastic. Nobody was able to take up the torch like National Resophonic did with the biscuit cone resonator guitars, once Gibson locked up the name.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> Funny you would post of photo of a Gibson Flying V.  A 1958 Flying V just sold a few weeks ago for $395,000.  About all I can say about Gibson and their mandolins is they are indeed making some of the finest they have made since late 20's.  As far as Gibson guitars both acoustic and electric, they do seem to be getting their fair share of the market in Rock and Roll and today's Country (which is just a spin off of Rock & Roll).  The current Gibson Co. is too big to be small and too small to be big.  That's not a good place to be in today's changing world wide market.


That's a video, not an image posted above so if you click it you'll see the rest of the content which is getting widely discussed elsewhere. Some people think it's an important bit of information, some won't. That's not a Gibson he's holding and talking about.

I stated this at the outset but I'll reiterate more clearly in case anyone thinks I'm taking sides. My interest is the unfolding story and how it impacts the mandolin community and making sure those with an interest--builders, retailers, consumers-- get a more complete sense of what's going on. Much of this to my experience which includes a lot of years in corporate is business posturing, the folks at the top flexing their muscles. That's what you do when you're in those positions and its their right. The new folks driving the Gibson bus were hired to turn a profit first and that's what they're going to try to do. It's either that or they will get shown the door by the people that put them there if they think they aren't doing their job. Whether I agree with their methods or whether others here do or don't is a moot point and a lot of idle online chatter.

I do think much of the criticism of Mark Agnesi is over the top and mean spirited. He had a job to do communicating the message, likely at someone else's direction, and did so. So maybe a future at a TV News anchor is not his, but he knows the music business. The screw-up to my mind is no one at Gibson anticipated the response and then doubled down on a bad decision by pulling a video that's now widely available.

I'd like to see the company succeed, and but in the end what I think doesn't matter. That's for every individual to decide for themselves. There's long been a disconnect between the top at Gibson and the folks making the product and selling it. Don't see that changing. 

But I can say this with certainty: I've seen the contents of one (or possibly more) of the demand letters sent to a mandolin builder which was nothing short of eye popping and filled with inaccurate information. There's so much more going on here. Maybe it'll be public at some point, maybe it won't.

----------

Rush Burkhardt, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## mtucker

Although $350 million is a mere rounding error in a very small corner of KKR's investment space, rest assured that shareholder value will take precedence over all else and there will be extreme pressure placed on the operators to turn things around within a very short period of time. Often the biggest reason that 50% of all acquisitions fail is because of that very disconnect between the VC guys making decisions based on performance and the folks actually running the business tasked with keeping employees and customers happy.

----------


## Explorer

> I do think much of the criticism of Mark Agnesi is over the top and mean spirited. *He had a job to do communicating the message, likely at someone else's direction, and did so.* So maybe a future at a TV News anchor is not his, but he knows the music business.


I've never had a US job wherein I did't have the final say on whether or not I followed through on a order. On two occasions, the pay wasn't enough to have me abandon my own principles, and in all other cases I never was asked to do something against those principles. That acceptance of one's own personal responsibility for one's own actions is part of being a big boy, and of putting on one's big boy pants in the morning before work. 

Sorry, but I just couldn't leave the "just following orders!" defense out there without pointing out that his actions were the result of his personal choice in whether to follow through.

----------

Gan Ainm

----------


## Bad Monkey

> Funny you would post of photo of a Gibson Flying V.  A 1958 Flying V just sold a few weeks ago for $395,000.  About all I can say about Gibson and their mandolins is they are indeed making some of the finest they have made since late 20's.  As far as Gibson guitars both acoustic and electric, they do seem to be getting their fair share of the market in Rock and Roll and today's Country (which is just a spin off of Rock & Roll).  The current Gibson Co. is too big to be small and too small to be big.  That's not a good place to be in today's changing world wide market.


That's an Ibanez V.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> II just couldn't leave the "just following orders!" defense out there without pointing out that his actions were the result of his personal choice in whether to follow through.


We probably will never conclusively find out what was going on inside that head at the time of recording.
On one hand, there was too much emotion in his face for someone who is at peace with his own views.
On the other hand, there was too much emotion in his face for someone just reciting a learned text.

There is such a thing as seduction into persuasion, when someone absorbs pseudo-logic others have told him and agressively defends it. Dangerous people they are.

----------

Jess L.

----------


## Mandobar

If I were Mark, I’d be thinking “this isn’t what I signed up for”.  

I had one of those Ibanez V’s. It was awesome.  Unfortunately it was stolen along with a bunch of other instruments.

----------


## Jim Garber

> From the post made several hours ago here, since you can't link to those database searches without them expiring I took screen shots of the three which are posted below. I believe in that post, the contents of which were sent to us by a third party, the trademark number for the truss rod cover was incorrect so I used the one that was part of the letter sent to one of the builders that received this communication. Hoping some of them will weigh in here but won't hold my breath on that one.
> 
> You may need to click the images below to see all of the text contained within the images.


For your entertainment, this is from the Gibson site. As Scott noted they are trademarks and not necessarily patents. *Gibson Brands Registered Trademarks*

Perhaps some attorneys can tell us exactly what the legal difference is. For instance, what modifications would be needed on a design for a peghead inlay to not violate Gibson's trademark? If we had flowers in the flower pot or extra arms in the fern? Or does the violator have to copy the designs very closely?

There are also design _patents_ which would not register functionality but AFAIK are vaguely enforceable depending on how blatant the copying is.

----------

brunello97, 

Jess L., 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Steve Sorensen

From the Forum posting guidelines:

_- Refrain from using the forum as a point of purchasing or selling items or for the purpose of discussing or linking to items you are selling. Please limit selling and buying activities to the Classifieds section of this web site or other external locations._

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> For your entertainment, this is from the Gibson site. As Scott noted they are trademarks and not necessarily patents. [B]Gibson Brands Registered Trademarks.


  Wow,,I mean ,like WOW!...

----------


## Jim Garber

Back around 1936 a NJ company called Meissner Inventions sued the major American Companies who manufactured electric instruments. I believe that that included Gibson, Rickenbacker and Epiphone and probably a few others. Gibson and Rickenbacker told them to take a walk but you stil see a few Epiphone electric guitars and lap steels with a Meissner plate on the body. I suppose they paid a licensing fee to cover their patents. Eventually Epiphone realized that they didn't have to do it either. I don't know if that was as a result of countersuits or not. That was in the early days of electric instruments. In any case much of this is never cut and dry and has to sometimes be decided in court.

----------


## bjewell

The bottom line is that we all thought or hoped that the recent depressing era was over and we were hoping for sunny days ahead. It appears to be just the opposite. I dont care about Gibson anymore. I have a 2015 Gibson advanced jumbo luthiers choice. It is a fantastic guitar. But the entire management of Gibson could jump in the lake for all I care. Im confident the company will be owned by the Chinese within five years.

----------


## slimt

Pretty sad to see Gibson do this. I stopped buying new Gibsons when the wood issue came about and I did not feel that paying more for a name brand was good enough when there putting lower quality products on these.  richlite comes to mind  .  Putting beeswax finishes on a guitar. Like really?  The product now is like shopping at a walmart store. The box gets smaller but the price goes up. Ill bow out from buying another Gibson. Ill support the talented luthier crowd   .

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> For your entertainment, this is from the Gibson site. As Scott noted they are trademarks and not necessarily patents. *Gibson Brands Registered Trademarks*


BILL MONROE® (U.S. Reg. No. 4151360)
VIOLA® (U.S. Reg. No. 3852679)

Wow.

----------

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Jess L.

----------


## slimt

I actually find it pretty cool that there are guitar and mandolin builders far superior and way better in quality builds than Gibsons period . And those are worth spending the money on.

----------


## DHopkins

> BILL MONROE® (U.S. Reg. No. 4151360)
> VIOLA® (U.S. Reg. No. 3852679)
> 
> Wow.


There are others:

TENNESSEAN® (U.S. Reg. No. 38846555)  (That's also a newspaper in Nashville.)
THUNDERBIRD® (U.S. Reg. No. 3989004)
PURE® (U.S. Reg. No. 2644117)  (But not 99 44/100%)
ONE MORE TIME® (U.S. Reg. No. 4042789
WORN® (U.S. Reg. No. 4092717)  (That includes me.  Do I have to pay 'em for my old age?)

And the list goes on.  It borders on ridiculous.  No, it's ridiculous.

----------

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Jess L., 

Timbofood

----------


## Jess L.

> For your entertainment, this is from the Gibson site. As Scott noted they are trademarks and not necessarily patents. *Gibson Brands Registered Trademarks*...





> BILL MONROE® (U.S. Reg. No. 4151360)
> VIOLA® (U.S. Reg. No. 3852679)





> TENNESSEAN® (U.S. Reg. No. 38846555)  (That's also a newspaper in Nashville.)
> THUNDERBIRD® (U.S. Reg. No. 3989004)
> PURE® (U.S. Reg. No. 2644117)  (But not 99 44/100%)
> ONE MORE TIME® (U.S. Reg. No. 4042789
> WORN® (U.S. Reg. No. 4092717)  (That includes me.  Do I have to pay 'em for my old age?)
> 
> And the list goes on.  It borders on ridiculous.  No, it's ridiculous.



 :Disbelief:  Reminds me of the 1990s parody about another large corporation - Microsoft *copyrights God*: 

_"Microsoft Corporation today announced its intent to purchase, copyright, and upgrade God. The new product would be named, predictably enough, "Microsoft God..."_

----------


## rcc56

197 posts in 4 1/2 days, the majority of them not very favorable to Gibson.
Even if they win a settlement, they are probably not helping themselves . . .

----------


## almeriastrings

Shame they forgot about 'The Loar'  :Laughing:

----------

Kevin Winn, 

Timbofood

----------


## brunello97

Here's hoping Gibson kicks axx and takes names in this.  
In the almost 100 years since the iconic LL mandolins (and the decade of great design before that), designers still can't come up with their own designs? 
Such designers _still_ copy the designs that another company's designers produced and count on their adherence to those design specifications as "proof" of their quality?  
And everyone demonizes Gibson?  GMAB.
Really a sad case being made here.  And the quoting of "copyright" laws makes it only that much more pathetic.
More power to Gibson.
Let's see some more design originality from contemporary mandolin makers.  And from buyers.  
You want a Gibson design? Buy a Gibson.
You want an original design?  Buy one from an original designer.
Stop copying. _Design._ Man up.  
Quit being such crybabies.

Mick

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Hudmister, 

KMaynard, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## John Bertotti

How many truly uniques guitar shapes are there, with electric guitars there are some but acoustic, there are a lot that are so close as to be almost the same. It's a design that people like, same with Mandolins. There are some basic designs and I don't care who makes it if Gibson had something truly unique they had their time with it, didn't defend it like they should have and now want all rights to it back BS.

----------


## Frankdolin

We know corporations have no soul so it kinda surprised me when they needed a tool, a " spokesperson" , they were very successful. Except it was the wrong kind of "tool".  :Disbelief:

----------


## Mandobar

If you want to see corporations that have a “soul” look no further than Patagonia, the outdoor outfitter or any B Corp.  Not every company is totally about money.  Patagonia does very well, despite their higher pricing.  

Gibson is still operating under the 1980’s management by intimidation approach.  Sooner or later they will either change that channel or go off the air.  How a company could be so self absorbed and self destructive is beyond comprehension.

----------

Jill McAuley

----------


## seankeegan



----------

Jill McAuley

----------


## Jim Hilburn

They never really sold any of those Strats but still they did reverse the slant of the bridge pickup. That would have made it unique wouldn't it?
They've definitely sold both Tele's and Strat's (with ugly pegheads) as Epiphones though.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

What about the 3 pointer and the torch and wire inlay? Is that up for grabs?  Gibson should add that on to their list...

----------


## Mandobar

If they have not registered the trademark by now it’s going to be hard to get through the process now.  Notice the F5 and A shapes are not trademarked.  More than likely they are too generic now to trademark.

In order to trademark you have to establish that the design is unique to your company.  Anything that has been and is being used by a multitude of companies will be hard to trademark.  IP law is complicated and there are steps that need to be taken before protections can be put in place.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Here's hoping Gibson kicks axx and takes names in this.  
> In the almost 100 years since the iconic LL mandolins (and the decade of great design before that), designers still can't come up with their own designs? 
> Such designers _still_ copy the designs that another company's designers produced and count on their adherence to those design specifications as "proof" of their quality?  
> And everyone demonizes Gibson?  GMAB.
> Really a sad case being made here.  And the quoting of "copyright" laws makes it only that much more pathetic.
> More power to Gibson.
> Let's see some more design originality from contemporary mandolin makers.  And from buyers.  
> You want a Gibson design? Buy a Gibson.
> You want an original design?  Buy one from an original designer.
> ...


Thank you for that!  All the individuals saying they will never buy a Gibson?  That's fine don't buy one!  Vote with your wallet if it makes you happy -- it's certainly your right.  But really who cares?   Well maybe some do but I don't -- sorry.  

Buy one of the mandolins from a smaller/independent luthiers then it will make you happy and it will help them stay in business and make a profit and to stay in business.  Win - win.

All the talk about corporations having no soul, heart or morals.  Is anyone surprised or shocked to discover that?  Corporations are like people they have their good times and their bad times -- no person is perfect and no corporation is perfect. Gibson is no exception --they have done good things and bad things.  

I really don't think Gibson will soon fade from the scene.  But if they do it will just be one more iconic brand and a big chapter in the history of American musical instruments to disappear into history and I don't think that would improve anyone's life actually. 

But it might make *actual* Gibson instruments more valuable perhaps?

BTW just for the record I certainly hope that this action by Gibson Inc. does not actually "threaten" the livelihood any mandolin builder or any other private luthier.  And I don't think it will.

----------

KMaynard, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> If they have not registered the trademark by now its going to be hard to get through the process now.  Notice the F5 and A shapes are not trademarked.  More than likely they are too generic now to trademark.
> 
> In order to trademark you have to establish that the design is unique to your company.  Anything that has been and is being used by a multitude of companies will be hard to trademark.  IP law is complicated and there are steps that need to be taken before protections can be put in place.


If you are correct no one has anything to worry about then?

----------


## Mandobar

> If you are correct no one has anything to worry about then?


There is a post from an IP lawyer some pages back who works in the industry, who stated somewhat the same thing.  

However, it doesn’t stop the company from making threats, or dragging folks into court.  It’s the equivalent of getting a notice of deficiency from the IRS.  There’s a sense of fear from receiving “legal notices”.  People react, and social media tends to magnify those issues that involve what people see as insolent behavior. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

----------

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

DHopkins, 

Jess L.

----------


## DHopkins

> Here's hoping Gibson kicks axx and takes names in this.  
> In the almost 100 years since the iconic LL mandolins (and the decade of great design before that), designers still can't come up with their own designs? 
> Such designers _still_ copy the designs that another company's designers produced and count on their adherence to those design specifications as "proof" of their quality?  
> And everyone demonizes Gibson?  GMAB.
> Really a sad case being made here.  And the quoting of "copyright" laws makes it only that much more pathetic.
> More power to Gibson.
> Let's see some more design originality from contemporary mandolin makers.  And from buyers.  
> You want a Gibson design? Buy a Gibson.
> You want an original design?  Buy one from an original designer.
> ...


Design specifications are not proof of quality. They are proof of design.  And no one is demonizing Gibson.  Let's face it, their business model hasn't been the best of late.   Overall, they're usually pretty good quality but they've placed themselves on a pedestal and expect everyone to bow down and kiss the bucket of flowers between the tuners.  

The bankruptcy in their recent history is proof that the world isn't lining up to buy their products.  That, coupled with the fact that they limit who can sell their new mandolins, for instance, probably indicates they think their perceived pedestal status is valid.  And, like I said, while Gibson products are generally at least pretty good, there are taller pedestals in the market.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

We're talking mainly about mandolins here, so in response to Brunello's comments, think of applying the sentence "If you want a Gibson design, buy a Gibson" to 1975. The mandolin you would end up with would be very dissapointing and to make matters worse you would have almost no option available. There was no Weber, Collings, or Flatiron. There were Ibanez and Aria, but those didn't get it either.
There were a few individuals who took it upon themselves to build as close as they could replica's of the original F-5 . And as time went on and Gibson still refused to build an acceptable alternative even with an ever growing demand more and more builders got in the game. When Gibson (after the new ownership) saw what was happening they sued Flatiron which was about the first company making F models in large numbers even though they were incapable of building mandolins themselves. They had to buy Flatiron and have them do the building for them!
So in short, Gibson is a late comer to the modern mandolin game even though what most people want is a mandolin like the original Gibson company made in the early 20's.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Bogle, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Jess L.

----------


## KMaynard

> So in short, Gibson is a late comer to the modern mandolin game even though what most people want is a mandolin like the original Gibson company made in the early 20's.


What you say is generically correct. However, I think to be totally correct, you should add "What Gibson researched, tested, innovated, designed and patented back in the '20's is what most people want." 

While Gibson might not have made many mandolins in the 70's, or any other era for that matter, that doesn't give anyone a right to infringe on their IP if Gibson legally owns the trademark or patent on any design or product. In my opinion, they have every right to seek recourse to protect their property. Again, just my opinion.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Bill McCall

> What you say is generically correct. However, I think to be totally correct, you should add "What Gibson researched, tested, innovated, designed and patented back in the '20's is what most people want."


To be “totally correct”, Gibson didn’t patent ANY of the items discussed, in the 1920’s or anytime else.  They do have trademarks across a number of years, like any company (Coke or Pepsi).  And they didn’t trademark any of the acoustic body designs.  You can look on the Gibson site to verify that.

----------

hank, 

Jess L.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> We're talking mainly about mandolins here, so in response to Brunello's comments, think of applying the sentence "If you want a Gibson design, buy a Gibson" to 1975. The mandolin you would end up with would be very dissapointing and to make matters worse you would have almost no option available. There was no Weber, Collings, or Flatiron. There were Ibanez and Aria, but those didn't get it either.
> There were a few individuals who took it upon themselves to build as close as they could replica's of the original F-5 . And as time went on and Gibson still refused to build an acceptable alternative even with an ever growing demand more and more builders got in the game. When Gibson (after the new ownership) saw what was happening they sued Flatiron which was about the first company making F models in large numbers even though they were incapable of building mandolins themselves. They had to buy Flatiron and have them do the building for them!
> So in short, Gibson is a late comer to the modern mandolin game even though what most people want is a mandolin like the original Gibson company made in the early 20's.


I think what you say is mostly true although thanks to Roger Siminoff I would suggest that Gibson more or less got back into the game in 1978 with the release of the F-5L?  So they were not really so late to the modern mandolin party OMO.  I would say that the first serious, quality copies of the Gibson F-5, even with "The Gibson" on the head-stock, started in the early '70s? 

In my opinion, those early builders of quality F-5s SHOULD have told the BG musicians to pound sand and put THEIR OWN NAME on the head stock?  When someone makes a mandolin that is actually BETTER than the one you are making and then puts YOUR NAME on the head stock why would you (or Gibson) say anything about it? LOL!!

But adding the adjective "modern" to mandolin does not change the fact the Gibson Inc built the first F-5 and many others are still copying them.  Yes some might make a better mandolin then Gibson but again that is not relevant to the copyrights/patent issue is it?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ...And no one is demonizing Gibson.


I would beg to differ.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ..Welcome to the twenty-first century.


Exactly. And so why is everyone so upset - - this is business as usual?

----------


## Explorer

> What you say is generically correct. However, I think to be totally correct, you should add "What Gibson researched, tested, innovated, designed and patented back in the '20's is what most people want." 
> 
> While Gibson might not have made many mandolins in the 70's, or any other era for that matter, that doesn't give anyone a right to infringe on their IP *if Gibson legally owns the trademark or patent on any design or product*. In my opinion, they have every right to seek recourse to protect their property. Again, just my opinion.


Part of *still* owning a legal trademark is having vigorously defended that trademark against all comers. In this set of cases/trademarks dating back decades, Gibson didn't do so, which legally would make those designs piblic domain. 

Additionally, certain of the trademarks were only recently filed with designs added retroactively, in spite of years of such designs having been in the public domain due to lack of vigorous defense and enforcement. 

That's why Dean and a group,of others have now been moving to challenge the recent attempt to recall these designs from the public domain, doing so at the trademark level. 

Out of curiosity, how do you justify the long periods without Gibson's vigorous protection, as required by law to retain such trademarks, with your opinion that Gibson still legally maintains the rights to that which they didn't defend?

Additionally, how do you defend opinion that Gibson is entitled to trademarks on design facets which they only trademarked recently, long after they were public domain?

I'm genuinely trying to understand how people are appearing to gloss over those essential points, whether through genuinely not knowing about those facts, or deliberately not mentioning them because those facts weaken Gibson's case(s). That's why I'm hoping for an explanation which satisfactorily explains why those disqualifying facts regarding these trademark claims are actually irrelevant in this one particular case with respect to the actual law. 

Cheers!

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

DHopkins, 

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> I think what you say is mostly true although thanks to Roger Siminoff I would suggest that Gibson more or less got back into the game in 1978 with the release of the F-5L?  So they were not really so late to the modern mandolin party OMO.  I would say that the first serious, quality copies of the Gibson F-5, even with "The Gibson" on the head-stock, started in the early '70s?


I agree Bernie, that the introduction of the F5L was a big step in the right direction in Gibson's return to building a respectable mandolin. But it took those other "builders getting in the game (approximate quote from Jim Hilburn)" to force them in that direction. 




> Here's hoping Gibson kicks axx and takes names in this.  
> In the almost 100 years since the iconic LL mandolins (and the decade of great design before that), designers still can't come up with their own designs? 
> Such designers _still_ copy the designs that another company's designers produced and count on their adherence to those design specifications as "proof" of their quality?  
> And everyone demonizes Gibson?  GMAB.
> Really a sad case being made here.  And the quoting of "copyright" laws makes it only that much more pathetic.
> More power to Gibson.
> Let's see some more design originality from contemporary mandolin makers.  And from buyers.  
> You want a Gibson design? Buy a Gibson.
> You want an original design?  Buy one from an original designer.
> ...


Posts like Brunello's offer a nice sounding show of respect to the company that started it all. Unfortunately, those same posts are a slap in the face to Hutto, Wood, Duff, Gilchrist and many others that have made possible the wonderful choices we enjoy today.




> Quit being such crybabies.
> 
> Mick


That request could certainly made of both sides.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Bogle, 

craigw

----------


## Br1ck

Prior to this Gibson was doing a pretty bang up job with their fresh start approach. They were cleaning up their act, and going back to the basics, building the guitars most people want to buy. They hired a guy that was familiar and well liked to be their new face. I was feeling pretty good about them, but always in the back of my mind I was wondering when KKR was going to screw it up. Well, we found out.

When I was watching the new Gibson videos I saw a guy genuinely enthusiastic about guitars. I was rooting for them. Yes, I fell for the leather jacket CEO and all. I added Gibson to the list of mandolins I'd consider. Still will in the used market. I fear they have left a permanent stain.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

http://siminoff.net/cms/wp-content/u...of-the-F5L.pdf

I just re-read this. Good insight into where the Corp was back then. Couldn't convince them there was enough of a market.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Let's see some more design originality from contemporary mandolin makers.  And from buyers.  
> You want a Gibson design? Buy a Gibson.
> You want an original design?  Buy one from an original designer.


Let's not forget that the F-Style mandolin ist basically a cartoon character version of the Italian violin, with F-holes in place and the scroll transplanted from headstock to body. Any modern design is just a citation of (and often a bow to) another earlier design. Buying from the original designer is OK if you chance to meet Sig. Stradivari.

----------

bratsche, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Jeff Hildreth, 

Jess L.

----------


## rstaight

I have been reading about this BS from Gibson. They started going after Armadillo who owns Dean and Luna.

The 2 issues that Gibson will loose is the trademark infringement for the Flying V and Explorer models.

These models are Dean's V and Z. Gibson did register these in 1995 and 1997. Dean has been building these since the mid 70's.

A day late and a dollar short.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Part of *still* owning a legal trademark is having vigorously defended that trademark against all comers. In this set of cases/trademarks dating back decades, Gibson didn't do so, which legally would make those designs piblic domain. 
> 
> Additionally, certain of the trademarks were only recently filed with designs added retroactively, in spite of years of such designs having been in the public domain due to lack of vigorous defense and enforcement. 
> 
> That's why Dean and a group,of others have now been moving to challenge the recent attempt to recall these designs from the public domain, doing so at the trademark level. 
> 
> Out of curiosity, how do you justify the long periods without Gibson's vigorous protection, as required by law to retain such trademarks, with your opinion that Gibson still legally maintains the rights to that which they didn't defend?
> 
> Additionally, how do you defend opinion that Gibson is entitled to trademarks on design facets which they only trademarked recently, long after they were public domain?
> ...


Of course you have your opinions and others have theirs.  But no one here has to "justify" the actions of Gibson vis a vis their right to any claim of proprietary ownership of any design or design feature? 

Gibson has a right to make their claims, they are doing it, and in the end these claims will be settled via the legal system I suppose. 

Likewise no one has to "justify" their opinions about the matter?  They are after all opinions.  

In my case I think Gibson was remiss not to have made all these claims decades ago but they screwed up and didn't do it.  That is on them.

No doubt Gibson was a very "loosely" run company.  They had to have others (i.e., their customers and enthusiasts) figure out what they made and when they made it -- their internal "records" were a joke. Martin can tell probably tell you the temperature on the day the guitar was made.  But Martin is not nearly as complicated or far reaching of a company as Gibson with their mandolins, mandolas, mandocellos, tenor banjos and guitars, 5-strings, tenor lutes. mandolin banjos, all kinds of guitars and violins and I am leaving a lot of things out.  I could go on but all that stuff is well known. 

On the other hand Gibson because of all that is an iconic brand with a history dating back over a century - folk music might not be the same without a Gibson and their great (most of the time) instruments.  I take the good with the bad and I love Gibson some don't and that's fine with me.

Today Gibson is making great instruments again.  If they want to try to reclaim some of their history and work they can and they will.  We'll all see how successful they are in this bid.  

I state again I doubt any private mandolin makers will be impacted much.  Mandolins are not on Gibson's "big picture" radar these days.  And I'm glad because their mandolin builders can work in peace building the best mandolins the company ever made!

As well, younger bluegrass and other musicians don't care as much about the name on the head stock -- they want the instrument to perform.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> Let's not forget that the F-Style mandolin ist basically a cartoon character version of the Italian violin, with F-holes in place and the scroll transplanted from headstock to body. Any modern design is just a citation of (and often a bow to) another earlier design. Buying from the original designer is OK if you chance to meet Sig. Stradivari.


Bertram,I don't think the F5 was taken to much from a violin,Orville was influenced by the Victorian era art in which he lived,,everything was scrolls,leaves,flowers and carvings,the f holes came much later...I'm not dissagreeing with you,I think the 3 pt body and inlays and such is,very Victorian also..

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> http://siminoff.net/cms/wp-content/u...of-the-F5L.pdf
> 
> I just re-read this. Good insight into where the Corp was back then. Couldn't convince them there was enough of a market.


 Yeah Roger said at one point that Ed Rendall (spelling?) about threw him out of Kalamazoo when Roger made a less then encouraging remark about what were probably the worst mandolins Gibson ever made, the 1970 re-design.  I once owned a 1972 F-12 with Ed's signature in it.  That mandolin sounded exactly like the Morgan Monroe MMS-3 that I also owned at the time.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I agree Bernie, that the introduction of the F5L was a big step in the right direction in Gibson's return to building a respectable mandolin. But it took those other "builders getting in the game (approximate quote from Jim Hilburn)" to force them in that direction. 
> 
> 
> Posts like Brunello's offer a nice sounding show of respect to the company that started it all. Unfortunately, those same posts are a slap in the face to Hutto, Wood, Duff, Gilchrist and many others that have made possible the wonderful choices we enjoy today...


Just for the record can anyone supply the dates when Hutto, Wood, Duff, Gilchrist, Carlson, and others who made higher end F-5s got started with a commercial product available to the mandolin community?

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Bertram,I don't think the F5 was taken to much from a violin,Orville was influenced by the Victorian era art in which he lived,,everything was scrolls,leaves,flowers and carvings,the f holes came much later...I'm not dissagreeing with you,I think the 3 pt body and inlays and such is,very Victorian also..


Granted, you find many of those stylistic elements in furniture of the era as well. It just shows that re-use of design has been and is still going on all the time. Under these circumstances, doing what is normal and then holding fast to it 
, saying "that's mine, stay off ye villains" is no longer normal, like claiming intellectual ownership of a seashell you found on the beach.

----------


## rcc56

Gilchrist made 9 instruments from 1976 to '77, 39 in '78, and 30 in '79.  He has maintained production continuously since then, except for a break from early 1985 to early 1987.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Granted, you find many of those stylistic elements in furniture of the era as well. It just shows that re-use of design has been and is still going on all the time. Under these circumstances, doing what is normal and then holding fast to it 
> , saying "that's mine, stay off ye villains" is no longer normal, like claiming intellectual ownership of a seashell you found on the beach.


Bertram noted

But would you say that same philosophy applies to tunes and songs now -- just a sea shell found on the beach?

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Bertram noted
> 
> But would you say that same philosophy applies to tunes and songs now -- just a sea shell found on the beach?


Well, for the genre I am aquainted with (ITM, that is) it certainly does. They call it tradition, or put in other words: if you know one Irish tune, you know them both. Half of any new tune I learn today consists of building blocks I already know. There are many tunes in ITM where the composer is known, but none of these composers ever arrived at the idea of copyrighting anything (which would be in vain anyway because every player creates his own version).

----------

Jess L., 

Jill McAuley

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Gilchrist made 9 instruments from 1976 to '77, 39 in '78, and 30 in '79.  He has maintained production continuously since then, except for a break from early 1985 to early 1987.


Thanks!  So Gilchrist was about 1 or 2 years ahead of the F-5L?

Of course Randy Wood in Georgia was making Gibson copies in the early 1970s.

Another "competitive"  F-5 mandolin was the Japanese-made Kentucky mandolins that all started in the early 1980s but this was after the F-5L was launched in 1978.

And Flatiron started selling excellent F-5 mandolins in 1987 correct?  They were bought out maybe a few years later and moved to Nashville in 1996 -- the were not head and shoulders better than the F-5L though.

I'm just suggesting that except for the work of a few private luthiers (e.g., Randy Wood and a few others) Gibson was not really so "late to the party" in the building quality F-5 mandolins again?  Of course all the credit for that goes to Roger Siminoff because Norlin had no clue.  They actually thought the 1969 -- late 1970s mandolins with the straight slot neck were state of the art!   Norlin is the main reason Gibson did not get back to building a real F-5 sooner.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Well, for the genre I am aquainted with (ITM, that is) it certainly does. They call it tradition, or put in other words: if you know one Irish tune, you know them both. Half of any new tune I learn today consists of building blocks I already know. There are many tunes in ITM where the composer is known, but none of these composers ever arrived at the idea of copyrighting anything (which would be in vain anyway because every player creates his own version).


Fair enough!

----------


## slimt

They kinda flooded the market .

----------

Simon DS

----------


## Timbofood

> Yeah Roger said at one point that Ed Rendall (spelling?) about threw him out of Kalamazoo when Roger made a less then encouraging remark about what were probably the worst mandolins Gibson ever made, the 1970 re-design.  I once owned a 1972 F-12 with Ed's signature in it.  That mandolin sounded exactly like the Morgan Monroe MMS-3 that I also owned at the time.


I may be mistaken but that might have been Rendell Wall not Ed Rendall. I’m sure someone here will set the record straight.

----------


## HoGo

I don't know much about guitar market, but you need to know history of the instruments and it's production. If we look just at F-5 with it's "iconic design" it is just remake of the Orville Gibson's designs that were just compilations of the popular designs of the era - I recall there was a thread where headstock with scrolls was posted that predates Orville by few years. Scrolls and points on bodies were used by more companies as well. Also arched tops with f holes were made before Orville. Gibson himself didn't trademark his design when he was the sole maker and even after he sold his name to form Gibson company, they didn't trademark it either, they patented few new things more or less succesfull (like truss rod concept) so they knew about IP laws but they didn't claim trademarksfor the designs. The mandolin production of Gibson went sharply downhill after 20's and pretty much stopped. And now comes the "icon" it's Bill Monroe - he was the man who discovered that old F-5 in the barbershop and started playing it. He has been playing several other mandolins (Gibson and other) but settled upon that one. Gibson was no longer able to even repair decently those mandolins not to build one so folks playing the new genre started looking for either old Gibsons or they had to build them themselves - that's how majority of the first generation mandolin makers started. The demand for F-5 was not because of the design but because Bill Monroe played it - heck, folks even started wearing pants, boots and hats exactly like he did ... He was the icon in the design.
Gibson didn't care at all till 1978 when outsider (Siminoff) had to come and tell them the train has left the station. They slowly strated building mandolins but the mandolins were nothing special and other makers had been making better mandolins and certainly more of them. This slowly led to the Flatiron acquisition but by the time they were just one of many makers.
You should also note that Gibson has not been making "entry level" mandolins (like they used to do in teens or 20's) so that part was entirely left on Japanese, Korean or Chinese companies and many of the beginners who started playing bluegrass on one of the cheap imports secretly lusted for Gibson but Gibson was not able to deliver the quality that many smaller or larger builders did.
Similar fate happened to some of the iconic guitar models - they became iconic because of the iconic players who started using them few years after not-so-good start, not because folks immediately realized how "timeless" trademark-worthy design they had.
Just imagine if everyone around filled their cola into same red bottles for years - do you think Coca-Cola could get back the design for their sole use after leaving it in the wild?

----------

Jess L., 

Rush Burkhardt, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I may be mistaken but that might have been Rendell Wall not Ed Rendall. Im sure someone here will set the record straight.


Stanley E. Rendell (1970-1975) 

On the Gibson "Head Luthiers" list, people that signed labels. Roger mentions Stand Rendell in that that thread.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Stanley E. Rendell (1970-1975) 
> 
> On the Gibson "Head Luthiers" list, people that signed labels. Roger mentions Stand Rendell in that that thread.


Yeah Stanley -- I was thinking of Ed Rendell former governor of PA! LOL!

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## rcc56

For the record, Flatiron started making mandolins in 1977.  Gibson bought them in 1987.  Flatiron had been making carved mandolins in significant numbers by 1983.  I believe that most of the pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were A models, although an F model was also available.

The pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were good instruments.  One could argue that they were the best factory-made instruments of the period.

We had only a handful of independent makers in those days-- Gilchrist, Monteleone, Randy Wood, Bob Givens, Gene Horner, Tom Morgan, Lou Stiver, and Rolfe Gerhardt [Unicorn].  The explosion of small shop mandolin makers is a 21st century phenomenon.

Someone posted a link to an article saying that Gibson threatened Flatiron before they bought them out.  I had not heard that before.  I always assumed that Gibson bought them to eliminate the competition, and to get the factory and some of the workers.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I don't know much about guitar market, but you need to know history of the instruments and it's production. If we look just at F-5 with it's "iconic design" it is just remake of the Orville Gibson's designs that were just compilations of the popular designs of the era - I recall there was a thread where headstock with scrolls was posted that predates Orville by few years. Scrolls and points on bodies were used by more companies as well. Also arched tops with f holes were made before Orville. Gibson himself didn't trademark his design when he was the sole maker and even after he sold his name to form Gibson company, they didn't trademark it either, they patented few new things more or less succesfull (like truss rod concept) so they knew about IP laws but they didn't claim trademarksfor the designs. The mandolin production of Gibson went sharply downhill after 20's and pretty much stopped. And now comes the "icon" it's Bill Monroe - he was the man who discovered that old F-5 in the barbershop and started playing it. He has been playing several other mandolins (Gibson and other) but settled upon that one. Gibson was no longer able to even repair decently those mandolins not to build one so folks playing the new genre started looking for either old Gibsons or they had to build them themselves - that's how majority of the first generation mandolin makers started. The demand for F-5 was not because of the design but because Bill Monroe played it - heck, folks even started wearing pants, boots and hats exactly like he did ... He was the icon in the design.
> Gibson didn't care at all till 1978 when outsider (Siminoff) had to come and tell them the train has left the station. They slowly strated building mandolins but the mandolins were nothing special and other makers had been making better mandolins and certainly more of them. This slowly led to the Flatiron acquisition but by the time they were just one of many makers.
> You should also note that Gibson has not been making "entry level" mandolins (like they used to do in teens or 20's) so that part was entirely left on Japanese, Korean or Chinese companies and many of the beginners who started playing bluegrass on one of the cheap imports secretly lusted for Gibson but Gibson was not able to deliver the quality that many smaller or larger builders did.
> Similar fate happened to some of the iconic guitar models - they became iconic because of the iconic players who started using them few years after not-so-good start, not because folks immediately realized how "timeless" trademark-worthy design they had.
> Just imagine if everyone around filled their cola into same red bottles for years - do you think Coca-Cola could get back the design for their sole use after leaving it in the wild?


Yes Adrain no doubt it was Bill Monroe the put the Gibson F-5 back in the spotlight in 1945 after it had languished for over two decades.  The crash of the "mandolin craze" and the birth of the F-5 was bad timing!

As to Gibson "not being able to repair" Monroe's F-5 wasn't that more a case of miscommunication?  Gibson pretty much proved in 1983 that they could put an F-5 back together from splinters even?!

About Gibson not caring I think that is true and why would they?  Because except for a handful of folks playing something called new and located down south  called "Bluegrass" no one cared much about mandolins at all in the USA at least? 

The big mandolin orchestras had almost all broken up.  So the only musicians besides bluegrass pickers who were into mandolins were the former members of those old orchestras -- they were banded together mostly as members of the FIGA (the Fretted Instrument Guild of America) which was headquartered in Chicago.  For FIGA players the top of the line mandolin was the F-4  for the most part - they did not pay too much attention to the F-5 it seems to me?  I used to be a member of FIGA -- back in the 70s and I attended a few of their national conventions.  Lots of fun!   :Smile: 

As to quality. This is just my opinion but I would put the F-5L almost on a par with the mandolins the Flatiron started making 10 years later.  In fact isn't it likely that Steve Carlson used the F-5L as a guide to his Flatirons?  I'm not really sure about that statement or relative quality because there was only one time in my life that I ever played a Flatiron F-style Performer and a Gibson F-5L in the same place at the same time and that was in the Famous Old Time Music Center in Carthage, Ohio about 1999 or so.   :Mandosmiley:

----------


## T.D.Nydn

The best thing H.J. did was buy Flatiron,after that it was excessive spending,,but that brought Steve Carlson on board and I think that started another upward trend in quality..

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Gibsons mandolin history really doesn't matter until they start accusing others of ripping them off.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## slimt

The words getting out there quick . I truly think Gibsons loosing alot of fan base.  After whats been posted. I can see why.

----------

Jess L.

----------


## Jess L.

> 197 posts in 4 1/2 days, the majority of them not very favorable to Gibson.
> Even if they win a settlement, they are probably not helping themselves . . .





> The words getting out there quick . I truly think Gibsons loosing alot of fan base.  After whats been posted. I can see why.


Yep. Once public opinion turns against them, which it looks like is well in progress right now (among musicians anyway, dunno about collectors) after that unfortunate video, things will likely not go particularly well for them. 

Generally speaking, whether advertising/marketing or politics or whatever, once the public (and customers and potential/former customers and supporters) have arrived at a certain mindset for whatever reason, it's an uphill battle to persuade them otherwise. Customers lost tend to stay lost, hard to win them back once they're gone. 





> ... If we look just at F-5 with it's "iconic design" it is just remake of the Orville Gibson's designs that were just compilations of the popular designs of the era - I recall there was a thread where headstock with *scrolls* was posted that *predates Orville* by few years. Scrolls and points on bodies were used by more companies as well. Also *arched tops* with *f holes* were made *before Orville*. Gibson himself didn't trademark his design when he was the sole maker and even after he sold his name to form Gibson company, they didn't trademark it either, they patented few new things more or less succesfull (like truss rod concept) so they knew about IP laws but they didn't claim trademarks for the designs. ...


Well that should settle that, then.  :Smile:  But who knows what clever tricks they'll have their lawyers try to get away with, hoping that no one will know the difference...

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> For the record, Flatiron started making mandolins in 1977.  Gibson bought them in 1987.  Flatiron had been making carved mandolins in significant numbers by 1983.  I believe that most of the pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were A models, although an F model was also available.
> 
> The pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were good instruments.  One could argue that they were the best factory-made instruments of the period.
> 
> We had only a handful of independent makers in those days-- Gilchrist, Monteleone, Randy Wood, Bob Givens, Gene Horner, Tom Morgan, Lou Stiver, and Rolfe Gerhardt [Unicorn].  The explosion of small shop mandolin makers is a 21st century phenomenon.
> 
> Someone posted a link to an article saying that Gibson threatened Flatiron before they bought them out.  I had not heard that before.  I always assumed that Gibson bought them to eliminate the competition, and to get the factory and some of the workers.


Thanks for that list of independent builder back in the day.  Most of the names I have heard of but I really did not know who was building when.

Are you sure about Flatiron dates?  I assumed 1987 from a sentence that Bruce Weber posted on his sight but the sentence is a bit ambiguous so I may have miss read it.  

So the Flatiron F-5s and the Gibson F-5L basically came to the market at the same time then?  

I had never heard the story that Gibson threatened Flatiron --i.e. to cease and desist?  I also thought the purchase was to get volume production as Gibson had only three individuals in-house who could make the F-5L.  But there are individuals on this forum who would know that for sure what happened back then.  Steve Carlson has commented several times on this forum including a lot of details on how they got started with Flatiron but I do not recall him mentioning any coercion?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> There are others:
> 
> TENNESSEAN® (U.S. Reg. No. 38846555)  (That's also a newspaper in Nashville.)
> THUNDERBIRD® (U.S. Reg. No. 3989004)
> PURE® (U.S. Reg. No. 2644117)  (But not 99 44/100%)
> ONE MORE TIME® (U.S. Reg. No. 4042789
> WORN® (U.S. Reg. No. 4092717)  (That includes me.  Do I have to pay 'em for my old age?)
> 
> And the list goes on.  It borders on ridiculous.  No, it's ridiculous.


It might seem ridiculous to you but you don't own Gibson.  Most companies do things like that. All of the automakers have each patented thousands of names -- names they really never intend to use most likely but they are names that they don't what their competitors to have access either.  Its common business practice and it is naive to think otherwise?  

Fiat-Chrysler just got a patent on the name "Saint".  Why?  Because they don't want Ford or GM to make a car called the "Saint" and claim it will crush the Dodge "Hellcats" and"Demons".  It is called PR and it is part of business.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Yep. Once public opinion turns against them, which it looks like is well in progress right now (among musicians anyway, dunno about collectors) after that unfortunate video, things will likely not go particularly well for them. 
> 
> Generally speaking, whether advertising/marketing or politics or whatever, once the public (and customers and potential/former customers and supporters) have arrived at a certain mindset for whatever reason, it's an uphill battle to persuade them otherwise. Customers lost tend to stay lost, hard to win them back once they're gone. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that should settle that, then.  But who knows what clever tricks they'll have their lawyers try to get away with, hoping that no one will know the difference...


I think to posit that "public opinion" (as in the instrument buying world "out there") would correspond to the opinions of a dozen or so members of the Mandolin Cafe forum is a bit of a stretch?   :Smile: 

I'd say 99.99% of instrument buyers will never hear of this discussion nor while they hear or probably care about the Gibson legal actions either?  My opinion of course.

Is there any evidence that Gibson is coming after any independent *mandolin* maker at this time?  I'm asking as I have not heard of any but perhaps I am uninformed about some developments? 

I do know Gibson made a claim on the fern head stock pattern a few years ago but are there any other examples of such on mandolins (also there is the claim on the truss rod cover and flowerpots).

----------


## DHopkins

> It might seem ridiculous to you but you don't own Gibson.  Most companies do things like that. All of the automakers have each patented thousands of names -- names they really never intend to use most likely but they are names that they don't what their competitors to have access either.  Its common business practice and it is naive to think otherwise?  
> 
> Fiat-Chrysler just got a patent on the name "Saint".  Why?  Because they don't want Ford or GM to make a car called the "Saint" and claim it will crush the Dodge "Hellcats" and"Demons".  It is called PR and it is part of business.


You're right.  I don't own Gibson (but if I did, I would have done things differently a long time ago, but that another story).  Anyway, being prolific doesn't legitimize the process.  Well, maybe it does, in a way.  That's the way they do business.  I think I'll register "air," "rain," "water" and maybe I'll come up with some more later.  My law firm of Delay, Knockwood & Pray (a division of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe) will handle my lawsuits.

----------


## rcc56

To answer Bernie's question about Flatirons, the carved models had been available for several years before Gibson bought them in May of 1987.  The majority of them were A models.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the claim that Gibson threatened Flatiron with legal action before they purchased them.  Perhaps someone from Flatiron can tell us whether or not that claim is accurate.

According to UPI, Monroe's mandolins were smashed in November of 1985.  His main mandolin was repaired and returned to him in February of 1986.

I remember the state of the mandolin market in the '80's.  I was playing a Strad-o-lin in those days.  Most of the new mandolins we saw were Asian made:  Alvarez, Epiphone, Washburn, etc.  The Flatirons and the Unicorns were a breath of fresh air when they appeared.  They were considerably better than the Asian instruments.  The first F-5L that I saw was, in my opinion, not much better than some of the Asian mandolins.

Around 1987, somebody stuck a really good 'teens A-4 in my hands and a light went on-- I heard how good an old Gibson could sound.  I went to Gruhn's and bought an F-4 for $1600.  Of the 8 or 10 old Gibsons George had in the shop that day, it was the best one by far.    Later, I picked up a good A-4, and H-2, and a Lyon & Healy style B.  I cut quite a few tracks with those mandolins.  I still have the three Gibsons.

There were not a lot of small shop mandolins around in those days.  I didn't see a Gilchrist mandolin until the '90's.

I have never owned a modern era mandolin, except for an Eastman 505 that I got in a trade that I set up and sold.  It was good enough to gig with, and since I now have a new band, I kind of wish that I had kept it.  The better Asian instruments available today are considerably better than those available in the '80's and '90's.

This lawsuit against Dean is going to be a test case for Gibson.  If they win, it seems likely that they will file other suits.  If they lose, they might or might not give up on future suits.  The current management does not seem to be very interested in public opinion.  They do appear to want more operating capital, so only time will tell.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## rcc56

The current state of supply for new Gibson mandolins:

Morgan Music advertises one F-9 in stock.
The Mandolin Store advertises a total of perhaps 9 or 10 total:  1 each of the F-9, 1 F-5G "Black Night", 4 F-5 "customs" with varying appointments, more than one Fern, and 1 Master Model.
Guitar Center/Musician's Friend shows 2 F-9's in stock.  Guitar Center also shows 2 F-5G's in stock while Musician's Friend does not; this is a little odd since they are the same company.

That's a total of between 12 and 15 new instruments total between the 3 existing authorized mandolin dealers.  They're don't seem very interested in making and selling mandolins at this time.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## slimt

At the least ,this Mark  or who ever he is could wear a Suit and be a little more professional And keep the politics away from the public.  To be honest his arrogance just turns me right off.

----------


## Br1ck

I'm willing to bet that they are making and selling all the mandolins people want to buy. Dealers stock what they can sell.

Contrast that to how many Collings mandolins are stocked at various dealers around the country.

But man, nothing to me sounds like a Gibson, and if that sound is what you want, that is what you will have to buy.

I would have a hard time laying out $5K or more and feeling bad about it.  Mandolins have not been affected because KKR executives don't read down that far in the potential profit reports.

----------


## Jess L.

> I think to posit that "public opinion" (as in the instrument buying world "out there") would correspond to the opinions of a dozen or so members of the Mandolin Cafe forum is a bit of a stretch?


It's not just MandolinCafe. FWIW, 30 seconds on Google brought up these: 

34 pages  :Disbelief:  of many negative comments at TheGearPage.net. 
Various expressions including some discontent (I didn't read all of it to determine what percentage is 'for' vs 'against') on 15 pages at TalkBass.com
FWIW, tons of anti-Gibson comments underneath various YouTube videos (yeah, I know, but they can't _all_ be foreign bots).  :Wink:  For example, the *comments* below this guitar builder's YouTube video. 
The first 15 pages at MetalGuitarist.org (caution: language). After page 15 it looks like they sort of get distracted talking about other stuff. 
Of course there are also the occasional posts in defense of Gibson. 

But something good has already come of this - some comedy!  :Grin:  A (IMO) fun little parody video  :Laughing:   :Grin:  - caution, colorful language:    



_(or direct link - video entitled "Play Authentic - Or Else!" from SpectreSoundStudios)_

For those with video-challenged gadgets, here are a couple of family-friendly quotes (fair use) from the above parody, at 5:10 and 0:22 and 2:23 respectively:  

_"We'll have to sue everyone making *these* guitars, of course_ [holds up guitar with no headstock], _because, well, had they used the headstock, we are 100-percent convinced it would have infringed on our copyright, of Bully Guitars. They would have used the Bully Guitars headstock. So therefore, every headless guitar manufacturer, watch out, we're coming for you!"_
And: 

Person 1: _"We've been in the guitar-building business since 1435, and we've innovated all that time, right up until today. We invented the guitar, the strings, the headstock, the tuners, the frets."_ 
Person 2: _"We did butter too!"_
Person 1: _"We did butter, yes! And shoelaces. And what we want to say is that, we're not happy with the situation right now. I mean, like, look at all this, all these guitars, copying *our* designs, our dreams, our hopes. And building them BETTER than we can, at a lower price._ [pounds table] _That's just not fair!"_
Person 2: _"It's just wrong!" ... 
"And they're pretty, too!"_
Person 1: _"They're *very* pretty, and they're *very* good."_ ...
_"How dare they! We're gonna sue them. 'Cause we're Bully Guitars USA and we've had it with people building better guitars than we can, for less money." ...
"Instead of building quality guitars at a reasonable price, we're just gonna bully them right out of business..."_
Person 2: _"We got the lawyers, we got the money, these small builders have no_ [bleep] _chance, so why..."_
Person 1: _"We should just crush them."_
Person 1: _"Didn't we invent the tobacco burst?"_ ...
Person 2: _"We invented tobacco, actually. We could sue anyone smoking."_
Person 1: _"Hmm, not a bad idea!"_
Person 2: _"I think we should!"_
Person 1: _"We really need the money, of course."_
And at 2:38 the parody folk invent the word "*innovised*" !  :Laughing:   :Grin:  

Person 2: _"I just made up this word, anyone using the word 'innovized' now, we're gonna sue you."_ :Laughing: 




> I'd say 99.99% of instrument buyers will never hear of this discussion nor while they hear or probably care about the Gibson legal actions either? My opinion of course.


Well, y'know, I don't do Facebook or Twitter etc, but even without that, word travels fast nowadays for those who look at stuff online once in a while. I would be skeptical that Gibson would be able to keep any of this under wraps for very long... at least for musicians (Gibson's target audience, presumably). 

Also, I realize that people who are discontent or 'anti' something or other, can often be more vocal and more likely go on the internet and make public posts about it. 

*On the other hand*, for every person who complains about a particular thing, there are often lots of other people who _think_ the same thing but haven't bothered to express themselves publicly. 

So, who knows. But, just from that quick Google search, the discontent seems to be coming from more than just some mandolin folks here.  :Smile: 




> There is such a thing as seduction into persuasion, when someone absorbs pseudo-logic others have told him and agressively defends it.


Good point. (I didn't realize there was a name for it.) Sometimes when people have already made up their minds that they like or dislike something, no amount of additional info will sway their opinion one way or the other.

----------

Drew Egerton, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Jill McAuley, 

Mandolin Cafe, 

mando_dan, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

Ryk Loske, 

wreded

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Granted, you find many of those stylistic elements in furniture of the era as well. It just shows that re-use of design has been and is still going on all the time. Under these circumstances, doing what is normal and then holding fast to it 
> , saying "that's mine, stay off ye villains" is no longer normal, like claiming intellectual ownership of a seashell you found on the beach.


One more thing: building design on what people already know is the safer business concept. People want to be reminded of a happier past, things they can relate to. Breaking away from that with a radical new design takes courage and conviction.

I remember the time when Steinberger came out with his headless bass - almost everybody went "Yuch!" It looked too alien, too decapitated, too shocking, so cool it froze your heart. Steinberger survived by the odd lucky chance that just a sufficient number of musicians were radical enough themselves to adopt this, but it never really went mainstream.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I didn't realize there was a name for it.


I just innovised it - and you guess the rest  :Wink:

----------

Jess L.

----------


## j. condino

My dreams have come true! 

Christmas has come early and now all you crusty crusty get off my lawn whole lotta' nuthn' mandolin nerds will stop asking me to build  $#!t brown 1923 Gibson F5 clones!

 :Wink:

----------


## Tom Sanderson

> Just for the record can anyone supply the dates when Hutto, Wood, Duff, Gilchrist, Carlson, and others who made higher end F-5s got started with a commercial product available to the mandolin community?


 Nugget F5 #1 was made in 1972.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> It's not just MandolinCafe. FWIW, 30 seconds on Google brought up these: 
> 
> 34 pages  of many negative comments at TheGearPage.net. 
> Various expressions including some discontent (I didn't read all of it to determine what percentage is 'for' vs 'against') on 15 pages at TalkBass.com
> FWIW, tons of anti-Gibson comments underneath various YouTube videos (yeah, I know, but they can't _all_ be foreign bots).  For example, the *comments* below this guitar builder's YouTube video. 
> The first 15 pages at MetalGuitarist.org (caution: language). After page 15 it looks like they sort of get distracted talking about other stuff. 
> Of course there are also the occasional posts in defense of Gibson. 
> 
> But something good has already come of this - some comedy!  A (IMO) fun little parody video   - caution, colorful language:    
> ...


You've put together an list of impressive comments/commenters on this matter.   :Smile: 

Still I wonder if that means that a significant segment of the* buying public* are as involved or vocal as individuals who spend time on forums like this one or those others that you highlighted?  

And keep in mind there are supporters as well as detractors on all of these forums so it is not everyone who comments is an individual who is upset with Gibson?   

We'll just have to see how it shakes out.  I still doubt all of this will have much to do with mandolins?  

Right now Gibson has limited capacity for building mandolins and has been pointed out in another post in this string there is no glut of new Gibson mandolins.   They are essentially selling all the mandolins that they can make?   

Thankfully Gibson is keeping its hand in the high-end mandolin making business but it is a very small part of its overall business plan.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Nugget F5 #1 was made in 1972.


Thanks for the information!

Was it inlaid as a "Nugget" or as a "Gibson"?  Does anyone have an image of one of these very early Nugget F-5s?  

I bought an F-2 in 1973 and recall being interested in an F-5 about the same time.    But back then there was little information -- all we had mostly was word-of-mouth and rumors.   I only knew vaguely about Loar story back then.  

I did know there were individuals building copy F-5s but i think Randy Wood was the only name I knew about who was making them.

Those were the Dark Ages.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> I had never heard the story that Gibson threatened Flatiron --i.e. to cease and desist?  I also thought the purchase was to get volume production as Gibson had only three individuals in-house who could make the F-5L.  But there are individuals on this forum who would know that for sure what happened back then.  Steve Carlson has commented several times on this forum including a lot of details on how they got started with Flatiron but I do not recall him mentioning any coercion?





> Someone posted a link to an article saying that Gibson threatened Flatiron before they bought them out.  I had not heard that before.  I always assumed that Gibson bought them to eliminate the competition, and to get the factory and some of the workers.


I guess I've been around the M.I business side of things so long that I thought the Gibson/Flatiron story was just common knowledge.  I know I've heard it first hand a number of time...Gibson and this way of this sort of business has been going on for as long as I can remember.  I've been involved far more in the guitar world but word gets around easy about these things
Anyways, I did post the article which again can be read here: https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...ilder-1?page=2
But I also mentioned that I was sure I'd seen a video of Ren Ferguson speaking on it.  It took me a bit to find it again but here you go folks.  Skip to the 7min mark and Ren reminisces about that mid- 80's NAMM where Steve set out to find Henry and suggest to him that Flatiron should be making mando's for Gibson as an OEM manufacturer because they're better at it than Gibson and Henry just said "no, I think I'll put you out of business instead."  Shortly after came the cease and desist.  Flatiron had to turn to making banjos which set out Stanley Jay from Mandolin Brothers, after sales of Mando's tanked, to talk Henry into buying Flatiron and from that the Bozeman facility came into existence.
From the horses mouth and I guess mystery solved: https://uk-videos.info/watch/09Kf6jy...ld-part-1.html
I also posted about a rather recent lawsuit they set out on Hamer.  Interestingly enough, Hamer and Gibson did have a long standing agreement for Hamer to use the respective shapes they were sued over in 2017 as Hamer brought them out from the dead.  The article about that can be read here: http://www.musicinstrumentnews.co.uk...rademark-wars/
And I've seen it asked once or twice and I know the Mandolin Cafe Admin has made note of the correct answer and that is YES, Gibson has sent letters out to small scale shops and builders (guitar and mandolin).  I have seen them myself.

Also, I was at Sweetwaters Gearfest this past week.  This is certainly a topic among the public and the industry and in general there was just a weird vibe surrounding the Gibson tent...

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Ryk Loske, 

Simon DS

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> To answer Bernie's question about Flatirons, the carved models had been available for several years before Gibson bought them in May of 1987.  The majority of them were A models.....


Thanks for that information.   So Flatirons must have come onto the market around 1983 - 84 time frame then.  I had always assumed that they came onto the market before the F-5L.  Not sure why I thought that.




> ....I remember the state of the mandolin market in the '80's.  I was playing a Strad-o-lin in those days.  Most of the new mandolins we saw were Asian made:  Alvarez, Epiphone, Washburn, etc.  The Flatirons and the Unicorns were a breath of fresh air when they appeared.  They were considerably better than the Asian instruments.  The first F-5L that I saw was, in my opinion, not much better than some of the Asian mandolins.


The first mandolin I bought was an Alvarez round hole mandolin -- would have been like late 1972. It was plenty loud but not too much tone?  Then someone offered me a 1963 Gibson A-40 for $200 and I bought it -- so I had a Gibson -- better tone but not so much volume.  

But only a year later I got a chance to buy a 1919 F-2 for only $275 and after that I had no more need for more mandolins so I did not pay too much attention to the market for maybe 10 years

My impression of the F-5L was much different.  I was really taken with it  I brought in my F-2 to compare back to back and decided that it was time that I added it to my collection.  Problem was I decided to think about it for a couple of days and when I came back it was gone.  





> Around 1987, somebody stuck a really good 'teens A-4 in my hands and a light went on-- I heard how good an old Gibson could sound.  I went to Gruhn's and bought an F-4 for $1600.  Of the 8 or 10 old Gibsons George had in the shop that day, it was the best one by far.    Later, I picked up a good A-4, and H-2, and a Lyon & Healy style B.  I cut quite a few tracks with those mandolins.  I still have the three Gibsons.


So you have some great oval hole Gibson mandolins -- I must have had more than dozen of those Gibson ovals mandolins, mandolas and mandocellos pass through my hands. Now I don't have any!





> This lawsuit against Dean is going to be a test case for Gibson.  If they win, it seems likely that they will file other suits.  If they lose, they might or might not give up on future suits.  The current management does not seem to be very interested in public opinion.  They do appear to want more operating capital, so only time will tell.


Kind of what I think also.  Actually I am kind of surprised they are doing it because even if they win will they really gain much?  Of course they won't get more operating capital in the long term if they actually do lose public favor of the instrument buying public? Some on here claim that is what will happen -- we'll have to see...

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I guess I've been around the M.I business side of things so long that I thought the Gibson/Flatiron story was just common knowledge.  I know I've heard it first hand a number of time...Gibson and this way of this sort of business has been going on for as long as I can remember.  I've been involved far more in the guitar world but word gets around easy about these things
> Anyways, I did post the article which again can be read here: https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...ilder-1?page=2
> But I also mentioned that I was sure I'd seen a video of Ren Ferguson speaking on it.  It took me a bit to find it again but here you go folks.  Skip to the 7min mark and Ren reminisces about that mid- 80's NAMM where Steve set out to find Henry and suggest to him that Flatiron should be making mando's for Gibson as an OEM manufacturer because they're better at it than Gibson and Henry just said "no, I think I'll put you out of business instead."  Shortly after came the cease and desist.  Flatiron had to turn to making banjos which set out Stanley Jay from Mandolin Brothers, after sales of Mando's tanked, to talk Henry into buying Flatiron and from that the Bozeman facility came into existence.
> From the horses mouth and I guess mystery solved: https://uk-videos.info/watch/09Kf6jy...ld-part-1.html
> I also posted about a rather recent lawsuit they set out on Hamer.  Interestingly enough, Hamer and Gibson did have a long standing agreement for Hamer to use the respective shapes they were sued over in 2017 as Hamer brought them out from the dead.  The article about that can be read here: http://www.musicinstrumentnews.co.uk...rademark-wars/
> And I've seen it asked once or twice and I know the Mandolin Cafe Admin has made note of the correct answer and that is YES, Gibson has sent letters out to small scale shops and builders (guitar and mandolin).  I have seen them myself.
> 
> Also, I was at Sweetwaters Gearfest this past week.  This is certainly a topic among the public and the industry and in general there was just a weird vibe surrounding the Gibson tent...


What a treasure trove of information Hermann! That article on Ren Fergueson is amazing -- i always wanted to know the story of the those "Museum" J-200 series.

It sounds like Gibson did make a claim on the F-5 profile in 1986 if John Southern's article is correct?  Quoting from the article:

"Three months after that fateful meeting, Carlson finally received a cease and desist order from Gibson’s lawyers, claiming that Flatiron had compromised the “silhouette” of the company’s F-5 mandolin. It was a stunning blow to the company; crippled by not being able to make F-5 mandolins, Flatiron quickly found itself in financial trouble."

One question Hermann.  In those letters sent out to small guitar and mandolin shops what was the issue and what was threatened. Do you have any details about these letters you can share?

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> The current state of supply for new Gibson mandolins:
> 
> Morgan Music advertises one F-9 in stock.
> The Mandolin Store advertises a total of perhaps 9 or 10 total:  1 each of the F-9, 1 F-5G "Black Night", 4 F-5 "customs" with varying appointments, more than one Fern, and 1 Master Model.
> Guitar Center/Musician's Friend shows 2 F-9's in stock.  Guitar Center also shows 2 F-5G's in stock while Musician's Friend does not; this is a little odd since they are the same company.
> 
> That's a total of between 12 and 15 new instruments total between the 3 existing authorized mandolin dealers.  They're don't seem very interested in making and selling mandolins at this time.


FYI your leaving something out..the mandolin store has 18 Gibson''s on their website,,of which 10 are sold/out of stock and only 8 various models left...

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## mando_dan

Don't forget "humbucker!" Maybe I should patent "pick" or "strings" before Gibson grabs it...

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> What a treasure trove of information Hermann! That article on Ren Fergueson is amazing -- i always wanted to know the story of the those "Museum" J-200 series.
> 
> It sounds like Gibson did make a claim on the F-5 profile if John Southern's article is correct?  Quoting from the article:
> 
> "Three months after that fateful meeting, Carlson finally received a cease and desist order from Gibson’s lawyers, claiming that Flatiron had compromised the “silhouette” of the company’s F-5 mandolin. It was a stunning blow to the company; crippled by not being able to make F-5 mandolins, Flatiron quickly found itself in financial trouble."
> 
> One question Hermann.  In those letters sent out to small guitar and mandolin shops what was the issue and what was threatened. Do you have any details about these letters you can share?


Hi Bernie,

   In those days, as I suppose these days as well; a letter as such from a large scale business to a small scale business can be frightening to say the least.  I don't know that Gibson has ever owned (the trademark) the body shape of the F style (they certainly don't at this time) and I imagine it was all just a huff and puff scare tactic back in the day to Flatiron.  Note that while they have the trademark for the fern and flowerpot they do not have a right to the headstock design alone.  It would be important to note that on the same date of application for the fern/flowerpot (Jan. 24, 2014) they also applied for rights to the entire f-style mandolin body shape which they were refused and later abandoned on Aug. 12, 2015 some months after they won the fern/flowerpot request.

As I mentioned early on; I don't want to see Gibson, as an iconic partner to American music, go away (as it seems they hope their competition does).  But I do hope the little guy wins victory in this one.  Personally; I have not seen that Gibson production has made a good enough improvement on their recent instruments and I think they should be focused first on that and making them more affordable.

 - EDIT - I'm not at liberty to give particulars on the letters I've seen only to confirm they have been sent.  Gibson also reached out to their dealer base about their stance against Dean as I have also seen this document; it was before the video and public announcements of the past couple of weeks.  This round of C&D etc. by Gibson has been on going for a few months now.

----------

darylcrisp, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Ryk Loske

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I would guess that Dennis is probably selling more Gibson mandolins than any other single dealer and most likely will continue to do so. Guitar Center/Musicians Friend I would assume sells a whole lot of Gibson and Epiphone guitars and the mandolins just kind of come along with it. I'm pretty sure they aren't that interested in that portion of the market. Most of the other random Gibson dealers are probably selling a few Gibson mandolins now and again but mostly guitars and those are probably skewed towards electrics. The mandolin division isn't huge but they'll sell everything they make. The assumption that this will put Gibson under is probably premature. Historically Gibson has angered a large portion of the industry and public one way or another over the years. There was a time that we were constantly shutting down Gibson bashing threads because they got out of hand. That doesn't mean I agree with anything they are doing. I'm guessing the folks at Elderly aren't too worried about any of this. They've existed and prospered for a long time now without new Gibson instruments.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Timbofood

11 pages, 267 posts (including this), most of which bring up some interesting points but, my favorite was from (I think) Bernie, “ The dozen or two folks here probably will not have much impact.” To paraphrase, sorry, I don’t want to go back and dig out the actual quote but, I have laundry to do.
That sentiment is a perfect example of how popular opinion needs to be considered. The company will not be terribly swayed by the opinions voiced on this forum but, I think there is probably someone looking at this and trying to sort through it and wondering how the rest of the musical instrument buying community actually feels.
We, as Mandolin buyers, or builders represent a pretty small part of the whole picture, with respect to the numbers of guitars electric or acoustic that the company produces.
I have a feeling this will not end in collapse of the fine F-5/ A5... instrument builders business but, may impact some of the PAC rim production of large numbers of instruments. Only time and the judicial process will provide the answer. 
Threats and even more Menacing threats will scare some but most likely they just make the company look like a bully.

Thanks Mike for the correction to Stan Rendell, Rendell Wall is, or was, part of the Heritage company development. I don’t know if he’s still there or if he’s been consumed but the Plazacorp giant that let a dozen well skilled employees go three years before possible retirement. That’s strangely similar to what happened when Norlin came in and moved things away from “Home”.
I apologize for the obscure tangent that went off to.
I’m not buying a Gibson product so, that’s the only vote that matters when it comes to bottom line.

----------

David Rambo

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> - EDIT - I'm not at liberty to give particulars on the letters I've seen only to confirm they have been sent.  Gibson also reached out to their dealer base about their stance against Dean as I have also seen this document; it was before the video and public announcements of the past couple of weeks.  This round of C&D etc. by Gibson has been on going for a few months now.


Ditto.

What I can share in part--there's always more--is that Gibson's law firm requested a substantial amount of money (four figures) for a fairly old mandolin finished more than a decade prior to when a trademark was filed and had not yet been adjudicated. In essence, claiming retroactive damage back years, even decades. Is that poor research on the part of the party that filed the claim, an overly aggressive strategy being tested, or something else? Only the people writing and sending those documents know.

When I previously stated some of the requests were "eye popping," this was one of the references, but not the only one.

----------

darylcrisp, 

David Rambo, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## Tom Sanderson

> Thanks for the information!
> 
> Was it inlaid as a "Nugget" or as a "Gibson"?  Does anyone have an image of one of these very early Nugget F-5s?  
> 
> I bought an F-2 in 1973 and recall being interested in an F-5 about the same time.    But back then there was little information -- all we had mostly was word-of-mouth and rumors.   I only knew vaguely about Loar story back then.  
> 
> I did know there were individuals building copy F-5s but i think Randy Wood was the only name I knew about who was making them.
> 
> Those were the Dark Ages.


Pictures on the mandolin archive. http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/...ins.pl?all:1:4

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

darylcrisp, 

WaxwellHaus

----------


## Jim Hilburn

The Ren video is great. Had never seen that before.
At one point he mentions that "Steve had purchased Flatiron from Chuck." Chuck is Chuck Morrison. He is more of a classical guitar builder in Boulder but in the early 80's thought he could build some pancake mandolins and be able to sell them. He called them Flatirons from the rock formations above Boulder.
Somehow he ended up trying to sell them in Bozeman to Steve Carlson who owned a music store. They eventually went into business together but it wasn't Chucks thing and he sold out to Steve.
EDIT May have been late 70's as fatt-dad says.

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## fatt-dad

(Flatiron may have actually started in Boulder Colorado in the late '70s.  Back-porch productions got into making the army-navy styles (aka pancakes).  I think it was after a spell they moved to Bozeman, continued flattops and then got into the archtop f-hole mandolins.  I think that was '82 or '83.)

f-d

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> The Ren video is great. Had never seen that before.
> At one point he mentions that "Steve had purchased Flatiron from Chuck." Chuck is Chuck Morrison. He is more of a classical guitar builder in Boulder but in the early 80's thought he could build some pancake mandolins and be able to sell them. He called them Flatirons from the rock formations above Boulder.
> Somehow he ended up trying to sell them in Bozeman to Steve Carlson who owned a music store. They eventually went into business together but it wasn't Chucks thing and he sold out to Steve.
> EDIT May have been late 70's as fatt-dad says.


Thank you!  That is the first time I have heard anyone detail exactly how Flatiron started and why there was a disconnect between the the age of the company (started in the '70s) and when they actually started producing the Festival and Artist models ('83).

----------


## ccravens

> _(or direct link - video entitled "Play Authentic - Or Else!" from SpectreSoundStudios)_


What a great video.

As of this post, it has almost 93,000 views and over 1500 comments.

----------

Jess L.

----------


## T.D.Nydn

In my opinion the original video did not come across as bad as most people make it out to be,,IMO I see a lot of over dramatic detractors,

----------


## Bill McCall

> In my opinion the original video did not come across as bad as most people make it out to be,,IMO I see a lot of over dramatic detractors,


If you gotta C&D letter you might think differently.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> In my opinion the original video did not come across as bad as most people make it out to be,,IMO I see a lot of over dramatic detractors,





> If you gotta C&D letter you might think differently.


I have to agree with you Bill.  "You've been warned" is a phrase taken verbatim from the video.  I know what I was taught about that phrase when I was growing up and all variations of the verb "warn".

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> If you gotta C&D letter you might think differently.


Yeah,probably...if I got a C&D letter I'd be "Bill Monroeing" my headstock right about now....

----------


## slimt

I wonder if any builders that are here are affected by this? Or are they not allowed to say?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

No sense in making yourself a target.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## ColdBeerGoCubs

> No sense in making yourself a target.



I should probably close my fakegibsonmandolins.com website.

----------


## fatt-dad

when Flatiron started arch-top f-hole mandolins they had the A5-1 and the A5-2.  Those were the trim levels. That was '83 for sure. Not sure if it was also '82.  Sometime around '84 they changed that to the three trim levels, Festival, Performer, and Artist.

That's all I got on that matter.

(Studied geology in Colorado so Flatirons were the obvious choice!)

f-d

----------


## DaveGinNJ

I have a 70's Ibanez Les Paul copy guitar.  I guess I should be expecting Gibson hooligans to be kicking down my front door?

----------


## Wolfboy

> In my opinion the original video did not come across as bad as most people make it out to be,,IMO I see a lot of over dramatic detractors,


Im inclined to disagree. There are so many things wrong with that video (and Gibsons lawsuit against Dean) that its hard to know where to start, but even as an individual musician with no dog in this particular fight, I found the video condescending, insulting, threatening, and loaded with inaccuracies and exaggerations. To mention a few main points:

1. A minor point, but a revealing one: anyone who holds an expensive guitar that he doesnt own while wearing a leather jacket laden with metal zippers, snaps, rivets and so forth immediately negates any respectability he might have had as a pontificator about musical instruments, from the sheer disrespect he shows that instrument and its owner.

2. 1:48 "All of those innovations and design elements are trademarks of Gibson." Well see what the judge and jury say about the Flying V body shape  although as I understand it Gibson didnt trademark that until Dean had been making similar guitars for about twenty years  but Gibson surely doesnt have a leg to stand on if they think any "trademark" of a standard guitar body shape (e.g. the Les Paul, the SG, the ES-335) will hold up as exclusively their own; thats the generic shape of the instrument and has been for centuries. Likewise, the open-book headstock shape can easily be found on instruments from the 19th century, and probably well before.

3. 2:09 "Any copy of any one of those designsis in fact, by definition, a counterfeit."

From dictionary.com: _Counterfeit:_ adjective: 1. made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged. 2. pretended; unreal. Noun: an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; forgery.

Therefore: a Dean (for example) Flying V-style guitar, with the name DEAN emblazoned prominently on the headstock, is by definition NOT a counterfeit Gibson: its maker is not only not pretending its a Gibson, but is clearly stating that it is, in fact, a Dean. And of course the headstock on the Dean V is significantly different from the Gibson V headstock, allowing any reasonably informed guitarist to tell at a glance that the Dean isnt a Gibson and isnt pretending to be. So down goes that argument - a Dean V isn't a counterfeit Gibson, period. Mark Agnesi and Gibson are just blustering here.

4. 2:29 "To all the people in the film and television and commercial industriesstop taping over the logos on the headstock. By the way, thats not enough to get out of a trademark infringement anyway." Woo boy. Just WHAT in the HELL are you talking about here, Mark? Are you actually threatening anyone who plays a Gibson instrument in a filmed situation, or the producers of such a film/video, with some kind of legal action if they dont display it exactly to YOUR liking? (Or pay you something for it? Surely you couldnt be stupid enough to think it works that way, could you?) Really, its hard to believe ANYONE at Gibson, including Mr. Agnesi himself, let this one go through, given how utterly wrongheaded the whole thing is. Mark, old boy, let me explain something to you: if I buy an instrument, I own it. Its my property now. I own EVERY PART of it, including whatever logo the manufacturer chose to grace it with. And I will do _whatever I god-damned well please_ with MY PROPERTY, in any setting including a film/video shoot. That includes concealing the logo if I want to, for any reason at all. (cf. Bill Monroe circa 1951: https://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pu...s_001107.shtml) You and Gibson have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT. NO CONTROL OVER IT WHATSOEVER. It's my instrument and I'll do whatever I want with it. And you would do well not to throw idle threats around that only serve to alienate your potential consumer base.

5. 3:34 "Remember, only a Gibson is good enough." I know thats been a corporate tagline for quite some time, but come on. Speaking as a musician whose primary instrument is acoustic guitar, I just find it laughablenot to mention downright insulting to the many great acoustic guitar builders out there and to my own judgement as a guitarist. Having worked in two acoustic music shops who were Gibson dealers, Ive had the opportunity to play quite a few Gibsonssuffice it to say that my own guitars are MacCubbins, Taylors and Martins, and any one of them would blow away any Gibson Ive EVER played, new or old. It isnt even close. And there are any number of other first-rate high-end acoustic guitar builders on the scene now, from individual shops to large companies, and based on what Ive seen Gibson cant even begin to compete in that market in terms of quality. So lets cool it with the corporate bullsh*t until you make a decent instrument whose price reflects its quality level, shall we, Mark? Try earning respect instead of demanding it through bullying  it usually works better in the long run that way.

As for mandolins, I do own and play Gibson mandolins, but the most recent one I own is a 1921, and I dont consider there to be any connection whatsoever between the Gibson company of that era and Gibson now; theyve changed hands too many times to boast of any "iconic legacy" going back that far. (One word: Norlin.) That said, Im kind of glad right now that my main mandolins are all style As, and consequently dont have the Gibson name on their headstocks  I dont want to be associated at present with the name of a company that resorts to this kind of bullying, and the blank headstocks save me the trouble of gouging out the name the way Monroe did.  :Grin: 

Its been quite the interesting weekend reading online forums and comment threads about this video and lawsuit  many hundreds of comments, and Id say at a rough guess that public sentiment against Gibson as a result of this is running at about 90% among those communities at the moment. In this internet age, I wouldnt think thats a comfortable place for a company to be. From what Ive read, I gather that Gibsons somewhere around 500 million dollars in debt, have already declared bankruptcy, and are leveraged up past their eyeballs by outside investors, which makes the Dean lawsuit (and others to come that the video hints at) look like a desperation play to a) generate some quick easy cash and/or b) stall for time to keep their creditors off their backs while the case goes to appeal even if Gibson does win, which I rather doubt they will. On top of all that, now with this video theyve created a PR nightmare for themselves and appear to have destroyed what goodwill they might have had with a major chunk of their prospective customer base. If they keep this up I dont see it ending well for Gibson, lawsuits or no lawsuits. 

(Especially if they keep making Les Pauls whose headstocks snap off.)

----------

almeriastrings, 

Daniel Nestlerode

----------


## slimt

I never have owned a Dean V but that will be about to change in the next coming days.  I thought Gibson would better there products as to this.

----------


## NursingDaBlues

No, it's not about mandolins or guitars, but this article from 2001 has a pretty telling story: 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...145-story.html



_The company Tuesday said it has dropped applications for federal trademark protection for various design elements on its motorcycles, including its teardrop-shaped gas tanks, the curve of its front and rear fenders and the overall shape of its motorcycles.

A Harley-Davidson spokesman said the company, which has been battling opposition to its trademark applications from other motorcycle makers for almost six years, is tired of tossing tens of thousands of dollars into a legal case with no end in sight.

Harley feared that the thump-thump-thump of its engine, a noise that can thrill or chill, depending on the listener's attitude toward bikes and bikers, would become the next nylon--the early DuPont synthetic whose name wasn't protected and fast became a generic term.

....

Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had not ruled on Harley's applications, agency insiders have privately questioned the motorcycle maker's ability to prove that its designs or the sound its engines make are unique to Harley-Davidson products.

Other motorcycle makers that have produced so-called classic or cruiser motorcycles--including Honda Motor Co. and Yamaha Motor Co. of Japan--have argued that the sound is a characteristic of all V-twin motorcycle engines and that the design themes predate development of the Harley bikes.

The maker of Fat Boy, Softail and Road King bikes--made notorious by outlaw motorcycle gangs in the 1950s and legitimized in the '90s by legions of lawyers, accountants and others who enjoy taking to the road on the throbbing cycles--said it is satisfied that its customers know well the look and sound of a Harley and will not be fooled by imitations._

----------


## mandolin tony

Orval must be turning over in his grave. look what they done to my company. why can't they just let it die.

----------


## Timbofood

As I am canine deprived, regarding the nuances connected with this particular arena, I shall recuse myself from muddying waters with mindless chatter with nothing constructive to say. 
I don’t build, I don’t buy, I play what I have. Life gets easier when you are as cheap as I am!

----------


## Timbofood

> Orval must be turning over in his grave. look what they done to my company. why can't they just let it die.


Well, Orville had his own demons, this is so far removed from his concerns, his spirit I really more likely thinking “WHAT!??, I sold too cheap!”

----------


## CarlM

> Harley feared that the thump-thump-thump of its engine, a noise that can thrill or chill, depending on the listener's attitude toward bikes and bikers, would become the next nylon--the early DuPont synthetic whose name wasn't protected and fast became a generic term.
> 
> 
> Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had not ruled on Harley's applications, agency insiders have privately questioned the motorcycle maker's ability to prove that its designs or the sound its engines make are unique to Harley-Davidson products.


This is not a particularly good example because there is significant evidence Japanese motorcycle companies, particularly Honda, did deliberately set out to copy the sound of a Harley.  They set out to ape the appearance as well.  It was rather blatant infringement and copying.  And the company did go to defend it as soon as they became aware.  It was not something left fallow for 80 years then pursued.  Nor was it chasing small builders.  The court case ended up being dropped due to expense.

----------


## Bob A

Gibson . . . the name is the only thing that has remained stable since the company's founding. 

Well, that, and the company's marketing approach, which has always denigrated its competition. "Taterbug" mandolins were taken on in the early days, and made to appear second-rate at best, in comparison with the brilliant constructs of the Gibson Company. Advertising was ever thus; if you can't make a better product to beat the competition, you can always slander them, and beat them into submission or bankruptcy with lawsuits.

Other holders of the cherished "Gibson" name are the Gibson cocktail, first documented in 1908; the Gibson Girls, defining feminine pulchritude since the 1890s; Gibson Electric Co-op, with thousands of members in west Tennessee; and such noteworthy individuals Bob Gibson, whose autographed baseballs may soon be hidden from rapacious lawyers, Mel Gibson, who as a Hollywood luminary is immune from any aspersion, and the late Orville, whose name lives on, over a century since his passing, passionately protected by a series of corporate entities who set their attack lawyers on anyone infringing on the trademarks they couldn't be bothered to properly protect in the first place.

Meanwhile, the real people who have spent their working lives to create the instruments we love and loathe - yes, Virginia, there is a lot of dreck produced by corporate fiat and foisted onto a trusting public - toil anonymously. No one really knows just who made the instruments that made the company's reputation. They live and die in obscurity. The only real monument to their efforts is the work of outsiders who strove to keep the quality alive and available when the much-vaunted Gibson Company was more engaged in making refrigerators.

The Gibson management teams can go suck a lemon, and I hope they choke on it.

----------

Beanzy, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

> The Gibson management teams can go suck a lemon, and I hope they choke on it.


Bob, don't hold back.  Say what you think!!

 :Grin:

----------

Bob A

----------


## BillytheB

I have been following this thinking mainly about mandolins. I know it's really a guitar issue but this site has kind of side-tracked me. It has now just occurred to me that I own a full-on counterfeit 57 Les Paul Junior made by one of the heads of the Fender Custom Shop. I think I got it around 2000 and something when he built about 5 or so for a group of people. I got in on the deal when one guy backed out. I'm _pretty sure_ it was built in his own shop and not at fender. LOL

----------


## DHopkins

> I have been following this thinking mainly about mandolins. I know it's really a guitar issue but this site has kind of side-tracked me. It has now just occurred to me that I own a full-on counterfeit 57 Les Paul Junior made by one of the heads of the Fender Custom Shop. I think I got it around 2000 and something when he built about 5 or so for a group of people. I got in on the deal when one guy backed out. I'm _pretty sure_ it was built in his own shop and not at fender. LOL


Okay, listen carefully.  You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say.............     ♫  :Smile:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Views on the Gibson action against Dean;

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## slimt

So why hasnt Gibson sued guild over the SG style? Even the ES style guitars. 

Or gone after banjo makers for replicating Gibson necks?

Or China for the cheap counterfeit  Gibsons ?

----------


## foldedpath

> So why hasnt Gibson sued guild over the SG style? Even the ES style guitars.


Speaking of Guild, have you ever seen a Guild Studio 24? I had one of these for a few years. Very cool acoustic guitar, fabulous neck, but the body was too thin for a good acoustic sound. Remind you of anything?

----------


## almeriastrings

> 4. 2:29 "To all the people in the film and television and commercial industries…stop taping over the logos on the headstock. By the way, that’s not enough to get out of a trademark infringement anyway." Woo boy. Just WHAT in the HELL are you talking about here, Mark? Are you actually threatening anyone who plays a Gibson instrument in a filmed situation, or the producers of such a film/video, with some kind of legal action if they don’t display it exactly to YOUR liking? (Or pay you something for it? Surely you couldn’t be stupid enough to think it works that way, could you?)


Yes. I noted that too. Truly bizarre. I can only think he is badly confused.... somehow thinking he can levy a fee of some kind every time a Gibson is depicted or can impose conditions upon how it is shown! Of course, manufacturers do sometimes voluntarily pay a 'placement fee' much as one might pay for any other kind of advertising spot as it can help brand awareness and sales.... but that's not the same thing at all. All very weird indeed.

----------

Eric Platt

----------


## Wolfboy

> I can only think he is badly confused.... somehow thinking he can levy a fee of some kind every time a Gibson is depicted or can impose conditions upon how it is shown! Of course, manufacturers do sometimes voluntarily pay a 'placement fee' much as one might pay for any other kind of advertising spot as it can help brand awareness and sales.... but that's not the same thing at all.


Indeed it isn't - the money's going in the opposite direction.  :Smile:

----------

Eric Platt, 

Phil Goodson

----------


## slimt

> Yes. I noted that too. Truly bizarre. I can only think he is badly confused.... somehow thinking he can levy a fee of some kind every time a Gibson is depicted or can impose conditions upon how it is shown! Of course, manufacturers do sometimes voluntarily pay a 'placement fee' much as one might pay for any other kind of advertising spot as it can help brand awareness and sales.... but that's not the same thing at all. All very weird indeed.


Maybe thinking they can get royalties from the brand name being shown.  Nobody owes Gibson anything.

----------


## Br1ck

> In my opinion the original video did not come across as bad as most people make it out to be,,IMO I see a lot of over dramatic detractors,


Well, the video is just the face of the legal attack. If it wasn't that big of a deal, it would still be up on the net. Add the clip of Mark touting how great the "fake" flying vee was not that long ago in a Norm's video,  it is not a good look. You find out real fast you aren't working for an independent shop anymore, but a corporate entity.  It's different.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> "Instead of building quality guitars at a reasonable price, we're just gonna bully them right out of business..."


I just remembered one of of the coolest guitar players I know, Steve Hackett, and watched one of his videos more closely to find out if that is really a golden Les Paul he is playing. Well, it isn't. In the first minute of this video he explains what he is playing and why.




This to show how easy business would be by just looking ahead and giving musicians what they need, instead of looking back.

----------

Jess L., 

Simon DS

----------


## Douglas McMullin

> So why hasnt Gibson sued guild over the SG style? Even the ES style guitars.


They made some threats to local builder over his SG like shapes (and V) last year.  Just a cease and desist letter and not a suit.  Best I can tell he is still making them (looking at his site), though maybe there were small tweaks.

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/02/...f-his-guitars/

https://www.segerguitars.com/yg-gallery

edit: Looks like he stopped building a V

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

*I CAN´T RESIST!*

The master of blah blah, Marc Agnesi... (if you watch his videos as an employer of Norman´s Rare Guitars).

Though it might seem like venting: I don´t think that people like him ever know what shame is. 

The marketing "gag" of the Angesi cry out video turned sour pretty soon. That´s why Gibson obviously pulled it and faces the backlash of the public.

Why was virtually everything in the video publicity gone wrong?

- Marc Agnesi didn´t have the historical side of whatever he said right. "Only Gibson IS Good Enough", the 40ies slogan is definately quoted out of context. The effort to ride on a warm emotional wave of nostalgia does not apply to buyers of the guitars that the video was obviously focusing on.

- Marc Agnesi has absolutely no knowledge of copyright laws. If this video was hashed out with a minimum of legal consultation one can only assume that it is a (lame) effort to bully competitors into shying away. The obviously entirely stupid opinion that one may not use a "counterfeit product" and perform with it is so ludicrous that I immediately thought of a party at the Gibson headquarters where a lot of booze and illegal drugs produced the idea to make a video that was supposed to threaten and bully.

NOW FOR THE BEST PART:

MARC AGNESI! SWALLOW YOUR OWN MEDICINE!

The following videos ought to cause Marc Agnesi to tell his employer (Gibson) that they ought to sue him (Marc Agnesi). Why? Because Marc Agnesi openly claims ownership of an Ibanez Flying V "lawsuit" guitar (and loves it). Also he shows off "counterfeit product" in videos by his former employer Norman´s Rare Guitars. How crazy is that.










Now, I don´t know Marc Agnesi but I can say the following. 

When you elaborate about "counterfeit product" guitars and you praise them and then - after a change of employer - you suddenly go the oposite direction without the slightest justification you are just acting in very (!) bad style. In this case it shows a turncoat who is extremely ill mannered.

Does the public response have an impact? I do think so. A   s h i t s t o r m   like this one that causes the public to vent is never good, even when you think that even bad publicity is publicity. If this causes builders and sellers to bond and countersue Gibson that they are not in breach of copyright laws, well that could cause major problems for Gibson, what do you think?

----------

almeriastrings, 

SincereCorgi, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Bertram Henze

> In this case it shows a turncoat who is extremely ill mannered.


That's how it is with turncoats - if you destroy his leather jacket, that video suggests he'll just take the next one off that rack in the back  :Laughing: 

My diagnosis: an indestructable narcissist personality who's best left alone, deprived of the attention he feeds on.
Are there any videos where he actually _plays_ any of these guitars?

----------

almeriastrings, 

David Rambo, 

sblock

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

Long ago I deemed Marc Agnesi irrelevant. 

Gibson has proved to me, once again, that making excellent products at fair prices is not a priority in the corporate philosophy.
And though I have owned many Gibson instruments, much like Agnesi,  Gibson is now irrelevant.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Are there any pedals that do that sustainer thing?
Never mind.
The Digitech Freq-out! Oh, Yeah!

----------

mandowilli

----------


## almeriastrings

Wow.. the more I see of this guy, the less I like him...

----------


## Wolfboy

> Wow.. the more I see of this guy, the less I like him...


He certainly did a complete 180 between praising Ibanez and Dean in his Normans Rare Guitars videos and trashing everyone who isnt Gibson now, didnt he? Doesnt do much for whatever credibility he had

(And I see he was doing the leather-jacket-with lots-of-metal-parts thing then too, which means he didnt give a damn that he was gouging up guitars back then either. Jesus, Markwhat message do you think youre sending doing that? I wouldnt let you _near_ one of my instruments if you were wearing that thing.)

----------

almeriastrings

----------


## slimt

> Wow.. the more I see of this guy, the less I like him...


Heehee

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

Let me ad one thing. I have learned a lot from Gibsons true ambassadors on this forum. Foremost they are Big Joe, Charlie Derrington and Dave Harvey.

Big Joe was allways the consumate gentleman, even when the Gibson brand was heavily criticized. These are the people that matter, whatever the corporate headquarters may proclaim.

Read about the women that built the legendary banner Gibson guitars. And yes, I like my Southerner Jumbo a lot. 

Would I buy the same guitar if it had been built today? Probably not. That would have been sad, yes, very sad indeed. 

Lets make sure in our lives that only relevant people matter and not the Agnesis and (insert name).

----------

Bob A, 

David Rambo, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Timbofood

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I remember the gentleman mentioned above saying "WE are the ones who invented the F5" to which I had to point out that everyone who had anything to do with inventing the F5 was dead.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Bertram Henze, 

Simon DS

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Let me ad one thing. I have learned a lot from Gibson‘s true ambassadors on this forum. Foremost they are Big Joe, Charlie Derrington and Dave Harvey.
> 
> Big Joe was allways the consumate gentleman, even when the Gibson brand was heavily criticized. These are the people that matter, whatever the corporate headquarters may proclaim.


Great points Olaf and well worth mentioning.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## NotMelloCello

I'm late to the party here on this forum, but I can tell you that the internet's hair is on fire over that Agnesi vid and the Dean lawsuit. I haven't seen anyone defend Gibson's position with any fervor, either. It's very sad, I think. Maybe Gibson should have just asked for a single dollar for every instrument produced that even smelled like a Gibson, and they would have been money ahead instead of this PR stunt gone horribly wrong.

I have noted that the "book" peghead profile with 3 on a side tuners was used by Stradivarius on his guitars built in 1609. That's some serious precedent, if you ask me. As for 6 on a side tuners, Fender and Martin should sue over the Firebird design.

Anyway - it's ugly, and it's madness - and I think we all want the music industry to simply concentrate on making an honest buck and getting along. There are plenty of other things for the public to spend their money on these days....

----------


## J.Albert

*Gibson:*
Only our arrogance is good enough...     :Wink:

----------


## Wolfboy

> Let me ad one thing. I have learned a lot from Gibsons true ambassadors on this forum. Foremost they are Big Joe, Charlie Derrington and Dave Harvey.
> 
> Big Joe was allways the consumate gentleman, even when the Gibson brand was heavily criticized. These are the people that matter, whatever the corporate headquarters may proclaim.


Agreed. Dave's a friend of mine and passionate about building great mandolins. (Killer musician too!) I hope he's not directly catching any blowback from the current sh*tstorm. I feel bad for him if he is. I haven't met Big Joe in person but I feel like I know him through his contributions to this forum, and I agree that he's always been the consummate gentleman and hugely knowledgeable. Never got to meet Charlie Derrington, sadly, and his passing was a huge loss to the acoustic music world.

None of these gentlemen are to blame in any way for Gibson's corporate actions. However, that doesn't alter the fact that Gibson as a company has done a lot of astoundingly stupid stuff to alienate their customer base, their dealers and the whole music industry in recent years, of which the Agnesi video and the Dean lawsuit are only the latest in a long series. I'd personally be uncomfortable representing a company that acts the way Gibson does, but again, I don't hold it against any of these folks in any way.

Well, if the $500M of debt and unsuccessful lawsuits do finally sink Gibson, I imagine there are plenty of mandolin builders who'd love to have Dave's experience and expertise on their team. Or he could start Harvey Mandolins, Inc. and probably do just great. (Worked for Bruce Weber...)  :Smile:

----------

sgarrity, 

William Smith

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

> I remember the gentleman mentioned above saying "WE are the ones who invented the F5" to which I had to point out that everyone who had anything to do with inventing the F5 was dead.


Hence, Gibson shouldn't be talking about someone, who invented something and should get payed for his - now, what is it after all? - idea, talent and labour. It's entirely about proprietary rights of use and exploitation. The huge gap - the apparent loss of any connection - between this cold hard fact the and the legitimate rights of the inventor (or the romantic image of the artist/genius/craftsman for that matter) seems so annoying to most of us.

----------


## BoxCarJoe

> Are there any videos where he actually _plays_ any of these guitars?


Yeah there is plenty. Just look. He's a good guitarist.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> The huge gap - the apparent loss of any connection - between this cold hard fact the and the legitimate rights of the inventor (or the romantic image of the artist/genius/craftsman for that matter) seems so annoying to most of us.


Yes, that is what makes the difference. Modest behavior towards a real genius comes naturally, out of respect. 
But we don't respect bullies, we avoid them, no matter if they are wearing suits or leather jackets.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Yeah there is plenty. Just look. He's a good guitarist.


OK, I found some footage of him playing. Passable, not exactly the stuff for a superstar career, but good enough for the occasion. 
And while playing, he has that creepy Christopher-Lambert stare all the time...  :Chicken:

----------


## William Smith

We live in a world where most everyone is out for themselves, the little business's suffer, the Mom and Pop stores are mostly all gone taken over by the big chains! They just cant compete and we're all to blame for shopping at these places and when you have to stretch a buck what do you do! That goes for instruments as well-unless someone is die hard they will not spend up to 20G+ on a brand new Gibson MM when there are so many other options out there. I sure hope nothing happens to the Gibson mandolin division under David Harvey and crew as I believe under him Gibson is making the best mandolins since the golden age of Gibson. The ones I've played are great and I feel lucky to have one of the few Harvey signed awesome sounding F-10's. They are still selling brand new F-5's and such! David is a truly great person and I consider him a friend, he cares about quality! I've often thought this for years that Gibson should produce a great new solid wood bare boned carved build cheap enough to attract potential buyers so they don't go for the many upon many pac-rim mandolins! I'm really not into new instruments I save and buy strictly old Gibson mandolins-old Gibson and Martin acoustic guitars "Fender telecasters- not into Gibson electrics- not my sound I dig anyway" because I love history, well made instruments with that broke in sound and feel! I'll continue to buy and play old vintage instruments and the occasional newer Gibson mandolin if I like it. The way corporate Gibson is going about things shouldn't surprise anyone as we live in a big corporate world. And look at all the countless Gibson inspired independent and foreign factory mandolins out there same with about every Martin guitar that has been copied by the endless builders independent and foreign factories. I think this has been going on so long now that its a losing battle with Gibson and even Martin to seriously pursue! But I'm not going to stop playing and enjoying all my different vintage Gibson mandolins, "even a few independent F-5's I have-I guess they are copies" This all will blow over and it'll be business as usual as the bottom line is $$$$$$$$$$$! Bad publicity is still publicity?

----------


## michaelcj

Anyone want to go down the fiddle rabbit hole...... Wonder what Andrea A. and Antonio S. would have to say?

----------


## rcc56

The banjo community has not been discussing these events.  They have moved on.

----------

j. condino

----------


## Pete Summers

> I have noted that the "book" peghead profile with 3 on a side tuners was used by Stradivarius on his guitars built in 1609. That's some serious precedent, if you ask me. As for 6 on a side tuners, Fender and Martin should sue over the Firebird design.


I think you mean 1709 -- Stradivari was born in the 1640's. I did not know he made guitars at all so I've learned something on this thread. Now I'm wondering if he made mandolins too? Can't find any info on that, but I did find that he made harps as well as fiddles and guitars. I wonder if any of his guitars are extant?

----------


## Beanzy

> I think you mean 1709 -- Stradivari was born in the 1640's. I did not know he made guitars at all so I've learned something on this thread. Now I'm wondering if he made mandolins too? Can't find any info on that, but I did find that he made harps as well as fiddles and guitars. I wonder if any of his guitars are extant?


Here you go..

----------


## AMandolin

Check out that mustache bridge

----------


## Hudmister

I would not mistake that Stradivarius guitar headstock for the Gibson "open book" design.

----------


## Wolfboy

> The banjo community has not been discussing these events.  They have moved on.


That's probably because Gibson doesn't make banjos anymore, and consequently banjo builders aren't in (as much) danger of being sued anytime soon.

----------

Markus, 

MikeEdgerton, 

Timbofood, 

William Smith

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> The banjo community has not been discussing these events.  They have moved on.


Is Gibson even making banjos anymore? I thought that production was gone.

----------

William Smith

----------


## Wolfboy

> I would not mistake that Stradivarius guitar headstock for the Gibson "open book" design.


How about the one in post #138?

----------

Hudmister

----------


## William Smith

Off subject but Gibson quit making banjo's? Anyone know when they stopped? I didn't know that but I know I haven't seen a recent Gibson banjo in a long time, say around 2007-08 when a friend bought a brand new 5 string-pretty fancy but can't remember the model?

----------


## T.D.Nydn

From what I've gathered,they quit making banjos right after the flood...

----------

Zigeuner

----------


## rcc56

> Is Gibson even making banjos anymore? I thought that production was gone.


They were discontinued in 2009.

The banjo community has discovered that they can get by just fine without Gibson.  They are not even discussing this subject on their forum.

----------


## Bob A

Wait . . . banjo players have a forum? You mean, like, reading, or is it just pictures?

----------

CarlM, 

darylcrisp, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

dave vann, 

Douglas McMullin, 

HappyPickin, 

Hudmister, 

j. condino, 

Joe Mendel, 

mando_dan, 

PDMan, 

SincereCorgi, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Wait . . . banjo players have a forum? You mean, like, reading, or is it just pictures?


OK, warn me next time you're going to do that.

----------

Bob A, 

CarlM, 

darylcrisp, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Eric Platt, 

Randi Gormley, 

Simon DS, 

Timbofood

----------


## Wolfboy

This just in: "Gibson wants players to report counterfeit guitars" https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibs...erfeit-guitars

Have to admit, being on a mandolin forum my primary concern was whether Gibson was going to claim trademark ownership of the F-5 body shape and start going after mandolin builders who build itbut I followed the link in the above article to this list of Gibson trademarks: https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks and didnt see it there, so that comes as a relief. (The F-5 headstock is there, though.)

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

In the last years of Gibson banjo production, they did not "make banjos", they assembled them from parts supplied by others.
Necks, fingerboards, shells, tone rings, resonators, metal bits including those from the Czech Republic were outsourced.

----------


## Bill McCall

> This just in: "Gibson wants players to report counterfeit guitars" https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibs...erfeit-guitars
> 
> )


Just when you thought things couldn't go lower......................

----------


## sblock

> This just in: "Gibson wants players to report counterfeit guitars" https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibs...erfeit-guitars


Gee, wouldn't it be ironic if a whole lot of guitarists logged into the Gibson site for reporting counterfeits (https://www.gibson.com/Support/Report-Counterfeits) to complain about the "counterfeit" ES-300, S310, and the other Stratocaster models, all sold by *Epiphone* -- which is a brand wholly owned by Gibson.  Clearly, those Epiphone models were all copied from the original *Fender* Stratocaster design.

_Maybe Gibson would take itself to court?_  :Laughing:

----------

Jess L., 

John Bertotti

----------


## Timbofood

I kind of like that this is starting to poke a little fun about it and not be quite so harsh. It’s a pretty lousy situation no matter how you look at it, the company getting all pumped up and bullying but, meeting with a very large amount of public opinion pushback.
I’m just glad I have absolutely no financial interest in any part of it.

- - - Updated - - -




> Wait . . . banjo players have a forum? You mean, like, reading, or is it just pictures?



Or is it done in tab?

----------


## stevojack665

I saw some Dean guitars on display at the Bozeman airport today!

Best, Stevo

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> In the last years of Gibson banjo production, they did not "make banjos", they assembled them from parts supplied by others.
> Necks, fingerboards, shells, tone rings, resonators, metal bits including those from the Czech Republic were outsourced.


That was relatively recently actually. Prior to his death they were buying most of their banjo pieces from Bill Sullivan at FQMS and had been for years but that's not unusual. Instrument manufacturers have outsourced parts and pieces for a century or more that I know of and it's still happening today.

----------


## dustyamps

This guy might really be in trouble.

----------

Bob A, 

Jess L., 

Jim Hilburn, 

John Lloyd, 

mando_dan, 

MikeEdgerton, 

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## slimt

> Just when you thought things couldn't go lower......................


Ya.  Thats not going to happen.   

Theres just to many builders out there that create just better products. They have to eat too.   Chinese knockoffs are something Gibson will either have to deal with or buy them out and forget about what they bought

----------


## darylcrisp

> Wait . . . banjo players have a forum? You mean, like, reading, or is it just pictures?


I play clawhammer and love it, but i love banjo jokes, they are just so funny. this was a good one, just in time too.
d

----------

Bob A

----------


## darylcrisp

I've read the posts each day, and its sad to have this sort of thing come up.
I feel really sorry for the people working in the factories/shops, building the Gibson products. I think they are making some really nice acoustic instruments these days. I would think they enjoy what they do and what they turn out-proud of the instruments. The mandolins are for sure very very nice.
Feel really sorry for those folks.
d

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Hudmister

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> This guy might really be in trouble.


I'd say so. That yellow just isn't an authentic color for either of those models.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## slimt

> I've read the posts each day, and its sad to have this sort of thing come up.
> I feel really sorry for the people working in the factories/shops, building the Gibson products. I think they are making some really nice acoustic instruments these days. I would think they enjoy what they do and what they turn out-proud of the instruments. The mandolins are for sure very very nice.
> Feel really sorry for those folks.
> d


I totally Agree... Too bad they have to put up with Non sense like this.... I bet thats a real struggle..

----------


## mandoglobal

> I have never owned a Gibson product. Considering this action, I probably never will. May they achieve the bankruptcy they so richly deserve.


Amen! This type of nasty corporate behavior is doing far more to complete the destruction of the Gibson brand than anything the competition could ever do. As far as I can imagine, it would be a miracle if I ever own one.

----------

Jess L., 

Wolfboy

----------


## Jess L.

> ... *over dramatic* ...





> I kind of like that this is starting to poke a little *fun* about it and not be quite so harsh. ...


This one from Dovydas is over-dramatic *and* fun,  :Grin:  *fast-forward to 5:05 where the police helicopter starts:*  :Disbelief:  



_(or direct link, then fast-forward to 5:05)_

 :Laughing:

----------

Canuckle

----------


## Bertram Henze

> This guy might really be in trouble.


Guitar breeders beware - don't leave your instruments unattended or lock them in their cases.

----------

Jess L., 

Timbofood

----------


## Bertram Henze

> *fast-forward to 5:05 where the police helicopter starts:*


Mentioning Frodo really put it all in perspective.  :Laughing: 

And while we're at it:

----------

Eric Platt, 

Jess L., 

soliver

----------


## Simon DS

I have mixed feelings about this. 
On the one side I think humour (and I love it) is important to keep things from getting too serious, and on the other hand I think it’s important, certainly in a case like this, just to keep sort of straight with the facts. The legal arguments can be interesting, but then we’re talking also about the appropriation of history and culture. In the same thread.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> I would not mistake that Stradivarius guitar headstock for the Gibson "open book" design.


 Circa 1840
 Circa 1895

I can even go 100yrs earlier, into the mid 1700's and find the "open book" that Gibson copied  :Disbelief:

----------

Bob A, 

Hudmister, 

Jess L., 

Simon DS

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> This just in: "Gibson wants players to report counterfeit guitars" https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibs...erfeit-guitars
> 
> Have to admit, being on a mandolin forum my primary concern was whether Gibson was going to claim trademark ownership of the F-5 body shape and start going after mandolin builders who build itbut I followed the link in the above article to this list of Gibson trademarks: https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks and didnt see it there, so that comes as a relief. (The F-5 headstock is there, though.)


My post #265 details how they tried but were unsuccessful at trademarking the F-body shape...

----------

Jess L., 

Simon DS, 

Wolfboy

----------


## John Lloyd

So how long before Gibson goes after Epiphone?  :Wink:

----------

Jeff Budz, 

Simon DS

----------


## Bertram Henze

> So how long before Gibson goes after Epiphone?


Since international lawsuits require an agreement between the countries involved - we'll have to see diplomats shake hands first (and they'll have to wear leather jackets)...

----------


## Wolfboy

> My post #265 details how they tried but were unsuccessful at trademarking the F-body shape...


So it does. Thanks! So it appears Gibson applied (unsuccessfully) for a trademark for the F-style body shape in 2014 (!)...after other makers had been using it for forty years or so if not longer, it had long become a standard shape for mandolins, and Gibson themselves had been using it for nearly a century. A bit late to the party with the trademark application, n'est-ce pas? Like their present actions, seems like it was more of a desperation move by a desperate company than anything...

----------


## Wolfboy

> This one from Dovydas is over-dramatic *and* fun,


The nod to _The Room_ ("oh, hi, Mark! Hahahahaha") was an especially nice touch.  :Smile:

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Roger Siminoff tried to alert them to the emerging market for F-5 mandolins in the late 70's. Had they started something along the line of the Opry Mills shop back then, then possibly Flatiron and others wouldn't have even gotten into it.

----------


## Wolfboy

> Stradivari was born in the 1640's. I did not know he made guitars at all so I've learned something on this thread. Now I'm wondering if he made mandolins too? Can't find any info on that, but I did find that he made harps as well as fiddles and guitars. I wonder if any of his guitars are extant?


OT, but interesting: he made a few, and five still exist (I saw one years ago in the Shrine to Music Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota). Only one is still playable, apparently, and you can hear it here http://www.sabionari.com/Home.html and here https://forgottenguitar.com/2016/02/...in-1679-video/.

It appears Krishnasol Jiménez has recorded at least two CDs playing the Sabionari Stradivarius guitar - I might have to get them just for the coolness factor.  :Smile:

----------


## DHopkins

> Since international lawsuits require an agreement between the countries involved - we'll have to see diplomats shake hands first (and they'll have to wear leather jackets)...


.....and rubber gloves.

----------

Bertram Henze

----------


## Bob A

> Roger Siminoff tried to alert them to the emerging market for F-5 mandolins in the late 70's. Had they started something along the line of the Opry Mills shop back then, then possibly Flatiron and others wouldn't have even gotten into it.


Therefore, players of the modern boutique instruments, and their makers, should thank Gibson for dropping the ball and allowing a generation of talented luthiers to perfect their skills. Also Gibson should thank these luthiers for both improving the breed, so to speak, as well as encouraging the company to reach new heights of excellence under Derrington, Harvey et al, as they rose to the challenge in the face of such stiff competition.

A tangled tale, to be sure. Conflict and challenge stimulates evolutionary change,

----------

Jill McAuley

----------


## luthier88

I see a business opportunity: Headstock Condoms. Simply cover the headstock of your instrument with one of a number of nicely colored devices so as not to offend Gibson. I have, in these latter days, found that A Gibson is only Good Enough, but not really good enough.

I thought that Henry was bad, but he was just incompetent. Next: Martin goes for enforcement of the Dreadnaught shape and concept.

----------


## Bad Monkey

> I play clawhammer and love it, but i love banjo jokes, they are just so funny. this was a good one, just in time too.
> d


there are no banjo jokes, only cautionary tales.

----------


## Wolfboy

> Next: Martin goes for enforcement of the Dreadnaught shape and concept.


The contrast between Martin's attitude towards their market (or Taylor's, or Yamaha's, or whoever's) and Gibson's _is_ pretty striking, isn't it? I guess Martin isn't as scared of other makers doing what they do better and charging less for it.

----------


## sgarrity

I seem to recall a pretty famous acoustic musician saying "It's a Gibson, it'll have to do...."  Kinda sums things up IMHO!

As an aside, the Harvey built mandolins I've played have all been fine instruments.  I hate that Dave and his team are or will be caught up in this mess.

----------

William Smith

----------


## Eric Platt

> The contrast between Martin's attitude towards their market (or Taylor's, or Yamaha's, or whoever's) and Gibson's _is_ pretty striking, isn't it? I guess Martin isn't as scared of other makers doing what they do better and charging less for it.


Well, wasn't it about 20 or so years ago Taylor pulled some stuff that had the acoustic community up in arms at the time? That's one reason the original Taylor Guitar Forum changed to the Acoustic Guitar Forum. And why dealers could not advertise even used Taylor instruments.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Wolfboy

> Well, wasn't it about 20 or so years ago Taylor pulled some stuff that had the acoustic community up in arms at the time? That's one reason the original Taylor Guitar Forum changed to the Acoustic Guitar Forum. And why dealers could not advertise even used Taylor instruments.


Yeah, good point, I’d forgotten about that. And it's true, they didn’t allow their dealers to advertise Taylors online for a while. Still, they’ve settled down about that (I think), and even at their worst I don't think they weren’t throwing threats around the way Gibson is doing.

----------

Eric Platt, 

Simon DS

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

And the reason Mandolin Bros. dumped Taylor.

----------

Eric Platt

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> The contrast between Martin's attitude towards their market (or Taylor's, or Yamaha's, or whoever's) and Gibson's _is_ pretty striking, isn't it? I guess Martin isn't as scared of other makers doing what they do better and charging less for it.


FYI.  In the early 1980s, *Martin Guitars issued a letter* asserting that the Takamine F-340 and other models featured a logo design that was allegedly nearly identical to their own.  A law suite was threatened but never enacted according to Martin.

----------


## Jess L.

> The nod to _The Room_ ("oh, hi, Mark! Hahahahaha") was an especially nice touch.


Ah, I see now, I'd wondered about that. (I hadn't heard of that film before.) Thanks!  :Smile:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> FYI.  In the early 1980s, *Martin Guitars issued a letter* asserting that the Takamine F-340 and other models featured a logo design that was allegedly nearly identical to their own.


The only lawsuit ever filed was by Gibson and covered the open book headstock. There were no Martin or Fender lawsuits.

----------


## Jess L.

Maybe Gibson should trademark the word "*The*", while they're at it.  

I mean, look, there's all these other non-authentic builders putting the word "The" on the headstocks. They have no right to use the word "The" in such a manner, because Gibson invented that. It's illegal! 

Even if the "The" is in front of some _other name_ instead of Gibson, it doesn't matter! They still got the idea from Gibson! It's *stealing* to even contemplate using the word "The" on the headstock like that! 

Further, it will soon be prohibited to use anything that even remotely resembles a *script font* on the headstock. Gibson invented that too, the same year Gibson invented hide glue (don't believe the false stories about ancient luthiers inventing hide glue, that's just a vast conspiracy theory to try to justify the theft of more ideas from Gibson). No one else should be allowed to use a script font on the headstock, or anywhere else on the instrument for that matter (just on principle), without paying some sort of licensing fee to Gibson. Wanna use a script font to make your instrument look more Gibsonish? Then pay up and "play authentic". 


------------
_Oh come on now, settle down,   it's just my amateur try at parody._  :Smile:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I don't think Gibson wasn't the first one to use "The". I believe it was a common marketing practice to use it as a way of elevating the product.

----------


## Jess L.

> I don't think Gibson wasn't the first one to use "The". I believe it was a common marketing practice to use it as a way of elevating the product.


Oh. Darn! I didn't know that. I guess I should have done a little research before typing out my little parody... I was just kinda thinking out loud... oops.  :Redface:  Thanks Mike for the heads-up!  :Smile:

----------


## Wolfboy

> FYI.  In the early 1980s, *Martin Guitars issued a letter* asserting that the Takamine F-340 and other models featured a logo design that was allegedly nearly identical to their own.  A law suite was threatened but never enacted according to Martin.


Well, in fairness, that Takamine logo _was_ almost identical to the Martin logo (IMO), and presumably intentionally so. I can kind of understand where Martin was coming from on that one. But that seems very different from what Gibson is doing now - Martin didn't attack Takamine or anybody else for headstock shapes or body styles that were obviously based on Martin's, nor did they accuse other guitar makers who were putting their own names/logos on their headstocks of making "counterfeits," as Gibson is doing. And as you and Mike say, even in the case of the Takamine logo Martin never took it as far as an actual lawsuit.

----------


## Jeff Mando

It seems a lot of people are confusing the politics with the product.  I like my Gibsons.  Granted, they are all vintage, but still.  Also, I repair and setup a lot of recent Gibsons and think the Bozeman stuff is great, the VOS stuff is great, and if you have the money the Historic series R8's, R9's, etc. -- all good stuff, IMHO.  Same with custom shop if you want to spend the money.  In fact, money seems to be the only real complaint.......cost vs what the same money might get you somewhere else.

Henry took a lot of hits and rightly so, IMHO, but overall the "henry era" overlaps the Bozeman era, the Derrington era, and the Harvey era, FWIW...........so.....IMHO, pretty impressive stuff, really!

OK, new corporate ownership, throwing some weight around..........about what I'd expect.  I'm not a corporate guy.  In fact, I don't give a rat's hind end what some corporate approved spokeperson says about much of anything.  Go to a big guitar show and you'll meet a hundred Mark A's there........doesn't bother me.  I can think for myself.  I can pick up an instrument and decide if it has "THE STUFF" or not!  Very simple.......

As far as the new investors trying to recoup by whatever means necessary -- sure seems desperate to me.  I think the Gibson name is their biggest selling point.  OTOH, and I hate to say it, did most of the boutique makers copy Gibson's F5?  Yep, right down to the measurements and probably even tracing it.  Do I care?  Nope....  Do I think that Gilchrist selling 17 instruments a year hurts Gibson's bottom line?  Nope, Gibson makes more in string sales and straps than Gilchrist makes, shouldn't even be a blip on their radar, IMHO. (that is, assuming the business is being run right......)

Thanks for the chuckles about the leather jacket and the fact it was mentioned more than once!  Good stuff!  :Laughing:

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Jim Hilburn

When Siminoff or Derrington started making mandolins for Gibson, while designing their mandolins I'm sure they "copied the Gibson F-5 and probably even traced it". They just did it while working for the entity that owned the name at the time.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> It seems a lot of people are confusing the politics with the product.  I like my Gibsons.  Granted, they are all vintage, but still.  Also, I repair and setup a lot of recent Gibsons and think the Bozeman stuff is great, the VOS stuff is great, and if you have the money the Historic series R8's, R9's, etc. -- all good stuff, IMHO.  Same with custom shop if you want to spend the money.  In fact, money seems to be the only real complaint.......cost vs what the same money might get you somewhere else.
> 
> Henry took a lot of hits and rightly so, IMHO, but overall the "henry era" overlaps the Bozeman era, the Derrington era, and the Harvey era, FWIW...........so.....IMHO, pretty impressive stuff, really!
> 
> OK, new corporate ownership, throwing some weight around..........about what I'd expect.  I'm not a corporate guy.  In fact, I don't give a rat's hind end what some corporate approved spokeperson says about much of anything.  Go to a big guitar show and you'll meet a hundred Mark A's there........doesn't bother me.  I can think for myself.  I can pick up an instrument and decide if it has "THE STUFF" or not!  Very simple.......
> 
> As far as the new investors trying to recoup by whatever means necessary -- sure seems desperate to me.  I think the Gibson name is their biggest selling point.  OTOH, and I hate to say it, did most of the boutique makers copy Gibson's F5?  Yep, right down to the measurements and probably even tracing it.  Do I care?  Nope....  Do I think that Gilchrist selling 17 instruments a year hurts Gibson's bottom line?  Nope, Gibson makes more in string sales and straps than Gilchrist makes, shouldn't even be a blip on their radar, IMHO. (that is, assuming the business is being run right......)
> 
> Thanks for the chuckles about the leather jacket and the fact it was mentioned more than once!  Good stuff!


Great post Jeff!

I also don't care too much for these threats or law suites (or whatever they turn out to be) -- but Gibson absolutely has the right to do them.  End of the day they might not be the best decision by their new management (or they may have no effect at all) but hey those kind of corporate decisions are made hourly for better or for worst.  

I'm certainly not going to stop buying Gibson products, including new ones, because of them however.

Concern and disagreement with these actions by Gibson is perfectly reasonable and a matter of opinion certainly. 

OTOH, the level of apoplexy and agony seen in parts of this thread seem kind of over the top and silly and the references to thugs, leather jackets, and boots is juvenile (all of course IMNSHO).

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Well, in fairness, that Takamine logo _was_ almost identical to the Martin logo (IMO), and presumably intentionally so. I can kind of understand where Martin was coming from on that one. But that seems very different from what Gibson is doing now - Martin didn't attack Takamine or anybody else for headstock shapes or body styles that were obviously based on Martin's, nor did they accuse other guitar makers who were putting their own names/logos on their headstocks of making "counterfeits," as Gibson is doing. And as you and Mike say, even in the case of the Takamine logo Martin never took it as far as an actual lawsuit.


Martin did not take any other further legal action because Takamine "ceased and desisted" after the threat -- my point was Martin and many companies make such treats every day.  (and actually I expect what was in Martin's "corporate legal mind" was the totality of the impression?  If you were around then you know that those guitars had both the flat, dark brown Martin head stock along with the similar shaped logo silhouette?)

As to whether the actions or objection deals with similar looking logos or similar looking shapes -- that seems to me not a useful distinction?  Maybe a difference in degree but not in kind IMO.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> When Siminoff or Derrington started making mandolins for Gibson, while designing their mandolins I'm sure they "copied the Gibson F-5 and probably even traced it". They just did it while working for the entity that owned the name at the time.


That is true Jim.  But certainly Gibson has a right to copy Gibson -- a right would not necessarily extent to other companies?

----------


## Bertram Henze

> It seems a lot of people are confusing the politics with the product.


I guess many of us are playing folk musik in order to escape to a better world, away from politics, and they want their instruments and their makers to reflect that sentiment. You thought you had bonded with simple, honest craftsmanship, but suddenly the very monster you were running away from tells you "I am your father". To sell your product, you have to understand your customers, or else there is no product.

----------

Gan Ainm, 

Hendrik Ahrend, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Not saying they don't. I'm saying ever since at least the early 30's Gibson made F-5's in small numbers but continually strayed from what we call "Loar specs" until it got so bad as the 70's when they only had a superficial resemblance to the original. So just like other early builders they had to start from scratch to get back to making what mandolin buyers wanted.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

New today from guitar.com:

GIBSON LOSES FLYING V TRADEMARK CASE IN EU COURT

And yesterday from the same:

IS GIBSON VS DEAN A SERIOUS CASE OF DÉJÀ VU?

----------

Bertram Henze, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Eric Platt, 

JEStanek, 

John Bertotti, 

MikeEdgerton, 

oliverkollar, 

Ryk Loske, 

tmsweeney

----------


## slimt

Not surprising at all.   Hope the eat crow on the rest

----------


## Bertram Henze

> New today from guitar.com:
> 
> GIBSON LOSES FLYING V TRADEMARK CASE IN EU COURT


_Ruling in EU General Court finds the Flying V body shape has “no demonstration of distinctive character”_
Logic here: it's not special enough to deserve protection  :Grin: 




> IS GIBSON VS DEAN A SERIOUS CASE OF DÉJÀ VU?


_...that the similarity of the guitars could confuse buyers_
That reminds me of a schoolmate of mine - he had a black Höfner Les Paul shape guitar and he called it "the Gibson". And he pronounced it "Djibson"... That was in the 1970s, so fearing confusion in 2004 is just a bit late.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Only a Djibson is djood enough.

----------

Bertram Henze, 

DHopkins, 

j. condino, 

Jill McAuley, 

Timbofood

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

> New today from guitar.com:
> 
> GIBSON LOSES FLYING V TRADEMARK CASE IN EU COURT
> 
> And yesterday from the same:
> 
> IS GIBSON VS DEAN A SERIOUS CASE OF DÉJÀ VU?


I hate to point out something, but here it goes: 

The GIBSON vs. DEAN case is old news. Gibson tried to hassle Dean and finally lost the case in 2018.

That does not mean that it´s not worth mentioning... far from that. 

This case goes to show that you have to do your homework, when you want to take legal action.

Jim Hilburn pointed it out nicely. Had Gibson followed Roger Siminov´s advice in around 1977 things (in the mando community) might have turned a different way.




> Only a Djibson is djood enough.


When one looks at the old "Only A Gibson Is Good Enough" statement one has to see the wartime truth. Back then (1942 - 1945) Banner Gibsons were made and they are legendary instruments. I can truely claim that a banner Gibson Southerner Jumbo is a magical guitar.

But were not talking about the past. 

Has anyone found it slightly awkward to hear MA talking about "playing authentic"? Does that cause anyone to think that Gibson is trying to take a marketing stab at the Martin "authentic" models? This was one of my impressions and among all the sour moments in that sad video this was one of the low points, not that I want to beat a dead horse.

----------


## John Bertotti

> New today from guitar.com:
> 
> GIBSON LOSES FLYING V TRADEMARK CASE IN EU COURT
> 
> And yesterday from the same:
> 
> IS GIBSON VS DEAN A SERIOUS CASE OF DÉJÀ VU?


I just stumbled on this a few minutes ago and was going to add a link here. You are really on the ball! I woudl think but don't know for sure, that this could only help Dean with their position.

----------


## John Bertotti

> I hate to point out something, but here it goes: 
> 
> The GIBSON vs. DEAN case is old news. Gibson tried to hassle Dean and finally lost the case in 2018.
> 
> That does not mean that it´s not worth mentioning... far from that. 
> 
> This case goes to show that you have to do your homework, when you want to take legal action.
> 
> Jim Hilburn pointed it out nicely. Had Gibson followed Roger Siminov´s advice in around 1977 things (in the mando community) might have turned a different way.
> ...


I don't know about the Martin Authentic line but I have a Golden Era 000-18 and it is incredible. But why would Gibson take a stab at those? To me, You either want a Gibson sound or a Martin Sound or Taylor or whomever but Martin has a sound all its own one a person either wants or doesn't. At least that is how it seems to me.

----------


## Jess L.

EDIT: Oops, nevermind, it's already been posted (I forgot to refresh the page to check for new posts before posting).

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Not saying they don't. I'm saying ever since at least the early 30's Gibson made F-5's in small numbers but continually strayed from what we call "Loar specs" until it got so bad as the 70's when they only had a superficial resemblance to the original. So just like other early builders they had to start from scratch to get back to making what mandolin buyers wanted.


IMO, what really killed the F-5 at Gibson was the suspension  mandolin production in 1940.  When they tried in late 1948 to restart production there was (apparently) no one still working at the Kalamazoo factory who had ever made an F-5?  And it seems the original F-5 plans were not available either?  What happened next was an F-5 with the fret board glued to the top board like an F-4? It took Roger to get them back on track in the late 70s it seems.

----------


## sblock

> IMO, what really killed the F-5 at Gibson was the suspension  mandolin production in 1940.  When they tried in late 1948 to restart production there was (apparently) no one still working at the Kalamazoo factory who had ever made an F-5?  And it seems the original F-5 plans were not available either?  What happened next was an F-5 with the fret board glued to the top board like an F-4? It took Roger to get them back on track in the late 70s it seems.


Not exactly, no.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Not exactly, no.


Well ok then what do you say is the best explanation?  For sure mandolin production stopped in early 1940 and resumed late 1948? Yes? Also I'm pretty sure that the fret board was not elevated again until mid-1952.  I had a '53 F-12 and the board was elevated but not like an pre-war instrument.  I have seen a couple of 1950 F-models and they are built like an F-4.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

There wasn't much demand yet in the early 50's. But what I keep harping on is that Gibson should have seen and anticipated the demand. Or else not complained when others started filling the demand.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> Well ok then what do you say is the best explanation?  For sure mandolin production stopped in early 1940 and resumed late 1948? Yes? Also I'm pretty sure that the fret board was not elevated again until mid-1952.  I had a '53 F-12 and the board was elevated but not like an pre-war instrument.  I have seen a couple of 1950 F-models and they are built like an F-4.


Between 1940 and 1942 they still made mandolins like the A 50,also F5s, in those years listed they shipped 35 of them,,the last F5 was shipped in June 1943,production stopped during the war and started again in 1950...

----------

Eric Platt, 

sblock, 

William Smith

----------


## slimt

Did Gibson go bankrupt in the late 60s  ? After that norlin took over?

----------


## Ryk Loske

> When one looks at the old "Only A Gibson Is Good Enough" statement one has to see the wartime truth. Back then (1942 - 1945) Banner Gibsons were made and they are legendary instruments. I can truely claim that a banner Gibson Southerner Jumbo is a magical guitar.


In a discussion with a very highly regarded luthier, his take was the adage should have read:  "Only a Gibson Isn't Glued Enough".

Ryk

----------


## William Smith

Yes there were outstanding F-5's built in 1941-42! They were built a bit heavy but yeah man some really good F-5's! Not as gnarly loud as the Loars and Ferns but tone full and jazzy, even the late 30's the necks were a bit underset so with a neck set they get it done!----I'm a fan!

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Interesting reading over at TalkBass.com, a thread similar to this one.

----------

Simon DS, 

William Smith

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Between 1940 and 1942 they still made mandolins like the A 50,also F5s, in those years listed they shipped 35 of them,,the last F5 was shipped in June 1943,production stopped during the war and started again in 1950...


Are you sure the ones shipped in 1941 to 1942 weren't actually built before the 1940 shut-down?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Between 1940 and 1942 they still made mandolins like the A 50,also F5s, in those years listed they shipped 35 of them,,the last F5 was shipped in June 1943,production stopped during the war and started again in 1950...


Hi. Can you tell me your source for those dates?  For example production certainly started before 1950 because there are 1949 F-5s of note out there.  For example, I'm pretty sure that Bobby Osborne had a 1949 F-5?  I thought that the shut down dates of 1940 and start up of 1948 were good dates?  You say no? Post #401 is kind of on the same topic!  :Smile:

----------


## Steve Carlson

Flatiron: setting the record straight and a bit of context:

I primarily agree with the prior posts here which emphasize the untenable act of forging the 'Gibson' name and passing off forgeries and fakes on the public as the real thing. That is nothing but fraud and deceit. Completely different (to me) from patterning an instrument style after features long held in the public domain, ie the Florentine mandolin and it's common shape and appointments.




> For the record, Flatiron started making mandolins in 1977.  Gibson bought them in 1987.  Flatiron had been making carved mandolins in significant numbers by 1983.  I believe that most of the pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were A models, although an F model was also available.
> The pre-Gibson carved Flatirons were good instruments. One could argue that they were the best factory-made instruments of the period.
> I always assumed that Gibson bought them to eliminate the competition, and to get the factory and some of the workers.


The 1st Flatiron Mandolins shipped to music stores in early 1979 (under the banner of Backporch Productions, made in Montana, USA).  Carved top models, both A and F style, started shipping in 1983 (maybe late 1982). Both A and F models were built on a weekly basis, 4-A's and 2-F's, all the way through 1986.
Flatiron was a very small 'shop' throughout its building years. By 1983 shop size ranged between 6 to 10 people. Gibson bought Flatiron for the production capacity of our shop. 

More info on Flatirons  origin (off topic) here: https://zetaviolins.com/steve-carlson




> As to quality. This is just my opinion but I would put the F-5L almost on a par with the mandolins the Flatiron started making 10 years later. In fact isn't it likely that Steve Carlson used the F-5L as a guide to his Flatirons?


Flatiron carved tops were not a 'direct' copy of a Gibson. At that time I had no access to a Gibson F5. It helps to remember, I live in Montana. I had been attending trade shows since 1977 (both as a music dealer (my store the Backporch Pickin' Parlor) and later as a displaying vendor (Flatiron Mandolins). Aside from questionable quality import mandolins at trade shows, the only quality 'F' style mandolin I had ever held or played was carried around the trade show floor by George Gruhn,( a Flatiron dealer who would come by our Flatiron booth) . . . and this F model was both exceptional sounding and exquisite looking and I bought it for inspiration. The distinctive carve is unique and easily recognized as not Gibson. I was reminded of this only recently at the Big Sky Bluegrass Festival here in Montana just a month ago, when I sat down with two of the main mandolin artists of the show.




> I had never heard the story that Gibson threatened Flatiron --i.e. to cease and desist? I also thought the purchase was to get volume production as Gibson had only three individuals in-house who could make the F-5L. But there are individuals on this forum who would know that for sure what happened back then. Steve Carlson has commented several times on this forum including a lot of details on how they got started with Flatiron but I do not recall him mentioning any coercion?


I spent the entire year of 1986 tooling up and fixturing to produce Flatiron banjos. This included building the crew size up as well, to a level of about 16 people. This was all in preparation of attending the January NAMM 1987 trade show with I believe 3 or 4 banjo models. Because this effort involved many late late nights of work; fixturing, building, spraying, inlay, etc . . . Ren Ferguson and I would ruminate quite often on the crazy aspect of Gibson not producing mandolins . . . which then led to the thought and discussion that perhaps they would want us to make them for them . . . I mean, why not?

So I went to the trade show that year kind of thinking this was a wonderful idea. Not only we're we launching our new banjo line . . . but hey, why aren't we making Gibson mandolins for Gibson? That makes good business sense right? Unfortunately (in hindsight) . . . the very 1st person that the brand new owner of Gibson (HJ) met on the trade show floor at 8:00 a.m., first day of the show . . . was me. He had officially owned the Gibson company for all of about 8 hours and then he met me. And I was suggesting that since they weren't making mandolins that perhaps we should make them for them. That didn't go over well.




> Shortly after came the cease and desist.  Flatiron had to turn to making banjos which set out Stanley Jay from Mandolin Brothers, after sales of Mando's tanked, to talk Henry into buying Flatiron and from that the Bozeman facility came into existence.


About a month after the show, we received a cease and desist letter . . . typical format I would say. When you receive something like that, I don't care who you are, it is disconcerting and gives one cause to consider the future in a different light. 
Contrary to reports elsewhere, Flatiron did not suffer financial setback and or turn to making banjos due to Gibson's cease and desist . . . it was just one great big irritation as one has to waste time pondering 'what-if' scenarios you weren't pondering yesterday.  Banjos had been set up to produce at a certain level, which I think was about 2 a week and that's what we did . . . and mandolin production continued as before. All sales and production only adjusted as before . . . according to typical market demand and fluctuation. Again, we were a small shop.

What happened over the next year was that Gibson, despite some effort on their part, was unsuccessful in producing mandolins in any quantity. At the very next trade show in Anaheim, 1987, I found myself at the Gibson booth discussing mandolins (and Gibson) with Jim Triggs and Charlie Derrington. As I was walking a way I ran into Stan Jay (Mandolin Brothers, very good Flatiron Dealer) who asked me what was happening regarding the 'cease and desist'. I explained I had heard nothing further but went on to suggest how crazy it was to potentially spend money in an effort to put me out of business when they could solve their mandolin 'problem', and it would cost them less, to work with me. Stan Jay thought that made total sense and he did an abrupt about face and headed straight towards Henry, who was playing guitar on stage with a band at the Gibson booth. Likewise, I did an abrupt about face and was out of there. 

Side Note: It helps to understand that Henry employed the services of several consultants in the industry for advice as part of his 'learning/understanding' of the new industry he was involved in. George Gruhn (Gruhn Guitars), Stan Werbin (Elderly Instruments), Stan Jay (Mandolin Brothers), and others. So suffice it to say . . . HJ was willing to listen to Stan. Additionally, during that 1st year of ownership, 1986, with the word out that Gibson was going to be bringing back the 'old quality' and making good mandolins and banjos again . . . backorders for F-5L mandolins had risen into the hundreds (the type of thing that 'managers' read on their daily reports) . . . and mandolin production at the Nashville plant was no more than 1 a month.

About a week after the 1987 trade show I received a call from Charlie Derrington stating that Henry wanted to talk to me and would I be interested in coming down to Nashville for a meeting. I went to Nashville and met with Henry privately in his office. Eventually the question came regarding how many I thought I could make. My reply was "as many as you want". The response was 'no really, how many'. I said . . . 'I'm serious, as many as you want, but it is most important to produce at true demand level, because it takes a bit to get the crew built with the skill level necessary to meet the quality level we want/need to maintain demand", etc. etc. Henry says: "So what would you say that level is" and I said "probably about 6/week could be maintained long-term".
Shortly after that exchange Henry proposed that Gibson acquire Flatiron and told me to see Dave Berryman and work out the details.    

This was in February of 1987. The goal was set to have Gibson's new F-5L mandolin for the summer NAMM show. For the 1st and only time I used a Gibson F5 as a pattern for the Gibson F-5L we would be making. We used Charlie Derrington's (greenish) Lloyd Loar F5 as the pattern for all things and all progress was approved along the way by Jim Triggs and Charlie. Tooling and fixturing was a night and day effort from March to June and in July we we're at the NAMM show with the 1st 6 Gibson F-5Ls . . . and started producing 6 a week after that, every week until my departure which came at the end of 1993. (This production was interrupted during the guitar plant start up, etc, but returned to these #'s when I was put back in charge thru 1993). Note: Flatiron carve tops and Gibson carve tops were entirely different patterns.

So . . . the lesson:  nothing gets accomplished thru the front door. It has to come from inside and behind closed doors.

My thoughts . . . Gibson will never make high volume of F's again. They owned probably 80% or more of the mandolin market back then, between Flatiron and Gibson. No one (other USA companies) was interested in competing making mandolins against Gibson at that time. But in the end, it was meaningless money in the bigger scheme of things . . . and a hassle for them. After all, it's a completely different production process and mentality. At minimum it takes upwards of 8 hours or more just to detail an F style mandolin. On the guitar shop floor personnel have just minutes to do an electric or acoustic guitar. It's hard to reconcile the differences. They gave it all up and moved on.

They (the company) don't care about 'mandolins' . . . but royalties they think are deserved.

Steve Carlson

----------

40bpm, 

AMandolin, 

Bernie Daniel, 

Bob A, 

Bob Bass, 

BradKlein, 

ccravens, 

chasray, 

Cremona5, 

dang, 

darylcrisp, 

dave vann, 

David Rambo, 

DHopkins, 

Doug Brock, 

drooartz, 

Eric Platt, 

f5joe, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Glassweb, 

Hermann Winchester, 

Jeff Budz, 

JFDilmando, 

Jill McAuley, 

Jim Hilburn, 

Jwblanton, 

Mandolin Cafe, 

Mandomusic, 

Mike Crocker, 

MikeEdgerton, 

mrbook, 

oliverkollar, 

Paul Kotapish, 

Paul Statman, 

PDMan, 

Randi Gormley, 

Rob Meyer, 

Ryk Loske, 

sblock, 

Simon DS, 

SincereCorgi, 

Steve Sorensen, 

Steve-o, 

T.D.Nydn, 

Timbofood, 

tree, 

UsuallyPickin, 

Victor Daniel, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Flatiron: setting the record straight and a bit of context:
> 
> I primarily agree with the prior posts here which emphasize the untenable act of forging the 'Gibson' name and passing off forgeries and fakes on the public as the real thing. That is nothing but fraud and deceit. Completely different (to me) from patterning an instrument style after features long held in the public domain, ie the Florentine mandolin and it's common shape and appointments.
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Flatiron Mandolins shipped to music stores in early 1979 (under the banner of Backporch Productions, made in Montana, USA).  Carved top models, both A and F style, started shipping in 1983 (maybe late 1982). Both A and F models were built on a weekly basis, 4-A's and 2-F's, all the way through 1986.
> Flatiron was a very small 'shop' throughout its building years. By 1983 shop size ranged between 6 to 10 people. Gibson bought Flatiron for the production capacity of our shop. 
> 
> ...


Wow!  Thank you so much Mr. Steve Carlson!  

You have have answered some of the questions about the Flatiron-Gibson interface that I have wondered about for years!  

Never imagined you would end up answering those questions on this forum but I am so glad you did.  I used to pump Roger Siminoff for bits of the story but on parts he would say you'll have to ask Steve Carlson about that!  :Smile: 

Awesome story!

----------

almeriastrings, 

Paul Statman, 

Steve Carlson

----------


## T.D.Nydn

Steve Carlson,,thank you that's incredible information,,by the way I'm a big fan,I have a '92 A5L signed by you,fantastic mandolin  both in construction and sound!

----------

Steve Carlson

----------


## T.D.Nydn

> Hi. Can you tell me your source for those dates?  For example production certainly started before 1950 because there are 1949 F-5s of note out there.  For example, I'm pretty sure that Bobby Osborne had a 1949 F-5?  I thought that the shut down dates of 1940 and start up of 1948 were good dates?  You say no? Post #401 is kind of on the same topic!

----------


## Timbofood

Mr. Carlson,
I truly appreciate your sharing the very interesting facts about how your interaction developed! Your perspective in this whole thing is much more interesting to my mind, than the chest thumping bullying offered by the company and subsequent ire presented by those with little to gain aside from adding numbers of posts to their profile.
Not to say there surely isn’t room for some “lively” conversation on the subject.
I apologize to anyone who is offended but, that’s the way I’m seeing this playing out.

----------

Steve Carlson

----------


## Steve Carlson

> Wow!  Thank you so much Mr. Steve Carlson!  
> 
> You have have answered some of the questions about the Flatiron-Gibson interface that I have wondered about for years!  
> 
> Never imagined you would end up answering those questions on this forum but I am so glad you did.  I used to pump Roger Siminoff for bits of the story but on parts he would say you'll have to ask Steve Carlson about that! 
> 
> Awesome story!


Thanks Bernie. Aside from the 'let-down' of the moment (ie, 1st encounter with Henry on the NAMM show floor January 1986) and subsequent frustration . . . there are odd vivid memories that provide a chuckle to look back on.

At that show, when I presented Henry our Flatiron (carve-top) Brochure and described the quality product we could provide Gibson . . . he turned away slightly and under his breath murmured to Lane Astro (then head of Gibson Sales), 'I think we have a problem here'. I thought I heard him say . . . 'I think we have a product here' . . . so I continued with fervor my sales pitch.

Alas . . . it was not so . . . and it was then he informed me that I must have misunderstood . . . that in fact 'Gibson was back' and he was going to shut us down, me and anyone else copying Gibson product. I plucked my brochure from his hand and walked away.

Ironically, Henry and I became good friends later (at least in my perspective) and I greatly enjoyed the challenges and opportunities that were afforded me during most of my 6 years at Gibson. It is common that in situations like this (ie buyouts), there is about a 1 year honeymoon with former management. Typically because in the early days the only thing that matters is performance, and we were long on that. However, in the end what matters in the corporate environment is conformity . . . and usually the entrepreneurial spirit lacks that attribute.

Steve Carlson

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

BradKlein, 

ccravens, 

darylcrisp, 

Glassweb, 

John Lloyd, 

Mandolin Cafe, 

MikeEdgerton, 

Paul Statman, 

pops1, 

Ryk Loske, 

T.D.Nydn, 

Timbofood, 

Victor Daniel, 

William Smith

----------


## Russ Jordan

Steve Carlson,

Thanks for all the great info. 

  "the only quality 'F' style mandolin I had ever held or played was carried around the trade show floor by George Gruhn,( a Flatiron dealer who would come by our Flatiron booth) . . . and this F model was both exceptional sounding and exquisite looking and I bought it for inspiration"

I assume you mean this was not a Gibson mandolin?

Were very many Flatiron banjos made?  I have only seen a couple.

Thanks again.

----------

Steve Carlson

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> 


Thanks for that.  But who wrote that document where you got that paragraph please?  

That paragraph notwithstanding I think there is still some uncertainty on this matter. 

And also some contradiction in the paragraph itself perhaps?   Note one line in the paragraph says production ended "shortly after the war began"?  Well, WWIi started in September of 1939.  Hard think of 1942 as being "shortly after" but 1940 would be shortly perhaps?  

And again as to the resumption of production date post the war.  I'm pretty confident that it is not 1950?  For one thing I am pretty sure that Bobby Osborne started playing a 1949 F-12 -- it had the fret board glued to the top board.  Here is a *thread* from the forum from over a decade ago.  Note  fLoar's comments about it. 

So either Bobby's mandolin is not a 1949 model (actually I know I read somewhere it was built in late 1948) or that date of 1950 in the paragraph is incorrect?  

Here is another bit of evidence that calls that paragraph into question:

In Graham McDonald's book, "The Mandolin - a history" you will find at the bottom of page 240  this quote "Gibson started making mandolins again that year with both the F-5 and an F-12 available"  Then from the previous sentence we see "that year" refers to 1948 (i.e., the year mandolin production was re-started).  That time (late 1948 has been the date I have carried around in my head for decades as the time the Gibson factory started making mandolins).

Then one other bit of information. One finds on page 147 of Walter Carter's book "Gibson Guitars - -100 years of an American Icon" the comments that production at the Gibson factory ended in 1941 and resumed in 1947.

Be interesting if others weigh in this but in truth the our conversation here is a bit OT! LOL

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Steve Carlson

> Steve Carlson,
> 
> Thanks for all the great info. 
> 
>   "the only quality 'F' style mandolin I had ever held or played was carried around the trade show floor by George Gruhn,( a Flatiron dealer who would come by our Flatiron booth) . . . and this F model was both exceptional sounding and exquisite looking and I bought it for inspiration"
> 
> I assume you mean this was not a Gibson mandolin?
> 
> Were very many Flatiron banjos made?  I have only seen a couple.
> ...


Yes . . . sorry for that (unclear) oversight on my part . . . 'that F-style 'inspirational' mandolin I purchased from George Gruhn was definitely not a Gibson, but rather an extremely fine example of the craft by a noted maker with 'his name on the peghead'.

It may be of further interest to note that at that time (probably January 1981) sales of 16 flat-style Flatirons a week (comprised of a mix of mandolins, mandolas, and octaves) was starting to slow . . . and I had made the decision to venture into the carve-top realm. It's also hard to imagine now that at the time there was only imports available and being sold thru dealers, except for a couple significant exceptions of noted luthiers selling thru Mandolin Brothers, Gruhn Guitars and perhaps Folk Arts Music in Boulder, CO. Interestingly, the same void in the market that existed regarding 'any' USA made mandolins available back in 1979 still existed in carve tops in 1982, so it presented itself as another untapped opportunity. Additionally, by that time I had become not only adept at tooling and fixturing, but also passionate about it . . . and so it was a fundamental move . . . not necessarily easy . . . but fundamental.

Consequently I bought that 'non-Gibson' F mandolin and started down that path.

Regarding banjos I would say less than 200 Flatirons were made. The complication became my involvement with Gibson's banjo production. Ironically, when Gibson purchased Flatiron they didn't know we even made banjos, but on my many visits to Nashville it occurred that I became good friends with Greg Rich and so I started making all the Gibson banjo necks, fingerboards and resonators. Sales/Production of Flatiron banjos were never more than a couple a week and eventually stopped when I was moved to CFO of Gibson in about 1990 (somewhat after building the Acoustic Guitar plant in Bozeman). The love of banjo (mine) was not shared enthusiastically by other management and thus it petered out in my absence.

Steve Carlson

----------

darylcrisp, 

Glassweb, 

John Lloyd, 

Paul Statman, 

Russ Jordan

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ...."the only quality 'F' style mandolin I had ever held or played was carried around the trade show floor by George Gruhn,( a Flatiron dealer who would come by our Flatiron booth) . . . and this F model was both exceptional sounding and exquisite looking and I bought it for inspiration"....assume you mean this was not a Gibson mandolin?....


Ha looks like I am not the only one wondering who made that "non-Gibson" mandolin!!  :Laughing: 

I think Steve would have told us he make if he was going to?   :Cool: 

Since this was 1982 (yes?) I am guessing it was a Monteleone GA?

Oops Steve posted while I was composing!!

----------


## Steve Carlson

> Ha looks like I am not the only one wondering who made that "non-Gibson" mandolin!! 
> 
> I think Steve would have told us he make if he was going to?  
> 
> Since this was 1982 (yes?) I am guessing it was a Monteleone GA?


Monteleone's relationship at that time was with Mandolin Brothers, NY.

Steve Carlson

----------

Timbofood

----------


## T.D.Nydn

Bernie,,I got that from the complete guide to Gibson mandolins by Paul Fox,,I really couldn't tell you how accurate the information is,but it's Gibson so of course there's missing information and exceptions,,,,

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Bernie,,I got that from the complete guide to Gibson mandolins by Paul Fox,,I really couldn't tell you how accurate the information is,but it's Gibson so of course there's missing information and exceptions,,,,


OK thanks.  :Smile:

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Ha looks like I am not the only one wondering who made that "non-Gibson" mandolin!! 
> 
> I think Steve would have told us he make if he was going to?  
> 
> Since this was 1982 (yes?) I am guessing it was a Monteleone GA?
> 
> Oops Steve posted while I was composing!!


I'm going to guess that the maker's name started with G as well just because of the business relationship George Gruhn had with him. Purely speculation on my part. I don't want to out Bob Givens.

----------


## Russ Jordan

> I'm going to guess that the maker's name started with G as well just because of the business relationship George Gruhn had with him. Purely speculation on my part. I don't want to out Bob Givens.


Or Randy Woods, Wayne Henderson

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Or Randy Woods, Wayne Henderson


I don't know if I'd put Wayne in there yet but I would put Tut Taylor of GTR fame. I still think it was a Givens but I'm sure Steve will tell us.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Monteleone's relationship at that time was with Mandolin Brothers, NY.
> 
> Steve Carlson


Ok!  Well then Mr. Gruhn's relationship at the time I suppose could have been with mandolin builders in places like Georgia perhaps?   :Smile:  

Or who knows Kentucky was making some fine mandolins in those days too (in Japan) -- but I don't know if they had a unique carve that was distinctively not Gibson?  They sure were nice little mandolins though and they inspired me at least.

----------


## Russ Jordan

> I don't know if I'd put Wayne in there yet but I would put Tut Taylor of GTR fame. I still think it was a Givens but I'm sure Steve will tell us.


Wayne worked for George some in early-mid 70’s

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I'm going to guess that the maker's name started with G as well just because of the business relationship George Gruhn had with him. Purely speculation on my part. I don't want to out Bob Givens.


Oohh!  Good guess!  That covers the unique carving as well!

----------


## Mandomusic

Steve Gilchrist was selling most of his F-5 mandolins through Gruhn at that time (including x braced examples).

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Russ Jordan

----------


## slimt

> I'm going to guess that the maker's name started with G as well just because of the business relationship George Gruhn had with him. Purely speculation on my part. I don't want to out Bob Givens.


That was my guess as well.  If not he sure built some Fine mandolins and acoustics.

----------


## jd.panko

What about Paganoni and Wood?

----------


## Russ Jordan

> Steve Gilchrist was selling most of his F-5 mandolins through Gruhn at that time (including x braced examples).


Good point on the x-bracing.  Makes me think Gil

----------


## slimt

> Yes . . . sorry for that (unclear) oversight on my part . . . 'that F-style 'inspirational' mandolin I purchased from George Gruhn was definitely not a Gibson, but rather an extremely fine example of the craft by a noted maker with 'his name on the peghead'.
> 
> It may be of further interest to note that at that time (probably January 1981) sales of 16 flat-style Flatirons a week (comprised of a mix of mandolins, mandolas, and octaves) was starting to slow . . . and I had made the decision to venture into the carve-top realm. It's also hard to imagine now that at the time there was only imports available and being sold thru dealers, except for a couple significant exceptions of noted luthiers selling thru Mandolin Brothers, Gruhn Guitars and perhaps Folk Arts Music in Boulder, CO. Interestingly, the same void in the market that existed regarding 'any' USA made mandolins available back in 1979 still existed in carve tops in 1982, so it presented itself as another untapped opportunity. Additionally, by that time I had become not only adept at tooling and fixturing, but also passionate about it . . . and so it was a fundamental move . . . not necessarily easy . . . but fundamental.
> 
> Consequently I bought that 'non-Gibson' F mandolin and started down that path.
> 
> Regarding banjos I would say less than 200 Flatirons were made. The complication became my involvement with Gibson's banjo production. Ironically, when Gibson purchased Flatiron they didn't know we even made banjos, but on my many visits to Nashville it occurred that I became good friends with Greg Rich and so I started making all the Gibson banjo necks, fingerboards and resonators. Sales/Production of Flatiron banjos were never more than a couple a week and eventually stopped when I was moved to CFO of Gibson in about 1990 (somewhat after building the Acoustic Guitar plant in Bozeman). The love of banjo (mine) was not shared enthusiastically by other management and thus it petered out in my absence.
> 
> Steve Carlson


Hi.  Ren worked for you at Flatiron for a while I believe.  you still connect with the Guys down there in that area? you Talk to B Gonder as well?
Thanks for sharing those experiances of yours..

----------

MikeHalloran, 

Simon DS

----------


## Jess L.

> And also some contradiction in the paragraph itself perhaps? Note one line in the paragraph says production ended "shortly after the war began"?  Well, *WWII started* in September of *1939*. Hard think of 1942 as being "shortly after" but 1940 would be shortly perhaps?


U.S. didn't dive into WWII whole-hog until late in 1941. Then things ramped up for the war effort. 

That is relevant since Gibson is a U.S. company and, in 1939 AFAIK there was *not* yet any wartime-induced rationing of supplies nor labor shortages in the U.S. (those came later), no reason for Gibson to stop production in 1939? U.S. automakers didn't even stop building civilian cars until 1942.

FWIW, some quotes, randomly selected from Page 1 of Google search... no clue if these are reputable websites but the info does seem to match what was taught in school as well as heard from kinfolk who were well into adulthood during those years...   

From some history website: 

_"Although the war began with Nazi Germany's attack on Poland in September 1939, the United States did not enter the war until after the Japanese bombed the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941."_
More info from a different site's history page:

_"After the war began in Europe in 1939, people in the Americas were divided on whether their countries should take part or stay out. Most Americans hoped the Allies would win, but they also hoped to keep the United States out of war. The isolationists, wanted the country to stay out of the war at almost any cost. Another group, the interventionists, wanted the United States to do all in its power to aid the Allies. Canada declared war on Germany almost at once, while the United States shifted its policy from neutrality to preparedness. It began to expand its armed forces, build defense plants, and give the Allies all-out aid short of war.

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt called upon the United States to be "the great arsenal of democracy," and supply war materials to the Allies through sale, lease, or loan. The Lend-Lease bill became law on March 11, 1941. During the next four years, the U.S. sent more than $50 billion worth of war matériel to the Allies. ...

"Urgent requirements for war matériel caused many shortages in consumer goods. Most governments, both Allied and Axis, had to ration the amount of consumer goods each person could use. In the United States, rationed items included meats, butter, sugar, fats, oil, coffee, canned foods, shoes, and gasoline. Congress gave the president power to freeze prices, salaries, and wages at their levels of September 15, 1942. The United States imposed a special excise tax on such luxury items as jewelry and cosmetics. ..."_
Other interesting historical info at "First engagement of neutral United States in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor". 

Oddly, it appears that Gibson _did_ make some musical instruments during the war years, if this article about women building Gibson Banner guitars is accurate. I don't recall hearing/reading about that before...

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

> 


Paul Fox's _Guide to Gibson Mandolins_ is a nice book, but to be taken with a grain of salt in several aspects, I'm afraid. On this page Paul Fox - still - links the production date to the serial number, although Joe Spann, in my view the only scientific and reliable source as of yet, has long since proven that it's the FON, which matters for production date. In the Gruhn/Carter _Guide to Vintage Guitars_  (2nd edition 1999) no clue is given as to the significance and differences of serial numbers and FONs. Both authors tinker with hardly more than traditional estimates. According to Spann, the last pre WWII F5 was made in 1941 and sold in 42. Spann's lists break off after '45. So there doesn't seem to be much evidence as to Bobby Osborne's alleged 1949 F5.

----------

MikeEdgerton, 

Timbofood

----------


## rcc56

George Gruhn compiled his serial number list using the process of deduction by comparing instruments with catalog listings, examining sales receipts, and observing thousands of instruments.  At that time, factory records were not available.  His process was far from being haphazard.  It was a great improvement over anything else that was available at the time.

He now regards the Spann information as being the most reliable, and uses it as his shop reference for Gibson.

My local shop currently has an A-50 that has some wartime characteristics that possesses no FON or serial number.  I call it a "circa 1942" instrument.

----------

Hendrik Ahrend

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Fresh article with interesting insights from ultimate-guitar.com:

What Rights Do Fender and Gibson Hold Over Their Guitar Designs?

Interesting quote from the article near the end: _"With Gibson just recently losing the Flying V case in European courts, things are not looking promising for them."_

Our understanding the U.S. based lawyer that is the individual representing U.S. firms and small builders vs. Gibson was an adviser in the EU case.

----------

Russ Jordan, 

Ryk Loske, 

Steve-o

----------


## V70416

i just want to thank you,steve carlson, for my very favorite f-style mandolin;a 1993 monroe model as i probably will never be able to thank you in person.   and i have been lucky enough to own some real doozie/expensive mandos in my journey.

thank you for your input here on the cafe.

----------


## Wolfboy

This just in...make of it what you will...

~

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/gib...emark-lawsuits

*Gibson to Shift from "Confrontation Towards Collaboration" Following Recent Trademark Lawsuits
*
_In the wake of recent legal action undertaken by Gibson against Armadillo Enterprises, which owns Dean and Luna Guitars, the company is making efforts to explain its moves toward brand protection.

Regarding criticism Gibson has faced for its legal actions, the company said in a statement that the past few weeks have provided a real time opportunity to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration, with appropriate levels of awareness.

Furthermore, the company clarified that the recent attention on the lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated prior to the new leadership, headed by CEO and President James JC Curleigh, arriving in November of 2018. With regard to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, Gibson says its team has made attempts to directly communicate to avoid a prolonged legal battle. 

Said Curleigh, I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions. 

He continued, It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now."_

----------


## Gan Ainm

Additional thanks to Steve C. for his forthrightness, and mandolins. Us "Irish Tune folk"  have all played some great flat-tops of all sizes by Steve and Co. and I was lucky enough to stumble on a new 1985 A5-2 neglected on a wall in a mostly "electric" shop. Sounds better every year (or is that just me practicing once and a while?).
Don't suppose there is a specific prototype mando for The *A* models?
Gibson isn't doing itself any favors, but I will still hang on to my old A2 as well as my "Kalamazoo" flat top waffle iron (which has mojo for the Blues, but does not sound as good as most Flatiron flat tops. Those are good 'uns.)

----------


## slimt

I still dont agree with what they have done. Its just wrong. 

As for there new collection. Its not a very good selection of wood. Not sure what market there after. I know Im not buying into it.

----------


## Gan Ainm

One more thing, more on topic: it is not surprising to see emotion for news about the pieces of wood and artistry that are such important parts of members worlds.  Yeah. This is America and suing is a way of life, but what a shame. Especially when the small builders have enriched the "golden era" so much to everyone's benefit. Over the years almost every small maker mandolin anywhere near the price of a new Gibson has been "better" an various ways, _to me_.  And the small maker business ethics and individuality stand in such contrast to the corporate behemoths. It is obvious that some on this list are big fans of Corporate America but many of us (myself included) are just not. We don't think the free market is free or the playing field level. And realistically these differences in perspective influence how we see the Gibson story playing out.
Fortunately, for myself and I suspect most of y'all, the instruments and the tunes and songs bring us all closer together despite other differences. Well, you know, as long as you're sort of in tune.
(Hmmm... should we nominate the electronic tuner for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Who really invented that thing anyway?)

----------

Frankdolin

----------


## Bill McCall

I hate to say this, but it needs to be said, small makers copied as close as they could, including the Gibson name on the peghead, to mandolins they made in the seventies and eighties, and still do today.   I don't think that's a case of honorable 'small maker business ethics and individuality'.  Certainly doesn't speak to creativity either.  

Gibson clearly innovated the mandolin design and they may have certainly diminished or abandoned their legal position by failing to trademark and enforce as appropriate,  but people clearly appropriated another firm's design, right down to the thickness of the material not generally observable, ie, the arching and thickness of the tops and back.  In other words, it wasn't the 'spirit' of design, but every last detail.   There are certainly stories as to why it happened, but 'small maker ethics' don't rank very highly there in my opinion.

That said, I think Gibson's current actions are deplorable and follow a long string of other deplorable business decisions and actions.  Plastic bridges on guitars in the Norlin days, really?

its nice there are better new instruments available now than in 1975, but its generally not a story of small maker innovation and creativity, just a return to quality and performance of another era.

----------


## Russ Jordan

The small builder using the Gibson name on a mandolin headstock today would be an exception, not the norm.

----------

Tom Sanderson

----------


## Kevin Winn

> ...This is America and suing is a way of life, but what a shame. ...  And the small maker business ethics and individuality stand in such contrast to the corporate behemoths.


It is a *choice* for every business entity (large or small) to follow this path, or not.  Doing nothing (as they have for decades wrt design rights) is a *choice*.  Litigation is a *choice*.  Threatening when it is probably known that there is little chance of them winning in court is a *choice*.

----------

Gan Ainm, 

Joe Dodson

----------


## f5joe

Many thanks to Steve Carlson for weighing in.  I've owned a few Flatirons and every one was special.  Steve is the real deal.

----------


## Wolfboy

Full statement from Gibson. All spelling, punctuation, bolding, etc. from original. https://myemail.constantcontact.com/...id=e5n9UgqBZls

~

*Gibson Pivots From Confrontation To Collaboration

In The Process Of Re-building Over The Past Eight Months, Gibson Has Made Significant Progress And Now Takes On The Challenge Of Balancing Brand Protection With Music Industry Collaboration*

(NASHVILLE, TN, Monday, July 1, 2019) Since emerging from bankruptcy less than a year ago, *Gibson* has made significant progress in the key areas that matter most to guitarists around the world. With a *clear focus on quality* , a *new collection* of *Original* and *Modern guitars* , and a more *confident Dealer* and *Artist base* , the new team at *Gibson* have proven they can listen to the market to create new solutions. But there is still more work to be done and the new team at *Gibson* remain on a mission.

While new management is *building on the legacy, quality and craftsmanship* that guitarists have come to love and expect from *Gibson* , they will also *continue to manage and attempt to resolve the conflicts of the past* .  

Apart from inheriting an iconic brand, the team have also inherited a host of challenges that they realized would take time to achieve proper resolution. A clear challenge has been in the area of brand protection, where a legacy of legal issues exist with both legitimate companies in the industry infringing on iconic trademarks and with illegitimate entities attempting to counterfeit, knock-off and pretend to be *Gibson* in the market. 

Over the past eight months, the team have *successfully dealt with over 4,500 counterfeit and knock-off guitars coming from overseas* that were clearly designed to confuse the consumer into thinking they were buying a real *Gibson* . Since November (2018), there have been *dozens of counterfeit website take-downs,* also designed to confuse the guitarist into thinking they were entering a legitimate, official website. On a weekly basis, *Gibson* receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine *Gibson* that turned out to be counterfeit. Unfortunately, this is a very real dynamic that brands, like *Gibson* and other iconic brands, need to deal with on a regular basis. The main area of brand protection on these types of issues is with trademark ownership, understanding, and assertion. Hence our recent attempts to communicate our position, which was predominantly focused on these *rogue overseas players* in the market. If left unchecked, these situations can lead to continued consumer confusion and can ultimately *affect the integrity of an entire industry* .

Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by *Gibson* in the market regarding brand protection. While there are clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations, the past few weeks have provided a real time opportunity for *Gibson* to start *making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration* , with appropriate levels of awareness.

With regards to other guitar brands and companies in the marketplace, *Gibson* has filed specific lawsuits over the past several years with the intention of *protecting its original trademark(s) rights and to avoid consumer confusion in the market* . All of the recent attention *on the few lawsuits in process* stem from *several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018* . With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new *Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle* .  *Gibson* has *genuine intentions of constructive resolution* that could be beneficial to both sides. 

This recent situation has led the team to *re-evaluate their approach going forward* with the intention of *finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry* . Over the past few weeks *Gibson* has made *significant progress in reducing counterfeit attacks* and they have *entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties* .  *A clear indication of their intentions going forward.*

_I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions, says James JC Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson . It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now._

----------


## John Adrihan

> I hate to say this, but it needs to be said, small makers copied as close as they could, including the Gibson name on the peghead, to mandolins they made in the seventies and eighties, and still do today.   I don't think that's a case of honorable 'small maker business ethics and individuality'.  Certainly doesn't speak to creativity either.  
> 
> Gibson clearly innovated the mandolin design and they may have certainly diminished or abandoned their legal position by failing to trademark and enforce as appropriate,  but people clearly appropriated another firm's design, right down to the thickness of the material not generally observable, ie, the arching and thickness of the tops and back.  In other words, it wasn't the 'spirit' of design, but every last detail.   There are certainly stories as to why it happened, but 'small maker ethics' don't rank very highly there in my opinion.
> 
> That said, I think Gibson's current actions are deplorable and follow a long string of other deplorable business decisions and actions.  Plastic bridges on guitars in the Norlin days, really?
> 
> its nice there are better new instruments available now than in 1975, but its generally not a story of small maker innovation and creativity, just a return to quality and performance of another era.


Like I said way back in post #39 - nobody's ripping open Gil's, Nuggets, Red Diamonds, Etc. to take measurements.

----------


## stinkoman20xx

"they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties"

IDK If I read it here or another site, but somebody posted  something before this came out along the lines this was their end game from the start. For Gibson to get paid with the path of least resistance.Cause enough scare find a way for them to profit without actually going to court, because they even know the trademark thing was a bogus leg to stand on. I'm not sure how the collaborating is going to go.If they will pay  licensing to Gibson to  use  certain shapes or designs, or do some sort of builds for Gibson or some other benefit towards Gibson in the end.

----------


## Explorer

I find it noteworthy that Gibson sued Dean not for trademark violation, but instead for counterfeiting. In other words, Gibson submitted under oath that Dean was building instruments meant to be identified as Gibson instruments, not as Dean-branded instruments. 

Gibson also claims, as found in that damage-control statement posted by Robin, that they just happened to have recently spent the money for lawyers and lawsuit filings because such were already in motion before the change in ownership a year ago. In spite of money being tight, they apparently had no idea they were spending that cash for all that time. That's difficult to imagine given that video's tone. 

"Legacy challenges" around "brand protection," in common English, means "after the horse is gone" but "trying to close the barn door Gibson left open." They released the material into the public domain. Now they want to reclaim it, contrary to how trademark law works, and are suing even with obviously false claims of attempted counterfeiting like the Dean case. Trying to muscle people into licensing material to which one relinquished the rights is dishonest.

When the damage control has to be dishonest, there's a problem.

----------

DHopkins, 

Gan Ainm

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Bill McCall, it needs to be said that no individual builder tried to copy a 60's, or 70's Gibson. They tried copying early 20's Gibsons because Gibson wasn't doing it.

----------

craigw, 

Gan Ainm, 

Kevin Winn, 

MikeEdgerton, 

sblock, 

Timbofood

----------


## mando_dan

> Like I said way back in post #39 - nobody's ripping open Gil's, Nuggets, Red Diamonds, Etc. to take measurements.


They should as those mandolins are arguably better (in my opinion) than the majority of Gibsons in circulation.

----------

MikeHalloran

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Bill McCall, it needs to be said that no individual builder tried to copy a 60's, or 70's Gibson. They tried copying early 20's Gibsons because Gibson wasn't doing it.


Exactly.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Bill McCall

> Bill McCall, it needs to be said that no individual builder tried to copy a 60's, or 70's Gibson. They tried copying early 20's Gibsons because Gibson wasn't doing it.


Jim,

Thank you for restating exactly what I said, ' just a return to quality and performance of another era.', ie, Gibson 1922-1924, as a driver of the small maker business since 1975.

But the desire to produce better instruments than were available doesn't absolve those makers of the outright copying of another's product and their own lack of creativity.  And to be fair, Gibson didn't trademark the F body style, so that copying was perfectly legal, if not a bit unethical.  'Gibson' on the peghead is another matter.

Makers could, and have, produced fine sounding instruments in different shapes than Gibson produced.  The fact they were aware of the difficulty of selling instruments lacking g those attributes shows the perceived value of the Gibson design and shape.  Appropriating that for their own use, to me, is questionable ethically.  

YMMV

----------


## Eric F.

> Full statement from Gibson. All spelling, punctuation, bolding, etc. from original.


What an astonishingly unprofessional statement. Do they not have a communications department? I'd flunk that piece if a student in my 200-level course wrote it.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Timbofood

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I recall Willie Poole who posts here and was in some early bands talking about how important having the guitar, mandolin, bass, fiddle and banjo was back then. And it was also important it be a "Gibson F5" and a Martin D-28.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## MikeHalloran

Nice to see Steve Carlson give some background on Flatiron history and development. I recall having a most pleasant conversation with him around the time of the sale of the company to Gibson. I had just acquired a 3M Octave Mandolin from the Jethro Burns estate and had a few questions.

I later bought a new Flatiron carved A5 and enjoyed both for many years till a disability ended my playing days. I trust that both found good homes and are still making sweet music.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> What an astonishingly unprofessional statement. Do they not have a communications department? I'd flunk that piece if a student in my 200-level course wrote it.


I was going to stay mum on that but... why not join the fun?

 :Laughing: 

I like the touch of putting a space before commas and periods, sometimes. That's a new one. I'll be off in a bit to check my AP Style Guide to see if changes I was not aware of have been made. Underlining bold headlines, also a brash way of getting the message across. And all that bolding, ie., shouting. Wow.

----------

almeriastrings, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Jill McAuley

----------


## bratsche

> I like the touch of putting a space before commas and periods, sometimes. That's a new one.


My imagination must have been working overtime - I envisioned the poor, suffering commas and periods staging their own independent revolt by distancing themselves from the hideous bolding.  

 :Wink: 

bratsche

----------

almeriastrings, 

bbcee, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

David Rambo, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Jess L., 

Jill McAuley, 

Mandolin Cafe, 

Marty Jacobson, 

soliver

----------


## Steve-o

> "they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties"
> 
> IDK If I read it here or another site, but somebody posted  something before this came out along the lines this was their end game from the start. For Gibson to get paid with the path of least resistance.Cause enough scare find a way for them to profit without actually going to court, because they even know the trademark thing was a bogus leg to stand on. I'm not sure how the collaborating is going to go.If they will pay  licensing to Gibson to  use  certain shapes or designs, or do some sort of builds for Gibson or some other benefit towards Gibson in the end.


I think you hit the nail on the head.  Collaboration = licensing fees.  I think this was Gibson's MO all along.

----------


## Wolfboy

> I hate to say this, but it needs to be said, small makers copied as close as they could, including the Gibson name on the peghead, to mandolins they made in the seventies and eighties, and still do today.   I don't think that's a case of honorable 'small maker business ethics and individuality'.  Certainly doesn't speak to creativity either.  
> 
> Gibson clearly innovated the mandolin design and they may have certainly diminished or abandoned their legal position by failing to trademark and enforce as appropriate,  but people clearly appropriated another firm's design, right down to the thickness of the material not generally observable, ie, the arching and thickness of the tops and back.  In other words, it wasn't the 'spirit' of design, but every last detail.   There are certainly stories as to why it happened, but 'small maker ethics' don't rank very highly there in my opinion. [...]
> 
> its nice there are better new instruments available now than in 1975, but its generally not a story of small maker innovation and creativity, just a return to quality and performance of another era.





> the desire to produce better instruments than were available doesn't absolve those makers of the outright copying of another's product and their own lack of creativity.  And to be fair, Gibson didn't trademark the F body style, so that copying was perfectly legal, if not a bit unethical.  'Gibson' on the peghead is another matter.
> 
> Makers could, and have, produced fine sounding instruments in different shapes than Gibson produced.  The fact they were aware of the difficulty of selling instruments lacking g those attributes shows the perceived value of the Gibson design and shape.  Appropriating that for their own use, to me, is questionable ethically.


There's a big difference between a copy and a counterfeit. (A point which appears to be lost on Mark Agnesi in his role as Gibson spokesman.)

I agree that counterfeit instruments - instruments pretending to be by a maker that they're not, e.g. a non-Gibson instrument with the Gibson name on the headstock - are ethically indefensible and a violation of trademark law, and should be dealt with accordingly. 

But I have a problem with this: "people clearly appropriated another firm's design, right down to the thickness of the material not generally observable, ie, the arching and thickness of the tops and back. In other words, it wasn't the 'spirit' of design, but every last detail. There are certainly stories as to why it happened, but 'small maker ethics' don't rank very highly there in my opinion."

And this: "the desire to produce better instruments than were available doesn't absolve those makers of the outright copying of another's product and their own lack of creativity."

And this: "The fact they were aware of the difficulty of selling instruments lacking those attributes shows the perceived value of the Gibson design and shape. Appropriating that for their own use, to me, is questionable ethically."

Do you also feel that way about violin makers who copy the designs and dimensions of Amati, Stradivari and Guarneri? How about guitar makers who build dreadnoughts based directly on Martin's design (Gibson among them)?

It's commonplace in the classical/Baroque/Renaissance music world for modern instrument makers to copy an original instrument as closely as possible, and openly state that they're doing it, not for lack of ethics or creativity but because they consider those instruments the best models to recreate. In the liner notes to the Academy of Ancient Music's recording of the Bach Brandenburg Concertos, just to take one example, I find instrument listings like "Violin: Rowland Ross 1978 after Amati." "Bass: Roger Dawson 1983 after 'The Tarisio' by Gasparo da Salo." "Harpsichord: Christopher Nobbs 1984 after anon. Franco-German circa 1680." And so on. And I have any number of CDs with listings like that in the credits. 

Do you consider that "questionable ethically"? Are those instrument makers showing a "lack of creativity"? Should they restrict themselves to "produc[ing] fine sounding instruments in different shapes"?

I genuinely don't understand why anyone would think instrument makers shouldn't base their own work on the best models they can find, if they so choose, as long as they're honest about the name the instrument bears. And that includes makers of F5-style mandolins.

----------

craigw, 

Drew Streip, 

Gan Ainm, 

Jim Garber, 

Paul Kotapish, 

Randolph, 

Rob Meyer, 

sblock, 

Scott Rucker

----------


## sblock

Some folks offering comments on this thread seem to think that trademarks and patents offer clear-cut protections (they do not) and that copies are somehow equivalent to "counterfeits" (they are not). Not every trademark or patent granted is legally valid, after all, and most have never been tested in a court of law. Brands must be consistently protected over time to retain their trademark validity. Counterfeits must be purposefully created to deceive. And there are many, many grey areas to consider.

Most folks have agreed that putting "Gibson" or "The Gibson" on the headstock of a mandolin produced by some luthier not working for the Gibson Corporation constitutes a form of counterfeiting. But this is just about the only red line you can draw.

Of course, Gibson also made some of the very best banjos between the 1920's and 1940's. Many of those banjos were produced as 4-strings, because there was a much bigger market for Dixieland-style players.  Since the 1960's, luthiers have taken the pots and resonators from these old banjos and made replacement necks, converting them to 5-strings, suitable for use in bluegrass music.  Nearly all those replacement necks have "Gibson" inlaid on the headstock, put there by the luthier who made the replacement neck.  Counterfeits? I think not. Clearly, this was not done in any attempt to defraud. If anything, it gives "credit" to Gibson for having made the other parts of the banjo, and -- because these tend to be great instruments, and typically better than their modern counterparts -- such things only burnish the Gibson brand and reputation.  So, are these conversion necks "unethical"?  I don't believe so, and neither do most folks. 

This is but one example of a grey area. The case for instrument copies (in their design and dimensions, not in their labeling) being a longstanding tradition in luthiery is well made by Wolfboy in the previous post.

I urge everyone to take a more nuanced view of this complex subject.

----------

f5joe, 

Timbofood

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> There's a big difference between a copy and a counterfeit. (A point which appears to be lost on Mark Agnesi in his role as Gibson spokesman.)
> 
> I agree that counterfeit instruments - instruments pretending to be by a maker that they're not, e.g. a non-Gibson instrument with the Gibson name on the headstock - are ethically indefensible and a violation of trademark law, and should be dealt with accordingly. 
> 
> But I have a problem with this: "people clearly appropriated another firm's design, right down to the thickness of the material not generally observable, ie, the arching and thickness of the tops and back. In other words, it wasn't the 'spirit' of design, but every last detail. There are certainly stories as to why it happened, but 'small maker ethics' don't rank very highly there in my opinion."
> 
> And this: "the desire to produce better instruments than were available doesn't absolve those makers of the outright copying of another's product and their own lack of creativity."
> 
> And this: "The fact they were aware of the difficulty of selling instruments lacking those attributes shows the perceived value of the Gibson design and shape. Appropriating that for their own use, to me, is questionable ethically."
> ...


I fully understand where you are coming from in your comments here and also your previous comments.  I don't completely agree with it but you but concede that you have a point.  As well, certainly Gibson (although I will always be a faithful supporter and buyer of) is as poorly of a run company as you could reasonably find.  In fact, I would not be surprised to find that Gibson is a example of how not to run a company in many business schools by now!  

You close with:"I genuinely don't understand why anyone would think instrument makers shouldn't base their own work on the best models they can find, if they so choose, as long as they're honest about the name the instrument bears. And that includes makers of F5-style mandolins."

That would imply that instrument builders could borrow or use technology and ideas from other builders large or small as well as from Gibson and other big guys?

You are a songwriter not an instrument builder.  An not to make this personal in any way but I think sometimes one's perspective on these things relates to whose ox is being gored?  For example, how do you feel about songwriters basing their compositions on the best models they can find and stealing a little bit here and there as long as they are honest about it and put their own name on it?  Much differently I assume.

----------


## Gan Ainm

Bernie: "...one's perspective on these things relates to whose ox is being gored?" 

Agree- pragmatically (occupational perspective) AND metaphysically (sociopolitical views).
Now if only stakeholders in the "Big" schisms in the country/world could all say "bugger all, lets play some tunes...".

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

John Soper, 

MikeHalloran, 

Timbofood

----------


## Bill McCall

> ......
> 
> Do you consider that "questionable ethically"? Are those instrument makers showing a "lack of creativity"? Should they restrict themselves to "produc[ing] fine sounding instruments in different shapes"?
> 
> I genuinely don't understand why anyone would think instrument makers shouldn't base their own work on the best models they can find, if they so choose, as long as they're honest about the name the instrument bears. And that includes makers of F5-style mandolins.


Well, yes, I can distinguish between instruments who design evolved over 350 years ago and whose originator is lost in the wisp of time versus the specific design created in the 20th century, by a well known entity.   Also, the violin and other instruments cited were created in a time where the contemporary notion of 'intellectual property' was vastly different, if it existed at all.  And certainly classical/baroque/renaissance music is often desired to be played on historically accurate reproductions of instruments to allow people to hear the music of that day without risking the few surviving instruments.  Given the lack of attribution, I have no issue with that.  And I like those instruments to be labeled, as Stradivarius himself did, 'in the style of' on his earliest instruments.  That doesn't appear in any of the Gibson discussion.

Musical instruments are just another manufactured product, regardless of our emotional attachment to them, and the laws and ethics regarding copying them are no different than  those protecting any other device (see Apple).  I recognize its a very nuanced point to  discuss the copying of works that may not be legally protected but clearly are another's design.  I don't see any dispute on the point of the origin of design, nor the reason for utilizing it (couldn't sell a non Gibson shape).  While many may see Gibson's failure to protect the property that was their design, *for me,* but not necessarily for you, I see that free use idea as an ethical challenge. 

 And yes, luthiers should utilize their own designs and advance the state of the instruments instead of continually reproducing a century old design.  I would think mandolin makers should be after better sound (whatever that may mean), rather than the best copy of the Gibson shape, which is largely the current state of mandolin building.  I know, it's harder.

The banjo allusion is another can of worms.  caveat emptor.

and we can disagree.  I still like you.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Ron McMillan

----------


## Big Joe

I was part of some of the efforts to protect their product, trademarks, etc by Gibson while I was there.  There is a lot more to this than just emotions or wanting to kick the big dog.  I was used as an expert witness in a case involving Gibson and a good friend of mine and a good dealer for many years.  I did not seek to be part of that case, but I wasnt asked, I was ordered to be part.  I simply told the truth as best I could.  That was not going to hurt my friend, but I didnt know if it was any help.  I had to deal with lots of counterfeits and that was often heartbreaking.  In a number of instances we would have an instrument brought to us for warranty repair and the customer was completely convinced it was a real Gibson, but was not.  In some cases they spent thousands of dollars on their instrument.  I would have to inform them it could not be repaired under warranty because it was not a Gibson instrument.  In some cases, after showing them how I knew, they left broken-hearted but did uunderstand.  In some cases it was not so friendly.  I had been called some things I had never heard before, and I was a sailor!  I did not confiscate any instruments, but I could have.  I also know some of the measures Gibson used to protect their product.  Was it enough?  I cant answer that.  We will see, and our opinions as consumers will likely have little input on the issue.  It can be fun to speculate, but I think it will finally be decided by a judge.  Personally, I have mixed feelings about the issue.  In a pure business level I would probably side with the holder of the trademarks, patents, etc.  however, as a lover of all things mandolin, I want to be a bit more generous.  One of the good parts of getting old is I dont have to have a dog in the fight.  I have my mandolin and it is not part of any problem.  I love the way it looks, the way it plays, and the way it sounds.  While I dont do any customer work anymore, I can keep mine playing and sounding like I want.  The hard part of the issues at hand in this post is that it applies to everyone and every product, especially since China stole most everything and began using others property rights to enrich the Chinese industry.  Its much larger than just musical instruments.  What happens in our industry may well effect every industry.  Back to Gibson, the new owners would be remiss if they did not fight to protect what they believes belongs to them.  Its unfortunate some wonderful builders may have to suffer some in the process, and some will just do something different so they dont have to enter the battle.  Most of the mandolin builders have to almost kill them selves just to make a meager living and cant afford to get into a legal battle with Gibson, and Im sure they know that.  Anytime these fights break out there are few winners.  Even the winner doesnt win much if they went broke to win.  Well, good to say hi to all my friends on the cafe.

----------

Austin Bob, 

Bernie Daniel, 

Bill McCall, 

Bob A, 

Bob Clark, 

BradKlein, 

ccravens, 

chasray, 

craigw, 

darylcrisp, 

David Rambo, 

drooartz, 

Eric Platt, 

f5joe, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Gan Ainm, 

JEStanek, 

John Lloyd, 

Rob Meyer, 

Scott Rucker, 

Skip Kelley, 

soliver, 

T.D.Nydn, 

Timbofood, 

Tom Haywood, 

William Smith

----------


## Jim Nollman

I have a neighbor who built a gold top Les Paul, even added a faithful Gibson Label. He never played it outside his living room. I once asked if he planned to sell it as a Gibson. He lowered his eyes as if I'd caught him planning something unethical, and slowly shook his head no. I saw him a year later and brought it up again, telling him he must never do that. I believe that once he understood that someone else thought it an unethical move and was willing to say so, he came around. 

I don't believe anyone responding to this long thread would smile on that guy if he cheated a customer by calling it a Gibson. But what about upsetting Gibson by copying everything from them down to the millimeter, but never adding a respectful call out to the source? This thread leaves me confused about answering that question. 

First of all, can we please stop killing the messenger of that video? It's called an _ad hominem_ attack and it reflects more on you than the person you disparage. I hate this faceless and venal aspect of the internet.

Second, I don't understand how anyone can disagree that Gibson has some right to defend some aspects of its historical instrument design? Yes, i do understand that the company has little leg to stand on by litigating instrument architecture or build materials  because, as others have explained well, the company needed to start protecting their designs a very long time ago and regularly therefore. Or put another way, they needed to take lawful action _before_ 1000 luthiers copied those designs,  making everything innovated by Gibson not only universal but  generic. 

I see one course of immediate action to show some respect to Gibson. Sincerely, I've never understood why luthiers faithfully copy Gibson inlay designs. Stealing inlay designs shows what happens when luthiers become anal in their copies, willing to even steal somebody else's original art. I'm now toying with quitting flying after being convinced by Swedish Greta's speeches. After reading selected pages of this thread, I've decided never to buy another mandolin that doesn't proudly display a unique inlay design. 

For me, this thread mostly demonstrates the obvious support luthiers have from our community of devoted customers. No one here wants to see small shop builders being sued and put out of business by Gibson's daydream (or dream) to reinvigorate its notable past.  Especially if Gibson is now on its last legs, I think we all need to show respect to the Gibson name and also recognize that an awful lot of luthiers at least need to acknowledge that their business model is honed to precisely copy everything Gibson except the name.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Especially if Gibson is now on its last legs, I think we all need to show respect to the Gibson name and also recognize that an awful lot of luthiers at least need to acknowledge that their business model is honed to precisely copy everything Gibson except the name.


I think most luthiers respect the craft, skill, and innovations of the people making Gibson instruments from various eras. Starting with Orville himself, the original Gibson, all the way up through David Harvey and whomever else is doing good work bearing the Gibson name.

Gibson as a business, is a completely separate entity from that which originally produced the best work done for the Gibson brand by smart, dedicated people over the years. And it has been several different entities, or "legal persons", over the years. You can love the Yankees, or hate 'em, but either way, DiMaggio ain't on the field anymore. What people are copying in F-5s, Les Pauls, etc, is from a different company which happens to have the same name. You can buy the name, but you have to earn the trust and respect.

Fender is a good example of a company which has maintained (well, there were good days and bad days) a solid core of respectable products most of the time. I think Gibson could take back the helm by just making awesome products, rather than talking about how they used to make awesome products.

----------

Gan Ainm, 

soliver

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> First of all, can we please stop killing the messenger of that video? It's called an _ad hominem_ attack and it reflects more on you than the person you disparage. I hate this faceless and venal aspect of the internet.


From Merriam Webster: 

ad hominem adjective
ad ho·​mi·​nem | \ (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem  , -nəm\
Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.

That pretty much sums up the substance (if you can call it that) of the Gibson video. 




> ...Sincerely, I've never understood why luthiers faithfully copy Gibson inlay designs. Stealing inlay designs shows what happens when luthiers become anal in their copies, willing to even steal somebody else's original art...  I've decided never to buy another mandolin that doesn't proudly display a unique inlay design.


Never say never. I remember reading several of your posts describing your pride and happiness over your Japanese built KM-850. A beautiful F5 style instrument sporting a 'Fern' inlay. Gibson was still Gibson then and your (and my) Kentucky mandolins were still Gibson 'copies'. Evidently it was alright to proudly own what you and I owned then. 

It's admirable that you've now seen the light and refuse to participate in anything you deem disrespectful to Gibson. I however, am still happily admiring (coveting) the work of Gilchrist, Hutto, Wood etc, and yes even some of those old Kentuckys. 

Please be patient with my slower evolution.

----------

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Timbofood, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Timbofood

Big Joe, 
Once again your kind heart and judicious comprehension of things musical restores my faith in man’s innate compassion. 

There have always been counterfeiters who will attempt to beat the odds, poor copiers who may build terrible excuses for finery but, there are those who see the originals and see inspiration. Where some modern materials just might be an improvement. Those being as widespread as TI truss rods, modified tonebars, deeper sound chambers, narrower chambers, ad nauseum. These are not what I see as infringements but, adaptations from the root product. When there is no intent to deceive there should be no admonishment for the salute to the excellence of the original. Or is that a far too simple take on the issue? 
I most certainly have no canine interest in the whole thing but, the heavy handedness in the initial statement seems over the top on many fronts. 
Banjo necks!? I have known several very talented craftsman who have made necks for vintage banjo pots, there is precious little attempt to present any of those as “original” but, far more celebratory of what the company (Vega, etc.) had made but, in such small quantity as for them not to be available to some people seriously desiring them. Reproduction necks do not seem to be anywhere near the issue as “ tribute” mandolins? I’m sure this will play out for the next twenty years in many states of silliness.
The cheap knockoff PAC rim Flying V, Les Paul, SG electrics,etc. are surely a greater pain than the F-5 will ever be. Selling thousands of F-5”ish” mandolins compared to the vastly greater millions of bad electric guitars does not bear the legal magnitude that this seems to be generating here.
Yes the fight is nasty but, that’s business.
Honor in business? Don’t even say it’s there anymore! Let alone think it!
End rant.

----------


## Eric Foulke

> Especially if Gibson is now on its last legs, I think we all need to show respect to the Gibson name and also recognize that an awful lot of luthiers at least need to acknowledge that their business model is honed to precisely copy everything Gibson except the name.


Actually their business models are honed precisely to put food on the table, the fact that they are based upon Gibson designs from the 1920's is besides the point. Building instruments that are outside the popular patterns is a hard way to make a living, this is true for all string instrument types, not just mandolins.

----------

Bob A, 

Rob Meyer, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Wolfboy

> Well, yes, I can distinguish between instruments who design evolved over 350 years ago and whose originator is lost in the wisp of time versus the specific design created in the 20th century, by a well known entity.   Also, the violin and other instruments cited were created in a time where the contemporary notion of 'intellectual property' was vastly different, if it existed at all.  And certainly classical/baroque/renaissance music is often desired to be played on historically accurate reproductions of instruments to allow people to hear the music of that day without risking the few surviving instruments.  Given the lack of attribution, I have no issue with that.  And I like those instruments to be labeled, as Stradivarius himself did, 'in the style of' on his earliest instruments.  That doesn't appear in any of the Gibson discussion.
> 
> Musical instruments are just another manufactured product, regardless of our emotional attachment to them, and the laws and ethics regarding copying them are no different than  those protecting any other device (see Apple).  I recognize its a very nuanced point to  discuss the copying of works that may not be legally protected but clearly are another's design.  I don't see any dispute on the point of the origin of design, nor the reason for utilizing it (couldn't sell a non Gibson shape).  While many may see Gibson's failure to protect the property that was their design, *for me,* but not necessarily for you, I see that free use idea as an ethical challenge. 
> 
>  And yes, luthiers should utilize their own designs and advance the state of the instruments instead of continually reproducing a century old design.  I would think mandolin makers should be after better sound (whatever that may mean), rather than the best copy of the Gibson shape, which is largely the current state of mandolin building.  I know, it's harder.


Maybe builders of F5-style mandolins - or at least builders of high-end F5-style mandolins - could start including a notation on the label along the lines of "After a 1923 Gibson F-5" or whatever. I think that'd be pretty cool, myself. (By the same token, builders of dreadnought guitars could start giving Martin some sort of credit, no?) I guess in modern times it's just been kind of assumed that musicians know an F5-style mandolin is based on a Gibson original, but I agree that direct attribution the way Stradivari did would be a nice touch.

The question of whether mandolin builders should make an F5 style at all, though, seems to come down to two points, legal and moral/ethical. It's been established already that Gibson has no legal monopoly on either the F5 body shape or headstock shape - they tried to trademark both, quite belatedly, and the applications were rejected - which leaves other mandolin builders quite free legally to make F5s (just not with Gibson's trademarked headstock inlay pattern, which is fair enough). That leaves us with the question of whether other makers _should_, ethically, make F5s, and it sounds like we might have to agree to disagree on that one. 

It seems to me, if I'm understanding you correctly, that your position is that only Gibson has the moral right to make F5s since that was their creation. (Well, the creation of a company called Gibson back in the 1920s, which has nothing in common with Gibson now except the name, but anyway.) Is that what you're saying, that only Gibson, and no one else, should make F5s? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "I see that free use idea as an ethical challenge" makes it sound that way.

Luthiers "utilizing their own designs and advancing the state of the instruments instead of continually reproducing a century old design" and "being after better sound (whatever that may mean), rather than the best copy of the Gibson shape" are certainly worthy goals, and there are instrument makers (mandolin and other) thinking outside the box and coming up with new designs that they feel are improvements on what's gone before, but the fact is, a lot of mandolinists WANT instruments of that century-old design, just as violinists want the designs of Stradivari and Amati for what they do. Whether they're right or wrong to do so, they do. (After all, your point about classical/baroque/renaissance music being "often desired to be played on historically accurate reproductions of instruments to allow people to hear the music of that day without risking the few surviving instruments" is just as true about bluegrass, is it not?) And if they were restricted to only Gibson instruments, 1) there aren't enough to go around, and 2) the ones from the golden era of the 1920s have become insanely expensive and the ones since then vary wildly in quality.

Well, I had a great time playing some bluegrass last night at the Swannanoa Gathering with a bunch of young musicians in their teens and twenties, and every single one of the mandolinists was playing F5 styles - I couldn't see in the dark what they were but I doubt they were Gibsons - so it would appear that that particular genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in, regardless of what we think about the ethics of it.




> and we can disagree.  I still like you.


Glad to hear that. I still like you too.  :Smile:  I'm finding this a fascinating conversation, and really am not trying to antagonize anyone; it's just that Gibson's recent actions have opened up discussion on a lot of points that are worth looking at.

----------


## Wolfboy

> First of all, can we please stop killing the messenger of that video? It's called an _ad hominem_ attack and it reflects more on you than the person you disparage. I hate this faceless and venal aspect of the internet.





> From Merriam Webster: 
> 
> ad hominem adjective
> ad ho·​mi·​nem | \ (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem  , -nəm\
> Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
> 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
> an ad hominem argument
> 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
> made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival.


Indeed. Responding specifically to specific public words and actions on the part of Mark Agnesi is not an ad hominem attack.

----------

sblock

----------


## Jim Nollman

1. Mark Agnes went low in his role as PR rep for the current clueless regime at Gibson. Attacking him here seems a mirror image of that same tactic. Mark is not your problem.

2. To the guy pointing out I once lavished praise on a Kentucky 850 I once owned, including its fern inlay, you totally missed my point. Or were you cherry picking my old posts to make me look like a hypocrite? Sincerely, I certainly did love that instrument. But I prefaced that inlay remark by saying I’m  thinking about giving up flying as well. Both are pledges I've been making lately to alter my consumer choices trying to solve a problem. I wrote here rather late in the game, and only after noticing how many commenters assert that the problem lies 100% with Gibson. I believed a change of outlook was warranted. 

3. Yes, sorry, I do think Gibson actually makes a point well worth considering, even though the way they express it is nothing but vicious. The passion of this thread amply  reflects all the ways they shoot themselves in the foot. I’m simply wondering if everyone here who benefits from the Gibson company achievement might consider a slightly more physical expression of that regard than they do right now. Take just one small step away from seeking the perfect copy. Taking this step has nothing whatsoever to do with kowtowing to the current Gibson regime. Keep on copying your F5s, snakeheads, etc. Its what customers request. But please consider not copying  the inlay pattern. It has nothing to to do with the sound, although it breaches some historic artists original design. Someone above made a distinction between a copy and a counterfeit. Is the perfect fern the one or the other?

----------


## Bob A

> Actually their business models are honed precisely to put food on the table, the fact that they are based upon Gibson designs from the 1920's is besides the point. Building instruments that are outside the popular patterns is a hard way to make a living, this is true for all string instrument types, not just mandolins.



I would hold that it is especially hard for mandolin-makers.

For good or ill, the vast bulk of mandolins (still very much a niche instrument) in this country are Gibsons, or instruments in the Gibson pattern. Since mandolins have myriad forms, to design, build, and hope to sell a mandolin with a brand-new clean-sheet design is an invitation to starve. Blame it on Bill Monroe if you wish; without Monroe there would be even less interest in mandolins than there is at present.

That said, it continues to amaze me that Gibson ignored two of their mandolin's most famous exemplars, Monroe and Grisman, which has created a certain deserved amount of ill-feeling. What was Gibson thinking? . . . if "thinking" is the verb I'm looking for.

----------


## Verne Andru

This is a long thread that I've not read completely so bear with me if I repeat what's been already said.

There are 2 IP rights being discussed in the article - copyright and trademark. Additionally these rights can be rights in common-law through actual use and rights derived from registration. Just because something isn't registered doesn't mean it isn't protected.

Trademark law is jurisdictional. That means the US can only register a trademark for use within the US. Under normal circumstances it would end there but here's the kicker - the internet has all but destroyed jurisdictional boundaries. Since most people use US tech companies like Facebook and Google for their marketing and those companies must comply with US law what's now happening is holders of US registrations are able to extend the reach to encompass the connected world. The US government has been very assertive in forcing these companies back to US soil so they fall within US political control for just that reason. There's currently a global power-play underway for control of intellectual property that will have ramifications for generations to come.

Copyrights are more or less global in that all signatories to the Berne Convention abide by the same rules which involves respecting the others registrations.

While US trademark law stipulates three years of non-use is "_prima-face_" proof of abandonment, non-use must be accompanied by intent to abandon for a claim of abandonment to hold.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> can we please stop killing the messenger of that video?


It would be easier if that messenger was not so good at being a messenger of himself. A look at his other videos seems to confirm that bullying is a part of his personality (and when you've been beaten up as a child the one thing you resent is bullies, I can tell you that). 
That it seems to underline Gibson's message is more of a coincidence, making it run away on Gibson faster than they expected.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Good point on the x-bracing.  Makes me think Gil


Having thought this through again and again. I think now it probably was a Gil. I haven't seen that many Givens with his name on the headstock and every Gilchrist I ever saw had his name on the headstock. That's really the only clue Steve gave in his message.

----------


## Explorer

> While US trademark law stipulates three years of non-use is "_prima-face_" proof of abandonment, non-use must be accompanied by intent to abandon for a claim of abandonment to hold.


Another proof of abandonment, established in case law, is a lack of enforcement of trademark exclusivity. In other words, if a company doesn't act to enforce its trademarks in the face of known claimed infringement, their demonstrable lack of enforcement is proof of abandoning the trademark to the public domain. 

Whether intentionally or not, you seem to be arguing that there are no possible abandonment conclusions without the trademark holder acknowledging wanting to do so. This violates the actual statute's conditions, and is counter to the law's purpose, protecting active trademarks as unique innovations while allowing unused and abandoned trademarks (including through absence of enforcement, as per statute and subsequent case law) to revert to the public domain for furtherance of the art in general. 

In this case, we're talking about more than a few decades wherein Gibson demonstrably declined to enforce trademark, so that is *prima facie* proof of abandonment given that it is far beyond the 2-3 years you acknowledged. 

----

I *am* interested in reading further claims which acknowledge *all* the factors against Gibson's claims, and which still successfully make a case regarding Gibson having fulfilled all the requirements for successful trademark retention. Even just acknowledging the facts I present in this one post however, that seems impossible. 

Cheers!

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Thinking of how a court case about the F5 would go, you could argue that Gibson alway made F5's, even if only custom orders, except for the war years, but could a judge be persuaded that a 70's example was not actually what people were copying even though it had all the things that make an F5, scroll, points, peghead, etc?

----------


## Verne Andru

> Another proof of abandonment, established in case law, is a lack of enforcement of trademark exclusivity. In other words, if a company doesn't act to enforce its trademarks in the face of known claimed infringement, their demonstrable lack of enforcement is proof of abandoning the trademark to the public domain. 
> 
> Whether intentionally or not, you seem to be arguing that there are no possible abandonment conclusions without the trademark holder acknowledging wanting to do so. This violates the actual statute's conditions, and is counter to the law's purpose, protecting active trademarks as unique innovations while allowing unused and abandoned trademarks (including through absence of enforcement, as per statute and subsequent case law) to revert to the public domain for furtherance of the art in general. 
> 
> In this case, we're talking about more than a few decades wherein Gibson demonstrably declined to enforce trademark, so that is *prima facie* proof of abandonment given that it is far beyond the 2-3 years you acknowledged.


Not meaning to get into a tit-for-tat but I would like to make a few points for clarification:

- The purpose of the Lanham Act, which governs US trademarks, is to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of the goods. It doesn't deal with innovation, and etc. It is consumer protection law.

- AFAIK the concept of "public domain" only relates to copyright. Your point "revert to the public domain for furtherance of the art in general" is irrelevant to a trademark proceeding - this concept applies to copyright only.

- The only enforcement required is against those building in the US. Gibson has rights in other nation-states but each needs to be pursued individually.

- Each case turns on its own merits and we don't know what Gibson has been doing and to whom vis-a-vis R&D, sales and enforcement. While a _prima-face_ case for abandonment may be made in the pleadings, the TTAB will look at all the evidence and generally strives to make decisions based on the merits of each individual case.

Gibson creating and distributing a video asserting its rights, which is what started this thread, qualifies as "enforcement."

The TTAB stresses a "common sense" approach in its adjudications and holders of a valid mark are given _due-regard_ as to their intentions unless it can be proven otherwise.

Fender lost its case for the Stratocaster body shape so who knows. As with all things legal, you have better odds at a slot machine.

----------


## Big Joe

In another interesting travel through mandolin artistry, there are a few who have dared violate all that Loar purists may hold important.  I am a Loar purist in the ways I can afford to be.  However, I really do want to thank Steve Sorensen for his excellent work that offers incredible tone and his finish work makes me miss the smell of varnish in the morning.  I don’t recall having met Steve, and I have never played an instrument birthed by him.  I have heard some of the best using them and speaking very high about him and his work.  Danny Roberts surely knows mandolins.  I have known Danny nearly thirty years and he has had and played the best.  He loves his Sorenson.  I mention this because it addresses an important aspect of mandolin building.  We discussed this with builders and consumers and most were solidly behind the idea of something different, they would not likely purchase them.  Most want the best and the F5 mandolin is the goal of most mandolin players, including me.  If I could ever afford a Sorenson I think I would get rid of my Gibson.  That is a hard concept for me to consider.  Of course, I am pretty safe from that ever happening.  I’m too old and too broke to view me as purchasing another mandolin.  Some of the best makers have found little ways to express their view of the F5.  A couple examples are Tom Ellis and his use of Western Maple.  It I’d beautiful when Tom completes them with his perfect finish work and incredible sound.  Will Kimble has made some great 2 points and now some great looking head stocks.  These are not the only ones, but they are examples of excellent luthiers who dared buck hypertraditionalism.  Much of what is discussed in this thread has been discussed to death.  We discussed this for hours when Gibson was sending cease and desist letters then.  I am thrilled to have a decent mandolin, but I am just as thrilled to see new builders dare to do new things and do it with excellence.

----------

BradKlein, 

John Lloyd, 

T.D.Nydn, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeHalloran

> ...Fender lost its case for the Stratocaster body shape so who knows. As with all things legal, you have better odds at a slot machine.


But is able to protect their headstock shapes for the Tele® and Strat® as does Gibson the seagull top curve of their guitar 'stocks. Go figure.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## Wolfboy

> Some of the best makers have found little ways to express their view of the F5.  A couple examples are Tom Ellis and his use of Western Maple.  It Id beautiful when Tom completes them with his perfect finish work and incredible sound.  Will Kimble has made some great 2 points and now some great looking head stocks.  These are not the only ones, but they are examples of excellent luthiers who dared buck hypertraditionalism.


Monteleone comes to mind too, with an extended scroll and slightly flattened upper point - nice subtle individual riff on the classic F5 design.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

An editorial that came out a couple of days ago that contains much of what has already been covered by other news outlets but has some observations some of you may find of value:

Gibson Guitar Declares Shift In IP Enforcement After Most Recent Public Backlash

----------

David Rambo, 

hank, 

John Lloyd, 

Mando Mort, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood, 

Wolfboy

----------


## bradlaird

Thanks for that link, Scott. How did I know that the ultra-trendy word pivot would be on the quote? Haha. I do enjoy following this thread though I find studying the comments more interesting than the actual content. Gibson... ah... just give me their old teens and twenties Gibsonite flowery verbosity. The current crowd at Gibson ought to read those sometime. 

73

----------


## sebastiaan56

This debacle going to make a lot of students of Public Relations, Marketing, Corporate Law and Product Design very happy. I can see literally hundreds of thesis’s (is that a word) exploring every detail of what is an unmitigated PR disaster. It will rank with the exploits of Lee Iacocca, unfortunately the company will probably go the same way. How can they be so short sighted?

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

Curleigh fries ?

----------


## Ray(T)

> This debacle going to make a lot of students of Public Relations, Marketing, Corporate Law and Product Design very happy. I can see literally hundreds of thesiss (is that a word) exploring every detail of what is an unmitigated PR disaster. It will rank with the exploits of Lee Iacocca, unfortunately the company will probably go the same way. How can they be so short sighted?


It probably is but, unfortunately, an invalid use of an apostrophe. I suspect the word youre looking for is theses. 

Carry on folks; fascinating thread!

----------

Mando Mort, 

Timbofood

----------


## Timbofood

If they made sports equipment maybe they would make..




Wait for it...







“Curliegh Cues”
I know, to the corner!
Just a little Monday morning fun. :Grin:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

For those that feel this signals the end time for Gibson I can tell you this is by far not the worst PR Gibson ever brought upon themselves. The brand will survive.

----------

DHopkins, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

JEStanek, 

John Lloyd, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Timbofood

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> For those that feel this signals the end time for Gibson I can tell you this is by far not the worst PR Gibson ever brought upon themselves. The brand will survive.


Yes... Lots of bad PR moves over the years. Not sure how bad it has to get to signal the "end time for Gibson". 
I trust you'll let us know if you receive a 'Cease and Desist' notice over your avatar.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

If I do I'll just put tape over my avatar.

----------

David Rambo, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

John Lloyd, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Caleb

> For those that feel this signals the end time for Gibson I can tell you this is by far not the worst PR Gibson ever brought upon themselves. The brand will survive.


Indeed.  I’d be willing to bet that the average Joe who’s been dreaming for years of getting a Les Paul doesn’t even know this has happened, and wouldn’t care anyway. He just wants his Les Paul.

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Wolfboy

> Id be willing to bet that the average Joe whos been dreaming for years of getting a Les Paul doesnt even know this has happened, and wouldnt care anyway. He just wants his Les Paul.


Maybe, but I can't help thinking that if I were about to drop five or six grand on a new electric guitar, I'd be doing a bit of research beforehand to inform my decision...and it only takes a few minutes of web-surfing to come across not only the recent legal/PR debacle but also tales of new Les Pauls' headstocks breaking off and other quality-control nightmares.

----------


## Caleb

> Maybe, but I can't help thinking that if I were about to drop five or six grand on a new electric guitar, I'd be doing a bit of research beforehand to inform my decision...and it only takes a few minutes of web-surfing to come across not only the recent legal/PR debacle but also tales of new Les Pauls' headstocks breaking off and other quality-control nightmares.


I see the (valid) point, but I believe emotion and human nature wins out in these situations, because images of Jimmy Page, Slash, BB King, et al, playing a Gibson is what matters in the minds of most consumers.  The Gibson folks know that.

----------


## Wolfboy

> I see the (valid) point, but I believe emotion and human nature wins out in these situations, because images of Jimmy Page, Slash, BB King, et al, playing a Gibson is what matters in the minds of most consumers.  The Gibson folks know that.


No doubt, and that's probably what's kept Gibson in business at all in recent decades.  :Smile:

----------

Caleb

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I wonder why Ford hasn't send out any cease and desist letters to guys like *this*. This was a Ford design that they were selling back in the 30's.

----------


## Timbofood

> I wonder why Ford hasn't send out any cease and desist letters to guys like *this*. This was a Ford design that they were selling back in the 30's.


That is a very interesting question!?
How do all the kit car body people get away with that? Mike, you generally find some very interesting tangents to go off on! One day we will have to share a cocktail and have a handful of laughs!

----------


## Bill McCall

Some kits are licensed, some are not.  Maybe not specifically that style.

https://www.core77.com/posts/34829/Y...-the-1965-Body

----------


## sblock

> It probably is but, unfortunately, an invalid use of an apostrophe. I suspect the word you’re looking for is “theses”. 
> 
> Carry on folks; fascinating thread!


When I was in grad school, a fellow student once wore a button that said "Feces on theses!"   :Laughing:

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Just published today, headline from front page of Music Inc. Magazine:

*Gibson 'Declares War'*

Gibson Brands has issued at least 13 cease and desist letters to guitar manufacturers claiming trademark infringement on specific models including the Flying V, Explorer, ES and SG body shape designs, according to intellectual property attorney Ron Bienstock of Scarinci Hollenbeck, who represents the recipients. Letters have also been sent to Gibson dealers stating that the company is protecting its trademarks. --snip--

Read the rest on their web site.

Quote from the attorney representing these companies:

_"The goodwill they may have had is over. They're going to open up a multiple-front war," he said, referring to the now-deleted YouTube video released by Gibson last month."_

We're in possession of one of the letters referenced in the last sentence of that paragraph. Working to reshare it this afternoon, just double-checking a couple of details.

----------

Jess L., 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

The letter to Gibson dealers referenced above. This was acquired elsewhere online so was technically already under discussion though you won't find it on a Google search. This has been converted from its original format into an image.

You'll need to click each of the two images to see the text as I wished to leave them in their original size/state.

Page 1



Page 2

----------

Eric Platt, 

Glassweb, 

Paul Statman, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

> Quote from the attorney representing these companies:
> 
> _"The goodwill they may have had is over. They're going to open up a multiple-front war," he said, referring to the now-deleted YouTube video released by Gibson last month."_


That legalese for "We've been sitting on our thumbs until now" and the unstated idea is:  "We hope it's not too late."

----------


## danb

In Honor of Mr Bill Monroe's 73987 (celebrating it's 96th birthday today!), I think this is an image worth sharing. 




This scratched logo should remind us all something very important about the fractuous relationship this company has had with their customers.

You could say that Orville Gibson's designs were watered down and made commercially viable in the early 1900s by the corporate mentality.

You could also say that the company super-saturated production to meet the demands of a fad instrument in the 1910-1920 range.

It's also fair to say that Lloyd Loar and Guy Hart introduced a lot of innovative designs that brought the quality of the instrument forward, at the cost of revenue and commercial failure.

But now, after multiple sales of the branding and trademarks.. I see little left of the soul of the company. There are some good people left of course, but this cancerous litigation against the very people that have kept the market for mandolins alive is incredibly short-sighted. This is the approach of a company that is looking to cash out and pawn all the quality for minimal gains. By attempting to consume luthiers that kept the instrument alive and viable, they are really just pissing in the wind.

----------

Bertram Henze, 

doc holiday, 

Glassweb, 

Jess L., 

JEStanek, 

Paul Statman, 

Ryk Loske, 

sblock, 

trodgers, 

WaxwellHaus, 

Wolfboy

----------


## MikeEdgerton

That's hysterical. I did an avatar with that last night. Now I had to put tape on mine.

----------

AMandolin, 

Eric Platt, 

Jess L., 

Marty Jacobson, 

Paul Statman, 

Ryk Loske, 

Steve-o, 

Timbofood, 

WaxwellHaus

----------


## Jeff Mando

For those old enough to remember..........

(actually, I feel like I should include that before most of my posts.....)

Anyway, there was a brief controversy in 1968 when the "then new" Opel GT car was introduced and someone said it looked just like a miniature Corvette.....again, maybe a cartoon version, at best???!!!!  Reflections on a more innocent time.......

More currently, the current model Chrysler 300 looks a lot like a Bentley to more than a few people.......according to the internet....probably helped by the fact that most people probably haven't seen a Bentley.....

anyway.....

my thoughts.....should I.....no.....don't do it, Jeff, well, OK.....here goes......

there was a recent thread about someone playing a song they thought was public domain in a bar/church/whatever and it turns out it was written by someone still living and an overwhelming amount of people rose to the defense of the songwriter to make sure they got their nickel royalty..............to which I respond, jeesh, if you had 20 million 5 cent royalty checks, you would be a millionaire songwriter..............now let's start clamping down of those churches, OK?????!!!!!

quite similarly, but somehow opposite, 99 percent of mandolin luthiers make an exact copy of Gibson's patented design (the F5) and in total violation, but in this case......wait for it......yep, Gibson is the enemy for designing something great and wonderful......right??!!!

I know this is about corporate takeover and timing and the way they are trying to enforce things,,,,,but, still......just sayin'........

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...99 percent of mandolin luthiers make an exact copy of Gibson's patented design (the F5)...


Was the F body style design patented? Has anyone got a copy of the patent? A quick search doesn't turn up any F style patents.

Orville's patent isn't much like the Gibson mandolin turned out to be. I think that's part of the issue here. 

I don't think they ever did anything to protect the F design. I seriously doubt they will be able to claim it after this much time being in the wind.

----------


## DaveGinNJ

Is this suggesting that Gibson will take action against dealer's that sell the other offending guitars?  Why would any dealer call Gibson to report themselves?

----------


## Bertram Henze

I am so glad my own instrument is far enough from looking like a legend that I can play it in peace, without fear of the ghost of a designer haunting it.

----------


## foldedpath

> quite similarly, but somehow opposite, 99 percent of mandolin luthiers make an exact copy of Gibson's patented design (the F5) and in total violation, but in this case......wait for it......yep, Gibson is the enemy for designing something great and wonderful......right??!!!


How many luthiers are making _exact_ copies of the design? And how many are incorporating their own ideas and improvements? How many customers actually don't want a Loar copy, and want something a little different within the classic body shape? It's not in violation either, because Gibson never managed to trademark the body shape (AFAIK).

My Lebeda F5 has a redwood top. Lloyd Loar would be horrified. What, you can make an F-style body with redwood as the carved top instead of spruce? Sacrilege!

It also has fat frets, a radiused fingerboard, and an "S" shaped cutoff at the end of the fingerboard instead of a Florida extension. The archtop carving isn't even a straight Gibson copy, with a wider than usual recurve at the edge. The finish on the top is semi-transparent dark chocolate brown, not a sunburst. It doesn't even look like a Gibson from far away, let alone up close! 

There may be mandolin players here in the Cafe playing near-as-dammit copies of a Loar F5 down to the millimeter, but it sure as heck isn't 99% of the non-Gibson "F-style" mandolins out in the wild. What a boring world that would be, if all our mandolins weren't so different, and made by so many different talented luthiers.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

What's clear to me is that some folks here will always think that if you make an F5 then you are ripping off Gibson and I've been here long enough to know they will never be convinced otherwise. So I'm not trying anymore.

----------

j. condino, 

Timbofood

----------


## Bill McCall

Patents and trademarks are an interesting subject.  A thread regarding the history of the Coke bottle provides some insight: (from the Coca-Cola company website)

"Patents expire after 14 years (the bottle patent was renewed again in 1937,) by 1951, all patents on the shape had expired. The company approached the Patent Office that the bottles shape, “distinctively shaped contour,” was so well known that it should be granted Trademark status. While it was highly unusual for a commercial package to be granted that status, on April 12th, 1961, the Coca-Cola bottle was recognized as a trademark, in part bolstered by the fact that a 1949 study showed that less than 1% of Americans could not identify the bottle of Coke by shape alone." 

It'll be hard to tell if Gibson will prevail and even then the question of 'should it prevail' will be unresolved to many.

Haven't heard anybody on this site not recognize the F body shape, oval or round hole, as not being a feature/style that Gibson developed.  The dependency on that shape and its obvious commercial value to nonGibson makers, probably has contributed to a lack of innovation in body styles of mandolins.  I don't think you can ascribe the F shape as a technical requirement to the mandolin sound so the shape has been used for its commercial value.  How that use is viewed clearly is a highly personal decision.

And just wait until politicians weigh in, foreign competition/copying/unfair trade.  It'll only get more interesting.....

But I'll play my Gibson F5 and my nonGibson F5 and enjoy them both.

YMMV

----------


## DHopkins

> Haven't heard anybody on this site not recognize the F body shape, oval or round hole, as not being a feature/style that Gibson developed.


Can you patent or copyright a hole?

----------


## stringsattached

> Can you patent or copyright a hole?


I think Tim Hortons has a patent on the hole. :Coffee:  :Grin:

----------

David Rambo

----------


## foldedpath

> I think Tim Hortons has a patent on the hole.


And Courtney Love...  :Whistling:

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Was the F body style design patented? Has anyone got a copy of the patent? A quick search doesn't turn up any F style patents.


If it were patented, it would be guaranteed to be public domain by this point. That's the point of a patent - you get exclusive rights for a time, then it's free for anyone to use. Trade dress and trademarks can be defensible for as long as you are policing it. They didn't police it, they lose the right to claim ownership. 

They're trying to use intimidation and cash, but it won't work in the long run. RIAA proved that pretty well a few years ago.

There's no way they even have a majority market share on instruments made in Gibson-like shapes. And where do you draw the line? Is a PRS SC shape easily confused with a Les Paul? Good luck with that.

This is textbook poor handling of intellectual property (by that I mean the last 50 years of Gibson's IP practices) -- I'm actually surprised any self-respecting lawyers would sign up to represent Gibson on this. But I guess they're getting paid either way.

Time to make some Les Pauls?

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I do know that. At least it would show that they tried to protect the IP. They did patent the harp guitar shape. I don't think they have to worry about that one.

That might be an oxymoron.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Like this?

----------

Marty Jacobson, 

Paul Statman

----------


## Wolfboy

> Quote from the attorney representing these companies:
> 
> "The goodwill they may have had is over."


That works both ways.

----------

Joe Dodson

----------


## Wolfboy

Ooh, this should be good

https://guitar.com/news/dean-seeks-t...-interference/

_DEAN SEEKS TRADEMARK CANCELLATIONS AGAINST GIBSON, ALLEGES DEALER INTERFERENCE

Armadillo responds to counterfeit lawsuit by seeking the cancellation of Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 shape trademarks, and accuses Gibson of threatening guitar stores selling Dean and Luna guitars with legal action.

BY GUITAR.COM - 9TH JULY 2019

Last month, Gibson Brands filed a lawsuit in Texas against the parent company of Dean Guitars alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Now Armadillo Enterprises has formally responded to the suit, seeking to dismiss the case and filing a counterclaim that not only seeks to invalidate the US trademarks on Gibsons Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shapes, but also accuses Gibson of interfering with its dealer relationships, and even threatening guitar stores that stock Dean and Luna guitars with legal action. []

In the countersuit filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on 8 July, Armadillo alleges tortious interference with Armadillos business relationships and/or contracts on the part of Gibson in the months leading up to the suits filing on 6 June 2019.

 Prior to filing and/or service of Gibsons Complaint, Gibson contacted guitar dealers (including Armadillos dealers), threatening legal action and demanding that dealers remove all Armadillo guitars with the V, Z, and/or semi-hollow guitar shapes, the suit reads.

The suit cites the example of Carlino Guitars  a guitar shop in Medford, Massachusetts  which it claims was sent cease and desist letters by Gibson in April and May 2019. The letters allegedly demanded the removal of all Dean V and Z guitars from the shops website, accused them of being party to trademark infringement by stocking Dean instruments, and threatened the store with legal action if they didnt comply.

The suit claims that based on information and belief that Gibson sent similar letters to other dealers and retailers, with the intent of disruption Armadillos sales and contractual relationships. []

The counterclaim notes that many Armadillo dealers are also Gibson dealers and claims that these threatening communications led to numerous calls from dealers who were, concerned and afraid to continue to deal with Armadillo, and as such damaged its sales and business relationships.

The most potentially impactful aspect of the filings relates to the issue of the trademarks of the Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shapes. These marks were a key part of Gibsons original counterfeiting claim, and as part of its defence, Armadillo is not only trying to prove that the claims are without merit, but crucially it also seeks to get the trademarks cancelled altogether.

The above designs have been prominently used and promoted for years and, in some instances, decades, the suit reads. All the while, Gibson sat on its purported rights and failed to object. The suit goes on to claim that Dean has invested millions of dollars promoting and marketing guitars with those shapes in that period, and as such, some of Gibsons accused trademarks are invalid because they are generic and/or incapable of serving as a source identifier for guitars.

Back in 2009, Fender lost a similar case, which ruled that after 60 years of universal use, the Stratocaster, Telecaster and P-Bass body shapes were so commonplace theyd become generic (and as such could not be trademarked), while Gibson is already dealing with a suit relating to the ES-335 shape trademark that dates back to 2014.

In calling for the counterfeiting claim to be dismissed, Armadillo claims that its long history of making these guitars renders the notion that they could be counterfeits invalid  Armadillos product shapes are commonplace and are all branded with its distinct, well-known Dean and/or Luna house marks and distinct-looking headstocks, the motion reads. To suggest that famous musicians like Michael Schenker, Eric Peterson, Christian Martucci, and John Connolly have openly promoted, played, and endorsed spurious, counterfeit products on stages across the world is absurd.

The counterclaim demands the cancellation of Gibsons Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shape trademarks, and seeks the maximum damages permitted by law for the alleged interference caused by the companys communication with Dean and Gibson dealers.

Guitar.com has contacted Gibson for comment on Armadillos counterclaims, and will update this story as it develops._

----------

MontanaMatt, 

Paul Statman

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Like this?


If you contact these guys you can probably put this signature on the headstock legally. It appears that his estate owns the signature.

----------

j. condino, 

Jess L., 

MontanaMatt, 

Simon DS

----------


## Simon DS

Please Gibson, I dont want any trouble!
I posted this on a joke thread -I like to keep jokes separate from serious threads.

Im really sorry Gibson, just a joke.

----------

ccravens

----------


## Wolfboy

> Was the F body style design patented? Has anyone got a copy of the patent? A quick search doesn't turn up any F style patents.





> Patents expire after 14 years [...] It'll be hard to tell if Gibson will prevail and even then the question of 'should it prevail' will be unresolved to many.





> If it were patented, it would be guaranteed to be public domain by this point. That's the point of a patent - you get exclusive rights for a time, then it's free for anyone to use. Trade dress and trademarks can be defensible for as long as you are policing it. They didn't police it, they lose the right to claim ownership. 
> 
> They're trying to use intimidation and cash, but it won't work in the long run. RIAA proved that pretty well a few years ago.
> 
> There's no way they even have a majority market share on instruments made in Gibson-like shapes. And where do you draw the line? Is a PRS SC shape easily confused with a Les Paul? Good luck with that.


To the best of my knowledge (not being a lawyer), Gibson doesn't have either patents or trademarks on either the F5 body shape or headstock shape. They do have a trademark on the overall F5 headstock _with their specific inlay pattern,_ but not the headstock shape by itself - any mandolin builder can use that shape as long as the inlay pattern is different (or there's no inlay at all). This point of knowledge comes from a well-known luthier I spoke with recently who has direct experience dealing with Gibson, and who also has very good legal counsel.

So even if Gibson turns their corporate ire away from electric guitar builders long enough to focus on mandolin builders, folks who make F5-style mandolins shouldn't have anything to worry about as long as they're not copying Gibson's specific inlay patterns, despite whatever huffing and puffing Gibson might do.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Bit of what has already been covered from a different angle courtesy musicradar.com:

Gibson threatened dealers with legal action unless they stopped selling Dean guitars, alleges Dean

----------


## Bertram Henze

> The counterclaim demands the cancellation of Gibson’s Flying V, Explorer and ES-335 body shape trademarks, and seeks the “maximum damages permitted by law” for the alleged interference caused by the company’s communication with Dean and Gibson dealers.


Yeah, time to turn everything around.

----------

Gunnar, 

Simon DS, 

T.D.Nydn, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Wolfboy

Maybe we should put these folks on the case: https://www.deanandgibson.com/  :Grin:

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Bertram Henze

----------


## Dillon



----------

Paul Statman, 

Simon DS

----------


## BradKlein

Hopefully, the corporate might of Gibson will put an end to this commercial and its accompanying jingle. I'm not even sure that Kid can play guitar... ;-)

----------


## tim noble

How about the irony that Roger Siminoff was studying Loar F5s and making instruments and kits for sale to the public since the 1970s. His book included detailed drawings of all the features down to the fern inlay and headstock shape and profiles. He even sold precut fern inlays. Flash forward and he becomes a prime consultant for the reinvention of the Gibson F5L. So the guy primarily responsible for the companies renewed interest in the instrument and assisting in significant improvements thereby establishing Gibson mandolins as a viable alternative to small shop makers, was in fact blatantly infringing of their trademarks  and patents. My 1976 F5 is being played by a top professional in the north west (his name withheld to protect the guilty) and my 1977 is now in hiding so as not to be discovered by their lawyers.

----------

Jeff Mando

----------


## Joe Dodson

One point that's been left out of this discussion (or maybe not, since I haven't read anything like all 21 pages of this stuff) is a recognition that this is very likely coming from Gibson's new owners, KKR & Co. Inc., who basically assumed ownership last November as a result of the most recent pre-packaged bankruptcy.  They've probably got a three- to five-year exit strategy that's based on maximizing brand value and flipping the company to the highest bidding successive owner.  

The part of me that's spent 18 years practicing commercial litigation doesn't really care much about what these guys have to say about "Playing AuthenticTM."  This is part of an investment strategy by people with no legitimate connection to Gibson's undeniable musical heritage.  The "Director of Brand Experience" in the YouTube video looks like he changed out of a suit to film that dreck.  These guys are barbarians.  They'll be gone in 60 months.  Hopefully they will do more good by preserving the company's future than harm to it's goodwill.  But I think it's an error to treat them as truly speaking for the same "Gibson" that you and I think of when you think of Maybelle Carter, Bill Monroe, David Grisman, Les Paul and so many others.

----------

Hudmister, 

John Lloyd, 

Steve-o, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Russ Jordan

Does anyone know of action taken by Gibson against other mandolin companies/builders?

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> Does anyone know of action taken by Gibson against other mandolin companies/builders?


Yes, inside and outside U.S. At least one large company not named Collings (because I know someone will claim that having no idea) and several highly recognizable, high end, well known builders. For those interested, no, we are not going to name those for public consumption. If they wanted to be identified they would have stated as such already.

----------

Joe Dodson, 

Joey Anchors, 

John Lloyd, 

PDMan, 

Russ Jordan

----------


## Gan Ainm

Dillon:
Uh Oh. The University of Georgia (where I work) claims copyrights on "Dawgs" and even "Hairy Dawg" (!).
I think that means you have to immediately pack up that mandolin with the puppy and send it to me!

Now they also claim "Bulldogs", so I am not sure how that works for certain dog breeders and dog shows...

Might have something to do as to why we never see Grissman-esque "DAWG" T-Shirts or hats.
Wonder if anyone has copyrighted "Can of Worms". If not, I claim it for my next mando design and general life philosophy!

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Yes, inside and outside U.S. At least one large company not named Collings (because I know someone will claim that having no idea) and several highly recognizable, high end, well known builders. For those interested, no, we are not going to name those for public consumption. If they wanted to be identified they would have stated as such already.


Are we talking about a cease and desist letter, or are there suits? Seems like mandolins would be pretty far down in their list of priorities to bring actual cases to court. I can imagine their printers are running pretty continuously with cease and desist letters, though.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> Are we talking about a cease and desist letter, or are there suits? Seems like mandolins would be pretty far down in their list of priorities to bring actual cases to court. I can imagine their printers are running pretty continuously with cease and desist letters, though.


Addressed in the opening post and several times throughout the entire discussion. I realize this thread has gotten ridiculously long but I want to resist the temptation for members and readers to think I'm the author of everything Gibson is engaged in. I can only speak to what I've seen and there may be more, but I have serious doubts that any of it has any more teeth so to speak than what I've already witnessed. I think this is rapidly moving beyond mandolins with no success to guitars which is where the real action is going to occur.

----------

Daniel Nestlerode, 

Joey Anchors, 

LKN2MYIS, 

Marty Jacobson

----------


## DaveGinNJ

> And Courtney Love...


I have to imagine this is the first time Courtney Love's name has come up on Mandolin Cafe!

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> I have to imagine this is the first time Courtney Love's name has come up on Mandolin Cafe!


You would be wrong.

----------

BillytheB, 

MikeEdgerton, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> You would be wrong.


That should have been my line  :Cool:

----------


## DaveGinNJ

> You would be wrong.


I stand corrected.  I am a Hole fan but that has no bearing on my interest in mandolin

----------


## DHopkins

> Does anyone know of action taken by Gibson against other mandolin companies/builders?


I don't think they really care.  Mandolins are a very poor second (or worse) on their priority list.

----------


## AMandolin

I love the tape Mike.... :Popcorn:

----------

j. condino, 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Maybe we should put these folks on the case: https://www.deanandgibson.com/


That's pretty neat -- they could work things out in-house!

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> Was the F body style design patented? Has anyone got a copy of the patent? A quick search doesn't turn up any F style patents.
> 
> Orville's patent isn't much like the Gibson mandolin turned out to be. I think that's part of the issue here. 
> 
> I don't think they ever did anything to protect the F design. I seriously doubt they will be able to claim it after this much time being in the wind.


I touched on this back on Post#265 https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...=1#post1721138 the long & short of it being that they tried and eventually had to abandon their attempt at the trademark for the body design.  I also touched on the headstock/fern & flowerpot trademark.

----------


## DHopkins

I don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of defending the f-style design.  Like I said 3 weeks ago:  it's too little, too late.  As for the rest of it, I know what think should happen but I've been involved in the court system for many years and I learned long ago not to second-guess anything they do.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I touched on this back on Post#265 https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...=1#post1721138 the long & short of it being that they tried and eventually had to abandon their attempt at the trademark for the body design.  I also touched on the headstock/fern & flowerpot trademark.


It was more of a rhetorical question in response to a message above my post.

----------


## Timbofood

Nice tape job Mike, looks like an old “naughty” picture with tape over the eyes!

----------


## Mandolin Cafe



----------

Bertram Henze, 

Jess L., 

Marty Jacobson, 

Paul Statman, 

WaxwellHaus

----------


## slimt

Gibson must be selling alot of off brand,off shore  Guitars that look like Gibsons to be able to afford all of this Non sense..

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Gibson to move headquarters to downtown Nashville

----------


## MikeEdgerton

They will probably be closer to the attorney's offices. Might save them some travel expense.

----------

Simon DS

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Bates & Bates Intellectual Property Law which represents them in the documentation I saw has offices in Atlanta, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa City, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. The attorney that signed said letter has an Atlanta area code phone.

----------

MikeEdgerton, 

Paul Statman

----------


## MikeEdgerton

OK, so that's out. They are moving downtown to show their commitment to Nashville but obviously don't need to show any Nashville lawyers any love.

----------


## Simon DS

> Bates & Bates Intellectual Property Law which represents them in the documentation I saw has offices in Atlanta, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa City, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. The attorney that signed said letter has an Atlanta area code phone.


Atlanta? 
Isn’t that where... oh no, we’re not going to see a whole load of Disney film remakes with everyone from Tom and Jerry to Cinderella playing Gibson mandolins?
Please, no!

----------


## Timbofood

Oooh, I really want to spend some quality time in Iowa City!

----------


## Jim Garber

Rather than read this very long thread, I will take the risk of presenting an already-discussed topic which Gibson seems to have registered as trademarks these identifying characteristics rather than copyrights or design patents. I know they have a long history of design patents but I wonder why they took that route. Part of it might be that they can register concepts that do not exist in production as yet.

There are mulitple articles on the differences between these but this is pretty concise and explains it well: *Comparing Design Patents to Copyrights and Trademarks* .

----------

Simon DS

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

> Oooh, I really want to spend some quality time in Iowa City!


No, you don´t.

@ Mike Edgerton: You have to remove the black from the writing. It´s not the old "Gibson" that you must punish. (as I am very [!] much in favor of my Southerner Jumbo)

I think that the same inadept person that was responsible for the ultimate thrashing of other builders is to be held responsible for the additional (liguistically absolutely iresponsible) press release.

It does not disqualify the awesome old Gibson guitars and mandolins. It does not belittle the nice Gibson guitars of the 90ies and the great Gibson mandolins from under Charlie Derrington, Danny Roberts and Dave Harvey. 

The criticism goes out to the legal blockheads that clearly try to bully their way around what´s legally right.

The interesting questions to ask are
- did Gibson originate the build paterns that they use(d)
- have they continuously used the build paterns
- have they continuously fought against copyists

In our mandolin community I think I am save to claim that Gibson did care less than to proscecute against luthiers that used (former) Gibson patterns.

The same might be said about Gibson guitar patterns.

Other than that, I do not blame anyone that fights for their intelectual property rights. (I don´t think that Gibson is at fault If they try to protect property rights that they still hold; they are just not the ones that concern any mandolin shapes [flowerpot, fern, body shape etc.], guitar shapes [Les Paul, flying V etc.]).

Lawyers are out to make money.  A firm is well advised to not make a stink when nothing is to be gained. The combination of a legal department wanting to make money and a firm wanting to pursue their ideas can be toxic when  - like in this case - the goal cannot be reached. Comon sense ought to be the guideline.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## CarlM

> Oooh, I really want to spend some quality time in Iowa City!


Quality time in Iowa City includes going down to the Mill every second and fourth Wednesday of the month  to hear Bob Black (yes that Bob Black) and some of his friends play the real genuine bluegrass music.  The cover charge is really minimal.

Not to mention Greg Brown and a few others who occasionally get scheduled there for concerts in a real up close setting.  Greg Brown grew up around here.

Also the first weekend in June they have a community arts festival where they close the downtown streets and have art, food  and free concerts with people like Sam Bush, Aiofe O Donovan, Tim O' Brien, Darrell Scott and the like as headliners.  There is a similar level jazz festival once a year.

So it is not all bad.

----------

Eric Platt, 

Joey Anchors, 

John Bertotti, 

Louise NM, 

Luna Pick, 

Russ Jordan, 

Simon DS

----------


## Wolfboy

Interesting post here from a trademark lawyer: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/arti...k_claims-93487

Excerpt:

_Armadillo Distribution Enterprises  the entity that owns Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars  has submitted its opening salvo in response to Gibsons trademark infringement lawsuit. On July 8th, Armadillo filed a 49 page Answer and Counterclaims. It also filed a separate Motion to Dismiss the allegations of counterfeiting by Gibson. Both of these legal filings by Armadillo seek to document a series of factual and legal errors that were conveniently left out of Gibsons claims.

The highlights of Armadillos myriad responses are the following:

- It is legally impossible for Deans V and Explorer guitars to be counterfeits
- Armadillo has used the V and Z (Explorer) guitar shapes since at least 1976 and that Gibson sat on its purported rights and failed to object
- Gibsons alleged trademarks and trademark rights are invalid because they are generic and/or incapable of serving as source identifiers for guitars
- Armadillos use of the term Modern to describe its guitars is Fair Use
- Gibson has interfered with Armadillos business by unlawfully threatening distributors

Of course, the Answer and Counterclaims filed by Armadillo are written in a way that is heavily slanted in its favor. This response, however, does introduce new facts and history that was absent from Gibsons own lawsuit filings. As a trademark lawyer and a guitar player, this case remains absolutely fascinating to me and I wanted to provide a quick summary and high-level legal analysis of the parties positions as of today.

Gibsons Counterfeiting Claims

Gibsons lawsuit alleges that Armadillo (through Dean and Luna) used counterfeit versions of Gibsons Flying V, Explorer, SG, and Dove Wing Headstock designs on both electric and acoustic guitars. Gibson is not required to provide substantial evidence in its original filings, but Armadillos Answer and Motion to Dismiss absolutely drops the hammer on Gibsons counterfeiting claims.

Under U.S. law, a counterfeit is a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark. Essentially, a counterfeit is something that purports to be something that it is not. Gibsons assertion that Dean and Luna guitars are counterfeits necessarily suggests to the court that these guitars are being passed off as genuine Gibson guitars and not just mere imitations or guitars with similar designs.

Armadillos lawyers pounced on this claim for obvious reasons. Because Gibson previously tried this same argument just a few years ago and it failed spectacularly. On similar claims for counterfeiting by Gibson in 2016, a district court in California held the following:

"[t]o the extent that Gibson allegedly relies on its body shape and headstock shape as a source identifier, no rational jury could find that a particular body shape or headstock stamped with a different guitar brand is a counterfeit of a Gibson trademark."

Ouch. These prior counterfeiting claims were dismissed for good reason. The bar for proving a counterfeit is exceptionally high. The law governing counterfeits addresses a very narrow type of product, in that the majority of appropriately filed counterfeit cases involve obviously identical marks. In short, Armadillos lawyers assert (and I agree) that no reasonable guitar purchaser is going to think they are buying a genuine Gibson guitar when they walk out of the store with a Dean or Luna guitar. The headstocks clearly use DEAN or LUNA marks and logos. There is nothing on the label that would suggest that these are Gibson-branded products. Armadillos Motion to Dismiss included pages of side-by-side graphics demonstrating the different headstocks and descriptions that would negate any claims of counterfeiting.

I anticipate that the Court will grant Armadillos Motion to Dismiss the counterfeiting claims.

Generic and/or Invalid Trademarks

The core of Armadillos Answer is that four of Gibsons U.S. trademark registrations should be cancelled on grounds that the body designs are generic and/or invalid. I have previously written an analysis on this issue anticipating these very defenses. Legally speaking, by saying the body designs are generic, Armadillo is claiming that the Flying V, Explorer (Z), SG, and semi-hollow body styles are so commonly used in the industry by others that it no longer signifies one specific manufacturer to guitar players in the industry. In laymans terms, Armadillo claims that Gibsons allegedly distinctive body shapes are more like the use of the term ASPIRIN in the pharmaceutical industry. These shapes are too common to be associated with just one brand. They are generic. Generic marks are never enforceable as trademarks. Armadillos Answer provided pages and pages of examples of these substantial third-party uses.

Now, before I continue, I want to make one thing very clear: there is a difference between a trademark and a trademark registration. Armadillos legal filings are seeking to cancel Gibsons trademark registrations, which are effectively certificates issued by the USPTO recognizing that Gibson has claimed and demonstrated rights to certain trademarks. If Gibsons trademark registrations are cancelled that does not mean that it loses the underlying trademarks. Gibson would still theoretically own and have legally enforceable rights to these trademarks, even without a registration, unless they are declared generic. (The registrations provide additional legal benefits and presumptions when you enforce trademarks in a legal proceeding.)

Nevertheless, I tend to side with Armadillo on this issue too. It is possible that in the 1950s, Gibsons Flying V and Explorer models were so distinctive and unique that any respectable guitar player inherently associated these models with the Gibson brand. But that is no longer the case. Dean Guitars claims to have used these models since the 1970s. I know other brands have been using the V and semi-hollow body shapes for many years as well. Gibson only recently began seeking to enforce these as trademarks. Gibson Brands, Inc. did not even file for registrations until the 1990s. Gibsons failure to enforce its purported trademark rights until now dovetails with the claims of genericness. These are known as the legal doctrines of laches and acquiescence  both of which are explicitly asserted as defenses by Armadillo. These are the fancy lawyer words for tough luck; you waited too long.

Overall, I think Armadillo has most of the facts and law on its side. This case is far from over though. Most trademark cases will involve substantial survey and customer impression evidence. There will be expert testimony. It is a long, expensive process unless the parties settle. Plus, the Gibson brand is likely more famous than the Dean and Luna brands to the average person. It is unlikely that the fact finder(s) will be familiar with the other various guitar brands in the industry, so Gibsons name brand might sway the uninitiated to some degree.

My personal opinion though? As a trademark lawyer and also as someone who has been playing guitar for over 20 years? I think that all of these body shapes are generic and no longer function as trademarks. I think Gibson is overstepping and it will backfire._

----------

Al Trujillo, 

Bob Clark, 

DHopkins, 

EdHanrahan, 

Eric Platt, 

Explorer, 

fatt-dad, 

Jess L., 

Luna Pick, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Ryk Loske, 

Simon DS, 

Steve-o

----------


## BillytheB

Gibson could probably do more with a campaign demonstrating how they were innovative and brought musicians so many designs that are ubiquitous today. Something like showing all the copies of their designs and then a statement that says "Gibson says you're welcome for a century of innovation still being copied today"... or "Imitation is the most sincere flattery and we're blushing"... or "what would you have done without Gibson for the last century?". Would any of this have gotten them a dime in court? Not one cent. It would remind the buying public of the history of the company and how influential they have been. On the other hand, no one ever bought groceries with "exposure".

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Several new news articles appearing today. Several quotes certainly attention getting.

Gibson shifts from confrontation to collaboration with Gibson Authorized Partnership Program

_“Tone and timing of that video, clearly, lessons to be learned, but guess what: we’re taking down hundreds of websites, thousands of guitars we’re intercepting that are knockoffs, so it served a purpose,” James ‘JC’ Curleigh, president and CEO of Gibson, said._

_In short, Gibson is planning to initially collaborate with 3-4 boutique guitar builders by entering into agreements where the builders acknowledge that they’re using Gibson’s shapes, then Gibson will give them permission to create guitars using those shapes after coming to specific terms._

There's more of interest in that article but for everyone to digest on their own.

----------


## slimt

when you see stuff like this as plain as day.. it makes you wonder if they really are making a effort to protect there brand..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Headway-ASK...8AAOSwH3ddLZS2

----------


## Al Trujillo

> _“Tone and timing of that video, clearly, lessons to be learned, but guess what: we’re taking down hundreds of websites, thousands of guitars we’re intercepting that are knockoffs, so it served a purpose,” James ‘JC’ Curleigh, president and CEO of Gibson, said._


At his last stand, surveying the opponents before the end, even Gen. Custer realized he had stepped into a mess.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

That "Mae West" shape has been around waaaay too long for anyone to even remotely consider calling it their own.  It defines "generic."

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> when you see stuff like this as plain as day.. it makes you wonder if they really are making a effort to protect there brand..
> 
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/Headway-ASK...8AAOSwH3ddLZS2


Wow, complete with bell shaped truss rod cover. For two grand you could get a used CEO series Martin that's not only a better knockoff but a better guitar.

https://reverb.com/p/martin-ceo-7

----------


## Steve-o

> In short, Gibson is planning to initially collaborate with 3-4 boutique guitar builders by entering into agreements where the builders acknowledge that they’re using Gibson’s shapes, then Gibson will give them permission to create guitars using those shapes after coming to specific terms.


“Specific terms” such as licensing and licensing fees.  :Whistling:

----------


## Verne Andru

There's a special place in heck for trademark lawyers.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

> There's a special place in heck for trademark lawyers.


Well, I believe "our" trademark lawyer provided some good insight on this subject.  ♫

----------

fatt-dad, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Luna Pick, 

Ryk Loske, 

Timbofood

----------


## John Bertotti

> Quality time in Iowa City includes going down to the Mill every second and fourth Wednesday of the month  to hear Bob Black (yes that Bob Black) and some of his friends play the real genuine bluegrass music.  The cover charge is really minimal.
> 
> Not to mention Greg Brown and a few others who occasionally get scheduled there for concerts in a real up close setting.  Greg Brown grew up around here.
> 
> Also the first weekend in June they have a community arts festival where they close the downtown streets and have art, food  and free concerts with people like Sam Bush, Aiofe O Donovan, Tim O' Brien, Darrell Scott and the like as headliners.  There is a similar level jazz festival once a year.
> 
> So it is not all bad.


I grew up 30 miles from Iowa City it was a nice town but a typical collage town. Certainly a good place to have a good time.

----------

CarlM

----------


## Verne Andru

> Well, I believe "our" trademark lawyer provided some good insight on this subject.  ♫


At the end of the day everybody acknowledges that Gibson created the "violin-style" mandolin and adorned it with their unique headstock and scrolls that has made the F5 (and variants) so visually appealing and commercially successful. Gibson also created a similar line of guitars in the L5 and etc. Gibson created the Les Paul body shape, humbucker pickup, block inlays, and etc. Gibson also created the Explorer and other body shapes that are at issue with Dean. I don't believe there is any dispute anywhere as to who created the products at issue.

Most US manufacturers respected each other's innovations - Fenders are different from Gibsons are different from Danelectros and etc. It wasn't until the late 1960s that knock-offs started entering the US market from places like Japan which is outside US trademark jurisdiction. If you recall Gibson did try to enforce the IP rights as the 1970s are known as the "lawsuit" era even though the actions didn't get much further than lawyers letters AFAIK.

So what's this about? It's about another manufacturer appropriating the fruits Gibson's creativity for their own commercial gain. The lawyers job is to work the legal minute in such a way that the proper owner of the property (Gibson) is denied their ability to exclusively benefit from their innovation and work.

Trademark law is all about the money and the lawyers are paid to - excuse the use of the term - "steal" rights wherever and whenever they can. IP law also has some of the highest legal fees in the industry making it almost impossible to protect your creations without more money for lawyers than you can expect to see in commercial sales.

Take the lawyers out of the equation and most of these problems go away.

I'm not here to defend Gibson. I'm here to defend the rights of the creators who are being denied their ability to enjoy the fruits of their labors because somebody has the financial means to hire a bunch of slime-ball lawyers to legally appropriate what isn't rightfully theirs.

----------

KMaynard

----------


## DaveGinNJ

> At the end of the day everybody acknowledges that Gibson created the "violin-style" mandolin and adorned it with their unique headstock and scrolls that has made the F5 (and variants) so visually appealing and commercially successful. Gibson also created a similar line of guitars in the L5 and etc. Gibson created the Les Paul body shape, humbucker pickup, block inlays, and etc. Gibson also created the Explorer and other body shapes that are at issue with Dean. I don't believe there is any dispute anywhere as to who created the products at issue.
> 
> Most US manufacturers respected each other's innovations - Fenders are different from Gibsons are different from Danelectros and etc. It wasn't until the late 1960s that knock-offs started entering the US market from places like Japan which is outside US trademark jurisdiction. If you recall Gibson did try to enforce the IP rights as the 1970s are known as the "lawsuit" era even though the actions didn't get much further than lawyers letters AFAIK.
> 
> So what's this about? It's about another manufacturer appropriating the fruits Gibson's creativity for their own commercial gain. The lawyers job is to work the legal minute in such a way that the proper owner of the property (Gibson) is denied their ability to exclusively benefit from their innovation and work.
> 
> Trademark law is all about the money and the lawyers are paid to - excuse the use of the term - "steal" rights wherever and whenever they can. IP law also has some of the highest legal fees in the industry making it almost impossible to protect your creations without more money for lawyers than you can expect to see in commercial sales.
> 
> Take the lawyers out of the equation and most of these problems go away.
> ...


Understand your point, but I dont think Gibson winning in court is going to be a financial windfall for them and "enjoy the fruits of their labors".  I think most buyers are making purchase decisions based on cost and perceived value.  Let's say Gibson forces Dean to stop making "flying V" shaped guitars.  Is that person now going to decide that he's willing to spend $6000 versus the <$1000 he was going to spend on the DEan or will he/she simply decide the body style is not worth thousands of dollars?

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

1910 Shutt.

----------

Bob Bass, 

BradKlein, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

John Bertotti, 

Steve-o, 

Timbofood, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Timbofood

Okey Dokey then, I actually might go to Iowa city but I don’t know when. Obviously,  it would have to be the second or fourth Wednesday of the month.

----------

CarlM

----------


## John Van Zandt

Individuals or companies that are forced to defend themselves? Perhaps some of you have never been on the receiving end? 

Once an individual or company is forced into legal expenses for that defense, it can be very expensive. You might say, from a corporate perspective, it's earning/ profits out the window. Money that will never be recovered because judges generally don't allow an 'accused' to recover legal expenses from the plaintiff. Not in the U.S., at least.

I've served on a Circuit Court jury in which the accused was involved in a frivolous suit which caused him to close his business, relocate to reestablish his life, and much more. He was found not guilty in minutes after deliberations began.

----------


## BradKlein

> 1910 Shutt.


Agree! Albert Shutt of Topeka, Kansas was essentially co-inventor (with Orville Gibson) of the 'American Mandolin' as distinct from its European ancestors. Carved, violin-style top and back plates with bent sides were created by Orville and refined extensively by the early Gibson company. Elevated fingerboard and use of ff-holes in a carved-top instrument were the contributions of Shutt circa 1910. Lloyd Loar was very likely aware of Shutt's designs when he oversaw the addition of these features in the Gibson Master Model guitars and mandolins in the 1920s.

----------


## John Bertotti

> At the end of the day everybody acknowledges that Gibson created the "violin-style" mandolin and adorned it with their unique headstock and scrolls that has made the F5 (and variants) so visually appealing and commercially successful. Gibson also created a similar line of guitars in the L5 and etc. Gibson created the Les Paul body shape, humbucker pickup, block inlays, and etc. Gibson also created the Explorer and other body shapes that are at issue with Dean. I don't believe there is any dispute anywhere as to who created the products at issue.
> 
> Most US manufacturers respected each other's innovations - Fenders are different from Gibsons are different from Danelectros and etc. It wasn't until the late 1960s that knock-offs started entering the US market from places like Japan which is outside US trademark jurisdiction. If you recall Gibson did try to enforce the IP rights as the 1970s are known as the "lawsuit" era even though the actions didn't get much further than lawyers letters AFAIK.
> 
> So what's this about? It's about another manufacturer appropriating the fruits Gibson's creativity for their own commercial gain. The lawyers job is to work the legal minute in such a way that the proper owner of the property (Gibson) is denied their ability to exclusively benefit from their innovation and work.
> 
> Trademark law is all about the money and the lawyers are paid to - excuse the use of the term - "steal" rights wherever and whenever they can. IP law also has some of the highest legal fees in the industry making it almost impossible to protect your creations without more money for lawyers than you can expect to see in commercial sales.
> 
> Take the lawyers out of the equation and most of these problems go away.
> ...


 Don't lump me into the everybody becasue I don't agree.

----------

DHopkins, 

jshane

----------


## Verne Andru

> Understand your point, but I dont think Gibson winning in court is going to be a financial windfall for them and "enjoy the fruits of their labors".  I think most buyers are making purchase decisions based on cost and perceived value.  Let's say Gibson forces Dean to stop making "flying V" shaped guitars.  Is that person now going to decide that he's willing to spend $6000 versus the <$1000 he was going to spend on the DEan or will he/she simply decide the body style is not worth thousands of dollars?


I'm with you as a consumer of this type of product. I want to get the best value for my dollar and that often precludes products with a premium price-point. Gibson makes no bones about the fact that their brand is 100% made in the US and purposefully charges a premium for that. Gibson also owns Epiphone, which BTW is the largest seller of guitars in the word, that provides very high-quality and affordable versions of the premium Gibson's, so they have the markets pretty well covered. I'm assuming the legal work exists to show Epiphone is effectively licensing Gibson's marks.

Any registered trademarks Gibson has owned for over 5 years can only be struck if fraud is proven. As fraud has never been proven to date AFAIK in any trademark proceeding under the Lanham Act it's pretty safe to say that any registrations Gibson owns are safe from challenges. Common law marks are more challenging. The legal concept of "reverse confusion" whereby a competitor sneaks up on a trademark to the extent they appropriate it, then use it to challenge the original owner (which could be argued in this case), is one of the core concepts the Lanham Act was designed to address. Just because the registrant is "weak" at one point doesn't mean a "stronger" challenger is free to do as they wish. There is also established precedents that allow for weak marks becoming strong over time, so the level of market strength a mark may or may not have isn't supposed to be much of a consideration in a "reverse confusion"  scenario.

Stepping back for a moment and looking at trademark law as we're transitioning into the interconnected digital age, you can do a lot with a registered mark these days that wasn't even a consideration before. The internet is controlled by a few large US based entities [which are subject to enforce US law] so it's very easy to shut down a competitor anywhere in the world by simply providing a US registration number. Not being able to do Google advertising, run videos on YouTube and etc. can seriously impede a businesses ability to function these days. As a consequence more and more emphasis is being placed on securing registrations than in the past as those with the IP can control much of what moves along the digital highways, which is where the markets have moved.

We're living through Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" as we transition into the information age. Those who own the intellectual property rights going into the future will be the big winners. I think this may be probably closer to the heart of this current wrangling than a few Dean Explorers.

----------


## Simon DS

...

----------


## slimt

> Several new news articles appearing today. Several quotes certainly attention getting.
> 
> Gibson shifts from confrontation to collaboration with Gibson Authorized Partnership Program
> 
> _“Tone and timing of that video, clearly, lessons to be learned, but guess what: we’re taking down hundreds of websites, thousands of guitars we’re intercepting that are knockoffs, so it served a purpose,” James ‘JC’ Curleigh, president and CEO of Gibson, said._
> 
> _In short, Gibson is planning to initially collaborate with 3-4 boutique guitar builders by entering into agreements where the builders acknowledge that they’re using Gibson’s shapes, then Gibson will give them permission to create guitars using those shapes after coming to specific terms._
> 
> There's more of interest in that article but for everyone to digest on their own.



As a Lawyer said to me once.  Dont sign nothing. Once you do your liable for anything they see fit to get you on.

----------


## Joe Dodson

So, what I'm getting is they've realized they're in the middle of a PR nightmare, and they've got some vague sort-of plan for people to pay them money to get them out of it.  Details to be ironed out later.  Maybe.  But the important thing is they're winning like tiger blood.




> In short, Gibson is *planning* to initially collaborate with 3-4 boutique guitar builders by *entering* into agreements where the builders acknowledge that theyre using Gibsons shapes, then Gibson *will* give them permission to create guitars using those shapes after coming to specific terms.
> 
> It will be through the new Gibson Authorized Partnership Program, which *will* involve agreements where builders *may only be able to build a certain amount of those guitars*, and there *may be a royalty dynamic* or licensing involved (*details are still being ironed out*), but Curleigh said that *Gibson would support* the builders in terms of marketing, and its not meant to be a revenue generator for Gibson, rather, a way to allow builders to continue using Gibson shapes, but this time in a mutually-agreed upon way.

----------


## Austin Bob

> _Tone and timing of that video, clearly, lessons to be learned, but guess what: were taking down hundreds of websites, thousands of guitars were intercepting that are knockoffs, so it served a purpose, James JC Curleigh, president and CEO of Gibson, said._


Mr. Curleigh starts off by offering a bit of an apology for the video, but immediately takes it back by implying that the ends justifies the means. 

I fail to see how a snarky video can lead to capturing counterfeit guitars. Do the criminals say to themselves: "Man, that Mark Agnesi guy scares me, I'd better call Gibson and tell them where those crates of fakes are!"

----------

Ryk Loske

----------


## DHopkins

> I fail to see how a snarky video can lead to capturing counterfeit guitars. Do the criminals say to themselves: "Man, that Mark Agnesi guy scares me, I'd better call Gibson and tell them where those crates of fakes are!"


Those are posted for our benefit.  When things slow down, they throw one of those up.

----------


## slimt

> Wow, complete with bell shaped truss rod cover. For two grand you could get a used CEO series Martin that's not only a better knockoff but a better guitar.
> 
> https://reverb.com/p/martin-ceo-7


I had a CEO 7.  I sold all my Martins except for my D28s and D45s. And started buying more Franklins . 

It would sure be interesting to know who is being targeted for collaboration

----------


## ccravens

> Several new news articles appearing today. Several quotes certainly attention getting.
> 
> Gibson shifts from confrontation to collaboration with Gibson Authorized Partnership Program
> 
> _Tone and timing of that video, clearly, lessons to be learned, but guess what: were taking down hundreds of websites, thousands of guitars were intercepting that are knockoffs, so it served a purpose, James JC Curleigh, president and CEO of Gibson, said._
> 
> _In short, Gibson is planning to initially collaborate with 3-4 boutique guitar builders by entering into agreements where the builders acknowledge that theyre using Gibsons shapes, then Gibson will give them permission to create guitars using those shapes after coming to specific terms._
> 
> There's more of interest in that article but for everyone to digest on their own.



Of course I could be wrong about this, but after reading the article, the "Partnership Program" idea just sounds like Gibson is saying:

"I don't think that suing small companies will be beneficial financially, or that we could be even guaranteed to win such cases, so we'll try to see if any builders are frightened or dumb enough to get our official endorsement by "partnering" with us, and sharing a bit of their profits."

How thoughtful of Gibson..

----------


## slimt

> Of course I could be wrong about this, but after reading the article, the "Partnership Program" idea just sounds like Gibson is saying:
> 
> "I don't think that suing small companies will be beneficial financially, or that we could be even guaranteed to win such cases, so we'll try to see if any builders are frightened or dumb enough to get our official endorsement by "partnering" with us, and sharing a bit of their profits."
> 
> How thoughtful of Gibson..


Yup. Not good .   Maybe all of the builders should stick together as independence and continue doing there own thing. Nobody owes Gibson anything. There trying to bail there way out of a deep hole there in. Buying up all those trivial companies and throwing them into a grave never to see the light of day again made no sense either.

Next thing on there agenda will be to try to close the borders on all foreign manufactures of guitars and musical instruments.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Brand authenticity means that a company's products and actions match their marketing lingo.

Currently, Gibson's lingo is: "We're one of the most innovative instrument companies of all time!"

But unless they are actually innovating, the legacy of innovation falls flat, and the messaging feels smarmy.

Working as a marketing consultant, I told this to many clients. Sometimes you don't need better marketing. Sometimes you need to focus on getting your product to match the level promised by your marketing team.

Gibson, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to fill in the blanks below....

F-5

L series

Les Paul

P-90 pickup

PAF pickup

ES series 

SG

Explorer

Flying V

Hummingbird

_______________?


_______________?


_______________?

(No, robotuners do NOT get a place on this list.)

----------

Drew Egerton, 

Drew Streip, 

Jess L., 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## DaveGinNJ

Agree.  "We used to innovate" is not a winning sales campaign

----------

Bob Clark, 

Jess L., 

Joe Dodson, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Wolfboy

----------


## slimt

> Brand authenticity means that a company's products and actions match their marketing lingo.
> 
> Currently, Gibson's lingo is: "We're one of the most innovative instrument companies of all time!"
> 
> But unless they are actually innovating, the legacy of innovation falls flat, and the messaging feels smarmy.
> 
> Working as a marketing consultant, I told this to many clients. Sometimes you don't need better marketing. Sometimes you need to focus on getting your product to match level promised by your marketing team.
> 
> Gibson, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to fill in the blanks below....
> ...


Ya. The Robotuners kind of leaned the ship to one side a bit. A huge failure. 

I think they got stuck with the contract on that one.

----------


## BillytheB

> Brand authenticity means that a company's products and actions match their marketing lingo.
> 
> Currently, Gibson's lingo is: "We're one of the most innovative instrument companies of all time!"
> 
> But unless they are actually innovating, the legacy of innovation falls flat, and the messaging feels smarmy.
> 
> Working as a marketing consultant, I told this to many clients. Sometimes you don't need better marketing. Sometimes you need to focus on getting your product to match the level promised by your marketing team.


I was recently at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles and almost the entire collection is unchanged from when I was there in the 90s. At some point contemporary art isn't actually contemporary anymore. It doesn't make the art less worthy of being appreciated but the context of the art in the present day doesn't hold relevance the same way. Today their are actual contemporary artists that should be replacing those pieces. No one gets to be a star forever (except Mickey Mouse). Not very mandolin oriented, I know.

----------


## Caleb

The mixture of innovation and tradition is hard to understand, and must be a tough balancing act for companies: e.g. Fender and Gibson basically make the same electric guitars over and over, claiming they are innovating but it’s really just repackaging the old design.   I get it.   These are great products, and people want a real Les Paul, Strat, etc., and the new designs never seem to replace the old standards.  

Side note: I love Gibson guitars, but the robot tuners were beyond goofy to me and would actually be a deal-breaker, but I’m not a gadget guy.

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Wolfboy

> Sometimes you don't need better marketing. Sometimes you need to focus on getting your product to match the level promised by your marketing team.


Well said. And pretty much sums up the Gibson situation. (Well, other than the lawsuits.)

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Verne Andru

I've designed, branded, launched and marketed successful MI products and think I understand the market to some extent. For the most part the market is really really really conservative and still holding up the old products as the best of the best. Most peeps around here would be happy with a 1924 built F5 or a 1959 built Les Paul [or something built along those designs].

Gibson understands this and, if you pay attention, have focused on introducing their innovations in their Epiphone line while holding out their Gibson line as traditional master-pieces [which is what the market wants]. Guitars such as the Epiphone Wildkat are fabulous instruments that have innovative build features that advance the art of instrument building. Fender, OTOH, simply changes colors on their old stuff and introduces them as "new and improved."

MI buyers have almost always eschew the "new" - Gibson's Explorers, Modern and others were not well received when first introduced and even now only account for a small fraction of the market. Gibson executing a marketing strategy that accounts for this [by not building a certain model for a period of time] is simply a company that understands its market and not a license for another builder to cop their IP by introducing a knock-off.

I've dealt with Fender and Gibson at various NAMMs. I've always found Gibson kind, professional and courteous whereas I can't say the same for Fender.

I have to admit to being at a loss understanding all the Gibson hate. They've invested in the R&D, design and have been marketing these products [taking into account market fluctuations] for years. Somebody else coming along and ripping their designs is IP theft which Gibson has every right to protect themselves against.

Saying it's okay to steal intellectual property because some lawyer argues the creator "abandoned" it is nonsense.

----------

KMaynard, 

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> I have to admit to being at a loss understanding all the Gibson hate. They've invested in the R&D, design and have been marketing these products [taking into account market fluctuations] for years. Somebody else coming along and ripping their designs is IP theft which Gibson has every right to protect themselves against.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal intellectual property because some lawyer argues the creator "abandoned" it is nonsense.


Are you OK with things being an homage? Here's my version of an ES-335: 



I consider that an homage, not a rip-off. But where do you draw the line?

How about a violin? Is every violinmaker guilty of acting in bad faith regarding their wholesale (or might say faithful) copying of ol' Tony Stradivarius' work?

How about the fact that during much of Gibson's history, their products have actually been poor imitations of vintage Gibsons, and other crafts-folk were out there making better "Gibsons" than Gibson cared to make?

----------


## Verne Andru

> Are you OK with things being an homage? Here's my version of an ES-335: 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider that an homage, not a rip-off. But where do you draw the line?


The line is drawn under US trademark law when there is a "likelihood of confusion" between the products. In your case it would be difficult to argue confusion and I doubt Gibson would consider this a breach of their IP rights.

Lots of US manufacturers produce very high quality mandolins including Weber, Breedlove, and etc. Gibson doesn't go after them because they are making their own designs that are distinguishable from Gibson's. That's the way it's supposed to work.

As I recall Dean hit the market touting they were rip-offs of Gibson's as a selling feature. That's a red line for any company.




> How about a violin? Is every violinmaker guilty of acting in bad faith regarding their wholesale (or might say faithful) work copying ol' Tony Stradivarius' work?


Yes. The IP belongs to the creator unless it is sold, expires and etc.

Look - the reality is these companies are not stupid when it comes to "imitation is the best form of flattery." People are stealing the underlying designs because they were well done (it's not often you'll see someone ripping off an unsuccessful product) making them successful products.

When I was in the software business there was a generally accepted [tho unspoken] rule-of-thumb that 10 to 15% piracy was considered a "good thing." Why? Because that got your product into users hands and, if the tool worked for them, they would eventually turn into paying customers. Tech only started pushing back after piracy rates sky-rocketed (with the introduction of the internet) and was adversely affecting their bottom lines. 

I've seen this same thing go for the MI business. Peeps start out on an Epiphone Les Paul (or knock-off) and, when their chance to gig comes along, quickly "move up" to a Gibson because that shows some sort of cred (which is part of Gibson's IP goodwill).

Gibson, Fender et. all don't go after the craft luthiers that I'm aware of. It's only when the competitor is making a serious business out of the stolen IP that these situations flare up.

IP theft is still theft regardless what the smarmy lawyers try to argue.

----------


## Explorer

> I have to admit to being at a loss understanding all the Gibson hate. They've invested in the R&D, design and have been marketing these products [taking into account market fluctuations] for years. Somebody else coming along and ripping their designs is IP theft which Gibson has every right to protect themselves against.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal intellectual property because some lawyer argues the creator "abandoned" it is nonsense.


Verne, for some reason or another, you've skipped over a significant indicative set of circumstances from which the courts can infer that a trademark is abandoned. 

*Marks* that are registered with the USPTO *can be deemed abandoned if the owner fails to police third-party use of the mark*, fails to file a declaration of use or other necessary renewal document with the USPTO, ceases using the mark for a period of three consecutive years or more, files an notice of intention to abandon the mark *or allows the mark to become generic*.

It's not that "some lawyer" argues it. It's that the court determines, using those criteria, that the mark was abandoned. Oftentimes, the period of non-policing and/or of allowing the mark to become generic is three years. 

And in this case, the gap is several decades. 

I can understand your outrage if you were genuinely unaware of the law regarding trademarks and abandonment. Assuming that you can now find more information to get you up to speed on the gaps in your knowledge, and with those facts now clarified, you'll stop arguing from passion and instead from the facts. 

Again, it's not that the IP in question was allowed to lay fallow, but instead that Gibson did not police third-party use, and allowed the designs to become generic. 

Fortunately in the court filings, if evidence is entered that Gibson did vigorously police the marks from the start, and prevented them from becoming generic, then Gibson will prevail.

----------


## Verne Andru

> Fortunately in the court filings, if evidence is entered that Gibson did vigorously police the marks from the start, and prevented them from becoming generic, then Gibson will prevail.


And this is what I'm saying. There seems to be a predetermination that Gibson is guilty prior to examining Gibson's evidence as to their business practices.

All I know is that Gibson appears to have priority rights to the IP in the guitars Dean has been actively selling as knock-offs (I understand Gibson is only going after a few products in Dean's line) and by arguing abandonment Dean acknowledges same.

Three years is "prima face," must be accompanied with a demonstrated "intent" to abandon and the registered owner is given due regard. Gibson's legal department may have stacks of cease and desist letters they've sent out over the years that nobody has ever heard of. They may have multiple license agreements with companies like Epiphone who have continued building their products under license. We'll have to wait and see what gets filed if the matter proceeds that far.

Gibson has been a corporate IP game pretty much from the beginning. Corporate interests took over from Orville shortly after he created the original mandolin based on violin building techniques. That was back in the late 1800's. I can't imagine they've not taken care of their legal business along the way as that's how today's Gibson started.

Gibson is in an enviable position of owning some of the most iconic MI IP in history. Everyone is trying to get a piece of it by hook or by crook. Imagine the costs if Gibson was to engage in cease and desist proceedings against everyone who has ever made a Les Paul knock off. It would keep an army of lawyers busy for decades and kill the company.

There needs to be a sense of reasonableness taken into consideration.

----------


## slimt

> And this is what I'm saying. There seems to be a predetermination that Gibson is guilty prior to examining Gibson's evidence as to their business practices.
> 
> All I know is that Gibson appears to have priority rights to the IP in the guitars Dean has been actively selling as knock-offs (I understand Gibson is only going after a few products in Dean's line) and by arguing abandonment Dean acknowledges same.
> 
> Three years is "prima face," must be accompanied with a demonstrated "intent" to abandon and the registered owner is given due regard. Gibson's legal department may have stacks of cease and desist letters they've sent out over the years that nobody has ever heard of. They may have multiple license agreements with companies like Epiphone who have continued building their products under license. We'll have to wait and see what gets filed if the matter proceeds that far.
> 
> Gibson has been a corporate IP game pretty much from the beginning. Corporate interests took over from Orville shortly after he created the original mandolin based on violin building techniques. That was back in the late 1800's. I can't imagine they've not taken care of their legal business along the way as that's how today's Gibson started.
> 
> Gibson is in an enviable position of owning some of the most iconic MI IP in history. Everyone is trying to get a piece of it by hook or by crook. Imagine the costs if Gibson was to engage in cease and desist proceedings against everyone who has ever made a Les Paul knock off. It would keep an army of lawyers busy for decades and kill the company.
> ...


But.   In the 70s. Norlin had Gibson. And just about everything on the Gibson line up was junk including the Norlin name.  I dont think the V or the explorer was being made till into the later 80s into the 90s   So could that of been the time frame for not keeping up with trade marks?   Norlin put Gibson into a huge failure.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> I have to admit to being at a loss understanding all the Gibson hate. They've invested in the R&D, design and have been marketing these products [taking into account market fluctuations] for years. Somebody else coming along and ripping their designs is IP theft which Gibson has every right to protect themselves against.


I'll assume you've not seen legal documentation on the mandolin or guitar side of things. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Many complaining are just shooting from the hip and just like to blow off steam. To quote the most quoted phrase within this thread, "I'm not a lawyer," but when as a business you ask for 4 figures in "damages" for a design for a single instrument that was completed and has been used two decades *prior* to said trademark even being applied for, well, certainly it's within their rights to try that. Do courts uphold that kind of tactic?

It's also within the rights of the individual or business being threatened with retroactive claims to challenge that kind of claim. Asking for retroactive compensation is one of the issues on the mandolin side. "You did this prior to the trademark so now write us a large check and mail to us." So far what is being reported was Gibson's legal simply stops communicating once an attorney on the other side says "you can't claim that and it won't stick in court so have at it if you wish." I'm all for businesses defending intellectual property rights, but that's a pretty bizarre business strategy to say, well, we forgot for 95 years but now we're going to ask everyone for compensation for steps we should have taken 30, 50, 75 years ago. Good luck with that. The issue with most sensible parties is they respect IP rights if they're in place. What they don't respect is Gibson making up new rules the courts won't uphold and using their legal muscle to intimidate. Certainly within their rights. Does everyone have to love and respect them for doing so?

And just so we're clear, the Cafe respects Gibson's IP rights as well, within reason. I just removed a Gibson counterfeit mandolin posted earlier this morning. Why? Because it's against the posting guidelines, it's the right thing to do (my opinion), and Gibson will contact me and ask me to take it down if they see it (and they have before). I'm OK with the latter. But them asking me to take down every mandolin on the Classifieds that has a Fern completed prior to the trademark even being applied for? Well, certainly within their right to try. My lawyer works for me for free (sort of) and he's quite good. I only pay him in microbrewed beer when we have, uh, strategic planning meetings. I think I feel strategic planning coming on today in this 100 degree midwest heat.

In business you eat or you get eaten. Gibson failed to hire a cook or set their own table for an awful long time. Builders have been born, grew up, built hundreds of instruments and passed on since all of this started. What they do to rectify this is certainly within their rights. That they receive  everyone's respect for their actions now will be each individual's decision.

----------

darylcrisp, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

DHopkins, 

Jim Hilburn, 

Joey Anchors, 

Kevin Winn, 

Ryk Loske, 

Wolfboy

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I wonder what happens to *Heritage Guitars*? You have to assume they knew what was happening with that company and they did nothing. If anyone was building Gibson copies I'm pretty sure it would have been Heritage.

https://heritageguitars.com/collecti...ard-collection

----------


## slimt

> I wonder what happens to *Heritage Guitars*? You have to assume they knew what was happening with that company and they did nothing. If anyone was building Gibson copies I'm pretty sure it would have been Heritage.


I have a couple of the Golden Eagle  archtops. There outstanding guitars.

----------


## Explorer

> And this is what I'm saying. There seems to be a predetermination that Gibson is guilty prior to examining Gibson's evidence as to their business practices.
> 
> There needs to be a sense of reasonableness taken into consideration.


You yourself referred to "IP theft," a predetermination of guilt prior to examining the evidence or lack thereof. 

What's interesting is that the evidence of lack of enforcement (assuming a common-law trademark) against Dean for several decades, meaning no actual lawsuits filed, no court actions requested, etc., is evident in Gibson's filings so far, as well as in the public record. We only have the trademark registration (closing the barn door) decades after others used the designs (after the horse is gone). So far, the actual evidence is against Gibson, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is happy to read any such pro-Gibson evidence you can now provide.

You also keep falling back on an invented need to declare abandonment. Courts conclude abandonment by consideration of policing of the trademark(s) in question, not by a written letter of intent as you keep arguing. I don't know where you picked up that odd little idea, but it is inaccurate. 

----

As to why people appear to view Gibson's current actions negatively, here's a few reasons:

The Gibson entity appears to have been bought by venture capitalists. Those investors appear, with no evidence to the contrary, to be fabricating claims that the Gibson entity did its due diligence in maintaining at least common-law trademarks on its designs. The evidence so far instead shows that the Gibson entity did not police its trademarks, and allowed them to become generic, for decades beyond three years. Those investors are pursuing these unsupported claims not to extend Gibson as an innovative brand, but as a way of squeezing cash out of their investment. 

As you have repeatedly referenced "IP theft" as your conclusion, in the absence of evidence of enforcement, I hope you will extend the same consideration towards those who consider this action by the investors as a "cash grab."

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> As you have repeatedly referenced "IP theft" as your conclusion, in the absence of evidence of enforcement, I hope you will extend the same consideration towards those who consider this action by the investors as a "cash grab."


Additionally, I would add that while making a faithful '59 Les Paul copy is almost certainly legally permissible, and MAY be morally permissible, it is not very creative. Let's all do cool stuff that's in the spirit of, and inspired by, the great artisans of the past. And stop wearing out our legal pads. 

But I guess everybody has to make a living somehow.

----------

Tom Haywood

----------


## Explorer

> Additionally, I would add that while making a faithful '59 Les Paul copy is almost certainly legally permissible, and MAY be *morally* permissible, it is not very creative.


A few years ago, there was a tempest in a teapot when a particular "holy grail" guitar distortion pedal was successfully copied. This was after the originator had *not* applied for a patent, and after any theoretical patent period would have expired had the patent been applied for and granted. 

There were numerous people who wanted to argue that it was unethical and immoral to make clones of what the originator had placed into the public domain by foregoing protection. The irony was that they were arguing for the unethical and immoral annexation of something in the public domain.

I find it interesting to see the same arguments surfacing in this topic, that designs allowed to become public domain should now be annexed and protected after the law disallows such. 

I'm still waiting for Verne and others to post actual evidence which counters the current facts regarding Gibson's decades of non-policing. Until that happens, it is, in fact, moral and ethical to use these designs which are in the public domain. That's why it's the public domain.

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Additionally, I would add that while making a faithful '59 Les Paul copy is almost certainly legally permissible, and MAY be morally permissible, it is not very creative. .


Actually, if it says "Gibson" on the peghead, probably not......

Two thoughts....

Slash played his "boutique" handmade 59 Les Paul for most of his early career.....could be thought of as a tribute or counterfeit depending on which side of the legal aisle you are sitting........I guess it is legal to build and own and play in public, but not legal to sell.  I guess he isn't selling......

I noticed just this past week not one but two fake counterfeit Chinese Les Pauls in my area, one in a music store -- the owner called me to confirm his suspicion before deciding not to put it out for sale -- in this case a beautiful Les Paul Custom -- and yes, the fakes are getting much, much better, I'm thinking they would fool most people except for five or six small details.....  The other in a pawn shop was a used, but like new counterfeit of Gibson Slash model (list price $6000) proudly displayed for sale at $899......again, would fool most people, IMHO.

It seemed the Chinese fakes were all over the place 10-12 years ago, then kind of disappeared for a while.  It seems they are back.

Not sure where my "morals" lie.......is it OK for a boutique builder to make a fake, but not alright for a Chinese factory???  Not sure....

Like I said before.  Most of my stuff is vintage, so I really don't care....

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> At the end of the day everybody acknowledges that Gibson created the "violin-style" mandolin and adorned it with their unique headstock and scrolls that has made the F5 (and variants) so visually appealing and commercially successful. Gibson also created a similar line of guitars in the L5 and etc. Gibson created the Les Paul body shape, humbucker pickup, block inlays, and etc. Gibson also created the Explorer and other body shapes that are at issue with Dean. I don't believe there is any dispute anywhere as to who created the products at issue.


Gibson did not create the "Les Paul" body shape.  O. W. Appleton did...poor guy even presented it to Gibson who told him they couldn't imagine someone playing a solid body electric and then proceeded to steal it for the Les Paul and keep their company afloat!

----------

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

Ryk Loske, 

WaxwellHaus

----------


## Verne Andru

> I'll assume you've not seen legal documentation on the mandolin or guitar side of things. Correct me if I'm wrong.


You are correct. I'm here as an "outsider" as I am not as familiar with this legacy as most here and am trying to understand the thinking.

In some ways I'm in the same spot a judge would be who has to hear the case - I don't know the parties from Adam so what are the facts and what is the law that needs to be applied. In Gibson's case we're talking about a public company that's been around for over 100 years so there is quite a bit of history for the uninitiated to try and understand.

I'm finding it educational and I hope others aren't offended for me taking a contrarian position.

----------


## Verne Andru

> I'm still waiting for Verne and others to post actual evidence which counters the current facts regarding Gibson's decades of non-policing. Until that happens, it is, in fact, moral and ethical to use these designs which are in the public domain. That's why it's the public domain.


That is going to have to wait to see what Gibson files. For all we know Gibson and Dean lawyers may have been exchanging threats for years. That's certainly something Dean wouldn't disclose.

Copyrights enter the public domain. Trademarks become generic.

I think an argument can be made that the Les Paul is "generic" but that would be a stretch for shapes such as the Explorer and etc. Those designs never really caught on so I fail to see how they can be considered generic.

----------


## Verne Andru

> Slash played his "boutique" handmade 59 Les Paul for most of his early career.....could be thought of as a tribute or counterfeit depending on which side of the legal aisle you are sitting........I guess it is legal to build and own and play in public, but not legal to sell.  I guess he isn't selling......


The trademark litmus test is "use in commerce." Since Slash, who ripped Nash the Slash's trade-dress, wasn't selling the guitars he wouldn't run foul of the legal stuff.

Zappa also played a knock-off SG without consequence.

----------


## Verne Andru

> Gibson did not create the "Les Paul" body shape.  O. W. Appleton did...poor guy even presented it to Gibson who told him they couldn't imagine someone playing a solid body electric and then proceeded to steal it for the Les Paul and keep their company afloat!


The differences between that and a Gibson Les Paul are significant enough that I don't see a conflict.

By the same token, Leo Fender ripped off Paul Bigsby's headstock design, bolt-on neck and tremolo concept without consequence, and has been able to defend it's headstock design as proprietary, so who knows?

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Gibson did not create the "Les Paul" body shape.  O. W. Appleton did...poor guy even presented it to Gibson who told him they couldn't imagine someone playing a solid body electric and then proceeded to steal it for the Les Paul and keep their company afloat!


that's "authentic" for them. Just another bunch of scavengers.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> The differences between that and a Gibson Les Paul are significant enough that I don't see a conflict.
> 
> By the same token, Leo Fender ripped off Paul Bigsby's headstock design, bolt-on neck and tremolo concept without consequence, and has been able to defend it's headstock design as proprietary, so who knows?


That's like saying the wheel design of 3500BC is radically different than today's wheel because it's archaic in construction.  
At a time when it was the beginnings of these solidbody electric guitars, for Appleton to pitch his instrument in 1943 to Gibson, who essentially laughed at his design then nearly a decade later copy it and claim divine creation is bollocks.  They (the friend Appleton had at Gibson that set up the initial pitch meeting) even sent Appleton a letter to let him know. Hubris...
 

Beyond that, Bigsby and Fender were friends.  Surely Paul's instruments influenced Leo but so too did the Stauffer instruments, with the scroll style headstock and that was his claim for inspiration on his headstock design.  But he didn't deny inspiration from Paul.  
I can consider there is far more creative difference in a flush mount tremolo than that of a body route tremolo...
The bolt neck, sure...Leo copied the idea of holding two pieces of wood together using wood screws.

----------


## Jeff Mando

> ....Slash, who ripped Nash the Slash's trade-dress.....


Doubtful that Slash ever heard of Nash the Slash........

although, yes, I do like the contrarian viewpoint......

----------


## Verne Andru

> That's like saying the wheel design of 3500BC is radically different than today's wheel because it's archaic in construction.  
> At a time when it was the beginnings of these solidbody electric guitars, for Appleton to pitch his instrument in 1943 to Gibson, who essentially laughed at his design then nearly a decade later copy it and claim divine creation is bollocks.  They (the friend Appleton had at Gibson that set up the initial pitch meeting) even sent Appleton a letter to let him know. Hubris...
>  
> 
> Beyond that, Bigsby and Fender were friends.  Surely Paul's instruments influenced Leo but so too did the Stauffer instruments, with the scroll style headstock and that was his claim for inspiration on his headstock design.  But he didn't deny inspiration from Paul.  
> I can consider there is far more creative difference in a flush mount tremolo than that of a body route tremolo...
> The bolt neck, sure...Leo copied the idea of holding two pieces of wood together using wood screws.


To my eye I would consider the "Appleton" design derivative of Gibson's L5 and other archtop's with a Venetian cutaway that had been around for many years prior to 1943. Rickenbacker had already defined the "solid body" guitar years earlier so that was nothing new.

AFAIK Gibson's first "Les Paul" was the SG, which Les didn't like. It wasn't until later that Gibson came up with what we now call the Les Paul, which Les did like.

I see the current Les Paul as a solid-body derivative of Gibson's various Florentine archtop guitars like the 175, 330 and the 140.

I think it is arguable [which doesn't mean it's a winning argument] that the various designs Gibson has used in commerce over its 100-odd years are part of Gibson's "trade dress" which may be protect-able. The positioning of the Gibson brand as a legacy innovator relies on it's past achievements to sustain, so we'll have to see how the arguments unravel.

----------


## Verne Andru

> Doubtful that Slash ever heard of Nash the Slash........


I think between the "top hat" and the "slash" moniker Nash would have had a valid argument. The name alone, maybe. Copping both the hat and the name is more than a little stinky.

----------


## Jeff Mando

The guys in Lynyrd Skynyrd all wore beaver felt hats, so you're saying Nash the Slash......

(I might add, the Cafe has provided Nash the Slash with more press than he probably got during his lifetime......FWIW)

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Verne, not sure where you got the SG idea, but this was the first Les Paul.

----------


## Verne Andru

> The guys in Lynyrd Skynyrd all wore beaver felt hats, so you're saying Nash the Slash......
> 
> (I might add, the Cafe has provided Nash the Slash with more press than he probably got during his lifetime......FWIW)


I was in radio at the time FM hit the scene. Those were the early days of FM radio (in stereo) that had a unique university audience that wasn't confined to local demographics like AM was. They were one of the wave of prog bands that really broke the use of modern synthesizers. I still have their 2 albums from back then.

FM made a huge splash and rode the top of the university charts in Canada and the US for quite a while. That was before G&R happened. I can't prove it one way or another and it doesn't really matter anyway. Just saying.

(even though very familiar with FM, it wasn't until I joined here that it grokked on me that Nash played a mandolin. All the press photos from the release showed him as a violin player.)

----------


## Verne Andru

> Verne, not sure where you got the SG idea, but this was the first Les Paul.


There was an article in Vintage Guitar magazine a few years back discussing the evolution of the Les Paul. It stated very clearly that the first guitar Gibson presented to Les Paul for consideration was the SG. I believe they created that around 1955? It was then that Les got involved and the one you picture above was released.

So you are correct - that is the first official Les Paul. But it wasn't what Gibson originally designed to bear Les's signature according to the article in Vintage Guitar magazine.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

That's a 1952 and Les Paul was involved. His name was on it. The first SG, still called a Les Paul was in '61.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## Verne Andru

Here's what I can find on Vintage Guitar - it talks about what was going on from Les Paul's POV.

https://www.vintageguitar.com/2908/les-paul/

Here's one on the SG Les Paul - (I must have muddled them up - sorry)

https://www.vintageguitar.com/32511/...ecomes-the-sg/

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Here's Sister Rosetta Tharpe playing a 52 and then a SG LP.

----------


## Chris Daniels

> I think between the "top hat" and the "slash" moniker Nash would have had a valid argument. The name alone, maybe. Copping both the hat and the name is more than a little stinky.


From an archived Swindle magazine article found via Wikipedia Link:

_When Saul was 15, his maternal grandmother gave him a Spanish guitar with just one string on it that she had in her basement...

Soon after that, Saul became Slash, not just in spirit but in name, given to him by character actor Seymour Cassel. “I was friends with his kids, and he used to call me Slash because I was an aspiring guitar player, always hustling, never stopping to hang out. I was always in a hurry. So he started calling me that, and it stuck.”_ [Ed. note: This would be circa *1980* based on his age]

...

_...Slash bought himself a top hat from a store on Melrose Avenue in preparation for his first gig with GN’R, June 6, 1985, at the Troubadour, billed as “a rock ‘n’ roll bash where everyone’s smashed.”_
That would be quite the long game if the presumption were true. And to keep somewhat on topic after becoming an unwitting shill for a guitarist I stopped listening to years ago [from Guitar Shop Magazine, Oct 1996]:

_Ironically, the guitar which returned the Gibson Les Paul to prominence in the late-Eighties is actually not a Gibson at all, but an exact replica of a late-Fifties Les Paul Standard built by a luthier named Kris Derrig.
Guns N’ Roses manager Alan Niven bought the guitar and gave it to Slash during the recording sessions for the band’s 1987 debut, Appetite For Destruction. “When I was in the studio doing the basic tracks for Appetite, Alan Niven brought this Les Paul for me to use because I was having a really hard time getting a good sound,” says Slash._ 
C. ~/:/~

----------


## jdchapman

I'm listening to the Gueikian interview on the new Fretboard Journal podcast.  The guy talks like a cartoon businessman, lots of cliche and jargon, but if I can pick through the weeds, sounds mostly like they're improving things. 

That said, there are lots of howlers.  No willingness to acknowledge the possibility that the guitar market generally might be contracting.  Instead, some weird abstract assertion that the market/culture generally was ripe for "authenticity."  He went on for awhile discussing this airy notion, and then proposed that Gibson was surely the most authentic guitar company in the world.

----------


## jdchapman

Oh, the end is the best:
"What is the most frustrating part of the music industry?"
"Infringement.  We've spent a century making these designs....."
(We?  We?)

I believe in IP, but Congress has expanded the duration beyond all reason.

----------


## John Bertotti

I'm on the outside looking in but from my perspective corporations should have no or limited IP rights. They hire talented people to create and design the companies foot the bill but did no creation. I think and legally this isn't so, but I think IP belongs to the individual and should be his or hers till they are gone. After that fair game. Nothing in this world was created without other people laying the groundwork before them. This IP crapshoot is nuts to me. If we left one person and anyone claiming it from that point on sole propriety we would never make any advancements. Look how things in industries where we are certain there are advancement but throttled back because of profits. This doesn't just concern the music industry but everything. The company I work for claims all intellectual property you develop for up to five years after you leave as their own if it deals with their industry, whether you developed it on your own or not. I can understand a logo or inlay as a logo but everything else I'm sketchy on.

----------


## DHopkins

> Copyrights enter the public domain. Trademarks become generic.


And it happens more than people think:  Kleenex, Q-Tip, Band-Aid, Plexiglas, etc.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> To my eye I would consider the "Appleton" design derivative of Gibson's L5 and other archtop's with a Venetian cutaway that had been around for many years prior to 1943. Rickenbacker had already defined the "solid body" guitar years earlier so that was nothing new.
> 
> AFAIK Gibson's first "Les Paul" was the SG, which Les didn't like. It wasn't until later that Gibson came up with what we now call the Les Paul, which Les did like.
> 
> I see the current Les Paul as a solid-body derivative of Gibson's various Florentine archtop guitars like the 175, 330 and the 140.
> 
> I think it is arguable [which doesn't mean it's a winning argument] that the various designs Gibson has used in commerce over its 100-odd years are part of Gibson's "trade dress" which may be protect-able. The positioning of the Gibson brand as a legacy innovator relies on it's past achievements to sustain, so we'll have to see how the arguments unravel.


I'll clear up some things first then focus more on my point of Appleton's "The App" and it's importance of being the first solid wood bodied electric guitar; arguably the most important instrument in the Western world, possibly the world over, for the past 75ish years (by this last statement, I mean the solid-bodied electric guitar).

 - Referencing Ric as having "defined solid body guitars years earlier" is wrong.  The aluminum Ric Frying Pan and molded bakelite body Electro (neither one being a solid bodied instruments) were neither a solid-bodied guitars and far from the solid-body wooden instrument that is "The App".  Those two instruments came and have far since been gone.  "The App" lives on in the Gibson Les Paul which copied its design.
 - It was actually Slingerland that made the first solidbody electric guitar and while it resembled a Hawaiian lap guitar, it had a rounded neck so to play in the traditional seated manner, upright with the back of the instrument against the stomach of the player.  

 - Gibson's first Les Paul was...the Appleton copied Les Paul!  In 1960, with sales of the Les Paul tanking, Gibson decided to "redesign" the Les Paul (moreso the Les Paul Jr.,  Special and TV double cut models) and it morphed into the SG instrument.  Of course they did this without Les knowing and slapped his name on it without his permission for which he made them take it off because he didn't like it.

With it's creation in 1941, "The App" was the first solid-body wooden electric guitar made that resembles the instrument commonly seen today and that is it's importance.  Years later, in '48 came Paul Bigsby's solid-bodied instruments and Leo Fender's and had Gibson not copied it to make the Les Paul (remember, they were presented and scoffed at the instrument and it's concept already), there is a reasonable argument that they may not exist as a company today.  The competition was leaving them in the dust with their affordable, electrified solid-bodied instruments.  Again; the Gibson employee friend of Appleton's wrote him and told him such.
And while this is my view of it and yours the opposite; I think the idea of "The App" being a derivative of the Super 400 Premier or L5 Premier (the only 2 Venetian cutaway Gibson's of the era) which had only been made for a total of 2yrs in '41 and made in ultra rare numbers (in total, for all production years, lesser numbers than all pre-war Martin D-45's), as well as being hollow-body, non-electric, very large instruments by comparison...well, it's rather not a derivative at all, is it?  The point I'm making of it's originality _is_ it being a solid-body wooden electric guitar of this distinctive design; something that after being presented it and in the midst of failing business, Gibson copied with it's derivative Les Paul.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

Gibson proudly displaying their original instruments at this years Summer NAMM  :Whistling:

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## Verne Andru

My FM "Black Noise" album has a 1978 copyright date on it meaning Nash the Slash was using the "Slash" name and top hat "in commerce" since at least that date - probably earlier if they were gigging before they released recordings. But it matters not.




> This doesn't just concern the music industry but everything.


Couldn't agree more. IP concentration in the internet world is becoming a very dark and frightful place.

And then there's this:

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...eim-trademark/

----------


## Verne Andru

> The point I'm making of it's originality _is_ it being a solid-body wooden electric guitar of this distinctive design; something that after being presented it and in the midst of failing business, Gibson copied with it's derivative Les Paul.


Then there the story according to Les Paul:

https://www.vintageguitar.com/2908/les-paul/

I wasn't there and it doesn't matter to me, but I'd give Les Paul's account a bit more weight.

----------


## slimt

> Gibson proudly displaying their original instruments at this years Summer NAMM


Ya.  Strat look alikes.     I think the investors want there money. Any way they can get it.

----------


## Wolfboy

> Strat look alikes.


And hideous ones at that.

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> Then there the story according to Les Paul:
> 
> https://www.vintageguitar.com/2908/les-paul/
> 
> I wasn't there and it doesn't matter to me, but I'd give Les Paul's account a bit more weight.


I wasn't there either but I'm afraid this isn't a chicken and egg scenario; the LP came long after The App and is a derivative of the earlier guitar Gibson was shown; a solid-bodied, arched-top wooden electric guitar of a specific body shape. Les mentions he and others at Gibson worked on the design of the LP guitar.  Considering the letter Appleton got from Gibson, it's fair to consider those others were among the ones presented The App for consideration in 1943.
 - A quote from the letter: "Well, App, you see our competition (Fender) has finally forced us to come out with your solid guitar. Sure wish we had listened to you back in 1943." Included with the letter was a brochure for the new Gibson Les Paul Model.

The SG, Explorer, V...I can give Gibson those (well, the Gibson engineers) without any reservation but knowing the story of The App there is no doubt in my mind it was an inspiration for the LP design and simple comparison shows it's derivation of The App.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## foldedpath

> And hideous ones at that.


Ugh, no kidding. Not just tacky colors, but painting the headstock to match the body? That can work with a unique enough design, but on a Strat copy it just looks awful.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Gibson proudly displaying their original instruments at this years Summer NAMM


That is freaking hilarious.

- - - Updated - - -




> Ugh, no kidding. Not just tacky colors, but painting the headstock to match the body? That can work with a unique enough design, but on a Strat copy it just looks awful.


Obvious infringement on Fender's trade dress, to follow Gibson's logic. In that row, there are only two "Gibson" shapes, the rest are all Jackson or Fender shapes.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Simon DS

Apples marketing plan in the late 80s:

----------

Jess L.

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Here's Sister Rosetta Tharpe playing a 52 and then a SG LP.


Looks like gospel music pays better than I thought..........Les Pauls, SGs. etc........

----------


## Jess L.

> Apple's marketing plan in the *late '80s*:


Late *'90s*, actually.  :Smile:  "Bondi Blue" iMac (middle pic) came out in 1998, fruit colors (top pic) were announced in early 1999 (more info here). But that minor detail aside, I see your point!  :Smile:   :Laughing:   :Mandosmiley:  (I avoided the whole iMac thing - my Macs at the time were plain ol' *beige* giant behemoths that, with their extra cooling fans and extra hard drives, sounding like mini vacuum cleaners... I kept that last great old workhorse beige Mac  :Mandosmiley:  for many _many_ years (hey, it still worked, why get rid of it?) before finally switching over to Linux and then Windows. Never did buy an iMac, just didn't appeal to me, certainly not brightly colored ones. Wouldn't want bright-colored guitar pegheads either, makes the guitar look like a toy.)

----------

Simon DS

----------


## Jeff Mando

I believe, those colorful "strats" are Kramers, a company Gibson has owned since the late 90's....

----------


## Wolfboy

> I believe, those colorful "strats" are Kramers, a company Gibson has owned since the late 90's....


That's as may be; they're still "counterfeit" Strats if Dean V's are "counterfeit" Gibsons.

(Which of course is to say they're not - just seems like Gibson is doing exactly what they accuse Dean and others of doing.)

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Verne Andru

> That's as may be; they're still "counterfeit" Strats if Dean V's are "counterfeit" Gibsons.
> 
> (Which of course is to say they're not - just seems like Gibson is doing exactly what they accuse Dean and others of doing.)


IIRC Fender lost its claims to the stratocaster body shape last go around and it's now technically considered "generic." If that's so, Gibson [and everyone else] is well within their rights to make as many as they wish even without a claim via Kramer. I don't believe the IP at issue with Dean has been tested in court yet.

I believe the recent round started with Gibson asserting their rights [aka policing their marks]. That received significant marketplace push-back causing Gibson to pull back.

What I find very curious in all this is that the primary argument I've seen thus far is that Gibson is being heavy-handed. At the same time I've read many suggest it's because Gibson doesn't police their properties [i.e. hasn't been heavy-handed enough] as justification for others appropriating them, yet when they do they are met with a huge backlash from the market.

A very odd situation.

----------


## Bill McCall

> ......What I find very curious in all this is that the primary argument I've seen thus far is that Gibson is being heavy-handed. At the same time I've read many suggest it's because Gibson doesn't police their properties [i.e. hasn't been heavy-handed enough] as justification for others appropriating them, yet when they do they are met with a huge backlash from the market.
> 
> A very odd situation.


Not really.

Gibson didn't defend its mandolin designs, which originated about 100 years ago, for quite a long time.  Even many of its electric designs haven't received continuous defense, or even registration as trademarks until after a long period of use.

That's an easy distinction for me.

YMMV

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Simon DS

> Late *'90s*, actually.  "Bondi Blue" iMac (middle pic) came out in 1998, fruit colors (top pic) were announced in early 1999 (more info here). But that minor detail aside, I see your point!    (I avoided the whole iMac thing - my Macs at the time were plain ol' *beige* giant behemoths that, with their extra cooling fans and extra hard drives, sounding like mini vacuum cleaners... I kept that last great old workhorse beige Mac  for many _many_ years (hey, it still worked, why get rid of it?) before finally switching over to Linux and then Windows. Never did buy an iMac, just didn't appeal to me, certainly not brightly colored ones. Wouldn't want bright-colored guitar pegheads either, makes the guitar look like a toy.)


-you mean I’ve only been trying to forget about those bright colored computers since 1998? Seems much longer!  :Smile:  I actually feel bad about posting the error but I just couldn’t face looking up those details, again!

----------

Jess L.

----------


## Verne Andru

> Not really.
> 
> Gibson didn't defend its mandolin designs, which originated about 100 years ago, for quite a long time.  Even many of its electric designs haven't received continuous defense, or even registration as trademarks until after a long period of use.
> 
> That's an easy distinction for me.
> 
> YMMV


I don't believe there is any requisite to register your trademarks. There are benefits to registration, but [theoretically] use in common-law is just as valid in law.

AFAIK the Lanham Act governing US trademark registrations wasn't enacted until 1946. Was there any codified trademark legislation prior to that? Gibson was already more than 50 years old by that time and I assume was conducting business according to accepted norms.

Laws and how they are applied change over time - especially a period of 100 years. When I was active in the late 80s a trademark was pretty much restricted to a graphic representation. I recall some US states had started allowing "wordmarks" but that wasn't taken seriously at the time. Now that we live in an internet world, wordmarks are all the rage and ubiquitous. Regional distinctions have also been blurred, especially in light of the Lexmark precedent.

You can't judge past behaviour based on current norms as "norms" were likely quite different back then.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

F-5's changed with each regime at Gibson. When Guy Hart took over, they strayed from the Loar era instruments. When CMI bought the company and McCarty took over it went through a drastic change to the wide peghead with the new logo. By then they had thrown away most of the old forms the Loars were made with. Then when Norlin got in it became the atrocious monstrocity of the 70's.
So when the replica's began to be built it was more than a shape, it was a sound. If there's anything Gibson abandoned it was the sound which is what it's all about in the end. Sure, they had scrolls and points and flowerpots, but they had no soul.

----------


## Explorer

> IIRC Fender lost its claims to the stratocaster body shape last go around and it's now technically considered "generic." If that's so, Gibson [and everyone else] is well within their rights to make as many as they wish even without a claim via Kramer. I don't believe the IP at issue with Dean has been tested in court yet.
> 
> I believe the recent round started with Gibson asserting their rights [aka policing their marks]. That received significant marketplace push-back causing Gibson to pull back.


Ah! You're aware of the Fender case! That's good, because it is relevant.

In the 1950s, Fender started selling guitars with particular shapes. In 2004, after decades of non-policing of the shapes, Fender then attempted to register trademarks on the shapes. In 2009, they ultimately lost. 

You probably don't know this, as you have not acknowledged it at all, but Gibson similarly started selling guitars and other instruments with particular shapes decades ago. In 1997, after decades of non-policing of the shapes, Gibson then attempted to register trademarks on the shapes. There are now interconnected court cases seeking to either enforce or remove trademark protection from the shapes. 

Gibson *did* trademark the LP singlecut design in 1994, and sued PRS guitars in 2000 over the PRS "Singlecut" model. Gibson won that suit in 2004, but lost on appeal in 2005, wiping out that trademark. 

Your statement that Gibson was asserting its rights presupposes that the decades of non-policing has no effect. You seem very optimistic, but deliberately avoiding mentioning unpleasant or inconvenient facts could lead one to doubt honesty of the avoider's arguments.




> What I find very curious in all this is that the primary argument I've seen thus far is that Gibson is being heavy-handed. At the same time I've read many suggest it's because Gibson doesn't police their properties [i.e. hasn't been heavy-handed enough] as justification for others appropriating them, yet when they do they are met with a huge backlash from the market.
> 
> A very odd situation.





> Not really.
> 
> Gibson didn't defend its mandolin designs, which originated about 100 years ago, for quite a long time.  Even many of its electric designs haven't received continuous defense, or even registration as trademarks until after a long period of use.
> 
> That's an easy distinction for me.
> 
> YMMV


Interesting! Bill, I had mentioned those very fact to Verne just in the past few days in this topic, and his writing makes it clear that either he completely forgot, or that he is deliberately skewing things. I'm going to assume that he just plumb forgot, but that does make discussion difficult. 




> I don't believe there is any requisite to register your trademarks. There are benefits to registration, but [theoretically] use in common-law is just as valid in law.
> 
> AFAIK the Lanham Act governing US trademark registrations wasn't enacted until 1946. Was there any codified trademark legislation prior to that? Gibson was already more than 50 years old by that time and I assume was conducting business according to accepted norms.


As the US judge in the 1874 Linoleum case ruled on the common-law trademark, even if "Linoleum" had been a registered trademark, it was too widely genericized to continue as a trademark. Given that the judge knew of established trademark law more than 70 years before the Lanham act, I'll accept that ruling's mention of such as proof of its existence.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Verne Andru

> Your statement that Gibson was asserting its rights presupposes that the decades of non-policing has no effect. You seem very optimistic, but deliberately avoiding mentioning unpleasant or inconvenient facts could lead one to doubt honesty of the avoider's arguments.


Not sure this is fair. As I stated above I'm like a judge coming cold to this case. I don't know the parties or the history and am relying on responses to provide the necessary context. These matters are decided on the preponderance of the evidence. You can't assume everyone knows the precedence unless you present it, as you've done above. Thanks for the background.

Making bold statements like "Gibson didn't defend its XXX designs for quite a long time" is no more helpful than saying "the moon is made of cheese" and I give assertions like that the amount of weight commensurate with that understanding; I do not consider these "facts."

OTOH statements like "Gibson *did* trademark the LP singlecut design in 1994, and sued ..." are very helpful and provide "facts" necessary to further the discussion.

----------


## Bill McCall

> F-5's changed with each regime at Gibson....
> 
> So when the replica's began to be built it was more than a shape, it was a sound. If there's anything Gibson abandoned it was the sound which is what it's all about in the end. Sure, they had scrolls and points and flowerpots, but they had no soul.


Sorry, but nope.  If it were all about sound, you'd have had more variety in shape.  The replicas were all about the shape because that's what sold.   Still true today, as you don't see innovative shapes abounding.  

The goal was better sound, but it had to come in the Gibson shape to be marketable.

----------

Bob A

----------


## Jim Hilburn

So Randy Wood and Bob Givens were supposed to say to themselves, "sure new Gibsons suck, but I shouldn't infringe on their intelectual propery".

----------


## Bill McCall

> So Randy Wood and Bob Givens were supposed to say to themselves, "sure new Gibsons suck, but I shouldn't infringe on their intelectual propery".


Quite simply, yes.  They could have been like Orville and extended the design of the instrument, but didn't.  They didn't use any new design elements, just better craftsmanship.  They copied another's design, no other way to put it no matter what the justification or who the maker is.

The legality and ethics of that are entirely different, but upon reflection the lack of originality and creativity is stunning to me. 

YMMV

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Well you can put hook scrolls or make them look like a duck all day long but in the end you have a 15th fret elevated fingerboard f hole mandolin.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Wolfboy

> They didn't use any new design elements, just better craftsmanship.  They copied another's design, no other way to put it no matter what the justification or who the maker is.
> 
> The legality and ethics of that are entirely different, but upon reflection the lack of originality and creativity is stunning to me.


Well, again: would you level the same criticism at makers of dreadnought guitars other than Martin, or at virtually every violin maker since Stradivari?

I'm genuinely curious, because I'm really having trouble understanding why mandolin builders shouldn't make F5's if that's what the market wants, the builders believe that to be the optimum design, and they're within their legal rights to do so (as appears to have been established, despite Gibson's cease-and-desist letters to certain mandolin luthiers).

----------


## Bill McCall

If you read my earlier posts, I drew a distinction between 400 year old designs and the F shape that certainly is attributable to Gibson.

I also commented that it may be quite legal for folks to copy Gibson's design and not suffer any legal repercussions.  Thats a choice for any individual or company.  A '15th fret elevated fingerboard f hole mandolin' can come in a variety of body shapes, but they are not very prevalent. You do see them advertised in the Classifieds.

I'm also commenting on the lack of originality and creativity of many makers, regardless of the justifications that have been offered.  Business is hard, I get it, but it certainly would be nice to see more original designs.  

Try copying a Coke bottle because 'that's what the market wants' and see where you get.

----------

T.D.Nydn, 

Verne Andru

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Also, a lot of people are forgetting what the purpose of the patent system is. Yes, I know were's not talking about patents specifically right now. But what we are going back and forth about is the intent and purpose of an intellectual property system in the first place.

It's not about morality. It's about economic growth.

It's to make sure that everyone can use new technology. A patent, one of the most valuable forms of intellectual property, guarantees that after it expires, the technology can be used by all. Unless the company continues to innovate new forms of technology, they are giving their rights away in return for an initial protected period. 

Now, trademarks work a little differently in the US in the present time, but historically, the point of intellectual property has been to make sure that everyone (i.e the country's economy as a whole) benefits from the technological advances of a company. 

A lot of the supposedly pure interpretations of intellectual property rights expressed on this thread are based on a misunderstanding of this.

Morally speaking, I think old stuff should be everyone's. New stuff can be owned. After 20 years, what else have you been working on? You should have at least something else which can turn a profit, if you're paying attention. I work with startups all day long, and one of the hardest things is focusing, not coming up with new stuff.

After 50 years, it's gonna be communal property, OR... a trade secret... that's OK too - if it's obscure, or non-obvious enough that you can keep it a secret, I think you can hang onto sole ownership of it.

We should respect originality and advancement, for a reasonable period of time, but homages and faithful reproductions done in love for the original work should also be fair game for craftsmen/women.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Jim Hilburn

OK, just one more.
What happened in the mid to late 60's was a demand for a GIBSON F-5 LOAR style mandolin developed and Gibson wasn't filling that demand. So by Bill M's logic those who filled the demand should have offered something different than what the buying public wanted. Right?

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Wolfboy

> If you read my earlier posts, I drew a distinction between 400 year old designs and the F shape that certainly is attributable to Gibson.


I know you did. That doesn't answer my question. What you're criticizing is the "lack of originality and creativity" of F5 builders, not any legal ramifications that might arise from building F5s after the Gibson model. Is that not the same "lack of originality and creativity" of a violin maker who copies a Strad? The age and trademark status of the model seem irrelevant to your criticism here, do they not? Isn't a lack of originality and creativity a lack of originality and creativity regardless of the age of the original model?

Besides, the Martin dreadnought design certainly isn't 400 years old, and the Gibson F5 design is in the public domain as much as the Martin dreadnought design as far as I know, so I ask you again: are you leveling your same criticism at the likes of, say, Wayne Henderson, or Santa Cruz, or Bourgeois, or Collings, or John Slobod, or anyone else who makes dreadnought guitars clearly styled after Martins?




> I'm also commenting on the lack of originality and creativity of many makers, regardless of the justifications that have been offered.  Business is hard, I get it, but it certainly would be nice to see more original designs.  
> 
> Try copying a Coke bottle because 'that's what the market wants' and see where you get.


Weak equivalence. First, the Coke bottle shape is trademarked; the F5 design is not. (Whether or not it "should" be, it isn't.) Second, sure, it'd be nice to see more original designs, but the market DOES want F5s, whether by Gibson or by other makers; that seems to be a proven fact. So if a mandolin builder "copies" an F5, we already know "where they'll get." For proof of that, I refer you to the "Summer NAMM 2019 Report" thread, where we see Ellis, Pava, Weber, Kentucky, Eastman and The Loar all proudly displaying their F5 mandolins, some at fairly premium prices, and obviously expecting buyers for them.

----------


## slimt

and in the end.. its a buyers choice to buy what they choose..   I like any instrument that looks real Nice.. and has the sound and tone too.   I dont have a issue with Builder replicating a well known.. as long as they can put there own spin on it to make it desirable.  

as For Gibson.. they make it sound like they were the first and want to be the last.. but its like the guy that invented the tire..  theres a lot of makers out there that seem there way is better than others..  so you get to pick and choose..

----------


## Bob A

> Sorry, but nope.  If it were all about sound, you'd have had more variety in shape.  The replicas were all about the shape because that's what sold.   Still true today, as you don't see innovative shapes abounding.  
> 
> The goal was better sound, but it had to come in the Gibson shape to be marketable.


Your points are spot on.

I would, however, take exception to the statement regarding innovative shapes. There are few instruments that can claim greater variety of shapes than mandolins. In fact, I can't think offhand of any other instrument that has been produced in such wild variety.

----------


## Jess L.

> -you mean I've only been trying to forget about those bright colored computers since 1998? Seems much longer!


 :Laughing:  Yeah... and back when those things were current and unavoidable in the major publications, it seemed like time stopped and dragged on forever.  :Sleepy:  I was glad to see those bright colors go away. Surprised the whole iMac thing survived though. 

I guess they were trying to design more of a 'consumer'-level product, which seems to have become a major part of their focus ever since. (Presumably there are parallels in the musical instrument industry as well?) 

Appears to have been a financially successful strategy, as AAPL stock sure isn't $4/share anymore.  :Laughing:  

I should have bought some of their stock while I had the chance, but like many people back then, I didn't think the company would survive. 

I did, however, plan ahead enough to buy up lots and lots of mostly-used *spare parts* (some of them already getting hard to find) from various 3rd-party sellers - which didn't benefit Apple at all - the idea being to keep my already-older equipment humming along nicely for as many years as possible, without having to completely start over from scratch.  

Speaking of spare parts, why aren't the companies who sell Gibson-shaped guitar necks and other spare new parts that resemble something that Gibson may have designed eleventy-umpteen years ago, subject to being attacked by Gibson lawyers? Or have they been? Or has Gibson just not got that far yet? Or ?? 




> I actually feel bad about posting the error but I just couldn't face looking up those details, again!


I understand!  :Laughing:   :Smile: 

Oh and about painted peg-heads, I just realized something. I do, in fact, have a Strat-style guitar (non-Gibson - it's a cheap Indonesian Squier, says "by Fender" on it, FWIW) that has what appears to be a *painted peg-head*  :Disbelief:  which *matches* its painted *body*, _but_ both peghead and body are solid black...  :Mandosmiley:  not objectionable to me, certainly not bright or garish... Although it's a high-gloss thick plastic-like black finish, like the whole guitar fell into a vat of some sort of melted plastic dip  :Whistling:  and then they quickly wiped the dip off the back of the neck (it's almost like kind of a 'speed neck' thing going on with the _back_ of the neck, natural wood color there which actually plays very nicely).  :Mandosmiley:  But the rest of the guitar being the dark color black, not bright magenta or green or something, its appearance is acceptable enough.

----------

Simon DS

----------


## Bill McCall

> ......
> 
> Besides, the Martin dreadnought design certainly isn't 400 years old, and the Gibson F5 design is in the public domain as much as the Martin dreadnought design as far as I know, so I ask you again: are you leveling your same criticism at the likes of, say, Wayne Henderson, or Santa Cruz, or Bourgeois, or Collings, or John Slobod, or anyone else who makes dreadnought guitars clearly styled after Martins?


I'm not talking about guitars or violins.  The agreement between Martin and Ditson for the design of the first dreadnoughts is unknown to me.  Violin origin is also a bit murky, but certainly predates Stradivarius since he studied with Amati I believe.  And intellectual property rights were certainly different in earlier times.

I'm explicitly saying that F style mandolins are copies of the Gibson design of the 191x's and 20's.  Could have better sound, workmanship, prettier finish or whatever, but copies.   How else would you describe them?

And the style may be in the public domain so there's no legal or ethical. repercussion for folks.  Anybody could make and sell one, although we may see further litigation on this.  NFI on how it ends.

As this thread illustrates, design protection is a difficult task, both the 'should' and the 'how'.

----------


## slimt

This older than the Gibson Snake head open book peg head? 
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Man...e/303229317386

----------


## Wolfboy

> I'm explicitly saying that F style mandolins are copies of the Gibson design of the 191x's and 20's.  Could have better sound, workmanship, prettier finish or whatever, but copies.   How else would you describe them?


Of course they are. I never said they weren't.




> And the style may be in the public domain so there's no legal or ethical. repercussion for folks.


We're agreed there too.




> I'm not talking about guitars or violins.  The agreement between Martin and Ditson for the design of the first dreadnoughts is unknown to me.  Violin origin is also a bit murky, but certainly predates Stradivarius since he studied with Amati I believe.  And intellectual property rights were certainly different in earlier times.


You're not specifically talking about guitars or violins, no, but what you are doing is criticizing mandolin builders who copy the F5 design for a "lack of originality and creativity" in doing so. In your opinion, then, does it not show the same "lack of originality and creativity" when a violin maker copies a Strad or a guitar maker copies a Martin dreadnought? So I ask you for a third time: do you level that same criticism at those builders? 

The history of those designs and their intellectual property rights is irrelevant to the question - a "lack of originality and creativity" is a "lack of originality and creativity" regardless of what an instrument maker is copying - and to drag that history  into this discussion is to miss the point.

I'm just trying to get a handle on why you're so vehement in your criticism of mandolin builders who use Gibson's F5 design, accusing them of a "lack of originality and creativity" and even calling it "questionable ethically" (post 447). Once more: do you also feel that way about makers of other instruments who do the same thing? 

(And while we're at it, now that we've seen that NAMM thread, are you specifically calling out Ellis, Pava, Weber, Kentucky, Eastman and The Loar for a "lack of originality and creativity" and "questionable ethics" on display there?)

----------


## Jeff Mando

Not an exact copy, but I always thought the peghead on the Takamine Garth Brooks guitars was at least inspired by the 20's Gibson snakehead shape.......

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Gibson returns Oberheim trademark. 

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...eim-trademark/

----------

AMandolin, 

BradKlein

----------


## Benski

Interesting commentary in this video about the old Gibson Showcase particularly from *00:55 to 01:13*...  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=G0vvoaHeyH0

Cheers

----------


## Verne Andru

IP laws are a relatively recent development, historically speaking. Copyright came about after the Gutenberg to determine who had the rights to use printing presses to make copies - that was the 1400's. The underlying premise is that all ideas come from a singular pool of ideas and the first to manifest the idea in a tangible form gets the right to commercially exploit that effort for a fixed period of time. After that it "reverts to the public domain" from whence the idea originated for the benefit of society. Prior to that you had craftspeople and their apprentices who just did what was necessary to stay alive - they shared ideas and techniques as the concept of owning IP hadn't developed yet.

Trademarks are different. US trademark law is justified as falling under the constitution's commerce clause (copyright law is specifically spelled out in the constitution, trademark is an add-on) giving the government the power to regulate trade. Unlike copyrights that expire, trademarks can endure forever with the proper effort.

What I find fascinating in all this is the disconnect between a company needs to do to effectively market their products and what they have to do to maintain trademark protection. In general, when a product is introduced and doesn't do well [initially] the wise business-person will choose to minimize their exposure by putting their investments in products that are paying the bills. If that product - which may have been ahead of its time or otherwise - suddenly takes off, in some cases those companies are penalized for being prudent managers via trademark banditry.

The F5 design, AFAIK, took off because Bill Munroe started using one in the 60s. It's interesting to note that Munroe used a Gibson F5 (not a clone), which Gibson was having difficulty selling for many years (mandolin orchestras were current in the late 1800s and early 1900s but were long gone by the 60s). Demand shoots up and a bunch of "entrepreneurs" take advantage of Gibson's weakness to copy Gibson's original IP and do it long enough that they are able to legally deny Gibson's inherent common-law rights.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Interesting to note that Bill MONROE didn't use a clone since there was no such thing as a clone in 1945. And that he used that mandolin all through the late 40's, 50's and on into the 90's.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## KMaynard

Jim Hilburn, I've noticed you being very interested in and offering a lot of commentary on this thread. I'd like to ask you, from your point of view, who would you give credit for the design and visual characteristics of the mandolins you produce and sell? Are they your own designs or adhere to other specifications?

----------


## Verne Andru

> Interesting to note that Bill MONROE didn't use a clone since there was no such thing as a clone in 1945. And that he used that mandolin all through the late 40's, 50's and on into the 90's.


Thanks for keeping me honest with the details Jim.

Guitars makers suffered Japanese cloning in the 60s (prior to that builders respected each others IP). That lead to a major changes in the industry as builders scrambled for more cash to keep operating (i.e. corporate changes at Fender, Gibson. Danelectro bit the dust, etc.) and reduced their cost-of-goods (production short-cuts leading to poor quality instruments) to lower prices to compete with the cheap imported knock-offs. That was the 70s when Gibson was accused of being "heavy handed" when trying to press their IP rights.

So what's ground-zero for F5 clones?

----------


## Tom Haywood

I'll just add that apparently trademark law in the U.S. is not nearly as settled and clear cut as one might think. There appears to be two competing legal theories: one is that a trademark is property; the other is that trademark is a right of use granted by a regulatory agency. This dichotomy creates a strong incentive to claim one's property or one's right of use as broadly as possible and seek appellate court and agency determination of what the law is and how it applies to the facts. The facts that matter legally will not be known until either the parties stipulate an agreed upon set of facts or a court or regulatory agency enters a finding of fact based on a preponderance of the evidence submitted and admitted. Until then, it's all opinion and speculation. We can argue and posture until the cows come home. And, yes, the parties could dismiss their legal proceedings after reaching an agreement that applies only to them, in which case perhaps none of this will be resolved for the rest of us. I think, statistically, that this is the more likely outcome.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## Jim Hilburn

The beginning of home made F-5's can't be compared to Japanese copys of popular guitars. The early mandolin makers were filling a void that Gibson had no interest in filling. The Japanese were trying to cash in on what was popular.
K, is that a trick question? My F-5 mandolins are based on the Loar era mandolins made by the Gibson Mandolin and Guitar company although you would find quite a bit of differences in shape and size due to the lack of really detailed prints in my earlier mandolins.
In the beginning it was a micro market that didn't even get on Gibsons radar. They were busy trying to figure out which way the electric guitar market was going to go. It wasn't until Henry arrived that anyone at Gibson paid any attention to the then large mandolin market.

----------


## BradKlein

> Interesting to note that Bill MONROE didn't use a clone since there was no such thing as a clone in 1945. And that he used that mandolin all through the late 40's, 50's and on into the 90's.


Monroe circa 1977 - the heyday of Ibanez 'lawsuit' instruments!

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I bet that photo is the only time Bill played that.

----------


## Verne Andru

> I'll just add that apparently trademark law in the U.S. is not nearly as settled and clear cut as one might think. There appears to be two competing legal theories: one is that a trademark is property; the other is that trademark is a right of use granted by a regulatory agency. This dichotomy creates a strong incentive to claim one's property or one's right of use as broadly as possible and seek appellate court and agency determination of what the law is and how it applies to the facts. The facts that matter legally will not be known until either the parties stipulate an agreed upon set of facts or a court or regulatory agency enters a finding of fact based on a preponderance of the evidence submitted and admitted. Until then, it's all opinion and speculation. We can argue and posture until the cows come home. And, yes, the parties could dismiss their legal proceedings after reaching an agreement that applies only to them, in which case perhaps none of this will be resolved for the rest of us. I think, statistically, that this is the more likely outcome.


And I think Gibson's current moves to licensing deals leaves that door open for Dean and could settle the issue for now.

While I tend to agree a valid argument can be made that the Stratocaster and Les Paul body shapes have become "generic" I'm hard pressed to extend that to the designs at issue with Dean. I don't think those designs have ever sold well and certainly can't be considered "generic" because a few builders want to rely on that in their arguments to justify appropriating other's IP.

While I applaud lawmakers aim to make this type of litigation civil by barring penalties [before the TTAB at any rate - all they can do is keep a mark on the register or not], it leaves the playing field ripe for abusive legal tactics. IME trademark lawyers throw everything they can at the wall and hope something will stick whether it has merit or not - I've found very few with morals among "professionals" in this field.

It's also educational to see how little due-diligence the PTO takes when approving a trademark so even having a registration is no guarantee the registrant is entitled to the mark yet once they manage to get a number they have all sorts of legal dirty-tricks to keep it away from the rightful owner.

----------


## Jeff Mando

Long before the Japanese copies of American guitars and mandolins, other countries, such as Russia, made near exact clones of many items such as Leica cameras, without regard or consideration for copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.......and "who" might have actually owned them.....

This was happening long before WWII.

Oddly enough, many of these counterfeit Leicas appear daily for sale on eBay, BUT, eBay prohibits the sale of Chinese counterfeit Les Pauls, for example.............odd double standard, IMHO.  Maybe a "vintage" counterfeit has more validity?  Again, doesn't make sense to me......

----------


## Verne Andru

Big tech will only enforce a trademark or copyright if it is brought to their attention, plus Leica is/was a German company AFAIK and trademark law is country specific. I bought a Russian-made Zenit camera (Leica knock-off) circa 1976 from a kiosk in NY's Times Square. They were quite popular at the time for being a good 35mm for cheap. I remember being surprised at the time to find it for sale in the US for those legal reasons. Plus it was a Russian product in the US during the heat of the cold war.

Life was quite different prior to the current interconnected internet world - that seems to be escaping some. It was very difficult to know what was going on with products and markets around the world. That's changed significantly in the past few years as commerce has migrated online where just about everything is available through a google search. Nowadays you can set up a google alert on certain terms and get an email whenever there is an online mention. 10 years ago that was unavailable. 20 years ago google didn't really exist in any significant way. Same goes for Amazon.

We've been living through the most significant social/commercial transformations since the transition to the industrial age but still prone to applying industrial age thinking to what we do and how. Today life is almost instant; prior to the internet that was far from the case. Prior to the telephone (which is within the scope of Gibson's 100+ year history) it took even longer for information to move, if at all.

The other curious thing about trademark law is it penalizes companies for doing a good job. It was always held in marketing circles that you wanted your brand to become so well known it became synonymous in the consumers mind with with the product. Kleenex achieved that in the field of facial tissues and instead of reaping the rewards were penalized for their success by having their brand declared "generic" and losing protections.

US trademark law may help the politicians regulate commerce and keep lawyers rich, but it does little to protect consumers from confusion and throws a major monkey-wrench in a winning business strategy. Let's hope it keeps evolving cause it's far from perfect as is.

----------

DHopkins

----------


## slimt

> I bet that photo is the only time Bill played that.


I bet he just posed with it and in his mind saying what a POS . But Ill take your money for the picture shot.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I bet he just posed with it and in his mind saying what a POS . But Ill take your money for the picture shot.


https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...roe-and-ibanez

https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...e&#39;s-ibanez

There are more threads if anyone is interested.

----------

BradKlein, 

slimt

----------


## CarlM

Mike,
Aren't you concerned about violating Scotch tape or Duck tape trademarks with your avatar?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Mike,
> Aren't you concerned about violating Scotch tape or Duck tape trademarks with your avatar?


Are you kidding me? I'm a paid Painter's tape endorser.  :Cool: 

I'm thinking of having a blue swatch of that stuff inlaid on the headstock of my mandola.

----------

MontanaMatt, 

Verne Andru

----------


## sgarrity

So what's the longest thread in Cafe history?  

Edit:  Compulsive Purchase Flatiron 1N is at 47 pages.  Only 20 more to go.... :Grin:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> So what's the longest thread in Cafe history?


This one is not even close. I'd have to really look to answer that question.

To give you an idea of where this stands look at *this* thread and I do not think it's the longest thread.

Another is *here*.

This one has grown pretty fast but I suspect it won't double in size. I've been wrong before.

----------


## Explorer

> So what's the longest thread in Cafe history?  
> 
> Edit:  Compulsive Purchase Flatiron 1N is at 47 pages.  Only 20 more to go....





> This one is not even close. I'd have to really look to answer that question.
> 
> To give you an idea of where this stands look at *this* thread and I do not think it's the longest thread.
> 
> Another is *here*.
> 
> This one has grown pretty fast but I suspect it won't double in size. I've been wrong before.


My guess would be Darryl Wolfe's Mandolins in Progress topic, which started back in 2003. I'm pretty it's both the longest and longest-running....

----------


## Luna Pick

Reminds me of Barnum's (or whoever) line "There's no such thing as bad advertising. . . "

----------


## Wolfboy

> The F5 design, AFAIK, took off because Bill Munroe started using one in the 60s. It's interesting to note that Munroe used a Gibson F5 (not a clone), which Gibson was having difficulty selling for many years





> Interesting to note that Bill MONROE didn't use a clone since there was no such thing as a clone in 1945. And that he used that mandolin all through the late 40's, 50's and on into the 90's.





> Thanks for keeping me honest with the details Jim.


That's a bit more than a "detail," no? Bill Monroe (note spelling of name) bought Gibson F5 #73987, made in 1923 and signed by Lloyd Loar, around 1945, and as Jim says, used it as his primary mandolin for the rest of his life. Before that, he was playing an F7 IIRC. He didn't "start using one in the 60s," he'd been playing Gibson F-style mandolins for decades by then.

Not to nitpick, but that's a fairly major part of Gibson mandolin history with all its ramifications (hence relevant to this thread), and if you're that far off about the "details" of what happened when, it makes me start wondering about the accuracy of some of your other statements...

----------

Explorer

----------


## Verne Andru

> Not to nitpick, but that's a fairly major part of Gibson mandolin history with all its ramifications (hence relevant to this thread), and if you're that far off about the "details" of what happened when, it makes me start wondering about the accuracy of some of your other statements...


If you are addressing me I'd say you don't understand the concept of a "conversation."

I'll readily admit I'm not nearly as familiar with mandolin/Gibson history as the rest here and really don't have an interest. I tossed out an idea, Jim corrected me on details (thanks again Jim) which I accepted and it's time to move on. What's the issue?

What I'm trying to understand is why everybody hates Gibson so much and all I'm hearing is "Norlin and Henry."

(PS - I know it's anathema to mention it here but I'm not a bluegrass fan and don't know Munroe (purposeful misspelling), his history or really care.)

----------

Ryk Loske

----------


## Marty Jacobson

I think the real reason why the mandolin community has recently been annoyed with Gibson is that, for much of its history, it was the people making "knockoffs" who cared about and perpetuated Gibson's legacy, through making really good F-5's, during the time when Gibson didn't care about good mandolins. 
So that's strike number one -- after the initial Orchestra waved died down by, say, 1935, so did Gibson's interest in mandolins.

Other people stepped in to fill the void, and made some great (and some not-so-great) Gibson-like instruments. 

Then they eventually did invest, decades later and started making good mandolins (after a lot of persuasion from Roger Siminoff and others). They hired some really good people, Danny Roberts, Charlie Derrington, Bruce Weber, Steve Carlson, David Harvey, etc.
They have a great reputation for making great instruments in recent years. If you can find a new one, which is a big IF, it's going to be a great instrument.

At some point, around 20 years ago, Gibson unfortunately lost a lot of goodwill they'd built up by threatening legal action against those very people who kept the torch & wire burning for them while they let their attention drift elsewhere for 40 years. The intellectual property they claimed ownership of wouldn't have been worth anything unless those craftsfolk were out there doing the work to respect the original intent of the Loar-era and earlier instruments we all know and love.

----------

NursingDaBlues, 

Phil Goodson, 

Russ Jordan, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Actually, Marty, the orchestra craze really died out pretty quickly in the early 20's. World War I disrupted things quite a bit, but more people were getting phonographs and other musical styles began to take hold, primarily Dixieland. 
If Gibson had been smart they would have never made the F-5, and gone whole hog with banjos.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Verne, in some ways I support Gibson in fighting against cheap import knock-offs and I'm glad they've always remained in America.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## Verne Andru

> I think the real reason why the mandolin community has recently been annoyed with Gibson is that, for much of its history, it was the people making "knockoffs" who cared about and perpetuated Gibson's legacy, through making really good F-5's, during the time when Gibson didn't care about good mandolins. 
> So that's strike number one -- after the initial Orchestra waved died down by, say, 1935, so did Gibson's interest in mandolins.
> 
> Other people stepped in to fill the void, and made some great (and some not-so-great) Gibson-like instruments. 
> 
> Then they eventually did invest, decades later and started making good mandolins (after a lot of persuasion from Roger Siminoff and others). They hired some really good people, Danny Roberts, Charlie Derrington, Bruce Weber, Steve Carlson, David Harvey, etc.
> They have a great reputation for making great instruments in recent years. If you can find a new one, which is a big IF, it's going to be a great instrument.
> 
> At some point, around 20 years ago, Gibson unfortunately lost a lot of goodwill they'd built up by threatening legal action against those very people who kept the torch & wire burning for them while they let their attention drift elsewhere for 40 years. The intellectual property they claimed ownership of wouldn't have been worth anything unless those craftsfolk were out there doing the work to respect the original intent of the Loar-era and earlier instruments we all know and love.


I follow your point but let's, for a moment, consider this as though Gibson were Rolex.

Rolex makes extremely good albeit expensive watches which many people covet but few can afford. Let's say Rolex introduces a new state-of-the-art analog watch that is extremely expensive to produce. The market is small and after an initial burst, sales dwindle to the point Rolex (being in business) decides to put that model on hold while it focuses attention on what the market is actually buying. As time goes by cheap digital watches arrive which all but wipe out the market for analogs. Rolex has to scramble to stay in business so it focuses on lesser expensive models.

In the meantime a few propeller-heads get the idea that analog watches are cool and showing off an expensive one on your wrist is a great way to advance your personal cred. Problem is that Rolex isn't marketing expensive watches because there is no market and used ones cost huge amounts of money.

So some entrepreneur decides to go off-shore and get some knock-offs made which are smuggled into the US (pretend Rolex is a US company for this scenario). This creates a new market for cheap "expensive" Rolexs that is difficult to track so Rolex can't really police it's brand. When the knock-off makers (who everyone now loves because they're making cheap copies) reach a point where Rolex can legally go after them, the market accuses the company of being heavy-handed by doing what it's legally and morally obliged to do. In the meantime the copies are denying Rolex its rightful market by copying their product and selling it for cheap.

As a Rolex CEO, what do you do?

----------


## Wolfboy

> If you are addressing me I'd say you don't understand the concept of a "conversation."


Well, that comment certainly comes out of nowhere. This looks like a conversation to me...did it cease to be a conversation in your eyes when I questioned your accuracy? Is it only a conversation then if everyone agrees with you?




> I'll readily admit I'm not nearly as familiar with mandolin/Gibson history as the rest here and really don't have an interest.


Gibson's history, mandolin and otherwise, has a direct bearing on how people perceive them now. Marty's post #680 addresses the mandolin community's perception of Gibson, both positive and negative, based on their history as a company (and if Gibson is going to boast about their supposed legacy, as they did in the Agnesi video, they need to accept that people have the right to comment on the less stellar parts of it too). I would suggest that if you don't have an interest in Gibson history, you're less likely to understand people's responses to Gibson's recent bullying actions.




> What I'm trying to understand is why everybody hates Gibson so much


Speaking for myself, my own personal history with Gibson as an employee at one Gibson dealer and as a close friend of another has convinced me that they don't care about the tonal quality of their acoustic guitars (by the company rep's own admission) and that they treat their dealers with open contempt. That's why I'm less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in conflicts now. Perhaps it's unfair on my part, but displays of contempt for consumers and dealers on a company's part tend to remain in the memory. 

(And that's not even getting into the crap they were putting out in the 70s, when I first started out playing professionally. I haven't forgotten that part of their legacy either.)




> (PS - I know it's anathema to mention it here but I'm not a bluegrass fan and don't know Munroe (purposeful misspelling), his history or really care.)


Well, again, if you don't care about Monroe's history, you won't fully understand Gibson mandolin history, and if you don't understand Gibson mandolin history, you won't understand a lot of people's legitimately expressed opinions in a discussion about Gibson on a mandolin forum.

And just in my own opinion, intentionally continuing to misspell the man's name when you know the correct spelling reveals some hostility and a lack of basic courtesy on your part. You might want to think about how that makes the rest of your contributions to this conversation come off.

----------

Explorer

----------


## Roger Adams

I suppose I missed it - this is a long thread to read - but what mandolin builder has been threatened with legal action?  Seems to be guitar makers....

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## Verne Andru

> Well, that comment certainly comes out of nowhere. This looks like a conversation to me...did it cease to be a conversation in your eyes when I questioned your accuracy? Is it only a conversation then if everyone agrees with you?


You get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Jim didn't agree with me but did so in a courteous manner. That's having a conversation IMHO.




> Gibson's history, mandolin and otherwise, has a direct bearing on how people perceive them now. Marty's post #680 addresses the mandolin community's perception of Gibson, both positive and negative, based on their history as a company (and if Gibson is going to boast about their supposed legacy, as they did in the Agnesi video, they need to accept that people have the right to comment on the less stellar parts of it too). I would suggest that if you don't have an interest in Gibson history, you're less likely to understand people's responses to Gibson's recent bullying actions.
> 
> Speaking for myself, my own personal history with Gibson as an employee at one Gibson dealer and as a close friend of another has convinced me that they don't care about the tonal quality of their acoustic guitars (by the company rep's own admission) and that they treat their dealers with open contempt. That's why I'm less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in conflicts now. Perhaps it's unfair on my part, but displays of contempt for consumers and dealers on a company's part tend to remain in the memory. 
> 
> (And that's not even getting into the crap they were putting out in the 70s, when I first started out playing professionally. I haven't forgotten that part of their legacy either.)
> 
> Well, again, if you don't care about Monroe's history, you won't fully understand Gibson mandolin history, and if you don't understand Gibson mandolin history, you won't understand a lot of people's legitimately expressed opinions in a discussion about Gibson on a mandolin forum.
> 
> And just in my own opinion, intentionally continuing to misspell the man's name when you know the correct spelling reveals some hostility and a lack of basic courtesy on your part. You might want to think about how that makes the rest of your contributions to this conversation come off.


To reiterate what I've already said several times already, I'm like a judge coming cold to this case. Judges have to deal with all sorts of cases and it is expected of the parties to present the evidence they want the case to be adjudicated on. According to the above any judge who tries this case that isn't as conversant in the history of the mandolin, Gibson and Munroe as you are should be disqualified. In reality that doesn't happen.

Again, I don't know Munroe beyond the few snippets I've picked up here, am not a fan of bluegrass but am trying to understand the "history" based on facts others decide to put forward.

These cases are tried on the preponderance of the evidence. If you are expecting the "judge" to be as expert as you without the benefit of the history being laid out in the statement of facts, you will lose your case before you even start.

If you have points to make and facts to bring forward, great. If you want to "shoot the messenger" for admitting a lack of knowledge and asking for details I would ask you to recuse yourself because continued posts like this will only tend to kill what could be a constructive and educational discussion for all.

(ps. Munroe, Munroe, Munroe...)

----------


## Jim Hilburn

You guys are going to get this conversation shut down if you don't cool it.

----------

Verne Andru, 

William Smith

----------


## foldedpath

> What I'm trying to understand is why everybody hates Gibson so much and all I'm hearing is "Norlin and Henry."


Well, that's a reason isn't it?

If you want some specifics, here's one person's view. For me, "hate" is too strong a word. Strongly disappointed maybe. Occasionally mad at what they have done with some classic brands they've bought at times. But not hate. Here are a few of the reasons whey I'd never buy or recommend a Gibson guitar (mandolins are different, they're currently making good ones, just not my type):

-----
1) They bought and then effectively killed the Dobro brand of spider bridge resonator guitars. You might have to be a Dobro fan to understand. I am, although more a fan of the metal 1930's models. They bought the brand and then let it die. They didn't do what National Reso-Phonic did to resurrect National guitars. You can still buy very good spider bridge resonator guitars, but the Dobro brand should have lasted into the 21st Century like the other guitar classics of the 20th Century. 

2) They bought the Echoplex brand of loopers in the early days of that tech, and let it die. Again, you might have to be a fan of looping tech to understand (I was, for a time).

3) The one Gibson electric guitar I ever bought was a Custom Shop Part Martino, the version with caramel tiger stripe finish. This was maybe 15 years ago. As a design, it's a cool interpretation of the Les Paul as a thinline "jazz" hollow-body electric. An expensive guitar, and with the Custom Shop label I thought it would be something special. 

Design-wise it was special, and much of that is due to Pat's input, not Gibson's. Build quality, not so much. Parts of the guitar were beautifully made, mainly the body. The fret installation was so bad when it arrived, that I had to have the upper frets leveled by my local repair tech. The binding between the fretboard and neck wasn't completely flush. There was a slight ridge at the transition, a constant annoyance under my hand. The guitar felt like it was put together by two different companies -- one with craftsmen who cared about the product, and another company with poorly trained newbies who didn't know what they were doing, or didn't care. In the end, there wasn't a QC sign-off on a guitar that should have been a lot better at that price.
-----

So that's one person's view of Gibson as a company. They killed a couple of my favorite brands, and the last guitar I bought was disappointing. On top of that, the "suck it dry" approach of the current ownership isn't anything I can support. I hope the mandolin division survives, or is bought out by someone who can keep it going at a high level. 

As far as any moral or ethical issues surrounding other luthiers' use of the F-style shape, I consider it an abandoned IP that allows luthiers to make their own interpretations and improvements of the design. Like I said somewhere up-thread, nobody is going to mistake my redwood-top Lebeda F5 for a Gibson.

----------

oliverkollar, 

Verne Andru, 

Wolfboy

----------


## Verne Andru

Thanks foldedpath.

I understand your frustration and see the same type of thing in all markets, like the automobile. If you buy a Chevy Impala and get a "lemon" you will likely stay away from that brand. But that doesn't give Ford the right to start marketing "Chevrolet" branded cars, which seems to be some of the logic being forwarded here.

As noted above, I believe we're talking about Gibson taking Dean to task over a few of their guitar designs yet the "condemnation" of Gibson seems to be about their long mandolin and corporate history which I think is really distinct from, and quite irrelevant to the proceedings with Dean AFAIK.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I suppose I missed it - this is a long thread to read - but what mandolin builder has been threatened with legal action?  Seems to be guitar makers....


I believe the owner of the Cafe has said that he wouldn't name the people that he was aware of that got the letter. He would rather that information would be made public by them.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> I suppose I missed it - this is a long thread to read - but what mandolin builder has been threatened with legal action?  Seems to be guitar makers....


This was addressed in the _opening post_.

It's clear that a few dominating the conversation would benefit from reading more and talking less. If you just can't understand something, it's no one's job to convince you otherwise, and trying to win arguments by volume of posting isn't going to endear yourself with this community. Figure it out. Some of this has gotten pretty annoying.

----------

Bob A, 

Bob Clark, 

craigw, 

dang, 

dave vann, 

David Rambo, 

Eric C., 

Explorer, 

Fred G, 

Gunnar, 

Jess L., 

Jill McAuley, 

june39, 

Kevin Winn, 

oliverkollar, 

Russ Jordan, 

sgarrity, 

Steve-o, 

trodgers, 

Verne Andru

----------


## Gunnar

:Popcorn:

----------


## Eric Platt

(post deleted)

----------


## Hermann Winchester

> Thanks foldedpath.
> 
> I understand your frustration and see the same type of thing in all markets, like the automobile. If you buy a Chevy Impala and get a "lemon" you will likely stay away from that brand. But that doesn't give Ford the right to start marketing "Chevrolet" branded cars, which seems to be some of the logic being forwarded here.
> 
> As noted above, I believe we're talking about Gibson taking Dean to task over a few of their guitar designs yet the "condemnation" of Gibson seems to be about their long mandolin and corporate history which I think is really distinct from, and quite irrelevant to the proceedings with Dean AFAIK.


Ford marketing Chevy branded cars isn't the same thing here really; not in regards to why Gibson is going after Dean.  Dean isn't slapping "Gibson" on the headstock of their instruments but Gibson has claimed to have made way in minimizing the counterfeit instruments coming out of China and that really is great news. 
On the legal side of things, this will be an interesting case to see played out.  In the situation of the Explorer and the V; they were initially flops and Gibson had more or less abandoned their manufacture with the V seeing a small number made after the initial market tank.  Hamer came out in the early 70's and was seeing some decent success with their "Standard" model which was their version of the Explorer.  The first guitar ever made by the company was a V type instrument but it wouldn't go into production until the early 80's as the "Vector"
It is considered that due to the success Hamer was seeing with their "Standard", Gibson returned to production of the Explorer.  It's important to note that these were not cheap alternatives to, but rather well crafted American made instruments which commanded a fair penny.  Hamer and Gibson had a long standing 20 or 25yr agreement where Hamer was allowed to use the body designs of the Explorer and Flying V without issue.  Somehow, the bozos at KMC Music (owner of Hamer after sale of the company) forgot about this agreement and when they relaunched Hamer guitars a few years ago, they included the Vector and Standard models and Gibson very quickly went after them with a $1 million law suit.  Gibson had no intention of sharing these designs any further and KMC had no intention of fighting for the rights to build these body shapes.
It will be interesting to see how Dean navigates this and as we're 50yrs+ and some many of those years where Gibson had no qualms about others using the design of their engineers; I'm rooting for Dean on this one.
Personally; I don't like the very public manner in which Gibson has tried to throw their weight around in this latest display.  And when one looks at the instruments of their Kramer brand, which I posted a photo of the Summer NAMM display earlier in this thread; the hypocritical nature of the company really bothers me.

I personally don't feel they are making good enough instruments these days to be on the horse that stands so tall.  But as I mentioned at the very start of this thread; I don't want to see the company go anywhere.  It's been a long time since I would have considered buying a new Gibson (electric) compared to instruments built in the fashion of a design by a Gibson engineer.  In the 70's; I would have taken a Hamer or something from Japan.  In the 80's & 90's, a Hamer or an Orville if I really wanted the look to a "T" or again; something from Japan (other than Orville).  In the 2000's and beyond; it's a very long list.  For me; they're not making anything new or exciting enough and they're not making anything well enough that I'm interested.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Verne Andru

> As someone who has worked with US Federal Judges for over 30 years, you are incorrect. A judge does not hear a case cold. There is a reason the court system has clerks. Whether the clerks properly research cases and help is beyond the scope of this list. But they do exist. 
> 
> If you are claiming to be a Federal Judge, then I apologize in advance. And will make sure to have my friends try to avoid your court.


While I'm fully aware of what you're saying (which is outside the scope of this discussion) my point is that these actions are decided on the preponderance of the evidence submitted by the parties. While courts may rely on other information and may raise/consider legal issues/arguments on their own it is ill advised to rely on that as a winning strategy.

I've been asking tough questions because if the mandolin community wants to prevail it needs to be realistic. Simply saying you don't like Norlin/Henry, that the product was "abandoned" or has become "generic" without knowing what evidence the other party will bring forward won't survive scrutiny.

I care very much for the mandolin community, am not a fan of the way trademark laws are moving or big corporations that care only for the bottom line, but the only way I see forward is to be realistic, get your ducks in a row and muster a winning legal argument backed up by evidence.

I wish everyone affected by this turn of events all the best.

----------


## Wolfboy

Some more reading: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-program.shtml 
Interesting comment thread there too.

----------


## Eric Platt

Okay. I removed my last post within one minute. Am not sure how someone was later able to quote it. Can the moderator or list owner please remove it? 

Thank you.

----------


## V70416

just wondering if the eia,andrea johnson,swat team raids on gibson back in 2009 have had any impact on gibson being more litigious. the feds came down pretty hard on gibson. 

some say martin was using the same woods but they were not raided.

my apologies for no caps. my shift key is not working.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> just wondering if the eia,andrea johnson,swat team raids on gibson back in 2009 have had any impact on gibson being more litigious. the feds came down pretty hard on gibson. 
> 
> some say martin was using the same woods but they were not raided.
> 
> my apologies for no caps. my shift key is not working.


I'm sure it has no impact. This is the same company in name only. The working folks might be the same but the senior management team is totally different. It's new people directing this.

----------


## BradKlein

> just wondering if the eia,andrea johnson,swat team raids on gibson back in 2009 have had any impact on gibson being more litigious. the feds came down pretty hard on gibson. 
> 
> some say martin was using the same woods but they were not raided.


Maybe Martin was operating within the law instead of outside it?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

For anyone looking for information the 2009 incident.

https://www.millerchevalier.com/publ...-and-lacey-act

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...egal-troubles/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thereco...ice-department

----------


## Explorer

> While I'm fully aware of what you're saying (which is outside the scope of this discussion) my point is that these actions are decided on the preponderance of the evidence submitted by the parties. While courts may rely on other information and may raise/consider legal issues/arguments on their own it is ill advised to rely on that as a winning strategy.
> 
> I've been asking tough questions because if the mandolin community wants to prevail it needs to be realistic. Simply saying you don't like Norlin/Henry, that the product was "abandoned" or has become "generic" without knowing what evidence the other party will bring forward won't survive scrutiny.


There are some definite facts established by the filings in the Dean/Gibson lawsuit, even if you missed them. 

Gibson did *not* claim, in their sworn filing, that they had policed their trademark(s).

Dean stated, in their sworn filing, that Gibson had abandoned the trademark(s), filed for only recently, over the course of several decades during which Dean used elements of the designs. 

Dean, in order to avoid perjury, would also be swearing that Gibson did not attempt to police Dean's usage. That's common sense, and as you claim to know about this stuff a bit more deeply than some, then you understand why Dean wouldn't lie about something which would immediately lead to a loss when revealed in court. Gibson's non-policing is foundational to Dean's claims, as you know due to your claimed experience. 

I recognize that you keep wriggling and hand-waving to avoid addressing the non-policing on the part of Gibson. However, unless you are also claimng to know that Dean is committing perjury just in that initial counterfiling, and can prove it, you are instead arguing that we should believe Dean is lying just on your say-so, and that at any moment Gibson will prove that it has filed decades of lawsuits on Dean by producing court records. And, of course, Gibson assiduously avoided mentioning any of this in their filings because... well, there's no actual good reason to avoid mentioning it in the initial filing except not wanting perjure themselves. 

So now, if you want to keep arguing that we don't know anything about what evidence or proof is forthcoming, we actually do know this one fact: Dean has absolutely no fear of perjuring itself when claiming Gibson engaged in absolutely no enforcement action for decades past the three-year mark. That's a fact. 

I'm hopeful that you'll come up with something just as direct and common-sense to counterargue that simple point, as more handwaving will just be a disappointment.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Verne Andru

> There are some definite facts established by the filings in the Dean/Gibson lawsuit, even if you missed them.


I've not taken a position one way or the other, merely asking some questions which you have answered to some degree. Thank you.

These things can take years to unfold. It's still early in the process so we'll see how it goes. I've got no dog in this race but since the outcome has implications far beyond this case I'll keep watching with great anticipation.

Carry on.

----------


## Benski

Is the horse dead yet?

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Steve-o

> Is the horse dead yet?


We only know that hes left the barn.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Benski

Then maybe its time to close the barn door.

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## Wolfboy

> Is the horse dead yet?





> Then maybe its time to close the barn door.


Not until Gibson stops threatening independent mandolin builders with legal action that they apparently have no right to pursue. 

That was the original topic of this thread, I believe, and Gibson's various other current actions remain of interest to this community because of their implications for independent mandolin builders.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Thank you all for your concern. 

We currently are not interviewing for the position of moderator or site owner/administrator.

----------

trodgers, 

William Smith

----------


## Verne Andru

Regarding Gibson vs. Dean, there's a timeline included here:

https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...-dean-guitars/

The case against Dean is docketed as:

Fifth Circuit-Texas-Eastern District: Gibson Brands, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. et al (Case Number:	4:2019cv00358)

Nature of Suit: Trademark
Jury Demanded By: Both

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/te...cv00358/189653

So far the case is in initial pleadings stage (cases go pleadings/discovery/evidence/briefs usually broken up by multiple motions that add months to the timeline) so we're looking at years before this is settled by the court especially since it's set to be a trial by jury.

On July 8, 2019 (it's taken from May to July for Gibson to effect service) Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. filed a MOTION to dismiss with responses due by 7/22/2019.

Without being able to read the filings (does anyone know how to access the filings?) it's difficult to know what's going on but as long as the court sees a credible case to try these motions don't usually succeed.

Hunker down for a long fight folks. The stakes are high and this is just at the preliminary stages.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. *A subscription to PACER is required.*


Unless you work for a law firm or insurance company you probably don't have a subscription.

----------

Verne Andru

----------


## dhergert

This is an interesting (forever) thread.  I've been holding back until now because I'm somewhat bored with Gibson's behavior.  

Gibson tried this with the banjo community about 15 years ago and if I remember correctly, they failed because certain highly respected experts in the banjo community mobilized and proved the case untrue.  

I'd opine that as long as Gibson's legal department has to justify their existence, this will come up every once in a while.  I suspect that the only reason the new legal actions don't involve banjos is that Gibson isn't making banjos anymore and can't support their claims with new instruments.

----------

Wolfboy

----------


## Verne Andru

> Unless you work for a law firm or insurance company you probably don't have a subscription.


I registered with Pacer (anyone can do it) but they charge per page for access so I'll pass for now. If anyone has access to the docs it would be helpful to see them. Everything filed in US courts is public so there's no problem distributing docs once they're extracted from Pacer.

Canadian courts are free to access filings as is the USPTO and the TTAB. Would go a long way to opening up the justice system to all if the US Federal Court system followed suit IMHO.

----------


## Jeff Mando

Along the lines of what Don is saying, for years Fender policed guitar and neck manufacturers who copied the "Fender peghead shape" too closely, causing companies like ESP, Fernandes, and others to utilize an "almost Fender" shape to their pegheads, often cutting one corner a little more sharply than Fender does, for example.  The parts manufacturers, Warmoth, etc. would make replacement necks in a similar manner or just leave a large rectangular "paddle" for the peghead, so the builder could create any shape he wanted.  That's how it was for many years.

About 10 years ago, all the parts companies started making exact Fender shaped necks, with the heel stamped LIC BY FENDER.  Pretty much every neck you buy now is marked that way.  So, somehow a compromise agreement was reached where it worked out.  Obviously, it was about money and perceived loss of sales, rather than pride in keeping the Fender name pure....

Fender and the parts manufacturers BOTH knew that it is easier to sell a neck that looks like a Fender than one that is "almost right."  Similarly, Gibson and the boutique makers both know that the public wants something that is shaped like an F5 mandolin, rather than one that is an original design.

Maybe that kind of compromise is a goal that would help both the mandolin builders and Gibson, provided the licensing fee is reasonable........

----------

dhergert

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> This is an interesting (forever) thread.  I've been holding back until now because I'm somewhat bored with Gibson's behavior.  
> 
> Gibson tried this with the banjo community about 15 years ago and if I remember correctly, they failed because certain highly respected experts in the banjo community mobilized and proved the case untrue.  
> 
> I'd opine that as long as Gibson's legal department has to justify their existence, this will come up every once in a while.  I suspect that the only reason the new legal actions don't involve banjos is that Gibson isn't making banjos anymore and can't support their claims with new instruments.


You have to wonder how many sales Gibson lost when they filed suit against one of the bigger dealers in the country.

https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...son-vs-Elderly

----------

dhergert

----------


## rcc56

> You have to wonder how many sales Gibson lost when they filed suit against one of the bigger dealers in the country.
> 
> https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...son-vs-Elderly


Gibson has most of their eggs in just a few baskets:  Guitar Center/Musicians' Friend, Sam Ash, Sweetwater, and American Music Supply.  Elderly's sales volume is small compared to those of any of the above companies.

Unless Ares Management [Guitar Center's controlling stakeholder] decides to liquidate the unprofitable Guitar Center operation because they no longer want the tax write-off, I don't think Gibson cares.

My personal take on all of this business is that attacking your competitors and colleagues can be viewed as a sign of weakness.

----------

Tom Haywood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Historically because I was here when this happened they were still in Elderly and Mandolin Bros. at the time. They had Janet Davis Music on that list as well. The change wasn't so much that they got rid of the bigger dealers they limited who could advertise their products online. That's another discussion. Elderly was and is a good sized operation. Musicians Friend/Guitar Center is now the big player in the industry but honestly, I seriously doubt that they sell more Gibson mandolins than a certain Arizona based store does now. The guitars yes, the banjos (then) and mandolins were never big sellers for the other. We had a member that went to great lengths to explain how he was buying close out Gibson F9 mandolins from GC and that post got a response for the CEO of GC telling him he was banned from their stores. It's here someplace, I don't feel like digging it out. The mandolin/banjo stuff was never a priority for MF/GC.

There it is. Doesn't sound like GC was too committed to mandolins. I'm sure they sold and still sell a ton of guitars though.

https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...or-less-than-&

----------


## slimt

> You have to wonder how many sales Gibson lost when they filed suit against one of the bigger dealers in the country.
> 
> https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...son-vs-Elderly


For the seasoned buyers probably quite a few. For new buyers it wont change except when they start reviewing what the prices are. Gibson did a booboo when they started pulling away from mom and dad shops. And just cared about the big picture of the huge multiowned stores like sam ash and guitar centers.   Its all about the huge money .  Cant forget HJ ,he was not about Gibson. He was about money just like any other investor . 

As for the Product that Gibson builds. They are other peoples crafts nowadays with a Gibson logo ( eg Ren steps in and creates these from scratch to be just like the early year Gibsons. ) that is a craftsman. ...  they will be nothing like the originals from the 30s to mid 60s

----------


## rcc56

Mandolin sales are only a very small number on Gibson's profit and loss statements.  Any profit generated by the annual sales of an Arizona store will not pay Gibson's expenses for more than a day or two.

I hope that anybody who is being enticed by Gibson to sign a licensing agreement to manufacture instruments of any kind realizes that, if they sign on, they will be establishing a precedent that they might regret later.

----------


## Russ Jordan

> ............We had a member that went to great lengths to explain how he was buying close out Gibson F9 mandolins from GC and that post got a response for the CEO of GC telling him he was banned from their stores. It's here someplace, I don't feel like digging it out
> https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...or-less-than-&


I searched but was unable to find that thread—- interested to read should anyone run across it.

----------


## dhergert

Mike has put the direct link there now.

----------


## Russ Jordan

Thanks, Mike.

----------


## Dillon

Gibson's knack for ticking folks off didn't start recently.

----------


## William Smith

Well this is a long thread, so long don't remember if I mentioned anything, but my two cents is this, Gibson is Gibson you want one pay the price if not get a copy-there are thousands out there, about every F-5 or such in the mando world anyway! But only one type original from whatever decade you prefer and that's a GIBSON! I'm a fan of the real old stuff, mandolins and guitars but the stuff that's coming from David Harvey and his crew mandolin wise I believe is the best Gibson has offered since the 20s! Just my honest opinion.

   A lot of you are slamming Gibson and others who reply to this and its not very nice IMHO! Sure maybe Gibson is late in the game doing their threatening but that's what comes from $ changing hands and new owners who have $ invested, that's corporate America, you all should know that by now? 

  I'll still along with the many support Gibson be it whatever they make, its the name of the game. I personally have no hard feelings I love their mandolins each one is special, so is the countless independents who in a sense copy their original designs! I feel its a losing battle for Gibson going after everyone because where to begin should you start in the 60's till now? With mandolins anyway, guitars that started around then also-heck I even see independents doing Gibson type acoustics right now? Martin sure doesn't mind, look at all the adds here and everywhere on all the pre-war type models!

----------

Bernie Daniel

----------


## AlanN

That said member who was monkeying with GC and the F-9 was from around here. He has since left this veil of tears.

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Jeff Mando

> We had a member that went to great lengths to explain how he was buying close out Gibson F9 mandolins from GC and that post got a response for the CEO of GC telling him he was banned from their stores. It's here someplace, I don't feel like digging it out. The mandolin/banjo stuff was never a priority for MF/GC.
> 
> There it is. Doesn't sound like GC was too committed to mandolins. I'm sure they sold and still sell a ton of guitars though.
> 
> https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...or-less-than-&


Thanks for posting that link, Mike.  Great read!  About 10-15 years ago I was working for a vintage shop and would attend at least one vintage guitar show a month.  I got to know the buyers from Guitar Center.  They were based in Hollywood and buying vintage stuff for that store in particular.  They told me they had a situation with people buying vintage gear that was underpriced at Guitar Centers and then reselling it to THEM at vintage guitar shows!  So Guitar Center ended up buying the same guitar twice, which was only revealed to them when they entered the serial numbers into the computer and .........it kinda made them look like idiots.  OTOH, they made money on it once, the question is, "can they make money on it the second time?"  Not sure how they resolved that one.......

----------


## Scott R

Is this connected to this story by chance?  Anybody know more info on why this happened?  :Smile:

----------


## Jim Hilburn

A bonfire would have been better.

----------

j. condino

----------


## mtucker

> Is this connected to this story by chance?  Anybody know more info on why this happened?


I assume this was sponsored by Gibson but don’t know for sure. It seems to me there are better options to eliminate final inventory and take the write off, certainly more reverent ones than resorting to a cheap stunt like this. Shame shame.

----------


## DHopkins

I'll venture the theory that they're not real Firebirds, but, in fact, counterfeits.  If that's the case, the government, in a poorly executed show, decided to destroy them.  Jim's right.  A fire would have been better but the toxic smoke might make it worse.  How 'bout a car shredder.  How 'bout letting my grandkids destroy 'em.  I'd give 'em a week.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Good thing there are no kids anywhere in the world whose lives could be made a little better by having access to a guitar...

----------

Benski, 

Bob Clark, 

Dale Ludewig, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Gunnar, 

j. condino, 

Jill McAuley, 

Joe Dodson, 

John Bertotti, 

mtucker, 

Nathan Kellstadt

----------


## foldedpath

> I'll venture the theory that they're not real Firebirds, but, in fact, counterfeits.  If that's the case, the government, in a poorly executed show, decided to destroy them.


Who would bother counterfeiting a Firebird X?  :Smile: 

Gibson made thousands and they didn't sell.  They were stuffed with electronics and that stupid Robot tuning system (another reason they aren't likely to be counterfeits). A massive flop for the company. This was probably Gibson taking a write-off, possibly with a requirement to document destruction of inventory.




> Good thing there are no kids anywhere in the world whose lives could be made a little better by having access to a guitar...


Looks like Gibson's accountants figured they got a better deal as an inventory write-off than as a charitable donation.

----------


## rcc56

I believe that those are genuine Gibson Firebird X model guitars.
I'm not going to guess at an explanation.

----------

mtucker

----------


## mtucker

After a quick google it appears they’re real. Not faulting them for eliminating the dog food not selling and writing down a million or so including the operator of the shovel but the lineup of guitars and heavy equipment was a little over the top. If I had my paw prints on them I’d dispose differently, but we’re on the left coast! Lol’s

I guess if the irs wants to question them it’s now documented but c’mon?

----------


## DHopkins

Okay, I will acquiesce to those with the greater knowledge.  As a LEO, we used to destroy those counterfeit purses, sneakers, etc that we caught being sold at flea markets, Craig's List, etc.  I just figured someone imported a bunch of fakes and maybe got caught.

I did say it was a theory.

----------


## Tom Haywood

Introducing their competition to Fender's Road Worn Series?

----------

DHopkins, 

Gunnar, 

j. condino, 

Marty Jacobson

----------


## MikeEdgerton

There is an explanation in this video.

----------

BillytheB, 

Eric Platt, 

Jonathan Reinhardt

----------


## BradKlein

Can someone condense the 'explanation' so I don't have to watch the video? This is the strangest thing ever...

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

Gunnar

----------


## mtucker

> Good thing there are no kids anywhere in the world whose lives could be made a little better by having access to a guitar...


Couldn’t agree more. I was certainly thinking this and alluded to it in the later part of my post above, but then that would have required some actual thought and work to achieve this on their part. 

If he’s (or wants to be) in touch with the community, why wouldn’t the CEO have the grey matter to suggest this? Perfect opportunity to do good and bring positive attention to the company, yes? What’s we thinking?… it’s a bizzare video and reflection.

----------


## Jeff Hildreth

Gibson's corporate objective, by my observation, was, and is, to increase the value of the stock/shares. 
Guitars are simply the vehicle by which they are doing this. They could just as well be making veeblefetzers.

----------

Dale Ludewig

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Can someone condense the 'explanation' so I don't have to watch the video? This is the strangest thing ever...


It's not unexpected behavior, this one was done after Henry left, they have been cutting up guitars for years that didn't meet their expectations and apparently these monstrosities weren't really useful for anything else.

They interview the former Gibson employee that filmed the event and he and others were told they could take the video.

If anyone got more out of that than I did bless you.

----------

BradKlein

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Oh, and one comment on YouTube about this video caught my fancy. It said "This is actually how you play a Firebird X. It's in the manual"

Might be true.

----------

michaelpthompson

----------


## foldedpath

> Can someone condense the 'explanation' so I don't have to watch the video? This is the strangest thing ever...


Here's my attempt:

Gibson under previous ownership (Henry) made a bunch of terrible decisions about electric guitar design, including this monster of a guitar with too much electronics and a "Robot Tuner" that didn't sell. They made thousands and nobody wanted one. The company took a write-off for tax purposes on inventory, and had to document that the inventory was trashed. That's about as short as I can make it.

----------

BradKlein, 

Eric Platt

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I would think the write-off is speculation but expected. You could also say they didn't want to pay to warehouse them and they were growing stale on their serial numbers. Lots of reasons to get rid of something that was supposedly technologically advanced at one time and the tech has moved past them. It's one thing to have a timeless design that apparently doesn't get old and another that is supposed to be bleeding edge but is outdated. These were pretty much setup to fail from the beginning. But again, that's all speculation. The fact that Henry made awful decisions is known truth.

----------


## Bob Clark

These guitars were Gibson's property, so they can certainly do with them what they like.  But what a shameful waste this was.  

From a natural resources standpoint (wood, metals, finishes, associated carbon footprint), exceedingly disrespectful of our environment.  From the standpoint for those in society who could have benefitted (inner-city under-resourced schools or NPOs who could have taught deserving underprivileged youth to play, and delivered much needed mentoring in the process), utter disregard. Even the landfill space these instruments are now likely taking up could have been put to better use.

I am constantly being asked about the ways in which my business practices responsible environmental stewardship and I strive to do the right things.  The cumulative harm done by this one act by Gibson leaves me with absolutely no respect for the current corporate leadership.  Sure, I would love to own a vintage Gibson and am likely to do so.  But the current company will never see a dime of my money as long as they act in this irresponsible manner.  We need to consider society and the environment in all our business practices.  In destroying these musical instruments, Gibson is showing us who they now are.

My motto may be 'purr more, hiss less', but this one I am calling as I see it.  Shame on you, Gibson.

----------

Benski

----------


## William Smith

Wow I figured those were the Chinese "fake Chibson's" Guitars made with the GIBSON in the peg head? Gnarly, what a waste, all the wood, metal, wiring etc...

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

I smell a ruse.

Am I the only person that sees this as someone went to great length to make a presentation clearly intended for video use on the web? There's no clandestine video work here. This was all carefully planned and is being used exactly as intended. All of the instruments perfectly lined up for maximum visual impact, the use of a piece of very expensive machinery--likely leased with driver, pricey-- to do what a couple of guys with sledge hammers could have done in 30 minutes, or just throw them in a compactor. The goal was not solely to destroy the instruments, it was to make this video. Multiple angles of video shots, and then the kicker: someone claiming to not know anything about it, posting two videos complete with advertising and a follow-up video "explaining it all," both widely edited and released the same day.

Please.

Not particularly interested in what went on here nor the story behind it, but this I can guarantee: it's getting exactly the response on YouTube in the comments section and a fair amount here--moral outrage! How _could_ they? Someone saw an opportunity to play a lot of people and it's working out exactly as they wish. I'm putting this into the category of too many videos that get tossed onto the internet for pure shock value of some kind but the real reason is something else. Personally, I get my news from reliable news sources, not a bunch of clowns on YouTube. YMMV. Carry on.

EDIT: no, I did not watch every second of both videos. Maybe there's an explanation of some sort but whatever it is, it's for someone else's consumption, not mine. Where can I apply for the return of the amount of time I wasted watching what I did?

----------

Bob Clark, 

DHopkins, 

Kevin Winn, 

mtucker, 

Pete Summers, 

Tom Haywood

----------


## Pittsburgh Bill

Gibson fans, please be sympathetic to my feelings regarding their instruments as it is only my nonprofessional opinion and with having no idea of their overhead costs vs. other builders of mandolins. Perhaps Gibson could have a more profitable mandolin division if they were to offer instruments of equal quality to other builders at a like price point rather than expecting people to pay more to have GIBSON written on the headstock. FORGET THE FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS. When buying a mandolin I look for value and do not get caught up in scrolls or what is written on the headstock.
 I have often found Gibson mandolins  lacking to my ear when comparing them to other mandolins in the same price range.
No offence to anyone's beloved mandolin. Just my humble opinion. (And yes, I have heard and played a few Gibsons that I would have loved to own)
Note: I do not believe Gibson is the only builder that adds $ or even 1000's of $ for their name on the headstock. True too, that if I were a builder I would probably charge whatever the market would bare.

 Buyer beware and do not purchase based upon what is written on the headstock, be it Gibson or any other builder. Buy what feels and sounds best to you. Frivolous law suits add to my unsavory feelings towards buying a mandolin that says GIBSON.

----------


## Jeff Mando

Kinda sad.  For some reason made me think of "cash for clunkers."

At the very least, those guitar parts could have been resold on eBay and made somebody happy.....

----------


## slimt

You know. Watching this is a good example of waste . Not sure what to think from this.

----------


## trodgers

That just makes me cringe.   Our high school band has to do a tremendous amount of fundraising to keep the program alive.  Imagine the goodwill Gibson could have created by donating those instruments to schools in need.

----------

Bob Clark, 

Jeff Mando

----------


## Verne Andru

I agree it's a waste of resources and landfill space. If they were looking for a tax write-off that could have been accomplished by donating them to schools or charities.

It reminds me of a PRS video from a while back. After many years as CEO Paul went down to the shop floor and made a guitar to prove he still had his chops. The QC department rejected it and the video showed the guitar being cut into pieces. What they were trying to say is that PRS quality standards are so high it doesn't matter who the builder is - if it doesn't pass QC it doesn't go into the wild. I know that was one guitar and not thousands, a band-saw and not heavy equipment, but the underlying principle may be the same.

Most people/players really hated that Gibson guitar/robot tuners/etc. and it was held up as the epitome of Henry's failure, so doing this in such a grand style is, perhaps, the new managements message that they hated it too.

My impression is that this is a PR shock-and-awe stunt meant to attract attention (which it's doing in grand style). In the PR biz the saying goes "no news is bad news" so the mere fact that it's gotten eyeballs and peeps talking about it means that it is successful. People forget details over time but remember the brand.

The more attention you give it the more you're feeding Gibson's PR machine.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ...Perhaps Gibson could have a more profitable mandolin division if they were to offer instruments of equal quality to other builders at a like price point...


And what is your proof that they don't?

----------

T.D.Nydn, 

William Smith, 

yankees1

----------


## Pittsburgh Bill

> And what is your proof that they don't?


I offer no proof nor do I claim knowledge as to what extent their mandolin division contributes to their lack of profitability.

----------


## Roger Adams

> I have to admit to being at a loss understanding all the Gibson hate. They've invested in the R&D, design and have been marketing these products [taking into account market fluctuations] for years. Somebody else coming along and ripping their designs is IP theft which Gibson has every right to protect themselves against.
> 
> Saying it's okay to steal intellectual property because some lawyer argues the creator "abandoned" it is nonsense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbd1trNz9bY

 :Wink:

----------

Pete Summers, 

Verne Andru

----------


## foldedpath

Regarding the destroyed Firebirds, here's some info from musicradar posted today:




> The video was posted by a former Gibson employee, BJ Wilkes, who explained to YouTuber The Guitologist that the guitars were unsellable and that the company needed to get them off the books as the new owners looked to change the companys fortunes after its well-publicised financial problems and former CEO Henry Juszkiewiczs ousting.
> 
> Addressing the concerns of those who asked why the guitars were not donated, or their parts repurposed, Gibson said in an official statement that the video footage was of an isolated batch of Firebird X models built in 2009-2011 which were unsalvageable and damaged with unsafe components. This isolated group of Firebird X models were unable to be donated for any purpose and were destroyed accordingly.


The article goes on to mention the Gibson Foundation that has donated "thousands of guitars to charities and schools," and is donating a guitar a day for the next thousand days.

----------

BradKlein

----------


## John Bertotti

They would have been better off focusing on their donations and just quietly gotten rid of these guitars. I do not hold it against them because even our own luthiers here cut up a dud of an instrument when it doesn't meet their level of quality.

----------


## wreded

It would be a good ad, pull one out, tune it and play.
Like the old Timex commercials; "Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'"

----------

Jeff Mando

----------


## Joe Dodson

> These guitars were Gibson's property, so they can certainly do with them what they like.  But what a shameful waste this was.


Couldn't have said it better.  What a revolting waste.

----------


## Joe Dodson

> It would be a good ad, pull one out, tune it and play.
> Like the old Timex commercials; "Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'"


It would make a pretty good Martin ad too.  

Avuncular voice-over:  "Gibson wants you to 'play authentic.'"  

[guitars crushed ......]

Avuncular voice-over:  "I guess this must be what they mean."

*glamour shot of a D-18*

I wouldn't own one of those guitars on a dare, but I'm still sickened by watching that.

----------

Gunnar

----------


## BillytheB

If the previous Gibson made these guitars and they were truly turds, and you were the new owners, would you want a bunch of students playing them? Future customers remembering the robo-tuners that didn't work, electronics that were nothing but trouble - Do you seriously think that would be remembered as goodwill in the future? This is overblown moral outrage. Not hard to imagine these were junk and destined for the scrap heap. I teach a guitar class in a public school and problem instruments take away from class time. Good riddance.

----------

Bob A, 

John Bertotti

----------


## John Bertotti

> If the previous Gibson made these guitars and they were truly turds, and you were the new owners, would you want a bunch of students playing them? Future customers remembering the robo-tuners that didn't work, electronics that were nothing but trouble - Do you seriously think that would be remembered as goodwill in the future? This is overblown moral outrage. Not hard to imagine these were junk and destined for the scrap heap. I teach a guitar class in a public school and problem instruments take away from class time. Good riddance.


Absolutely! And I’m not to partial of Gibson. But this is correct.

----------


## Jeff Mando

That may be, but like Scott said, the staging of the event for video is calculated to get a reaction from the public, which it certainly is on this forum.

The video mentions in the text the youtuber "guitologist" who in the past has posted videos of finding destroyed Les Pauls in the Guitar Center dumpster that Gibson instructed GC employees to destroy with a hammer, before throwing in the trash.  The LP's had 50-60 deep dents in the face, neck, and frets were bent, etc.  Obviously some type of issue with a new guitar made a refund necessary, but instead of sending the guitar back to Gibson, or selling it used, GC was instructed to just destroy it.  (I don't know the specifics)  At any rate, guitologist was appalled and auctioned the damaged Les Paul on eBay, giving the proceeds to school/hospital. (can't remember which)  The damaged guitar still brought over $400, IIRC.  THEN, a few months later, he finds ANOTHER Les Paul in the GC dumpster -- same story!!!  In fairness, this was before the "takeover" so Gibson has had some weird policies in place for quite a while, IMHO.

----------


## sgarrity

Sorry guys, of all the things to be outraged about in the world today this don’t make the list!  :Popcorn:

----------

Benski, 

DHopkins, 

Eric Platt, 

Gunnar, 

jaycat, 

Jill McAuley, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Pete Summers, 

Phil Goodson, 

pops1, 

testore, 

Timbofood

----------


## michaelpthompson

> That just makes me cringe.   Our high school band has to do a tremendous amount of fundraising to keep the program alive.  Imagine the goodwill Gibson could have created by donating those instruments to schools in need.


If you believe the explanation, donating them would have the opposite effect. Does your school really need some crap, unplayable guitars?

----------

T.D.Nydn

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Sorry guys, of all the things to be outraged about in the world today this dont make the list!


Very true, but we don't discuss those things on this forum.  This is a mandolin/music related forum........ :Mandosmiley: 

mandolin joy  :Smile:  :Mandosmiley:  :Cool:  :Laughing:  :Grin:  :Wink: 

mandolin outrage  :Crying:  :Mad:  :Redface:

----------

ccravens, 

Joe Dodson, 

MontanaMatt, 

Timbofood

----------


## Bob Clark

Yet another thread that cannot ever reach anything approaching a consensus view.  I am done wasting mental energy on the whole Gibson topic.  I see this as just one more reason to support small-shop and individual luthiers.  That is where I will continue to spend my money.

----------

Eric Platt, 

MontanaMatt, 

sgarrity, 

Timbofood

----------


## mtucker

There are so many great electrics, Collings, John Suhr, Tom Anderson etc. that I honestly haven’t paid attention to either new Fender or Gibson guitars for many years so I have no dog in this. The YouTube, threatening letters, litigation, crushing guitars etc. is all short game grand stand play, unbecoming. Interesting to see how it plays out. Go Rams!

----------


## Joe Dodson

> Yet another thread that cannot ever reach anything approaching a consensus view.


Well, probably not about controversial issues like hedge fund weirdos in leather jackets threatening to let loose luthier litigation, and mass destruction of guitars so poorly built that Gibson can't give them away without risking catastrophic injury to impoverished school children.  

But at least we can all agree on the important stuff, like that Bill Monroe wrote Jerusalem Ridge.  Peace and happy pickin', y'all.

----------


## Mandoplumb

I understand Gibson getting rid of junk, I understand asking GC to destroy defective guitars. I had a mandolin that the  top collapsed Gibson did not fix it, they destroyed it and sent me a new one, more trouble to retop than make a new one. What I don't understand is why so many guitars in stock if they are not selling, why build so many before you know how they will sell. It cost materials and manpower to build those guitars then pay to have them destroyed. A company that is struggling to turn a profit?

----------


## Gunnar

Maybe it explains why they're struggling to turn a profit?

----------

Bob Clark

----------


## Ray(T)

In today’s world, if you can make money building guitars, build guitars. If you can make more money producing widgets, produce widgets. If you can’t make money doing either leave your money in the bank (or under the bed!)!

----------


## foldedpath

> I understand Gibson getting rid of junk, I understand asking GC to destroy defective guitars. I had a mandolin that the  top collapsed Gibson did not fix it, they destroyed it and sent me a new one, more trouble to retop than make a new one. What I don't understand is why so many guitars in stock if they are not selling, why build so many before you know how they will sell. It cost materials and manpower to build those guitars then pay to have them destroyed. A company that is struggling to turn a profit?


Just a wild guess here: 

Gibson licensed the  robot tuner tech from a German company named "Tronical." That deal may have required a certain number of units manufactured for a volume discount on the licensing, or any parts supplied by Tronical. Last year, Tronical sued Gibson for $50 million as breach of contract, then Gibson counter-sued. 

I don't know the current status of that legal fight, but the fact that all those guitars were made, didn't sell, and were then destroyed, may have something to do with the Gibson-Tronical troubles.

----------


## IM4Nats

Gibson should not play the copyright game.
Musical instrument shape is not defensible.
https://guitar.com/news/gibson-loses...e-in-eu-court/

----------


## Dillon

This thread is really out there.

Gibson is a private company and can do whatever the heck they want. Period.

----------


## Bill McCall

They cant claim rights that dont belong to them.

They can break all of their own stuff they like.

----------


## sblock

> This thread is really out there.
> Gibson is a private company and can do whatever the heck they want. Period.


Sorry, but it has _never_ been true that private companies "can do whatever the heck they want."  On the contrary: private companies are bound by applicable U.S. laws, just as the rest of us are. As it happens, numerous laws apply to things like disposing of their corporate assets (and taking business losses off taxes, for example, by destroying inventory), and also to copyrights and trademarks.

----------


## Dillon

> Sorry, but it has _never_ been true that private companies "can do whatever the heck they want."  On the contrary: private companies are bound by applicable U.S. laws, just as the rest of us are. As it happens, numerous laws apply to things like disposing of their corporate assets (and taking business losses off taxes, for example, by destroying inventory), and also to copyrights and trademarks.


Think you're reading a little too much into my short post. If they want to destroy an instrument or a desk or anything else they OWN, they can do so . . . as long as they aren't breaking any laws. If you really think they are breaking laws - report them to the authorities.

----------


## DHopkins

> Sorry, but it has _never_ been true that private companies "can do whatever the heck they want."  On the contrary: private companies are bound by applicable U.S. laws, just as the rest of us are. As it happens, numerous laws apply to things like disposing of their corporate assets (and taking business losses off taxes, for example, by destroying inventory), and also to copyrights and trademarks.


Literally, you're right but I think the point is, there are no stockholders or others such as regulatory agencies that they have to answer to.  Only the consumer.

----------


## Dillon

> Literally, you're right but I think the point is, there are no stockholders or others such as regulatory agencies that they have to answer to.  Only the consumer.


Yep, no stockholders. But plenty of (some would say way too many) regulatory agencies. Thank goodness for us, the consumer, the ultimate overlord.

----------


## John Bertotti

Ok, if you don't want to see Gretsch guitars then just skip to7:35 and listen. I wonder if Gretsch got a letter.
https://www.facebook.com/GretschGuit...8184873759929/

----------


## Frankdolin

> Ok, if you don't want to see Gretsch guitars then just skip to7:35 and listen. I wonder if Gretsch got a letter.
> https://www.facebook.com/GretschGuit...8184873759929/


 At 7:36 I thought I heard a "mic drop". :Whistling:

----------


## John Bertotti

> At 7:36 I thought I heard a "mic drop".


I darn near spewed my drink over my computer when I hear his closing line. hahahahaha
I love Gretsch! And Martin!

----------


## slimt

I wonder if they did this in the late 50s with the V and Explorer and the Moderne? They werent very popular back then. So now theres a handful of these still left making them highly sought after. I wonder if this will be the case For any obscure Memphis guitars?

----------


## rstaight

First I have to admit I scanned through the comments about the destruction of the Firebird guitars. 

It was stated that they were unsalvageable. Nothing more was done than any company. You destroy the inventory instead of throwing it in a dumpster so someone can pick it out. Why not have some fun.

During this controversy it was also stated that Gibson was donating 1 instrument a day for the next 1000 days.

The video was taken by an employee. Which could be the reason they are a former employee. Unauthorized video at any company is a big no no.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

So when they made the original Flying V they made about 90 and the Les Paul sunburst, what 3-400? How did they commit to that many guiars without at least a trial run to see how they sold?

----------


## DHopkins

> So when they made the original Flying V they made about 90 and the Les Paul sunburst, what 3-400? How did they commit to that many guiars without at least a trial run to see how they sold?


It was easy.  They were Gibsons and Gibsons sell, or so they thought.  They underestimated the intelligence of the consumer.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

Also the whole thing about them being unsalvageable is bunk. Give one of those to any kid in the developing world, and they would have salvaged the heck out of it.

----------


## archerscreek

Eh, none of this bothers me. I'll still dream about how beautiful I could make that Gibson F5G Black Night at The Mandolin Store sound. Although I think it would show a great deal of good will on Gibson's part if they offered me a 50% "loyalty" rebate on it. Haha

----------


## foldedpath

> Also the whole thing about them being unsalvageable is bunk. Give one of those to any kid in the developing world, and they would have salvaged the heck out of it.


Until the battery died and they couldn't charge it or replace it. It runs on a rechargeable camcorder battery. You can't even change strings unless it's powered up for the auto string wind function. It makes *no sound at all* through the 1/4" output jack, unless the battery and onboard electronics are active. 

Take some time to learn what this guitar actually is, before jumping on the train of "they should send them to schools." The Firebird X was a monstrosity that can't be re-purposed like a normal guitar.

----------


## Hudmister

> Until the battery died and they couldn't charge it or replace it. It runs on a rechargeable camcorder battery. You can't even change strings unless it's powered up for the auto string wind function. It makes *no sound at all* through the 1/4" output jack, unless the battery and onboard electronics are active. 
> 
> Take some time to learn what this guitar actually is, before jumping on the train of "they should send them to schools." The Firebird X was a monstrosity that can't be re-purposed like a normal guitar.


Exactly right on.  Let's hope they got them all.

----------


## Marty Jacobson

I think you might be surprised by the ingenuity of people with limited resources, but whatever.

----------

Bob Clark

----------


## rcc56

Simple enough.  Take out the fancy electronics and replace the tuners.  The pickups can be reused. Probably the volume and tone controls also.  If not, the controls can be replaced for $20 or less in parts, plus maybe two hours labor on the workbench of a one man shop.

----------


## Gunnar

> I think you might be surprised by the ingenuity of people with limited resources, but whatever.


Oh definitely. But maybe not how you'd think. It might well end up becoming a fancy canoe paddle or part of a car....

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Caleb

> I think you might be surprised by the ingenuity of people with limited resources, but whatever.


I think I understand the spirit of what you are saying, Marty.  Example, I play electric guitar almost every day, mostly late at night when my family is asleep, and even if that wasnt the case its a big ordeal to set up my amp and play (dont have a man cave), so I play unplugged and enjoy it about as much as plugged in. Im sure plenty of people would have played these flawed guitars the same way and just been happy to play.  

Of course, Gibson et al can do as they please with their goods, and maybe its more trouble than most realize to get these bad guitars into the hands of less fortunate players.  I dont know, and Im sure its complicated.  But when it shows up in a video it does look tasteless and wasteful.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## foldedpath

> Simple enough.  Take out the fancy electronics and replace the tuners.  The pickups can be reused. Probably the volume and tone controls also.  If not, the controls can be replaced for $20 or less in parts, plus maybe two hours labor on the workbench of a one man shop.


Volume and tone controls would have to be replaced, they're tied into the digital circuit. Maybe the pickup selector switches too, not sure about that. Pickups would have to be wired through to the new vol and tone controls to the 1/4" output. Full set of tuners to replace. And then add a dummy weight into the massively routed-out body after removing the battery and electronics, so it would balance on a strap like a normal guitar. 

And after all that, the user will still be staring at this every time they play it, and wondering what this is all about**:

----------


## DHopkins

> I think you might be surprised by the ingenuity of people with limited resources, but whatever.


I very much agree with you but some things are beyond "McGyvering."

----------


## Jeff Mando

If the tuners and pickups were replaced they could be used as a normal electric guitar.  Pretty simple stuff.

Some active guitars use passive pickups and are only active in the sense that the eq is active.  I'm guessing the pickups were fine BEFORE the bulldozing....

Can't do much about the ugly design..........shame, because most "actual" Firebirds have a good rock'n'roll look!

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Can't do much about the ugly design..........shame, because most "actual" Firebirds have a good rock'n'roll look!


They are definitely hideous, no question about that...

----------


## Jim Hilburn

These were totally off my radar so I watched a video from when these were introduced by one of these guitubers explaining how it worked and showed what was under the electronics cover.
What were they thinking?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...What were they thinking?


Henry is probably asking himself the same question.  :Cool:

----------


## dustyamps

Here is what Gibson is up against... these just showed up on facebook marketplace.  And free global shipping!

----------

jesserules

----------


## Jeff Mando

Those fakes started showing up in our area.  The quality is amazing -- no, they are not up to Gibson $5,000 standards, but for $89 or even $350 -- they are nice looking, serviceable guitars.  And, on the electrics, most people replace the tuners, pickups, etc, so.......perfect for upgrading.  I've worked on several.  No, we don't sell them, but they show up in the repair department.....so people are buying them from somewhere........?

Keep in mind, they are not an exact copy, a few tiny details are wrong, mostly due to cost savings, but they would fool most people and they are indeed counterfeits meant to deceive stating Gibson logo, made in USA, Gibson style serial number, etc.....

----------

jesserules

----------


## dustyamps

This first ad has been taken down and replaced with the identical ad from a different sponsor and website.  Two of these Gibson counterfeits have shown up here locally that I've heard about.  A local guitar player bought a Starlight? brand les paul copy directly from China, got it, opened up the case, it had Gibson on the headstock.  The other, a Hummingbird copy, showed up at a local pawn shop... and yes, they were surprised to find out it was a counterfeit.

----------

jesserules

----------


## Jan Skovajsa

> Maybe they should spend their time working to make quality instruments that people actually want to buy?  I mean, do they actually think this strategy is going to endear them to musicians?  Sad!


So true! Regarding the mandolins Gibson made their name through the instruments built in the 1920s. They havent been able to build mandolins with the same tonal qualities since then. The Gibson mandolins of today remind rather of the asian factory production both in sound, aesthetics and shape (look at the ugly scrolls, arches, materials used, finish etc) for the prices of the US luthier work. Lloyd Loar and his colleagues who made the Gibson its former name are turning in their graves.

----------


## Eric C.

> So true! Regarding the mandolins Gibson made their name through the instruments built in the 1920’s. They haven’t been able to build mandolins with the same tonal qualities since then. The Gibson mandolins of today remind rather of the asian factory production both in sound, aesthetics and shape (look at the ugly scrolls, arches, materials used, finish etc) for the prices of the US luthier work. Lloyd Loar and his colleagues who made the Gibson it’s former name are turning in their graves.


Stuck in the 70's huh?

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> So true! Regarding the mandolins Gibson made their name through the instruments built in the 1920’s. They haven’t been able to build mandolins with the same tonal qualities since then. The Gibson mandolins of today remind rather of the asian factory production both in sound, aesthetics and shape (look at the ugly scrolls, arches, materials used, finish etc) for the prices of the US luthier work. Lloyd Loar and his colleagues who made the Gibson it’s former name are turning in their graves.





> Stuck in the 70's huh?


You beat me to it Eric!

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

As for the „ugly scrolls” and a few other (for most people) minor aesthetical things, I believe Jan is right. Other than that many of the recent Gibsins are well made and certainly good sounding.

----------


## KMaynard

I'll preface this post with I'm a huge Gibson fan and love all things Gibson. However, my favorite modern Gibsons are from 2000 through 2007. I've played some after 2007 and they do sound good and are very well made, they just don't have the same look or feel. The one big thing that really keeps me from owning a post 2007 Gibson is the scroll. I just don't think they have that right. Something is just off about the look and aesthetics of the scroll.

----------

Don Grieser

----------


## Bill McCall

After the cloud of dust and FUD, has anybody seen any effects of the Gibson actions on mandolin builders?

----------


## sgarrity

> After the cloud of dust and FUD, has anybody seen any effects of the Gibson actions on mandolin builders?


Looks like Gilchrist is no longer offering the traditional flowerpot or fern.

----------


## Dave_W

This would seem to be a result of Gibson's crackdown:

New Gilchrist Inlay Options

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The Flower pot crackdown started in the Derrington era and didn't affect a whole lot of people. Have they started to be more aggressive or what? Honestly you can still get a half fern and a half flower pot from Gilchrist and I find that pretty funny.

Bruce Harvie had a favorite picture of the workmanship on a Loar scroll closeup that he used to post. I can't seem to find it.

----------


## HoGo

> Bruce Harvie had a favorite picture of the workmanship on a Loar scroll closeup that he used to post. I can't seem to find it.


Perhaps modern Gibsons have smoother surface because of heavy use of sanders and thick layers of finish but Loars had that specific crisp style even if some roughness was present. Of course there are always exceptions.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Bruce had one that was really rough.

----------


## Richard G

Sound like they need to improve the quality of their products to be the best then they won't have to worry about the competition but in truth Gibson/L.Loar took much of their design from the tradition of violin makers thus they owe to the desendents of the the masters that proceeded them??

----------


## Don Grieser

> The one big thing that really keeps me from owning a post 2007 Gibson is the scroll. I just don't think they have that right. Something is just off about the look and aesthetics of the scroll.


Look at a post 2007 Gibson scroll and a 1920s Gibson scroll. Northfield's scrolls are more correct than recent Gibsons. Gibson scrolls are way too open.

----------

Mike Romkey

----------


## DHopkins

Where are the standards luthiers consult when building an f-style mandolin?  I've never seen any specifications that mandate size, shape, amount of curl, etc.

Don, my Breedloves are completely different.  Are they wrong?

----------


## Marty Jacobson

> Where are the standards luthiers consult when building an f-style mandolin?  I've never seen any specifications that mandate size, shape, amount of curl, etc.


https://www.elderly.com/products/gib...lans-version-3

----------


## Jim Hilburn

There are no rules as to what a scroll should look like. However most builders who are going for the F5 model like to get as close as possible to the early Gibsons. However when you ARE Gibson and have made a big deal about how you are the creators of the F5 it sure seems like you should try harder than most to get it right.
Here's a Gibson that was supposed to look like Bill Monroes which was priced around $30k if I remember correctly. Then there's my friend Jacobs 4th mandolin.

----------


## KMaynard

> There are no rules as to what a scroll should look like. However most builders who are going for the F5 model like to get as close as possible to the early Gibsons. However when you ARE Gibson and have made a big deal about how you are the creators of the F5 it sure seems like you should try harder than most to get it right.
> Here's a Gibson that was supposed to look like Bill Monroes which was priced around $30k if I remember correctly. Then there's my friend Jacobs 4th mandolin.


That's exactly what I'm talking about. The scrolls are just different and to my eye look way to open in the scroll area. Not saying they don't sound as good because all I've played sounded nice, but for my taste, they just don't have the same look. The scroll work is supposed to be the eyepiece of the F style mandolin just like master violin makers taking great pride in scroll carving. It's their belief it shows their craftsmanship and skillset.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

At some point they made this Doyle Lawson model. I'd love to see them go back to that look.

----------


## DHopkins

> https://www.elderly.com/products/gib...lans-version-3


Well, there ya go!  Except that there are few specifics.  It appears to be "Get as close as you can" and I'm fine with that. While I don't want an ugly instrument, I'm more concerned with sound and playability than aesthetics.  I could play a black one, a natural one, etc., but I'd have to turn in my man card if I was forced to play a pink one.  To me, that comes under the heading of "Ugly."

----------


## slimt

Is Gibson still trying to beat up on Luthiers?

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

This is not in response to the question above. Just seemed like a good place to post:

Gibson tells Nashville musicians they'll replace any guitars lost or damaged in the tornadoes

----------

Timbofood

----------


## slimt

Thats a Nice effort by Gibson.

----------


## Eric Oliver

> There are no rules as to what a scroll should look like. However most builders who are going for the F5 model like to get as close as possible to the early Gibsons. However when you ARE Gibson and have made a big deal about how you are the creators of the F5 it sure seems like you should try harder than most to get it right.
> Here's a Gibson that was supposed to look like Bill Monroes which was priced around $30k if I remember correctly. Then there's my friend Jacobs 4th mandolin.


The scroll on that Jacobs makes me think of the old Lucky Strike slogan: So round, so firm, so fully packed!

----------


## Roger Adams

IMHO, Gibson has every right to defend their designs, and intellectual property.  Better late, than never.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbd1trNz9bY

----------

brunello97, 

jesserules

----------


## slimt

> IMHO, Gibson has every right to defend their designs, and intellectual property.  Better late, than never.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbd1trNz9bY


They have the right to defend.. But its the courts that decide if they win? so far they havent been to successful..   they should of looked after there Trademarks a little better..

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Jeff Mando

Been discussed to death, but I just noticed while searching for a 50's Gibson ES-295 (a somewhat rare guitar only made from 1952-1958) on Google images that, yep, sure enough, our friends in China make a very nice looking copy (counterfeit with Gibson name)  for around $300 which includes shipping to USA.  Not only that, they are offering it in colors that were never available in the 50's.  

Even so, I'm scratching my head thinking what is the worldwide market for a such a guitar?  Can they hope to sell 50 of them?  500?  Doubtful IMHO, but they are doing it anyway.

Of course, a Les Paul copy or ES-335 copy for $300 would sell a lot, IMHO, so......................

Should Gibson be mad?  Of course!

Can they do anything about it?  Doubtful, past internet video threats, IMHO........

Like I say, to most people $300 sounds a lot better than $5-6K

And, I've handled and set up a bunch of these guitars -- not a Gibson -- but for the money, a great value.  Imagine if Epiphone said Gibson on the peghead instead of Epiphone...........on top of that on the back of the peghead it is stamped "Made in the USA" instead of made in China -- sure, it's a dirty lie, but a very soothing and reassuring one to USA buyers, IMHO......

I should add, it has taken 50 years for "Made in Japan" to symbolize quality to most guitar buyers, so made in China might take a while.....

----------


## Br1ck

China has had a very long history making classical stringed instruments, and if I’m not wrong, Eastman was one of them. The viola I bought my daughter years ago dusted instruments at twice the price. $4500 wasn’t chump change to me then or now, but it taught me that the Chinese can make whatever level instrument you want them to. Northfield is a prime example.

But putting a Gibson logo on a cheap knockoff is wrong and always will be. It’s good to see Gibson trying to make up for past PR blunders.

As far as the scroll, I hadn’t noticed, so I guess it hasn’t bothered me. I have noticed other builders however, and I’m not above a logo I don’t like being a deal breaker.

----------


## allenhopkins

Getting into this on the 34th page is probably redundant -- ah, hell --  Apologize if I'm re-covering stuff that's already been discussed.

1.  Failing to patent, trademark or copyright a major design element, like the F-model mandolin design, was a dumb oversight on Gibson's part, well over a century ago.  *Orville Gibson's only patent for mandolin design* covers carving the entire mandolin body's back and sides from a single piece of wood, rather than glueing the sides to the back and top.  It was clearly intended to counter the common bowl-back construction of the period (1898), and the bent-top, flat-back instruments that were derived from the bowl-back template.  It doesn't refer to the F-style scrolled designs that Orville produced, or that the company bearing his name made just a few years after the patent was filed.

2.  And that horse is miles down the road, so trying to secure the barn door is futile.  Had Gibson gone after some of the US makers, like D'Angelico, that started making mandolins clearly based on the Gibson F-model around WWII, they'd have a firmer leg to stand on today, in threatening other mandolin builders, whether US or foreign.  They didn't.  

3.  Companies -- Xerox, Kimberly-Clark (Kleenex), Bayer (aspirin) come to mind -- have been more or less successful in keeping their trademarks from "going generic," losing their exclusive right to use them as they pass into "generic" usage.  "Aspirin" is still a registered Bayer trademark in other parts of the world, not here in the US.  If you don't defend your right to exclusive use of a brand or a design, shame on you if others scoop it up and copy it.

4.  None of the above allows anyone else to label an instrument "Gibson," other than the Gibson company.  When Walter Taylor split from his vintner family and became an independent winemaker, the courts said he couldn't put his name on the bottles.  He finally got a court to agree that he could put his name on his Bully Hill wines, but only in small print, and only with a disclaimer that he wasn't affiliated with Taylor Wines (then owned by Coca-Cola).  So even if your name were Jimmy Gibson, you can't affix it to the mandolins you build -- unless, perhaps, you make the logo _very small,_ and state that Jimmy G isn't affiliated with Gibson Inc.

----------

DHopkins, 

Timbofood

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

> China has had a very long history making classical stringed instruments, and if I’m not wrong, Eastman was one of them. The viola I bought my daughter years ago dusted instruments at twice the price. $4500 wasn’t chump change to me then or now, but it taught me that the Chinese can make whatever level instrument you want them to. Northfield is a prime example.
> 
> But putting a Gibson logo on a cheap knockoff is wrong and always will be. It’s good to see Gibson trying to make up for past PR blunders.
> 
> As far as the scroll, I hadn’t noticed, so I guess it hasn’t bothered me. I have noticed other builders however, and I’m not above a logo I don’t like being a deal breaker.


Northfield has 5 employees and company co-owners in their Qingdao shop, all highly skilled career luthiers, some of them very fine musicians. Seven total in U.S. which includes four employees performing non-luthier work. 50% of Northfield's total output of around 300 mandolin family instruments per year is in Michigan. The wood for their China shop is shipped from the U.S., detail work and final set-up is handled in U.S. Contrast this to Eastman, which builds very fine mandolins, but is a massive company by comparison with only administrative offices in the U.S. No company building mandolins has a business model like Northfield. Painting them with a broad brush that five people represent what a nation of 1.4+ billion can do, I can't agree with any of that as being a prime example.

----------

dang, 

dhergert, 

DHopkins, 

Eric Platt, 

Timbofood

----------


## HoGo

> Where are the standards luthiers consult when building an f-style mandolin? I've never seen any specifications that mandate size, shape, amount of curl, etc.





> https://www.elderly.com/products/gib...lans-version-3


Too Ffunny! Guys, I almost flooded my laptop with tea I just sipped....

----------

dhergert, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Timbofood

----------


## Links

As per a recent thread regarding a Gibson employee signing their mandolin labels as an "Acoustic Engineer" (which they are not), maybe it is time for all owners of signed Gibson mandolins to file a class action lawsuit against Gibson for fraud or at least violation of licensing statutes in Tennessee.  It is my understanding that the use of the term "engineer" is illegal except for registered engineers ...... regardless of the modifier "acoustic" or any other one.  "Yes sir, your honor, I thought when I bought my F Style Master Model, that it was checked out and approved by a registered Acoustic Engineer!"

----------


## Jeff Mando

> As per a recent thread regarding a Gibson employee signing their mandolin labels as an "Acoustic Engineer" (which they are not), maybe it is time for all owners of signed Gibson mandolins to file a class action lawsuit against Gibson for fraud or at least violation of licensing statutes in Tennessee.  It is my understanding that the use of the term "engineer" is illegal except for registered engineers ...... regardless of the modifier "acoustic" or any other one.  "Yes sir, your honor, I thought when I bought my F Style Master Model, that it was checked out and approved by a registered Acoustic Engineer!"


So, you would be suing because they sold you a great mandolin? (Derrington, Harvey, etc,....)  :Confused:

----------


## slimt

> So, you would be suing because they sold you a great mandolin? (Derrington, Harvey, etc,....)


I would be thankful.  Not resentful.  After all , its not the builders problem this or anything took place.  Its managements issue.   I have no issue in a firm looking after there property.  But think it through first before threatening everyone .  That damage is in most cases not reversable.

----------


## HoGo

> So, you would be suing because they sold you a great mandolin? (Derrington, Harvey, etc,....)


Well, from what I've  read, folks are sometimes suing companies for much more stupid reasons. (Not that I agree with all that suing) Smell of money is really good enough reason for some. :-)

----------


## Jan Skovajsa

> Stuck in the 70's huh?


You missed the point.

I've had an opportunity to play and examine more then 30 Gibson Master Model mandolins and mandolas signed by Lloyd Loar.
If I compare a well set-up Lloyd Loar F5 (that was not depreciated by inexpert repairs) to the later production by Gibson, sorry to say, I cannot see ANY mandolin of the same quality.

The Gibson has had for sure their up and down periods. I say that even the really great mandolins from the best modern periods (Steve Carlson Era or Derrington Era) actually never reached the tonal qualities of the Lloyd Loar mandolins. The tonal qualities I talk about are scientifically measurable. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. I would rather not talk more of the current era (approx. 2010 and later) that I consider one of the big downs.

The main thing I wanted to say it that the Gibson should make effort to regain the knowledge they used to have in the 20's to be able to build mandolins that players truly wish to play instead of dominating through threatening the builders who often make much better jobs then they do these days.

----------

Rush Burkhardt

----------


## Timbofood

> You missed the point.
> 
> I've had an opportunity to play and examine more then 30 Gibson Master Model mandolins and mandolas signed by Lloyd Loar.
> If I compare a well set-up Lloyd Loar F5 (that was not depreciated by inexpert repairs) to the later production by Gibson, sorry to say, I cannot see ANY mandolin of the same quality.
> 
> The Gibson has had for sure their up and down periods. I say that even the really great mandolins from the best modern periods (Steve Carlson Era or Derrington Era) actually never reached the tonal qualities of the Lloyd Loar mandolins. The tonal qualities I talk about are scientifically measurable. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. I would rather not talk more of the current era (approx. 2010 and later) that I consider one of the big downs.
> 
> The main thing I wanted to say it that the Gibson should make effort to regain the knowledge they used to have in the 20's to be able to build mandolins that players truly wish to play instead of dominating through threatening the builders who often make much better jobs then they do these days.


Give them 90 years.
If you look back through some of the numerous threads about the efforts that have been made to return the caliber of the Gibson mandolin back to its height I do not think you would be quite so critical. 
Efforts to restore the synonymous nature of name and quality have been going on since the 70s. That was the beginning of the return to save the F-5 from the depths of neglect it had suffered at the hands of disinterested number guys. Messers Siminoff, Halsey, and Cowles put forth Herculean efforts to get the company to see that it was still a viable product which deserved to be restored to some higher regard. 
All these gentlemen and the fine visionary's at the company since, Mr. Derrington, Mr. Harvey, et al. deserve a rousing round of applause from the mandolin community for their understanding and appreciation of the original design. Indeed they have spent time and effort based on making the companys product worthy of praise and a certain degree of adoration. 
Had the F-5L not been championed almost forty years ago, I think it very well may have died.
Thanks to all of you who went to bat for the instrument which has been an inspiration for so many!

----------

MikeEdgerton, 

Roger Adams

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> I say that even the really great mandolins from the best modern periods (Steve Carlson Era or Derrington Era) actually never reached the tonal qualities of the Lloyd Loar mandolins.


That_ opinion_ is shared by many. _One_ of the reasons you can't buy a Loar for the price of a Derrington M.M. 




> The tonal qualities I talk about are scientifically measurable. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.


That's an interesting statement. Have those scientists been able to control for state of wakefulness? How does a fully alert Derrington stack up against a L.L. in full R.E.M. sleep?

----------


## Bill McCall

> That's an interesting statement. Have those scientists been able to control for state of wakefulness? How does a fully alert Derrington stack up against a L.L. in full R.E.M. sleep?


Really?  A ‘state of wakefulness’ is a property of things, and specific things like musical instruments?  Is it a bluegrass attribute that you can add to the conversation?  Just how does that glued up wood fall asleep?  Is only one F hole open?

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Is only one F hole open?


Yes. It's called L.F. (Lester Flatt) sleep.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I tried to add a video of Dave Harvey speaking to some music store owners but ended up with a Thile  video instead. Will try again.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Worth a few minutes.

----------

Drew Egerton, 

John Soper, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

Russ Jordan, 

Timbofood, 

Todd Bowman

----------


## Jan Skovajsa

[/QUOTE]That's an interesting statement. Have those scientists been able to control for state of wakefulness? How does a fully alert Derrington stack up against a L.L. in full R.E.M. sleep?[/QUOTE]

I'm talking of the science and knowledge rooted in modern acoustic physics & top level Italian / European violin building, not in cognitive psychology. Stay in the realm of myths and fairy tales if you wish ;-)

----------


## KMaynard

> I say that even the really great mandolins from the best modern periods (Steve Carlson Era or Derrington Era) actually never reached the tonal qualities of the Lloyd Loar mandolins. The tonal qualities I talk about are scientifically measurable. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.


Jan, you say it's not opinion but fact and scientifically measurable, can you point us to the scientific research and fact sheets of this information you'r talking about?

----------


## Dillon

Wish someone would put this thread out of it's misery

----------

Bob Clark, 

Frankdolin, 

Mark Gunter, 

Marty Jacobson, 

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

There are those who say there's not a single Gibson that will equal any Gilchrist.  Or maybe any Ellis will beat any Gilchrist or Gibson

What's amazing is they're completely right...at least according to their ear.  Or, they're completely wrong according to someone else's ear.  It's all subjective and maybe even a matter of luck.  I'd be willing to bet Mike Edgerton's paycheck that there's probably a Rogue or Savannah mandolin somewhere out there that sounds better than any of them.

Different tastes, hearing abilities and prejudices govern the perceived sound quality so everyone here is right...or wrong, depending on who you talk to.

----------

Bob Clark, 

Mark Gunter, 

MikeEdgerton

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...'d be willing to bet Mike Edgerton's paycheck that there's probably a Rogue or Savannah mandolin somewhere out there that sounds better than any of them.....


Whoa whoa whoa! How did I get in here?  :Cool: 

I'm pretty sure that Dawg or Chris could play the Rogue and pull it off.

Blessed are those that cannot hear the difference for they shall have more disposable income.

----------

Bill McCall, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

dhergert, 

DHopkins, 

Timbofood

----------


## Joe Dodson

> I'm pretty sure that Dawg or Chris could play the Rogue and pull it off.


My first ever mandolin was a Rouge I bought off of amazon for about $50 new.  It was a contender for the worst instrument I ever owned (although was maybe edged out by an unplayable Washburn travel "guitar" that smelled like benzine and made me nauseous whenever I approached it).  I wouldn't wish that mandolin on David Grisman's worst enemy.

----------


## Eric Hanson

After watching the Jim Hilburn posted video with Dave Harvey, one has to have at least a little bit of respect for what Gibson is trying to pull off. 
Yep. It really STINKS what they are doing in pursuing the F Style trademark attempt. I don’t have enough “in the know” to say anything either way on the legalities or otherwise. Just that a VERY great number of luthiers who have great respect for the shape; and have based their livelihoods on that shape, would be terribly crippled if Gibson won such a case. 
Cool what Dave Harvey is doing with the privilege of being able to build as close to spec as possible, short of the varnish. Cool too the relationship he is maintaining with those who still love the brand, and their instruments. He seems to try and keep a dual line of respect open.  
One can only hope that this whole mess gets sorted out soon. 
There are people dying from a virus on the loose. There are wars killing innocent people. 
Greed is such a terrible plague.

----------

Frankdolin

----------


## HoGo

> ....with the privilege of being able to build as close to spec as possible, short of the varnish. .....


Not exactly to OP but...
I don't know privileges but they certainly build to specs that their CNC staff loaded into machines. I'm not talking about sound as I haven't played recent Gibson (post 2010) in quite a few years but the scroll design of current production is, IMHO, one of the worst since 70's.
I always told the guy who designed the original F-2/4 and F-5 (and I suspect they were both designed by the same person (NOT Loar) and possibly at the same time, just the F-5 production was delayed) had great eye for balance of curvature and relative dimensions but very few makers have or are following that closely.

----------

Hendrik Ahrend, 

Timbofood

----------


## Buck

> As per a recent thread regarding a Gibson employee signing their mandolin labels as an "Acoustic Engineer" (which they are not), maybe it is time for all owners of signed Gibson mandolins to file a class action lawsuit against Gibson for fraud or at least violation of licensing statutes in Tennessee.  It is my understanding that the use of the term "engineer" is illegal except for registered engineers ...... regardless of the modifier "acoustic" or any other one.  "Yes sir, your honor, I thought when I bought my F Style Master Model, that it was checked out and approved by a registered Acoustic Engineer!"


Engineering licensure is handled by each state, and some are more agressive about the misuse of the term than others.  Generally speaking, if services are offered publicly, you cannot call yourself an engineer unless you are registered/licensed to practice engineering in the state where the work is being performed.  There are no such restrictions on naming positions internal to a company.  So, if I employed someone in my own business, I could give that person the title of "Photocopy Engineer" for example.  That would not typically be a violation of state law.  Now, if my company publicly offered the services of our "Photocopy Engineer" or "Photocopy Engineering services" we'd be in trouble with the board of licensure.

I don't think any state has an Acoustic Engineer license.  Someone offering that service would typically be a mechanical or electrical engineer who specializes in acoustics.  Since Gibson doesn't offer those services publicly, I doubt their label is a violation of any state law.  That said, I'm not familiar with the licensure laws of every state.

----------

Austin Bob

----------


## slimt

> Not exactly to OP but...
> I don't know privileges but they certainly build to specs that their CNC staff loaded into machines. I'm not talking about sound as I haven't played recent Gibson (post 2010) in quite a few years but the scroll design of current production is, IMHO, one of the worst since 70's.
> I always told the guy who designed the original F-2/4 and F-5 (and I suspect they were both designed by the same person (NOT Loar) and possibly at the same time, just the F-5 production was delayed) had great eye for balance of curvature and relative dimensions but very few makers have or are following that closely.


Funny you should say that.   I dont think Loar built anything. Just signed his name on a label.   Im sure he had a part in the tone factor  but thats it. Just like todays Slash endorsing todays Les Paul with a few tweeks here and there and signing his name.    :D

----------


## Mark Gunter

> Wish someone would put this thread out of it's misery


 :Laughing:

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DaveGinNJ

> Funny you should say that.   I dont think Loar built anything. Just signed his name on a label.   Im sure he had a part in the tone factor  but thats it. Just like todays Slash endorsing todays Les Paul with a few tweeks here and there and signing his name.    :D


Wait, are you saying Slash doesn't make every one of those Les Pauls?  Next thing you are going to tell us is that he just does it for the money

----------


## DHopkins

> wait, are you saying slash doesn't make every one of those les pauls?  Next thing you are going to tell us is that he just does it for the money


omg!

----------


## Bill McCall

> Not exactly to OP but...
> I don't know privileges but they certainly build to specs that their CNC staff loaded into machines. I'm not talking about sound as I haven't played recent Gibson (post 2010) in quite a few years but the scroll design of current production is, IMHO, one of the worst since 70's.
> I always told the guy who designed the original F-2/4 and F-5 (and I suspect they were both designed by the same person (NOT Loar) and possibly at the same time, just the F-5 production was delayed) had great eye for balance of curvature and relative dimensions but very few makers have or are following that closely.


A quick look at page 1 of the Gibsons on the mandolin archive site shows quite a variation of the scrolls just in the 1922-early 1923 period.  Apparently they have lots of scroll designs to choose from :Smile:

----------


## HoGo

> Funny you should say that.   I dont think Loar built anything. Just signed his name on a label.   Im sure he had a part in the tone factor  but thats it. Just like todays Slash endorsing todays Les Paul with a few tweeks here and there and signing his name.    :D


I wrote "NOT Loar" in my post, perhaps you missed it...
I never suggested Loar really worked on these mandolin nor designed them. I guess he didn't do much more work on instruments other than testing/playing and taking notes of things for staff to adjust in production.

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

> A quick look at page 1 of the Gibsons on the mandolin archive site shows quite a variation of the scrolls just in the 1922-early 1923 period.  Apparently they have lots of scroll designs to choose from


Bill, with all due respect, I believe you're missing the point; please forgive my frankness. The scrolls may vary on the original F5s, but (e. g.) hardly any or even none of them has the binding mitre (of the body scroll) kink down like an eagle beak, as is visible in most any modern Gibson. Plus the scroll opening on the latter is soo wide in certain areas that I immediately get the idea about a big binding router, which went a bit too far (so only the very last bit of binding rabbet has to be carved out by hand). Check the scroll opening on the original F5s. In almost each case it starts at the 13th fret and hardly varies in width towards the mitre, where the bindings meet in two elegant curves, which never change their direction abruptly, much like a hyperbolic-logarithmic spiral. In my view, a fundamentally different approach on the originals. This does not only apply to the body scroll, but also to the whole treble side lower bout and both head stock scrolls, which look very different in modern Gibsons. No doubt that Adrian spent so much time looking at vintage F5s (or pics thereof) that he spots the differences from 20 feet away in a glance.

----------


## HoGo

> A quick look at page 1 of the Gibsons on the mandolin archive site shows quite a variation of the scrolls just in the 1922-early 1923 period.  Apparently they have lots of scroll designs to choose from


I have seen and deeply studied my share of these scrolls and made comparisons in computer and they ALL are based upon one design albeit not always executed with perfect precision. The flow of curves and balance of position of scroll on body is hard to beat, and even mandolins like Ellis or Collings with perfectly (machine) executed scrolls lack those curves and especially position relative to shape of body and fingerboard and from some angles they look like extraneous object added to perfect symmetrical a style body. That's what is in their design, not execution. The vintage F style body had the whole body outline adjusted with intentional asymmetry of curves to balance the presence of the scroll and points so the whole looks smoothly balanced.
The post flood Gibsons have unusually wide cutout inside the scroll that IMO totally kills the design. I guess that is where design was defeated by CNC machining guys to allow simpler cutting of he inside with thicker long router bit.

----------


## Bill McCall

> I have seen and deeply studied my share of these scrolls and made comparisons in computer and they ALL are based upon one design albeit not always executed with perfect precision................................
> The post flood Gibsons have unusually wide cutout inside the scroll that IMO totally kills the design. I guess that is where design was defeated by CNC machining guys to allow simpler cutting of he inside with thicker long router bit.


I was commenting only on the workmanship of the scroll and the variation in, uniformity of the clearance, and how the binding was cut and mitered.   In fact, I was looking to see if there was some consistency in the inconsistency of the builds that might have suggested attribution to one of the three builders (I believe there were 3 men who made the F-5s).  I'm sure they all worked from the same plan, and many parts were premachined before being sent for assembly, but the variation suggests that the inspectors and Lloyd Loar allowed for the variation of those appearance pieces, ie, they are not part of the vibrating surface (in the broadest term, I'm sure they vibrate some).  But they were made by hand to the shop tolerances, so they will and do vary.  After all, it was a factory.

I wasn't commenting at all on 1922-24 vs new Gibsons, Ellis, or anybody else.

How Gibson arrived at their design decision is unknown to me, but folks can vote by spending their dollars as they please.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if not the ear :Smile:

----------


## Luna Pick

I wonder how many non-Gibson mandolins and guitars were built since this thread started.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

What about mandolas and octaves?  I have a custom f-style octave mandolin.  Are Eddie Blevins and I going to jail?    :Smile:

----------


## Frankdolin

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict this threads demise in the not so distant future.

----------

june39

----------


## DHopkins

> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict this threads demise in the not so distant future.


Aw, c'mon, now.  It's not hurting anyone.  Every once in a while, there's an epiphany that makes it worthwhile.

----------


## Roger Adams

Oh well, it's good exercise beating on a dead horse!   :Laughing:

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Oh, just one more thing....
I watched an interview with Sierra Hull talking about her instruments. Her mandolin is a 2009 Master Model made by Dave Harvey. Anyone who finds any fault with that instrument is a world class nit-picker.
At some point after that one they seemed to change something that resulted in the new scroll look. Sure wish they'd go back to making them like hers. Then no one would have anything to complain about.

----------


## DHopkins

> Oh, just one more thing....
> I watched an interview with Sierra Hull talking about her instruments. Her mandolin is a 2009 Master Model made by Dave Harvey. Anyone who finds any fault with that instrument is a world class nit-picker.
> At some point after that one they seemed to change something that resulted in the new scroll look. Sure wish they'd go back to making them like hers. Then no one would have anything to complain about.


Maybe, maybe not.  There are those who would complain if you bought a new rope to hang 'em.

----------

Khatarlan, 

Roger Adams, 

Timbofood

----------


## Roger Adams

> Maybe, maybe not.  There are those who complain if you bought a new rope to hang 'em.


Truth!  :Laughing:

----------


## allenhopkins

> My first ever mandolin was a *Rouge* I bought off of amazon for about $50 new...


Maybe it wasn't properly made up -- er, _set_ up.  And how were the cosmetics?

By the way, it's *Rogue.*  "Rouge" is what ladies apply to their cheeks.

Sorry to be snarky, but I've seen one too many "Rouge" mandolin references.

----------

Jim Garber, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I'm thinking that Baton Rogue see's as many mistakes. It's easy for me, I grew up near the Rogue river that it's named after.

----------

allenhopkins, 

Timbofood

----------


## Jim Garber

I am thinking of selling a line of reddish mandolins called “The Rouge”. They will be French polished with an inlay of a pig wearing lipstick.  :Smile:

----------

allenhopkins, 

MikeEdgerton, 

Timbofood

----------


## DHopkins

> I'm thinking that Baton Rogue see's as many mistakes. It's easy for me, I grew up near the Rogue river that it's named after.


Do you really think people misspell Louisiana's capital or the river.  Well, yes, I guess they do.

----------

MikeEdgerton, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Several years ago a group played the Woodstown Bluegrass festival. The name of the band was The Red Stick Ramblers. There were probably three or four of us that got the joke.

----------


## Links

> Engineering licensure is handled by each state, and some are more agressive about the misuse of the term than others.  Generally speaking, if services are offered publicly, you cannot call yourself an engineer unless you are registered/licensed to practice engineering in the state where the work is being performed.  There are no such restrictions on naming positions internal to a company.  So, if I employed someone in my own business, I could give that person the title of "Photocopy Engineer" for example.  That would not typically be a violation of state law.  Now, if my company publicly offered the services of our "Photocopy Engineer" or "Photocopy Engineering services" we'd be in trouble with the board of licensure.
> 
> I don't think any state has an Acoustic Engineer license.  Someone offering that service would typically be a mechanical or electrical engineer who specializes in acoustics.  Since Gibson doesn't offer those services publicly, I doubt their label is a violation of any state law.  That said, I'm not familiar with the licensure laws of every state.


I think you are mostly correct, but I have dealt with the state of Tennessee over the issue of using a professional term.  In my case it was attaching the term "architect" with a modifier, much like attaching "acoustic" to the term engineer.  As the lady from the state explained to me, any modifier attached to architect implied that I was a registered architect in Tennessee.  I had to change my stationery when I worked in Tennessee to use the term "designer".  IN my case, it did not matter whether it was an internal term used in a company or me as an individual.  I could not use the term.  I would bet that the same applies to the term "engineer".

----------


## Links

> So, you would be suing because they sold you a great mandolin? (Derrington, Harvey, etc,....)


Jeff, I think you missed my entire point.  The point is not that I or anyone else was sold a great mandolin.  It is a push back for their bullying that has been taking place for many years now and in my case a little personal.  Regardless, if using the term "Acoustic Engineer" is a violation of the Tennessee licensing statutes, why should they be allowed to ignore it?  I can't.

----------

Jeff Mando

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Jeff, I think you missed my entire point.  The point is not that I or anyone else was sold a great mandolin.  It is a push back for their bullying that has been taking place for many years now and in my case a little personal.  Regardless, if using the term "Acoustic Engineer" is a violation of the Tennessee licensing statutes, why should they be allowed to ignore it?  I can't.


Sure, I get it.  I was just making a point.  My uncle is almost 90 years old and still is very proud of his engineering degree and injects it into conversation daily, although he has been retired for decades.  It is a source of pride and it is a territorial thing.  OTOH, my grandfather was an engineer and retired with that title from the railroad, although he held no college degree.  I don't know if Lloyd Loar was a licensed engineer or not, but it would seem at this point the title of "Acoustic Engineer" would be "grandfathered in" at least as it pertains to the Gibson job title, IMHO.  

I think it is just a fancy or honorary way of saying "Supervisor of the mandolin division" and signed as a way of being "inspected by...."  so to speak.

If I sketch out the plans for a dog house on my kitchen table and then buy the lumber and build it, well....I have "engineered" that dog house.  The term can be certainly be used without licensing or any certification.

Then again, nobody cares that Doc Watson wasn't a medical doctor.....

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Timbofood

----------


## ollaimh

> Makes me happy that the only corporate instruments I own (and I own quite a few instruments) are Fender and Godin.


well the extended godin family are nice people, i'm sure you know that.  boucher is one of their cousins or nephews.  but granddad godin had trained a dozen or more relatives.  he wasnted to build the quevecois guitarre  back during the rise of quebecois pride.  all the local folkies played his instruments.  good prices and everthing they design is well thought out.

----------


## Verne Andru

> well the extended godin family are nice people, i'm sure you know that.  boucher is one of their cousins or nephews.  but granddad godin had trained a dozen or more relatives.  he wasnted to build the quevecois guitarre  back during the rise of quebecois pride.  all the local folkies played his instruments.  good prices and everthing they design is well thought out.


I used to respect Godin. Bought several instruments of theirs over the years - expensive ones at that. Then I had a first hand experience with them and have since put them on my "don't buy list."

My son bought an Ami parlor guitar. We took it to my luthier (ex-Larivee guy and the best in town) who did a setup and got it playing nice. Year or so later I noticed a bump at the back of the headstock.

Contacted Godin customer service which turned out to be the most horrible I've ever experienced. The repeatedly denied any responsibility. After making some noise they agreed to take it back for inspection.

They concluded the truss-rod had broken the neck (duh) and it wasn't something they would fix, replace or warrant in any way - they simply send it back and said "tough luck."









I've visited their booth at the NAMM show many times and find them to be full of themselves and very condescending so, based on first-hand experience, I'll never buy another Godin product - period!

----------

