IMHO, Gibson has every right to defend their designs, and intellectual property. Better late, than never.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbd1trNz9bY
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a vet.
Been discussed to death, but I just noticed while searching for a 50's Gibson ES-295 (a somewhat rare guitar only made from 1952-1958) on Google images that, yep, sure enough, our friends in China make a very nice looking copy (counterfeit with Gibson name) for around $300 which includes shipping to USA. Not only that, they are offering it in colors that were never available in the 50's.
Even so, I'm scratching my head thinking what is the worldwide market for a such a guitar? Can they hope to sell 50 of them? 500? Doubtful IMHO, but they are doing it anyway.
Of course, a Les Paul copy or ES-335 copy for $300 would sell a lot, IMHO, so......................
Should Gibson be mad? Of course!
Can they do anything about it? Doubtful, past internet video threats, IMHO........
Like I say, to most people $300 sounds a lot better than $5-6K
And, I've handled and set up a bunch of these guitars -- not a Gibson -- but for the money, a great value. Imagine if Epiphone said Gibson on the peghead instead of Epiphone...........on top of that on the back of the peghead it is stamped "Made in the USA" instead of made in China -- sure, it's a dirty lie, but a very soothing and reassuring one to USA buyers, IMHO......
I should add, it has taken 50 years for "Made in Japan" to symbolize quality to most guitar buyers, so made in China might take a while.....
Last edited by Jeff Mando; Mar-07-2020 at 10:33pm.
China has had a very long history making classical stringed instruments, and if I’m not wrong, Eastman was one of them. The viola I bought my daughter years ago dusted instruments at twice the price. $4500 wasn’t chump change to me then or now, but it taught me that the Chinese can make whatever level instrument you want them to. Northfield is a prime example.
But putting a Gibson logo on a cheap knockoff is wrong and always will be. It’s good to see Gibson trying to make up for past PR blunders.
As far as the scroll, I hadn’t noticed, so I guess it hasn’t bothered me. I have noticed other builders however, and I’m not above a logo I don’t like being a deal breaker.
Silverangel A
Arches F style kit
1913 Gibson A-1
Getting into this on the 34th page is probably redundant -- ah, hell -- Apologize if I'm re-covering stuff that's already been discussed.
1. Failing to patent, trademark or copyright a major design element, like the F-model mandolin design, was a dumb oversight on Gibson's part, well over a century ago. Orville Gibson's only patent for mandolin design covers carving the entire mandolin body's back and sides from a single piece of wood, rather than glueing the sides to the back and top. It was clearly intended to counter the common bowl-back construction of the period (1898), and the bent-top, flat-back instruments that were derived from the bowl-back template. It doesn't refer to the F-style scrolled designs that Orville produced, or that the company bearing his name made just a few years after the patent was filed.
2. And that horse is miles down the road, so trying to secure the barn door is futile. Had Gibson gone after some of the US makers, like D'Angelico, that started making mandolins clearly based on the Gibson F-model around WWII, they'd have a firmer leg to stand on today, in threatening other mandolin builders, whether US or foreign. They didn't.
3. Companies -- Xerox, Kimberly-Clark (Kleenex), Bayer (aspirin) come to mind -- have been more or less successful in keeping their trademarks from "going generic," losing their exclusive right to use them as they pass into "generic" usage. "Aspirin" is still a registered Bayer trademark in other parts of the world, not here in the US. If you don't defend your right to exclusive use of a brand or a design, shame on you if others scoop it up and copy it.
4. None of the above allows anyone else to label an instrument "Gibson," other than the Gibson company. When Walter Taylor split from his vintner family and became an independent winemaker, the courts said he couldn't put his name on the bottles. He finally got a court to agree that he could put his name on his Bully Hill wines, but only in small print, and only with a disclaimer that he wasn't affiliated with Taylor Wines (then owned by Coca-Cola). So even if your name were Jimmy Gibson, you can't affix it to the mandolins you build -- unless, perhaps, you make the logo very small, and state that Jimmy G isn't affiliated with Gibson Inc.
Allen Hopkins
Gibsn: '54 F5 3pt F2 A-N Custm K1 m'cello
Natl Triolian Dobro mando
Victoria b-back Merrill alumnm b-back
H-O mandolinetto
Stradolin Vega banjolin
Sobell'dola Washburn b-back'dola
Eastmn: 615'dola 805 m'cello
Flatiron 3K OM
Northfield has 5 employees and company co-owners in their Qingdao shop, all highly skilled career luthiers, some of them very fine musicians. Seven total in U.S. which includes four employees performing non-luthier work. 50% of Northfield's total output of around 300 mandolin family instruments per year is in Michigan. The wood for their China shop is shipped from the U.S., detail work and final set-up is handled in U.S. Contrast this to Eastman, which builds very fine mandolins, but is a massive company by comparison with only administrative offices in the U.S. No company building mandolins has a business model like Northfield. Painting them with a broad brush that five people represent what a nation of 1.4+ billion can do, I can't agree with any of that as being a prime example.
Mandolin Cafe - Since 1995
Facebook - Instagram - Threads
Mandolin Cafe Case Stickers
Mandolin Cafe Store
Adrian
As per a recent thread regarding a Gibson employee signing their mandolin labels as an "Acoustic Engineer" (which they are not), maybe it is time for all owners of signed Gibson mandolins to file a class action lawsuit against Gibson for fraud or at least violation of licensing statutes in Tennessee. It is my understanding that the use of the term "engineer" is illegal except for registered engineers ...... regardless of the modifier "acoustic" or any other one. "Yes sir, your honor, I thought when I bought my F Style Master Model, that it was checked out and approved by a registered Acoustic Engineer!"
Linksmaker
I would be thankful. Not resentful. After all , its not the builders problem this or anything took place. Its managements issue. I have no issue in a firm looking after there property. But think it through first before threatening everyone . That damage is in most cases not reversable.
You missed the point.
I've had an opportunity to play and examine more then 30 Gibson Master Model mandolins and mandolas signed by Lloyd Loar.
If I compare a well set-up Lloyd Loar F5 (that was not depreciated by inexpert repairs) to the later production by Gibson, sorry to say, I cannot see ANY mandolin of the same quality.
The Gibson has had for sure their up and down periods. I say that even the really great mandolins from the best modern periods (Steve Carlson Era or Derrington Era) actually never reached the tonal qualities of the Lloyd Loar mandolins. The tonal qualities I talk about are scientifically measurable. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. I would rather not talk more of the current era (approx. 2010 and later) that I consider one of the big downs.
The main thing I wanted to say it that the Gibson should make effort to regain the knowledge they used to have in the 20's to be able to build mandolins that players truly wish to play instead of dominating through threatening the builders who often make much better jobs then they do these days.
Give them 90 years.
If you look back through some of the numerous threads about the efforts that have been made to return the caliber of the Gibson mandolin back to its height I do not think you would be quite so critical.
Efforts to restore the synonymous nature of name and quality have been going on since the ‘70’s. That was the beginning of the return to save the F-5 from the depths of neglect it had suffered at the hands of disinterested number guys. Messers Siminoff, Halsey, and Cowles put forth Herculean efforts to get the company to see that it was still a viable product which deserved to be restored to some higher regard.
All these gentlemen and the fine visionary's at the company since, Mr. Derrington, Mr. Harvey, et al. deserve a rousing round of applause from the mandolin community for their understanding and appreciation of the original design. Indeed they have spent time and effort based on making the company’s product worthy of praise and a certain degree of adoration.
Had the F-5L not been championed almost forty years ago, I think it very well may have died.
Thanks to all of you who went to bat for the instrument which has been an inspiration for so many!
Last edited by Timbofood; Mar-09-2020 at 7:23am.
Timothy F. Lewis
"If brains was lard, that boy couldn't grease a very big skillet" J.D. Clampett
That opinion is shared by many. One of the reasons you can't buy a Loar for the price of a Derrington M.M.
That's an interesting statement. Have those scientists been able to control for state of wakefulness? How does a fully alert Derrington stack up against a L.L. in full R.E.M. sleep?
"I play BG so that's what I can talk intelligently about." A line I loved and pirated from Mandoplumb
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 tried to add a video of Dave Harvey speaking to some music store owners but ended up with a Thile video instead. Will try again.
Worth a few minutes.
[/QUOTE]That's an interesting statement. Have those scientists been able to control for state of wakefulness? How does a fully alert Derrington stack up against a L.L. in full R.E.M. sleep?[/QUOTE]
I'm talking of the science and knowledge rooted in modern acoustic physics & top level Italian / European violin building, not in cognitive psychology. Stay in the realm of myths and fairy tales if you wish ;-)
Wish someone would put this thread out of it's misery
There are those who say there's not a single Gibson that will equal any Gilchrist. Or maybe any Ellis will beat any Gilchrist or Gibson
What's amazing is they're completely right...at least according to their ear. Or, they're completely wrong according to someone else's ear. It's all subjective and maybe even a matter of luck. I'd be willing to bet Mike Edgerton's paycheck that there's probably a Rogue or Savannah mandolin somewhere out there that sounds better than any of them.
Different tastes, hearing abilities and prejudices govern the perceived sound quality so everyone here is right...or wrong, depending on who you talk to.
David Hopkins
2001 Gibson F-5L mandolin
Breedlove Legacy FF mandolin; Breedlove Quartz FF mandolin
Gibson F-4 mandolin (1916); Blevins f-style Octave mandolin, 2018
McCormick Oval Sound Hole "Reinhardt" Mandolin
McCormick Solid Body F-Style Electric Mandolin; Slingerland Songster Guitar (c. 1939)
The older I get, the less tolerant I am of political correctness, incompetence and stupidity.
Last edited by MikeEdgerton; Mar-09-2020 at 2:51pm.
"It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
--M. Stillion
"Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
--J. Garber
My first ever mandolin was a Rouge I bought off of amazon for about $50 new. It was a contender for the worst instrument I ever owned (although was maybe edged out by an unplayable Washburn travel "guitar" that smelled like benzine and made me nauseous whenever I approached it). I wouldn't wish that mandolin on David Grisman's worst enemy.
Bookmarks