# Ethics of Copying Guitar Designs [Esp. Small Shops]



## narad (Apr 22, 2019)

Well, rather than let on-going talk of ethics spill out into random other threads in the forum, maybe we can try to keep it in here and avoid the personal attacks of guys mad that it's not on-topic discussion. 

The previous discussion is mostly here:
http://sevenstring.org/threads/ran-...close-update-trouble-relocating.334501/page-5
I don't know what the right prompt is, but assume Ken Lawrence, a small builder, output of about 20 explorers every couple of years, creates this:







Some notable features: slightly smaller explorer shape, rounded bevels, particular control layout, raw woods (chechen/bubinga usually)/satin finish, and of course, the headstock.

Then we have the Ran explorer:






Totally copied the arbitrarily unique KL headstock shape, same logo placement, bubinga wood. Can you really look at this guitar and honestly believe the person didn't want a KL explorer but just didn't have the means to get one? Which raises the question of entitlement, whether Ran is being unethical in ripping off another builder's headstock, and whether it's ethical to buy a copy of another small builder's guitar.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't get how wanting a particular guitar entitles folks to getting that guitar at the price they choose.
> 
> It's cool to want certain things, and it's a bummer that we can't afford them sometimes, but that doesn't mean we can be less-than-ethical to attain them.
> 
> I'm not saying RAN is the "luthier devil", they were a very small operation that likely had zero impact on the brands they copied.



This is basically how I feel. If you think it's okay for someone to make a replica of another builder for you, do you also not pay for your music? Games? Movies? That logic just leads to things that most people would agree are unethical and bad for all the communities of creators IMO.

I think I leave it up to anyone else if they want to take it from there, but either way here is a place to keep such discussion. Let's keep it civil though -- i.e., not attacking a person or nationality.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Apr 22, 2019)

What if the builder is no longer get building. Or says they are building but really aren’t. What if they are black water.


----------



## bouVIP (Apr 22, 2019)

I find the comparison between guitars and then entertainment to be too different. The price points are completely different and there isn't really an alternative. If you can't afford a $60 game, there isn't going to be someone who will make you a similar game for $30.

On the other hand I don't have the immediate cash to spend $2000 on a strandberg, but recently found out about the China made NK guitars for under $400 and hopped on that. I do feel kind of bad about buying a copy instrument, but the Indonesian made strandberg wasn't ever going to be something I bought in that price range.

I do feel it's unethical for small builders to copy small builders especially if the price range is closer (and in the thousands of dollars range), but the comparison is too different from things more mass produced in my opinion.

edit: I know the comparison to games and movies was pirating/stealing it, but I mean I don't consider that the same as stealing a design ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Fred the Shred (Apr 22, 2019)

Personally, this is a "case by case" topic for me. While I don't really care about a custom spin on whatever mass produced axe made by someone else (which has the added motive of mass produced instruments not really having a ton of possible options for the customer to spec), I do look at these copies of small builders with a typically negative perspective.

Ken Lawrence copies are basically saying "yeah, it's your concept and your work, but I want it cheaper", as are most Blackmachine ones, although the sheer scarcity and less than ideal "blind auction" vibe seriously contributes to that when it comes to BM. Then you have stuff like the Ormsby and Skervesen takes on the BM hype, namely changing the whole ordeal enough so that it's obvious what is on the table without giving you a 1:1 copy attempt, and I'm mostly fine with that.

In light of the latter point: other than the 1:1 copies, how close is "too close" when going for these boutique builders' vibe is another interesting debate on its own, now that I think of it.


----------



## narad (Apr 22, 2019)

bouVIP said:


> I find the comparison between guitars and then entertainment to be too different. The price points are completely different and there isn't really an alternative. If you can't afford a $60 game, there isn't going to be someone who will make you a similar game for $30.
> 
> On the other hand I don't have the immediate cash to spend $2000 on a strandberg, but recently found out about the China made NK guitars for under $400 and hopped on that. I do feel kind of bad about buying a copy instrument, but the Indonesian made strandberg wasn't ever going to be something I bought in that price range.
> 
> ...



Reminds me of this anecdote (often misattributed to Winston Churchill):

_A famous man at a charity banquet asks the beautiful young woman next to him, "Assuming that we gave the money to charity, would you sleep with me for ten thousand dollars?" After some thought she says, "Yes." "And would you for two dollars?" "Why, what do you think I am!" "We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling about price."_

I mean, if your ethics would say it's wrong to deprive the original builder of that money when they are the same price, wouldn't that also hold if the copy is half price, or 10% of the original? It simply becomes an issue of degree. That makes it difficult to afford the original, but I feel that is a sound argument.

I'm not saying anyone is a bad person for getting a copy. I think it's wrong to eat meat in most situations, but the thought of giving it up has never really crossed my mind seriously. But I have a hard time thinking that people can believe that it is "right", to get another builder to build you a cheaper version of something you can't afford at the moment, or that they are some how justified or entitled in doing so.


----------



## Defyantly (Apr 22, 2019)

This is just my , but I feel that guitar designs are a very grey area. I mean when you think of "standard" shapes almost every main stream company has a version. Some with little quirks to make it aforementioned companies version but they are all pretty much the same. The best example of this is the strat shape. You have them a dime a dozen from the very bottom price point all the way up to custom and boutique. I feel that standard shapes should be shared by all because different companies have different build techniques and you have people who prefer different companies but want "standard" shapes.

Now where thing get really hairy is when you have companies that blatantly copy other builder's work with no change at all. This is why lawsuits happen. Its not cool for a boutique builder to come up with a custom design only to see it on aliexpress or ebay for a third of the cost with their logo on it. I am absolutely for builders pursuing legal action against these types of offenders. That is probably why there are not a lot of boutique guitar templates out there for people to find.


----------



## sezna (Apr 22, 2019)

As an aside on the Strandberg copies, the shape is so great, I think they are ushering in a new "standard" ergo shape. The Shoggie, the Abasi's leg cut shape, and other guitars all seem to take at least some inspiration for it. I find it akin to the Strat bringing in a new guitar shape option - a lot of manufacturers, if they didn't copy it, at least made similar shapes. This is one example where I find that the copying is a direct result of how great the shape is, and the copying is allowing for the industry to evolve. The question of the 1:1 Chinese copies is a bit different, but the general Strandbery ergo stuff...


----------



## BananaDemocracy (Apr 22, 2019)

A quick 2 cents, when it comes to design or more generally art, there is no proprietary ownership of shapes ....

However, it’s not a question of ethics , more of professional courtesy, and self-worth/pride/estimation

Meaning if you have to copy another artist, that says more about your creative ability (and ethics , in that sense, if you will) than the counterfeit...

If your asking if it’s unethical to support said artist, answer is - not for the right price


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 22, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> What if the builder is no longer get building. Or says they are building but really aren’t. What if they are black water.


if they're not building the guitars any more I say they're fair game. Same thing with discontinued shapes from bigger brands *cough* kelly star/ironbird/stealth *cough*
It's not like you're taking business from an active builder. Granted if you're going to be selling other people's designs, then at least make some tweaks to distinguish it/prevent getting sued into the ground.


----------



## prlgmnr (Apr 22, 2019)

There are two clear, defensible positions you might take:

1. A luthier/brand can only build designs designed by that luthier/brand.

2. Any builder can build whatever.

1 seems like the most ethically straightforward but also seems to have been abandoned by the industry for almost as long as there has been an industry, so it looks like 2 is the one we're operating under.

If anyone can convince me there is an option between 1. and 2. that doesn't read like "well as a Telecaster is so old that's fair game, but the Ken Lawrence explorer isn't even though that's in fact also a copy of an Explorer but it's a bit different, but the Chinese Strandberg knockoffs are definitely not acceptable though the best ever Jackson Soloist is in fact an Original Series ESP"

(I guess trademark law is trademark law so both my 1. and 2. don't allow for "builder X makes a copy of builder Y's design and it has builder Y's name on it". If trademark law extends to cover headstock shapes then it ought to cover everyone's headstock shapes but it seems in practise only the very largest brands get this treatment. But now I've muddied my own waters by talking about legal matters when I meant to stick purely to ethical matters, leaving room for someone to drive in a wedge and dismantle my entire point. I should delete this entire section.)


----------



## odibrom (Apr 22, 2019)

There's nothing new, nothing that gets lost, everything is copied... in the end, we're all star dust... as are guitars.

I'm with @BananaDemocracy. Anyone with a computer can trace a guitar's shape. It is then up to the client/builder' personal conscience to follow it or tweak it.

I mean, look at the gigantic number of rigorous tele/strat/LPs copies that are out there. No one seams to care much about that, blank headstocks (unbranded) so the user can stick there anything they want. Aren't there stickers with brand's logos to stick it onto whatever one may want? What is anyone expecting?

Copying is part of the human growth, how many builders have made their name with copies from other brands to later on establish their own style?

If I was into doing this for a living, I'd change something because that's my nature...


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 22, 2019)

*MOD EDIT: Personal attacks will always bring swift and stringent moderation. If unable to stick to basic forum guidelines further moderation steps will be taken. Final warning. *

@narad, please don’t feel offended. I see that You take this topic very personal.
Regarding KL: for me that headstock is the ugliest part of that guitar. KL just made some mods to the well known design in the first place. It isn’t His own design by any means. Let’s try to be objective here. So KL made modified Explorer and we can’t name this action as tipoff, because it is with His own twist. It is the homage to the Gibson’s design. Then the Ran customers came along and asked Ran to make a copy but with their own mods. Ran makes it and You call it ripoff. I would call it a copy. Inferior, more cheesy and less expensive copy. Is it legal? Yes. Is it ethical? Not by my understanding.
But i try to understand both sides and they all have their own reasons. IMHO Ran should concact KL before making these copies.
Regarding industry and ethics.
There are 4 constructions of electric guitar:
- bolt-on: Tele and Strats. All others are mods, copies, ripoffs and so on... for example Strandberg, BlackMachine, Ibanez...
- set-in: Gibson designs (Les Paul, SG, Explorer, Flying V etc) and 90% of others are based on Gibson recipies
- neck-through-body: mostly Jackson designs...but wait..Soloist~Strat, RR&KV~Flying V, Kelly~Explorer... Do You get it?
- monolith, for example Parker, Aristides etc.
So my point is that almost all industry is based upon copies, homages, mods and ripoffs.
Why is it good to copy a Strat and it is wrong to copy a KL?
Do You feel entitled to judge?
We can give only our opinions, not facts. We can share our point of view and feelings, but please do not moralise each other.
Peace.


----------



## Bearitone (Apr 22, 2019)

I think if someone feels the need to rip off someone’s headstock design they shouldn’t be making guitars.

If someone that wants to call themselves a luthier is so abhorrently uncreative that they can’t design a headstock then they need to pay someone to be creative for them (like pay a designer or get a license to sell someone else’s design)

It’s uncreative, unimaginative, crooks looking to make a quick buck by standing on the shoulders of a design/brand that honest people busted their asses to build up


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 22, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> I think if someone feels the need to rip off someone’s headstock design they shouldn’t be making guitars.
> 
> If someone that wants to call themselves a luthier is so abhorrently uncreative that they can’t design a headstock then they need to pay someone to be creative for them (like pay a designer or get a license to sell someone else’s design)
> 
> It’s uncreative, unimaginative, crooks looking to make a quick buck by standing on the shoulders of a design/brand that honest people busted their asses to build up


I'll play devil's advocate here and say that I understand copying certain headstock designs (ie the tele headstock/kramer hockey stick, jackson headstock, etc) simply because they recreate a certain aesthetic. It'd be really hard to build a kramer esque super strat in neon colors/etc or an explorer without that iconic hockey headstock shape (or some minor variation on it). Not that it can't be done but it's really hard coming up with a *functional* headstock designs that haven't already been done. There's a finite number of ways to make a inline or 3x3 headstock shape that don't look like shit. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with functional, yet original headstock designs for years.


----------



## Bearitone (Apr 22, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'll play devil's advocate here and say that I understand copying certain headstock designs (ie the tele headstock/kramer hockey stick, jackson headstock, etc) simply because they recreate a certain aesthetic. It'd be really hard to build a kramer esque super strat in neon colors/etc or an explorer without that iconic hockey headstock shape (or some minor variation on it). Not that it can't be done but it's really hard coming up with a *functional* headstock designs that haven't already been done. There's a finite number of ways to make a inline or 3x3 headstock shape that don't look like shit. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with functional, yet original headstock designs for years.



But here’s the good news, if you free-hand draw it or even use CAD without directly tracing over an existing design, it’s now no longer a shameless copy. You could probably draw 12 hooked/ormsby “style” headstocks each with their own twist.

It’s literally impossible for you to freehand the exact same shape as someone else

This is basically what companies do with their singlecut “LP” style guitars. There are tons of these guitars that are within the same shape “family” without being an exact copy.

I’m fine with iterating on a shape or making your own version.

It’s the shameless, direct tracing of another design that’s just low imo and what i see a lot of when it comes to Chinese knock offs.


----------



## bouVIP (Apr 22, 2019)

narad said:


> Reminds me of this anecdote (often misattributed to Winston Churchill):
> 
> _A famous man at a charity banquet asks the beautiful young woman next to him, "Assuming that we gave the money to charity, would you sleep with me for ten thousand dollars?" After some thought she says, "Yes." "And would you for two dollars?" "Why, what do you think I am!" "We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling about price."_
> 
> ...



Is it justified or ethical? Definitely not, but I'm more on the side of it's an ok gray area unless they literally copy a brand and logo and sell it as the brand for a cheaper price.

People aren't entitled to it at all, and it's pretty messed up that society has warped people in to that kind of mindset. But it is what it is and if people want something, they'll try to get it or a substitute that's technically legal or a blatant illegal ripoff. 

To me, it seems like less of a "I want to steal that design" and more of a "I have 2 options and 1 is cheaper and takes less time, but both give me nearly the same thing" from the consumer perspective. 

Definitely agree with @Fred the Shred though and think it's more case by case than anything but that is based on differing opinions and perspective for the individual.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 22, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> But here’s the good news, if you free-hand draw it or even use CAD without directly tracing over an existing design, it’s now no longer a shameless copy. You could probably draw 12 hooked/ormsby “style” headstocks each with their own twist.
> 
> It’s literally impossible for you to freehand the exact same shape as someone else
> 
> ...


KL's headstock internal part is Ran ripoff to be precise 
Mayones Duvell headstock is a copy of Skervesen 4AP headstock.
We can go endlessly into that rabbit hole, mate.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 22, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> But here’s the good news, if you free-hand draw it or even use CAD without directly tracing over an existing design, it’s now no longer a shameless copy. You could probably draw 12 hooked/ormsby “style” headstocks each with their own twist.
> 
> This is basically what companies do with their singlecut “LP” style guitars. There are tons of these guitars that are within the same shape “family” without being an exact copy.
> 
> It’s the shameless, direct tracing of another design that’s just low imo and what i see a lot of when it comes to Chinese knock offs.


 "good artists steal, great artists imitate and make it their own"
Yeah, I'm not really talking about blatantly copying a design, just saying from my perspective that it's hard to make a functional headstock that doesn't end up emulating another design in some way.
I inadvertently (or subconsciously, take your pick) ended up drawing inline headstocks that look like the RG/VIK/BWGC/Agile inline headstocks, even though I was trying to do my own thing.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Apr 22, 2019)

If you're ethically drawing a line on "copying" then you're going to personally have to apply it across the board. The term copying is extremely broad already, it ranges from direct production of an identical copy to imitation to even partial copies.

If we're going with copying being an unethical action, then we shouldn't be buying anything but Telecasters from Fender and LP's from Gibson, etc. But there seems to be a lot of conditions for it to even bother people, like the size of the luthier, availability of the product, and overall intentions. 

Like Knight said, unless you're making an objective effort to come up with something forcefully unique your memory and influences will come out when you come up with ideas no matter the industry or medium. You'd almost say forcing a unique design is a more unnatural creative outlet for an artist/luthier.

It personally doesn't bother me, a couple years ago I was one of those dudes pining over a Blackmachine. I ended up owning a pair of B6's that were completely boring, because those instruments didn't excite me I went with the closest option that resembled one to me in my price range. Which made my Blackwater DII Walnut come into the picture and it satisfied that desire for that specific design quite a bit. I know @narad takes issue with brands like Ormsby for their take on the blackmachine, but if we're going over semantics here but the Hypemachine is arguably the looser derivative of the Blackmachine style if we're doing a deep dive here.

Skervesen made three documented copies that copy the headstock and general shape on purpose.













If the argument is copying is unethical, then we are drawing lines on how far is too far you simply cannot be consistent without alienating other cases and designs. I actually think the popularity and size of a luthier being weighed is a cop out in and of itself, Intellectual Property doesn't scale between the holder's stake in the market. If you have a case that you can sue and collect on for stolen IP you have every right to pursue that.

Without even putting much thought into the topic, copies do not bother me much because I felt no guilt for owning what were considered close copies to the Blackmachine design. I could afford one no problem, but I saw no value in going into a bidding war for an instrument that cost what two of my Blackwaters ran me at the time. But at the same time I do feel a slight sense of resentment towards RAN almost completely copying the KL design, but certainly not enough to keep me from owning/ordering one. I'd make the case that they are doing exactly what Skervesen did, intentionally make close copies of a design for a market with no chance of affording the real deal.


----------



## mpexus (Apr 22, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> I think if someone feels the need to rip off someone’s headstock design they shouldn’t be making guitars.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 22, 2019)

mpexus said:


>


all of them are just strat/CBS headstocks with the knobbly bit up front lopped off


----------



## cip 123 (Apr 22, 2019)

mpexus said:


>



Suhr/Schecter have a grey area in my mind. Back in the 80's a lot of the luthiers who now own shops and big companies worked together in the same shop/company therefore a lot of the designs they continue to make are similar due to the fact that's what one person is know for (and good) at making. 

Schecter were probably there first however I doubt they are terribly offended by Suhr's headstock as I believe he used to work in some capacity with them. Plus their model doesn't overlap a huge amount, yes Schecter are growing their custom shop, but you either want one or the other. 

If you're part of the design/history in some way I say fair play, unless one company really wanted to enforce some laws/patents (if they own any)

Kramer I'm not too sure on their history.


----------



## feraledge (Apr 22, 2019)

There are so many infamous guitars out there that I think copies are inevitable. I don't think copies are a problem though, just acknowledge it's a copy. Otherwise it's a fake. 
When it comes to generalized guitar designs, I think the good ideas are generally long gone, but while I love an explorer, there are certainly ways to improve upon it without pretending like you made it first.


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 22, 2019)

I think of double standards when I read this.
We can justify a builder for copying something, and hang another for the same exact thing. The judge is our own bias.

I don't like counterfeits, but still Slash plays one... And I like that one. 
Prs silver stratosphere anyone?

You feel uncomfortable about the ran guitar not because of the shape, rather the aesthetics of it, it is as If KL made it. 

Do I care? f I was KL it would bother me, if it's an one off nah. If it goes into production, yeah.. In the grand scheme of things, it's a gibson shape..

As someone who makes 3d stuff, I have seen my works being shared without permission, or even a proper credit... You get less sympathetic over time when this happens. 

Also copying and improving upon existing designs is how we progress. 

As if LP is not a classical guitar outline shaped as a solid body with a cutaway...


----------



## narad (Apr 22, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> KL's headstock internal part is Ran ripoff to be precise



Got that the wrong way around, but since Ken doesn't use that as a standalone headstock I don't see the issue with Ran "borrowing" it. 

But when you look at Ran "original" Vs and it's like the KL internal section and flanges as the headstock, and 2 of the big halves of an ESP SV glued together for the body, it's like...c'mon. This frankenstein thing was the best you could come up with?


----------



## StevenC (Apr 22, 2019)

The KL isn't trying to be a Gibson. The Ran is trying to be a KL. Put a different headstock on the Ran and it isn't an issue.

Also worth noting that Strat and Tele shapes aren't protected, but Fender headstocks are. Most of the boutique and hot rod versions came about when Fender were making crap guitars. David Gilmour, Pete Townshend, Mark Knopfler and Ynqwie Malmsteen all played Schecters because they were better guitars.

In my book, improving is different to copying. Also, the more convoluted a design the less forgivable a copy is. A Strandberg is quite specific, there's only so many V shapes.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 22, 2019)

mpexus said:


>


What? These are totally different (I'm being sarcastic). Just look at those. I mean Kramer is obviously the victim here, but still, these are different enough to all be called original. Technically they are very different. Look at where the head stock comes from the neck. They are all different curves and angles, and the rounded part under their logos is a different point or arch shape etc. See that is technically true, but once you get a dozen guitar builders they will all be suing each other. As the saying goes. There is only so many ways to skin a cat. Only so many ways you can make a head stock come from the neck. What about headless guitars? There's even less ways to do that. If I patent every possible way to create a symmetrical head stock, then should the evolution of guitar building stop if I refuse to make guitars and refuse to licence my design, if someone comes up with a great new design that requires a symmetrical head stock? God I hope not.


----------



## narad (Apr 22, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> What? These are totally different (I'm being sarcastic). Just look at those. I mean Kramer is obviously the victim here, but still, these are different enough to all be called original. Technically they are very different. Look at where the head stock comes from the neck. They are all different curves and angles, and the rounded part under their logos is a different point or arch shape etc. See that is technically true, but once you get a dozen guitar builders they will all be suing each other. As the saying goes. There is only so many ways to skin a cat. Only so many ways you can make a head stock come from the neck. What about headless guitars? There's even less ways to do that. If I patent every possible way to create a symmetrical head stock, then should the evolution of guitar building stop if I refuse to make guitars and refuse to licence my design, if someone comes up with a great new design that requires a symmetrical head stock? God I hope not.



That's part of why I prompted the discussion with KL. There are obviously creative limitations -- our bodies have a certain shape, you want headstocks to be relatively small while serving the purpose of holding the tuners, etc., and so we see a lot of sort of "predictable" shapes. The KL headstock is not a very predictable shape, which is why to me it is a more egregious thing to copy.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 22, 2019)

narad said:


> That's part of why I prompted the discussion with KL. There are obviously creative limitations -- our bodies have a certain shape, you want headstocks to be relatively small while serving the purpose of holding the tuners, etc., and so we see a lot of sort of "predictable" shapes. The KL headstock is not a very predictable shape, which is why to me it is a more egregious thing to copy.



I agree 100% it is more egregious. I wonder is KL actually owns rights to it or not. He only builds 25 a year or so, says his website, so that is not very recognizable if it we not for James Hetfield. Who actually invented this head stock though? I'm guessing KL, but Here's Ed Roman V's that have it which appear to be really old, maybe older than KL has been making these.

http://www.edroman.com/guitars/abstract/shriekingvee.htm
http://www.edroman.com/guitars/abstract/headstocks.htm

God what a bunch of ugly ass crap!

But this is my definition of unethical, when it is just flat out Counterfeiting. And I'll bet that thre are way more than 25 of these sold a year, making them more recognizable and encounterable, and if KL don't own the rights the counterfeiter could actually steal it out form under him. Ok, Here's FN egregious. They copy the entire guitar, even the KL logo! This is unethical, if KL cares, he should do something abut it, but it sucks it would have to consume all his time, effort and money etc. This is why the legal system sucks:

egregious: and only $500
http://www.rareelectricguitar.com/Ken-Lawrence-Explorer--sale_182.html

I'll bet it's every bit the quality as the real thing too!


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 22, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> I agree 100% it is more egregious. I wonder is KL actually owns rights to it or not. He only builds 25 a year or so, says his website, so that is not very recognizable if it we not for James Hetfield. Who actually invented this head stock though? I'm guessing KL, but Here's Ed Roman V's that have it which appear to be really old, maybe older than KL has been making these.
> 
> http://www.edroman.com/guitars/abstract/shriekingvee.htm
> http://www.edroman.com/guitars/abstract/headstocks.htm
> ...


ed roman was a known crook/thief. he ripped off any design he could if it would make him money. I highly doubt he magically came up with the same headstock as KL independently.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 22, 2019)

Yeah, I think we have to be careful about straw man arguments here. It’s not fair to say that a superstrat is a “copy” of a strat in the same was as that Ran Explorer is a copy of the KL Explorer. There is borrowing heavily from a design, and there is directly copying another’s work. I think it’s clear that the Chinese copy instruments are specifically copying exact designs of other guitars. And, I know most people say they can’t afford it. I agree with Max’s quoted sentiment - you are not entitled to one of everything at a price you think is fair. Part of what makes many things special is THAT you can’t afford it. If you could afford everything then nothing would be worth more. And there’s a reason innovation costs money - it takes time and effort. 

With respect to the video game industry, I think the example is spot on. You can right now travel to China or Pakistan, or a number of other countries and get a direct copy of a game, or a very similar, slightly tweaked version, for way less than the actual game. They are still making the disks, but they didn’t develop the game. And you could say, “come on, I know how much it costs to get a disk and burn software onto it! It’s not $60!” And you’d sound just like the people complaining about paying $2000 for a strandberg. 

Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to personal ethics. Some people think it’s ok, some don’t. But I DO think we need some laws on it, because there needs to be some sort of agreement as to where we draw the line. And it’s also why I’d like to see some serious fixing of this, “you have to share your tech with us” policy if Chinese trade.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 22, 2019)

mpexus said:


>



There's some interesting history in this picture.

That Kramer headstock is from 82' to 84', back when ESP was making Kramer necks.

The Suhr headstock traces it's lineage to the Pensa-Suhr days, which they started building together (rather Suhr building with Pensa managing) around 81', with the first guitar completed in 82' and available for sale around 84'.

The Schecter one is interesting too. Tom Anderson worked at Schecter from 77' to 84' and is credited with that headstock. It was all parts back then. Who did they supply with parts? None other than Pensa-Suhr.

Remember how ESP was making Kramer necks? Well, around that time Schecter and ESP worked close together, building parts for each other.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 22, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> ed roman was a known crook/thief. he ripped off any design he could if it would make him money. I highly doubt he magically came up with the same headstock as KL independently.


Oh, I doubt it too. I'm just saying. The problem isn't for us to care about. It's for KL to care about, or not, and to enforce it legally, with money, time, effort and energy if important enough. Which is why the legal system, especially with international laws, sucks and doesn't work for people with rights, but no money. If KL takes the time, even if he has the money to enforce this, then he loses time, money etc. It's a never ending cycle. No laws will stop it, but enforcement may sway it. Still it's just how it is and you can't make someone ethical just like you can't make someone love you.


----------



## Veldar (Apr 23, 2019)

Ehhh just don't do it on a medium to large scale.

I want a Ric bass but I'd never buy one from the company


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 23, 2019)

The Chinese factories we are talking make counterfeits, nothing to disagree there. They use a brandname that doesn't belong to them, and since it's not their own name on the line, they don't give a damn about quality.

I am a bit skeptical about the guitar that started the conversation. It seems to be an one off.
Probably a client requested that. I don't see an issue with that specific example.

Esp was, and still is using Gibson shapes, KL is using a Gibson shape with different woods...
Hell most of metal guitars use humbuckers, guess who made PAFs, or the stupid double cream bobbin thing... As long as a builder is using his own name, and it's one off, or really small number,
it's fine by me most of the times .


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I think we have to be careful about straw man arguments here. It’s not fair to say that a superstrat is a “copy” of a strat in the same was as that Ran Explorer is a copy of the KL Explorer. There is borrowing heavily from a design, and there is directly copying another’s work. I think it’s clear that the Chinese copy instruments are specifically copying exact designs of other guitars. And, I know most people say they can’t afford it. I agree with Max’s quoted sentiment - you are not entitled to one of everything at a price you think is fair. Part of what makes many things special is THAT you can’t afford it. If you could afford everything then nothing would be worth more. And there’s a reason innovation costs money - it takes time and effort.
> 
> With respect to the video game industry, I think the example is spot on. You can right now travel to China or Pakistan, or a number of other countries and get a direct copy of a game, or a very similar, slightly tweaked version, for way less than the actual game. They are still making the disks, but they didn’t develop the game. And you could say, “come on, I know how much it costs to get a disk and burn software onto it! It’s not $60!” And you’d sound just like the people complaining about paying $2000 for a strandberg.
> 
> Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to personal ethics. Some people think it’s ok, some don’t. But I DO think we need some laws on it, because there needs to be some sort of agreement as to where we draw the line. And it’s also why I’d like to see some serious fixing of this, “you have to share your tech with us” policy if Chinese trade.



Not to change the subject but what about ethics regarding the law and people being equally represented, such as the poor that get thrown in jail with no representation for 9 months while in a cell with a broken collar bone as they literally lay dying on the floor and nobody gives a shit, not even the judge while getting served rotted fruit (yes, I know who this happened to, welcome to Phoenix!), but you can be well off financially and pay to get out of jail the same night, even if you almost killed someone, literally. Because you have $15k to buy the systems trust. Suddenly you're not a danger if you give the system money? Anyways, As I've said before, rights are a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It's the way it is. Who is my friend to feel entitled to this product at a price he can afford? Obviously a different issue, but point being, if this is how the system is, then of course people are going to act unethically. We're only talking about guitars, laws regarding this stuff is only for the big money contributors who can afford that legal product. There are obviously exceptions to teh rule, but the courts are so overwhelmed, it just isn't worth it. It will cost KL more to fight it than to just let it go. End of useless social justice warrior rant.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> The Chinese factories we are talking make counterfeits, nothing to disagree there. They use a brandname that doesn't belong to them, and since it's not their own name on the line, they don't give a damn about quality.
> 
> I am a bit skeptical about the guitar that started the conversation. It seems to be an one off.
> Probably a client requested that. I don't see an issue with that specific example.
> ...


Totally, KL by the way, uses ESP and Gibson specs himself. Everyone is taking from everyone.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 23, 2019)

It always surprises me that the size, scope, and age of the operations in these threads is ignored even though that's where much of the nuance of this discussion lies. 

There's a difference between a small, independent builder copying a near century old design that's de-facto in the public domain, and a larger builder taking a unique, signature element from a small builder who hasn't been around as long and using it without license or even mention. 

I think that's what's in play here. The argument isn't "all builders need to only use their entirely unique designs".


----------



## StevenC (Apr 23, 2019)

There's a signature part of a KL that means no one has ever mistaken a KL for a Gibson or ESP.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Apr 23, 2019)

I really don't see it as an issue

Unless they are *counterfeiting* - i.e. pretending that it IS a Ken Lawrence, then I don't see a problem with it

1. They're not taking anything away from Ken. That's especially true if you're citing the "affordability" argument, where that person couldn't have bought a KL anyway.

2. They're also not "getting" a KL. They're getting something which looks kinda like it but clearly isn't a KL. The RAN isn't going to have the same craftsmanship, sounds etc that made KL famous. Nor will it have the brand/logo and corresponding perceived value which KL carries. And nobody is giving them the same kudos/internet points as if they had bought a KL. 

3. The comparison with pirating music isn't a good one. In that case, the pirate actually gets the identical product and the identical experience to the people who paid the price. Same applies to fake Gucci handbags or whatever, which is counterfeiting. As I mentioned above, that isn't the case for heavily "inspired" guitars


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

If KL's website worked we could ask him if he even actually cares. I have 100% never heard anything about anyone that is actually getting ripped off , or copied, even caring, except the major company battles and lawsuits like Gibson/Ibanez etc. Why do we care if they don't? Why do we care even if they do? I agree with everyone again. Everyone is right.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

Flappydoodle said:


> I really don't see it as an issue
> 
> Unless they are *counterfeiting* - i.e. pretending that it IS a Ken Lawrence, then I don't see a problem with it
> 
> 1. They're not taking anything away from Ken. That's especially true if you're citing the "affordability" argument, where that person couldn't have bought a KL anyway.



I don't believe there is an "affordability" argument, or at least one that doesn't immediately come up against a lot of other issues. If you couldn't afford a KL but own a house and car, whereas I could afford a KL but I can't afford a house or a car, how does this relate? 

Of course, I could in theory afford a car -- I would just sell my KLs and buy a Ran knockoff and a car. But in that scenario, Ken loses ~$14k of income, because both me and a guitar company lack the scruples in thinking there's anything wrong in doing so.



c7spheres said:


> If KL's website worked we could ask him if he even actually cares. I have 100% never heard anything about anyone that is actually getting ripped off , or copied, even caring, except the major company battles and lawsuits like Gibson/Ibanez etc. Why do we care if they don't? Why do we care even if they do? I agree with everyone again. Everyone is right.



His FB works, but he's a laid back California guy (may even be Canadian IIRC) and I don't think he'd have a lot of enthusiasm for fuelling or participating in this sort of public debate, however he feels about it.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I don't believe there is an "affordability" argument, or at least one that doesn't immediately come up against a lot of other issues. If you couldn't afford a KL but own a house and car, whereas I could afford a KL but I can't afford a house or a car, how does this relate?
> 
> Of course, I could in theory afford a car -- I would just sell my KLs and buy a Ran knockoff and a car. But in that scenario, Ken loses ~$14k of income, because both me and a guitar company lack the scruples in thinking there's anything wrong in doing so.



I say "affordability" because your first post mentioned price as a defining factor in your point of view. You said that people who wanted a KL but didn't have the means would get a RAN. You also mentioned a sense of entitlement. My interpretation of that is that you are saying nobody should be able to have that headstock unless willing to pay 5 figures for it. That's a fair point, and certainly it's the marketing strategy of designer clothes where it's basically a label to say "yeah, I can afford to spend £1,400 on this jacket/bag."

But that argument goes back to counterfeits. You see ASOS making heavily "inspired" versions of clothes that celebrities wear, or expensive brands, on a far larger scale. What is wrong is buying a £20 bag in Thailand with a whopping Gucci logo on it, and passing it off as the real thing. That damages Gucci in one way because now chavs are carrying their bags, making them uncool (see Burberry), but it doesn't damage them directly financially because those chavs were never going to spend that money on a bag anyway.

Another question would be, would you be mad if a small builder created a headstock design or body shape, but a big builder took it and made a far better overall product, and then charged correspondingly more money for it? Is it just the idea of somebody getting something for cheap which is wrong?

Of course budgets are somewhat discretionary and "afford" is a relative term. People spend silly money on guitars without having their basic life essentials taken care of. Hell, I've seen right here people putting $700 guitars on credit cards. Stupid. I'm going to say that "afford" simply means whether you are willing to spend money on something - i.e. I'd spend £50K on a car easily, but not on any guitar. On that basis, it still means that somebody who liked the KL design and bought a RAN probably wasn't a lost sale for Ken, much like Tracey the hairdresser buying the ASOS version of Michelle Obama's dress wasn't hurting that designer.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> Well, rather than let on-going talk of ethics spill out into random other threads in the forum, maybe we can try to keep it in here and avoid the personal attacks of guys mad that it's not on-topic discussion.
> 
> The previous discussion is mostly here:
> http://sevenstring.org/threads/ran-...close-update-trouble-relocating.334501/page-5
> ...


So I found and messaged KL through Facebook and gave him the links to this group and the counterfeit guitar of his and also explained the Ran that uses his headstock and asked his opinion on the ethics of this and the borrowing from others designs and to what extent should this go. Also, is that actually a head stock of his design or did he possibly borrow it from somewhere else, explaining it's been copied by many builders over the years. It will be interesting to hear the opinion from the man himself on this if he responds. There is a really sweet one for sale on his Facebook page from a client who bailed on him. Damn, that is one nice guitar! It's a 7 string too!


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> So I found and messaged KL through Facebook and gave him the links to this group and the counterfeit guitar of his and also explained the Ran that uses his headstock and asked his opinion on the ethics of this and the borrowing from others designs and to what extent should this go. Also, is that actually a head stock of his design or did he possibly borrow it from somewhere else, explaining it's been copied by many builders over the years. It will be interesting to hear the opinion from the man himself on this if he responds. There is a really sweet one for sale on his Facebook page from a client who bailed on him. Damn, that is one nice guitar! It's a 7 string too!



I have brought great shame upon myself


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I have brought great shame upon myself


Why man? I'm sorry. I thought it would be really nice to know the opinion of someone in the industry that this is actually happening to. My bad. Sorry if I offended you. I obviously don't know what I did here. Why is there shame on you in this? I can still remove it as an option. I'm not sure if that will prevent him from getting the message or not, but remove is still an option. I'll do that if you like. I'm new to all this online stuff as far as groups and forums etc go. I'm not in the know with all the etiquette.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

If the KL EXP headstock is the issue here then I would suggest you contact James Hetfield about it. He designed it. It is a modified version of an older KL design. Also, for a thread that is supposedly about copies in general, it all seems to be about Ran making a handful of one off KL EXPs...


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> Got that the wrong way around, but since Ken doesn't use that as a standalone headstock I don't see the issue with Ran "borrowing" it.
> 
> But when you look at Ran "original" Vs and it's like the KL internal section and flanges as the headstock, and 2 of the big halves of an ESP SV glued together for the body, it's like...c'mon. This frankenstein thing was the best you could come up with?


V shaped Ran was their own first design made for the from Vader in the 90s. I am 1000% sure that KL wasn’t taken into account when it came to design a headstock. It was all about aggressive shapes.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Why man? I'm sorry. I thought it would be really nice to know the opinion of someone in the industry that this is actually happening to. My bad. Sorry if I offended you. I obviously don't know what I did here. Why is there shame on you in this? I can still remove it as an option. I'm not sure if that will prevent him from getting the message or not, but remove is still an option. I'll do that if you like. I'm new to all this online stuff as far as groups and forums etc go. I'm not in the know with all the etiquette.



Ah it's okay. I just get the impression that we're on a forum where we're creating drama for essentially no reason than to explore some niche issue, which is fine -- it's a forum for such things -- but many builders I know would actively try to avoid being dragged into it.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

I also noticed that nobody seems to be bothered that Shamray made and still makes a shit ton more KL copies than Ran ever has or that Vengrov and others are also making KL copies. For some reason certain people are only butthurt over Ran making (like four?) copies a decade ago that haven't been able to be ordered for years.

Also, if copying a design but making an improvement is all well and good then I would definitely consider a huge decrease in price an improvement. Then again, I am not a wealthy person so I could be biased. However, the argument of poor people with entitlement issues is probably one of those douchiest things I have read in a while. If you have shit tons of money to spend on boutique guitars then good for you. Most of us don't. So according to this we should just accept the hand life dealt us, know our place in society and only play cheap guitars that are copies of more expensive guitars that have been approved to be copied because only people that have accumulated enough wealth to purchase an original are worthy enough to own its likeness because that is how the system is supposed to work? It sounds like some wealthy elitist Republican propaganda bullshit to me but whatever... 

The main reason people get KL EXPs to begin with is because James Hetfield. For years KL flat out would not even build them for anyone apart from Hetfield because HE was the one that designed it. There are tons of Metallica fans out there that want a guitar that looks like their favourite Hetfield guitar. There are KL copies as well as copies of MX220s and MX250s that ESP had made for James that were *gasp* copies of a Gibson EXP. The original ESP EXP MX220 was the result of Hetfield giving ESP his 1984 Gibson and having them make a 1:1 copy with his preferred changes such as control layout. Personally I think it is pretty fitting that people buy cheap copies of Hetfield guitars because Hetfield did the same thing. He bought a cheap copy of a Flying V because he wanted a guitar that looked like Schenker's. 

"As most kids who love certain bands, you just wanna get the same guitar that guy is playing. I wanted a white Flying V forever - that was it. I mean, c'mon! The Scorpions, Judas Priest... It was a heavy metal guitar. You know, Michael Schenker - white V. It was my dream to have a white V. When I finally got a V, it was kind of weird to play. When you're standing with it, sometimes it rolls off you. And you've seen pictures of The Kinks with a Flying V, and he's playing through the middle, holding it this way. It's, like, 'Wow! That's weird.' But actually, when you're sitting down with it, you've got the V down there, it's super easy. I loved the V shape once I got used to it. I got my white V in 1980. It was the second guitar I ever owned, and *I probably bought it for $200. I knew it was a copy, but we treated it as a real Gibson. I wanted a white one because Michael Schenker of UFO had one, so I needed one too.* The neck snapped on it twice on tour. It's been glued quite a few times. It's got Seymour Duncan pickups in it, with a little more output for the crunch than the originals had. The only other thing that's customized is the artwork. That was the first guitar I started scratching stuff into."


IMHO, if it is fine for him to get a cheap copy of his hero's guitar, it is fine for the rest of us mortals.











REFERENCES​
Jomatami. (2018, July 20). Metallica's James Hetfield: What Drew Me to Gibson Flying V to the Point of Obsession. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/new...ibson_flying_v_to_the_point_of_obsession.html


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> If the KL EXP headstock is the issue here then I would suggest you contact James Hetfield about it. He designed it. It is a modified version of an older KL design. Also, for a thread that is supposedly about copies in general, it all seems to be about Ran making a handful of one off KL EXPs...



Source for that? I mean, I could believe it, but I could also just believe Ken himself modified his bass headstock for the pointier shape. Not that it changes the argument but I am curious.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I also noticed that nobody seems to be bothered that Shamray made and still makes a shit ton more KL copies than Ran ever has or that Vengrov and others are also making KL copies. For some reason certain people are only butthurt over Ran making (like four?) copies a decade ago that haven't been able to be ordered for years.



http://www.sevenstring.org/threads/should-i-get-a-ken-lawrence-explorer-from-kl-or-shamray.169196/

Nah, apparently at least Max and myself were also pointing in this direction back in ye ol' 2011. Totally forgot about it. I sounded way less jaded.

We obviously are discussing this in the context of Ran because it came out of them shutting down, but it is equally relevant to Shamray. But I have like legitimately not heard the name Shamray since 2011.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I also noticed that nobody seems to be bothered that Shamray made and still makes a shit ton more KL copies than Ran ever has or that Vengrov and others are also making KL copies. For some reason certain people are only butthurt over Ran making (like four?) copies a decade ago that haven't been able to be ordered for years.



I had no idea Shamray still existed. 

I don't think anyone has mentioned them on here in like a decade. EDIT: damnit Narad!

I don't remember Vengrov, but it sounds familiar. Did they do those Jackson Demon copies?

I think RAN is the easy target because, as far as this site goes, they're more well known.

If it makes you feel better I'll substitute all mentions of RAN with one of those.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

Idk it just really seemed like the thread was supposed to be about making copies in general but all the focus is on Ran copying a KL. It kinda came off as a personal axe to grind with Ran in particular.

Here is an interview with KL about the first guitar he built for James.
http://www.virginiafuel.com/EFI5.2/kenlawrence.html
So it's not a copy of a Gibson. It's a copy of a copy of a Gibson. It doesn't say straight up that James designed the headstock (I read that in an interview with James that I can't find right now) but he says it was designed with James to incorporate the Metallica M logo into the shape. He says the body and neck shape were copied from James's favorite ESP EXP.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Idk it just really seemed like the thread was supposed to be about making copies in general but all the focus is on Ran copying a KL. It kinda came off as a personal axe to grind with Ran in particular.
> 
> Here is an interview with KL about the first guitar he built for James.
> http://www.virginiafuel.com/EFI5.2/kenlawrence.html
> So it's not a copy of a Gibson. It's a copy of a copy of a Gibson. It doesn't say straight up that James designed the headstock (I read that in an interview with James that I can't find right now) but he says it was designed with James to incorporate the Metallica M logo into the shape. He says the body and neck shape were copied from James's favorite ESP EXP.



*JC: I was gonna say...looking at all of your guitars, they have the same headstock, like it's a trademark of yours. The small fins carved out of the top of the headstock. But James's headstock is very different. It appears that you took only a basic concept--a standard-shaped headstock carved out of a fancy backing, and really went somewhere else with it.* 

KL: (laughs) Thanks. Yeah, this one was a total custom deal. I'm glad people appreciate it.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

This thread is becoming SJW rant for no real reason. Oh, first world problems


----------



## Sogradde (Apr 23, 2019)

I feel there's alot of goalpost moving here. It started with "...because it's illegal", turned into "...but it's unethical" and now it's "...well it's only okay when my builder of choice does it because he improved on the original" while people can't even agree on the meaning of the word "improvement". Not trying to be a dick but I would genuineline like to hear a clear set of rules from the anti-copy faction when it's okay and when it's not okay to copy a design? It appears to me that sympathy (or lack thereof) towards the builder seems to be the deciding factor so far.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> all of them are just strat/CBS headstocks with the knobbly bit up front lopped off


I hate that knobbly bit. It looks like a part of the male anatomy. These are much nicer looking.


----------



## Exchanger (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Oh, I doubt it too. I'm just saying. The problem isn't for us to care about. It's for KL to care about, or not, and to enforce it legally, with money, time, effort and energy if important enough. Which is why the legal system, especially with international laws, sucks and doesn't work for people with rights, but no money. If KL takes the time, even if he has the money to enforce this, then he loses time, money etc. It's a never ending cycle. No laws will stop it, but enforcement may sway it. Still it's just how it is and you can't make someone ethical just like you can't make someone love you.



As you said, the justice system is sometimes...not very optimal to say the least. But the question was more about ethics than law technicalities here. You're right about the system's shortcomings, and it should be improved, but in the meantime I think that's precisely why the consumer's role is to determine what is acceptable or not and make buying decisions accordingly. Different people here seem to draw the line at different levels, and it looks like a lot of speculation and nitpicking to some, but in the end it's kind of healthy to have these discussions.
You could extend this into music as well. None invented the 12 tone scale or specific chord progressions, yet there are definitely artists there are innovators and others who are purely copycats. But is anyone ever a true innovator ? There's obviously a difference between being inspired or influenced, and consciously ripping someone's idea off. Same for guitar designs. There's only so many ways to make a functional body or headstock, but coming up with your own take on it is not the same a straight out copying it.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

ON a different note. What about non aesthetic design features like dimensions? Ibanez has the AANJ neck pocket and there are builders that make AANJ replacement necks, like Perle. They make some nice looking stuff and are basically in business because of it. They offer stuff Ibanez probably never will and they offer paddle head stocks. They also make tree of life inlayed fret boards and pyramid fret boards. At what point is it unethical ? I mean Ibanez as far as i know is the 65 and 68mm AANJ originator. So would it be unethical to copy the neck pocket dimensions. It is a design feature and pretty unique to Ibanez, as far as I know. Maybe I should patent the paddle head stock. But seriously, maybe that's why other brands have slightly different neck pocket widths.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

While I seriously doubt cheaper straight up copies have an impact on the sales of original models of things like KL or BM, I do find some of the things PRS does in bad taste. Things like the Single cut McCarty 58 with binding and ToM bridge and the Silver Sky while not 1:1 copies are clearly meant to take sales from Stratocaster and Les Paul models. In my eyes things like KL and BM clones from Russia and Europe are at least honest copies not trying to take credit for anything. Meanwhile PRS is trying to hype the shit out of their strat copy like him and John Mayer reinvented the guitar or something. I'm not saying it's wrong or should be illegal but it leaves a worse taste in my mouth than things like ESP EXPs, Amfisound RR, KV and EBMM copies, Daemoness EXP, FV, RR and Soloist copies, Shamray, Ran, or any other copies. People that buy a Silver Sky or Singlecut 58 thing clearly had the money for a Gibson or Fender and those builders lost a sale. I seriously doubt the person that buys a KL clone was trying to decide on buying one or the a copy.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Apr 23, 2019)

Evidently, and this all boils down to the individual and the builder's idea of ethics and entitlement, hence all the nuance tied to a discussion such as this.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

I forgot to add Ed Roman. While him making copies of other guitars wasn't really a big deal to me, him always saying he could build it so much better and cheaper because the original builders are shit and overpriced was what made it in bad taste to me.

Also PRS himself making claims about Ted McCarty, the guy who made the greatest guitars of all time, passing on all of his mojo and black magic bullshit to Mr. Smith reeks of douchebaggery as well. All of that shit about vintage guitars is one big bullshit circle jerk. The only reason the "standard classic designs" of LP, Strat and Tele became so popular is the exact same reason people build and buy KL copies. They wanted a guitar that looked like the one their rockstar hero played. When Jimmy Page and all the great classic rock guys picked up Strats and LPs, they were just used guitars. Admittedly high end used guitars but still used guitars bought for cheap. Eric Clapton bought a bunch of old 50s Strats and gave them away to friends and swapped parts on them to make good playing partscasters. Those rock star guitars became so popular that Japanese builders made copies and Gibson made reissues. Somewhere down the line the original 59 LP became some sort of mythical creature much like BM is starting to become now.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> While I seriously doubt cheaper straight up copies have an impact on the sales of original models of things like KL or BM, I do find some of the things PRS does in bad taste. Things like the Single cut McCarty 58 with binding and ToM bridge and the Silver Sky while not 1:1 copies are clearly meant to take sales from Stratocaster and Les Paul models. In my eyes things like KL and BM clones from Russia and Europe are at least honest copies not trying to take credit for anything. Meanwhile PRS is trying to hype the shit out of their strat copy like him and John Mayer reinvented the guitar or something. I'm not saying it's wrong or should be illegal but it leaves a worse taste in my mouth than things like ESP EXPs, Amfisound RR, KV and EBMM copies, Daemoness EXP, FV, RR and Soloist copies, Shamray, Ran, or any other copies. People that buy a Silver Sky or Singlecut 58 thing clearly had the money for a Gibson or Fender and those builders lost a sale. I seriously doubt the person that buys a KL clone was trying to decide on buying one or the a copy.



I have the complete opposite pov. Naturally guitar companies want things that are loosely in the genre of strat / LP / tele in terms of sound and feel, but one can easily visually distinguish a PRS SC or silver sky from the respective Gibson/Fender models they draw from. Different outlines, different cutaways, different neck carves and scale lengths, different visual cues. This is how products evolve -- there's the obvious references, but the resulting instrument looks and plays in a way that is immediately distinguishable. Yes, the customer who buys one would maybe consider an LP or silver sky, but they actually prefer these as instruments.

On the other hand, I look at a Ran KL and I think, is that a KL? It just vaguely looks worse, but can't pinpoint why until I hit the logo.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I have the complete opposite pov. Naturally guitar companies want things that are loosely in the genre of strat / LP / tele in terms of sound and feel, but one can easily visually distinguish a PRS SC or silver sky from the respective Gibson/Fender models they draw from. Different outlines, different cutaways, different neck carves and scale lengths, different visual cues. This is how products evolve -- there's the obvious references, but the resulting instrument looks and plays in a way that is immediately distinguishable. Yes, the customer who buys one would maybe consider an LP or silver sky, but they actually prefer these as instruments.
> 
> On the other hand, I look at a Ran KL and I think, is that a KL? It just vaguely looks worse, but can't pinpoint why until I hit the logo.


Maybe, You and we should wait for the answer from the man himself.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> Maybe, You and we should wait for the answer from the man himself.



What answer would change that post though?


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> What answer would change that post though?


For me: the whole context of this thread.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I have the complete opposite pov. Naturally guitar companies want things that are loosely in the genre of strat / LP / tele in terms of sound and feel, but one can easily visually distinguish a PRS SC or silver sky from the respective Gibson/Fender models they draw from. Different outlines, different cutaways, different neck carves and scale lengths, different visual cues. This is how products evolve -- there's the obvious references, but the resulting instrument looks and plays in a way that is immediately distinguishable. Yes, the customer who buys one would maybe consider an LP or silver sky, but they actually prefer these as instruments.
> 
> On the other hand, I look at a Ran KL and I think, is that a KL? It just vaguely looks worse, but can't pinpoint why until I hit the logo.


I don't think anyone that buys a KL copy honestly thinks it will play the same. The main idea is someone in a poor country doesn't have (how many thousands is a KL now?) to spend on importing one. Paying another 23% of the price in taxes is another big deterrent. So they get a local builder to make one that looks like the one they like. As has been said many times in many threads. The vast majority of these copies (Shamray, Ran, Vengrov) are only really meant for people living in these areas. For me those exist in their own little world that isn't really supposed to be available to outsiders. The average American would have to save up what like 2 years for a KL? The average Pole has to save up the same or more for a copy. The zloty is worth 25-30% of a dollar and the average wages are around 600-1000 zlotych per month. Most people here could never dream to even afford a copy of KL much less the actual KL. Another thing is gear is just not as readily available here as it is in the States. It was easier for me to get gear when I was in Iraq through the internet and military mail system than it is to get gear here.

Mayones made copies of Fenders, Jacksons, BC Rich, PRS, and Gibsons up until just a few years ago. They stopped offering copies and now only make their own designs. I think that was the direction Ran wanted to go when they stopped offering copies. Somehow the two are held in very different regard.

I also think that the big companies could cut out a lot of the counterfeit sales by simply using the same headstocks and logos across the board. Chinese fake LPs are getting up into Epiphone prices but people still buy them simply because they say Gibson on a Gibson shaped headstock. Let's be honest. Import lines are just officially approved cheap copies anyway. An LTD is a cheap copy of a Japanese ESP. I think Jackson probably doesn't have as much problem with fakes because you can buy a cheap shit official Jackson with a Jackson logo on a Jackson headstock from Jackson. If the ESP logo was on the M10, Fender logo on the Bullet Strat, Gibson logo and open book headstock on the Epi LP Special, I think there would be a lot less of a need or want for fakes and copies.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> For me: the whole context of this thread.



I mean honestly if Ken came in and said, "let anyone copy my headstock, I don't care.", I'd still be looking down at every small builder that ever ripped it off previously. Like I mentioned in the previous thread, when Dylan @ Daemoness was asked by a customer to use the headstock of a different small builder, he wrote them an email asking permission. Dylan's a real professional.



possumkiller said:


> I don't think anyone that buys a KL copy honestly thinks it will play the same. The main idea is someone in a poor country doesn't have (how many thousands is a KL now?) to spend on importing one. Paying another 23% of the price in taxes is another big deterrent. So they get a local builder to make one that looks like the one they like. As has been said many times in many threads. The vast majority of these copies (Shamray, Ran, Vengrov) are only really meant for people living in these areas. For me those exist in their own little world that isn't really supposed to be available to outsiders.



You say that, but I don't think there's any real proof of it, in the sense Ran would ever refuse to copy a KL to a non-Polish customer. A good amount of copies seemed to be for overseas customers -- just google image search, go to the forum, and check the poster's location.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I mean honestly if Ken came in and said, "let anyone copy my headstock, I don't care.", I'd still be looking down at every small builder that ever ripped it off previously. Like I mentioned in the previous thread, when Dylan @ Daemoness was asked by a customer to use the headstock of a different small builder, he wrote them an email asking permission. Dylan's a real professional.


I understand Your POV and reasons, but there is no strict line of what is acceptable and what not. Every instance is different. I remember about 10 years ago i wanted Ran to make me ntb superstrat with basically RG body and ESP reversed inline 6 headstock and They refused me. They said that they wanted to focus on their own models at that time and didn't want to make a copy (which wasn't copy in the first place). Go figure. They made 4 custom guitars that were almost copies of KL work. There are bigger companies that make revenue upon making copies. Some of them made much more KL copies. This whole Ran-KL stuff in this thread is just double standard.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> I mean honestly if Ken came in and said, "let anyone copy my headstock, I don't care.", I'd still be looking down at every small builder that ever ripped it off previously. Like I mentioned in the previous thread, when Dylan @ Daemoness was asked by a customer to use the headstock of a different small builder, he wrote them an email asking permission. Dylan's a real professional.


I think we all know Dylan is the exception and not the rule. This guy is probably the most pure of heart metalhead/artist/luthier there is. I'm curious if there is even one other example of this.


----------



## narad (Apr 23, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> There are bigger companies that make revenue upon making copies. Some of them made much more KL copies. This whole Ran-KL stuff in this thread is just double standard.



Then in your head replace Ran with "Ran and Shamray and Aliexpress", etc. Really it's beside the point -- any points made against Ran would be seen as equally relevant to these other companies. It's not a double standard, as no one criticizing Ran is simultaneously thinking Shamray had the right idea.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 23, 2019)

narad said:


> Then in your head replace Ran with "Ran and Shamray and Aliexpress", etc. Really it's beside the point -- any points made against Ran would be seen as equally relevant to these other companies. It's not a double standard, as no one criticizing Ran is simultaneously thinking Shamray had the right idea.


OK, now i get it.


----------



## GXPO (Apr 23, 2019)

If the builder original builder straight up objects to the designs being replicated it seems pretty obvious. 

From my point of view, the line of ethics is crossed as below:

1) If the copy being made at a presumed lower price is affecting the income of the original designer.
2) The design is being copied with an attempt to pass it off as the real deal.
3) The copied design is used to promote the new luthier without providing credit to the original design. 

I think we need to separate ethics and artistic integrity in our minds a little.


----------



## BananaDemocracy (Apr 23, 2019)

Ed Roman !!!!
A name I haven’t seen or heard since beginning electric guitar as a teen!

Hahaha I KNEW HIS COLLECTION WAS FAKE....I was just a kid when I saw it, very naive and gullible admittedly ....but I was like 13 and I said to myself , “no way one white dude has ALL these made in -X country - guitars , on top of ALL these hard to find domestic high end Gibsons and Fenders”

And then his Steinberger habahhahah OMFG And all of his Frankenstrats!!!?

Thanks for that nostalgia , that made me laugh..
If he’s your target I’ll just say it outright ROMAN IS UNETHICAL....but we didn’t have “good” internet then

If you could dial up a 14.4kbps modem you’d be happy just to see Ed’s site, the originator of Guitar PRON. I’ll give him that, as a teen I got all my TNA n GAS all at once...-almost overstimulating to my puritanical baby fresh tween mind lol

Meaning if you were lucky enough to get to see his site, he had so many image and pages it’s jam my modem, and also, there weren’t many good discussion sites, like there was jemsite and that’s it , and no one was calling out Ed till people had DSL AND eBay etc 

Again I totally forgot about that scammer so thanks for the reminder


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 23, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> While I seriously doubt cheaper straight up copies have an impact on the sales of original models of things like KL or BM, I do find some of the things PRS does in bad taste. Things like the Single cut McCarty 58 with binding and ToM bridge and the Silver Sky while not 1:1 copies are clearly meant to take sales from Stratocaster and Les Paul models. People that buy a Silver Sky or Singlecut 58 thing clearly had the money for a Gibson or Fender and those builders lost a sale. I seriously doubt the person that buys a KL clone was trying to decide on buying one or the a copy.



This is kind of another oddball situation because PRS is one of those brands where sometimes people just "want a PRS."
Look at the hype on this forum when those private stock multiscales first started popping up. We've all seen multiscale before, we have all kinds of options to pursue a multiscale at whatever fan we want; but _never _had there been a _PRS _multiscale. And a lot of the guys around here wanted one because duh, PRS.

That kind of folds into the Daemoness Soloist- the guy that had that built could clearly afford an actual Jackson. But he wanted a Daemoness. Can't say I blame him.
I agree this type of thing is kind of different from the topic at hand, but it's still tangentially relevant because it's still a copy. And I've got to say, I still can't really get too upset about this. Because while PRS is definitely trying to poach sales with these models, their ability to do so will be determined by their product. If the PRS doesn't play as well and isn't built to as high of a standard as the Gibson or Fender, then it will fold under it's own weight. PRS is able to make such a bold play because they have the craftsmanship and reputation to back it up. If the people bought one over the original at a similar pricepoint....clearly PRS delivered something that Fender and Gibson didn't.

Is it in poor taste? ......yeah, kind of; but I don't think it's _*wrong*_.



narad said:


> I mean honestly if Ken came in and said, "let anyone copy my headstock, I don't care.", I'd still be looking down at every small builder that ever ripped it off previously. Like I mentioned in the previous thread, when Dylan @ Daemoness was asked by a customer to use the headstock of a different small builder, he wrote them an email asking permission. *Dylan's a real professional*.



Really just quoting this for emphasis. Dylan is pure class and truly a real professional; and I think that's the best possible way to handle that situation.
I actually agree with this whole post. Even if I fall more on the "copying is ok" side- if you assume it _*is*_ totally wrong, a reputable builder saying he doesn't mind doesn't make it not wrong. 



narad said:


> Then in your head replace Ran with "Ran and Shamray and *Aliexpress*", etc. Really it's beside the point -- any points made against Ran would be seen as equally relevant to these other companies. It's not a double standard, as no one criticizing Ran is simultaneously thinking Shamray had the right idea.



Ehhhhhh lets not stray off into the weeds here- Aliexpress is going to get you a forgery. Not a copy. I'm not familiar with Shamray, but I know RAN at least is (was- RIP) a reputable shop that will deliver a quality instrument with their own branding on it. I think that's a good baseline for this topic.


----------



## jephjacques (Apr 23, 2019)

I think as long as you're not trying to pass off a copy as the original it's okay? But there's a wide spectrum of "okay," with one end being "no problem at all" and the other being "why didn't you just buy an original if you like it so much, you weirdo"


----------



## Empryrean (Apr 23, 2019)

What if, for your own personal reasons, you cannot bring yourself to purchase from the Original and you go to someone else to make a copy, is that fine? For example, lets say I didn't want to buy from ViK guitars due to the Cynic comment they made a while back but love the shapes they have, or uh.. maybe Kiesel's bad rep I've read from a few places on the internet is a deterrent for me to give them my business.. but I really want a Zeus? Is it okay then?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 23, 2019)

Empryrean said:


> What if, for your own personal reasons, you cannot bring yourself to purchase from the Original and you go to someone else to make a copy, is that fine? For example, lets say I didn't want to buy from ViK guitars due to the Cynic comment they made a while back but love the shapes they have, or uh.. maybe Kiesel's bad rep I've read from a few places on the internet is a deterrent for me to give them my business.. but I really want a Zeus? Is it okay then?



Unless you feel like giving this spiel every time you play it around or in front of others you're still going to seem to be supporting those brands/individuals. 

Though, I don't think "being a dick" is a valid reason to negate their ownership of their respective products/designs. 

Again, no one is entitled to someone else's designs simply because they like them.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is kind of another oddball situation because PRS is one of those brands where sometimes people just "want a PRS."
> Look at the hype on this forum when those private stock multiscales first started popping up. We've all seen multiscale before, we have all kinds of options to pursue a multiscale at whatever fan we want; but _never _had there been a _PRS _multiscale. And a lot of the guys around here wanted one because duh, PRS.
> 
> That kind of folds into the Daemoness Soloist- the guy that had that built could clearly afford an actual Jackson. But he wanted a Daemoness. Can't say I blame him.
> ...


Yep, but we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes. PRS might be paying a fee to Gibson for using that single cutaway. From what I remember GIbson owns that signle cutaway horn shape, so PRS might be giving them money to use it, and Gibson definately needs the money now, seeing that hey are operating under bankruptcy. But the soloist carved top/horn RG style carved in that is still my design. Sorry, I commissioned it long before anyone else. It's ok though, I hope everyone copys it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Yep, but we really don't know what's going on behind the scenes. PRS might be paying a fee to Gibson for using that single cutaway. From what I remember GIbson owns that signle cutaway horn shape, so PRS might be giving them money to use it, and Gibson definately needs the money now, seeing that hey are operating under bankruptcy.



Not really. PRS won the most recent lawsuit on appeal. That's why they've been pumping out Singlecuts like crazy the last several years. 

Also, Gibson Guitars is not "under bankruptcy", Gibson Corporation was (it's since been mostly liquidated). You can read the bankruptcy decree online, it was finalized last year.


----------



## xzacx (Apr 23, 2019)

Empryrean said:


> What if, for your own personal reasons, you cannot bring yourself to purchase from the Original and you go to someone else to make a copy, is that fine? For example, lets say I didn't want to buy from ViK guitars due to the Cynic comment they made a while back but love the shapes they have, or uh.. maybe Kiesel's bad rep I've read from a few places on the internet is a deterrent for me to give them my business.. but I really want a Zeus? Is it okay then?



If you didn't wanna purchase that stuff because of those personal reasons, it's weird that you'd be OK with people thinking you bought one since you would still appear to be supporting them.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not really. PRS won the most recent lawsuit on appeal. That's why they've been pumping out Singlecuts like crazy the last several years.
> 
> Also, Gibson Guitars is not "under bankruptcy", Gibson Corporation was (it's since been mostly liquidated). You can read the bankruptcy decree online, it was finalized last year.


Oh, Good to know. Hopefully Gibson can make a big comeback. I was unsettled when I saw them making computer speakers and electronics. It just felt wrong.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 23, 2019)

xzacx said:


> If you didn't wanna purchase that stuff because of those personal reasons, it's weird that you'd be OK with people thinking you bought one since you would still appear to be supporting them.



For a forgery? Sure- I see what you're saying. 
But for a copy in a similar vein to the RAN / KL example, the guitar is clearly branded under a different company.


----------



## Drew (Apr 23, 2019)

Flappydoodle said:


> On that basis, it still means that somebody who liked the KL design and bought a RAN probably wasn't a lost sale for Ken, much like Tracey the hairdresser buying the ASOS version of Michelle Obama's dress wasn't hurting that designer.


I don't agree, or at least, I don't think you can say this _across the board_.

Imagine a world where Ran _isn't_ making KL copies. Would every single one of the KL copies sold translate into a sale to KL? Probably not - some of those Ran buyers likely couldn't have afforded one one way or another. But, would some of those buyers have saved up for a lot longer of a period of time, gradually put the cash together, and bought a KL, if they couldn't buy a Ran (or other maker) knockoff guitar? Yeah, in at least some of those instances, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. At the end of the day, Ran is likely taking at least a few customers who otherwise would have gone to KL, and is hurting Ken Lawrence.

And, if the issue was that Ken Lawrence physically couldn't build enough guitars to meet demand, so someone was going to Ran because they didn't want to wait five years or whatever for a spot on the build list? I don't think that makes that justifiable either. There's a supply-demand balance in play here and when demand is far in excess of supply, that means your price is to low. Arguing (and you're not, here, but it's a logical followup) that if a builder is running at capacity you're not hurting them by ordering a copy elsewgere _also_ doesn't work, because that's impacting their pricing power and their profit margin, and making their work less valuable than it would otherwise be by putting copies in the marketplace, _even if there's no possibility of confusing it for the "real" thing_.



possumkiller said:


> While I seriously doubt cheaper straight up copies have an impact on the sales of original models of things like KL or BM, I do find some of the things PRS does in bad taste. Things like the Single cut McCarty 58 with binding and ToM bridge and the Silver Sky while not 1:1 copies are clearly meant to take sales from Stratocaster and Les Paul models.
> ...
> People that buy a Silver Sky or Singlecut 58 thing clearly had the money for a Gibson or Fender and those builders lost a sale. I seriously doubt the person that buys a KL clone was trying to decide on buying one or the a copy.


This actually kind of gets a little closer to the heart of the issue, IMO. 

The Fender Stratocaster body shape is not copyright-protected and is fair use. The headstock is, however. Why? Because for years people made Strat-shaped guitars with contours visibly identical to Fenders and Fender did nothing about it, but when people used their headstock design, they took legal action. If you design a guitar, by default, you own the copyright to that design... But, if you set a precedent of _not_ enforcing that copyright after having become aware of its use, and then years later seek to take action or take action against someone _else_ using the design, you're likely going to lose your suit. Part of having a copyright is protecting your intellectual property. 

For small luthiers this creates kind of a dilemma - from a pure cost/benefit standpoint, the legal fees incurred by, say, Ken Lawrence going after the Ran guys for using his headstock design are probably going to exceed any reasonable settlement based on estimated damage to the value of his IP, so it's simply not worth pursuing IP violations because it'll cost you more to go after the imitators than it's worth to you to do so. doubly so when it's a situation of an American luthier being copied by a Polish one, because international copyright law gets messy REALLY fast. For larger companies like Fender and Gibson and PRS, they stand to lose a lot more from damage to their IP, and they have teams of lawyers to throw at the problem. If it seems like a bifurcated playing field, where the "big boys" get away with protecting their intellectual property but one-man shops or really small luthiers don't, that's less because the law _itself_ is unfair, and more because the economics of enforcing copyright are _very_ different for smaller and larger shops.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Apr 23, 2019)

Drew said:


> The Fender Stratocaster body shape is not copyright-protected and is fair use. The headstock is, however. Why? Because for years people made Strat-shaped guitars with contours visibly identical to Fenders and Fender did nothing about it, but when people used their headstock design, they took legal action. If you design a guitar, by default, you own the copyright to that design... But, if you set a precedent of _not_ enforcing that copyright after having become aware of its use, and then years later seek to take action or take action against someone _else_ using the design, you're likely going to lose your suit. Part of having a copyright is protecting your intellectual property.
> 
> For small luthiers this creates kind of a dilemma - from a pure cost/benefit standpoint, the legal fees incurred by, say, Ken Lawrence going after the Ran guys for using his headstock design are probably going to exceed any reasonable settlement based on estimated damage to the value of his IP, so it's simply not worth pursuing IP violations because it'll cost you more to go after the imitators than it's worth to you to do so. doubly so when it's a situation of an American luthier being copied by a Polish one, because international copyright law gets messy REALLY fast. For larger companies like Fender and Gibson and PRS, they stand to lose a lot more from damage to their IP, and they have teams of lawyers to throw at the problem. If it seems like a bifurcated playing field, where the "big boys" get away with protecting their intellectual property but one-man shops or really small luthiers don't, that's less because the law _itself_ is unfair, and more because the economics of enforcing copyright are _very_ different for smaller and larger shops.



Some of this is close, but not quite correct. I can't get too in the weeds on this stuff for a range of reasons, but here's some resources/stuff to Google if you're interested:

1. Check the difference between the various IP regimes: copyright, trademark, trade dress, patent, design patent, etc. all have very different limitations and protections. Some may cover some aspects of a guitar shape, others may not. Some have "fair use" exceptions and some don't. Some can risk loss of IP protection if you don't enforce, and some generally don't (as with most legal things, it's complicated). The USPTO has posted this nice presentation that gives a general overview (although I haven't reviewed it for accuracy): https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/about/offices/ous/Cooper_Union_20130604.pdf

2. Check out the opinion in Gibson v. PRS here for a discussion of trademark protections (and their limitations) on guitar shapes: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1362636.html

3. A who's who of guitarmakers successfully challenged Fender's attempt to register the Strat, Tele, and P-bass outlines at the TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the internal "court" within the USPTO). A good summary (and link to the opinion and other resources) are here: http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2009/04/precedential-no-13-ttab-axes-fender.html


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Not to change the subject but what about ethics regarding the law and people being equally represented, such as the poor that get thrown in jail with no representation for 9 months while in a cell with a broken collar bone as they literally lay dying on the floor and nobody gives a shit, not even the judge while getting served rotted fruit (yes, I know who this happened to, welcome to Phoenix!), but you can be well off financially and pay to get out of jail the same night, even if you almost killed someone, literally. Because you have $15k to buy the systems trust. Suddenly you're not a danger if you give the system money? Anyways, As I've said before, rights are a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It's the way it is. Who is my friend to feel entitled to this product at a price he can afford? Obviously a different issue, but point being, if this is how the system is, then of course people are going to act unethically. We're only talking about guitars, laws regarding this stuff is only for the big money contributors who can afford that legal product. There are obviously exceptions to teh rule, but the courts are so overwhelmed, it just isn't worth it. It will cost KL more to fight it than to just let it go. End of useless social justice warrior rant.



Yeah, what you’re saying, and Max’s comment about the size of the company being an important factor, shows how much money is involved in these things, and often trumps any egalitarian idea of ethics. It sucks, and I hate how the US (an perhaps other countries) are quickly moving toward valuing money above all else. It’s easy to talk about IP theft in guitar making. It’s much more difficult for me to discuss “justice” for people who are poor vs rich. That gets me really angry really fast, and part of it is how powerless I (we) feel.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 23, 2019)

Flappydoodle said:


> I really don't see it as an issue
> 
> Unless they are *counterfeiting* - i.e. pretending that it IS a Ken Lawrence, then I don't see a problem with it
> 
> ...



Well, there is a difference between counterfeiting and stealing IP. If your band spends a lot of time recording a really cool song, and I take the demo and give it to Maroon 5, who makes a million dollars, the fan isn’t getting the true art that you put out, and isn’t getting the authenticity of the lyrics you wrote, and maybe would have never bought your CD. But does that make it right? It’s not counterfeit, but it’s a huge shortcut around your creative work, and essentially negates any value that it has. Software and design piracy happens all the time, and it’s rarely a direct counterfeit.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

I try to put myself in the builders shoes. If this happened to me and it was my design, I would be a little upset but kind of flattered at the same time. NO big deal. I would be pretty ticked off if I was actually losing money because of it. I mean if someone else was taking legitimate, realistic potential customers, not someone making a cheap copy for a tenth or 20th the price, like with KL. But I would personally be really pissed off in the case of flat out knock-off counterfeit fakes with my logo and everything, whether it's admitted by the counterfeiter or not if it's a fake. That's just f'd up, but if they were halfway decent guitar I might make a deal with someone like that to offer and open up a lower line of guitars for that demographic price ranged customer, like Fender\Squire or Gibson\Epiphone etc. that way you can at least control quality and get some of the profit, cause they're gonna do it anyways, even if you won a court case, they'd just keep doing it and change names\locations.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 23, 2019)

Also, just wanted to say this is an awesome thread. I’m keeping a super open mind, and hoping to narrow my views on it, because I’m kind of all over the place, depending on the example given.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Hollowway said:


> Well, there is a difference between counterfeiting and stealing IP. If your band spends a lot of time recording a really cool song, and I take the demo and give it to Maroon 5, who makes a million dollars, the fan isn’t getting the true art that you put out, and isn’t getting the authenticity of the lyrics you wrote, and maybe would have never bought your CD. But does that make it right? It’s not counterfeit, but it’s a huge shortcut around your creative work, and essentially negates any value that it has. Software and design piracy happens all the time, and it’s rarely a direct counterfeit.


I totally wanted to buy that Nintendo ram box and put all 800 games on it using the counterfeit roms, but then I thought I don't have time for video games, if I got time, I'm playing my guitar!


----------



## StevenC (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> I mean if someone else was taking legitimate, realistic potential customers, not someone making a cheap copy for a tenth or 20th the price, like with KL.


For what it's worth, I contacted Ran about a decade ago about building a guitar and was quoted more like a third or a half the price of a KL, depending on what the exchange rate was at the time. But that wasn't for a KL copy, so I don't know how much that would have changed the price.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 23, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> That's just f'd up, but if they were halfway decent guitar I might make a deal with someone like that to offer and *open up a lower line of guitars for that demographic price ranged customer,* like Fender\Squire or Gibson\Epiphone etc. that way you can at least control quality and get some of the profit, cause they're gonna do it anyways, even if you won a court case, they'd just keep doing it and change names\locations.



So I'm more on your side in the overarching topic of this debate, but I'd just like to pick this piece apart real quick.
This isn't that simple. Where we branch off from here depends on how you read this post, since (sorry) the direction isn't super clear.

*Assuming you're talking about partnering with this other builder that's copying your guitars: *
You now have business problems to consider. You guys are now partners. This guy's work reflects on _*you*_. This guy's business sense, PR management, media presence, this guy's _everything _reflects on *you*. Customers are split. Profits are split. Decisions need to be made jointly. Property is now owned jointly. Partnering with someone is a major, _major _ordeal and even if you already know and like the person you're partnering with, things can still go far south really fast.

*Assuming you're talking about launching your own lower-priced line of guitars:*
It takes major capital to start a business. It takes even more major capital to start a global business. Ormsby copied the Blackmachine, made some modifications, and started to mass produce it. Sounds great. But I guarantee you the amount of money he had to front for that decision would likely make you reconsider. If that alone doesn't, then the exponential increase in time you need to spend on your business will.
My folks ran an auto shop when I was growing up, just a single location, small time one-man operation. They both worked at least 60 hours a week and made a modest living.
Imagine how much more time out of your life you'd be looking at if you started shipping guitars all over the place. Now you need more staff, which costs more money, more liability, and ultimately more problems. A guy like Doug or Ken Lawrence who just really love building guitars would _*not*_ be down for that.
--

I understand you're just stating what you would do yourself in this hypothetical situation, but that answer (while sounding great,) wouldn't really be an actual solution most of the time.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So I'm more on your side in the overarching topic of this debate, but I'd just like to pick this piece apart real quick.
> This isn't that simple. Where we branch off from here depends on how you read this post, since (sorry) the direction isn't super clear.
> 
> *Assuming you're talking about partnering with this other builder that's copying your guitars: *
> ...





StevenC said:


> For what it's worth, I contacted Ran about a decade ago about building a guitar and was quoted more like a third or a half the price of a KL, depending on what the exchange rate was at the time. But that wasn't for a KL copy, so I don't know how much that would have changed the price.


Yeah, I was just throwing a non thought out price, but I was under the impression these KL were like $6k-$12k for some reason. I don't know what they actually are, but the conterfeits are like $500 or something, so that's ten times less if you got a $5k guitar.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 23, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So I'm more on your side in the overarching topic of this debate, but I'd just like to pick this piece apart real quick.
> This isn't that simple. Where we branch off from here depends on how you read this post, since (sorry) the direction isn't super clear.
> 
> *Assuming you're talking about partnering with this other builder that's copying your guitars: *
> ...


I see your point. It would be way to much to deal with but I speculate whether Gibson and Fender were just putting Mexican builders/copiers into business when they thought of making these less expensive guitars. A large business could do this but, yeah, for an independent or small shop it would not be worth it. I wouldn't do it, now I'd probably just be mad for bit and let them get away with it.


----------



## xzacx (Apr 23, 2019)

Drew said:


> Imagine a world where Ran _isn't_ making KL copies. Would every single one of the KL copies sold translate into a sale to KL? Probably not - some of those Ran buyers likely couldn't have afforded one one way or another. But, would some of those buyers have saved up for a lot longer of a period of time, gradually put the cash together, and bought a KL, if they couldn't buy a Ran (or other maker) knockoff guitar? Yeah, in at least some of those instances, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. At the end of the day, Ran is likely taking at least a few customers who otherwise would have gone to KL, and is hurting Ken Lawrence.



In addition to this, even if every knockoff doesn't result in a direct lost sale of a genuine product, they do cheapen the original, which also hurts a brand. All of the outright fake (as well as "inspired-by") Strandbergs have made actual Strandbergs seem a lot less cool.

Here's a real world example of that. My girlfriend has a ridiculous collection of bags, and there are certain brands she won’t buy (or at least won’t buy as often and/or certain models from) because of the prevalence of fakes—both counterfeit and “homages.” So she’ll end up spending just as much or even more on competing brands that aren’t as faked or recognizable. That’s absolutely hurting those brands whether the people carrying knockoffs would have ever bought them or not.


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 23, 2019)

Flappydoodle said:


> I really don't see it as an issue
> 
> Unless they are *counterfeiting* - i.e. pretending that it IS a Ken Lawrence, then I don't see a problem with it
> 
> ...



Hey the second point I think is a bit off. 
To me for example, KL is an overpriced piece of gear. It's not a complex build to command such a pricetg. 

I'm not gonna give anyone kudos for his possessions, only for his skills.

I will rather question his intellectual capability. 'Same thing goes for people who buy overpriced boutique versions of strats and so on'.

The Ran isn't going to have the same craftsmanship indeed, but it might be a better one as well. A good guitar is a good guitar after all.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> Hey the second point I think is a bit off.
> To me for example, KL is an overpriced piece of gear. It's not a complex build to command such a pricetg.
> 
> I'm not gonna give anyone kudos for his possessions, only for his skills.
> ...



Well...have you ever played one? It's not a "complex" build, but like most things, you're paying for someone's time and expertise. More time and expertise on your build creates a higher quality product. I think of all my guitars, most are often cited as being much better than Ran, the KLs have the highest level of craftsmanship.

Of course, it does not mean that it will ultimately be a better guitar in terms of sound or feel -- these are subjective things, and your own personal preference -- but a priori you can assume every decision is made to produce the best instrument with the best materials, which is unlikely when it comes to the budget builds.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> Well...have you ever played one? It's not a "complex" build, but like most things, you're paying for someone's time and expertise. More time and expertise on your build creates a higher quality product. I think of all my guitars, most are often cited as being much better than Ran, the KLs have the highest level of craftsmanship.
> 
> Of course, it does not mean that it will ultimately be a better guitar in terms of sound or feel -- these are subjective things, and your own personal preference -- but a priori you can assume every decision is made to produce the best instrument with the best materials, which is unlikely when it comes to the budget builds.


To be precise: Ran is/was not a budget build. I am not defending them. I try to be fair and objectve. Why are we stuck with KL for so long in this thread?


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> To be precise: Ran is/was not a budget build. I am not defending them. I try to be fair and objectve. Why are we stuck with KL for so long in this thread?



It's comparatively budget, i.e., it's the lower cost option that's taking the design of the more expensive option. It's all relative.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> It's comparatively budget, i.e., it's the lower cost option that's taking the design of the more expensive option. It's all relative.


Of course it is all about proportions. But Ran prices aren’t low and these guitars are made of fine pieces of wood and quality hardware.


----------



## Sogradde (Apr 24, 2019)

xzacx said:


> In addition to this, even if every knockoff doesn't result in a direct lost sale of a genuine product, they do cheapen the original, which also hurts a brand. All of the outright fake (as well as "inspired-by") Strandbergs have made actual Strandbergs seem a lot less cool.


If the "fake" delivers the same, or even better quality than the original, is the original really worth the money asked for it?


----------



## Empryrean (Apr 24, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Unless you feel like giving this spiel every time you play it around or in front of others you're still going to seem to be supporting those brands/individuals.



I definitely see where you're coming from when you say this, but honestly; and this is just hypothetical, if I were to purchase from the original creator _anyway-- _assuming that I have my own personal reasons not to be supportive of them, odds are pretty high I will go out of my way to explain that I do not support the builder's views and beliefs to everyone _anyway_.. I'd have a greater peace of mind knowing I didn't give them my business, how that reflects to the rest of the world is up to them..not that I'd actually bother with such busy nonsense.



xzacx said:


> If you didn't wanna purchase that stuff because of those personal reasons, it's weird that you'd be OK with people thinking you bought one since you would still appear to be supporting them.



It wouldn't bother me if people knew or not, that wasn't really the point of my earlier statement. My point was to throw another angle on the ethics of copying and if personal fulfillment was a good enough justification.



Sogradde said:


> If the "fake" delivers the same, or even better quality than the original, is the original really worth the money asked for it?



It definitely is. You are paying for the time and effort taken to hone the instrument to the level of workmanship that you can expect from the builder, however good that may be. branding something as a "fake" _I feel_ is only important when there is _literally_ a fake badge on the instrument like a knockoff Chibson guitar or something.


----------



## Sogradde (Apr 24, 2019)

Empryrean said:


> It definitely is. You are paying for the time and effort taken to hone the instrument to the level of workmanship that you can expect from the builder, however good that may be. branding something as a "fake" _I feel_ is only important when there is _literally_ a fake badge on the instrument like a knockoff Chibson guitar or something.


My question was loaded obviously but according to some statements in this and the previous thread, offering the same quality for less money is an improvement on the original and therefore A-okay, isn't it?
I mean, I agree with you. As long as it's not being sold as an original, I don't see a problem but I got shit flung my direction for that point of view so.. eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> Of course it is all about proportions. But Ran prices aren’t low and these guitars are made of fine pieces of wood and quality hardware.



I don't know... agree to disagree.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 24, 2019)

You know what, a shape is a shape. At the end of the day, everything is a copy of some original shapes from way back in the 50/60s and before. 

I'll throw you this, it's not about the design, or the headstock shape, or whether it looks like someone elses design or is a copy. 

At the end of the day, you buy a guitar (made by any luthier or by a brand), and as such, you buy it because of that brands feel, playability, workmanship and craftmanship. You're buying into their take on a guitar. 

Now, shape wise, that is just the decoration, and as such, in my opinion, it does not matter whatsoever what it is, whether it's a copy of an existing shape, or a slight variation thereof, or something wildly different.

Builders shouldn't be worried about whether shapes are being stolen/copied, but rather should be worried about how good their product is.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

7 Dying Trees said:


> You know what, a shape is a shape. At the end of the day, everything is a copy of some original shapes from way back in the 50/60s and before.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, shape wise, that is just the decoration, and as such, in my opinion, it does not matter whatsoever what it is, whether it's a copy of an existing shape, or a slight variation thereof, or something wildly different.



Well, what is it -- "everything is a copy" or "something wildly different"?

But that's kind of the point: shape wise, the headstock is just the decoration. And as such, if someone creates a unique "decoration" for their brand, why would anyone copy it? It's just a shape. 

"Hi Skervesen, I want to order a guitar. Nah, shape doesn't matter. It has to look exactly like a blackmachine and have the blackmachine headstock though."

Your point contradicts itself.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Apr 24, 2019)

To be totally fair, I don't think the gap here in craftsmanship between KL and RAN is as far away as is being implied. I got to check out Narad's KL a little while ago, and it was definitely a choice instrument that would rival anything in the custom/boutique world. The playing field on the upper scale of guitar building is not as steep as it is in the lower levels, and it definitely doesn't scale with cost. Having exotic materials alone doesn't make me feel like there is anything gained there in terms of value or craftsmanship.

Ron Thorn for example, who is firmly one of the best out there in my mind. If he builds a natural Strat with a rock maple neck, alder body, rosewood fretboard, etc the core of the strat and you compare it to an equivalent build from Fender's most experienced I would probably have a hard time making a distinction on objective levels of skill put into both instruments. This is doubly true, because Ron was offered a position as a Custom Shop Masterbuilder at Fender so they saw merit in his work enough to add him to their team.

If I ever get a custom Fender, I know who I will be pinging. But the Fender automatically costs me far more than the Thorn ever would. I know this differs because it's the same person building guitars in this situation, but my point is regardless of a different individual. KL and RAN are both notably extremely talented builders, to say the KL reaches new heights of craftsmanship and overall quality above a brand that had almost no large public hiccups over quality and arguably more praise seems pretty unfair in my eyes without directly comparing the two.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> Well, what is it -- "everything is a copy" or "something wildly different"?
> 
> But that's kind of the point: shape wise, the headstock is just the decoration. And as such, if someone creates a unique "decoration" for their brand, why would anyone copy it? It's just a shape.
> 
> ...


No I think maybe you aren't understanding what was written. He is basically saying every shape that isn't a complete wild random thing is derivative of what came before and people should be more concerned over quality of workmanship than shapes.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> No I think maybe you aren't understanding what was written. He is basically saying every shape that isn't a complete wild random thing is derivative of what came before and people should be more concerned over quality of workmanship than shapes.



So the KL headstock is derivative of a previous shape? In the same way a Picasso is derivative of a Cezanne maybe, in the extent that we can readily see and appreciate that it required someone to apply a brain + their aesthetic sense + some design effort to come up with it. 

I mean, post one headstock designed prior to the KL that resembles the KL, if it is otherwise such a thing.

In other circles, this is referred to as "design language", signature flares that one can immediately associate with a particular brand, that you see across products. It's why Padalka is becoming even more restrictive in what he builds, and now almost every one of his models has a couple bits that are immediately identifiable on a Padalka.


----------



## xzacx (Apr 24, 2019)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Builders shouldn't be worried about whether shapes are being stolen/copied, but rather should be worried about how good their product is.



Why are those mutually exclusive? A builder can't have a top quality product and ALSO care if their work is being ripped off?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

xzacx said:


> Why are those mutually exclusive? A builder can't have a top quality product and ALSO care if their work is being ripped off?



I *think* the point is that it's a matter of efficiency.
If you stress yourself out over people copying your style, you're only going to suffer because of it. The legal system is bunk- sure, you'd likely have a case, but pursuing that is a costly and time-intensive endeavor.

Whereas if you simply focus on putting out a stellar product, the copies won't affect you as much [in theory], because the quality of your product is not something that can easily be replicated. Sure, you can do both, but it'd be taxing and I would imagine extremely stressful. Most of the 'luthier-gone-crazy' stories we see around here involve these guys being overworked as it is.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I *think* the point is that it's a matter of efficiency.
> If you stress yourself out over people copying your style, you're only going to suffer because of it. The legal system is bunk- sure, you'd likely have a case, but pursuing that is a costly and time-intensive endeavor.
> 
> Whereas if you simply focus on putting out a stellar product, the copies won't affect you as much [in theory], because the quality of your product is not something that can easily be replicated. Sure, you can do both, but it'd be taxing and I would imagine extremely stressful. Most of the 'luthier-gone-crazy' stories we see around here involve these guys being overworked as it is.



I thought that was a weird point [previously] though, because if that's true [as you interpret it] then it's almost implying that Ken should focus more on his build quality, and that this is somehow a defense for copies. Ken already builds basically the highest quality instrument available, and so it's not like he has to focus more on improving that. And people still copy. 

In fact, if Ken was a poor luthier to begin with, no one famous would want to play one, and no one else would want to copy one. So it's weirdly the opposite. No one's buying some Chinese-made $500 KL because it's close in quality to a KL. I think the same goes for Ran and Shamray and RRR, etc.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> I thought that was a weird point [previously] though, because if that's true [as you interpret it] then it's almost implying that Ken should focus more on his build quality, and that this is somehow a defense for copies. Ken already builds basically the highest quality instrument available, and so it's not like he has to focus more on improving that. And people still copy.
> 
> In fact, if Ken was a poor luthier to begin with, no one famous would want to play one, and no one else would want to copy one. So it's weirdly the opposite. No one's buying some Chinese-made $500 KL because it's close in quality to a KL. I think the same goes for Ran and Shamray and RRR, etc.



I think you're misinterpreting.
The notion isn't that Ken would need to focus more on his build quality, or that he's doing anything wrong whatsoever. Nor is it that if his builds are of X quality that the copies will stop.
It's that they aren't hurting him _because_ they are not close in quality to a genuine KL.

Ken's book is filled pretty much all of the time, no? He has his batch of guitars that he's comfortable building, and doesn't really have much difficulty filling the book when it's open?
This is, I would assume, because he's a rock-solid luthier who shells out some bulletproof work. From what I can tell, his business isn't hurting at all.

So yeah- it's not implying that Ken should change anything whatsoever, rather just supporting what he's already done.


----------



## Sogradde (Apr 24, 2019)

How is this KL discussion still going on? I have no idea how old his headstock design is but I'm pretty sure it's not as old as the Gibson Flying V headstock - which it basically is, except for the two little extra wings to make it "ORIGINAL CONTENT DO NOT STEAL!!". If that counts as an "improvement" on the design so be it but if I were a luthier I would totally make a Ken Lawrence copy with an third wing on the headstock only to spite you guys.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 24, 2019)

My point is pretty much that, yeah, sure, you can say that someone else copying a shape is copyright infringement, but personally, I don't think so.

You don't play these guitars with unique shapes because of their shapes, or because of the headstocks.

You play them because they sound good and play nice. 

The whole thing is that a quality luthier is not in the shape, but more in how they build. You can buy a black machine copy, but, I've known Doug for years, and a copy is not going to be the real deal. Why? because of the way he builds them and his quality control.

In the case of Ken Lawrence, he builds 25 a year. People buy them because of his name, not the shape. 

The point I was making about shape is that I don't buy a guitar because of the shape, the shape is preference and a bonus. I get guitars because of firstly how they play and sound, and then shape and colour.

I really do not think high end luthiers and anyone with a quality product loses out because of a copy, not unless the copy also has said brand name and is exact. An exact copy, including brand name and logo, now that I do not support at all.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 24, 2019)

In fact, I'd say the only thing that is not on, is using someone elses brand name and logo and selling it as such


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> So the KL headstock is derivative of a previous shape? In the same way a Picasso is derivative of a Cezanne maybe, in the extent that we can readily see and appreciate that it required someone to apply a brain + their aesthetic sense + some design effort to come up with it.
> 
> I mean, post one headstock designed prior to the KL that resembles the KL, if it is otherwise such a thing.
> 
> In other circles, this is referred to as "design language", signature flares that one can immediately associate with a particular brand, that you see across products. It's why Padalka is becoming even more restrictive in what he builds, and now almost every one of his models has a couple bits that are immediately identifiable on a Padalka.



see, to me Padalka stuff here, from a first glimpse, just looks like a strandberg rip off with a few carves and changes.


----------



## xzacx (Apr 24, 2019)

7 Dying Trees said:


> The point I was making about shape is that I don't buy a guitar because of the shape, the shape is preference and a bonus. I get guitars because of firstly how they play and sound, and then shape and colour.



So if two guitars were equal in every way in terms of quality, sound, playability, you wouldn't pick the one you liked the looks of better? To suggest that the aesthetics of a guitar don't play in to why people want it is very misguided IMO.


----------



## Randy (Apr 24, 2019)

xzacx said:


> Why are those mutually exclusive? A builder can't have a top quality product and ALSO care if their work is being ripped off?



Well, in a way his comment gets to the heart of this IMO.

To me, if you're a builder and your art or identity mean anything to you, you're not in the business of solely making rip-offs. 

I say the same thing about music that I say about guitars, if you're going to record a cover song then you better have something worthwhile to add to it, otherwise you're looking to occupy a space already filled by the same thing (with the added benefit of being the original). I've had a ton of times I like a song and wanted to record it, then when I analyzed it, the composition is good, the performance is good, the production is good. At that point, trying to re-record is just profiting (even if it's just in traffic or exposure) off of someone else's creativity (see: Five Finger Death Punch covers) and not creating anything new or interesting with it.

That's when you gotta know to walk away.

I think the analogy holds true on designing and building instruments, assuming you consider it an art or if you're coming from an ethical position. Is the thing you're designing new or different, does it fill a need that something else doesn't already, etc.

I bring that up because the distinction is like, super necessary with how saturated the market is after 70+ years of existence. Because you're going to have redundant body shapes, you're going to have redundant features, so on. If your bar for originality or being a "knock-off" begins and ends with similar shapes or technology then we could've halted production like 30 years ago.

For me, a debatable item that IMO falls on being both creative and ethically sound was Blackmachine. Full stop, that's an RG body with a Parker inspired headstock. But the Blackmachine was never occupying the same space as either of those brands, nor was it made to confuse people trying to buy either brand into thinking it was the same thing. The thin bodies, the barebones designs, the endpin jack/plate configuration, the exotic lumbers and yes, even the pricepoint and exclusivity factor. I said it somewhere else, you can look at some of his earlier builds with other shapes (like the SG), and it's the same Blackmachine methodology with a different shape. That's the guy's brand (moreso than the outline) and it's a space he occupied that was somewhat unique.

The dynamic between Blackmachine and Ibanez/Parker is very different than the dynamic between Blackmachine and the countless AliExpress knock-offs or, for the most part, the Hypemachines (I mean, the name alone tells you what it is). Now you're talking about people not just copying the outline, but copying the overall aesthetic and, in the case of the Ormsby, stealing directly from their customer base by offering a near identical product at a comparable pricepoint. That's wildly unethical IMO.

Anyway, I bring all that up because that's my read on @7 Dying Trees comment moreso than excusing people for copying shapes as long as they're delivering guitars that work. Respecting your customers, for my  goes beyond just delivery and into whether or not you're being honest and ethical with what you're offering them. 

An example I can think of would be the Danelectro shape. They have a unique shape and feature set but they were known for plywood/fiberboard construction (not sure how that translated to modern releases?). They're cool shapes and occupied a certain amount of space in the market that, IMO, was limited because of flimsy construction that dictates their price-point. In that sense, I think people who like some of the aesthetic and features of those guitars (thin single cut, 60's style electronics, vintage futuristic look) but don't want a cheap plywood guitar are being underserved. If somebody offered some of those things in a better built guitar, I don't think it would be unethical (within reason).

I think we've seen that same concept played out with all the strat/tele copies on the market, and I personally think something like a Wirebird occupies a space in the market that Fender doesn't offer. To me, that's key, whether you're referring to small or big builders.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

xzacx said:


> So if two guitars were equal in every way in terms of quality, sound, playability, you wouldn't pick the one you liked the looks of better? To suggest that the aesthetics of a guitar don't play in to why people want it is very misguided IMO.





7 Dying Trees said:


> I get guitars because of *firstly *how they play and sound, *and then* shape and colour.



Not what he said.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

Randy said:


> The dynamic between Blackmachine and Ibanez/Parker is very different than the dynamic between Blackmachine and the countless AliExpress knock-offs or, for the most part, the Hypemachines (I mean, the name alone tells you what it is). Now you're talking about people not just copying the outline, but copying the overall aesthetic and, in the case of the Ormsby, stealing directly from their customer base by offering a near identical product at a comparable pricepoint. That's wildly unethical IMO.



Really, really good post- but I have a quick question on this piece here.
I understand you're talking about the _actual_ Hypemachines here, and on those I agree, but what about the GTR line? The GTRs are a vastly different market.

I would posit that they're an 'improvement,' filling a hole in the market that _never_ would have been filled otherwise. There's still clearly the 'in poor taste' argument for sure, but would you lump those in with the Aus-built Hypes? I highly doubt the GTRs cost Doug a single sale, if for no other reason than because they're a totally different product outside of a general aesthetic.


----------



## Randy (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Really, really good post- but I have a quick question on this piece here.
> I understand you're talking about the _actual_ Hypemachines here, and on those I agree, but what about the GTR line? The GTRs are a vastly different market.
> 
> I would posit that they're an 'improvement,' filling a hole in the market that _never_ would have been filled otherwise. There's still clearly the 'in poor taste' argument for sure, but would you lump those in with the Aus-built Hypes? I highly doubt the GTRs cost Doug a single sale, if for no other reason than because they're a totally different product outside of a general aesthetic.



Debatable but they are slightly different. Perry seems to like garish stains and paint schemes that are kind of the antithesis of Doug's design. I don't think staining a B6 pink fade into blue necessarily makes it an entirely different guitar but he definitely took the idea somewhere reasonably unique. I don't look at a solid finish GTR (especially the single cuts) and say WOW THATS A BLACKMACHINE, so I'll give you that.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I highly doubt the GTRs cost Doug a single sale, if for no other reason than because they're a totally different product outside of a general aesthetic.



I think I'm to blame here because at some point I mentioned the possibility of losing sales as a negative outcome the creative builder faces of the copying. But I never meant it was *the* only negative outcome. I'm sure there's not a whole ton of luthiers who got into the business purely for the money, as just about any other profession would serve them better to that end. If hypothetically someone could prove that no one who bought a Ran KL was ever going to buy a KL if Ran didn't exist as an option, we would be able to focus on other aspects of this, but it doesn't end the debate IMO.

Imagine if you're a musician and someone rips off your song and gets a huge fan following because of it. It's probably not costing you money per se, but still shameful IMO that basically they would not get those orders or merch sales or whatever without you being the creative source of their work, and you are not compensated or acknowledged in any way for your efforts.



Randy said:


> Debatable but they are slightly different. Perry seems to like garish stains and paint schemes that are kind of the antithesis of Doug's design.



Except for those tribal flame inlays. There's a little bit of Perry in Doug yet.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> I think I'm to blame here because at some point I mentioned the possibility of losing sales as a negative outcome the creative builder faces of the copying. But I never meant it was *the* only negative outcome. I'm sure there's not a whole ton of luthiers who got into the business purely for the money, as just about any other profession would serve them better to that end. If hypothetically someone could prove that no one who bought a Ran KL was ever going to buy a KL if Ran didn't exist as an option, we would be able to focus on other aspects of this, but it doesn't end the debate IMO.
> 
> Imagine if you're a musician and someone rips off your song and gets a huge fan following because of it. It's probably not costing you money per se, but still shameful IMO that basically they would not get those orders or merch sales or whatever without you being the creative source of their work, and you are not compensated or acknowledged in any way for your efforts.



No, I get that, for sure.
I'm not sure that comparison is equivalent, though- because a RAN KL is a guitar specified by the client. They go to RAN and say "This is what I want, will you build it for me?"
RAN never said [to my knowledge] "Hey, check this out guys, we make an explorer! Coincidentally it looks just like Ken's! Small world!" You know? It's not like they peeped Ken's design and decided that they were going to use it and pass it off as a RAN product, somebody asked them to build that specific guitar for them. 

This is a different case from Ormsby, who yeah; like Randy said, totally lifted Doug's work, slapped a new coat of paint on it, charged full price, and _*advertised*_ it. In my opinion, anyway.

I guess that's yet another distinction we can make- advertised vs. requested. Personally, it would bother me much less if a luthier built somebody a copy that was requested specifically by the client rather than if that luthier advertised that they would build you a copy of Soandso's guitar. 



> Except for those tribal flame inlays. There's a little bit of Perry in Doug yet.



Haha, I was thinking about those too


----------



## Lemonbaby (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is a different case from Ormsby, who yeah; like Randy said, totally lifted Doug's work, slapped a new coat of paint on it, charged full price, and _*advertised*_ it.


Add to that his preorders-only "business model" that basically let's him churn out that stuff with literally no risk at all. Very impressive entrepreneurship.


----------



## mpexus (Apr 24, 2019)

Lemonbaby said:


> Add to that his preorders-only "business model" that basically let's him churn out that stuff with literally no risk at all. Very impressive entrepreneurship.



Whats the problem in working with Pre-Orders only?


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> Imagine if you're a musician and someone rips off your song and gets a huge fan following because of it. It's probably not costing you money per se, but still shameful IMO that basically they would not get those orders or merch sales or whatever without you being the creative source of their work, and you are not compensated or acknowledged in any way for your efforts.



There's a real world example of that in the Satriani v Coldplay lawsuit, which was borderline a shameless copy and Satriani was compensated quite well. 

That's also very different from RAN, they made 3 - 4 copies which is not the legacy nor the reason that elevated them to be as well known as they are.


----------



## Randy (Apr 24, 2019)

mpexus said:


> Whats the problem in working with Pre-Orders only?



I don't think he meant that it's an ethical issue, it's just that we're talking about the narrative of a guy stealing somebody else's concepts and then profiting off of having them built in somebody else's factory with somebody else's money. Which, if you remove any complaints about the design end of things, is just very good business sense but it doesn't make him any more likeable.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Apr 24, 2019)

Well it's the only way to really operate and make sure you don't end up with tons of NOS sitting around in dealers across the countries. It sucks if you want to get a model that was available in a prior but there's something to be said about eliminating the whole aspect of guesstimating demand and making sure you only sell exactly what you need.

I think they've build up enough of a fanbase where it'll be beneficial to move away from the pre-order model soon.


----------



## xzacx (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Not what he said.



The point is looks have just as much to do with why people buy guitars as how they sound and play. Ever hear of people buying guitars online? It's called "I hope this plays well and sounds good, but I like how it looks so I'll give it a shot." Acting like aesthetics aren't just as important, if not more for many people, is just not being honest or realistic.


----------



## Ikke (Apr 24, 2019)

What a fascinating thread. I’m not super familiar with RAN. Are they a small builder? I know they’ve been around a while.

I’d also like to ask: isn’t the KL a copy of the ESP EXP/MX body with a different headstock? And the EXP/MX is obviously a modified explorer. Sorry if any of the above has already been answered.

Anyway, as part of the ESP community, we all know that ESP has copied/does copy several guitars: Mirage, RR, EXP/MX, Navigators.

*And indeed, ESP has also made a KL Explorer (headstock, inlays, body, and all).*

So, as of now, if I’m okke with ESP doing it, then I have to be okke with everyone else doing it too.

The only reason I can think of someone going with an alternative (copy) to the original is because the company making the copy has something/does something, the originator will/does not do. For example, maybe someone wants the ESP Thin U neck on guitar shape X.

As an aside, and to be totally honest, part of the reason I like ESP so much is because I know that not only can they make their guitars, but they can also make everyone else’s guitars too with the same or better quality.


----------



## Ikke (Apr 24, 2019)

mpexus said:


>



Dragonfly Sottile (another high end Japanese guitar I adore)


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 24, 2019)

Ikke said:


> What a fascinating thread. I’m not super familiar with RAN. Are they a small builder? I know they’ve been around a while.
> 
> I’d also like to ask: isn’t the KL a copy of the ESP EXP/MX body with a different headstock? And the EXP/MX is obviously a modified explorer. Sorry if any of the above has already been answered.
> 
> ...


I think we have figured out that the OP bought a KL and now has a problem with Eastern European, Russian, or Chinese builders making cheap commie inferior copies for unworthy peasants. I'm sure that since an ESP copy of a KL would cost just as much or more than the original, he doesn't have a problem with it. At least that's the vibe I'm getting...


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 24, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I think we have figured out that the OP bought a KL and now has a problem with Eastern European, Russian, or Chinese builders making cheap commie inferior copies for unworthy peasants. I'm sure that since an ESP copy of a KL would cost just as much or more than the original, he doesn't have a problem with it. At least that's the vibe I'm getting...



Nah, I think Narad's been pretty consistent on this. It's popped up before regarding Blackmachine, etc and I always see him take the same stance.
The Ken Lawrence example is just a handy one because RAN made one, and RAN is another small custom shop that produces good instruments. The fact that he owns one probably just made it easier to identify and discuss; even if it may come off a bit like that. 

Interesting to hear about ESP though. 
I would imagine that in ESPs case they likely licensed that build or otherwise 'okay-ed' it with Ken. I don't think a big company like ESP would play fast and loose with IP like that, assuming it was really a 1-1 copy.


----------



## broj15 (Apr 24, 2019)

I haven't read through the entire thread, so if this point has already been brought up I'm sorry/feel free to quote the comment where it was discussed, but what if what I want really doesn't exist?

For example I posted a thread awhile back saying I wanted an SG, but without a TOM and a 25.5" scale instead of 24.75". Yeah, I know that there's esp/LTD vipers that come close, and warmoth has an offset SG style body available, but the thin beveled body and symmetry is what appeals to me about the SG's aesthetics. I know Gibson is always quick to send out a cease & desist letter, but as it is right now Gibson isn't losing out on any profit from me because 1) while I love the way thier guitars look I don't like how they feel, and 2) I still wouldn't drop money on a high end Gibson because IME the price to quality ratio is way off and I feel like my money would be better spent with a small time builder. 

So where does that instance fall on the moral spectrum? Has anyone else been in a similar situation where they're in love with the look of a guitar but dislike the specs and there's really no equivalent or alternative that's available already? Does the change in specs nullify any "ripping off" of aesthetics or are we purely talking about cosmetics here?


----------



## Ikke (Apr 24, 2019)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Interesting to hear about ESP though.
> I would imagine that in ESPs case they likely licensed that build or otherwise 'okay-ed' it with Ken. I don't think a big company like ESP would play fast and loose with IP like that, assuming it was really a 1-1 copy.



To be clear, the information is shown here on Wiki. My assumption is that most know the KL Explorer from Hetfield and that that’s the version they’re ordering. 

So, in essence, you’re really just buying a high-end ESP MX which is just a high end Gibson Explorer. A copy of a copy. And then ESP made a custom order KL style. So a copy of a copy of a copy. 

Nothing seems to have been licensed. KL seems to have done the same thing most every builder tries to do: build the guitar the customer wants.

“Lawrence mainly builds handcrafted bass guitars with a delivery time close to a year with 20 to 25 built each year, but he has also built guitars for James Hetfield, guitarist and vocalist of the American band Metallica.[2]Most of the guitars built for Hetfield conform to the measurements of his ESP Explorer but have slight differences in the headstock and custom inlays on the fretboard.[3]”


----------



## bouVIP (Apr 24, 2019)

broj15 said:


> So where does that instance fall on the moral spectrum? Has anyone else been in a similar situation where they're in love with the look of a guitar but dislike the specs and there's really no equivalent or alternative that's available already? Does the change in specs nullify any "ripping off" of aesthetics or are we purely talking about cosmetics here?



Not exactly the same, but I LOVE LOVE the Gibson Les Paul. It's so aesthetically pleasing to me, but I hate the shorter scale length and the TOM bridge. I've even bought an actual Les Paul Standard along time ago and hated it and ended up trading it in for a PRS.

Recently I was thinking of getting a Chibson to have the aesthetic since I really don't ever want to give Gibson my money again because my last experience was so bad, but ended up not doing so cause was conflicted about straight up buying a fake Gibson. Sure I could get an alternative LP shaped body with a floyd or a longer scale, but to me it isn't the same aesthetic unless it has the Gibson headstock honestly. 

And then the Ran thread, and this one popped up so now it's actually really interesting and relevant to me...


----------



## Ikke (Apr 24, 2019)

bouVIP said:


> Not exactly the same, but I LOVE LOVE the Gibson Les Paul. It's so aesthetically pleasing to me, but I hate the shorter scale length and the TOM bridge. I've even bought an actual Les Paul Standard along time ago and hated it and ended up trading it in for a PRS.
> 
> Recently I was thinking of getting a Chibson to have the aesthetic since I really don't ever want to give Gibson my money again because my last experience was so bad, but ended up not doing so cause was conflicted about straight up buying a fake Gibson. Sure I could get an alternative LP shaped body with a floyd or a longer scale, but to me it isn't the same aesthetic unless it has the Gibson headstock honestly.
> 
> And then the Ran thread, and this one popped up so now it's actually really interesting and relevant to me...



You should get a Navigator LP. It meets your desires, no? Still has Gibson headstock, body, etc.


----------



## broj15 (Apr 24, 2019)

bouVIP said:


> Not exactly the same, but I LOVE LOVE the Gibson Les Paul. It's so aesthetically pleasing to me, but I hate the shorter scale length and the TOM bridge. I've even bought an actual Les Paul Standard along time ago and hated it and ended up trading it in for a PRS.
> 
> Recently I was thinking of getting a Chibson to have the aesthetic since I really don't ever want to give Gibson my money again because my last experience was so bad, but ended up not doing so cause was conflicted about straight up buying a fake Gibson. Sure I could get an alternative LP shaped body with a floyd or a longer scale, but to me it isn't the same aesthetic unless it has the Gibson headstock honestly.
> 
> And then the Ran thread, and this one popped up so now it's actually really interesting and relevant to me...



See I don't even care about the headstock in my case, which I know is what Gibson usually gets all up in arms over. Right now my plan is to get an aluminum neck from RGI (hopefully sooner rather than later as I know his backlog is filling up) and then have a local builder make a bolt on SG body with a strat style bridge. However if finding someone willing to make me a body proves to be to difficult I guess I will have to go the warmoth route, which honestly wouldn't be bad. I can get an unfinished body for a little over $200 and thier neck pockets are already routed to fender specs, and RGI necks are made to be a drop in replacement for strats, tele's and jazzmasters.


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 24, 2019)

narad said:


> Well...have you ever played one? It's not a "complex" build, but like most things, you're paying for someone's time and expertise. More time and expertise on your build creates a higher quality product. I think of all my guitars, most are often cited as being much better than Ran, the KLs have the highest level of craftsmanship.
> 
> Of course, it does not mean that it will ultimately be a better guitar in terms of sound or feel -- these are subjective things, and your own personal preference -- but a priori you can assume every decision is made to produce the best instrument with the best materials, which is unlikely when it comes to the budget builds.


Nice one!

No I have not, same for Ran.
I am a Gibson guy, and now making my own with a friend who is a builder.

A build can only get so good, after a certain point, there is nothing to improve upon.
You pay for the brand, name, whatever.

I have (over)payed for raw materials for a single guitar, more than what my Gibson standard went as new... 
I'm just honest with myself. I wanted that stuff so much, that I knowingly bought them x2 or x3 times the actual cost. Everything was imported from US, Canada and rest of EU.

I get that it is going to be expensive for an independent builder, however I still believe it's overpriced for what it is.


----------



## narad (Apr 24, 2019)

Ikke said:


> Anyway, as part of the ESP community, we all know that ESP has copied/does copy several guitars: Mirage, RR, EXP/MX, Navigators.
> 
> *And indeed, ESP has also made a KL Explorer (headstock, inlays, body, and all).*
> 
> So, as of now, if I’m okke with ESP doing it, then I have to be okke with everyone else doing it too.



I'm not okay with ESP doing it. The blanket statement is that I think it's not okay for anyone to steal an highly identifiable and arbitrary design cue from a small builder who is still alive and building, without first asking their permission.

On the flip side, I own a Navigator LP custom type.

Do you have pics of the ESP with KL headstock? I felt ESP CS is pretty open but they have some boundaries -- you don't see an ESP with an Ibanez headstock, etc., so what you're saying surprises me. Unless like the customer sketched it out and the CS guys didn't recognize the design.



possumkiller said:


> I think we have figured out that the OP bought a KL and now has a problem with Eastern European, Russian, or Chinese builders making cheap commie inferior copies for unworthy peasants. I'm sure that since an ESP copy of a KL would cost just as much or more than the original, he doesn't have a problem with it. At least that's the vibe I'm getting...



That's weird -- why do I own Mayones and Vik guitars, and think Padalka is incredible (and previously posted about his unique designs in this very thread), if I have some geo-political axe to grind? We could use blackmachine as an example as well, but then the copies also were coming from Poland and China. 

And just to be clear: it's not like I bought KLs _and then_ cheap copies were made. I simply thought, yes, I want that design, so I'm going to pay the person that created that design to make that design. I'm curious why anyone (as it became clear in the previous thread) would think that's not the logical and ethical thing to do.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is a different case from Ormsby, who yeah; like Randy said, totally lifted Doug's work, slapped a new coat of paint on it, charged full price, and _*advertised*_ it. In my opinion, anyway.



And treated it as *satire*! I don't know if you ever saw Dumb Starbucks:






Ormsby's business is basically one huge parody (though I don't mean he's trying to use parody law, to do it).


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 24, 2019)

Wolfhorsky said:


> To be precise: Ran is/was not a budget build. I am not defending them. I try to be fair and objectve. Why are we stuck with KL for so long in this thread?


I think another good topic or thread would be what actually IS factually better quality or craftsmanship with some of these guitars. Like the Ran and KL pictures Narad posted at the beginning of this thread is a great example. I personally like them both, but actually like the looks of the Ran more. It could just be the picts, but I like the way the top looks more. I like both guitars inlays , but I wouldn't personally do that if I commissioned one as I'm more of a inlay at 12th fret only kinda guy. But I understand that both Ran and KL are phenomenally built and play phenomenal as well and both use quality wood, are a pleasure to deal with etc. So what is actually better? Because other than personal taste/opinion regarding Aesthetics or actual quality of hardware/wood etc (like metal or wood stability/quality etc) and very minor attention to details like binding and finish, I'd say they are on par with each other regarding technical measurements like where frets go etc and so forth. I think this also extends to the $500 rip off as well, cause if you're happy with that construction and material quality for the price, you are happy, and I'll bet in a recording nobody can tell the difference if you stuck the same pickups in them and engineered it. The reality, I believe, is that this fine attention to detail is what you're paying for. If you're ok with a lower quality material and less attention to detail, and if the guitar is built right (meaning the important measurements like fret placement, neck pocket, etc. ) , it stays in tune and doesn't fall apart, plays and sounds to your liking etc. Then a deal is to be had. 

It's like comparing a fine wine or cheese to a less expensive, or even generic brand. It's all opinion which tastes better, but the cost difference is dramatic. They are all "copying" each other as in they are all making cheddar cheese, but you are paying for the end result. Which is the best cheese? Tillamook, Sargento, or Kraft singles(51% cheese)? I'll bet the majority of poor people like Kraft the best in a blind taste if they've never had the others etc. Not sure if anyone is interested and sorry to stray from topic a bit. I'm hungry


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> I'm not okay with ESP doing it. The blanket statement is that I think it's not okay for anyone to steal an highly identifiable and arbitrary design cue from a small builder who is still alive and building, without first asking their permission.
> 
> On the flip side, I own a Navigator LP custom type.
> 
> ...


ESP will still build pretty much anything. The only catch is they won't ship copies outside Japan. You can still order explorers or the Jackson style headstock but it has to be ordered from and delivered to Japan. My cousin has a Technical House ESP RR with the Jackson headstock.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> ESP will still build pretty much anything. The only catch is they won't ship copies outside Japan. You can still order explorers or the Jackson style headstock but it has to be ordered from and delivered to Japan. My cousin has a Technical House ESP RR with the Jackson headstock.



Do you have pics? I've seen Jackson-style headstocks on ESP CS, in terms of general outline, but actually a bit different, usually not curved back as much or narrowing as much on the tip. Basically just the old ESP horizon headstock.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> Well...have you ever played one? It's not a "complex" build, but like most things, you're paying for someone's time and expertise. More time and expertise on your build creates a higher quality product. I think of all my guitars, most are often cited as being much better than Ran, the KLs have the highest level of craftsmanship.
> 
> Of course, it does not mean that it will ultimately be a better guitar in terms of sound or feel -- these are subjective things, and your own personal preference -- but a priori you can assume every decision is made to produce the best instrument with the best materials, which is unlikely when it comes to the budget builds.



That finish is incredible. What kind of wood did you say that it? And is that a stain, or what? I've never seen anything quite like that before


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Flappydoodle said:


> That finish is incredible. What kind of wood did you say that it? And is that a stain, or what? I've never seen anything quite like that before



It's one-piece olive ash burl, with a trans red on top of it. Ken had two pieces he described to me as "once in a lifetime" finds, as it's hard to get something like that in explorer dimensions. Unfortunately, both were accounted for, but I later badgered a guy into selling it to me. The other one was done natural:






Both are thinner than his usual tops which is why they're both bound flat-tops (most of Ken's have a smoothly curved edge).


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> I'm not okay with ESP doing it. The blanket statement is that I think it's not okay for anyone to steal an *highly identifiable and arbitrary design cue from a small builder who is still alive and building, without first asking their permission.*
> 
> On the flip side, I own a Navigator LP custom type.
> 
> Do you have pics of the ESP with KL headstock? I felt ESP CS is pretty open but they have some boundaries -- you don't see an ESP with an Ibanez headstock, etc., so what you're saying surprises me. Unless like the customer sketched it out and the CS guys didn't recognize the design.



Yes, I have my own personal pictures of it. If I can't find the one that was for sale on digimart then I'll think about posting it.

EDIT: Found it







Anyway, I think the bold stance above is not quite defensible with particular emphasis on the small builder part. Could you explain why the size of the builder matters? At the end of the day you're playing the same game the large builders are playing: trying to sell someone a guitar. And in this case of the KL, not just a guitar, but a copy of a guitar that a larger builder copied from another larger builder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're stance is that the "highly identifiable design cue" is the headstock? But, a design cue can be many things.

Gibson had a problem with everything.






Gibson had a problem with the knobs.








narad said:


> Do you have pics? I've seen Jackson-style headstocks on ESP CS, in terms of general outline, but actually a bit different, usually not curved back as much or narrowing as much on the tip. Basically just the old ESP horizon headstock.



Jackson had a problem with everything, but mostly the headstock.

You are correct, the headstock is a bit different. I'm sure Jackson thought so too. But, it wasn't different enough. And, I'd bet no one, especially here, calls the headstock "the old horizon headstock". I'm sure most call it the "lawsuit headstock" or the "Jackson headstock".






I feel as though if the little differences in the ESP headstock vs. Jackson differences are enough, then so too are the KL vs Ran KL. The Ran headstock seems a little bit wider, the bottom corners aren't as sharp as the KL's. We'll still all call the Ran a KL though because those differences aren't significant enough.

-----------------------

TLDR!

I think at the end of the day, as others have mentioned, quality will be what keeps your pool of buyers.

In my opinion, part of the issue with the old ESP lawsuit guitars above (and, the Navigators) is that at the very least they didn't suck. And this combination of *design and quality* is what caused the problem for Gibson and Jackson. So, it really doesn't matter what Ran does. It matters whether the number of Ran buyers increases. It matters whether James Hetfield is playing a KL or Ran KL. In the Gibson/Jackson case, the lawsuit guitars mattered because two of the biggest guitarists in the world were playing "copies".

So in summary, the copying of a design is not a problem. I think the case could be made that most luthiers/companies in the business are or have done so.

The problem any builder faces, large or small, will be of design and quality because that's what draws the most players to your product. You must have both. As an aside though, notoriety/prestige is also important, but those come after you have D&Q. My .


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

As an aside to my previous post and as a lover of ESP. Here's many custom order and/or "copy" guitars that they've made. And here's the KL in 6 and Double Neck 6/12 String.

I saw the 6 string KL while in Japan. It was in the Tech House. This is the one I have my own pictures of as well. It was sitting next to a custom order EXP (birdseye fingerboard, floyd, etc.) which I also have pictures of if anyone cares.

ESP Tech House posted it on IG (https://www.instagram.com/p/BquEhECnXbP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link), but I think (not sure) I saw the Double Neck KL in the Craft House(?). Might be a false memory though.


----------



## Samark (Apr 25, 2019)

Ikke said:


> As an aside to my previous post and as a lover of ESP. Here's many custom order and/or "copy" guitars that they've made. And here's the KL in 6 and Double Neck 6/12 String.
> 
> I saw the 6 string KL while in Japan. It was in the Tech House. This is the one I have my own pictures of as well. It was sitting next to a custom order EXP (birdseye fingerboard, floyd, etc.) which I also have pictures of if anyone cares.
> 
> I think (not sure) I saw the Double Neck KL in the Craft House(?). Might be a false memory though.



OT but that is the ultimate guitar, minus the inlays. The ESP lawsuit headstock is better than Jackson’s

Anyway, I have a Ran copy so I’ll leave the thread now


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

Samark said:


> Anyway, I have a Ran copy so I’ll leave the thread now



Your Ran is a copy, as in not a real Ran or your Ran is a copy of some other maker's guitar?


----------



## Samark (Apr 25, 2019)

Ikke said:


> Your Ran is a copy, as in not a real Ran or your Ran is a copy of some other maker's guitar?


Good question, my post was too ambiguous - sorry about that

I have a Ran that has a Jackson carve top body and a Caparison headstock. The body was based on this






Anyway, I’d gladly pay Caparison if they had customs but they don’t/didn’t when I ordered this many years ago. Doesn’t mean it’s right and I don’t want to debate as both sides have strong arguments and I don’t even know how I feel about it


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Ikke said:


> Yes, I have my own personal pictures of it. If I can't find the one that was for sale on digimart then I'll think about posting it.
> 
> EDIT: Found it



Ah, that's shity-ish and they're clearly going for KL there (and especially with the double neck because Ken sent a koa double neck for the JP market), but they actually didn't sit down and copy it closely the way Ran did. The shapes are quite different. More different than those Suhr/Schecter/etc. headstocks. Sort of an Ormsby / Blackmachine situation.

I think there's not much point in some sort of point-by-point breakdown on what you've said as I've discussed some if it previously in the thread. Probably better to hit on many of these in a more cohesive retrospective post later than to keep putting out variations on old posts. 

One thing I want to point out though is that Ran is dead, so that's part of why we're using them as an example here -- all these hypotheticals about future Ran sales etc, not going to happen, and it doesn't have to sound like this thread is out to kill Ran sales. It's too late for that.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Samark said:


> Good question, my post was too ambiguous - sorry about that
> 
> I have a Ran that has a Jackson carve top body and a Caparison headstock. The body was based on this
> 
> ...



Your Ran is one of my favorites but daaaamn, that Jackson. If only that floyd was recessed, would be just about perfect.


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> Ah, that's shity-ish and they're clearly going for KL there (and especially with the double neck because Ken sent a koa double neck for the JP market), but they actually didn't sit down and copy it closely the way Ran did. The shapes are quite different. More different than those Suhr/Schecter/etc. headstocks. Sort of an Ormsby / Blackmachine situation.



Well, ESP doesn't have to "sit down and copy it closely". It's their (ESP's) guitar minus the headstock. Unless that's your point. Also, I feel as though most would say those ESP KL's are exact copies. At the very least, closer in design proximity to the KL than the Ran.

And again, if we're saying little differences are enough, then Ran meets that criterion as well in my opinion.

If I'm not understanding you correctly though, let me know.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Ikke said:


> Well, ESP doesn't have to "sit down and copy it closely". It's their (ESP's) guitar minus the headstock. Unless that's your point. Also, I feel as though most would say those ESP KL's are exact copies. At the very least, closer in design proximity to the KL than the Ran.
> 
> And again, if we're saying little differences are enough, then Ran meets that criterion as well in my opinion.
> 
> If I'm not understanding you correctly though, let me know.



I'm saying the ESP KL-headstock is clearly taken from Ken, but is more like they let the builder look at the headstock for a split second and then remake it. If you take the logo off the ESP, I can tell it's not a KL.

The Ran is someone who worked from a photograph and tried to recreate every aspect of Ken's design. If you take the logo off, I would only know the difference from very subtle ways in how they are built that I notice from being hands on with Ken's, but not from the shape itself. Looks pretty much identical to me (though Ran's done a few and they vary slightly, mostly on the pointiness of the middle bit).


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> I'm saying the ESP KL-headstock is clearly taken from Ken, but is more like they let the builder look at the headstock for a split second and then remake it. If you take the logo off the ESP, I can tell it's not a KL.
> 
> The Ran is someone who worked from a photograph and tried to recreate every aspect of Ken's design. If you take the logo off, I would only know the difference from very subtle ways in how they are built that I notice from being hands on with Ken's, but not from the shape itself. Looks pretty much identical to me (though Ran's done a few and they vary slightly, mostly on the pointiness of the middle bit).



Okke then. Ultimately, I think it only becomes a problem if Ran or whoeverelse is trying to sell their KL as a KL (and not as a Ran KL). Otherwise, I don't see any issue since the company logo on the headstock is different.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Ikke said:


> Okke then. Ultimately, I think it only becomes a problem if Ran or whoeverelse is trying to sell their KL as a KL (and not as a Ran KL). Otherwise, I don't see any issue since the company logo on the headstock is different.



Yea, I get that. Pretty weird stance though I think. Like if a Kia put out a car that looked exactly like a BMW, and it was okay because it had a Kia badge (though they do try as it is).


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 25, 2019)

I thought Lexus was building cars that looked exactly like a Mercedes with a different logo before they found their own identity?


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> Yea, I get that. Pretty weird stance though I think. Like if a Kia put out a car that looked exactly like a BMW, and it was okay because it had a Kia badge (though they do try as it is).



It wouldn't matter because, as has been stated, you're not just buying a guitar, car, etc. because of its design, you're buying it for it's quality too.

Car Example
So, using your above example, let's say there is a Kia that has the exact same design as a BMW, but still has the Kia badge. I'd bet the next question most, if not all, customers are going to ask is: *which car is better? Or, who makes a better car, Kia or BMW?*

As a non-car person, I'm going to assume BMW. So, I personally would want the BMW. If cost is an issue (I'm assuming the Kia is cheaper in this example) and Kia makes decent cars(?), I will either: buy the Kia because the quality is good enough for me and the price is okke. Or, I will not buy a car at all and save up until I can get the BMW.

Guitar Example
Back to guitars, if Ran makes a Ran Horizon, that's cool and fine, but I don't care. I want an ESP Horizon because I know ESP's neck/body, I know their history, I know their quality, I know their customer service, I have a large pool of people I can ask about the aforementioned, and Stephen Carpenter, Kaoru, and Kirk Hammett play them. Good enough for those guys, good enough for me. Someone else might feel the same about Ran and that's okke too.

*This would've been the problematic question for Gibson/Jackson (i.e. who makes a better Explorer/Soloist, Gibson/Jackson or ESP). This is because too many people might've said ESP. So, Gibson/Jackson threatened to sue thus stopping the question all together*

So assuming that next the question is: "Well, what if the quality is same between product X and copy Y?". Then you have all of the aforementioned from the guitar example to lean on. If we want to make all that equal as well between X and Y, then pick the one with the cooler company logo. If the company logos are similar too, then flip a coin.


----------



## StevenC (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I thought Lexus was building cars that looked exactly like a Mercedes with a different logo before they found their own identity?


I don't think anyone's saying don't buy a new Ran because they used to ripoff KL.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I thought Lexus was building cars that looked exactly like a Mercedes with a different logo before they found their own identity?



I don't think so. I don't think car manufacturers build cars that look exactly like other cars. 

Regarding @Ikke's post:

I think your reasoning examples require a lot of hypothetical modeling of what buyers do, why they do it, etc. The one salient thing I'm getting is that if the existence of a copy doesn't deprive the original sale, you're saying this is ethically fine. I don't agree. I don't think we apply that sort of logic to many things involving creativity. We wouldn't apply that to a song. Or to a painting. Typically society rewards those who create, because we realize what a world would be like if it was filled with those who only copy.


----------



## Flappydoodle (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> It's one-piece olive ash burl, with a trans red on top of it. Ken had two pieces he described to me as "once in a lifetime" finds, as it's hard to get something like that in explorer dimensions. Unfortunately, both were accounted for, but I later badgered a guy into selling it to me. The other one was done natural:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The red one is gorgeous. Classy, but also evil. Thank you for the information


----------



## Masoo2 (Apr 25, 2019)

Wasn't the headstock on the ESP KL copy used before on other ESP models?

iirc it was on some Forest or signature guitars

Not taking away that it's blatantly a copy/inspired-by KL guitar (which again copy of an EXP etc etc etc) but I swear I've seen that headstock before on other ESPs


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> I don't think so. I don't think car manufacturers build cars that look exactly like other cars.
> 
> Regarding @Ikke's post:
> 
> I think your reasoning examples require a lot of hypothetical modeling of what buyers do, why they do it, etc. The one salient thing I'm getting is that if the existence of a copy doesn't deprive the original sale, you're saying this is ethically fine. I don't agree. I don't think we apply that sort of logic to many things involving creativity. We wouldn't apply that to a song. Or to a painting. Typically society rewards those who create, because we realize what a world would be like if it was filled with those who only copy.


The thing is all other forms of creativity are chock full of copycats as well. Music, painting, writing... Check out PBS Nova for a neat documentary on Viking swords and the first known example of making counterfeit products. There will always be people replicating things that are iconic and desirable. The only way ethics plays any role in it for me is the motive behind the creation. Someone doing their take on a classic is fine with me. Someone doing their version of something someone else does at a price more affordable for their market is fine with me. Someone putting someone else's logo on something and trying to sell it as original is not cool.


----------



## narad (Apr 25, 2019)

Masoo2 said:


> Wasn't the headstock on the ESP KL copy used before on other ESP models?
> 
> iirc it was on some Forest or signature guitars
> 
> Not taking away that it's blatantly a copy/inspired-by KL guitar (which again copy of an EXP etc etc etc) but I swear I've seen that headstock before on other ESPs



Yea, my thought too. I think it's a mashup, leaning a bit more on the KL side.


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> The thing is all other forms of creativity are chock full of copycats as well. Music, painting, writing... Check out PBS Nova for a neat documentary on Viking swords and the first known example of making counterfeit products. There will always be people replicating things that are iconic and desirable.
> 
> The only way ethics plays any role in it for me is the motive behind the creation. Someone doing their take on a classic is fine with me. Someone doing their version of something someone else does at a price more affordable for their market is fine with me. Someone putting someone else's logo on something and trying to sell it as original is not cool.



I think I understand where you're coming from about the ethics now. A counterfeit represents an ethical problem for me as well. I just don't see the Ran as a counterfeit. It is a copy, just like the Ken Lawrence is a copy of an MX, just like the MX is copy of the Explorer.

I think it's clear at this point that we don't/won't agree. But, it has definitely been an interesting topic to discuss!


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 25, 2019)

Another industry you will find tons of copies in is firearms. The amount of clones of John Browning designs is pretty staggering. Also AR-15s, Kalashnikovs, Mauser bolt-actions, and just about anything else. There are lots of Italian and Spanish copies of bespoke English double guns.


----------



## Ikke (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Another industry you will find tons of copies in is firearms. The amount of clones of John Browning designs is pretty staggering. Also AR-15s, Kalashnikovs, Mauser bolt-actions, and just about anything else. There are lots of Italian and Spanish copies of bespoke English double guns.



I wish someone could copy something close to Korth Combat. But, I'd still just want a Korth.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Another industry you will find tons of copies in is firearms. The amount of clones of John Browning designs is pretty staggering. Also AR-15s, Kalashnikovs, Mauser bolt-actions, and just about anything else. There are lots of Italian and Spanish copies of bespoke English double guns.


yeah the amount of 1911 clones is ridiculous. 1911s are basically the gun equivalent of a fender/gibson. a lot of proponents of the 1911 have that same "if it ain't broke, then don't bother improving it attitude" as dad rockers or blues lawyers with their fenders/gibsons.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I thought Lexus was building cars that looked exactly like a Mercedes with a different logo before they found their own identity?


No - that was Ssang Yong. But seriously: Lexus started the whole business by attacking Cadillac and the design in the early days was very US-ish...



Ikke said:


> So, using your above example, let's say there is a Kia that has the exact same design as a BMW, but still has the Kia badge. I'd bet the next question most, if not all, customers are going to ask is: *which car is better? Or, who makes a better car, Kia or BMW?*
> 
> As a non-car person, I'm going to assume BMW. So, I personally would want the BMW. If cost is an issue (I'm assuming the Kia is cheaper in this example) and Kia makes decent cars(?), I will either: buy the Kia because the quality is good enough for me and the price is okke. Or, I will not buy a car at all and save up until I can get the BMW.


I drove various German premium cars over the last years and I'm terribly disappointed with the BMW 5 series I'm currently driving... you'd better get a Kia!


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 25, 2019)

broj15 said:


> See I don't even care about the headstock in my case, which I know is what Gibson usually gets all up in arms over. Right now my plan is to get an aluminum neck from RGI (hopefully sooner rather than later as I know his backlog is filling up) and then have a local builder make a bolt on SG body with a strat style bridge. However if finding someone willing to make me a body proves to be to difficult I guess I will have to go the warmoth route, which honestly wouldn't be bad. I can get an unfinished body for a little over $200 and thier neck pockets are already routed to fender specs, and RGI necks are made to be a drop in replacement for strats, tele's and jazzmasters.


That warmoth stuff looks great. Again, a company that just doesn't get it when it comes to 7 strings. What! No 25.5" scale? Only way to freaking long on short? WTF! Warmoth? But for 6 strings they look nice.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 25, 2019)

narad said:


> It's one-piece olive ash burl, with a trans red on top of it. Ken had two pieces he described to me as "once in a lifetime" finds, as it's hard to get something like that in explorer dimensions. Unfortunately, both were accounted for, but I later badgered a guy into selling it to me. The other one was done natural:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is awesome! I love that knob placement, out of the way but still accessible. Now that's how you know it's not a fake. You can just tell by looking at it.


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 25, 2019)

It's a good thing people weren't stopped from copying the wheel.


----------



## gunch (Apr 25, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I thought Lexus was building cars that looked exactly like a Mercedes with a different logo before they found their own identity?



The LS 400 loosely has some of the same proportions as a w126 and very similar rear lights but I think back in the early 90s people were more pissed that it could punch with w126s and BMW 5 series sedans while being much much cheaper at the time


----------



## Randy (Apr 25, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> It's a good thing people weren't stopped from copying the wheel.



Says you. Complacency is why we missed out on *THE SUPER WHEEL*


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 25, 2019)

Randy said:


> Says you. Complacency is why we missed out on *THE SUPER WHEEL*


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 29, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> Hey the second point I think is a bit off.
> To me for example, KL is an overpriced piece of gear. It's not a complex build to command such a pricetg.



What you pay for when buying a KL isn't a guitar. It's a guitar made by the guy who did some explorers for James Hetfield, and kind of an unofficial Hetfield signature. Same as getting a Jackson built y Mike Shannon etc. you pay for the specific guy as much as for the guitar. Remove that and what you get is approximately the same price as what a snakebyte costs.



> I felt ESP CS is pretty open but they have some boundaries -- you don't see an ESP with an Ibanez headstock, etc., so what you're saying surprises me.


ESP to this day still sells hockey headstocks in Japan. My ESP SV1 probably infringes on more copyrights than Oracle, with the Jackson inlays and headstock. (was a used buy, but someone ordered it that way and CH built it)


----------



## narad (Apr 29, 2019)

Andromalia said:


> What you pay for when buying a KL isn't a guitar. It's a guitar made by the guy who did some explorers for James Hetfield, and kind of an unofficial Hetfield signature. Same as getting a Jackson built y Mike Shannon etc. you pay for the specific guy as much as for the guitar. Remove that and what you get is approximately the same price as what a snakebyte costs.



Kind of weird I think because his costs are just the same as any established single builder, basically. Like take Hetfield out of the picture and it changes nothing for me -- still would have found him, been impressed with the work, chatted with him, and placed an order, same as I have with Nik Huber, Frank Hartung, Oni, Gustavsson, Michi Matsuda, etc. And weirdly I seem to get basically perfect instruments when I pay more, and basically not perfect instruments when I pay less.

If you want to blame the price increase on Hetfield, then explain everyone else's prices?


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 29, 2019)

I don't know about price increases or whatever, just that you can't remove the Hetfield part of the equation just because it doesn't matter for you. Besides I'm not blaming anyone or anything, where did you get that weird idea


----------



## narad (Apr 29, 2019)

Andromalia said:


> I don't know about price increases or whatever, just that you can't remove the Hetfield part of the equation just because it doesn't matter for you. Besides I'm not blaming anyone or anything, where did you get that weird idea



Well I mean you're saying that if Hetfield didn't play a KL they'd be like $3-4k cheaper. I'm saying, that'd be super weird, because for a single builder shop that's been open 30 years, $3k explorers would be pretty unusual, and all the other comparable shops are charging $6-8k usually.

And I mean, you're comparing to a SnakeByte, which is a production instrument, and saying that it's the Hetfield factor that makes up the difference. I would say what makes up the difference is being one guy making 20 of those guitars every 2 years vs. an ESP production line.

"blame", i.e., attributing an outcome to.


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 29, 2019)

To me any guitar can be great, be it 100 or 100.000€. The rest is really up to what are you willing to spare. Likewise it can be a pos... I have seen so many faultless production guitars, that really all these comments do nothing for me...


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 29, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> To me any guitar can be great, be it 100 or 100.000€. The rest is really up to what are you willing to spare. Likewise it can be a pos... I have seen so many faultless production guitars, that really all these comments do nothing for me...



Peace of mind and consistency. When you send Ken Lawrence thousands of dollars, you can sleep easy knowing that not only will you get a guitar, but the guitar that you get will be immaculate. And while a production guitar _could_ also be immaculate, the percentage that are absolutely pales in comparison. Add in the ability to toggle certain options and the 'cool' factor, and suddenly, if you've got the money and don't want to deal with rolling the dice, opting for an artisan-built guitar makes sense. 

Hetfield helped Lawrence's brand, for sure- and he absolutely helps to allow him get away with higher pricing. But I think he'd be totally fine if he never built him a guitar, because like Narad said, there are more than a handful of guys building at that caliber and charging those prices (some _substantially_ higher) and doing just fine. Like I've said through this entire discussion, quality speaks for itself and will make or break your brand.


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 29, 2019)

The thing is the Hetfield factor really does matter unless you're a bassist. Ken Lawrence didn't build guitars before Hetfield and built guitars solely for Hetfield for a number of years. If Hetfield hadn't got him to copy his ESP, Ken Lawrence would probably be basses only still.


----------



## A-Branger (Apr 29, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> The thing is the Hetfield factor really does matter unless you're a bassist. Ken Lawrence didn't build guitars before Hetfield and built guitars solely for Hetfield for a number of years. If Hetfield hadn't got him to copy his ESP, Ken Lawrence would probably be basses only still.


directly or inderectly Hetfield is the reason why you (and all of us) know about these explorers


----------



## Zado (Apr 30, 2019)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwzvsCvAImC/?igshid=h432nemwd4yp

Welll......


----------



## possumkiller (Apr 30, 2019)

Zado said:


> https://www.instagram.com/p/BwzvsCvAImC/?igshid=h432nemwd4yp
> 
> Welll......


Probably the same factory that makes them for LTD. Looks like they only changed the logo. 

Speaking about the Hetfield factor. I know myself and a lot of others would never have heard of ESP without Metallica. I saw Hammetts KH4 in the pictures on the Load CD booklet and loved the look of it. I really liked the headstock it had. When I bought AJFA I saw a big list of endorsements on the back page and that is when I started looking for ESP guitars. Nobody had heard of them. I finally found a store that had a few LTDs in stock in the next state over. I got my second guitar there in 1999. It was a black LTD M200 MiK with Gotoh hardware and the 12th fret inlay with a plain LTD just like the ESP 12th fret inlays. Even when I moved to Colorado Springs, the local guitar shops had no idea who ESP was. I took in my CS KH4 to try out amps and they were apparently impressed with it because they were ESP dealers with the higher end MiJ ESPs hanging on the wall when I came back from my next deployment.


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 30, 2019)

I'm more into stuff like that....


Ordacleaphobia said:


> Peace of mind and consistency. When you send Ken Lawrence thousands of dollars, you can sleep easy knowing that not only will you get a guitar, but the guitar that you get will be immaculate. And while a production guitar _could_ also be immaculate, the percentage that are absolutely pales in comparison. Add in the ability to toggle certain options and the 'cool' factor, and suddenly, if you've got the money and don't want to deal with rolling the dice, opting for an artisan-built guitar makes sense.
> 
> Hetfield helped Lawrence's brand, for sure- and he absolutely helps to allow him get away with higher pricing. But I think he'd be totally fine if he never built him a guitar, because like Narad said, there are more than a handful of guys building at that caliber and charging those prices (some _substantially_ higher) and doing just fine. Like I've said through this entire discussion, quality speaks for itself and will make or break your brand.



For the money it takes, it better be perfect...
Look I'm not income police, everyone is free to spend the money he makes however he likes.
I just don't like the justifications used in most cases. At such prices, he would close shop if he was less than excellent.

A guitar as a build can only get so good, it has 2 aspects, workmanship and materials used.
CNCs spit out perfectly cut parts in most cases... So everyone's commenting on superior build quality by X shop, is either looking for ways to feel better about his purchase, or is just clueless.
There are many ways to get a good instrument.

I would prefer if someone said, I like this builder, his aesthetic, these woods that you cannot find elsewhere easily...

Back on topic kind of, sort of... 
Gibson wouldn't be very willing to build me a 7cm thick, 7string paul...
with woods of my choice. Thankfully I'm learning to do it myself.


----------



## Zado (Apr 30, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Probably the same factory that makes them for LTD. Looks like they only changed the logo.


WMI (indo one) for sure, but even the same headstock design and inlays......


----------



## c7spheres (Apr 30, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> I'm more into stuff like that....
> 
> 
> For the money it takes, it better be perfect...
> ...


WOW! That is some nice thick wood. I like that wood dude. Look at that fretboard. Please post when we can see it all finshed. That will be sweet!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 30, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> CNCs spit out perfectly cut parts in most cases... So everyone's commenting on superior build quality by X shop, is either looking for ways to feel better about his purchase, or is just clueless.



Perfectly cut bodies and necks (which still require many hours of work) aren't guitars. They're raw parts that still need a lot of attention.

This is a really good look at what still goes into a guitar that has it's components CNC cut: 



Ron Thorn said:


> I'm game.
> 
> First off, there is no shop, large or small, that is entirely CNC. It does not exist. I think most individuals would be surprised by what a guitar component looks like when it comes off a CNC. It is no where near complete, there is still plenty of hand sanding, fitting, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## narad (Apr 30, 2019)

Shadow Explorer said:


> I would prefer if someone said, I like this builder, his aesthetic, these woods that you cannot find elsewhere easily...



I like this builder, HIS aesthetic, these woods that you cannot find elsewhere easily...


----------



## Shadow Explorer (Apr 30, 2019)

@ c7spheres: Thanks a lot mate, I will make a thread in the appropriate place once it's done.

@MaxOfMetal: I'm well aware of the process, very nice post.


----------



## possumkiller (May 5, 2019)

https://insta-stalker.com/post/BvvmHkLgfj8/

Mark Furtner has pretty good taste. Wish his M-II sig was official on the website. This is a recent custom shop Horizon he ordered with the "Jackson" headstock.


----------



## narad (May 5, 2019)

Yea, I would 100% order the exact thing. But instead I continue to wait and watch the used JP marketplaces.


----------

