# Gibson Sues Kiesel? This is just getting sad...



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Apparently, Kiesel received a cease and desist letter from Gibson for them to stop making their Ultra V and CS6 models. Quick highlights:

Gibson's trademarks didn't come into effect until 1995. Carvin/Kiesel has been making the Ultra V since 1986.
Carvin/Kiesel didn't introduce the CS6 until after Gibson had already lost their lawsuit against PRS in 2005-ish. The CS6 is far more like a PRS than it is a Les Paul.
Gibson has been sending cease and desist letters to tons of manufacturers, even to those whose instruments are so different than Gibson's there's no way they could win the lawsuits. It's likely just a strong arm to get smaller companies to pony up large lawyer costs to defend themselves, forcing them to either change or close up shop.
Kiesel is responding by continuing to produce both the Ultra V and the CS6 while lowering their prices to make them more favorable over the comparable Gibson models.
The speculation is that Gibson realizes their profits aren't great, so they're shifting their focus from being a guitar company to being a "Vulture Capitalist" company, essentially hoping to make money off of licensing deals from their patents/trademarks rather than making guitars.
I've never been a Gibson fan, but I've also never had anything particularly against them. I just never got into their aesthetic or feel. However, their business practices these past few years (decades even) are making them lose much of the good will they've earned through their heritage in the industry. It's sad to see...

In the age of social media, how can anyone at Gibson think that any of this kind of attention is good for business?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Probably will help Kiesel.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Milkman said:


> Probably will help Kiesel.


Yup! It is essentially free marketing for Kiesel. The growing anti-Gibson crowd who hasn't heard of Kiesel will now, and they might even buy their guitars.


----------



## nbs2005 (Mar 21, 2018)

If you read 'The Birth of Loud' by Ian Port, you'll get a sense of Les Paul and his character (or lack thereof). Seems like he was a good match for the company.......


----------



## Doug B (Jun 19, 2017)

Instead of buying Gibson, we can look at Kiessel, Heritage guitars, Eastman and a ton of other companies. Gibson better watch it or they will do themselves out of business.


----------



## Doug B (Jun 19, 2017)

nbs2005 said:


> If you read 'The Birth of Loud' by Ian Port, you'll get a sense of Les Paul and his character (or lack thereof). Seems like he was a good match for the company.......



Care to share a bit, please?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Doug B said:


> Instead of buying Gibson, we can look at Kiessel, Heritage guitars, Eastman and a ton of other companies. Gibson better watch it or they will do themselves out of business.


I wouldn't say Kiessel is a comparable alternative to Gibson, Heritage for sure and possibly yes on Eastman. I also wouldn't say Gibson is going to find themselves out of business over little squabbles like this, they've done much worse and pulled through. I wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a partnership between the two brands to get some attention. Gibson needs it and Kiessel could certainly use it given their troubles in the last few years. 

Either way, Mark from Gibson is a shady dude and the last couple of Gibson TV vids posted here have been great but cringy to watch when he speaks. Screw that dude.


----------



## nbs2005 (Mar 21, 2018)

I think it's fair to say that Les Paul was not a very charitable person. He was petty and controlling and very concerned about his image. He treated Mary Ford as an add on even though she played just about every lick he ever played. I'm not questioning his talent or his innovation; but my take is he was a bit of a jerk. Which seems to be similar to the company whose guitars are named after him.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

nbs2005 said:


> I think it's fair to say that Les Paul was not a very charitable person. He was petty and controlling and very concerned about his image. He treated Mary Ford as an add on even though she played just about every lick he ever played. I'm not questioning his talent or his innovation; but my take is he was a bit of a jerk. Which seems to be similar to the company whose guitars are named after him.


I think you're reaching a fair bit here, sounds like you're just describing a typical showbiz performer.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

jbealsmusic said:


> their business practices these past few years (decades even) are making them lose much of the good will they've earned through their heritage in the industry.


This sums it up perfectly for me. I'm a Gibson fan because of the basis and heritage of music I grew up with and the people that used the LP. That has become a lost remnant of my previous Psyche and they aren't doing a lot to change my new outlook on them now. Having said that, they still make friggin great guitars.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One increasingly gets the impression that Gibson's legal department is living in a cave, somewhere in the mountainous areas of Tennessee or Kentucky, and get "supplies" brought in every 6 months, along with a stack of back issues of guitar magazines, and sends out letters with whoever brought the supplies in. At times, it feels like they are busily responding to things that have happened and been resolved ages ago, and are simply not communicating with senior management. I get the sense that, far from pumping their fists in the air and shouting "Yeah!" in unison, many Gibson employees are wondering just what the hell "the guys in legal" are up to.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

the only thing lawyers are good at is charging out their time.


----------



## Doug B (Jun 19, 2017)

nbs2005 said:


> I think it's fair to say that Les Paul was not a very charitable person. He was petty and controlling and very concerned about his image. He treated Mary Ford as an add on even though she played just about every lick he ever played. I'm not questioning his talent or his innovation; but my take is he was a bit of a jerk. Which seems to be similar to the company whose guitars are named after him.



Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Jimmy Fingers (Aug 17, 2017)

If Ford made almost replicas of Chrysler Mini-vans, and called them Ford Grand"e" Caravans...it would be in Chrysler's best interest and right to go after them. People get angry when China does it...why not when other countries or companies do it. The answer is simple...stop making guitars that look like Gibsons. Splitting hairs and winning in court is hardly an endorsement of a blatant rip off.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

dbl post


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

Yes Mr. Kiesel it does look like a Flying V, the differences are less stark than you imagine, at least in my mind.

I a surprised there is so much interest in the corporations behind the guitars. A company's business practices don't even enter my mind when I am buying a guitar. 

Fender does the same thing, but bullies much smaller companies. Fender vs Lucky Dog guitars for example. Headstock infringement? Kinda, I guess...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Jimmy Fingers said:


> If Ford made almost replicas of Chrysler Mini-vans, and called them Ford Grand"e" Caravans...it would be in Chrysler's best interest and right to go after them. People get angry when China does it...why not when other countries or companies do it. The answer is simple...stop making guitars that look like Gibsons. Splitting hairs and winning in court is hardly an endorsement of a blatant rip off.


That's a reasonable take on things.....if the last 40 years didn't matter. Gibson, under Henry J, went after PRS regarding the Single Cut well after a decade ago. The case was thrown out because claims to trademark protection require that you don't sit on your ass letting everyone and their cousin make copies of varying quality for several decades before deciding that a company is cutting in on your turf by making something that sorta kinda looks like your product, and is challenging it, quality-wise. Trademark protection requires that you make a point of associating visual or functional design characteristics with your product, and as distinctive or identifying, as early as possible. If the horse has left the barn, grown old and sired several generations in the process, you lose your claim to trademark. It's a bit of a stretch, but could Paul McCartney attempt to claim trademark protection for "Beatles haircuts" in 2020? Not bloody likely. In 1964, maybe, but not after a half century.

The thing is that, as the big companies make a point of trying to appeal to every conceivable price-point and market, their product lines become increasingly indistinguishable from what everyone else is doing/making, and trademark infringement becomes increasingly harder to argue or protect against. Is Gibson's legal department now going to litigate against every single double cutaway semi-hollow out there on the grounds that it resembles the ES-335? You could, I suppose, if you had taken that action 40 years ago.

Now, if Eastwood started making a Dusk Tiger or Firebird X copy, without licensing it from Gibson, Gibson would be well within their rights to claim trademark infringement, since nobody else BUT Gibson has ever made those, so it is uniquely associated with their brand (much to their shareholders' dismay!). Those exceptions aside, claiming trademark infringement on guitar-body shapes in 2020 is a bit like claiming trademark protection for bathroom tissue on a roll with perforations between sheets. Good luck with that.


----------



## Jimmy Fingers (Aug 17, 2017)

This was written on another forum about this same topic:


I already said this in the other thread, but here goes:

I used to practice trademark law as my primary business. I've sent out hundreds of nasty-grams threatening to sue, usually we get the "infringing party" to change their name and that's good enough for the client. Defended a few people who've been threatened, as well--and assisted a few to change their names. I assisted the band AC Dixie when they were threatened by AC/DC's publishing company; they're now called Hayseed Dixie.

When you own a trademark, you have to police the marketplace. If you sit on your rights and don't enforce them, your trademarks become unenforceable. And the last thing you want is for your customers to buy the other guy's product thinking it's yours.

In a trademark enforcement action, the standard is whether it is likely to create consumer confusion. IMO the headstock designs are different enough that that claim is unlikely to succeed. I doubt if a jury would consider that people will actually be confused by the headstock shape. But when you're filing a lawsuit, sometimes you bring multiple claims, some of which are stronger than others.

Using the name "Televangelist" on a guitar that looks remarkably like a Telecaster is highly problematic because both guitars are likely to be referred to as "Tele," moreover the Lucky Dog guitar is clearly trading off consumer good will towards Telecaster guitars.

Since I'm a trademark attorney I know how to search the USPTO trademark database. Here's where the plot thickens: Lucky Dog filed a trademark application for "TELEVANGELIST" guitars on February 15, 2018. This was an aggressive move on their part--they started it--and this is likely what brought them to the attention of Fender's trademark attorneys. For Fender, allowing this to be adopted as a trademark for guitars could make its "TELE" (registered 1976) and "TELECASTER" (registered 1969) trademarks unenforceable. This is actually an existential threat to the Tele brand; if Fender's trademark were cancelled as a result, they wouldn't be able to prevent importation of cheap knock-offs and counterfeits.

Lucky Dog picked this fight, and it seems pretty obvious to me that Fender can't afford to back down short of Lucky Dog's trademark application being cancelled, and the Televangelist guitar being rebranded to some other name that is not "likely to be confused" with Tele or Telecaster.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Rozz said:


> Yes Mr. Kiesel it does look like a Flying V, the differences are less stark than you imagine, at least in my mind.


Really? To me they look alike only in a very general way. I can’t imagine any guitarist confusing the two, there very distinct differences that are pretty hard to miss.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Since we're using the car analogy, comparing a Kiesel/PRS carved top to a Gibson is like comparing one sedan to another. Sure, they are similar in some ways, but are very different in others. I can't tell some sedans apart on a quick look but they are all very different, even if they don't appear different at first glance. No car manufacturers are directly ripping each other off, even though many cars have similar styling. Also, none of them are fraudulently using the other companies' branding like the "Chibsons", "Chenders", Chibanezes", etc do.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Jimmy Fingers said:


> If Ford made almost replicas of Chrysler Mini-vans, and called them Ford Grand"e" Caravans...it would be in Chrysler's best interest and right to go after them. People get angry when China does it...why not when other countries or companies do it. The answer is simple...stop making guitars that look like Gibsons. Splitting hairs and winning in court is hardly an endorsement of a blatant rip off.


That's a good point.

And look at all the companies that make a "Stratocaster" and a "Telecaster". Endless list.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

jbealsmusic said:


> Since we're using the car analogy, comparing a Kiesel/PRS carved top to a Gibson is like comparing one sedan to another. Sure, they are similar in some ways, but are very different in others. I can't tell some sedans apart on a quick look but they are all very different, even if they don't appear different at first glance. No car manufacturers are directly ripping each other off, even though many cars have similar styling. Also, none of them are fraudulently using the other companies' branding like the "Chibsons", "Chenders", Chibanezes", etc do.


I agree that all cars look alike these days. I can't tell the difference anymore. 

To go further with the car analogy, what if Ford was making & selling a copy of the Chrysler mini-van for 25 years and Chrysler did nothing about it until last week. Too late to complain now?


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

I would change Televangelist to Hellevangelist.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

I like Gibson stuff but all mine were made before 1963 so they didn’t get any money from me!


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

gtrguy said:


> Really? To me they look alike only in a very general way. I can’t imagine any guitarist confusing the two, there very distinct differences that are pretty hard to miss.


When it is a V shape I don't consider the subtle changes enough to overcome the 'general' similarity. 'That is why they have Patent Law.

In the early 90s I saw a patent lawyer about patenting an idea I had which was putting thin diamond inlays on the fretboard on all of the natural notes, so each string was laid out like a keyboard.

The patent search came back with an existing patent belonging to a guy in Montreal, which was only awarded in about '87. Even though his patent was to cover the fretboard in black and white rectangular pieces of plastic to achieve the same thing, they ruled my idea was too similar to award me a patent. The design of mine was entirely different...only marking the natural notes, inlaying the markers instead of covering the fb with plastic and using a diamond shape.

I can't imagine a guitar player confusing my system with the existing patent either....and yet.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Rozz said:


> When it is a V shape I don't consider the subtle changes enough to overcome the 'general' similarity. 'That is why they have Patent Law.
> 
> In the early 90s I saw a patent lawyer about patenting an idea I had which was putting thin diamond inlays on the fretboard on all of the natural notes, so each string was laid out like a keyboard.
> 
> ...


A patent is quite different from a trademark. Gibson versus Keisel is a trademark dispute.

Your example is a system of indicating the notes on a fretboard. I suspect it wasn’t the shape of the markers that was the issue but rather the concept.


----------



## jcon (Apr 28, 2006)

Gibson actually has a few "authorized" guitar builders. Something I learned about a couple months ago but doesn't seem to get much attention...
The first Gibson-authorized non-Gibson guitars are now available from Banker Custom | Guitar World


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

gtrguy said:


> A patent is quite different from a trademark. Gibson versus Keisel is a trademark dispute.


Fair point. I gotta be honest I didn't watch the entire video and assumed it was a patent issue because I thought Gibson already lost the Flying V trademark suit. My bad. ;-)

*



Your example is a system of indicating the notes on a fretboard. I suspect it wasn’t the shape of the markers that was the issue but rather the concept.

Click to expand...

*That was actually my point. But even more; differentiating it from the existing patent was inlays opposed to loverlays, it was much different.

Similar imo to the previous case with the concept being a V shaped guitar with more minor differentiating features.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

jcon said:


> Gibson actually has a few "authorized" guitar builders. Something I learned about a couple months ago but doesn't seem to get much attention...
> The first Gibson-authorized non-Gibson guitars are now available from Banker Custom | Guitar World


I'd think they'd be kinda pissed about getting a deal done to use a Gibson patent and having a brand like Kiezal say "suck it Gibson". There's more than one side to this story.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

Jimmy Fingers said:


> *This was written on another forum about this same topic:*



Sorry I missed it, thanks for the re-post.



> Since I'm a trademark attorney I know how to search the USPTO trademark database. Here's where the plot thickens: Lucky Dog filed a trademark application for "TELEVANGELIST" guitars on February 15, 2018. This was an aggressive move on their part--they started it--and this is likely what brought them to the attention of Fender's trademark attorneys. For Fender, allowing this to be adopted as a trademark for guitars could make its "TELE" (registered 1976) and "TELECASTER" (registered 1969) trademarks unenforceable. This is actually an existential threat to the Tele brand; if Fender's trademark were cancelled as a result, they wouldn't be able to prevent importation of cheap knock-offs and counterfeits.
> 
> Lucky Dog picked this fight, and it seems pretty obvious to me that Fender can't afford to back down short of Lucky Dog's trademark application being cancelled, and the Televangelist guitar being rebranded to some other name that is not "likely to be confused" with Tele or Telecaster.


Thanks for adding context. I read about it below, and it comes from Lucky Dog's perspective addressing a seperate headstock issue not the Tele name. Fake news? lol:

Fender Facing Public Backlash After Legally Threatening Small-Scale Guitar Manufacturer


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As Jimmyfingers' reposting of a trademark lawyer's comment from another forum indicated, the central issue, when it comes to trademarks is whether infringement would result in product confusion. It's not _exactly_ fraud, but the undesired outcome is essentially the same: if _you_ make a product that is easily confused with _my_ product, I may lose sales via that misrepresentation, and if your product quality is poorer than mine, and _my_ product gets associated with the poorer quality of _your_ product because they are so easily confused, it's almost tantamount to slander.

So the question is always "Would any reasonable consumer think that A was B?". Over the past year, I've grown a lengthy beard, but if I put on sunglasses and nudu hat, and tried to speak in a Texas drawl, would anyone _really_ think I was Billy Gibbons?

What counts as, and narrowly avoids, trademark infringement is a funny and often subtle thing. Before buying TC and farming out 2-4-knob pedals to them, Behringer produced a line of pedals in plastic enclosures that looked exactly like Boss pedals. The fact that they were sometimes clones OF Boss pedals didn't help. Boss's legal team contacted Behringer, and the "solution" involved rounding the corners of the foot treadle and enclosure such that they didn't look quite as much like Boss pedals. They still look sort of like Boss pedals, but you wouldn't confuse them. Meanwhile, Valeton came out with a line of pedals that looked exactly like Boss, with square corners, but "shrunk in the wash". When I spoke with a Valeton rep at NAMM and asked if Boss was unhappy about it, he said no, it was fine. So I guess the diminuitive size, and the fact that Boss has never made anything that small, eliminated any possible confusion.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

mhammer said:


> the central issue, when it comes to trademarks is whether infringement would result in product confusion.


Good point with the Behringer pedals needing to be changed to avoid confusion. I think adding to that point would be if Boss had let other pedal makers create pedals for many decades that looked quite a bit like Boss, but then suddenly decided to pursue legal action against Behringer, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. If that were the case, Boss would have demonstrated by their inaction that the shape was not a significant source of product confusion. Trademarks need to be adequately defended over the years, otherwise they are useless and not enforceable. 

To bring it back to the car analogy, the Ultra V having a similar shape to the Flying V is like saying that anything with 4 wheels, 4 doors, a windshield and a trunk is a Ford. I suspect where Gibson has a problem really has less to do with the shape but more with using “V” in the guitar’s name. On the surface, I can see their point that the Ultra V might sound like a successor to the Gibson Flying V. However, again, so many guitars have been marketed as a “V” for years that the trademark is useless. The term “V” when referring to guitars is like calling an insulated beverage container a thermos... it’s so commonplace and the mark has been so undefended that neither deserves a trademark (as the latter has lost its trademark). 

Again with the cars, this whole thing is like if some car company today suddenly decided they could prove they came up with the design and name “Sport Utility Vehicle” and started suing all the other car companies who make an SUV for infringing on their trademark. Even if they were the first, it’s irrelevant because they didn’t do anything about protecting it for decades.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

On one hand I get that the new owners want to set the stage of where they're at--but they are really too late for that.
On the other hand it does look like they're crybabies.

As for Gibson's legal team, I doubt they are doing any of this without orders from on high.


I do own a Gibson, bought it used.
Same with my Epi Mandobird.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

troyhead said:


> Good point with the Behringer pedals needing to be changed to avoid confusion. I think adding to that point would be if Boss had let other pedal makers create pedals for many decades that looked quite a bit like Boss, but then suddenly decided to pursue legal action against Behringer, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. If that were the case, Boss would have demonstrated by their inaction that the shape was not a significant source of product confusion. Trademarks need to be adequately defended over the years, otherwise they are useless and not enforceable.
> 
> To bring it back to the car analogy, the Ultra V having a similar shape to the Flying V is like saying that anything with 4 wheels, 4 doors, a windshield and a trunk is a Ford. I suspect where Gibson has a problem really has less to do with the shape but more with using “V” in the guitar’s name. On the surface, I can see their point that the Ultra V might sound like a successor to the Gibson Flying V. However, again, so many guitars have been marketed as a “V” for years that the trademark is useless. The term “V” when referring to guitars is like calling an insulated beverage container a thermos... it’s so commonplace and the mark has been so undefended that neither deserves a trademark (as the latter has lost its trademark).
> 
> Again with the cars, this whole thing is like if some car company today suddenly decided they could prove they came up with the design and name “Sport Utility Vehicle” and started suing all the other car companies who make an SUV for infringing on their trademark. Even if they were the first, it’s irrelevant because they didn’t do anything about protecting it for decades.


Bingo!
I think as well, one always needs to factor in marketing of the ostensibly-similar product. If I make a V-ish body whose wings are a little shorter and rounded, and pitch it as a great economical replacement for "a classic", I'm not just leaving it up to the consumer to possibly be confused, I'm actively creating the confusion.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> One increasingly gets the impression that Gibson's legal department is living in a cave, somewhere in the mountainous areas of Tennessee or Kentucky, and get "supplies" brought in every 6 months, along with a stack of back issues of guitar magazines, and sends out letters with whoever brought the supplies in. At times, it feels like they are busily responding to things that have happened and been resolved ages ago, and are simply not communicating with senior management. I get the sense that, far from pumping their fists in the air and shouting "Yeah!" in unison, many Gibson employees are wondering just what the hell "the guys in legal" are up to.


These types of lawsuits don't get initiated by the legal department. You're talking board of directors here. This case is just weird and makes no sense.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Jimmy Fingers said:


> This was written on another forum about this same topic:
> 
> 
> I already said this in the other thread, but here goes:
> ...


Funny enough, Lucky Dog picked a fight with a company that knows a little bit about having to change a name to keep the lawyers happy. Gretsch taught Leo that lesson about 70 years ago and I guess that lesson ran pretty deep.

As far as regaining your moral standing and trademark after the horse has left the pasture, we can all look at Harley Davidson, who's been pursuing these legal actions for a couple decades now. They let it go for a few decades before that and then decided the image and logo were theirs and all the fake HD stuff had to go. I have no idea how successful they've been. There was a lot of water already under that bridge.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Pursuing trademark infringement is one of those frog-in-water-coming-to-a-boil things. Companies can assume some look-alike is not going to hurt them because they have a clear reputation for quality. That _was_ true of Gibson. Fifty years ago, we knew the difference between "a Gibson" and a cheap Japanese knockoff. We would buy the knockoff, to stand in front of the mirror, posing with guitar-face, until we could save up and buy "the real thing". It was like the difference between bone china from the high-end dinnerware store and plates from Dollarama. Gibson let it slide because they felt bulletproof, due to the easy quality-distinction. But over time, _especially_ after Gibson started pursuing the budget market, blurring the line between their products and cheap Asian knockoffs, it became a natural response for consumers to start thinking "Why should I pay _those_ prices when I can get something that looks the same and plays the same, and when I'm just going to install after-market pickups anyway?". Indeed, both Gibson and Fender have made a point of constantly introducing "new models" that are essentially what folks have been doing with after-market mods for decades, now. They have both been actively undermining their respective brands for years. The water has come to a full rolling boil, and now they decide the heat has to be instantly turned down.

A tip of the hat to Rickenbacker, who not only have a distinctive design, but have vigilantly and actively pursued anyone attempting to make knockoffs from day 1. THOSE folks have a legitimate claim to trademark infringement. There have been short-lived attempts to make copies, but they all get quickly quashed by Rick's legal department, making all such copies ironically pricey when you see them cropping up for resale on Kijiji or elsewhere.

Of course, what makes trademark protection an ever-steeper uphill climb is that there is just so damn much product out there, and the internet quickly makes what would have been a local product 30 years ago, into an international product. It's like one has to retain a staff of 20 to scour the web all day long in search of anything that might be similar to your product. I don't absolve those companies of any blame, but I don't envy them either.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

mhammer said:


> It's like one has to retain a staff of 20 to scour the web all day long in search of anything that might be similar to your product


Wonder why they ignore china.


----------



## Rollin Hand (Jul 12, 2012)

I think Gibson is formenting more bad will than good with this type of thing. I susoect Gibson won't sue until the Dean situation plays out. That will provide legal precedent (as if the PRS single cut case already doesn't). 

And if they do sue,I hope Jeff and gang win,along with court costs. That might put an end to this stupidity.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Rollin Hand said:


> I think Gibson is formenting more bad will than good with this type of thing.


For sure... If they're going after Keisel for the Ultra V I don't know how they will be able to ignore Jackson (King V, Rhoads)... Fender has a lot more money than Keisel so Gibson probably don't want to go there but I don't see how they can ignore one "infringer" without compromising their case.


----------



## sillyak (Oct 22, 2016)

The biggest threat to Gibson's trademark is Chibsons coming in, with poor quality and straight up Gibson written on the headstock. 

Guess there is little they can do about that though.

These cease and desist letters and law suits just seem like a waste of resources.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

EHX beat them in China.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

Doug B said:


> Instead of buying Gibson, we can look at Kiessel, Heritage guitars, Eastman and a ton of other companies. Gibson better watch it or they will do themselves out of business.



I own a 1971 Gibson Medallion Series Flying V and a 1974 Gibson LPC .
In 1983, my V w/case, was only under $ 650.00 U. S. and in 1988, my LPC w/case $ 1,200.00 .... Gibson is over pricing themselves to extinction.

Recently, Gibson decided to raise the bar on Kramer guitars, after years of neglect. I think the main reason is, Gibson's are not selling to well due to prices and quality control issues..... So Gibson decided to improve Epiphone and Kramer due to the fact, that both Epiphone and Kramer are keeping Gibson afloat.
I guess Gibson is trying to sue others , for only economic gains, instead of building good guitars.
The "Play Authentic" video of 2018 .... Was very "Trumpian", in nature .


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

vadsy said:


> I wouldn't say Kiessel is a comparable alternative to Gibson, Heritage for sure and possibly yes on Eastman. I also wouldn't say Gibson is going to find themselves out of business over little squabbles like this, they've done much worse and pulled through. I wouldn't be surprised to find out this is a partnership between the two brands to get some attention. Gibson needs it and Kiessel could certainly use it given their troubles in the last few years.
> 
> Either way, Mark from Gibson is a shady dude and the last couple of Gibson TV vids posted here have been great but cringy to watch when he speaks. Screw that dude.


Mark used to work at Norm's Rare Guitars in Los Angeles , California.
A friend of mine was trying to sell a 1962 Telecaster and Mark was totally arrogant and condescending to my friend.

Not a very friendly man.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

AJ6stringsting said:


> I own a 1971 Gibson Medallion Series Flying V and a 1974 Gibson LPC .
> In 1983, my V w/case, was only under $ 650.00 U. S. and in 1988, my LPC w/case $ 1,200.00 .... Gibson is over pricing themselves to extinction.
> 
> Recently, Gibson decided to raise the bar on Kramer guitars, after years of neglect. I think the main reason is, Gibson's are not selling to well due to prices and quality control issues..... So Gibson decided to improve Epiphone and Kramer due to the fact, that both Epiphone and Kramer are keeping Gibson afloat.
> ...


Another thing you realize if you watch say YouTube channels run by younger viewers, a lot of them like and even prefer Epiphone. It's not a case where they are just comparing them to Gibson. Plus most have grown up simply not being able to afford Gibson even if they did prefer them. Epi does signature models for artists that are fairly relevant to younger players as well. With the release of the Inspired By line this, they are only spreading out the demographic as well.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

AJ6stringsting said:


> I own a 1971 Gibson Medallion Series Flying V and a 1974 Gibson LPC .
> In 1983, my V w/case, was only under $ 650.00 U. S. and in 1988, my LPC w/case $ 1,200.00 .... Gibson is over pricing themselves to extinction.
> 
> Recently, Gibson decided to raise the bar on Kramer guitars, after years of neglect. I think the main reason is, Gibson's are not selling to well due to prices and quality control issues..... So Gibson decided to improve Epiphone and Kramer due to the fact, that both Epiphone and Kramer are keeping Gibson afloat.
> ...


What makes you think Gibson’s aren’t selling well? I genuinely don’t know but I wouldn’t have thought that.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

1SweetRide said:


> What makes you think Gibson’s aren’t selling well? I genuinely don’t know but I wouldn’t have thought that.


I doubt they aren't selling well, but I think they will get to a point where they should be concerned. The only way anyone I know would be getting most Gibson's nowadays is used. I don't know many people, especially my younger friends, that can afford most Gibson's. What I see on this forum with Gibson ownership is way different than what I see off it.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Pursuing trademark infringement is one of those frog-in-water-coming-to-a-boil things. Companies can assume some look-alike is not going to hurt them because they have a clear reputation for quality. That _was_ true of Gibson. Fifty years ago, we knew the difference between "a Gibson" and a cheap Japanese knockoff. We would buy the knockoff, to stand in front of the mirror, posing with guitar-face, until we could save up and buy "the real thing". It was like the difference between bone china from the high-end dinnerware store and plates from Dollarama. Gibson let it slide because they felt bulletproof, due to the easy quality-distinction. But over time, _especially_ after Gibson started pursuing the budget market, blurring the line between their products and cheap Asian knockoffs, it became a natural response for consumers to start thinking "Why should I pay _those_ prices when I can get something that looks the same and plays the same, and when I'm just going to install after-market pickups anyway?". Indeed, both Gibson and Fender have made a point of constantly introducing "new models" that are essentially what folks have been doing with after-market mods for decades, now. They have both been actively undermining their respective brands for years. The water has come to a full rolling boil, and now they decide the heat has to be instantly turned down.
> 
> A tip of the hat to Rickenbacker, who not only have a distinctive design, but have vigilantly and actively pursued anyone attempting to make knockoffs from day 1. THOSE folks have a legitimate claim to trademark infringement. There have been short-lived attempts to make copies, but they all get quickly quashed by Rick's legal department, making all such copies ironically pricey when you see them cropping up for resale on Kijiji or elsewhere.
> 
> Of course, what makes trademark protection an ever-steeper uphill climb is that there is just so damn much product out there, and the internet quickly makes what would have been a local product 30 years ago, into an international product. It's like one has to retain a staff of 20 to scour the web all day long in search of anything that might be similar to your product. I don't absolve those companies of any blame, but I don't envy them either.


Lots of companies have made large mistakes early on that they had to pay for later. Does it make it right for people to capitalize on that mistake forever, though?

I recall a certain inventor came up with an interesting new computer. He named if after some innocuous fruit. Then some record company across the pond said, "No, no, no, you can't use that name, unless you can guarantee your device will never be used for music production." A decade or two later, the mistake was realized and remuneration, a lot of it, was paid to the record company. 

The record company deserved it's copyright or trademark or whatever it was. Restitution was the correct and only thing to do for the upstart computer company (who are still doing pretty well). Perhaps these companies 'paying tribute' to Gibson's design should also be paying tribute in the old fashioned way, with big bags of gold and rare jewels? I dunno. I've got my guitars and and I'm good.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I'd like to bring up a point that's kinda been on my mind for a bit with the Gibson stuff. I think it might be a fair point as well. There are a number of guitar centric folks, myself included, who know by looking at the shape of a guitar and some of the specifics that it is one manufacturer or another. Like the V for instance. But if we put aside all the guitar dorks and nerds, would the average, everyday Joe or Josephine actually see the marked differences in these guitars that we take for granted? I'm not giving Gibby a pass for a lot of the stuff, but they could have a point in some of the actions they've taken. For example, a huge halftime event recently took place with a couple of very high profile singers , namely Jlo and Shakira. Would the average fan in that large televised and live audience of those 2 artists realise that the guitar Shakira was "playing" was a Gibson? Or would they just take note of the general shape? I know for a fact that if my wife walked into a guitar shop full of singlecut guitars she'd immediately assume that they were all Les Pauls at first glance. And we've been together, LP and all, for over 30 years. Taking the millions of viewers of the Superbowl and the Shakira Tbird and project that idear to the masses and there just might be something there. I'm willing to bet that most of those people wouldn't know a Gibson from a donkey dick. Just a point I'd like to share that I think has some merit.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Guitar designs can only go so far without getting ridiculous. Fender and Gibson certainly had the jump on practical designs in the hard body electric world but there's only so many ways to go. Single cut, double cut, hollow and semi-hollow are pretty much it for being ergonomically sensible. and some more "out of the box" designs like V's and wedge shapes push the design/practicality quotient to it's outer edge without being unplayable. (insert "what about the blah, blah, blah model") Of course there's some truly unique designs that may not fit that mold but aesthetically they typically appeal to a limited audience or we'd see them in greater numbers. 

Sure a lot of manufacturers follow common design guidelines that were pioneered by Gibson, Fender, Gretsch etc... but more out of practicality than outright copying. The ergonomics of holding and playing an electric guitar dictate a certain consideration to how a person typically plays. The layout of controls can be put anywhere but probably don't make sense in areas of the guitar that you don't usually find them. The cutaway serves a practical purpose. 

It's like GM sending cease and desist letters to Ford because they made a vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine and has four doors, seating for five and four wheels much like theirs. I've owned and played the Carvin (Kiesel) CS model and the Gibson Les Paul. Aside from the single cut and control placement which makes sense practically there's quite a difference between the two. The differences are readily apparent side by side. Contours, cut, thickness, neck profile... all different. I doubt there'd be any "confusion" of which was which as this potential lawsuit seems to imply. Also, as Jeff Kiesel himself said, their models have more in common with PRS than Gibson. Even then nobody mistakes one for the other. None of this is to say one's better than the other. That's up to the player. Conversely, if you blindfolded me and put me in a Ford or GM and covered the logos I'd probably be hard pressed to tell you the difference. 

I think this is ultimately bad PR for Gibson whatever their legal bean counters may think. It's too bad too, since it seemed they were on the way to a sort of renascence in the post Henry years. It appeared they were focusing on core product and manufacturing quality more than recent years. It would be a shame to throw away any newfound good will and potential market by being litigious. As some have suggested it'll probably send a lot of people Kiesel's way.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Imagine if a company had a patent/trademark on the acoustic?


----------



## Prsman (Feb 13, 2016)

All of this hoopla ended up with me venturing over to kiesel’s website to check out their latest offerings. Nice guitars!

10 years ago, I visited Carvin’s shop in Sacramento. I played two amazing CS6’s and one standout CT6. So well built. it’s a shame I left without buying one.

It’s too much of a stretch for Gibson to bully Kiesel over the CS series, so in the end, it makes them look desperate and petty.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Sue authentic.


----------



## Romo (Feb 16, 2020)

Gibson is irreparably destroying themselves now, as if the the sheer lack of quality in their massively price inflated instruments wasn’t bad enough, shit tricks like this is putting the nails in the top of the coffin and alienating a lot of people from them.

So many companies are simply out classing them in every aspect these days they just can’t compete. The legacy of the brand is the last thing standing for them now and even that is getting torn out because of their current business practises.

If they stopped all this bullshit, seriously re-structured their business model and DRASTICALLY improved their quality and pricing, the may be able to come back from the edge of oblivion but I suspect we will see the end of Gibson within 5 years if not.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Romo said:


> Gibson is irreparably destroying themselves now, as if the the sheer lack of quality in their massively price inflated instruments wasn’t bad enough, shit tricks like this is putting the nails in the top of the coffin and alienating a lot of people from them.
> 
> So many companies are simply out classing them in every aspect these days they just can’t compete. The legacy of the brand is the last thing standing for them now and even that is getting torn out because of their current business practises.
> 
> If they stopped all this bullshit, seriously re-structured their business model and DRASTICALLY improved their quality and pricing, the may be able to come back from the edge of oblivion but I suspect we will see the end of Gibson within 5 years if not.


Gibson isn’t not likely to fail. Again. They’ve always been profitable. I don’t see them lowering their prices. That’s not their market.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) Let us distinguish between the manner in which the suit is portrayed and nattered on about in forums like this one, and the degree of aggressive pursuit that Gibson might actually be engaged in. I'm not saying they definitively AREN'T throwing their full muscle at this, but I suspect none of us here have any privileged sense of how seriously Gibson is really taking this, or whether it is simply a let's-test-the-waters-and-see exercise. They might be just goofing around...or they might not. We don't know, other than by what we read online.

2) Gibson sales might lag a bit, but they are a big company with many branches, and have been around the block more than a few times (though having visited the old Kalamazoo facility, at one time they actually _were_ a whole block). Folks might end up buying more Epiphones than Gibsons, but Gibson is not going away. When I was at Summer NAMM in 2018, and the invited panel on stage for the plenary breakfast were asked about "companies to watch for" over the next year, one of the panel members stated Gibson as his choice, noting that, in spite of some rough patches, folks in the gear and music industry wanted to see that proud brand survive. The room of well over 1000 retail dealers erupted in applause. WE may whine about prices and quality, but the folks whose income depends on selling Gibson's products are dead set on _making _Gibson survive, one way or another, and providing advice to insure that happening.

3) Dorian makes a fair point about design details being largely lost on many consumers. Indeed, that is precisely what results in a budget Strat clone being advertised on Kijiji as "red guitar, missing one string". Many consumers have a generic sense about instruments, treating them as having a few basic prototypic designs and making no brand or other distinctions between them (well, maybe except for colour and how many strings are present/absent). Would those consumers be ready to drop 4 figures on a guitar and mistake a Kiesel for a Gibson? My sense is the odds of that are low. Yes, they might buy something for $200 off a website and think they are getting something equivalent to either a Gibson OR Kiesel, but a) Gibson isn't losing a sale in that instance since price is dictating choice, and b) quality-control differences between the budget brand and costlier brands is unlikely to be generalized to the pricier brands, rendering both reasons for pursuing trademark infringement rather moot.


----------



## Rozz (Aug 1, 2018)

I didn't really want to get back into this because I don't really care about the corporate side of guitar companies. But I keep reading the same thing about Gibson's prices, literally everywhere. Are Gibson's ridiculous prices really that ridiculous? A bit of rough math might help make it clearer:

In 1959 a LP Standard cost just about $300 USD my search told me and is easily verified. The current value of that $300.00 after calculating inflation is $2,659.49 because of 786.5% cumulative inflation rate. You can juggle the figures for retail LP prices but the inflation rate is done using an inflation calculator. US Inflation Calculator

Here is a listing for a new LP that pretty accurately mirrors what one might expect after accounting for inflation and considering nothing else @ $2499.00. I looked to find one that supported the case and am sure you can find them listed higher as well. As I am sure you could in 1959: Gibson Les Paul Standard '60s Iced Tea 083...Call 888-794-8482 To Order!

This guitar is also available on credit with 0% interest for 48 months. Guys/gals who know the present/future value of money concept know that this makes it even cheaper. For those who don't, think about putting the $2500.00 in a four-year term deposit collecting the interest then paying the $2500.00 guitar debt off in cash and keeping the interest. People can pick a rate and calculate it if they like.

If a person wants to argue that LPs were ridiculously overpriced in 1959 and still are I get that. But if people think they were once cheap and now way overpriced I don't see it. But I am open to other viewpoints in case I missed something.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

It'd be nice if they made a nice looking bass. At least offer the SG and EB series at 34" scale.


----------



## Romo (Feb 16, 2020)

1SweetRide said:


> Gibson isn’t not likely to fail. Again. They’ve always been profitable. I don’t see them lowering their prices. That’s not their market.


Profitable companies wouldn't have filled for bankruptcy, and given their current direction i'd say its entirely plausible they can fail again. Their tactics are extremely divisive but most importantly their current product quality is absolutely not good enough for the extremely high price they demand for it.

The funny thing is, nearly everyone WANTS Gibson to revive and be the company it once was, unfortunately its Gibson themselves that give the impression that their unwilling to drive in that direction and seem to be stubbornly doing everything they can to achieve the exact opposite.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Is it Gibson that's being divisive or is it certain media personalities perpetuating some story that we don't have the answers or insight to? Particularly that Youtuber in the OP.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Romo said:


> Profitable companies wouldn't have filled for bankruptcy, and given their current direction i'd say its entirely plausible they can fail again. Their tactics are extremely divisive but most importantly their current product quality is absolutely not good enough for the extremely high price they demand for it.
> 
> The funny thing is, nearly everyone WANTS Gibson to revive and be the company it once was, unfortunately its Gibson themselves that give the impression that their unwilling to drive in that direction and seem to be stubbornly doing everything they can to achieve the exact opposite.


Don't forget, the reason Gibson declared bankruptcy was not because of the guitar division. It was fine and making a profit. It was the other acquisitions that that drained the bank account.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Over the last 25 years technology have turned many industries upside down.

With guitar manufacturing, CNC, computer design and new materials has made the job of building guitars much faster and easier. Guitars, like many products have become a commodity where "low bid" wins a big share of the market. The problem for high end products is the dwindling buyers who know the difference and are willing to spend much more for a very similar looking product. Plus finding skilled craftsmen to build these better guitars gets harder, coupled with the high cost of operating, govt rules etc. It is difficult for most people to justify a $7,000 Les Paul against a $700 Epi Les Paul. It is also impossible to make the $7,000 guitar at that quality cheaper and still have it playable, stay in tune, sound good and look good.

I am thinking the high end guitar market is OK for Gibson, but I bet the real profit comes from the low end high volume products they sell like Epiphone. The high end guitar lines can't support the huge infrastructure and they need the low dollar high volume sales to stay viable.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

player99 said:


> Over the last 25 years technology have turned many industries upside down.
> 
> With guitar manufacturing, CNC, computer design and new materials has made the job of building guitars much faster and easier. Guitars, like many products have become a commodity where "low bid" wins a big share of the market. The problem for high end products is the dwindling buyers who know the difference and are willing to spend much more for a very similar looking product. Plus finding skilled craftsmen to build these better guitars gets harder, coupled with the high cost of operating, govt rules etc. It is difficult for most people to justify a $7,000 Les Paul against a $700 Epi Les Paul. It is also impossible to make the $7,000 guitar at that quality cheaper and still have it playable, stay in tune, sound good and look good.
> 
> I am thinking the high end guitar market is OK for Gibson, but I bet the real profit comes from the low end high volume products they sell like Epiphone. The high end guitar lines can't support the huge infrastructure and they need the low dollar high volume sales to stay viable.


You would think so but I’m not sure that’s true. The truck divisions at Ford provide a level of profit that the small vehicle division could never match. Even though they sell less of them. Maybe not true today given Ford is getting out of the small vehicle market in NA. I would still believe Gibson is more profitable than Epiphone. Interesting discussion though.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I would be very concerned if Gibson were possibly to fail. Because that would mean the guitar business in general has failed. And that scenario isn't beyond the realm of possibility given the current state of music.

Someone mentioned the SB half-time show. One guitar on stage, and it was basically a prop. You have to remember we are all intimately involved in this hobby (too close to the forest to see the trees), but the general public just doesn't GAF. They just want something with a good beat, that they can dance to, guitar or not. It is as it's always been. Guitar was just the convenient, popular instrument 50 years ago.


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

High/Deaf said:


> Someone mentioned the SB half-time show. One guitar on stage, and it was basically a prop.


Guitar is twice as popular as you thought, because there were two! (and one was a gorgeous American Ultra Tele in Texas Tea finish)









To be fair though, isn’t everything in the Super Bowl half-time show a prop, from the guitars to the mics to the performers themselves? No one is really doing anything but being a prop. That said, it interesting they still put the capo on the guitar.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Them there Props prolly make a lotta Payola for the Coka Cola.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

player99 said:


> Over the last 25 years technology have turned many industries upside down.
> 
> With guitar manufacturing, CNC, computer design and new materials has made the job of building guitars much faster and easier. Guitars, like many products have become a commodity where "low bid" wins a big share of the market. The problem for high end products is the dwindling buyers who know the difference and are willing to spend much more for a very similar looking product. Plus finding skilled craftsmen to build these better guitars gets harder, coupled with the high cost of operating, govt rules etc. It is difficult for most people to justify a $7,000 Les Paul against a $700 Epi Les Paul. It is also impossible to make the $7,000 guitar at that quality cheaper and still have it playable, stay in tune, sound good and look good.
> 
> I am thinking the high end guitar market is OK for Gibson, but I bet the real profit comes from the low end high volume products they sell like Epiphone. The high end guitar lines can't support the huge infrastructure and they need the low dollar high volume sales to stay viable.



At the last NAMM, show, Gibson had their new Kramer guitars out. They've improved Kramer, but they are no where near the quality of my 1980's Kramer's.

I believe the main reasons Gibson has improved both Epiphone and Kramer, is due to the fact that with out those brands .... Gibson couldn't make it on its own because of their QC issues, ridiculous high price and lack of innovation's on the Gibson brand.

One could easily buy a Greco, Burny, Edwards, Agile or Wolf guitars for far far less than Gibson Les Paul and get features that would cost $ 7,000 or more from the Gibson Custom Shop.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

AJ6stringsting said:


> I believe the main reasons Gibson has improved both Epiphone and Kramer, is due to the fact that with out those brands .... Gibson couldn't make it on its own because of their QC issues, ridiculous high price and lack of innovation's on the Gibson brand.


When Gibson went into bankruptcy, many of the articles mentioned the issue being the companies they acquired and the failing electronics business they bought in an attempt to be a “lifestyle brand”. The guitar business wasn’t the problem. 
Here’s why Gibson is bankrupt—no, it’s not because rock is dead


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

If you watch YouTube channels of younger users, you notice a lot of them actually use Epiphone by choice and don't see it as budget Gibson line. There are a lot of artists sig models they make that are relevant to current music as well. With younger generations, the money isn't there to buy crazy expensive guitars as much either. While I don't think Gibson is in huge trouble, and I don't think Epiphone has eclipsed their sales, I can definitely see that time coming in the future. I think Gibson worries about the same thing.


----------



## Larry (Sep 3, 2016)

Are the Big "Made in U.S.A" Guitar companies Unionized.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Not that I know of. Why?


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Might have something to do with the cost of the Gibsons? Or not? I don't think they are though.


----------



## sillyak (Oct 22, 2016)

torndownunit said:


> If you watch YouTube channels of younger users, you notice a lot of them actually use Epiphone by choice and don't see it as budget Gibson line. There are a lot of artists sig models they make that are relevant to current music as well. With younger generations, the money isn't there to buy crazy expensive guitars as much either. While I don't think Gibson is in huge trouble, and I don't think Epiphone has eclipsed their sales, I can definitely see that time coming in the future. I think Gibson worries about the same thing.



Am I younger? I'm 31. My friends and I may have started with Indonesian, Korean, Mexican guitars. Once we got money it was straight to American made.

Maybe this has changed with todays teens/early 20 somethings; but generally once people have more money, tastes change.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

sillyak said:


> Am I younger? I'm 31. My friends and I may have started with Indonesian, Korean, Mexican guitars. Once we got money it was straight to American made.
> 
> Maybe this has changed with todays teens/early 20 somethings; but generally once people have more money, tastes change.


I am talking about channels with people in their 20's, leaning towards heavier genres. Their are signature models and series like the Prophecy series that are very popular. I am not saying it's everyone, just that I have started to see a big difference in perception. And the big issue... People aren't getting up a stage where they have the 'more money' more often now. 

Then the last factor, cheaper guitars are getting much better. In my case, I rarely feel like I am settling nowadays. I have owned everything up to custom shop fender, but I also love my Squiers.


----------



## RBlakeney (Mar 12, 2017)

torndownunit said:


> I am talking about channels with people in their 20's, leaning towards heavier genres. Their are signature models and series like the Prophecy series that are very popular. I am not saying it's everyone, just that I have started to see a big difference in perception. And the big issue... People aren't getting up a stage where they have the 'more money' more often now.


That’s because they are buying too much avocado toast.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

RBlakeney said:


> That’s because they are buying too much avocado toast.


avocado anything is so 2019


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Some of it is probably music genre specific as well. Companies like ESP and Ibanez have a different persuasion than the "big 2" American makes on certain styles.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

It's as it's always been. From back in the 60s and 70s to today. A small percentage of guitar players of every era eventually 'take it seriously' and invest in their gear - call it GAS, call it passion, call it whatever you want. The larger majority of guitar players are just having some fun, will never invest much into the gear because they get everything they need with starter or mid-range stuff. In fact, they don't have the experience or chops to tell the difference - unlike that small percentage of serious players.

Of course, you can't tell one from the other _over an internet connection. _Everyone's opinion on gear carries basically the same weight. One should always be cognizant of that.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

I started out on a Memphis Strat copy in early 1978 and eventually got a real Fender Strat..... Then I back tracked and made improvements on my Strat copy. I got better pickups, better bridge, better tuning keys and a better wiring harness for the electronics. Next thing I knew, I had two equally good guitars.
Right then and there, I knew a great guitar is not determined by what it says on the headstock.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

Gibson is now suing Heritage guitars now ....

Gibson is truely pathetic !!!!
I was going to buy a new Explorer .... I thinking of get a Jackson instead .... Screw Gibson !!!!


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Gibson sued by Heritage over fresh trademark threats
_The Kalamazoo-based company claims that “Gibson demanded that Heritage essentially cease its business” despite a secret 29-year-old legal settlement between the two brands, and seeks a judgement that it hasn’t infringed trademarks._


----------



## troyhead (May 23, 2014)

Gibson issues formal response to Heritage lawsuit - Guitar.com | All Things Guitar


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

and the plot thickens


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Kind of have a tough time believing anything Gibson says.


----------



## AJ6stringsting (Mar 12, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Kind of have a tough time believing anything Gibson says.


I live in the U.S. 

Gibson is kind of like the Donald Trump of guitar companies .... Especially now !!!!


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

AJ6stringsting said:


> Gibson is now suing Heritage guitars now ....
> 
> Gibson is truely pathetic !!!!
> I was going to buy a new Explorer .... I thinking of get a Jackson instead .... Screw Gibson !!!!



Did you bother to look at what is actually going on between the two companies and why?

Not that it matters, I doubt Gibson is going to miss the sale of that one guitar you were going to buy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

He said she said....

It's no secret that the US is an extremely litigious society.

I have to look at these companies purely based on their products as there's little hope I will ever be privy to enough accurate information to make ethical judgements about either one.

I'll let the judges sort it out and buy whatever I want based on what I can afford.


----------

