Warwick to become 'Exclusive Licensee' to Sadowsky!

[lemmywinks 1,050]

1 minute ago, Kev said:

The irony of Sadowsky using primarily a Leo Fender design seems lost a little too...

Better not show them this:

[lemmywinks 1,050]

Or this:

 

Or possibly this:

 

[CookPassBabtridge 91]

4 hours ago, JD1 said:

All of this seems to have passed me by! So couple of questions (and apologies if they’re hidden earlier). Did something go wrong with the Japan arrangement? The Metro’s seemed to be high quality and popular in equal measure? Also what is the difference between Japanese MetroLines and Japanese MetroExpresses?

I think I remember reading somewhere (sorry I don’t have a link) that part of it was  the Japanese workshop wasn’t putting out the volume of basses Sadowsky wanted/needed - I recall there was a delay to the first batch of Japanese Metro Expresses for example. That and the fact that others have mentioned, Roger may be thinking about winding down/retiring, and Warwick are known for having a big factory with a high volume of output. 

[Doctor J 2,738]

48 minutes ago, FDC484950 said:

It’s about dilution of the brand. It doesn’t really matter what the quality may or may not be when the name on the headstock is meaningless. At least other manufacturers that have cheaper ranges elsewhere generally handle the sourcing, quality control, distribution and warranty. A Sadowsky bass used to mean something. A Sadowsky sold by Warwick is, to me, meaningless.

The first Metros weren't a dilution of the brand?

[Cuzzie 3,608]

1 hour ago, Doctor J said:

Have basses no-one here appears to have actually played yet ever been so unpopular?

I don't understand the ire towards this project. Sadowsky knows his stuff. Warwick know their stuff. Despite the shaky embryonic stage we appear to have passed, I can't understand why anyone would think these are going to be anything less than superb.

I think possibly it runs because not many people will get their hands on these basses to comment,  Roger is such a nice guy and HPW is a bit of a tool with a record of ruining stuff

[LukeFRC 2,092]

51 minutes ago, FDC484950 said:

It’s about dilution of the brand. It doesn’t really matter what the quality may or may not be when the name on the headstock is meaningless. At least other manufacturers that have cheaper ranges elsewhere generally handle the sourcing, quality control, distribution and warranty. A Sadowsky bass used to mean something. A Sadowsky sold by Warwick is, to me, meaningless.

Do you feel the same about musicman since they launched their sub range?

[Doctor J 2,738]

1 minute ago, Cuzzie said:

HPW is a bit of a tool with a record of ruining stuff

Really? I have never heard of this. What stuff?

[FDC484950 639]

Just now, Doctor J said:

The first Metros weren't a dilution of the brand?

No. Who supplied the sourcing, distributions, sales and warranty? The only reason he did it was to appeal to a wider range of pockets whilst ensuring quality. There’s an extensive interview with him on YT where he explained his reasons for the Metro series. IMHO once he started splitting between cheaper, limited option MetroExpress, the brand dilution started. Sticking your name on an entire range of basses from cheaper Chinese to ltd edition German models that are more expensive than an NYC made, marketed and sold by what might have been considered a rival isnt dilution, its selling out for a nice big retirement package. I don’t blame him at all - in his position I would probably do the same thing. Why not just sell the materials and licensing to Warwick and have call it a Warwick if the name doesn’t stand for something?

[FDC484950 639]

2 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

Do you feel the same about musicman since they launched their sub range?

They launched it, obviously like many brands they have a company in Indonesia make it but it’s still their brand. It’s not MusicMan sold by Cort, is it? The point is if you’re handing basically the whole operation over, why retain the name? 

[Doctor J 2,738]

So the name matters more than the bass? Sorry, I just don't understand where the negativity is coming from. Surely the quality of the instrument is all that matters?

[FDC484950 639]

It’s called having an opinion Doctor J. You know, the point of a forum. Quality does matter, but so does integrity.

[Doctor J 2,738]

Sorry to annoy you, I was just trying to understand why you have that opinion in a spirit of open discussion. I'll go back in my box and just post pictures.

[Al Krow 5,232]

3 minutes ago, FDC484950 said:

It’s called having an opinion Doctor J. You know, the point of a forum. Quality does matter, but so does integrity.

Hmmm...then why send PMs to folk you don't know at all titled "No debate" with a view to shutting down one side of a discussion? 

As you say integrity... 

[FDC484950 639]

I’m not trying to stifle comment on this subject, just voicing an opinion. 

I wish Roger all the best, he’s made some stonking instruments and he certainly deserves a well-earned retirement. I think I’d best leave it at that as it’s really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

[LukeFRC 2,092]

28 minutes ago, FDC484950 said:

They launched it, obviously like many brands they have a company in Indonesia make it but it’s still their brand. It’s not MusicMan sold by Cort, is it? The point is if you’re handing basically the whole operation over, why retain the name? 

It’s sub, by Musicman - made by Cort, sold by Ernie Ball... it’s not as if Leo is still at Musicman - he sold the whole operation including the name. 
 

mind you anything with Fender on the headstock post 1964 would also fall into that camp- I mean, using your logic why didn’t CBS just rename the company??

Edited February 27 by LukeFRC

[Doddy 234]

I've got nothing against either brand. I play a Warwick regularly, and I was very close to buying a Sadowsky a couple of years ago (I still want to get one at some point).

I just find it interesting that there is no mention of the Warwick made basses on the Sadowsky site, with the exception of the initial press release and the distribution contacts.

[Kev 541]

3 hours ago, Cuzzie said:

HPW is a bit of a tool with a record of ruining stuff

What has HPW ruined?

[Cuzzie 3,608]

4 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Really? I have never heard of this. What stuff?

 

 

Buzzard bass

Edited February 27 by Cuzzie

[Cuzzie 3,608]

56 minutes ago, Kev said:

What has HPW ruined?

Buzzard bass

[Cuzzie 3,608]

Also massively aggressive persona in marketing and distribution and downright nasty at times to sellers

[Kev 541]

1 hour ago, Cuzzie said:

Buzzard bass

What did he ruin about it?? Both the eighties and more modern Buzzard basses are outstanding basses and are snapped up whenever they rarely come available.  The Bolt-On wasn’t a great idea, but it was just a way of owning a more affordable one.

[Kev 541]

1 hour ago, Cuzzie said:

Also massively aggressive persona in marketing and distribution and downright nasty at times to sellers

Any examples?

[AndyTravis 7,091]

30 minutes ago, Kev said:

Any examples?

I remember a fairly boozed up meeting on Bridge Street in Manchester (a pub called “The Bridge”) with the UK sales manager.

I’m sure the content of the meeting was that we had to stock ‘X’ amount worth of stock and a set reorder per quarter - custom orders would not count towards this figure...

I think in the end I signed for a rockbass dealership and nothing else. Rockbag/Rockcase was a separate dealership.

This was relatively unheard of at the time and then everyone seemed to do it.

Gibson were worse. But you’d sell 20 gibsons and 50 epiphones to 1 Warwick.

[Kev 541]

1 hour ago, AndyTravis said:

I remember a fairly boozed up meeting on Bridge Street in Manchester (a pub called “The Bridge”) with the UK sales manager.

I’m sure the content of the meeting was that we had to stock ‘X’ amount worth of stock and a set reorder per quarter - custom orders would not count towards this figure...

I think in the end I signed for a rockbass dealership and nothing else. Rockbag/Rockcase was a separate dealership.

This was relatively unheard of at the time and then everyone seemed to do it.

Gibson were worse. But you’d sell 20 gibsons and 50 epiphones to 1 Warwick.

Not a brilliant example of HPW’s “massively aggressive persona” or something “downright nasty”, so I’m interested to hear what Cuzzie has experienced.

[ped 6,835]

I’ve met HPW too and thought he was a thoroughly nice bloke and an astute businessman