# NGD- terrormachine by Skervesen



## terrormuzik (Jun 3, 2012)

As all of You probably know, It's not possible for a mortal man to lay hands on blackmachine guitars, and that's why I decided to order a custom made copy of PIN's B2 (with different bridge). I was looking for a luthier that would make it for quite a while, and the final choice was Skervesen guitars (Skervesen Guitars - Home).

SPECS:
body- ash, 33mm thick
top- ebony, 2mm thick
neck- rosewood + ebony
fingerboard- ebony
pups- BKP warpig ceramic
ivoroid binding <3

the rest can be seen in the pics.




























there are no words to describe this..

clips on the way.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm okay with Blackmachine copies but honestly the backplate is a bit too far. 


Looks good though.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 3, 2012)

They don't sue in Europe?


----------



## s_k_mullins (Jun 3, 2012)

Looks great!


----------



## Dawn of the Shred (Jun 3, 2012)

nice man!


----------



## splinter8451 (Jun 3, 2012)

Damn that is awesome


----------



## Nimgoble (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't mind the backplate. It makes it quite clear that it's not an original blackmachine. 

Beautiful guitar, btw.


----------



## TimSE (Jun 3, 2012)

Nimgoble said:


> I don't mind the backplate. It makes it quite clear that it's not an original blackmachine.
> 
> Beautiful guitar, btw.


----------



## arcadia fades (Jun 3, 2012)

looks pretty sweet! what cover option is that for the BKP's?
are they nickel covers?


----------



## Ayo7e (Jun 3, 2012)

awesome.




arcadia fades said:


> looks pretty sweet! what cover option is that for the BKP's?
> are they nickel covers?




Aged nickel I think.


----------



## terrormuzik (Jun 3, 2012)

sorry for shitty pics, they're nickel. I will make some better pics as soon as possible.

I'm glad You Guys like it. And if it comes to backplate, I think it's integral element of blackmachines, so I wanted it on my copy. And it's copy, that's why it says terrormachine, not blackmachine..


----------



## Danukenator (Jun 3, 2012)

It bugs me how people get all uppity over people copying BM's shape. It seems they have forgotten that you can't just buy a BM anymore so a copy is the only route.

Considering they are not being made, it's not like the copies are hurting Doug nor is anyone claiming the design to be their own intellectual property. 

 I don't get why people get uppity about it.


----------



## terrormuzik (Jun 3, 2012)

Danukenator said:


> Considering they are not being made, it's not like the copies are hurting Doug nor is anyone claiming the design to be their own intellectual property.
> 
> I don't get why people get uppity about it.



To be ohnest, I used to send emails to Doug back in 2009-2010. Like 1-2 mails a month (srs) asking for B6 price and stuff. And I never got any answer. That's why I decided to look for a luthier that would make a copy for me.


----------



## Philip N (Jun 3, 2012)

Happy new gear day!

Looks classy as hell, although in my opinion this copy is a bit too blatant.. 
Even the fond on the backplate is the same. 

philip


----------



## skeels (Jun 3, 2012)

I like terror machine.


----------



## Andromalia (Jun 3, 2012)

Still don't like that kind of headstock but it's a pretty nice guitar. Don't see any problem with it as the inspiration is blatant but the luthier doesn't try to pass it off as an original and took the pain to make a custom plate saying he made it.
Besides, if european maws had a problem with copying guitar shapes, Ran would be out of business since a long time ago.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Jun 3, 2012)

I didn't know Blackmachine weren't producing more guitars! would anyone care to PM me as to why, if they know the reason?

But back on topic, this looks fantastic and the swamp ash back looks absolutely sensational!!!


----------



## HighGain510 (Jun 3, 2012)

Normally I'd be pretty against something like this but after the whole "bidding war" setup Doug adopted on his most recent builds and the fact that he's pretty much not taking orders, I'm oddly okay with this build.


----------



## pushpull7 (Jun 3, 2012)

I just love it


----------



## GXPO (Jun 3, 2012)

If I was Doug I would pose as a Polish man and make copies of my guitar to highlight further the prestige and exclusivity of my brand, just saying.. 

The actual guitar is beautiful though.


----------



## theCurse (Jun 3, 2012)

thats lookin kinda dope


----------



## Chiba666 (Jun 4, 2012)

That is very nice, congrats.


----------



## Michael T (Jun 4, 2012)

TERROR MACHINE !!!!!!


Very cool sir.


----------



## requiemsoup (Jun 4, 2012)

That. Is. Fucking. Beautiful. 

I was gonna do the exact same haha


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jun 4, 2012)

Dears - as you might suppose: we're not totally happy making a replica. We actually have made two of them...: first and the last one .
Terror is good friend of ours - that's why we finally agreed to do that. Any other variants, modifications - no problem, please go ahead!

What we're really happy with this time - it is Terrormachine owner's happiness .


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 4, 2012)

Inb4 Skervesen becomes the new Blackmachine. 

Nice grab.


----------



## Viginez (Jun 4, 2012)

finally. bm´s for everybody...


----------



## Mysticlamp (Jun 4, 2012)

that looks amazing,


----------



## nangillala (Jun 5, 2012)

Looks very cool. I hope it plays and sounds just as good 
Can I/we get a rough estimate on what one has to pay for such a beauty? (via PM if you like?)
Poland isn't that far


----------



## canuck brian (Jun 5, 2012)

Normally I'd be all fire and brimstone with this, but i gotta agree with some of the guys - the backplate actually makes it ok for me. 

Congrats!


----------



## Jakke (Jun 5, 2012)

Very nice, Skervesen continues to impress


Second, I do not see why someone would be fire and brimstones over this. 
It's a copy, it says on it that it is a copy. If I where to paint the Mona Lisa, but also paint a dragon in it, do I still commit art-forgery? 
Of course not, Skervesen shows in every possible way that this is not a Blackmachine, it says so on the backplate even (which was a very nice touch), so why the suggested indignant outrage?
If I were to make an Ibby Iceman (or a Blackmachine even) down to every exact specification, do you guys want Ibanez to sue me? 
Because that is exactly what some has suggested, Skervesen made this guitar on commission as a private transaction (labour and materials for money), copyright-moralism has no place here.
Seriously, it's almost a bit of a hollier-than-thou morality...


It's looks so good that I would like one as well, but unfortunately would more copies ruin the novelty of the idea


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 5, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Second, I do not see why some would be fire and brimstones over this.
> It's a copy, it says on it that it is a copy. If I where to paint the Mona Lisa, but also paint a dragon in it, do I still commit art-forgery?
> Of course not, Skarvesen shows in every possible way that this is not a Blackmachine, it says so on the backplate even (which was a very nice touch), so why the suggested indignant outrage?
> If I were to make an Ibby Iceman (or a Blackmachine even) down to every exact specification, do you guys want Ibanez to sue me?
> ...



This, pretty much - but also the fact that it's damn near impossible to get a Blackmachine anyway, because they're not really being made anymore. I guess that means there's no real way that Blackmachine can reasonably complain, because they aren't even offering their own products to the public. I (speaking personally because I don't have a business to run) would actually be quite flattered that someone liked my design so much they decided to have a really, really nice replica made of it. Obviously a business perspective will be different but when that business makes it extremely hard to actually get hold of their guitars I can't see that they could reasonably take action against it.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 5, 2012)

awesome rip, but i agree, gone a tad too far, almost insulting really, like rubbing sult in the wound


----------



## devolutionary (Jun 5, 2012)

Yet nobody raises issues with the old Tokai Goldstars (well, except for Fender, duh). Too much non-exclusiveness in the elitist cup of tea, perhaps?

Awesome copy, hot build, nice touch to the backplate - all in all, an homage to the great design of blackmachine or a custom built to one guy's specs. Either way is cool by me.


----------



## terrormuzik (Jun 5, 2012)

good to hear that not all of You hate me for having this 



nangillala said:


> Can I/we get a rough estimate on what one has to pay for such a beauty?



Sorry but I'm not supposed to talk about prices. You can ask Skervesen yourself, They're really nice Guys and They correspond emails pretty fast. You should however keep in mind that no other Blackmachine copies will be done by Skervesen.

And to answer questions about quality.. I have owned and played quite a few high-end guitars (Mayones, MM, Carvin etc) and I can assure you that none of these were made with such accuracy, thoroughness and attention to detail. I keep looking at terrormachine and I just can't find any fault. I took some more pics to give you an idea of how precise is it. It's pure pleasure to play such beautiful instrument.


----------



## Randy (Jun 5, 2012)

The backplate and the fact he copied almost every single detail of the Blackmachine make it more of a tribute to me (a la tasteful strat copies, etc.) than just a knock off. 

The mortality is... debatable but fuck, very well executed.


----------



## Watty (Jun 5, 2012)

Randy said:


> The backplate and the fact he copied almost every single detail of the Blackmachine make it more of a tribute to me (a la tasteful strat copies, etc.) than just a knock off.
> 
> The mortality is... debatable but fuck, very well executed.



Agreed, though it'd be interesting to see what Doug would have to say about it.

And I assume you mean morality?


----------



## Valennic (Jun 5, 2012)

Watty said:


> Agreed, though it'd be interesting to see what Doug would have to say about it.
> 
> And I assume you mean morality?




Randy does not simply type words he does not intend. Mortality it is.

HNGD man, gorgeous guitar is gorgeous. I really get a kick out of that backplate, really makes the whole thing spectacular


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 5, 2012)

Watty said:


> Agreed, though it'd be interesting to see what Doug would have to say about it.



As I say, surely he can't reasonably complain if he chooses not to make his own guitars available to the public instead?


----------



## MetalDaze (Jun 5, 2012)

terrormuzik said:


> You should however keep in mind that no other Blackmachine copies will be done by Skervesen.


 

Perhaps Skervesen should reconsider. I know I'd order one. I like Randy's alternative description: tribute. 

I say drop the xxx-machine naming and keep everything else the same....including the nameplate on the back saying built by Skervesen.


----------



## ILuvPillows (Jun 5, 2012)

The more I look, the more i realize that the use of the backplate was a brilliant move. Great looking guitar which clearly isnt hiding anything.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 5, 2012)

Eh, it's still sexy and I'd love one.


----------



## narad (Jun 5, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> As I say, surely he can't reasonably complain if he chooses not to make his own guitars available to the public instead?



I think people are taking a very me-centric view here. Just because a builder does not churn out guitars at a rate at which you approve of, at a price you approve of, doesn't mean it's fair game to clone them. It doesn't go creative commons just because people really, really want them and can't have them.

Don't get me wrong, I've had my share of Doug-rejected emails and the black auction style of distribution is about the most annoying thing I can imagine - I am personally pro-anything that puts pressure on Doug to start putting blackmachines into the hands of non-Misha/non-Nolly, but this idea that Skervesen should start mass-producing copies sounds like a really wank suggestion. I think the underlying theme of economic adjustment in nations with strong copyright laws is that if Skervesen is making guitars that play as good as a blackmachine, for way less than a blackmachine, and with a non-imaginary number chance of obtaining one, then consumers will migrate. And that's without the need to copy over every arbitrary artistic choice Doug made when creating them.

I think intent says it all: if you want something and the builder is not providing it to you based on his choice, and you go to someone else to copy it, how is that a tribute? That is a copy/a clone/a replica. There's nothing wrong with that (or rather, I'll let you decide if you feel that's wrong), but you can hear Doug talking briefly about people building clones of his guitars in one of those Messe/NAMM videos. "Flattered" is not the adjective I would use to describe his tone on the subject.


----------



## Osiris (Jun 6, 2012)

^If I were Doug and had singlehandedly created BM guitars and their flawless reputation, and I saw some other luthiers making blatant copies but under a different name I'd be flattered as hell. People would still know that Blackmachines are/were the legit and original -machines that are probably the best ones. Blackmachine's reputation and guitar values would only increase. 

Bareknuckle pickups and Schaller Hannes bridges also would gain in popularity, which is most important


----------



## Amanita (Jun 6, 2012)

narad said:


> ... but this idea that Skervesen should start mass-producing copies sounds like a really wank suggestion...


 Jarek (Mr Skervesen) will prolly chime in again at some point and reiterate, but let me do this for now, as i happened to mention the subject when talking to him 
the question _is _wank, as Skervesen is very specific about this guitar being a _one-off_, fulfilling a dream of a friend and a very cool guy, that is Terrormusic. Skervesen is adamant about _not _making carbon copies of existing designs ever again. tributes, modified variations are OK, just no more direct knock-offs.


----------



## Quinny (Jun 6, 2012)

One or one hundred, shame on the builder for making this. Pretty classless on the whole. Still, nice to know when to add another builder/company to the 'avoid' list.


----------



## Amanita (Jun 6, 2012)

Quinny said:


> One or one hundred, shame on the builder for making this. Pretty classless on the whole. Still, nice to know when to add another builder/company to the 'avoid' list.


which is your rightful choice, sir 
with non-availability of original goods (Terror mentioned how he literally bombarded Doug with mails regarding commission to no avail) and how they went out of their way to show this is not an original i just wonder why you find it so 'classless on the whole'

on the other hand i cannot wait until Terror records something with this one and we'll get to hear under his happy fingers, which is more of a merit to me than its headstock shape


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jun 6, 2012)

Quinny said:


> One or one hundred, shame on the builder for making this. Pretty classless on the whole. Still, nice to know when to add another builder/company to the 'avoid' list.



_[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone... [/FONT]
_


----------



## wakjob (Jun 6, 2012)

Fear not. The market will probably be flooded with Chinese Blackmachine knockoffs before we know it...it's only a matter of time.


----------



## Aftermath1 (Jun 6, 2012)

I don't get what people on about copying for. Other than the headstock (which they copied anyway) on the BM it's just a super strat. Not like there's none of those around anywhere..

HNGD!


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jun 6, 2012)

narad said:


> but this idea that Skervesen should start mass-producing copies sounds like a really wank suggestion.



When did I, or anyone else, suggest that?



Quinny said:


> One or one hundred, shame on the builder for making this. Pretty classless on the whole. Still, nice to know when to add another builder/company to the 'avoid' list.



Really? You'd avoid a company's entire body of work, regardless of quality, just because they made one replica of a guitar that isn't available to the public anyway? This strikes me as a bit odd. As I say, if Blackmachines were readily available it would indeed be shitty to have a copy made instead, but they aren't. You can't have the real thing, so you settle for the next-best thing. 

It's not as if it's exact anyway - the backplate makes it very clear that it's not a Blackmachine.



Aftermath1 said:


> I don't get what people on about copying for. Other than the headstock (which they copied anyway) on the BM it's just a super strat. Not like there's none of those around anywhere..
> 
> HNGD!



Indeed. Why shouldn't Fender complain about the use of the basic Strat shape? Actually, IIRC they never actually copyrighted/trademarked the shape so that's a bad example... but someone like Jackson or Ibanez, who came up with the hot-rodded "Superstrat" template... why don't we see them suing Blackmachine et al?


----------



## narad (Jun 6, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> When did I, or anyone else, suggest that?



In the post immediately following yours, as far as making it more than a 1-off:


MetalDaze said:


> Perhaps Skervesen should reconsider. I know I'd order one. I like Randy's alternative description: tribute.
> 
> I say drop the xxx-machine naming and keep everything else the same....including the nameplate on the back saying built by Skervesen.





BucketheadRules said:


> Indeed. Why shouldn't Fender complain about the use of the basic Strat shape? Actually, IIRC they never actually copyrighted/trademarked the shape so that's a bad example... but someone like Jackson or Ibanez, who came up with the hot-rodded "Superstrat" template... why don't we see them suing Blackmachine et al?



With guitars the trademarks are more commonly applied to headstocks, and there have been plenty of cease and desist letters to luthiers that copy big brand headstocks. Fender being one of common enforcers. A few of the more ubiquitous shapes are trademarked too, I just don't think it ever hit the superstrats? But that's really a concern or big companies protecting themselves from other big companies -- I think it's rare that small company luthiers often go through the hassle of trademarking, so I think it's just a courtesy to other builders. 

Ex: So there have been a few Strandberg clones, and those guys typically wrote Ola and got his permission before pursuing them. Similarly Schaller doesn't make a 7-string Hannes, so what does Darren @ Decibel guitars do? Gets permission. Maybe that's flattering. Having it done behind your back, probably not so much.

I'm really not that up in arms over this particular guitar (and that brown Skervesen is a pretty sweet design too), but it's all this attitude like Doug brings this on himself, that a designer owes it to the public to produce to their satisfaction or forfeit their intellectual property...pretty distasteful. So I don't mean to bash on a NGD, it looks like a nice one, but saying copies of other small builders should be pursued whenever you don't like the wait/price, well, that's a bad precedent.

(And I'm not going to pretend to be an IP lawyer but I believe headstocks get trademarked because the shape their serves no purpose - it's more about arbitrary artistic expression. It's actually precisely the backplate/size/font aspect of the build that would probably be most in violation of a trademark infringement, but what small company builder even has the time or legal resources to go hunt down violations? A builder might be legally entitled to recompense, but I imagine it's probably economically smarter to just let it go.)


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jun 6, 2012)

AFAIK companies like Fender, Gibson, PRS have their headstocks registered. As mentioned - that discussion shows even to yourselves why we don't go that way any more . Rather check our other works - topics are on it's way.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 6, 2012)

If Parkers were djentier, would people be upset on their headstock being used on Blackmachine?

Just let the OP enjoy their NGD without the finger-wagging. If you're a luthier and you build super strats, there's gotta be an ingrained understanding that you're producing a variation of someone else's design.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 6, 2012)

Aftermath1 said:


> I don't get what people on about copying for. Other than the headstock (which they copied anyway) on the BM it's just a super strat. Not like there's none of those around anywhere..
> 
> HNGD!



hell i don't even give a shit about that, it's the back plate with terrormachine (thankfully doesn't try to say black machine), a tribute to some, to me just a little too far, the rest i don't care for. if someone wants a copy and a luthier is willing to make one sure, but the backplate could have been left out


----------



## JP Universe (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm really digging the Blackmachine tribute NGD's.... I love reading the back and forth that ensues after.... so much drama


----------



## xvultures (Jun 6, 2012)

Holy Cow! That neck is really nice looking! And that bridge is pretty cool too.


----------



## Furtive Glance (Jun 6, 2012)

I think it looks awesome!


----------



## rainbowbrite (Jun 6, 2012)

So what if it is a replica-ish? It is an awesome guitar. Fuck, pretty much every major guitar manufacturer copies each other at some point. How many ESP production guitars use designs borrowed from Jackson, Fender, and Gibson? Oh right, just about their entire production line...whoops. If you want a guitar manufactured to specific specs and aesthetics and the originator is unable to meet your demands, as in won't even build you one, and you go somewhere else for business whose fault is that?...


----------



## Blackheim (Jun 6, 2012)

What I love the most about this guitar is the backplate!! Super nice touch! I think that since you are not getting a BM you can still order the guitar of your dreams with any other luthier. The top is magnificent and everything just looks as a BM (perfect!!)!

Enjoy it!


----------



## TMM (Jun 6, 2012)

Best looking Blackmachine copy I've seen. Nicely done!


----------



## Mysticlamp (Jun 6, 2012)

wakjob said:


> Fear not. The market will probably be flooded with Chinese Blackmachine knockoffs before we know it...it's only a matter of time.



lord i can't wait, can't afford one of these


----------



## Papaoneil (Jun 6, 2012)

I really Dig this,


----------



## Danukenator (Jun 6, 2012)

narad said:


> So I don't mean to bash on a NGD, it looks like a nice one, but saying copies of other small builders should be pursued whenever you don't like the wait/price, well, that's a bad precedent.




It's more how you can't get one period. They rarely pop up, are made very in frequently and have an auction style that *seems* a tad shady.

In the end, sure he is making a copy and sure, I'll grant that it could have some bad moral implications, but what is really lost here.

People aren't ripping off Decibel guitars, who are actively making guitars and have unique shapes, or are ruining Black Machine's name. If it represents some sort of slippery slope, I'd like to see some signs of damage caused before I cry fowl. In the end, I don't see any harm being done.


----------



## Quinny (Jun 7, 2012)

Amanita said:


> which is your rightful choice, sir
> with non-availability of original goods (Terror mentioned how he literally bombarded Doug with mails regarding commission to no avail) and how they went out of their way to show this is not an original i just wonder why you find it so 'classless on the whole


For me this is classless on a couple of levels. Firstly by the luthier himself - In the past I've seen other luthiers flat out decline to make a direct copy (let's face it, that's what we're talking here) of another luthier's design. The correct thing to do, IMO at least, would be to refuse to make such a direct copy. However I've also seen builders agree to do builds roughly based on others' designs but with a couple of their own twists on it. If the builder was the right side of the moral line in this instance, again IMO, he'd only have agreed to build this guitar with the general BM aesthetic whilst maintaining his own stamp on it. (that said, I'd never heard of Skervesen until this thread so the cynic in me also wonders whether such a direct copy was needed to garner some interest/publicity).

Secondly, the fact the OP was so desperate and hell-bent on some manner of perceived club mentality that he'd commission a rip-off of a builder's design - not quite classless as such but just a bit, well, sad. Why wasn't a guitar with the general BM vibe to it, but with Skerveson's own stamp on it, enough for the OP? I don't know. Presumably the levels of quality and playability would have been comparable in either instance.





BucketheadRules said:


> Really? You'd avoid a company's entire body of work, regardless of quality, just because they made one replica of a guitar that isn't available to the public anyway?


Yes, I would. On one hand it's just not a cool thing to do and I know loads of builders who have previously declined to copy someone else's design as it's THEIR design. Also, if a luthier is immoral enough to so blatantly copy a fellow builder's design they're not the sort of person I want to be giving my money to. I've had plenty of bad experience with builders in the past - don't want any more.


A lot of people calling Doug's approach to selling his guitars as 'auction style' or 'shady' and saying this somehow excuses a rip-off of his build - I'd wager nearly 100% of people saying such things don't actually know how or why the last few sales of Doug's guitars have gone down. Calling them 'auction style' implies you're saying they went to the highest offer - if so, you're only proving your ignorance in stating this. Seems to be an air of perceived entitlement - 'I really really want one, have done for ages, have emailed Doug loads of times, so he sort of OWES me something'. Person A gets disgruntled on the back of thinking he's entitled but not fulfilled, person B decides he's similarly disgruntled and collectively they decide something is 'shady' just because they're not happy. Round and round it goes....probably won't ever be any other way. Does this mean it's therefore OK to rip off Doug's design? Clearly, some will say yay and others nay. I suppose the OP's desire that have THAT guitar and the fact the builder in question would rip the design off is flattering to a degree, no argument there - but still, IMO it's just not cool.

Q.


----------



## Ayo7e (Jun 7, 2012)

Some people might thinks that their exclusiveness is in danger, I could understand it.


----------



## narad (Jun 7, 2012)

Ayo7e said:


> Some people might thinks that their exclusiveness is in danger, I could understand it.



A blackmachine look does not a blackmachine make.


----------



## terrormuzik (Jun 7, 2012)

Quinny said:


> Calling them 'auction style' implies you're saying they went to the highest offer - if so, you're only proving your ignorance in stating this.



I wouldn't call this ignorance as there is no info in the internet about this, at least I couldn't find any. How does Doug chose his clients than?


----------



## TankJon666 (Jun 7, 2012)

Why is everyone getting so shirty about it being a copy of an existing design? 
F**k sake seriously? How many times has a company or luthier copied the Strat, Tele, Les Paul, Flying V and Explorer? And a bunch more...

If a luthier made a point of not copying an existing design they'd be committing commercial suicide. The reason people want copies of these guitars is because the shape has been around for ages and they are almost universally liked.

So many build threads on the forum are for 7 and 8 string versions of old and existing shapes -7 string telecaster, 8 string iceman, countless RG clones in 7 and 8. The only original one that comes to mind is some guys melding of a parker fly and an iceman ...but thats just two of someone elses designs stuck together.

The Blackmachine body shape just looks like the Ibanez RG (and thats just a superstrat) and the headstock is more than a nod to Parker.

Also,the fact that the almost mythical status that Blackmachine guitars is enjoying right now is pushing the prices beyond what I think the quality of the guitar reflects. Its a great guitar but I can buy an equally great guitar from another luthier for less. 
_
*NOTE: Before anyone shits themselves inside-out with rage and lays into me for the above statement. Its just my opinion and not actual fact.*
_
HNGD. Ignore the bollocks and enjoy it. It's an awesome guitar!!


----------



## Quinny (Jun 7, 2012)

Ayo7e said:


> Some people might thinks that their exclusiveness is in danger, I could understand it.


That's 100% a reasonable perspective, certainly happened before with guitars (see JG guitars and PBG builds of the same as a recent example). It's also something which can be right in some instances and wrong in others. I personally don't care whether there are a billion BMs in the world and whether they're worth tuppence each - the ones I have personally will be great guitars regardless. Others may get more defensive about 'value' (yuck!) but not all owners of guitar x give a shit about that.





terrormuzik said:


> I wouldn't call this ignorance as there is no info in the internet about this, at least I couldn't find any. How does Doug chose his clients than?


This is my point - there isn't any info on the internet about it, yet people seem to have decided exactly how it works. People who haven't discussed it with Doug or read any info anywhere about it, yet purport to know exactly how the process has worked. I should add that I don't know myself either....not something I've discussed with Doug personally and it's none of my business either way so I wouldn't ask. What I do know, as an actual fact, is that 'highest bidder' and 'auction style' were 100% not the basis for recent sales.

Q.


----------



## ikarus (Jun 7, 2012)

HNGD, dude!


----------



## OlisDead (Jun 7, 2012)

Looks beautiful!

I understand if someone wants something so much and he can't have it, he's tempted to get a copy. I wouldn't do that myself but if people are happy with the copy they ordered, that's fine.

I think that people gets angry against Blackmachine cause the way Doug's business works is less than clear. I don't judge anything here, the man can do what he thinks is good for his company.

I've mailed him a lot of times and never get any answer. I think that if he clearly said how it works on his site, there wouldn't be any doubt/speculation about it and a lot of people wouldn't lose their time mailing him.

Even if I still want to try a Blackmachine someday, I'm losing interest in it more and more. I don't wanna lose my time running after something I'll never have.


----------



## Najka (Jun 7, 2012)

Ahaha I love it! That name is epic


----------



## Najka (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm really curious how it would play compared to a BlackMachine


----------



## Amanita (Jun 7, 2012)

Quinny said:


> For me this is classless on a couple of levels. Firstly by the luthier himself - In the past I've seen other luthiers flat out decline to make a direct copy (let's face it, that's what we're talking here) of another luthier's design. The correct thing to do, IMO at least, would be to refuse to make such a direct copy. However I've also seen builders agree to do builds roughly based on others' designs but with a couple of their own twists on it. If the builder was the right side of the moral line in this instance, again IMO, he'd only have agreed to build this guitar with the general BM aesthetic whilst maintaining his own stamp on it. (that said, I'd never heard of Skervesen until this thread so the cynic in me also wonders whether such a direct copy was needed to garner some interest/publicity).


yup. standard answer is something like "if you want that particular design so badly, why don't you go to the other guy". that doesn't exactly apply here, does it?
as far as i see it, no business was hurt since no sale was lost, and once we take money out of equation, imitation is flattery 



> Secondly, the fact the OP was so desperate and hell-bent on some manner of perceived club mentality that he'd commission a rip-off of a builder's design - not quite classless as such but just a bit, well, sad. Why wasn't a guitar with the general BM vibe to it, but with Skerveson's own stamp on it, enough for the OP? I don't know. Presumably the levels of quality and playability would have been comparable in either instance.


since we dwell on the adjective let me tell you i find that particular comment totally classless. so Terror has a Blackmachine fetish, who are you to judge


----------



## Najka (Jun 7, 2012)

Amanita said:


> yup. standard answer is something like "if you want that particular design so badly, why don't you go to the other guy". that doesn't exactly apply here, does it?
> as far as i see it, no business was hurt since no sale was lost, and once we take money out of equation, imitation is flattery
> 
> since we dwell on the adjective let me tell you i find that particular comment totally classless. so Terror has a Blackmachine fetish, who are you to judge


 

I agree. BlackMachines are pretty much not available, even if you have the funds


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 7, 2012)

Quinny said:


> Secondly, the fact the OP was so desperate and hell-bent on some manner of perceived *club mentality* that he'd commission a rip-off of a builder's design - not quite classless as such but just a bit, well, sad.



I also see club mentality, but going the other way here. NGDs for custom guitars of any other style never get picked-on like ones that resemble Blackmachines, despite how similar those other guitars might be to another on the market. 

Somehow there's a contingent that believes that Blackmachine's mixture of specs is sacrosanct and must be defended with moral outrage, yet remain silent while other builders endlessly roll-out their takes on the Strat/RG/Soloist shape of which Blackmachines are one of. That's one helluva club, too.

Am I saying that every builder be called-out for unoriginality? No, but rather the opposite, that there be some perspective taken. The OP wanted a guitar built to a certain spec, and a talented builder obliged and produced a gorgeous piece that is obviously not a forgery (where otherwise, torches and pitchforks may rightfully come out). The OP is happy with their guitar, and that's the most important thing.


----------



## 3074326 (Jun 7, 2012)

The guitar business is full of companies copying other companies. Look at how many Les Paul, Tele and Strat copies are out there. This is a company fulfilling a personal order _one time_. Never again. 

Of course, people are up in arms over the one that isn't claiming the "copy" as its own and is not hiding from the fact that it is a copy. This is the wrong business to get pissy about copying. 

Beautiful guitar! Enjoy it!


----------



## ridner (Jun 7, 2012)

this guitar is beyond sick!


----------



## snegdk (Jun 7, 2012)

Did he copy the chambers in the body? Cause you know - they copy everything - "they copy the headstock, they copy the NO PAINT, they copy how thin, they copy the chamfer... but they don't really know why it works....no one really knows why"  

The guitar looks pretty much alike the BM.


----------



## Evil Weasel (Jun 7, 2012)

At first the back plate seemed quite cheeky but agree the fact it points out the origin is a good thing so no one is in any doubt. Still it's great looking guitar and congrats to the OP for getting such a nice instrument.


----------



## Oxidation_Shed (Jun 7, 2012)

There's no business lost here as the OP tried and failed to have a BM commissioned, so that can't be complained about.

It's not exactly a completely original shape in the first place now, is it? So we can't moan about that.

It's a one-off job for a friend of the luthier to give the guy the guitar that he so desperately wants but can not have. No qualms here.

Finally, it's clearly not a forgery. Maybe the name was a bit much but this thing takes pains to show it's not a BM so no one could pass it off as such.

Now what is everyone getting so worked up about? HNGD!


----------



## Danukenator (Jun 7, 2012)

> (that said, I'd never heard of Skervesen until this thread so the cynic in me also wonders whether such a direct copy was needed to garner some interest/publicity).



As people in a forum that I used to be a part of would say, "Lurk More." There was a thread before this one where a post was made about an eight string guitar, made by this company. It received several comments where it was noted, this is a newer company who is just getting going. 




> Secondly, the fact the OP was so desperate and hell-bent on some manner of perceived club mentality that he'd commission a rip-off of a builder's design - not quite classless as such but just a bit, well, sad.



Who are you to judge what people are and what they should be allowed to have. This is a rude and baseless accusation. Further more, club mentality? Don't use psych terms if you're not going to use them correctly. A lot of people liking something doesn't constitute a group mentality nor a compulsive need to appease the majority. 




> On one hand it's just not a cool thing to do and I know loads of builders who have previously declined to copy someone else's design as it's THEIR design. Also, if a luthier is immoral enough to so blatantly copy a fellow builder's design they're not the sort of person I want to be giving my money to. I've had plenty of bad experience with builders in the past - don't want any more.



The issue with morality, as seen in any debate between different religious organizations, is that there are multiple view points with, often, equal validity. You, personally, believe this to be immoral while others, clearly, disagree. Throwing out the label of "immoral" requires you to establish why it actually immoral. You stated you don't believe people should do it and you know people who agree but never qualified that sentiment with any reasoning. 


As far as the part about the sales bit goes, the last thread became an absolute battle ground when it came up.


----------



## Amanita (Jun 7, 2012)

snegdk said:


> Did he copy the chambers in the body? Cause you know - they copy everything - "they copy the headstock, they copy the NO PAINT, they copy how thin, they copy the chamfer... but they don't really know why it works....no one really knows why"
> 
> The guitar looks pretty much alike the BM.


the builder mentioned on a polish forum that the body is a solid plank. aparently he has Views on chambering something that is 32 mm thick and topped with a 2 mm veneer


----------



## Mitochondria (Jun 7, 2012)

So much for subtly. haha. Congrats man.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jun 8, 2012)

That is class! I love the backplate.

I know firsthand about not being replied to by emails. I can't count how many times shops/luthiers/bands have lost my business by not taking a minute to simply reply to my email. In that way I can justify how the OP had to go to another builder even if it is a copy.


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jun 8, 2012)

You can count on that every email sent to us is being answered. 
Whether you like the the price or not .


----------



## Levi79 (Jun 8, 2012)

Nice guitar dude. This might be a direct copy of a Blackmachine, but people like that idea. And Blackmachines are not only expensive, but not even being built, so all the power to you if you want to make a guitar that resembles one. It's not like a Blackmachine doesn't resemble a strat body shape and a Parker/ESP headstock...


----------



## Zado (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't get all these complains,I mean, I'm not sure Doug created something new,just like Levi said he copied others himself,in a sense.

It was a private deal,If i want a blackmachine but don't have the money(and that would't be the only problem you know),do I have to sell my butt to get one?Come on,for the same reason you mentioned all Ran's luthiers should have been put in prison forever 

Spectacular instrment btw


----------



## Advv (Jun 8, 2012)

Loving that!


----------



## Jakke (Jul 2, 2012)

Okay anonymous neg-repper. Here's the deal, morality is already a factor here since Skervesen have said that this was a favour done for a friend, not some large-scale forging Blackmachines operation. They will not make any more, this was a two-time occurance.

You argue (claim really because you made it through a one-way medium) that they could have declined making it, again, this was for someone they knew and appreciated, they will decline any more requests (unless you are willing to claim that Skervesen are lying on that point) to make one. I don't really see the point of this "interaction" you had with me since Skervesen has already justified why they made it, it was a one-occuring favour for someone Skervesen appreciates.

Let's not forget that Skervesen is out to make money, every company is. They did not really have to decline these sort of further tribute requests either, but they do it because it is the right thing to do, how dare you claim that there is no morality in this? Not making any more of these is a sign of the deepest respect from their side IMO, and your moralising will not change that.

What annoys me is the huge double standard. There are no one who complains when someone makes a tele identical to a Fender, or a strat or a RG. If someone wants to pull in morality into the equation, be consistent. After all, a tele is a lot more accessible to get from the orginal source than a Blackmachine.


----------



## 3074326 (Jul 2, 2012)

Haha, someone is still negging you over this? Why does someone care about someone else's guitar that much? 

Chances are the neg repper has a guitar that was copied from another guitar anyways. Pretty much every guitarist in the world has a guitar that was based on a similar design. This whole thing is hilarious and absurd at the same time.


----------



## Jakke (Jul 2, 2012)

3074326 said:


> Haha, someone is still negging you over this? Why does someone care about someone else's guitar that much?
> 
> Chances are the neg repper has a guitar that was copied from another guitar anyways. Pretty much every guitarist in the world has a guitar that was based on a similar design. This whole thing is hilarious and absurd at the same time.



Indeed

*EDIT* But on a positive note, as a firm believer in numerology (not really), my rep stopped at my birth year. Must mean something, right?


----------



## terrormuzik (Jul 3, 2012)

BUMP


----------



## Mega-Mads (Jul 3, 2012)

I want one!!


I WANT EIGHT!!!


----------



## WiseSplinter (Jul 3, 2012)

so.. much.. want.. 
But really, "stunning" does not adequately describe that amazing _machine


----------



## flexkill (Jul 3, 2012)

Yeah. That was pretty much....AWESOME!!!!


----------



## Jakke (Jul 3, 2012)

terrormuzik said:


> BUMP




As a firm disliker of djent, I must commend you on your tone though sir. Hats off.


----------



## Mysticlamp (Jul 3, 2012)

cool tunes, super rad guitar


----------



## Zado (Jul 3, 2012)

terrormuzik said:


> BUMP



great sound and very nice playing!


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jul 3, 2012)

Thick tone and awesome playing


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 3, 2012)

I am quit e the die-hard BM ripoff hater, as many people know. I'm a friend of Doug's, really into wht he does, and I do own a B7. Also, this is most definitely not some brand reserved for Misha, Nolly, or whatever - it's a rather exclusive due to VERY limited builds per year, elevated to godlike heights, guitar brand he's created.

Having said this, the moment I saw the plate, coupled with Jarek's refusal of building further copies, pretty much made it alright for me. So the OP has a BM shape obsession, more than the BM itself - while I am personally not that into the shape "mojo" in such a way, I have to respect that. Jarek stamps the guitar as a very, very clear non-BM made as a special request, which even has a touch of humour. Compared to the proliferation of Siggery BM clones, why does the one-off get all the flack, then?

Again, I am always quite "meh" about copying stuff from small builders, i.e. Non-ubiquitous, proprietary stuff, but this particular example looks rather harmless to me.


----------



## commelina (Jul 3, 2012)

Fred, You know ....how many times have I proposed a different head, the answer was no, no ... maybe this design have better sound ?
Only one customer decided on the shape of our heads
We all know the same head shape does not play, but ....
Here is IMO the main problem


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 3, 2012)

I know exactly what you mean - with him being a friend, it's a lot more tricky, and you drew the line at "not to be repeated".


----------



## commelina (Jul 3, 2012)

They say that it a copy of Parker's, maybe so, but he did it so that it is actually unique.

Maybe you know that, Tom, talked with him at Messe, was to talk about using our knowledge and CNC ... To date, there is silence on the subject, and we force anyone not going to scrounge.


----------



## MetalDaze (Jul 3, 2012)

That video did not help the GAS.


----------



## Blackheim (Jul 3, 2012)

Well I think that if someone likes the design of a guitar and can pay to a builder that agrees to build WHATEVER you want (i.e BM copy, Les Paul, Strat, whatever) go for it... I mean, the Superstrat body model has been used for every builder and company now. 

Personally, I love the aesthetics of the BlackMachine guitars but I really do not care for one (I know GODlike guitars and the pure blah blah owners say because no one out of that sacred circled has personally played them and there is no way for us simple mortals to try one) since I know that I will never get one (at least in the near future). 

That being said, I ordered a custom build Fanned Fret 8 string guitar a couple of months ago with a known luthier and I ask him to do a BM copy body with a headstock I DESIGNED. 

Why a copy of the BM body?

Because is f***ing beautiful!! I think that since we cannot get the real deal, we can at least try to get one that looks similar.


----------



## teamSKDM (Jul 3, 2012)

I wouldnt have gotten the body clear coated, out of my own personal preference. just cause im one of those guys that cant stand having the most protection for my guitars haha, i like them to be case queens. and some might say open wood sounds better, but idc haha. Anyways, this guitar is pure sex.


----------



## engage757 (Jul 3, 2012)

Ok, I stayed out long enough.  I have emailed Doug for about 2 years now. I have had MANY replies, but not ever a straight up answer.  I will own a Blackmachine someday soon, not even a question. But when? who knows. As the morality of this? It is a one-off. 90% of guitar designs are rip-offs of others, and with many, exact copies. Terror tried to get what he wanted in a guitar, couldn't, so he had the exact same thing he wanted built. No worries in my opinion. Guitar looks great! I thought about doing the same thing but decided that eventually I will get a real one. Just my personal choice.


----------



## Ben.Last (Jul 12, 2012)

I own a lefty, 8 string Iceman. Is that "morally wrong"? Everyone is going to draw a different line on "copies." In my case, there is no lefty, 8 string version of the guitar I wanted, so I had one built. Making "moral" judgments about this stuff is bullshit, unless someone is trying to pass their copy off as made by the original brand (and there's laws for that). 

Want an analogy? A painter does their own Mona Lisa. They make it as close to the original as they possibly can. Then they sign their own name on it. Guess what? That's not a forgery. If they did it exact, and tried to pass it off as the original... THEN we're in forgery territory.

I don't care if he starts doing these any time they're asked for (I think he should. I'd consider ordering one). He's not even close to trying to pass it off as actual BMs. Same thing for Siggery. As has been stated, we're talking about a design that has elements taken from previous builders' designs as it is.


----------



## xxvicarious (Jul 12, 2012)

Skervesen Guitars said:


> Dears - as you might suppose: we're not totally happy making a replica. We actually have made two of them...: first and the last one .
> Terror is good friend of ours - that's why we finally agreed to do that. Any other variants, modifications - no problem, please go ahead!
> 
> What we're really happy with this time - it is Terrormachine owner's happiness .


 
Fuck the haters, that Terrormachine is amazing \m/
You guys could make a lot of money taking custom orders
for Terrormachines


----------



## wizbit81 (Jul 12, 2012)

I hope it rocks and makes him very happy. That is all.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jul 12, 2012)

xxvicarious said:


> You guys could make a lot of money taking custom orders
> for Terrormachines



But they're not going to, that's the point. It has been stated numerous times in this thread that it's a one-off, and will remain so.


----------



## Omar Devone Little (Jul 12, 2012)

terrormuzik said:


> BUMP




Solid playing, great tone, and an awesome axe! What's that thing tuned too if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## xxvicarious (Jul 12, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> But they're not going to, that's the point. It has been stated numerous times in this thread that it's a one-off, and will remain so.


 
My post was merely one of those "IF" kinda things, ya know?


----------



## MikeH (Jul 13, 2012)

Omar Devone Little said:


> Solid playing, great tone, and an awesome axe! What's that thing tuned too if you don't mind me asking?



Sounds like Drop C# to me.


----------



## hairychris (Jul 13, 2012)

Add me to the normally-dislike-but-actually-yeah-OK list. Again, because a) I do have originals and b) I'm well aware that Doug is somewhat difficult to pin down.



commelina said:


> They say that it a copy of Parker's, maybe so, but he did it so that it is actually unique.



Actually it's a dramatically hacked down BC Rich shape, not Parker, and that's from Doug himself...


----------



## jackblack (Jul 14, 2012)

Beauty!


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jul 16, 2012)

Thank you, jackblack!




hairychris said:


> Actually it's a dramatically hacked down BC Rich shape, not Parker, and that's from Doug himself...



Well, well - that's a good one!...Hmmm .


----------



## terrormuzik (Jul 16, 2012)

Omar Devone Little said:


> What's that thing tuned too if you don't mind me asking?


dropC# sir


----------



## SamSam (Jul 16, 2012)

Amazing looking guitar mate. We all play guitars based on Van Halen's super strat anyway so who cares if it's a tribute


----------



## kruneh (Jul 20, 2012)

hairychris said:


> Add me to the normally-dislike-but-actually-yeah-OK list. Again, because a) I do have originals and b) I'm well aware that Doug is somewhat difficult to pin down.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's a dramatically hacked down BC Rich shape, not Parker, and that's from Doug himself...



That´s interesting cause I´ve never understood the fuzz about the BM headstock being a copy of the Parker headstock.
They both have strings in the air, but to me they are from two different worlds.
Parker are die hard no compromise, while BM are way more aesthetically apealing.
I have both and love them equally for what they are.

The Skervesen looks really good BTW, and while I don´t like the idea of plain copying, I can agree with what hairychris said.
Kudos to Skervesen for doing just a one off and congrats to the owner


----------



## Cappleton23 (Jul 20, 2012)

love the ebony top mang


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Jul 20, 2012)

I don't understand the controversy, nor the hype for Blackmachine.

This is clearly *not* a Blackmachine and will never be since Doug doesn't even tell people how he carves the insides of the guitar to make certain frequencies pop out and such. I find it ridiculous that people are going to jump on any brand using this headstock as "stealing" the design. To me it doesn't matter, Blackmachines look cool, I've played one and it didn't appeal to me. I didn't like the sound of the one I played distorted, granted it was an earlier B6 from awhile ago. 

But here's my point, theres people who don't really like Tele's or Les Paul's the first time they buy it. These kinds of guitars have an ENORMOUS amount of hype surrounding them and that's what kills these guitars. If Doug takes orders and I get a B2, what if it's not to my tastes? Yeah I'd sell it or trade it, but that's the factor a lot of people haven't been able to try Blackmachines so most are going by the hype. I remember someone on here posting also that it didn't seem to be anything extremely special to them when they played a B6. Nothing that couldn't be found in a good guitar that's in the high end register of brands.

Stop hyping it, try it out, and see if you feel like you'd actually want to spend the money/time waiting for one.


----------



## SamSam (Jul 20, 2012)

I don't see everyone one here raging at there monitors looking at the agile website...

It's not a big deal as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Necris (Jul 20, 2012)

The amount of butthurt that Blackmachine copies and Tributes garner from Blackmachine fanboys is nothing short of hilarious and could almost justify the price you pay to get one.
What exactly makes these guitars so unique that it's a completely reprehensible act to copy one? There is nothing about the individual parts of these instruments that I see as completely new.
If I build a neck with a headstock just like a black machines and the same profile and specs but put it on a decidedly non-blackmachine inspired body would you guys be mad then?
If I duplicated the completely pedestrian body shape exactly right down to the chambers, backplate and specs but changed the headstock would you be upset then? 

You're probably the same people who would bitch that there are luthiers who have painstakingly duplicated the process for building a Pre-CBS era fender right down to the position of the nails put into the body for finishing because there is a demand for them.


----------



## Ben.Last (Jul 20, 2012)

Necris said:


> The amount of butthurt that Blackmachine copies and Tributes garner from Blackmachine fanboys is nothing short of hilarious and could almost justify the price you pay to get one.
> What exactly makes these guitars so unique that it's a completely reprehensible act to copy one? There is nothing about the individual parts of these instruments that I see as completely new.
> If I build a neck with a headstock just like a black machines and the same profile and specs but put it on a decidedly non-blackmachine inspired body would you guys be mad then?
> If I duplicated the completely pedestrian body shape exactly right down to the chambers, backplate and specs but changed the headstock would you be upset then?
> ...



To be fair, these people are not okay with the copying of small luthier designs, in general. Where things get hazy is in the understanding that that is a completely arbitrary morality judgment in many cases (again, the only actual legal precedent is related to trademarked headstock designs).


----------



## MAJ Meadows SF (Jul 20, 2012)

It looks gorgeous, and well made. I won't say whether or not I would own a full on BM copy, as I'm only interested in a slightly altered, non-trademark defying headstock. I'm not pursuing a fabricated copy; I want the real thing. Considering this is a one-off though I feel it's a fine homage. As long as some luthier is not cranking copies out like a majore manufacturer, and isn't making the same product claims, then it's acceptable to be in the realm. You can't get too far into the complaints about what is replicated and what is not. Nobody can build what Doug builds. As long as it's not legally protected and someone is not claiming to make an identical product, it's not to me morally off base. Next is arguing using materials, such as the Rico Jr 7 being built for me that shares the same specs as a BM, mostly because of the wood tonal qualities, the thinness, and the overall aesthetic. Yes it will be a BRJ, with a BRJ headstock. BM is one of the few brands that actually gets copied so closely by a few one-offs I've seen, and that garners such interest. I don't know of many small luthiers that have their designs routinely replicated by other folks. 

All things considered, the backplate is fucking hilarious. Great touch.


----------



## Levi79 (Jul 21, 2012)

This thread is still going?


----------



## bob123 (Jul 21, 2012)

The amount of butthurt in this thread is laughable.



Body shape -> modified Ibanez RG. 
Headstock -> modified Parker Fly
Backplate -> modified blackmachine.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 21, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> To be fair, these people are not okay with the copying of small luthier designs, in general. Where things get hazy is in the understanding that that is a completely arbitrary morality judgment in many cases (again, the only actual legal precedent is related to trademarked headstock designs).



This, pretty much. I am not a fan of the whole idea behind using the distinctive traits of a small artisan, as it is, so to speak, "cheapening" his work and merits. I honestly don't give a damn about ubiquitous designs getting variations done or copied to hell and back. Calling the headstock a "modified Parker headstock" and other types of reasoning to legitimate this sort of stuff is as fair as saying that the Jackson headstock is just a "modified Fender headstock" - there's only so many functional shapes you can do, in any case.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Jul 21, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> To be fair, these people are not okay with the copying of small luthier designs, in general. Where things get hazy is in the understanding that that is a completely arbitrary morality judgment in many cases (again, the only actual legal precedent is related to trademarked headstock designs).



This ^^ (and what Fred said above)

But you got to realize there will always be "purists" (I think someone called them fanboys earlier?) out there who will attack this stuff.

As for now, I wouldnt mind finding a luthier who could copy Doug's work with Blackmachine. I mean, for the price and the incomprehensible wait, it is worth it to rather get a luthier to try to custom build you a copy. I'd like one like this "terrormachine".


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 21, 2012)

It's quite comprehensible why there is such a wait: they are fully handbuilt by one person and Doug treats each piece as art. There is also a monstrous list of people waiting to get one adding to the whole ordeal. One needs to be aware of the different ways luthiers approach their work, and to be fair I know of luthiers making classical guitars with prices in the 6 digit range and 20+ year long waiting lists.

Also, the hype surrounding the Blackmachine brand is indeed immense, and there is also the trend to hate on it, while the vast majority of the followers of such trends do have a very important thing in common: they never played one, or seen more than pictures of one in their lives. Such is the wonderful world of teh interwebz!


----------



## bhakan (Jul 21, 2012)

First off, that is a beautiful guitar, congratulations on the awesome NGD!

Why are small builders given different rules than large companies? Almost every guitar company has atleast one model that is a ripoff of Fender or Gibson. Suhr is an extremely well respected brand, yet many of their guitars are nearly exactly the same as a Fender. Why is it that a design thought up by a large company is treated as public property, but a small luthier's designs are sacred? No disrespect towards Blackmachines, but I don't think it's wrong to make a copy, so long as it doesn't try to pass itself off as a true Blackmachine.


----------



## narad (Jul 22, 2012)

Necris said:


> The amount of butthurt that Blackmachine copies and Tributes garner from Blackmachine fanboys is nothing short of hilarious and could almost justify the price you pay to get one.
> What exactly makes these guitars so unique that it's a completely reprehensible act to copy one? There is nothing about the individual parts of these instruments that I see as completely new.
> If I build a neck with a headstock just like a black machines and the same profile and specs but put it on a decidedly non-blackmachine inspired body would you guys be mad then?
> If I duplicated the completely pedestrian body shape exactly right down to the chambers, backplate and specs but changed the headstock would you be upset then?
> ...



I'm a fanboy for thinking that if someone designs something, the act of copying it without permission requires special circumstances to be called reprehensible? That's a new one.

Copy all the things! @#%$ intellectual property!


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 22, 2012)

IMO, both sides have made their best points in this thread. This, likely, marks where the discussion begins to degrade.


----------



## Ben.Last (Jul 22, 2012)

narad said:


> I'm a fanboy for thinking that if someone designs something, the act of copying it without permission requires special circumstances to be called reprehensible? That's a new one.
> 
> Copy all the things! @#%$ intellectual property!



Again, as long as you realize that the line that you're drawing, as far as what type of copying is and is not ok, is completely arbitrary.


----------



## narad (Jul 22, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Again, as long as you realize that the line that you're drawing, as far as what type of copying is and is not ok, is completely arbitrary.



It's really not. Under different circumstances it becomes a subjective argument, but fortunately here every aspect of Doug's guitars has been reproduced to the best of Skervesen's ability, sans slapping "blackmachine" on it. The intent of the build is to copy - that's not a grey area. And while the legal systems in most developed countries have laws to protect against this, small company luthiers often can't afford the legal firepower to utilize it. So I'll admit it's arbitrary, but only arbitrary in the grand existential sense. What does it mean to "be"? Is a headstock "enough"? I can't simulate a trial of peers by myself, but this is a pretty clear cut in intent, in execution. Whether you want to say Doug is also guilty of ripping of RG and Parker, well, that's peripheral. 

Not that anyone would sue over a single commission, but as far as whether it's reprehensible or not, I'll simply say many luthiers have been sued over or legally restricted from reproducing aspects of other builders' designs for *far* less. Just quickly off the top of my head: Lentz, McNaught, Huber, Rocketfire and Danocaster, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more than I can remember. The law is not necessarily the ethical gold standard, but I'm going to side with it over random-guy-on-internet.


----------



## Ben.Last (Jul 22, 2012)

narad said:


> It's really not. Under different circumstances it becomes a subjective argument, but fortunately here every aspect of Doug's guitars has been reproduced to the best of Skervesen's ability, sans slapping "blackmachine" on it. The intent of the build is to copy - that's not a grey area. And while the legal systems in most developed countries have laws to protect against this, small company luthiers often can't afford the legal firepower to utilize it. So I'll admit it's arbitrary, but only arbitrary in the grand existential sense. What does it mean to "be"? Is a headstock "enough"? I can't simulate a trial of peers by myself, but this is a pretty clear cut in intent, in execution. Whether you want to say Doug is also guilty of ripping of RG and Parker, well, that's peripheral.
> 
> Not that anyone would sue over a single commission, but as far as whether it's reprehensible or not, I'll simply say many luthiers have been sued over or legally restricted from reproducing aspects of other builders' designs for *far* less. Just quickly off the top of my head: Lentz, McNaught, Huber, Rocketfire and Danocaster, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more than I can remember. The law is not necessarily the ethical gold standard, but I'm going to side with it over random-guy-on-internet.



Gotcha. So, since this builder hasn't been found guilty of anything in a court of law or given even the slightest indication of any kind of legal trouble, you're perfectly fine with this build. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Skervesen Guitars (Jul 31, 2012)

OK, guys - if no more constructive conclusions the let' leave Terrormachine to produce some more great music (that's what it's all about - isn't it?...) 

*mod edit: let's keep promotion of your work in Dealers where it belongs*


----------



## hairychris (Aug 1, 2012)

Kenji20022 said:


> I don't understand the controversy, nor the hype for Blackmachine.
> 
> This is clearly *not* a Blackmachine and will never be since Doug doesn't even tell people how he carves the insides of the guitar to make certain frequencies pop out and such. I find it ridiculous that people are going to jump on any brand using this headstock as "stealing" the design. To me it doesn't matter, Blackmachines look cool, I've played one and it didn't appeal to me. I didn't like the sound of the one I played distorted, granted it was an earlier B6 from awhile ago.
> 
> ...



TBH, though, the hype seems to mainly be from people who've never played one. It seems like a load of band-waggoning... And it's not like any hype is coming from Doug himself, in fact I'd guess that less noise would suit him far better. Are other high-ish end instruments as good, or maybe better? That's subjective - if a guitar doesn't work for you then it doesn't, as Kenji has stated. FWIW in that case I'd imagine that it was choice of pickups for the amp as Doug's guitars can be really sodding picky.

As for the copy... the headstock especially is a bit cheeky but my overall outlook has changed from what it may have been a couple of years ago. As long as it's used in good health!


----------



## narad (Aug 1, 2012)

hairychris said:


> TBH, though, the hype seems to mainly be from people who've never played one. It seems like a load of band-waggoning... And it's not like any hype is coming from Doug himself, in fact I'd guess that less noise would suit him far better. Are other high-ish end instruments as good, or maybe better? That's subjective - if a guitar doesn't work for you then it doesn't, as Kenji has stated.



That's the thing about unobtanium: it seems to breed hype better than a viral marketing tactic, both in the positive for all the fan boys, and in the negative for all the cheapskates. I'm sure if/when more blackmachines get into players' hands many people will realize they're not the be and end all of guitars, while others will come to appreciate a mighty fine instrument where previously there was only resentment. Hope that time is soon!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 1, 2012)

Dunno about that, ever since I played my buddies Ive wanted a b7 even more


----------



## narad (Aug 1, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Dunno about that, ever since I played my buddies Ive wanted a b7 even more



Ha, yes, I'm sure they're bound to be a lot of people's favorites too. It's just that when you leave people to their imaginations they seem to leap to the extremes of either it's a dream guitar or an over-priced gimmick. I don't know why it be like it is, but it do.


----------

