Precision - Legit?

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336777098' post='1651090']
Yes, but i replied making it very simple, and that the comparism wasnt there, anyway, this is boring. If you were genuinly buying a £10k bass, you wouldnt be conned, thats what i said. Nothing more.
[/quote]

My apologies for boring you so.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1336778386' post='1651113']
Ok I'll explain but if you want to infer that I am acting like a school kid or accuse me of not being able to grasp a simple concept that I have been discussing all day then I'll have to say ta-ta.

You said that Bravewood were actually ethically worse than your copy because they could be passed off as originals.
You have gone to amazing lengths to produce a lovely example which you are openly advertising as a copy and not priced as an original. Once it sells (maybe to someone we've not seen around here much before) what guarantee do you have that they will not try to sell it on as an original. Going by what you said in your ad, most people would find it hard to tell... especially when there are fine details like the pencil dating.
Most fakes brought up on these pages are easily debunked by guys such as yourself... who better to buy a fake from with the intention of ripping someone off than from the expert himself.

"Ethically" they are the same.

Perhaps my choice of the phrase "pot-kettle-black" was a little over simplistic for the internet in this instance (given that you have a vested interest and a strong desire to defend) but I was trying to keep to my comment as light-hearted as all my others in this thread and simply draw a comparison to the two identical possible outcomes.
[/quote]

Yeah, I got all that, the bit you are missing, is that (And I don't know your experience of such things, so from your comments, I have to make an assumption) anyone who was genuinly in the market for a 1958 Fender Precision, would not be fooled, even for a second by my bass. My ad says that i went to great lengths to source period correct parts, where possible. But it cannot be confused with the real thing, unless you have seen, handled, and inspected many vintage basses, you may not be able to understand what i mean, because from a picture it looks great, but it cannot be confused with a real one...not by [u]anyone[/u] buying it. Yes, its far better than a CS Relic, or Roadworn, but they can be told apart from an original from 100yards by someone buying. As for your comment "who better to buy a fake from with the intention of ripping someone off than from the expert himself", that is truly offensive, especially as I'm clearly stating what it is, and selling the bass for £700??? I'm not ripping anyone off.

To the novice, it could confuse, but a novice isn't gonna be spending £10k on something he knows nothing about, so it's never gonna happen, no-one is ever going to be mis-sold my bass. Bravewood's are better, and that's why the good ones are £2k+, because they are [i]that[/i] good, and can be mis-sold.

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I cannot make my point any clearer, sorry.

[LukeFRC]

Well we are all getting a little hot under the collar on here, breath people..... calm.....
[quote name='The Bass Doc' timestamp='1336756248' post='1650658']
As I've been mentioned in this thread I thought I should give my take on the debate about decals.

Fitting a decal to a non-Fender bass with the [i]express intent[/i] of selling it to an unsuspecting buyer, it is to be frowned upon. The fact is these decals are 'out there' so I could perhaps understand some vitriol being directed towards the printers thereof.

As it happens, Fender themselves produced decals as an official spare part in the 70's ( I have one to prove it) until some bright spark in the company pointed out that people were fitting them to copies...duh.

Now It would be safe to assume that Fender spares are a lucrative part of their business and no-one could possibly imagine that these are only sold to replace items on original models so Fender themselves are indirectly benefitting from the custom build trade.

The fact that Fender license Allparts, WD, Mighty Mite et al suggests to me at any rate that Fender have adopted the attitude that 'If we can't stop them let them do it and charge money'.

In the case of Discreet's bass I used official USA Fender parts for the bridge, control plate, knobs, pots as well as the Allparts 'Licensed by Fender' neck. So compared to say a Squier it has more in common with the 'real thing'.

The bass in question is built to a high standard and, should Discreet ever sell it, anyone buying at what would be a relatively high price really should be able to do their homework whereupon the dirty great stamp burned into the heel of the neck would be revealed as an Allparts item. Also the specs used do not coincide with a stock model Fender so it should be fairly obvious to a prospective buyer.

I'm sure Discreet himself will give full disclosure as and when any sale may happen and, ok, I appreciate that no-one can budget for what subsequent owners may try on, but I maintain it's not on the same level as re-badging a Squier.

Compare my effort to allow full disclosure of the Allparts brand (literally burned in) to examples where serial numbers are used, artificial distress wear imposed and (with apologies to Rick's Fine '58) pencilled dates are added. Much more likely to fool someone one day.
[/quote] good post.

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336773274' post='1651025']
Interesting thread, the intelligent parts anyway!

Do people really think the added neck date will fool anyone. I know my onions when it comes to vintage Fenders, and I don't know anyone that I have ever met, who, when spending £10k+ on a bass, would be fooled by that?? There's 1001 reasons why my replica bass isn't a genuine £10k bass, and no-one would be fooled, no-one, or try and pretend otherwise. I made it as a replica to my own original, for my own use. Sadly its time to move it on. The neck is original Fender, so no issue there regarding the decal. Personally, I've never added a Fender decal to something that wasn't a Fender, I have however, removed a Fender decal, refinished and aged a neck, and re-applied a Fender decal, which I don't believe is a crime, even on basschat?

I think people get far too hung up on stuff like this. I'm not pretending its something it isn't, much like the seller of the squier referenced in the OP. I have seen, as we all have, some pretty terrible copies and re-badged things around though, which, right or wrong is gonna happen, thats life....sadly. Fake watches, fake clothes, fake guitars, been going on for yonks, doesn't make it right though. It's also, to me anyway, different if someone's making a replica, and clearly advertising it as a replica, to someone blatantly trying to mislead though.

Oh, and for the record, the first 'Squier' guitars, were branded as 'Fender-Squier Series' instruments in April 1982, not 'Squier by Fender', that came much later.
[/quote] I think your bass is given away by the radius on the edge of the body, and to a lesser extent the finish on the body. But ultimately it's a very nice bitsa which you've scribbled on with pencil!

I guess the thing is, and with all 3 basses that have been talked about (the one on ebay, the one made by BassDoc and the one made by Rick) is that in and of itself sticking something on the headstock of your bass isn't a bad thing. Daft maybe- in my mind if you play a squier who cares?- but meh, it's not much of an issue.
When it does become an issue is if you sell it maliciously, or, and probably more pertinently where it goes after you sell it honestly.

personally if I had a fender replica made that was top quality and with the logo I would ask for a signature of the maker on the back of the headstock under the laquar but thats just me!

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336779270' post='1651130']
Yeah, I got all that, the bit you are missing, is that (And I don't know your experience of such things, so from your comments, I have to make an assumption) anyone who was genuinly in the market for a 1958 Fender Precision, would not be fooled, even for a second by my bass. My ad says that i went to great lengths to source period correct parts, where possible. But it cannot be confused with the real thing, unless you have seen, handled, and inspected many vintage basses, you may not be able to understand what i mean, because from a picture it looks great, but it cannot be confused with a real one...not by [u]anyone[/u] buying it. Yes, its far better than a CS Relic, or Roadworn, but they can be told apart from an original from 100yards by someone buying. As for your comment "who better to buy a fake from with the intention of ripping someone off than from the expert himself", that is truly offensive, especially as I'm clearly stating what it is, and selling the bass for £700??? I'm not ripping anyone off.

To the novice, it could confuse, but a novice isn't gonna be spending £10k on something he knows nothing about, so it's never gonna happen, no-one is ever going to be mis-sold my bass. Bravewood's are better, and that's why the good ones are £2k+, because they are [i]that[/i] good, and can be mis-sold.

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I cannot make my point any clearer, sorry.
[/quote]

There's not much to disagree on mate...especially what I or the everyday bassist knows about vintage Fenders compared to yourself ... except perhaps that you or I or anyone could easily pull up a 100 ebay listings where a fake bass was sold on the strength of some lovely pictures for well under what the original would have gone for. Your argument relies on your bass being sold on again in person (and for that market value)... not everyone has this privilege, perhaps geography might get in the way or whatever.

Oh and please re-read the part about "who better to buy a fake from..." and learn to recognise a compliment... [color=#A9A9A9]even if it's from someone you don't particularly like.[/color] I said the guy buying to sell it on was the fraudster not you.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Ou7shined

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1336781195' post='1651160']
...When it does become an issue is if you sell it maliciously, or, and probably more pertinently where it goes after you sell it honestly.
...[/quote]
Spot on.
And as far as I am aware no one on here is being accused of any such thing.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Ou7shined

[Musky]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336773274' post='1651025']
Oh, and for the record, the first 'Squier' guitars, were branded as 'Fender-Squier Series' instruments in April 1982, not 'Squier by Fender', that came much later.
[/quote]
This is very true, and something that had occurred to me. It was a situation that only lasted a few months though.

By then Fender realised the need for product differentiation, and both Fender and Squier became two separate brands owned by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Fender don't make Squier just as they don't make Fender - FMIC make both brands. That is rather the point of brands: they're just names on the headstock, divorced from whatever company that happens to own that brand at the time. Jon (Bassassin) was rather fond of pointing out that the various instruments emanating from the larger Japanese manufacturers were often branded up with a huge variety of names on the headstock, and that despite the fact that these were identical instruments pouring off the very same production line, the only thing that made it an Ibanez, Greco. Lyle, or whatever was that brand sitting on the headstock. Exactly the same with Fender/Squier.

AFAIK, FMIC own both the Corona and Ensenada plants - any thing produced there under the Fender brand is a Fender.* FMIC also license out rights to Fender Japan, which is not an FMIC company. They also make Fenders, because they've purchased the rights to put 'Fender' on the headstock. I've no idea about who produces Squiers elsewhere in Asia, but it's a fair bet that FMIC doesn't own the production facilities. These facilities don't produce Fenders instruments because these instruments [i]don't say Fender on the headstock, [/i]and not because the factory making them isn't owned by FMIC.

Basically we're talking brands here. The only thing that makes that brand is the decision by the owner (in this case FMIC) to use a certain lettering on the headstock.

Fenders are Fenders. Squiers are Squiers. Unless they are Fender Squiers.

Amen.

*Ensenada has also in the past made Squiers - these are not Fenders [i]because they don't say Fender on the headstock[/i].

[LukeFRC]

it's all a ploy to make money.

[Musky]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1336815335' post='1651378']
So basically what you are saying is anything made outside Mexico or California is not a Fender

So can we say then that seeing as Gibson, American and Mex Fender, Hofner, Some Dingwalls and Rickenbacker come out of their own factories that the rest are not what they say on the tin? By that theory a Washburn should be sold as East western Guitar Co. Limited or something. My two Deans aren't Deans they are Samick. Squiers aren't even Squiers .

But then Some Fenders are reportedly being made in the same factories as Squiers. But these aren't Fenders nor are they Squiers. So if we list them on Ebay what the heck do we list them as?

But then what way does that leave Epiphone. They come from the Epiphone factory mostly these days. But then they are owned by Gibson but then so is epiphone. So are Epiphones Epiphone because they come out of the Epiphone factory or are they Gibsons because the factory is owned by Gibson.

If that doesn't hurt the head and blur the lines even further nothing will
[/quote]

No,what I'm saying is that if it says Squier on the headstock it's a Squier - unless it was from the short lived first run of export Squiers.

I probably shouoldn't have mentioned the factory thing, as it just confuses matters. I was just saying that, as you've rightly mentioned, both Squiers and Fenders have come off the same production lines. Some have come from a non FMIC owned company (FujiGen) and some have come from a factory that is owned by FMIC (Ensenada), but the ownership of the factory makes no difference. The only difference that matters is the brand on the headstock.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1336819585' post='1651471']
No,what I'm saying is that if it says Squier on the headstock it's a Squier - unless it was from the short lived first run of export Squiers.

[/quote]
which are still squiers. they just say fender bigger.

[Musky]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1336819992' post='1651476']
And Squier is a Fender brand
...

so Squiers have Fender on the headstock and if it's on the headstock does that not make them Fenders?
[/quote]

No, Squier is an FMIC brand.

Squiers do have the word Fender on the headstock but Fender no longer exists as a company, only as a brand. So as I said earlier, it would be more accurate for the headstocks to say 'Squier by FMIC'. Only most people wouldn't have a clue who or what FMIC is, whereas 'Fender' is probably the higest profile brand of instruments in the world. So they create an association in people's minds by putting the words 'by Fender' rather than 'by FMIC' on the headstock.

[LukeFRC]

also if it's all down to the brand on the headstock.... like you say.... isn't Fender also now a brand.
So really squiers aren't fenders. they are just guitars that carry two brands both owned by FMIC.
Is a squier a FMIC instrument. yes.
Is it a Fender. No, because FMIC use that brand elsewhere in the range.
DOes it use the fender brand to lend itself credibility? yes.

[Ou7shined]

I wonder if it helps to look at it this way. They have a large Squier logo on the headstock because that's what they are (otherwise why else would it be there) ... but they also have a smaller Fender logo added in recognition of the parent company.... which as we all know doesn't exactly hurt from a marketing point of view.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1336821230' post='1651498']


No, Squier is an FMIC brand.

Squiers do have the word Fender on the headstock but Fender no longer exists as a company, only as a brand. So as I said earlier, it would be more accurate for the headstocks to say 'Squier by FMIC'. Only most people wouldn't have a clue who or what FMIC is, whereas 'Fender' is probably the higest profile brand of instruments in the world. So they create an association in people's minds by putting the words 'by Fender' rather than 'by FMIC' on the headstock.
[/quote]

+ to the 1

[Musky]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1336821343' post='1651503']
So Fenders aren't fenders they are FMIC

which is
[b] Fender[/b] Musical Instruments Corporation

Anyway.
[/quote]

Yes, FMIC has the word Fender in the name. Had they not, and used a completely different company name (like CBS ) they'd probably still use Fender as a trading name. But Fender and Squier would still remain different brands. As would SWR, DeArmond, Guild and all the other brands now owned by that company.

They could always rebrand Squiers as Fender, and then there would be no confusion - just different Fender models at different price points. Only the marketing bods have decided that they want some brand differentiation for those differing prices.

The problem for FMIC is that Mr. & Mrs. Blogs buying a guitar for their first born might well have never heard of Squier, and quite honestly it looks exactly the same as many other cheap guitars on the same wall. So the same marketing bods put 'by Fender' on the headstock as well.

"Oh look", say Mr. & Mrs. Blogs, "It's made by Fender. Jimi Hendrix used one of those - it must be good."

Sale made. Job done.

It is indeed all about money.

[Musky]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1336823468' post='1651555']
So Fender use the Squier name to differentiate between the different price points.

So where is the problem of labeling something a Fender Squier?
[/quote]
For me, there's no problem (other than the relatively minor one that people might think Squier is the same as Fender and pay accordingly. )

That's exactly what the guy on Ebay is doing, just like many others on Ebay do and just as FMIC do - increasing the chance of a sale with a higher price. That's what marketing is all about.

The issue that some have with removing the Squier decal is not so much with the seller or his description (which is pretty much faultless), but the distinct possibility that some of these will end up on the market at a later date as Fenders without any reference to Squier. I'm not sure there's much we could (or should) do about that, other than educate people on what to look out for.

[the boy]

Aargh back from the pub lets get this topic rocking again. I once put a fender logo on a banjo! Now what have ya go to say about that.

[Musky]

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1336862766' post='1652172']
Aargh back from the pub lets get this topic rocking again. I once put a fender logo on a banjo! Now what have ya go to say about that.
[/quote]
Fender might have beaten you to it.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1336863494' post='1652177']
Fender might have beaten you to it.

[/quote]

Isn't that an early Squier-series model??

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336863637' post='1652181']
Isn't that an early Squier-series model??
[/quote]

Either that or it's a very good copy.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1336863637' post='1652181']
Isn't that an early Squier-series model??
[/quote]

no, it's a Squier by Fender era one. The Squier Series ones didn't have....... ok I'll shut up
you know what, I'm off to church to play bass, ill play this one, and to avoid argument I won't tell anyone what I'm playing....

[the boy]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1336863494' post='1652177']

Fender might have beaten you to it.

[/quote]
LOL with a sore head.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1336819992' post='1651476']
And Squier is a Fender brand
[/quote]

Ford owned the Volvo brand from 1999 to 2008, so presumably by your logic I have a '54 Volvo Mondeo.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1337183068' post='1656825']
No because there were no Mondeos in '54
[/quote]

Damndamndamn. '04 as any fule kno.

[Rowley Birkin QC]

I've just read this thread in its entirety, and I get the mental picture of boys competing for who can p1$$ further up the wall!

At the end of it all, they're ALL just personal opinions, and in mine, this type of "point proving" doesn't do the forum any favours, and repeating the same argument/opinion over and over doesn't make it any more valid than anyone else's. Th OP asked a fair question and wanted a considered opinion......did he get it?

Off to bed now.

[the boy]

[quote name='Rowley Birkin QC' timestamp='1337208689' post='1657301']
I've just read this thread in its entirety, and I get the mental picture of boys competing for who can p1$$ further up the wall!

At the end of it all, they're ALL just personal opinions, and in mine, this type of "point proving" doesn't do the forum any favours, and repeating the same argument/opinion over and over doesn't make it any more valid than anyone else's. Th OP asked a fair question and wanted a considered opinion......did he get it?

Off to bed now.
[/quote]
Come on now it's only a bit of banter.