Fake logos on instruments

[discreet]

4 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

That's true but they are Bitsas no more, no less. I've kept my real fender and gigged it loads where most limelights have been sold on. 

Well that's a personal preference, obviously. I currently own no Limelight basses. Or Fender basses, come to that.

Edited December 27, 2017 by discreet

[stingrayPete1977]

To be fair I'd rather unknowingly buy a Limelight 'homage' than a genuine Ricky

[prowla]

29 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

To be fair I'd rather unknowingly buy a Limelight 'homage' than a genuine Ricky

Great - it leave the Rics for me!

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, karlfer said:

I couldn't find an emoticon for tongue in cheek.

 (Deadpan...)

No need to thank me. 

[Cato]

37 minutes ago, discreet said:

Well that's a personal preference, obviously. I currently own no Limelight basses. Or Fender basses, come to that.

You've not sold the white 70s P you were so over the moon at getting back a couple of years ago?

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, drTStingray said:

Blimey........

what I don't get on this thread is the volume of people supporting the idea of having a non Fender, for instance, with a fake logo/trade mark. I don't get why anyone would want such a thing in the first place........

There is clearly unlikely to be anyone fooled by such an item on sale in an enthusiast forum - the real problem comes in a few years time if they appear on something like eBay and the innocent chap who knows very little about basses buys one thinking it's the real thing.

I'm sure there'll be loads of howls of 'not possible' and 'buyer beware' etc etc - however there's lots of true fakers making money out of selling poor Chinese copies to unsuspecting or otherwise buyers so it's very clear that supporting or turning a blind eye to the idea of having fake logos on instruments is a slightly strange mind set as far as I can see.

I remember a very long thread about this subject before and someone pointed out the lack of Nash and Sadowskis with fake Fender logos - so it does appear to be limited to people putting logos on cheaper basses to make them resemble a more expensive item. 

The only way to enforce a 'zero tolerance' policy would be the Ric method. Whether or not I, you, we or anyone approves of the practice or not, it can only lead to a total ban on pictures of trademarks of any kind in the Marketplace, as one can never be sure of the legitimacy on a forum such as this. That, to me, is the key element. It may not be a nice thing to do, or even legal, but to stop it being displayed on the forum: don't allow 'em to be shown. I don't think there's much point in organising a vote on the matter (even if the forum was ruled by democratic process, which it isn't...). Status quo, I'd say, unless someone can suggest better..?

[discreet]

7 minutes ago, Cato said:

You've not sold the white 70s P you were so over the moon at getting back a couple of years ago?

Yes. I realised the hunt was more entertaining than the actual bass. So I moved it on. Then instantly regretted it, of course.

I also regret moving on my Limelight basses, especially the Jazz. But my current parts-build Jazz is a real cracker, so overall I'm happy.

[Cato]

2 minutes ago, discreet said:

Yes. I realised the hunt was more entertaining than the actual bass. So I moved it on. Then instantly regretted it, of course.

I also regret moving on my Limelight basses, especially the Jazz. But my current parts-build Jazz is a real cracker, so overall I'm happy.

Gobsmacked.

I wept tears of empathetic joy when I read that thread about you being reuinted with your long lost love.

I mean obviously any Jazz bass is superior to any Precision of any era...

But even so. 

[bumnote]

24 minutes ago, prowla said:

Great - it leave the Rics for me!

At last, something we can agree on

[discreet]

2 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

The only way to enforce a 'zero tolerance' policy would be the Ric method. Whether or not I, you, we or anyone approves of the practice or not, it can only lead to a total ban on pictures of trademarks of any kind in the Marketplace, as one can never be sure of the legitimacy on a forum such as this. That, to me, is the key element. It may not be a nice thing to do, or even legal, but to stop it being displayed on the forum: don't allow 'em to be shown. I don't think there's much point in organising a vote on the matter (even if the forum was ruled by democratic process, which it isn't...). Status quo, I'd say, unless someone can suggest better..?

Whatever You Want. Ha, ha. But why even consider changing anything? There just isn't a problem with people selling fakes on BC. When was the last time you had a conversation with the other mods about someone deliberately selling a fake?

[Dad3353]

2 minutes ago, discreet said:

...When was the last time you had a conversation with the other mods about someone deliberately selling a fake?

There were searching questions raised concerning Trump's hair being fake, but it turned out to be fake news, apparently. That's about all I can remember (but then again, what did I have for breakfast yesterday..?  )

[yorks5stringer]

There are often products on Dragons Den which are dismissed as a solution for a problem we don't have. Where's Deborah Meaden when you need her?

[discreet]

8 minutes ago, yorks5stringer said:

Where's Deborah Meaden when you need her?

No-one ever needs Deborah Meaden.

[Cato]

7 minutes ago, yorks5stringer said:

 Where's Deborah Meaden when you need her?

She stormed off during the 'should I use compression in conjunction with my Bare Faced cabs?' unpleasantness a few years back.

We've not heard from her since.

[Shaggy]

4 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Making a mountain out of a molehill is perfectly acceptable unless someone tries to pass the molehill off as a mountain. That would be an attempt to deceive and I would probably have to go onto mountainchat to denounce the practice.

In fact, I've seen several molehills for sale recently, each of which had been described as being a molehill but nevertheless had a little cocktail stick 'flag' stuck in the top with the name of a celebrated mountain written on it in biro. There was a 'Snowdon', a 'Ben Nevis' and - unbelievably - an 'Everest' with a little plastic figure purporting to be a representation of the Dalai Lama. I have referred the latter instance  to dalailamachat and enjoy considerable optimism that the moderators will recognise their duty of care to Buddhists and stamp out this repugnant trade in fraudulent models of this much-loved religious leader. Imagine the pain and suffering when someone thinks they've bought the real Dalai Lama and it turns out to be a tiny bit of cheap Chinese sh*t.

Some people might think that's acceptable. I don't.

 Excellent post, Sir!

 

[discreet]

14 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

...what did I have for breakfast yesterday..?

All Bran? Baked beans? Fish fingers?

[Pea Turgh]

I had chocolate. It is Christmas after all.

[mcnach]

8 hours ago, prowla said:

As I said, if people want to do things in their own bedroom, then that's up to them. It only turns into an issue (from the point of ads) when they decide to sell it.

Your example of the replacement part for your Squier is an interesting one and I'm surprised nobody has brought up a similar argument already; my thought would be that were you to sell it, it would be fine if you included the original neck and declared the replacement one.

My opinion is that the part(s) bearing the serial number define its brand.

That said, for a sub-£100 bass, a decent replacement neck may be worth more than the rest anyway!

 

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.

 

 

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, mcnach said:

 

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.

 

 

I think I gave my opinion on that earlier.

 

 

 

[drTStingray]

1 hour ago, Dad3353 said:

The only way to enforce a 'zero tolerance' policy would be the Ric method. Whether or not I, you, we or anyone approves of the practice or not, it can only lead to a total ban on pictures of trademarks of any kind in the Marketplace, as one can never be sure of the legitimacy on a forum such as this. That, to me, is the key element. It may not be a nice thing to do, or even legal, but to stop it being displayed on the forum: don't allow 'em to be shown. I don't think there's much point in organising a vote on the matter (even if the forum was ruled by democratic process, which it isn't...). Status quo, I'd say, unless someone can suggest better..?

Blimey, that'd mean banning all things Fender from the forum...... 

I still don't get people wanting to put a different manufacturer's name on their bass - I did once think about putting a different logo on a Stingray - but I was a bit drunk at the time.....and then I thought what on earth would be the point - I know it's a Stingray and so does everyone else.

An motor car analogy - in the olden days people used to either buy a Mini Cooper S, if they couldn't afford one they'd fit after market parts to bring a standard car to the same spec and sometimes even make it look like one by adding the badges etc - then there were others who took a standard mini, and fitted wider wheels and badges to either kid themselves or others they were driving the real thing. Usually they were young kids who couldn't afford to buy the real thing and most certainly couldn't afford to insure one.

I can't help feeling we have some similar sort of psychology going on here....

 

[Hellzero]

Guys, it reminds me of the endless meetings I attended when I was part of the board. Words, ideas (sometimes) and absolutely no decision taken.

Stop, it's going nowhere as usual and what a waste of time as nobody seems to remind what was the subject, but needs to leave a word or thousands.

[karlfer]

Some people like Fender on the headstock.

Some people, one in particular don't like that.

Tough, frankly. If the whole of the site was to be changed to accommodate that, it would be a massive blow.

After this last website overhaul, highest number on at one time  is something like 280.

Prior to that change it was usually over 400

Prior to the change before last average on at many times was 4000 to 5000.

Changes seem to hurt.

Over & out from the Wigan panel.

Edited December 27, 2017 by karlfer

[mcnach]

6 hours ago, discreet said:

Ugh. It sounds wrong, but I'd still probably taste it, just to make sure.

 

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

[discreet]

8 minutes ago, mcnach said:

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

[drTStingray]

23 minutes ago, karlfer said:

Some people like Fender on the headstock.

Some people, one in particular don't like that.

Tough, frankly. If the whole of the site was to be changed to accommodate that, it would be a massive blow.

I don't think anyone dislikes Fender on Fender guitar headstocks - just the use of their logos on non-Fender basses, and clearly taking the same approach as with Rickenbacker on the forum is not sensible (in any case Fender is unlikely to take similar potential legal action).