prowla

And that is my position too: Fender gave away the rights to their instrument designs by not establishing them as IP. Gibson only protected the "moustache" top of their headstock and the headstock diamond inlay. Rickenbacker protect all of their designs (which means they have to be very litigious, or just letting one through will establish the precedent). (And each owns their company logo, of course.) So anybody can make a Strat, but only Fender can make a Fender Stratocaster.

I'd leave it in, because it's pertinent to the discussion! :-) The law in the UK is a bit of a funny thing, from what I can tell; there are laws which are written in black and white and then there is case law, where the finer nuances of the written laws are established.

Interesting - where did you get that from? From https://www.gov.uk/using-somebody-elses-intellectual-property, "Using someone’s trade mark, patent, copyright or design without their permission is known as ‘IP infringement’ and could lead to a fine, prison or both.". There is more detail at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers

Nope. Nope. The misuse of brand logos is an issue and is illegal. As I mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has implemented a no fake logos for sale policy, and at least one FB group has too. It is a real problem, not least exemplified by the fact that someone has posted on this thread that they bought a bass with a fake logo thinking it was a Fender. Commenting on whether folks have a thick skin or not is quite missing the point and is irrelevant.

So, to clarify, you bought it, on this site, thinking it was a Fender?

The thing I don't understand is why people do it. I once inherited a company car for a few weeks where the fool who had it before had stuck a "Turbo" sticker on the back; it was a clunker. The thing about BC's responsibilities is that they do not end there; websites cannot claim a hands-off approach, especially when they demonstrate a willingness to arbitrate on other similar matters (ie. Rickenbacker). With regard to the ethics of faking Fenders there was one just today where it seems that somebody on ebay has bought one. (The thread itself turned into a nice sideline about UFO, though!) As for protecting brands rights, I've no affiliation with the companies, but I do feel a duty of care to the potential buyers; I'm at the stage where I don't trust things with Fender logos. And heck, some of the fakes/fogeries may stand up in their own right; the saddest thing of all is seeing a vintage Tokai with a Fender logo on it.

I recently saw something advertised elsewhere as "upgraded" with a Fender logo.

It's got the power supply inside too, so things are well packed in there!

In doing that, you're effectively increasing its size...

I noticed today that another bass forum I frequent has instituted a policy of no sales of fake instruments, ie. ones which are manufactured with, or have subsequently had applied, logos of a different manufacturer; the most common one being Fender (because aftermarket waterslide logos are easy peasy), but there are also the ones which are produced as fakes (the "Chibson"s, etc.). Some of them can be quite difficult to spot, as the "ebay weird & wonderful" forum often highlights. Would it be an appropriate policy to institute here too? As a corollary, it's illegal in the UK to sell an item bearing the trademark of another company, but some folks seem to think it's alright, buyer beware, it's OK if you say it's a fake, or it doesn't apply to personal sales. I think that, in allowing them to be sold via here, the site is tacitly approving forgeries.

Thunder are a really good band and the bass playing is rock-solid. (They are great live and Danny dances like a dad at a party!)

But anyway, I think it's good that there are folks who are prepared to point out the non-genuine items, regardless of them being scams or errors.

You have to wonder who will pay decent money for one of those old lumps of plywood toot; they were utter crap when they were new and they're not going to have improved with age.

I saw them on the Lights Out tour (Newark) and Obsessions (Nottingham - met them after, except Schenker who went off and sat in his car). Used to play Doctor Doctor and Lights out in the band I was in at school!

Beware of buying used Fenders - it's a jungle out there! (I saw UFO on the Obsession tour!)

Distance selling or in shop?

In the end, if they put the customer in the position they were before they pressed the Buy button, then they've fulfilled their obligations. I think it's very easy for mistakes to creep in with online sites.

If it's an error, they don't have to; there was a thing with Dell a few years back where they refused to ship some laptops which were up at a plainly incorrect price.

I keep finding myself going back to take another look at it, and then stepping away shaking my head again!

Yep - god forbid everbody liked the exact same bass and wanted to play it in exactly the same way! Me, I've got Rics, Statii (4 and 5-string), fretless P-bass, a J-bass with a Warmoth body/Status Graphite neck, a 70s Zenta, a Music Man 5-string, Fender parts to build a Precision, a Warwick neck & parts waiting for a body (I've had a couple of Warwicks), and probably one or two others, and the one which inspires me is the Ric. But there is no one ring to rule them all and these definitive declarations that one is better than another are really just personal preference. For me, the Ric has the best looks, sound and neck of any bass, regardless of brand; it's a design classic like the Coke bottle, the Aeron chair, the E-type Jag, the MiniMoog, the Fender Strat, the Gibson Les Paul, the Kenwood Chef, the Leatherman knife, the Smiley logo, the Dualit toaster, and many things you'll find on an internet search which stand out from all of the other examples of their ilk. I think the only telling thing is where folks need to justify their preference by saying that brand whatever is better than a Ric.

My opinion of your opinion... The Ric is as modern as any piece of wood with 4 strings on it. I do have a couple of Status basses whose composition might make them more modern. I find the Ric comfortable to play and the neck is a delight, all the way up the fingerboard. The pickups are as powerful as is required; some actives may have higher output (eg. my John East), but that's what volume controls are for. The idea that Rics don't have a range of tones is amusing; it's just that their most well known one is better than anything anybody else does. The Ric's body is small compared to many instruments (eg. I have a Music Man and P- & J- basses.) and is thinner than pretty much all of them. The Rics have great hardware, finished to a high standard. The gripe about being easy to adjust is a red-herring - how many times do you adjust a bass once it's set up? The effort of taking it to a tech is more than that required to do the job itself. Rics are no heavier than a lot of other instruments, but I suppose if you contrast them with a violin bass (I wonder if that's where the myth came from?) then any solid bodied instrument would be. The Ric does its signature sound well, but the built-in mute, push/pull pot, stereo outputs, tone controls, option of playing fingers or plectrum give a wide range of options. The fact that a lot of people play Rics could be because a lot of people like playing Rics; they certainly helped bring the bass to the fore in music. So, whilst you are entitled to your opinion and what its its associated logic leads you to conclude, it differs from mine. I can't say that my logic would ever lead me to consider a Spector as an instrument of choice; it's not even in the contest, not something I would consider. (The only thing I would say a Ric is not so good for is slap'n'pop bass, but many folks don't like that anyway.)