mcnach

No, but the main point is: a company (large or small) chooses what to do with their products, and if they are a large company with smaller subcompanies and they label their products differently, then that's what they are. Whether the products look alike or not is entirely irrelevant, but used by some to 'pretend' they have a Brand X product despite its Brand Y label. Of course, nobody says their Ferrari is a Fiat. However, I have heard many times how a Skoda is just like a particular VW or Audi, and Minis referred to as BMWs... Again, the direction is always the same: associate a perceived lower tier product with a perceived higher tier one. But you knew that already.

Just because you do not understand the question it doesn't make it moronic. Fiat owns Ferrari just like Fender owns Squier.

Both. But mostly a Fender guitar is a Fender guitar if the company decides to stick a big juicy Fender logo on it. Because only they have the right to make a Fender guitar, and they reserve the right to source their materials wherever they see fit. When the company sticks a Squier label on it, with or without "by Fender", then it is a Squier guitar. It's pretty simple. It's funny that some people would call their Squier a Fender... but the genuine Fenders that came out in the 80s with the "Squier series" smaller logo are never referred to as a Squier. You know exactly why. Any reason people come up with to call a Squier a Fender is just clutching at straws to make an instrument somehow seem to belong to a higher tier.

So by that reasoning, is a Fiat 500 a Ferrari then?

Oh, maybe I misunderstood, you added a link to the buyer's ad and labelled it as "the crook's ad" so I assumed you agreed with that label:

Me too. I think there's even someone here with an amazing story of a blue Ric where the blue was leaching into the neck binding and he was blamed for it. And quite a few reports of bridges bending... etc. But as a reason, it stood out as a good one.

That kind of baiting is very annoying and culprits should be shot.

I think the issue is more of a distinction between 1) made to be sold as a Brand X 'lookalike', and 2) made by an individual for their own purpose. Situation 1 is wrong. That's why Limelight had to backtrack and stop putting Fender logos on their basses... but they'd still "help a buyer apply their own Fender logo", as long as Limelight is not doing it (yes, we know...). Personally I don't mind enterprises like Limelight, because they very clearly state what they do and they do not attempt to pass their instruments for 'real' Fenders. Others (see plenty on AliExpress) are not so cool. Situation 2 is "ok". The thing is that one day they may decide to sell the instrument to another person. As long as the instrument is described accurately, I can't see the problem, personally. It's like me debadging my Audi A3 and putting Maserati logos... (ok I'd fool nobody, but whether it's easy to pass for the real thing is not the matter here). Maybe I just like my car with those logos, for whatever reason. It's my car. Then one day I decide to sell it... then I sell it as an Audi A3 and there's this person who thinks an A3 with Maserati logos look great, and they buy it. No deceit. No harm. Still... a company's logo should only really be used by that company, hence the "ok" with quotation marks. I think we're having the discussion here with people coming at it from different places, depending on whether they are more interested in talking pure right or wrong, or whether it's a wrong that needs to be punished (and who is harmed). A company like Rickenbacker protects their designs aggressively for whatever reasons (they have many valid ones) but one I read was that they take pride in their quality, and they do not want people to judge their company poorly after unwittingly playing a fake instrument. It's a reason I can sympathise with (even if I detest their manners: you can be right and still be an a$$hole). Fender seems to be a different kind of animal. Maybe their baby grew too big and they cannot police it as much as they would like, but for whatever reason they do not pursue individuals. Today it is incredibly easy to find decent looking parts that allow you to build your own Fender lookalike. Add a logo, et voila, if you just want a replica, you got it. I find it hard to justify bringing down the hammer of Thor on those who do that for the simple purpose of playing a lookalike instrument, without lying about what it really is... even if, technically, it is wrong.

I had bacon & maple ice cream once, with bacon bits! It was pretty good!

57 this year, with the last one on the 9th of December, and nothing now until late January... my fingers itch!!! On average I tend to do around 40-50 a year, but next year is not looking to be as busy as I'd have liked. My main band is intending to record our third album, and generally gigs slow down while we're busy with that. I don't see why, we're perfectly capable of doing both, but that's how it's been previously...

I was going to ask about people who replace various parts on their generally more expensive basses, then I remember I have my own special case with my £75 (used) Squier [1] and I thought it would be interesting to mention it: would the 'market' value of an instrument be a factor in what we're discussing here? Or only for instruments where their value is above a certain threshold? People do all kinds of modifications to their guitars: preamps get added/removed/replaced, pickups changed, or added... when does it stop being a Brand X product? The serial number criterion... I don't know, sometimes the serial number is on a neck plate. Change the neck plate... it's most definitely still the same bass, in my opinion. Change the neck... hmmm... that's quite a substantial change. I guess, for me, once you change the (most?) fundamental aspect of an instrument, it becomes another. If I replace the neck, it's no longer the same instrument. However... it kind of still is. Argh. I don't know. I never gave this enough thought, possibly because I don't care about Brand X or Y, but I *do* care about the history of an instrument and the modifications it's been subjected to, because that may affect its market value and also because I want to know exactly what it is that I have in my hands. That's why, for me, a 'replica' with the logo of another brand is not much of an issue beyond its market value, and as long as it's disclosed I am ok with it. But the rogue sellers out there do get on my nerves and they take advantage of the fact that certain instruments are easy to pass for their more expensive cousins to an inexperienced buyer. I like how the marketplace section in this forum is open for comments, and if someone is trying to deceive they get stopped easily. It's a decent community here, fortunately. [1] This Squier cost me £75 used (Korean, Cort factory, 1994). I just wanted a cheap Jazz for a specific purpose. Electronics were not working well and the pickups were pretty horrible. But for some reason it felt very nice and with a set of DiMarzio Area J pickups I had, that thing sounded very nice. I ended up adding a J-Retro preamp. It is a very nice Jazz bass, but curiously the cost/value of the initial instrument is merely a fraction of all the added bits. Actually, I also replaced the bridge (I like to adjust the string spacing to be a bit wider than normal)... I'm not sure how much of the original bass is left on this one! I doubt I'll ever sell it, but if I did, the whole history would be disclosed, obviously.

well, I have a spare one

Hey, that's the wrong logo! A fake, not me!!!

Then maybe I misunderstood you. So your only problem is with someone SELLING an instrument with the wrong logo, right? It would be indeed deceitful... UNLESS stated. For many 'replicas' the logo seems to be part of the visual aspect that makes them attractive. I personally do not care one way or another, I am a bit of a reverse snob in that I take pride in showing the headstock logo when I play a 'lesser brand' and it works and sounds great. I recently had a neck made for me for my old Squier Jazz (maple and wide nut, as opposed to the original rosewood narrow nut on it) and I asked for the original logo to be replicated. It shows Squier Jazz and even the same serial number as the original neck. What's your view on that? Am I being deceitful merely by playing it? It's no longer a Squier bass after all as the neck was made by somebody else. If I chose to sell it in the future, would it be wrong of me to advertise it as a Squier even if I disclose the origin of the new neck, in your view?

Are they a deceit when advertised as a Squier with a Fender logo? We already can report ads that are deceitful, and action is taken. If a Squier is advertised as a Fender, see what happens.

I did check the links on IP you posted, is that what you referred to? If so, you're over-interpreting terribly. I have a stronger position accusing you of defamation if you call me a criminal than you have if you see me at the Tickled Trout playing a bass with a fake logo and you report me. After 5 pages... it looks to me you like cornflakes for breakfast so why would anybody else have bacon and eggs? Cornflakes is the healthier choice.

You insist on how it is *illegal* to use a logo for brand X on an item not made by brand X... but is that really the case? I very much doubt the police would show any interest whatsoever if I tell them my neighbour's guitar has a Fiddler logo when it isn't really a Fiddler. I think the crucial point is deception: passing something as something else in a commercial transaction. Which is why you see these Ford Fiesta 1.0 with twin exhaust and racing/turbo logos on them... and there are even body kits to pass a Honda Civic as some kind of sporty BMW. It's only illegal if you try to sell it as something that it is not. To tell someone that he's committing a crime while playing his Fender-logo Squier is... ridiculous, in my opinion. I sympathise with the notion of making it difficult for those who try to sell A as being B, but I don't think the ban you propose is sensible, as its target falls far from its intended objective, the way I see it. Unless you personally don't like the 'incorrect' logo on instruments and feel so strongly that you'd like to force everybody to do as you do.

oh no, I'm good, thanks I bought 3 of the Sue Ryders in its day!!! One was stripped and heavily modified, another I kept as it was (pickup change only) and the third one is the fretless one (fretted originally). In the end I just kept the fretless.

Oh yes! It doesn't see a lot of action lately, I admit... but I almost got into a Police tribute band and that would have been my bass. Dimarzio Model P and black nylon tapewounds... mighty sound!

The real reason is not that, but to ensure certain Mr. H. doesn't hassle the people in charge of the forum.

Indeed!

Good point about the amp... The OP may just not be getting *the sound* using his practice amp at home. I'd wait until you use your 424 with the band, at high volumes with a beefy amp and see how it feels. It would be nothing like you're experiencing with the practice amp. As for the 'Orange Sound' not being ska-friendly... I don't know... a local music venue provides an Orange Bass Terror and 410, and it works very very well.

It looks like you just want a new bass That's a P/J like your 424! (nothing wrong with wanting more basses, by the way... ha!)

I don't know, a 424 looks like it should be just fine... I would recommend a Precision, so a P/J like the 424 is in the right territory. If it's too bright, I'd be looking at strings... as long as you do like the bass and have no other reason to look into getting a new instrument. I play a lot of ska and reggae in the main bands I'm in, and mostly use a Stingray. It works. You can make pretty much any bass work, and if you look at what people use in the genre you'll see that the variety is large, but the Precision figures there heavily... just because it's everywhere, I suppose! I'd say try different strings. I do like roundwounds, stainless steel... but they are very bright to start with and it takes a while until I'm happy 100%. My favourite ones are DR Fat Beams. When using a passive bass, having the right electronics helps a lot. Using 250K pots as opposed to 500K gets you a slightly darker tone that to me fits better, especially on a Precision. But also the right capacitor is the difference between having a tone control that gives you 2 sounds, or multiple useful ones. The good news is caps are cheap: it's worth buying a handful (pennies) and try them until you hit the right one for your taste. My Classic 50s Precision is just right, and you go from very bright to a thumpy mid-rich, fat sound that works beautifully for ska. With 2 year old Fat Beams I love Labella White Nylons too. Not cheap, but... they feel great (low tension), smooth, and have a beautiful sound: gets you very defined bass, yet fat, and no undesirable 'zing'... That's the kind of thing I'd try. I think a P/J bass is a great bass for ska. edit: after reading more and seeing what you're playing through... I'd say stick to what you have, don't change a thing, and wait until you play at band volume with the band, with a larger amplifier, and see how the 424 behaves. Chances are that all you need to do is roll off the tone control a tiny bit.

I still have a Sue Ryder one, fretless It survived several other fretless basses. And they said we'd burn them within a year! (well, JTUK did ;)) Merry Christmas, Tom! (and everybody else!)