"Space age flat pick" I-Tone

[Bertram Henze]

...of a more esoteric nature such as ceramic.

If ceramic qualifies as esoteric already, how about casein?

[Phil Goodson]

I remember that when the Blue Chips initially came out, they were only offered in a thin version. I can't remember whether it was .040" or something similar. I waited till they made a version a little thicker, 50 & 60 and was glad that I did. I'm very curious about the IT, but I think I'll wait a little longer till a thicker version is offered. 40 just feels a little too thin between my fingers.

[keithb]

Here's my comparison video: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...tone-Pro-Plec)

[Nick Gellie]

I love the tall ships in the background in the demo video. Where did the pictures come from? I am a bit of a tall ships fanatic and I love model sailing boats,

[Mark Wilson]

For those of you thinking about making your own picks out of polyimide plastic (say, Vespel or Meldin), these "space-age" materials can be purchased in small sheets from a number of suppliers, for example, here .

But please note that a (10" x 10") sheet of VESPEL SP-1, with a thickness of 0.062" (1.57 mm; perfect for making CT55's or suchlike) costs $1,100.00!! You could probably CNC machine about 100 picks from such a sheet, and that would bring your materials costs down to $11 per pick. Definitely not cheap! If we estimate the labor cost at around the same number, then its costs the maker at least $22 per pick out the door, before factoring in overhead, advertising, and all that. Small wonder, then, that a commercial pick made from polyimide goes for around $35. Maybe now we'll hear less whining about the price of a BlueChip? But probably not.

Here's a new pick maker reportedly using the same material as BC and RB. Cheaper but less refined just looking at pictures.

I'll stick with the BC TAD50-1R, but I am ordering a TAD48-1R(custom thickness) to try.

[Phil Goodson]

Here's a new pick maker reportedly using the same material as BC and RB. ....[/SIZE]

Reported by whom? I have not found any information about what material they are using; have heard only speculation.

[Tom C]

I ordered mine a week ago and still have not gotten it.

[sblock]

Here's a new pick maker reportedly using the same material as BC and RB. Cheaper but less refined just looking at pictures.

I'll stick with the BC TAD50-1R, but I am ordering a TAD48-1R(custom thickness) to try.

"...reportedly using the same material as BC and RB"? I don't think so! Their website doesn't say that at all -- it makes no mention of materials. Wherever did you get that from? The materials sure don't look like the one used by Red Bear (casein), nor like the different one used by BlueChip (polyimide). The BlueChip plastic material is protected by a patent, in fact. Interested readers might want to read the Goins patent, found
here .

[FrontRangeMando]

The BlueChip plastic material is protected by a patent

The Blue Chip plastic itself is not protected by a patent. Polyimide and graphite loaded polyimides at 15% and 40% under the trade names listed in the patent are commercially available to anyone.

The patent protects the use of these materials in "a pick for use with a stringed instrument." Buy all of the graphite loaded Meldin you want, just don't make a pick out of it.

[Jim Garber]

If you are interested in the patent you can read it here:



Speaking of Charmed Life picks (linked above) the guy who sells those posted on Acoustic Guitar forum last year questioning the Blue Chip patent.

[Mark Wilson]

Reported by whom? I have not found any information about what material they are using; have heard only speculation.

Just forum rumors. If you read their 'about' they hint that as well. Not interested myself just responding to comment that you could buy a sheet of the material etc etc. Sorry

[Mandolin Cafe]

If you are interested in the patent you can read it here:

Speaking of Charmed Life picks (linked above) the guy who sells those posted on Acoustic Guitar forum last year questioning the Blue Chip patent.

Nice to know a cursory glance of that page and we learn the Mandolin Cafe has not cornered the market in bluster. Carry on.

[sblock]

Let me correct some misunderstandings:

1) Yes, under U.S. law, it is perfectly valid to patent a new and previously unexplored use of an already-patented or trademarked raw material, like Vespel or Meldin polyimide plastics. No one had produced a flatpick from these materials before Mr. Goins, to my knowledge, so it would seem to be a patentable idea.

2) If you want to buy some polyimide (like Vespel or Meldin or Plavis) and then use it make your own flatpicks, you are perfectly within your rights to do so -- this does not violate the patent in any way. What you may not do is SELL these picks for money, if they are patent protected. You could give them away to your friends as presents, though.

[FrontRangeMando]

My apologies for being "that guy," but technically I'm not sure you can even give them away (or make them for yourself).

I'm not a lawyer but I can Google. From the US Trademark And Patent Office definition of trademark infringement:

"Patent infringement is the act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention, or importing into the United States a product covered by a claim of a patent without the permission of the patent owner...Further, actively encouraging others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases."

https://www.uspto.gov/patents-mainta...t-infringement

As a practical matter this may not be a big deal, but here at the MC I'm sure we can discuss this for a couple more pages at least.

Also, my apologies to the I-Tone folks for being an accomplice to thread jacking. I used your pick in church on Sunday and really liked the tone and volume it gave my mandola in that large, open space.

[sblock]

My apologies for being "that guy," but technically I'm not sure you can even give them away (or make them for yourself).

I'm not a lawyer but I can Google. From the US Trademark And Patent Office definition of trademark infringement:

"Patent infringement is the act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention, or importing into the United States a product covered by a claim of a patent without the permission of the patent owner...Further, actively encouraging others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases."

https://www.uspto.gov/patents-mainta...t-infringement

As a practical matter this may not be a big deal, but here at the MC I'm sure we can discuss this for a couple more pages at least.

Also, my apologies to the I-Tone folks for being an accomplice to thread jacking. I used your pick in church on Sunday and really liked the tone and volume it gave my mandola in that large, open space.

Well, yes and no! There exists an exemption for making patented items intended for "research purposes." (University scientists use this exemption all the time). So, if you make it yourself for the purpose to testing its effectiveness compared to other picks, you are probably standing on firmer legal ground. And as a purely practical matter, its costs lots and lots of money -- and time! -- for any patent holder to pursue an infringement case, and NO ONE is ever going to come after you, should you elect to make some picks for your own personal use. There would be nothing to gain in return, no profits of yours to garnish, and no real loss to claim on their part. No sensible lawyer would ever take on such a trivial case. It ain't ever gonna happen in the real world, believe me. So, go ahead and make your own picks if you want!! But realize that a thin sheet of Vespel, Plavis, or Meldin costs thousands of dollars, and so your materials cost per pick would quickly exceed $10 before you even started (see my post earlier in this thread). It's more cost-effective to just buy a BlueChip pick, and get on with the important pickin' to be done!

[Tom C]

I got mine yesterday and used it for a practice session. While it feels a lot like a BC, there is a huge difference in tone when dropped onto a table. The B.C sounds like a dull plastic tone where the iTone sounds a lot brighter (Almost ceramic sounding as somebody early stated, but tone very close when playing. I may favor BC, The BC seems to slide across strings better which can be due to pick shape. These are very, very close in thickness. The BC has more of a bowed point. I'll surely keep using it until I come to final conclusion.

[Jeff Mando]

<violates forum posting guidelines>

[foldedpath]

<violates forum posting guidelines>

[Mandolin Cafe]

Get it back on track. A reminder this is not a forum for expression of political views.

From the Forum Posting Guidelines:

Topics started for or end up being used to discuss religion, politics or sex as well as other hot button issues meant to create discord are prohibited. Posts or threads deemed inappropriate or unrelated to our subject matter are subject to immediate removal at the discretion of the forum owner and/or lead moderator.

[Ivan Kelsall]

I read the BC patent as applying to the use of the Polyimide material for 'picks',nothing else. They obviously can't patent the material.

I read the BC patent & although it addresses the pick 'thicknesses',i couldn't find any part that specified what 'shapes' were covered by it. I know that other makers make picks of the same shapes as BC,but not from the BC specified material ?. The patent refers to the pick in Fig. 1 the way through !. Are there further sheets to the patent ?. Shouldn't BC have shown the 'other' pick shapes to be covered by the patent ?. The only 'shape' they refer to is the shape of the edges Quote :- " More specifically, the pick 10 is resistant to Wear because it maintains its designed shape during use..".

Of course it will maintain it's 'peripheral' shape while in use,(unless your name happens to be Yuri Geller),so it must be the edge shape that the're referring to.


Have BC failed to cover all bases,or have i missed something ?. I'm reminded of the recent Gibson patent on the 'shape' of their "F" style mandolin headstock + the fern inlay,
Ivan

[sblock]

Ivan,

The BlueChip patent covers the novel use of a polyimide plastic to make a flatpick, citing the special mechanical properties (durability, lubricity, stiffness, etc.) of various commercial formulations of this particular material (e.g., Vespel, Plavis, Meldin). It also cites a range of thicknesses of that material that are most useful, but that is incidental. It is the specific use of this material for a flatpick that is the subject of this patent, and not the pick itself, nor its size and shape.

Importantly, the patent does NOT specify the shape of the pick, the type of edge bevel, nor any embossing/holes/grips that might be added. It does not need to specify these things, because these things are not being patented. Such attributes could not be patented, anyway, because the sizes, shapes, and bevels used for BlueChip picks are all a part of "prior art", and these things pre-date the development of the BlueChip pick by many years, as we all know!

So no, they did not miss something. Instead, I think you may have missed something (sorry, Ivan!), because their patent is not specific to a teardrop-shaped pick, nor to any other shape. It's just about the material used to make the pick.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Point taken !. But the 'use of that material' (point understood), still seems only to apply to a pick of the specific 'shape' in the BC patent. They haven't covered picks of other shapes made from the material - the two do go together.

It almost seems that by showing a 'specific' shaped pick,they've limited what pick shapes the patent will cover. It's a bit like somebody patenting the wheel & showing a wheel of 'one size & material only'. Unless it's stated that the patent will cover wheels of ''all diameters & widths & materials '',it's open day ! (IMHO).

Last year,the Gibson company patented the 'shape' (outline) of their F5 mandolin headstock & the 'Fern' inlay - so 'shapes', in essence a 'design',can be patented.

It's simply an argument that could be put forward,
Ivan

[Drew Egerton]

I got mine yesterday and used it for a practice session. While it feels a lot like a BC, there is a huge difference in tone when dropped onto a table. The B.C sounds like a dull plastic tone where the iTone sounds a lot brighter (Almost ceramic sounding as somebody early stated, but tone very close when playing. I may favor BC, The BC seems to slide across strings better which can be due to pick shape. These are very, very close in thickness. The BC has more of a bowed point. I'll surely keep using it until I come to final conclusion.

Thanks for sharing Tom!
Is the BC 40 your usual go-to pick? I am thinking that the I-tone is more of a contender for people used to that kind of 'thin' pick than it would be for me as I usually prefer the 60s. If it sounds like a pretty good thin pick, then it still sounds like a thin pick!
Any chance you can post a recording comparison?

[Tom C]

Lately it has been. I like the 2 different corners on the BC TP-1R (2 corners are the same, 1 more rounded). The thicknesses of these 2 are soooo close to each other. Even though the BC has a much duller tone when dropped on table, it may be the louder one when playing. Not much difference between in tone though when playing though. I need more time. $35 is not a big investment but I'm glad they don't have a bunch of different shapes right now . I've bought quite a few BC till I got one I was happy with. I listened to too many people and what they were getting."

[sblock]

Point taken !. But the 'use of that material' (point understood), still seems only to apply to a pick of the specific 'shape' in the BC patent. They haven't covered picks of other shapes made from the material - the two do go together.

It almost seems that by showing a 'specific' shaped pick,they've limited what pick shapes the patent will cover. It's a bit like somebody patenting the wheel & showing a wheel of 'one size & material only'. Unless it's stated that the patent will cover wheels of ''all diameters & widths & materials '',it's open day ! (IMHO).

Last year,the Gibson company patented the 'shape' (outline) of their F5 mandolin headstock & the 'Fern' inlay - so 'shapes', in essence a 'design',can be patented.

It's simply an argument that could be put forward,
Ivan

I am sorry to come across as so disputatious in this thread, but I feel a need to respond again to some misinformation. I apologize in advance for any apparent slight, but you are mistaken here, Ivan. Last year, the Gibson company trademarked their fern inlay headstock pattern (see here ). No, they did NOT patent it! (Besides, a fern headstock is not something that would be patentable, anyway). The rules about patenting and trademarking are quite different under the law. A "design," in the aesthetic sense that you've used above, is not something that's patentable, but it can nevertheless be trademarked, if unique. But a design, in the sense of a novel invention or process, can be patented. Patent and trademarks are subject to very different rules, and you can often arrange to pay royalties to use someone else's patent. You cannot tromp on someone else's trademark, however, and royalties don't apply there!

With regard to the Goins patent on polyimide picks, I think you have also confused "design," in its aesthetic sense, with design, in the sense of a novel process (i.e., the material used). Once again, this patent has nothing at all to do with the shape of the flatpick, which seems to be your overarching concern. Instead, it has to do with the material used to make the flatpick. So no, I regret to say that you are not correct when you assert that "Unless it's stated that the patent will cover wheels of ''all diameters & widths & materials,'' it's open day!" That's just not so. It is not necessary for Goins to include all possible shapes and sizes of his flatpicks in the patent when he seeks protection for the material used. Furthermore, it is not possible to patent the shapes and sizes of most flatpicks, anyway, because these designs are all prior art from the public domain. There is nothing novel about the shape of a triangular or teardrop flatpick, with or without bevels, etc.