prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, Steve Browning said: I mean no disrespect but that is a bit of a schoolboy error. Limelight is well renowned on this site and it would have been simplicity itself to find out that Limelight don't do that kind of thing. I would be amazed if the original advert had any room for doubt of the authenticity of the instrument (I would think the price itself was a give-away). As I said, I mean no disrespect but the cost of a Limelight relic against the original thing (even a Fender relic) would surely have prompted some questions about the authenticity. Bet it's a great bass too. Perhaps, but some of the posts here have claimed that the collective nouse and responsibility of this site would have prevented that happening. Which clearly didn't happen. (I'm sure it's a nice bass too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, prowla said: Perhaps, but some of the posts here have claimed that the collective nouse and responsibility of this site would have prevented that happening. Which clearly didn't happen. (I'm sure it's a nice bass too.) I'm not sure what to say to that. I'm guessing the bass was clearly advertised as a Limelight..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, KiOgon said: I thought Limelight assembled basses from genuine Fender parts - customised, is that right? Is that so - they simply remanufacture existing Fenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 The 'problem' remains; how to tell, with 100% certainty, from the outset, before allowing the ad to be posted, if the 'Fender' logo' is on a real Fender or on a copy..? Any answers..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiOgon Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, prowla said: Is that so - they simply remanufacture existing Fenders? That's not what I'm saying exactly, my understanding is they use genuine Fender parts to assemble after reworking to their or customers spec. I also assumed they had some sort of agreement with Fender? Please correct me and explain if that's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, prowla said: Is that so - they simply remanufacture existing Fenders? I don't think so. I think it's safe to say they're replicas made from a mixture of Fender and third-party parts. Very nice they are too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, wateroftyne said: I'm not sure what to say to that. I'm guessing the bass was clearly advertised as a Limelight..? I don't know. And some of the Fender partscaster/blasters can be better than the genuine ones, but they don't then need a Fender logo: I have a J-bass, comprising a Warmoth body, Status graphite neck, and other non-Fender parts; it's better as it is than with a Fender logo. I have a P-bass, comprising a Squier body, a fretless Mighty Mite neck, and other non-Fender parts; It's got no logo on the headstock (though I have a "Prowla" waterslide to put on it). Neither of those infringe any IP and putting a Fender logo on them would be daft. I've not played a Limelight, but it could well be that they stand on their own merits without need for fakery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, KiOgon said: That's not what I'm saying exactly, my understanding is they use genuine Fender parts to assemble after reworking to their or customers spec. I also assumed they had some sort of agreement with Fender? Please correct me and explain if that's wrong. I don't know. If they use Fender parts, then they would already have a Fender logo (applied by Fender!). I would say that the Fender body and neck (and s/n) are the key things which make the item a Fender. Edited December 27, 2017 by prowla clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, prowla said: I don't know. And some of the Fender partscaster/blasters can be better than the genuine ones, but they don't then need a Fender logo: I have a J-bass, comprising a Warmoth body, Status graphite neck, and other non-Fender parts; it's better as it is than with a Fender logo. I have a P-bass, comprising a Squier body, a fretless Mighty Mite neck, and other non-Fender parts; It's got no logo on the headstock (though I have a "Prowla" waterslide to put on it). Neither of those infringe any IP and putting a Fender logo on them would be daft. I've not played a Limelight, but it could well be that they stand on their own merits without need for fakery. Good stuff. I feel differently about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlfer Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 9 hours ago, discreet said: Are we already suffering from too much holiday time on our hands, or what? I say every Fender bass made after 1965 is questionable - because Leo sold the company to CBS in that year and thus they were no longer made by him. Thhp! Maybe we should have a member vote on it? And should the site owners go nuts and say we can list only 'genuine' Fender basses on BassChat, I'll be more than happy to PhotoShop the decals off mine before posting the pictures. And subsequently PM any prospective buyers to tell them that it still has a Fender decal on it. How''d you like THEM apples, ladies? This is first-world-virtue-signalling-snowflake-problem stuff, people. If you're determined to worry, there are far more important things to be worrying about. If you really think the possible misuse of guitar decals is any sort of an issue, I would suggest you thicken your skin somewhat, get out a bit more and start enjoying life. Nicely put Mark. This "issue" comes up time & again. Doesn't matter how much moral soap boxing goes on, especially from those with a few bob in their pocket, people will do this. And as for reading the mind set of a potential buyer who is spending several hundred quid without due diligence.............. Even though it wasn't what the buyer thought it was, he got it at around the perceived market value. As far as I'm aware, only Marc at Limelight knows the exact parts/materials he uses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickster Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, prowla said: 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. Again, who are you trying to protect here with this proposed ban? Fender and their trademarks? An unwitting buyer? If the latter, as long as the bass being sold isn't being misrepresented this isn't a problem. If it is being misrepresented (e.g. a Limelight being advertised as a genuine Fender) this breaches the forums terms and will be pulled when its inevitably spotted. If the former, who made you the forum prefect? This is not your issue to police, nor is it the forum's; it's an issue between Fender and (e.g.) Limelight. This whole thread just seems like a pretext for you to alter what can be bought or sold on the BC marketplace just to suit the fact that you don't understand why / disapprove of someone putting the wrong logo on a bass. Your proposal is a drastic solution to an issue that - as far as I'm aware - simply hasn't been a problem on this forum and you're invoking some ill-defined 'protecting of innocent buyers' notion as a pretext for it. Edited December 27, 2017 by mickster 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I've said this before and I still see it the same, an individual selling a one off self made bass with a logo is different to a business building copies including a well established copyrighted logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, prowla said: Perhaps, but some of the posts here have claimed that the collective nous and responsibility of this site would have prevented that happening. Which clearly didn't happen. Then what a good job you were here to point it out. 'Basses for Sale' works very well and has a way lower incidence of deceit and fakery than the usual suspects such as G*mtr** and *B*y, where one is much more likely to encounter less-than-honest sellers. BassChat 'for sale' forums work very well because the people who put items up for sale here are largely honest and community-minded. If you want to imperil that with a draconian rethink of the existing system then you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a non-issue. Edited December 27, 2017 by discreet Spelling 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) I think we all need to be protected from this scourge - a menace which is ruining the BC experience. (Also, I think Fender should maybe look at the reaction these things get, and perhaps learn from it.) Edited December 27, 2017 by wateroftyne 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumnote Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I believe Mark uses generic fender parts ie allparts etc, I dont think they are fender parts. When I originally sold it, I advertised it as a limelight 62 stack knob jazz bass. No mention of Fender A real 62 stacknob would sell for considerably more than the £750 i sold it for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlfer Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, wateroftyne said: I think we all need to be protected from this scourge - a menace which is ruining the BC experience. (Also, I think Fender should maybe look at the reaction these things get, and perhaps learn from it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, mickster said: Again, who are you trying to protect here with this proposed ban? Fender and their trademarks? An unwitting buyer? If the latter, as long as the bass being sold isn't being misrepresented this isn't a problem. If it is being misrepresented (e.g. a Limelight being advertised as a genuine Fender) this breaches the forums terms and will be pulled when its inevitably spotted. If the former, who made you the forum prefect? This is not your issue to police, nor is it the forum's; it's an issue between Fender and (e.g.) Limelight. This whole thread just seems like a pretext for you to alter what can be bought or sold on the BC marketplace just to suit the fact that you don't understand why / disapprove of someone putting the wrong logo on a bass. Your proposal is a drastic solution to an issue that - as far as I'm aware - simply hasn't been a problem on this forum and you're invoking some ill-defined 'protecting of innocent buyers' notion as a pretext for it. Don't get personal ("forum prefect"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlfer Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, prowla said: Don't get personal ("forum prefect"). Why not? You lit blue touch paper & retreated on the Limelight ad that started this. You also did the same on one of my Facebook ads. Edited December 27, 2017 by karlfer 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, prowla said: Don't get personal ("forum prefect"). I don't think they're getting personal. They're just trying to find out what's driving your thoughts on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 38 minutes ago, Dad3353 said: The 'problem' remains; how to tell, with 100% certainty, from the outset, before allowing the ad to be posted, if the 'Fender' logo' is on a real Fender or on a copy..? Any answers..? It can't be done, and no-one should waste their time with it. Moderators allow members to buy and sell freely, safe in the knowledge that they will accurately describe exactly what is being sold, its condition and its provenance - and this has worked well for many years. As far as I know, there has only been ONE instance on this board of a bass being bought and then sold that was not quite what it seemed to be. And that was due to an error on the part of one member. A member who did not intend to deceive anyone and who made an honest mistake that he held his hands up to immediately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 32 minutes ago, mickster said: This whole thread just seems like a pretext for you to alter what can be bought or sold on the BC marketplace just to suit the fact that you don't understand why / disapprove of someone putting the wrong logo on a bass. Your proposal is a drastic solution to an issue that - as far as I'm aware - simply hasn't been a problem on this forum and you're invoking some ill-defined 'protecting of innocent buyers' notion as a pretext for it. Thank you for articulating my thoughts exactly. I tried, but the profanity filter would have exploded... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, wateroftyne said: I don't think they're getting personal. They're just trying to find out what's driving your thoughts on this. OK - I'm not a self-appointed forum prefect (which is personal), but this is an issue, as exemplified by the two threads I've linked here (one discussing a fake spotted on ebay and one discussing the Limelight here) and further, as also mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has instituted a no fake logos policy. Therefore I've started a discussion here, and mostly that's what is going on. From my perspective, I don't think that Fender logos belong on non-Fender instruments and that selling instruments with them on should not be condoned/endorsed, not least because it is illegal. There have been, and will continue to be, discussions about the rights and wrongs of selling fake logo'd instruments (there was another of a shop in Thame a while back). However, I don't own/operate/control this site and you, the mods, do and I respect that. But this is a valid conversation to have and there are opinions on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 43 minutes ago, mickster said: Again, who are you trying to protect here with this proposed ban? Fender and their trademarks? An unwitting buyer? If the latter, as long as the bass being sold isn't being misrepresented this isn't a problem. If it is being misrepresented (e.g. a Limelight being advertised as a genuine Fender) this breaches the forums terms and will be pulled when its inevitably spotted. If the former, who made you the forum prefect? This is not your issue to police, nor is it the forum's; it's an issue between Fender and (e.g.) Limelight. This whole thread just seems like a pretext for you to alter what can be bought or sold on the BC marketplace just to suit the fact that you don't understand why / disapprove of someone putting the wrong logo on a bass. Your proposal is a drastic solution to an issue that - as far as I'm aware - simply hasn't been a problem on this forum and you're invoking some ill-defined 'protecting of innocent buyers' notion as a pretext for it. Can you please articulate what the "drastic solution" you perceive is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, prowla said: OK - I'm not a self-appointed forum prefect (which is personal), but this is an issue, as exemplified by the two threads I've linked here (one discussing a fake spotted on ebay and one discussing the Limelight here) and further, as also mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has instituted a no fake logos policy. Therefore I've started a discussion here, and mostly that's what is going on. From my perspective, I don't think that Fender logos belong on non-Fender instruments and that selling instruments with them on should not be condoned/endorsed, not least because it is illegal. There have been, and will continue to be, discussions about the rights and wrongs of selling fake logo'd instruments (there was another of a shop in Thame a while back). However, I don't own/operate/control this site and you, the mods, do and I respect that. But this is a valid conversation to have and there are opinions on both sides. Of course it's a valid conversation - it's a pretty polarising one, too. Expect strong opinions on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 FYI, here's a link to The Fretboard's rule: http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/120189/no-fakes#latest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts