Gibson is not a good company.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Baxendale
  • Start date Start date
What dean really needs to argue is that the shape has practical applications for players, thus making it eligible to patent rather than trademark.

And of course, the patent would have expired long ago!
 
VomitHatSteve said:
What dean really needs to argue is that the shape has practical applications for players, thus making it eligible to patent rather than trademark.

And of course, the patent would have expired long ago!
Click to expand...
Gibson should just shove it.
 
Gibson have been the law suit filingest mofos in the guitar business. I love les Paul's and V's but their guitars are way over priced.
Back in the late 70's and early 80's Japanese were producing very close high quality les paul replicas and selling them for a fraction of the price. Actually at one point the jap guitars were better quality than what Gibson was putting out. That's when the lawsuits started.
Gibson did create the shapes for the les paul, the flying v, the sg, and the explorer.
But really, there are a limited number of basic shapes that a guitar body can be and still look good and be comfortable
 
Last edited:
Papanate said:
Why because they defend their trademarks?
Click to expand...
No because they are not a good company. I was a Gibson warranty center for years and the ended up ripping me off for thousands by pitting me between their customers and their incredibly shitty QC. I had a shop in a store that was a Gibson dealer and they would send the worst problematic acoustic guitars with the necks set back too far that had bridges and saddles too tall and tops that would instantly sink in making them unplayable. These guitars would sell and two weeks later be in my shop for warranty work with the tops collapsing. Then they wouldn’t pay the repair bill or honor the warranty, and the customer left the shop pissed off at me.

This is one of many examples of how they are a bad company.
 
In the end, I think Dean will win the case. One of the biggest issues is that the trademark wasn't submitted until 1994 and it wasn't issued until 1996. They didn't register it until 30 years after they started making them. Dean has been making their version of the V since 1977. So Dean has almost 20 years of prior usage. Had Gibson trademarked their guitars in the late 50s or early 60s, then they would have something to complain about. They are trying to litigate a trademark retroactively.
 
TalismanRich said:
In the end, I think Dean will win the case. One of the biggest issues is that the trademark wasn't submitted until 1994 and it wasn't issued until 1996. They didn't register it until 30 years after they started making them. Dean has been making their version of the V since 1977. So Dean has almost 20 years of prior usage. Had Gibson trademarked their guitars in the late 50s or early 60s, then they would have something to complain about. They are trying to litigate a trademark retroactively.
Click to expand...
I was an expert witness in a lawsuit where Gibson was trying to sue a toy maker who made a slash doll and the doll is playing a guitar shaped kinda like a Les Paul. The toy company laughed their asses right out of court.
 
In the Japanese guitar lawsuit it reverted to just the open book headstock design. I think it was against Ibenez. So, Ibenez, Yamaha, Greco, Tokai, and other Japan guitar makers, just slightly changed the headstock and kept making the really good les paul copies. Not a peep out of Gibson after that.
I will say that as good as those Japanese guitars were (and they were REALLY good by the late 1970's). The genuine gibson les pauls had superior pots and pickups.
Most serious players put good pots and Gibson humbucker pickups in them.
They still had a fine les paul for the fraction of the cost after that upgrade though.
 
Last edited:

Here is a greco Ace Frehley les paul custom from 1979. It is a thing of beauty man! It took the Japanese from around 1973 to about 1977 to really nail those les paul copies... right up to the 2 screw bell shaped truss cover. I think from 77 to about 82 they were turning out les pauls that were better than the Norlin era les pauls Gibson was turning out at the time. Or at least as good.
With the exception of the electronics. The electronics weren't really bad at all, just not quite as good as Gibson electronics
 
Last edited:
The videos of Gibson destroying guitars was enough for me.
Many of them could have been given to schools and/or charity with or without warranty, and they would have been praised for it.
Instead they trashed them. I don't understand that at all...
 
Dave Matthews said:
The videos of Gibson destroying guitars was enough for me.
Many of them could have been given to schools and/or charity with or without warranty, and they would have been praised for it.
Instead they trashed them. I don't understand that at all...
Click to expand...
It was a grotesque waste of resources.
 
I can see their point to some degree. If the guitars are sub-par, and they give them away, eventually someone will try to sell a guitar claiming it's a "real" Gibson. Then they get trashed because it's a guitar that has problems. I saw that very thing happen. Someone was given a guitar for free by the builder that had a slight twist to the neck. Several years later it popped up on a forum with a person buying in used and bitching about the twist in the neck, and not getting any factory support for it. It was a lose-lose for the builder.
 
TalismanRich said:
I can see their point to some degree. If the guitars are sub-par, and they give them away, eventually someone will try to sell a guitar claiming it's a "real" Gibson. Then they get trashed because it's a guitar that has problems. I saw that very thing happen. Someone was given a guitar for free by the builder that had a slight twist to the neck. Several years later it popped up on a forum with a person buying in used and bitching about the twist in the neck, and not getting any factory support for it. It was a lose-lose for the builder.
Click to expand...
They have problems with folks producing counterfeit products and those are the people who Gibson should be going after, not some boutique builders making single cut bodies with the so-called ‘open book’ headstock shape. I’ve seen flat out counterfeit Les Paul’s and J-50’s being sold in pawnshops as ‘new Gibson guitars’
 
Scott Baxendale said:
They have problems with folks producing counterfeit products and those are the people who Gibson should be going after, not some boutique builders making single cut bodies with the so-called ‘open book’ headstock shape. I’ve seen flat out counterfeit Les Paul’s and J-50’s being sold in pawnshops as ‘new Gibson guitars’
Click to expand...
I was commenting on their destroying their own guitars, rather than giving them away. It's not uncommon for a manufacturer to destroy product that is "off spec". It depends on what the issue is. Some things can be sold as B stock. I have seen guitars with a "2" stamped by the serial number to indicate that its a factory second. It might be finish flaw. scratch or aesthetic issue that doesn't affect the sound qualities of an instrument. But if it's something that compromises the playability or sound quality or some other critical aspect of the guitar, it's better to destroy it in my opinion.
 
Slightly on-topic. .

My '76 LP had the word 'second' stamped into the back of the headstock about 1/4-inch deep, horizontally, at the top. I bought it off a co-worker - with a small combo amp for $300. I never could tell if the guitar or just the neck was 'second'. Pawnshop verified authenticity. Sold it to a collector for $1600. When I told him it was a 'second', he chuckled and said all guitars are 'seconds' as soon as they leave the factory. He couldn't spot any imperfections either. Said it was most likely a flaw in the finish, so small we couldn't spot.
 
Back then Gibson guitars were labeled seconds only for finish flaws. Warped neck but perfect finish? No problem. I once had a beautiful black custom. She was a beaut. But……… one of the pearl inlays was in the wrong position. Not slightly crooked or offset, but completely in the wrong spot!
But yet they didn’t stamp that one as a second.
 
TalismanRich said:
I was commenting on their destroying their own guitars, rather than giving them away. It's not uncommon for a manufacturer to destroy product that is "off spec". It depends on what the issue is. Some things can be sold as B stock. I have seen guitars with a "2" stamped by the serial number to indicate that its a factory second. It might be finish flaw. scratch or aesthetic issue that doesn't affect the sound qualities of an instrument. But if it's something that compromises the playability or sound quality or some other critical aspect of the guitar, it's better to destroy it in my opinion.
Click to expand...
There is the famous video of a parking lot filled with Gibson guitars being run over by a big road steam roller.

In the 60’s-80’s Gibson stamped a #2 on the back of the headstocks for their B stock guitars. They may have had a blemish or uneven binding or something and were sold at a discount. Today they faux relic these and add an upcharge.
 
Scott Baxendale said:
There is the famous video of a parking lot filled with Gibson guitars being run over by a big road steam roller.
Click to expand...
That video was painful yet kind of exhilarating to watch :D

It was all those stupid Firebird X guitars or whatever they called them.

Here’s the video :D

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top