Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Licenced by Spector, Designed by Ned Steinberger Warwick? WTF!!


andy67
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok so here’s what I found, Spector agreed to let Warwick use the NS body under license but Warwick never paid Spector for 7 years. 
he was in his own troubles at the time with Kramer and when he’s sorted that out took Warwick to court. 
so I guess this is one of those 7 year basses 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the full explanation :

 

It was well documented that the first versions of the Streamer were near exact copies of the NS-Bass. The Spector NS-Bass was designed by Ned Steinberger for Stuart Spector in 1977, five years before Warwick was formed.

 

In the May 2012 article titled "Meet Your Maker: Hans Peter Wilfer of Warwick", an interview with Warwick founder and CEO in Bass Player, the following history is given explaining Wilfer's decision to make copies of the highly sought-after Spector NS-Bass: "'We didn’t see any reason to build Fender copycats, which players could get easily and cheaply from Asia, so we decided to focus only on high-end, innovative instruments.' In the mid ’80s, the Spector NS was tracking well in the U.S., but these basses proved hard to come by in Europe. H.P. saw that problem as a potential solution for the direction of his company and took up the task of designing his own version of this popular, ergonomically friendly instrument. That venture resulted in Warwick’s first widely successful instrument: the Streamer Stage I."[2]

 

At the annual Musikmesse Show (Frankfurt, Germany) in 1985, Stuart Spector became aware that a new German-based company was producing exact copies of his now famous NS-Bass. Spector, along with Ned Steinberger, confronted Hans Wilfer and he agreed to pay a licensing fee to both Spector Guitars and Ned Steinberger in return for being able to continue to produce the Streamer without legal action.[3]

 

Shortly after this agreement was reached, Spector was sold to Kramer Guitars. The new owners had no interest in pursuing Warwick to enforce the licensing agreement and Warwick continued to make the Streamer without any consequence.

 

In 1990, Kramer became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy. In the wake of their financial failure, Stuart Spector formed Stuart Spector Design, LTD. in 1992. In 1997 after a lengthy court battle, Stuart Spector was awarded the trademark and copyrights to Spector and threatened to sue Warwick to enforce the 1985 license agreement.[3]

 

The pending litigation was eventually dropped because Warwick had changed the Streamer design and it was no longer an exact copy of the NS-Bass. In time, Warwick has evolved the design of the Streamer while Spector has sought to preserve the classic elements of the NS-Bass. Since 1984 very little has changed regarding the design, electronics and hardware of the Spector NS-Bass, whereas the Warwick Streamer has evolved into its own unique guitar and can no longer be considered a "copy" of the Spector,[according to whom?] although it still has some of the general shape of the original.

 

This was from PJ Rubal's email, National Product Manager and Artist Relations for Spector.

 

"The truth is that Ned designed the NS curved body shape for Spector in March 1977. This was Ned’s first musical instrument design, and an instant hit. Warwick came on to the scene in 1984 with their Streamer bass, a different version of the now very popular Spector NS. When approached by Spector, Warwick did agree to and did pay royalties (for a while) to Spector for their error. Stuart sold Spector to Kramer after that. Warwick stopped paying, Kramer chose not to pursue them."[4]

 

2. Taylor, Rod (9 May 2012). "Meet Your Maker: Hans-Peter Wilfer of Warwick". Bass Player. Retrieved 29 May 2018.

3. Spector, Stuart (June 1997). "Body Snatchers". Bass Player (June 1997): Letters to the Editor Pg. 2.

4. "Spector NS body shape and Warwick - What´s the bottom line?". 2004. Retrieved 29 May 2018.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their MEC pickups were close copies of the EMGs they used to use - I had a 1985 thumb and the Original MEC preamp was such a good copy of the EMG they had even copied the silkscreening that said EMG! 
 

later they fell out with Schaller by copying their own hardwear made by someone else and not solid brass

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Urban Bassman said:

The nut looks a bit odd too....

I thought the same with the nut.  I remember watching lots of gigs in Edinburgh in the mid 80s & 90s, Warwicks were being used by bass players in a lot of the  bands I saw and I recall thinking they were awful expensive at approx £1200. Getting this info from you guys makes me think that is a lot of money for a copy during those decades.

Edited by andy67
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it applies to all early Warwicks, but the JD Thumb had a very shallow neck - I think that was a general early Warwick thing. In contrast, the Spector neck is quite chunky. I could never get on with a Spector neck, otherwise I'd have had one as they're very nice basses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tauzero said:

Not sure if it applies to all early Warwicks, but the JD Thumb had a very shallow neck - I think that was a general early Warwick thing. In contrast, the Spector neck is quite chunky. I could never get on with a Spector neck, otherwise I'd have had one as they're very nice basses.

 

Ditto.  I even felt like Spector bodies were like Streamers that had endured Lockdown and eaten too many pies!  ;)

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cetera said:

Except the Spector SB1, SD1, NS2000, NSX etc etc..... :facepalm:

 

SB, SD and NS2000 are all wonkier takes on the original NS, just far uglier due to the lack of good design ethos. Even the NSX is a clumsy clone of another famous NS design isn't it? Again far uglier that the sleek, on point shape it's copying. 

 

They truly are the Behringer of bass when you think about it, not an original idea in 45 years. That's actually impressive in a weird kind of way, you would think they'd have come up with something half decent on their own purely by chance sooner or later. You know how a monkey sat at a typewriter could theoretically write the complete works of Shakespeare given an infinite amount of time? You reckon if you did the same with Stuart Spector he could eventually come up with a bass that didn't look like total a55?

Edited by lemmywinks
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lemmywinks said:

 

SB, SD and NS2000 are all wonkier takes on the original NS, just far uglier due to the lack of good design ethos. Even the NSX is a clumsy clone of another famous NS design isn't it? Again far uglier that the sleek, on point shape it's copying. 

 

They truly are the Behringer of bass when you think about it, not an original idea in 45 years. That's actually impressive in a weird kind of way, you would think they'd have come up with something half decent on their own purely by chance sooner or later. You know how a monkey sat at a typewriter could theoretically write the complete works of Shakespeare given an infinite amount of time? You reckon if you did the same with Stuart Spector he could eventually come up with a bass that didn't look like total a55?

Wow - all this hate for Spector, you feeling ok? 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...