Does The Word "Lawsuit" Really Make You Think a Guitar Is Somehow Better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buck62
  • Start date Start date
Buck62

Buck62

噛んでくれ
I'm really getting sick of the word "lawsuit" being attached to every fourth guitar being sold on Ebay. The fact is, Gibson has sued just about everyone who has ever manufactured a guitar that is, in any way, similar to one of theirs. Therefore, any guitar similar to a Gibson model is a "lawsuit model." Does that somehow make the guitar any better? I highly doubt it.

I've even seen people use the words "lawsuit model" on crap guitars that nobody would ever sue over. Of all these "lawsuit" guitars, do you really think the seller could actually prove that his or her guitar is an actual "lawsuit model?" I seriously doubt it. Even if it is.... SO FREAKIN WHAT!??!!!

The bottom line is that the word "lawsuit" attached to a guitar's description is a buzz-word that is supposed to imply that it's a dead-on copy (or perhaps, even better) than the guitar it is a copy of. I'm not saying that this hasn't happened before, because everybody knows that the Norlin-era Gibson guitars from the mid to late 70's were pretty much crappy-ass guitars and that there were a few companies like Aria that were making better Les Pauls at the time. But, except for a few isolated, genuine cases, those who are "in the know" know that 95% of the guitars being sold with the words "lawsuit model" in their description is a line of bullshit to jack up the value of a guitar that is, in no way, near the quality of the original. If I ran Ebay, I'd make sure it was in the contractual rules that anyone selling a guitar with the words "lawsuit model" better be able to prove that it, indeed, is an actual "lawsuit model" by providing a copy (or at least a PDF file link) to the lawsuit itself.

Ok, rant over.

Discuss if you like.
 
This thread closely resembles another thread that I read here, and may even be a better thread. Therefore, I"m declaring this a "lawsuit thread" in order to generate more interest in its content.

But seriously, I think that you can contact eBay and they just might listen about a situation like this. I know that false representation of an item in just about any form is against their policy. Let them know and see if they respond or show any interest.
 
This thread closely resembles another thread that I read here, and may even be a better thread. Therefore, I"m declaring this a "lawsuit thread" in order to generate more interest in its content.

But seriously, I think that you can contact eBay and they just might listen about a situation like this. I know that false representation of an item in just about any form is against their policy. Let them know and see if they respond or show any interest in the thingy that you were talking about.

Moded to be a "lawsuit post"
 
I would guess that most of the time it is merely a marketing ploy that many see through as you have.

rpe
 
Would it be more attractive if it said "Free Donut with every guitar sold!" ???
 
How about "6 guitar strings for sale. size .09 and up. If you use buy it now, will throw in cheap Gibson Knock Off."
 
That comes from the late 1970s when Ibanez was moving to get market share in the U.S. They had a great marketing plan - a Japanese factory owning a Spanish (well, sort of) name copying an American design and trading cash for market share - because they were building better guitars than Gibson. They were so good for a while that they caused real embarrassment. That led to the patent and copyright lawsuits, Ibanez altered its design, but its strategy paid off and it became a nationally - known brand with a bit of an outlaw cachet. The more nasty the litigation, the better they became known.

I have a friend who owns an Ibanez archtop electric from that era. It's a great guitar and is now worth about five times what he paid for it. Those are the original "lawsuit" models and the reason they are sought after is that Ibanez lost money building them - they put the bucks into quality to gain market share.

Once they had achieved some success, the numbers no longer worked as the transaction costs were becoming too high. So they settled the lawsuits, recalled the guitars and changed the design, going to a standard mass production. Except that they weren't "successful" in recalling all of the instruments. Those are now collectables.

Not every guitar from the 1970s is a "lawsuit" model. But the ones that were the subject of the original suits were unusually high quality instruments dumped on the U.S. market, probably in violation of the antitrust acts, and served to make the name known.
 
as a matter of fact, its just the "open book" portion of the headstock that was part of the "lawsuit" ... and about 90% of all junk sold on ebay aint lawsuit, b/c they dont have the gibson open book headstock.

btw the lawsuit was never ruled, as both parties came to an extra-courtal-agreement
 
Buck62 said:
. I'm not saying that this hasn't happened before, because everybody knows that the Norlin-era Gibson guitars from the mid to late 70's were pretty much crappy-ass guitars and that there were a few companies like Aria that were making better Les Pauls at the time. like.
Click to expand...

The Norlin-era's weren't that crappy. Some great recordings were made with them

The Who- Kids Are Alright
Whitesnake
Frampton Comes Alive
Ozzy Osbourne- Blizzard of Oz
various Thin Lizzy albums
Stone Temple Pilots- Core
 
Treeline said:
That comes from the late 1970s when Ibanez was moving to get market share in the U.S. They had a great marketing plan - a Japanese factory owning a Spanish (well, sort of) name copying an American design and trading cash for market share - because they were building better guitars than Gibson. They were so good for a while that they caused real embarrassment. That led to the patent and copyright lawsuits, Ibanez altered its design, but its strategy paid off and it became a nationally - known brand with a bit of an outlaw cachet. The more nasty the litigation, the better they became known.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right that there was a lawsuit against Ibanez by Gibson in the 70's. There was also a lawsuit against Aria and a few other guitar makers, too. But it's not because they were "so good." It's because the Norlin-era Les Pauls manufactured from the mid to late 70's were "so bad" that just making a guitar that was similar in design, but better in build quality/quality control (which Gibson was severely lacking at the time) was taking a huge bite out of Gibson's profits. Guitar players were unhappy when their new Gibson Les Pauls were literally "falling apart", so the word got out that the Japs were making Les Pauls the way Gibson had previously made them.... with high-quality fit and finish.

So, in essence, they weren't "better" than pre-1975 Gibson guitars by any means. But they were "equal in quality" to them at a time when Gibson's quality control was in the crapper. The lawsuits were sort of a diversion while Gibson restructured, regrouped and tryed to get ther quality control and their reputation back.
 
I remember playing a TAMA acoustic that was a dead ringer for a Martin D-45. That guitar was a killer. And remember when Takamine first hit the States? The logo was a script so similar to C.F. Martin that you simply could not tell at twenty feet.

Unless someone was playing it. :D
 
Treeline said:
That comes from the late 1970s when Ibanez was moving to get market share in the U.S. They had a great marketing plan - a Japanese factory owning a Spanish (well, sort of) name copying an American design and trading cash for market share - because they were building better guitars than Gibson. They were so good for a while that they caused real embarrassment. That led to the patent and copyright lawsuits, Ibanez altered its design, but its strategy paid off and it became a nationally - known brand with a bit of an outlaw cachet. The more nasty the litigation, the better they became known.

I have a friend who owns an Ibanez archtop electric from that era. It's a great guitar and is now worth about five times what he paid for it. Those are the original "lawsuit" models and the reason they are sought after is that Ibanez lost money building them - they put the bucks into quality to gain market share.

Once they had achieved some success, the numbers no longer worked as the transaction costs were becoming too high. So they settled the lawsuits, recalled the guitars and changed the design, going to a standard mass production. Except that they weren't "successful" in recalling all of the instruments. Those are now collectables.

Not every guitar from the 1970s is a "lawsuit" model. But the ones that were the subject of the original suits were unusually high quality instruments dumped on the U.S. market, probably in violation of the antitrust acts, and served to make the name known.
Click to expand...
I agree. I remember those ibanez "lawsuit" copies...they were a hell of alot better than the current epiphone copes.

I think "lawsuit" pertains more to an era of japanesse gibson copies, during the 70's, that were of very good quality (alot of gibsons from that era were not up to snuff).

I still wouldn't pay more than $200 for one though.
 
Tokai were Lawsuit because they started making strats & Teles better than Fender! Cheeky!:D Dont worry about Ebay, its always been one big drag:eek:
 
I outfitted the cables in my entire studio specifically with NotMonsters'
..so the whole place is done in 'lawsuit cables too.


:):D
 
I actually own a TRUE "lawsuit" Ibanez 1976 Precision Bass. It is THE LAST official year before they chenged the headstock and controls as a result of lawsuit settlement.

I bought it in 1976 in NYC (home).

In 70's when Fender was bought out their basses were CRAP. So I bout my 1976 Ibanez because it was a better made bass than was the 1976 Fender! And a lot cheaper to boot!

I get so peeed everyone claiming lawsuit this and that when their dates are ALL screwed up. If you have a 1977 or later ANYTHING then it is NOT a "lawsuit" model.

If you look closely at a lot of old music vids from that period... you'll see a lot of bands were playing these Ibanez models, sex pistols, clash (VERY popular in Great Britain... Japan import versus U.S. import), Ramones, Talking Heads, etc.

btw - My bass and I will only part when I die - and then my son's got dibs! :)
 
There ought to be a lawsuit against digging up old threads and posting like the last entry was 3 hours ago, instead of 3 years. :D:rolleyes:
 
Lawsuit Guitars or Not

Well this is a very interesting thread. I do see alot of crap on EBAY claiming "Lawsuit Edition" but when you look at the specs they are so wrong.
As for me I do own a "TOKAI Custom Edition (Early 60's Strat Copy). As some may know TOKAI was sued by Fender in the 80's over the headstock of these models and in 1984 the design was changed from fenders design to settle this dispute. Mine does have the original design that was in the Court Battle.
Now does that make this any more expensive or sought after?? I really don't care because this guitar plays as well as any strat I have played and sounds wonderful. If yas wanna see pics of this model with the shiney gold pickguard and setup just let me know and I will post some.
thanks and keep up the good discussion.. Rock On :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top