Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

PSA-Want Crown Inlays?


elduave

Recommended Posts

Guest Mike Lee

It's not like Hamer has been moving more and more to victory inlays over the past couple years. If this were an overnight thing there should be some suspicion, but it's just the final progression of something that's been in the works for a while.

That said I prefer crowns to victories, but I also like bound dot-necks like on the Newport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Kaman to Fender transfer doesn't happen till Jan 1st.

How could Fender be mandating any changes before then?

I really want to order a 12 string to exactly match my Duotone, which has crowns on it. How am I going to justify this one to the little woman before year-end when I just took delivery (and paid the second half) on my Special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch!

Probably just a severe case of crotchety old-fartism, but I've never warmed up to the victory inlays. The only exception would be upside-down victories on a Vector, but the answer has been no to that one so far.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is only the start......

find it odd though that fender will still allow a std, vec or special body to be made since they made jackson stop doing the round horn v, firebird and explorer.

not a fan of the vic inlays...and booms dont fit the current direction.

corona here we come....hope jol likes southern. cali.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it makes sense from a Gibson-Fender intellectual property point of view.

Can we get away from this intellectual property talk? There's just way too much speculation without an understanding of the underlying law. First, while Gibson may have been assigned patents on their guitars, they generally expire after 20 years. Given the patents were awarded over 40 years ago, seems like Gibson is not in any position to go after anyone for patent infringement. Second, Gibson may have registered the guitar designs as trademarks. The idea there is you want to avoid confusion in the marketplace and don't want others passing their wares as yours - no piggy back ride on your brand. Hamer, Dean, Washburn, Ibanez, BC Rich, Cort, and others have Gibson-like designs, but they also don't try to pass themselves off as Gibsons. In some cases, they claim or have a perception of being better guitars. {I'd love to see someone try to copy a Parker Fly - the complaint would be filed before the NAMM show was over}

There's a reason why McDonald's, Disney, etc. troll the internet/print/television media for anyone using their IP, because if you let someone use it without authorization you erode your ability to enforce it. Bottom line - there's no handshake deal with Gibson about guitar or inlay designs. Their lawyers wouldn't allow it.

I think the fact that Gibson isn't suing folks left and right is because they know there's an extremely high liklihood that they would not prevail in court. Believe it or not, Hamer could have been moving away from crown inlays just because. Frankly, I like the victory inlays better. But getting rid of the Boomers (just like getting rid of the 3 hole DuoTones) stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, while we're all speculating, let me have a go, LOL.

First off: Boomers. Jol doesn't like doing them, so this is a convenient time to just cut em off. Let folks blame Fender.

Crowns: Not inconceivable Jol did this as a defensive maneuver, before FMIC gets down to talking turkey on any specific models (and potential conflicts). The most obvious is their use on the Standard, which, um looks like another guitar. OR, Jol also has wanted to phase out Crowns anyway, and this is a convenient time to cut em off. Let folks blame Fender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it makes sense from a Gibson-Fender intellectual property point of view.

Can we get away from this intellectual property talk? There's just way too much speculation without an understanding of the underlying law. First, while Gibson may have been assigned patents on their guitars, they generally expire after 20 years. Given the patents were awarded over 40 years ago, seems like Gibson is not in any position to go after anyone for patent infringement. Second, Gibson may have registered the guitar designs as trademarks. The idea there is you want to avoid confusion in the marketplace and don't want others passing their wares as yours - no piggy back ride on your brand. Hamer, Dean, Washburn, Ibanez, BC Rich, Cort, and others have Gibson-like designs, but they also don't try to pass themselves off as Gibsons. In some cases, they claim or have a perception of being better guitars. {I'd love to see someone try to copy a Parker Fly - the complaint would be filed before the NAMM show was over}

There's a reason why McDonald's, Disney, etc. troll the internet/print/television media for anyone using their IP, because if you let someone use it without authorization you erode your ability to enforce it. Bottom line - there's no handshake deal with Gibson about guitar or inlay designs. Their lawyers wouldn't allow it.

I think the fact that Gibson isn't suing folks left and right is because they know there's an extremely high liklihood that they would not prevail in court. Believe it or not, Hamer could have been moving away from crown inlays just because. Frankly, I like the victory inlays better. But getting rid of the Boomers (just like getting rid of the 3 hole DuoTones) stinks.

You are not quite correct with your facts. Jol himself has referred to an agreement with Gibson in the past. While you are correct that this is not a patent issue, it IS a trademark concern and Gibson HAS sued to enforce this. I'm not talking about the 1978 complaint that was filed in the Eastern District of PA (3d Circuit) against Ibanez' US distributor at the time, but something a little closer in time. There was this little company on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that made a single cutaway guitar that Gibson felt was infringing on their Les Paul trademark design (claiming substantial confusion in the marketplace). So they didn't WIN in the long run, but they did succeed in obtaining injunctive relief in the short term until the case was finished. Had that MD company been any smaller, they likely wouldn't have had the resources to fight Gibson in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was this little company on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that made a single cutaway guitar that Gibson felt was infringing on their Les Paul trademark design (claiming substantial confusion in the marketplace).

Perdue Chickens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, while we're all speculating, let me have a go, LOL.

First off: Boomers. Jol doesn't like doing them, so this is a convenient time to just cut em off. Let folks blame Fender.

Crowns: Not inconceivable Jol did this as a defensive maneuver, before FMIC gets down to talking turkey on any specific models (and potential conflicts). The most obvious is their use on the Standard, which, um looks like another guitar. OR, Jol also has wanted to phase out Crowns anyway, and this is a convenient time to cut em off. Let folks blame Fender.

I'll agree with that to a degree...its true jol has tried to break away from past glories and has no interest

revisiting them.

nothing wrong with that, I'd get bored after 30 years of cranking out the same ole stuff too !!!

my spalted top standard was to have upside down crowns, which was a no go,then I even asked for tumbling

crowns [after getting the no way to tumbling booms] no biggie ,I was happy with 10 regular crowns.

if the standard is the only current production model getting them I can see its more of a tooling hassle than it may be worth. though most of the "custom" pieces I see coming out do have them.

I can also see jol potentially doing some damage control in ceasing production of them to stave off fender

asking him to do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

BUT, if one remotely thinks the standard or vector will be here for very long after the papers are signed

they are living in a dream world.

fender immediately quashed production of jacksons round horn V, explorer and firebird body styles !!

"if you have ever wanted to order a custom standard, vector, futura what have you in the gibson vein, your window of oppurtunity is fading fast."

this will either be the death nail to the "old school" core group , I know it will for me personally as the new breed of hamers save the talledega do nothing for me.

OR.........

if they can keep jol happy, this may give him the oppurtunity to fully break free of his past and move on to the boutique jetset, prestige with hi pricing that he seems to be striving for of late.

its obvious kaman allowed him to do whatever, whenever...

this will unlikely be the case with fender...

and what about the connecticut facility ? can you imagine a california built hamer ?.... a far cry from the humble illinois beginnings.

fender could reissue the entire hamer catalog for crazy money and what would jols thoughts be then ?

fender dragged old grover out of his easy chair in an attempt to sell 10k charvels.

quality still sucks but if grovers peddling them , they gotta be good..

I wonder if theyve already contacted paul for a hamer reunion campaign. yikes !

personally , I'd like to see dantzig guitars !!!! and even asked if he'd put that logo on my spalted standard.

he chuckled....

the only one that wins here is fender, as they have one less competitor [small or large] to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm definitely in the "No Inlays" camp, but I may have to rethink things, because...

THESE inlays are The Shiz!!

p1010021.jpg

I'm considering getting one of these just so I can have the inlays - LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Meshuggah

I'm definitely in the "No Inlays" camp, but I may have to rethink things, because...

THESE inlays are The Shiz!!

p1010021.jpg

I'm considering getting one of these just so I can have the inlays - LOL!

Gosh Darned (cleaned up in homage to our new FMIC Overlords) Photobucket. Can't see shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not quite correct with your facts. Jol himself has referred to an agreement with Gibson in the past. While you are correct that this is not a patent issue, it IS a trademark concern and Gibson HAS sued to enforce this. I'm not talking about the 1978 complaint that was filed in the Eastern District of PA (3d Circuit) against Ibanez' US distributor at the time, but something a little closer in time. There was this little company on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that made a single cutaway guitar that Gibson felt was infringing on their Les Paul trademark design (claiming substantial confusion in the marketplace). So they didn't WIN in the long run, but they did succeed in obtaining injunctive relief in the short term until the case was finished. Had that MD company been any smaller, they likely wouldn't have had the resources to fight Gibson in court.

Thanks for the additional information. My conclusion was right, but thanks for setting me straight on the underlying facts. If Gibson was unsuccessful in winning that lawsuit, its unlikely they'll win in the future. Maybe that's why there's an "informal" agreement with Jol - Gibson knows they don't have the shizzit to enforce their rights in court. Given the combined resource of KMI and Fender, it seems even less likely that Gibson has an appetite for a fight they won't win.

Fender on the other hand is pretty tough protecting their marks. I was involved in an print ad campaign that used a strat style guitar as a prop. We'd taken the brand off of the guitar figuring it was the safest way to go. A few weeks after our ads had run, we got a cease and desist letter from Fender claiming that our ad infringed on the trademarks they had with the head stock design. Whoops. When we dug into the facts, it turns out that we used a G&L guitar. We wrote them back telling them so and told them we wouldn't use their guitar designs in our ads anymore. Live and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inlays are for pussies.

100_2006.jpg

OMG. Every time I see that guitar, I get that same reaction. OMG. There it goes again (I looked at it again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not quite correct with your facts. Jol himself has referred to an agreement with Gibson in the past. While you are correct that this is not a patent issue, it IS a trademark concern and Gibson HAS sued to enforce this. I'm not talking about the 1978 complaint that was filed in the Eastern District of PA (3d Circuit) against Ibanez' US distributor at the time, but something a little closer in time. There was this little company on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that made a single cutaway guitar that Gibson felt was infringing on their Les Paul trademark design (claiming substantial confusion in the marketplace). So they didn't WIN in the long run, but they did succeed in obtaining injunctive relief in the short term until the case was finished. Had that MD company been any smaller, they likely wouldn't have had the resources to fight Gibson in court.

And according to that company, one of their valuable allies in the fight was...FMIC.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop torturing me Ethel!

I wonder where Ruth is?

Anyways... prices are going up as Jol has talked about for ages, Hamer has made the final step to phase out crowns which Jol also said was going to happen almost two years ago... There are probably plenty more changes being planned just like every year and Fender doesen't even own them yet. Why don't we credit Fender with the Talladega as long as we're are at it. Let's give it a rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...