prowla

Is it a one-off or do they do any udders?

I think it's a good think overall if it's encouraging companies to be a bit different.

A no strings attached deal?

Somebody said that have one on an FB group; of course they said it is fantastic...

Unfortunately it would cost me more than that in petrol to go and collect it.

I'm waiting for him to do a conversion from a 5-string...

Holy cow!

If that tail lift gets to maybe1 cm it might be worth a think. 🙂

For all the Fender-alikes; see you can do something different!

Well, it definitely has a split personality! If it was nearer, I'd put an opening bid on a Mat at that price.

Ah - I guess I missed it! These companies do have an issue if other makers used the styling before they trademarked it. It's the same with Ric and the 70s/80s Japanese (& Korean) copies.

I'm pretty sure I recall that too.

Maybe that's why the V isn't included in the Gibson trademarks page linked earlier.

Ah yes - it did look reminiscent of something... Presumably not a Modulator, as it's not got the rectangular cutout for the module?

Yep - fair dues...

My first thought was that it might have been damp and the wood underneath had expanded; the pic of the neck pocket looks decidedly ropey. However, with the colour underneath showing through, I'm wondering if it was refinished without proper prep?

You should remove the mute too (or it'll be flopping 'round loose inside), which means taking off the tailpiece, which means de-stringing (well, de-tuning and taking them off the tuner posts, you don't have to pull them out of the tailpiece). Also, the earth wire is soldered to the base of the mute assembly, so you have to shift it. When putting the tailpiece back on, tighten the tailwards 2 screws first and don't over-tighten the 3 screws in the bridge well, or you can cause tail-lift.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hofner-neck-Bass-project-guitar/202716541065

But then... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Electric-Guitar-With-Case-Spares-Or-Repairs/163754419546

🙂 Are you saying that if you don't pretend the item is a Gibson then it's all OK? I took a look here at the Lanham Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement The element of "confusion" is interesting. If you are using a company's trademarks then when does it become confusion? The Gibson (and other brands) trademarks are more than just the company name, though, so if you produce an instrument which looks really like a Gibson Explorer, then it' doesn't matter what the name on the headstock is. If I were to describe the Dean one as "an Explorer with a different headstock", would that demonstrate confusion? It has the look of something drafted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers... I'm not an American, so I'm looking from the outside.

I have 3 vintage fakers (2 Japanese, 1 Italian), which pre-date the trademarks, and have had a few more. The most difficult thing is trying to find their original TRCs! I think of them as historical fun (they're 40 years old). I think some people do. I plan to make a bass which looks completely different but has all Ric parts on it. (I toyed with getting a headless one at one stage too!) I've had one faker which sounded remarkably close. Here's a bit of naff unrehearsed noodling on one. I've not had one which feels like a real Ric though. Not even my CMI 33.25 scale thru-neck one.

That was a bit aggressive... But actually I don't understand what you said there. 🙂

The problem nowadays is that you cannot trust anything with "Fender" written on it, because people put logos on things left, right, and centre (including unscrupulous makers). As it stands (apart from some niche craftsmen), there's never been a factory Ric bass copy which you couldn't tell.