This just showed up in my inbox re: Gibson guitars

[Jim Hilburn]

It's hard to imagine they would put any legal effort toward mandolins when they are basically ceasing production.

[Mandobar]

Any guess as to what they spent for thier 4K...

The retainer was probably at least $100k to start.

[Mandolin Cafe]

It's hard to imagine they would put any legal effort toward mandolins when they are basically ceasing production.

There is no mention anywhere of Gibson, in your words, basically ceasing production. They're fulfilling what orders they have in the pipeline and tooling up to be more historically accurate in terms of their mandolins and some guitars.

[rnjl]

What's interesting to me is re: Gibson retooling their mandolins is the implication that they think that new mando buyers want "historically accurate" copies of mandolins from the 1920's. But lots of people - including Gibson mandolin signature artists- want modern features like radiused fretboards, more rounded and less pointy V necks, larger frets, cast tailpieces, etc.

I mean, sure, if I inherited a Loar I'd play it*, but if I was buying a high-end F model I'd want all the above and not historical accuracy of what was made 99 years ago.

Or, to put it another way, neither Ellis, nor Gilchrist, nor Northfield, or other top-shelf mandolins are exact Loar reproductions, they also have modern features.

Just wondering out loud why Gibson thinks this is the money move.

Who knows?

Neal

* OK, not really. If I inherited a Loar I'd sell it, buy a custom F model for $5-7 K, a new gravel bike, a Martin 0000 and then I'd pay off the house with the rest.

[pops1]

* OK, not really. If I inherited a Loar I'd sell it, buy a custom F model for $5-7 K, a new gravel bike, a Martin 0000 and then I'd pay off the house with the rest.

I would have to keep it a while and play it a bunch first.

[Jeff Mando]

I guess the simple solution and to avoid conflict would be to just buy vintage.

If I wanted to get political and say I don't like the frivolous lawsuits of late, and therefore I will boycott new Gibson products -- it would only be a symbolic gesture, since I am only interested in buying vintage.

As far as the lawsuits being frivolous, I would argue that while the small details -- frets, radius, tailpiece, etc. -- are different, the basic body shape of Gilchrist, Ellis, Northfield and most others is an nearly exact tracing of the 20's Gibson F-5 shape. Why?, because people want an F-5 looking mandolin, regardless of who makes it. Nothing against those brands mentioned, they are all fine instruments, IMHO.

The difference between the so-called "lawsuit" made in Japan Les Paul copies of the 70's and a real Gibson is quite obvious to most anybody, even non-players. Yet, I'm sure those imports cost Gibson quite a few sales. The difference, as I see it, the "boutique" (for lack of a better word) mandolin makers of today can easily equal or surpass the quality of a genuine Gibson -- and some buyers might choose the boutique maker.

This has been discussed here quite a bit and doesn't seem to come down to what's right or wrong, but rather what can persuade a jury to decide one way or another....

[Mandobar]

I guess the simple solution and to avoid conflict would be to just buy vintage.

If I wanted to get political and say I don't like the frivolous lawsuits of late, and therefore I will boycott new Gibson products -- it would only be a symbolic gesture, since I am only interested in buying vintage.

As far as the lawsuits being frivolous, I would argue that while the small details -- frets, radius, tailpiece, etc. -- are different, the basic body shape of Gilchrist, Ellis, Northfield and most others is an nearly exact tracing of the 20's Gibson F-5 shape. Why?, because people want an F-5 looking mandolin, regardless of who makes it. Nothing against those brands mentioned, they are all fine instruments, IMHO.

The difference between the so-called "lawsuit" made in Japan Les Paul copies of the 70's and a real Gibson is quite obvious to most anybody, even non-players. Yet, I'm sure those imports cost Gibson quite a few sales. The difference, as I see it, the "boutique" (for lack of a better word) mandolin makers of today can easily equal or surpass the quality of a genuine Gibson -- and some buyers might choose the boutique maker.

This has been discussed here quite a bit and doesn't seem to come down to what's right or wrong, but rather what can persuade a jury to decide one way or another....

There are specific rules to establishing trademark rights. Part of the legal defense is if those steps have been followed.

[rcc56]

What Gibson has done right since the bankruptcy:

1. Closed the Memphis plant. But that's not good for the folks who lost their jobs.
2. Introduced a line of more affordable acoustic guitars.
3. Raised the wages of at least some of their more reliable workers.

What they've done that doesn't make sense to me:

1. Begun construction of a new corporate office in the most expensive section of town.
2. Alienated the rest of the industry, who were ready to welcome the new management, by continuing their adversarial activities.
3. Claiming that they wish to attract new dealers without changing their unsustainably expensive dealer requirements.
4. Ignoring changes in the market by failing to produce mandolins in larger numbers and affordable prices.
5. Ignoring changes in the market by failing to produce even one ukelele.

"New boss, same as the old boss."
Well, not quite, but not different enough.

Epiphone will keep them alive for a while longer, but sooner or later their profit/loss balance will fall too far in the red, and they'll be on the chopping block again.
Until then, they'll continue to portray the image of the biggest dog on the block. But it's only an image, and younger folks aren't dedicated to the Gibson name.
And if the parent company of Guitar Center/Musician's Friend ever decides that they don't want the tax write-off of their unprofitable box store operation anymore, Gibson will be in deep trouble.

[Mandobar]

Gibson has also bought Mesa Boogie, GWW, the case company and Ameritage. Their strategy seems a bit scattered.

[rcc56]

And they've sold Slingerland.
I don't know whether they're making Dobros this year or not. If so, they would be coming from the Epiphone factory.
They won't let me look at their websites without accepting cookies, which I'm not inclined to do right now.

One might think that a company that's still in a re-structuring process would avoid spending large sums of money on things like new corporate offices in the high rent district and specialty manufacturing companies that are for sale for one reason or another. [Anyone know whether Mesa and Ameritage were making a profit??]

I know, it's all being done on credit. But interest rates are going up. Of course, if you can bankrupt and walk away personally unscathed with a $5 million home and an investment portfolio financed from golden parachute money, who cares??

[Mandobar]

Last I looked the “Dobro” name and trademark still belonged to Bank of America.

[rnjl]

Jeff, I mostly agree with you. My point is that one would expect "historically accurate" repro's of 1920's mandolins to have the same frets, neck, tailpiece, fretboard, and so on. For many - not all- players these are not small details but important aspects of playability.

Totally agree with you that the florentine scroll- the F shape- is the main part of the design, but if they keep that (let's stipulate with Loar-like top graduations and bracing and woods) and change the other stuff, then it's not a historically accurate reproduction.

I got no dog in this, just wondering why they think exact Loar copies - historically accurate- is where their market is.

[rcc56]

Collings knows where the market is. They've been selling as many mandolins as they can make for a quite a long time now.
And maintaining prices that are a little lower than Gibson. And a high level of quality control.
You might like the Collings sound, you might not, but one must admit that they are instruments of high quality. And I've yet to see a new Collings product with factory blemishes.

Eastman and Kentucky [Saga] seem to be doing pretty well also.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it ironic that Gibson jealously protected the generic use of the term "dobro" and then proceeded to ruin the name by producing substandard instruments. I have a pre-Gibson Dobro, which is a decent enough instrument, that's been sitting on consignment unsold for over a year because buyers no longer want to even look at an instrument with the Dobro name on it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mary, I just did a search for new Dobro branded instruments, and GC and Sweetwater are both listing them. I don't know how long ago they were built, though. Maybe they're a couple of years old. Or maybe they sold the name back to Gibson cheap. No one else wants it.

[Jim Hilburn]

You shouldn't let your CNC decide the shape of your instrument. If Northfield can make a nice looking scroll then you'd think Gibson could.

[rcc56]

You know, Gibson-trashing is kind of fun.

Somehow, I don't feel any desire to trash Martin, Collings, Fender, or even Dean though.
Not even Kay . . . !

It might be fun to trash Washburn though . . . except they're already trash . . . Sorry about that . . . No, I'm not . . .

[Jim Hilburn]

I actually want to see them do well. I support American made products (when I can). Just make good stuff without telling others they can't make them too.

[dan in va]

Maybe the Harvey gang will be able to produce an accurate Griffin A5 Loar and true Loar F5's. The A5 is the favorite Loar of many who have played it, and a way to get the real deal without spending scroll coin. Everybody could ride if they do this thing well and make Dave and Charlie proud. Who wouldn't want the real deal at Gil/Monte/Dude prices? We'll see....

[Mandobar]

I’d like to see someone run that company that has an interest in making great instruments and puts a stop to the legal nonsense. Whatever happened to having a sane business plan that didn’t involve suing everyone in sight?

[Charlie Bernstein]

The PRS decision was reversed on appeal.

Hard to believe. Paul Reed Smiths have never had any appeal for me!

[Mandobar]

Hard to believe. Paul Reed Smiths have never had any appeal for me!

And yet, they seem to sell enough to stay in business and stay out of court. Maybe they can buy Gibson next time around.

[Mandobart]

The difference between the so-called "lawsuit" made in Japan Les Paul copies of the 70's and a real Gibson is quite obvious to most anybody, even non-players. Yet, I'm sure those imports cost Gibson quite a few sales.

Though I don't condone counterfeit or blatant knock-offs of established products/brands, I don't agree that a knock-off costs the original producer any sales. Many people that buy the knock-off simply can't afford the original. So the lack of a knock-off doesn't equal the purchase of an original - it usually equates to buying something else in the same price range as the knock-off.

[Mandobar]

Most of Gibson "knockoffs" (actually, I prefer to refer to them as "refinements") are far superior in quality and performance to what the company appears to be capable of these days. If Gibson spent more time, money, and efforts on improving, innovating and for heaven's sake QC-ing their products there might not be so many companies building "a better mouse trip."

One could make the argument that their loss on sales is entirely due to the operational structure of the company, by management design (too many lawyers and nearly not enough instrument builders). Their legal fees have to be astronomical.

At a certain point, a company needs to take a really long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why so many other companies within their industry are making similar products and outperforming them. Gibson, despite undergoing a major overall in management has never found that mirror.

[Jeff Mando]

Refinements or not, one can easily see why Gibson would want to eliminate all these companies/builders underfoot. I enjoy my vintage Gibsons, but don't have any interest in a new Gibson. I would rather spend my time chasing down a vintage one I haven't yet tried.

On the same token, I have no interest whether a boutique instrument has a better chime, cuts through the mix better, has a better chop, etc., than let's say (drumroll please) a vintage Gibson...UNLESS it could be made for a lower price than a Gibson, which usually is not the case with boutique builders. (again for lack of a better word...)

That's just me and I realize the hobby includes a broader scope of styles, sounds, and interests than I require...

Like I say, this has been discussed to death on this forum already...like so many topics....but it's what we do!

[Jim Hilburn]

I can have an over active imagination sometimes and I've imagined being the lawyer trying to defend the rise of the individual builder.
I would have 5 exhibits, a teens F4 to show where the F5 evolved from, a Loar (hopefully John Reischmans), a 40's F, a 50's F5, and a 70's F5.
Then John would be there to demonstrate the difference in sound and look. And the timeline juxtaposed against the evolution of the music that mandolins are used for.
What would the jury think? Would they get it or would they say "well they're all basically the same thing"?

[allenhopkins]

As far as mandolins are concerned, Gibson missed the boat, IMHO, by not going after all the builders who made instruments with the "F" silhouette, as soon as they came on the market. It's as distinctive as the Flying V or Explorer guitar shapes, and clearly traceable back to Orville G around 1900.

But once you tolerate other makers adopting (and adapting) your form of an instrument, as Gibson has done for perhaps 75 years, you can't "wake up" and say, "Hey, all you guys are ripping me off!" Whatever lock you put on the barn door, the horse is well down the road.

There was a little paved walkway next to a downtown building here in Rochester, that most pedestrians used as a shortcut between two streets. One day a year the building owners would barricade it, just to establish that it wasn't a public thoroughfare, regardless of how it was used the other 364 days. Once you tolerate others' use of your invention for an extended period, it's become publicly accessible.

I mean, "aspirin" started as a trademark. Not any more.