Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 84 of 84

Thread: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

  1. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,199

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Gibson wasn't competing with anyone about what the scroll looked like. I've pointed out before that IMO the teen ovals usually had much better scrolls. I think workmanship in those days was overall a little better. They just didn't have F-5's to build.

  2. The following members say thank you to Jim Hilburn for this post:


  3. #77
    Registered User lowtone2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    lower alabama
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    I have the Kentucky model that was loosely based on the Griffith. I don't know, but doubt that they paid a lot of attention to the thickness measurements. Anyway, I like it enough that I'm having Mike Black build me one of his A5s. I would love to at least hear the Vessel tribute.

    On that model the bridge is placed on the front slope, closer to the neck, instead of the top of the curve, in the middle of the plate. So, should it be fitted perpendicular to the slope of the top, or perpendicular to the plane of the body?

  4. #78
    Certified! Bernie Daniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Quote Originally Posted by pheffernan View Post
    It seems to me that you are making an argument of definition — that Gary has produced a “forgery” — only the definition that you introduced does not support your argument.
    I think you are making the point that there was no attempt of deceive?

    In fact, I would agree that is probably the case -- the builder was not trying to deceive anyone. Likewise, I don't believe I actually said the mandolin was a forgery. I think that I said it could easily be considered one though -- especially from a legal point of view.

    I was arguing that the attempt to sell, was not part of the definition of forgery. In fact, I believe that I acknowledged that I did not believe that it was the builder's intent i.e., to create a "forgery". If that was not clear then I state it again here.

    My main point was that the builder's intent in making the mandolin and/or the builder's skills as a luthier would likely not matter if legal action were to be taken by Gibson. If action were taken by Gibson only the facts, that a copyright was violated, would matter as it would enter the realm of law/litigation.

    The facts are (and everyone acknowledges this point) a copy of a copyrighted item was made apparently without permission and, as others have noted already if Gibson were it take an interest in this mandolin it could be unpleasant -- especially if the "hammer" came down. The intent and skills of the builder would likely not matter. Others have pointed out, and I concur, it was a risky thing to do and then to discuss in a public forum like this. Those seem to be points escaping many in this discussion?

    Many on this forum -- for good reason -- have been very vigilant and vocal about violations of copyrighted music or other artistic efforts -- how is this matter any different? Copyrights apply to other parts of society in addition to artists and songwriters. Whether one "likes" Gibson, or not, is irrelevant to the legality.

    As to the definition that I quoted, I repeat, it come verbatim from an on line dictionary version -- I think it was Merriam-Webster.
    Bernie
    ____
    Due to current budgetary restrictions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off -- sorry about the inconvenience.

  5. #79
    Registered Muser dang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Bernie, I always appreciate opinions, and I am trying to understand where you’re coming from. You stated earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    ....If I rob a bank because I want to give a million dollars to St. Jude's Children's Hospital is it OK? Laws are laws.

    But again what you do is your call -- I just don't see the logic or the reason for these tributes -- to use your term. I don't think it is the right thing to do. But as the previous poster said "carry on". I've had my say.

    ....
    I think we’d all agree theft is theft AND trademark infringement is a form of theft.

    It does seem a bit like we all want it not to be but this is pushing it. And I think Gary knows that. Heck, I feel like for some the mystique play into the desire!

    I guess my point is, there is only one person taking the risk here and he is aware. I don’t want anything negative to happen. I do want Gibson to make more mandolins and to offer mandolins that reflect their “golden age” and to once again serve their market. Or maybe they’ll call in the corporate lawyers and show us all how mandolins don’t fit into the “Gibson lifestyle” anymore and we’ll all move on and buy whatever they’re selling.

    In the mean time, I think we should all enjoy that Gary is so open and willing to share his knowledge and skills with the community as a whole to openly discuss and dissect.
    I should be pickin' rather than postin'

  6. #80
    Registered User William Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sugar Grove,PA
    Posts
    2,882
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    I'd have to say about 75% maybe more of Gibson banjos are not Gibson banjos but they say it on the headstock! Many builders in the late 60's-90's still put Gibson in the peg heads, Gibson wasn't making the best mandolins in those years! I had a military buddy who brought back a Martin from South Korea 20 years ago-it was a fake, he didn't know till I pointed things out! He thought he got himself a deal of a Martin! One used to be able to buy Martin guitar kits from Martin and buy the Martin pearl headstock inlay-I don't believe one can anymore! Same things with Violins of the 18th and 19th centuries-how many have fake Strad labels etc...

    Gary isn't passing this off as a Loar A-5, he's an artist that is showing his skill and attempt to recreate perhaps the only A-5 Loar of beauty! Gary has his labels in his tributes as well, mine is high up by the neck block saying what the F-5 is! Mine for instance is the closest to a real Loar I've seen but a trained eye who has seen many Loars would know this is not the real deal! Age is all part of the allure of the real Loars. Like Gary said he's only made so many tributes and not too many while the majority of his instruments have his name on the peg head! I think its flattery towards the Gibson's of old that he does this is nothing sinister! Heck even on Reverb right now there is a fake Gibson mandolin for sale-I've seen them on evilbay as well being/trying to be past off as the real thing.

  7. #81

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtone2 View Post
    On that model the bridge is placed on the front slope, closer to the neck, instead of the top of the curve, in the middle of the plate. So, should it be fitted perpendicular to the slope of the top, or perpendicular to the plane of the body?
    The bridge (and saddle) are fitted so that the mandolin intonates properly. That may or may not be exactly perpendicular, whether on your Kentucky, your future Mike Black A5, the Vessel tribute or the actual Griffith Loar.
    "I play BG so that's what I can talk intelligently about." A line I loved and pirated from Mandoplumb

  8. #82
    My Florida is scooped pheffernan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    3,079

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    I think you are making the point that there was no attempt of deceive?
    I think I am making the point that the absence of an intent to deceive nullifies the definition of forgery which you shared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    In fact, I would agree that is probably the case -- the builder was not trying to deceive anyone. Likewise, I don't believe I actually said the mandolin was a forgery. I think that I said it could easily be considered one though -- especially from a legal point of view.
    You did introduce introduce the term to the conversation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    Putting "The Gibson" on the head stock and signing Lloyd Loar on the label would under most situations constitute what would be called a forgery?
    And the boldface type was your choice as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    I was arguing that the attempt to sell, was not part of the definition of forgery. In fact, I believe that I acknowledged that I did not believe that it was the builder's intent i.e., to create a "forgery". If that was not clear then I state it again here.
    The “attempt to sell” was your own phrase, perhaps your interpretation of barry’s “attempt to pass it off as the original.” You are correct that “the attempt to sell” is not part of the definition; however, “for the purposes of fraud or deception” is part of the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    My main point was that the builder's intent in making the mandolin and/or the builder's skills as a luthier would likely not matter if legal action were to be taken by Gibson. If action were taken by Gibson only the facts, that a copyright was violated, would matter as it would enter the realm of law/litigation.

    The facts are (and everyone acknowledges this point) a copy of a copyrighted item was made apparently without permission and, as others have noted already if Gibson were it take an interest in this mandolin it could be unpleasant -- especially if the "hammer" came down. The intent and skills of the builder would likely not matter. Others have pointed out, and I concur, it was a risky thing to do and then to discuss in a public forum like this. Those seem to be points escaping many in this discussion?

    Many on this forum -- for good reason -- have been very vigilant and vocal about violations of copyrighted music or other artistic efforts -- how is this matter any different? Copyrights apply to other parts of society in addition to artists and songwriters. Whether one "likes" Gibson, or not, is irrelevant to the legality.
    I don’t think that anyone here has disagreed that Gary is incurring a certain amount of risk with this tribute, particularly given the litigious nature of Gibson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel View Post
    As to the definition that I quoted, I repeat, it come verbatim from an on line dictionary version -- I think it was Merriam-Webster.
    I don’t doubt the accuracy of the quotation or the authority of the source, just its application to this case. To quote the great Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
    1924 Gibson A Snakehead
    2005 National RM-1
    2007 Hester A5
    2009 Passernig A5
    2015 Black A2-z
    2010 Black GBOM
    2017 Poe Scout
    2011 Passernig F5
    2018 Vessel TM5

  9. #83
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,199

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    Another question is are you taking business away from Gibson. I say no since Gibson doesn't now nor have they ever except for one time offered an instrument like this. Only a handful of customers are going to have an interest in what is clearly a replica, not a forgery.

  10. #84
    Administrator Mandolin Cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Posts
    2,330
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute

    We've confirmed that multiple offers have been entertained for the instrument in question. For that reason this topic is now in violation of Forum posting guidelines and is closed and shall not be resurrected elsewhere within this site. As we already stated: talking about these (choose the term of your choice: forgery, fake, "tribute," whatever) is one thing. Leveraging any part of the site for purposes of selling what this is has never been permitted.

    From the Forum Guidelines:

    - Refrain from using the forum as a market place, ie., a resource for selling, purchasing or trading. Please limit selling, buying and trading activities to the Classifieds section of this web site or other external locations.

    From the Classifieds Guidelines:

    - Fake or counterfeit copies of instruments with company logos are not allowed.

    and

    - No ad promoting activities that would be illegal under the laws of this State or Province, this Country, or of the state or country of domicile of the person posting the ad shall be allowed.

  11. The following members say thank you to Mandolin Cafe for this post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •