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 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.
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.
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.
Mandolin Cafe - Since 1995
Facebook - Instagram - Threads
Mandolin Cafe Case Stickers
Mandolin Cafe Store
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.
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."
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.)
Last edited by Gan Ainm; Jul-01-2019 at 3:54pm.
Gan Ainm
AKA Colin, Athens GA and Nelson Co. VA when I can
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.
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?)
Gan Ainm
AKA Colin, Athens GA and Nelson Co. VA when I can
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.
Not all the clams are at the beach
Arrow Manouche
Arrow Jazzbo
Arrow G
Clark 2 point
Gibson F5L
Gibson A-4
Ratliff CountryBoy A
The small builder using the Gibson name on a mandolin headstock today would be an exception, not the norm.
Russ Jordan
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.
Many thanks to Steve Carlson for weighing in. I've owned a few Flatirons and every one was special. Steve is the real deal.
..... f5joe
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”.
"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.
Last edited by stinkoman20xx; Jul-02-2019 at 7:27am.
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.
----
Playing a funky oval-hole scroll-body mandolin, several mandolins retuned to CGDA, three CGDA-tuned Flatiron mandolas, two Flatiron mandolas tuned as octave mandolins,and a six-course 25.5" scale CGDAEB-tuned Ovation Mandophone.
Love mandola?
Join the Mandola Social Group!
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.
1999 Buckeye #18 (Bucky)
198x Flatiron pancake mandola (no name)
2020 Kentucky 252 oval hole (Aurum)
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
Not all the clams are at the beach
Arrow Manouche
Arrow Jazzbo
Arrow G
Clark 2 point
Gibson F5L
Gibson A-4
Ratliff CountryBoy A
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.
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.
Bookmarks