lawsuit guitars

Here's one take on lawsuit guitars. I wonder how true this is.

* w w w .guitarattack . com /destroyer/lawsuit.htm

tony

jimmy wrote:

> Here's one take on lawsuit guitars.

It's not one take, it's the only take.

>  I wonder how true this is.

The only thing I remember different is that Fedner was involved in a
minor way, script used for logos and headstock shape. They also used
the courts later, early - mid 80's in there somewhere, Valley Arts I
believe was sued by Fedner for headstock and script.

I'm usually the first one in usenet to point and laugh at the
"lawsuit" Bee Ess, because that's what it is. It's especially
offensive when some guitar joker that wasn't even born when I got
married starts telling me this krap.

rct

rct wrote:
> jimmy wrote:
>
>> Here's one take on lawsuit guitars.
>
> It's not one take, it's the only take.

I thought it was common knowledge? Tho the term "Lawsuit' is generally
used in reference to any Japanese clone from the 70's to the early 80's
these days. I wonder how many factories there actually were?
>
>> I wonder how true this is.
>
> The only thing I remember different is that Fedner was involved in a
> minor way, script used for logos and headstock shape. They also used
> the courts later, early - mid 80's in there somewhere, Valley Arts I
> believe was sued by Fedner for headstock and script.

They did, and that's how Fender Japan came about. I always thought
Valley Arts used their own headstock design? Nice guitars tho.
>
> I'm usually the first one in usenet to point and laugh at the
> "lawsuit" Bee Ess, because that's what it is. It's especially
> offensive when some guitar joker that wasn't even born when I got
> married starts telling me this krap.

Don't know how age effects truth? Why is it offensive? Here's some more
history tho (iirc), after Fender was sold by CBS, FMIC went to Japan and
actually got the Japanese to instruct the Americans in how to build
accurate vintage replica's. Mostly because CBS had squandered the talent
that was doing it originally.

Strangely I'm sitting here now intonating my MIM 50's reissue;-) My MIJ
bass is in the corner, lol. Actually that P-bass is probably about the
right age too, mid to late 70's. Sakai. Stuffed if I know who actually
built it tho.

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> >> Here's one take on lawsuit guitars.

> > It's not one take, it's the only take.

> I thought it was common knowledge? Tho the term "Lawsuit' is generally
> used in reference to any Japanese clone from the 70's to the early 80's
> these days. I wonder how many factories there actually were?

Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
indicate some level of high quality.

> >>  I wonder how true this is.

> > The only thing I remember different is that Fedner was involved in a
> > minor way, script used for logos and headstock shape.  They also used
> > the courts later, early - mid 80's in there somewhere, Valley Arts I
> > believe was sued by Fedner for headstock and script.

> They did, and that's how Fender Japan came about.

Sorta.

> I always thought Valley Arts used their own headstock design? Nice guitars=
tho.

> > I'm usually the first one in usenet to point and laugh at the
> > "lawsuit" Bee Ess, because that's what it is.  It's especially
> > offensive when some guitar joker that wasn't even born when I got
> > married starts telling me this krap.

> Don't know how age effects truth? Why is it offensive?

Because it is some guy trying to sell his pretty much worthless copy
by calling it a Lawsuit Copy, when there is no such thing.

> Here's some more history tho (iirc), after Fender was sold by CBS, FMIC we=
nt to Japan and
> actually got the Japanese to instruct the Americans in how to build accura=
te vintage replica's. Mostly because CBS had squandered the talent
> that was doing it originally.

You do not recall correctly. Fender chose to have guitars made in
Japan and sold only in Japan because the Japanese demonstrated clearly
that they would like real Fender guitars, but that because of export
costs etc, real Fenders just didn't make it over there that much. The
fakes and copies, however good or bad, were making money that Fender
could have been making. They chose a company to make them, put the
word Fender on them, and sell them there and only there. That was the
original intent of Fender Japan, no matter what anyone tells you that
doesn't work for that company. It's only written in...oh probably a
halfa dozen books.

Schultz and Smith then went into the storeroom and got out some 50s
guitars they had laying around that Leo had built and they started re-
tooling the company to make them just like these. See, they had no
machinery or equipment when they bought it from CBS. It's all written
down. Nobody from Japan showed them how to do anything.

> Strangely I'm sitting here now intonating my MIM 50's reissue;-) My MIJ
> bass is in the corner, lol. Actually that P-bass is probably about the
> right age too, mid to late 70's. Sakai. Stuffed if I know who actually
> built it tho.

A good guitar is wherever you find it. You don't have to put the word
Lawsuit in front of it. It just didn't happen, and the lawsuit had
nothing to do with how good a guitar was.

rct

rct wrote:

> You do not recall correctly. Fender chose to have guitars made in
> Japan and sold only in Japan because the Japanese demonstrated clearly
> that they would like real Fender guitars, but that because of export
> costs etc, real Fenders just didn't make it over there that much. The
> fakes and copies, however good or bad, were making money that Fender
> could have been making. They chose a company to make them, put the
> word Fender on them, and sell them there and only there.

However, they also ended up being sold to the rest of the world under
the Squier name. The original Fender Japan guitars were no different
from the Squier branded models.

rct wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>
>>>> Here's one take on lawsuit guitars.
>
>>> It's not one take, it's the only take.
>
>> I thought it was common knowledge? Tho the term "Lawsuit' is generally
>> used in reference to any Japanese clone from the 70's to the early 80's
>> these days. I wonder how many factories there actually were?
>
> Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
> indicate some level of high quality.

It can be, in the same way that there are dogs made by Fender USA too.
Every MIJ replica I have played has been great quality. And its more
than a few too. Same deal with Korea.
>
>>>> I wonder how true this is.
>
>>> The only thing I remember different is that Fedner was involved in a
>>> minor way, script used for logos and headstock shape. They also used
>>> the courts later, early - mid 80's in there somewhere, Valley Arts I
>>> believe was sued by Fedner for headstock and script.
>
>> They did, and that's how Fender Japan came about.
>
> Sorta.
>
>> I always thought Valley Arts used their own headstock design? Nice guitars tho.
>
>>> I'm usually the first one in usenet to point and laugh at the
>>> "lawsuit" Bee Ess, because that's what it is. It's especially
>>> offensive when some guitar joker that wasn't even born when I got
>>> married starts telling me this krap.
>
>> Don't know how age effects truth? Why is it offensive?
>
> Because it is some guy trying to sell his pretty much worthless copy
> by calling it a Lawsuit Copy, when there is no such thing.

I don't look at it like that. I don't care what you call it, the MIJ's I
have played have been good guitars. Especially from that late 70's to
mid 80's. Can call it frog's wings for all I care. Its just a name.

>
>> Here's some more history tho (iirc), after Fender was sold by CBS, FMIC went to Japan and
>> actually got the Japanese to instruct the Americans in how to build accurate vintage replica's. Mostly because CBS had squandered the talent
>> that was doing it originally.
>
> You do not recall correctly. Fender chose to have guitars made in
> Japan and sold only in Japan because the Japanese demonstrated clearly
> that they would like real Fender guitars, but that because of export
> costs etc, real Fenders just didn't make it over there that much. The
> fakes and copies, however good or bad, were making money that Fender
> could have been making. They chose a company to make them, put the
> word Fender on them, and sell them there and only there. That was the
> original intent of Fender Japan, no matter what anyone tells you that
> doesn't work for that company. It's only written in...oh probably a
> halfa dozen books.

Close, Fender were retooling the US after the CBS sale. They relied on
Japan even for sales in the US for that period. Even today there are
still some models sold outside of Japan by FMIC. Jazzmasters, Jags etc.
Even some specific Strat and Tele models. The main reason the MIJ
Fenders were sold only to the Japanese market is also because sales of
MIA fenders needed bolstering after tooling was up and running.
>
> Schultz and Smith then went into the storeroom and got out some 50s
> guitars they had laying around that Leo had built and they started re-
> tooling the company to make them just like these. See, they had no
> machinery or equipment when they bought it from CBS. It's all written
> down. Nobody from Japan showed them how to do anything.

I am sure I have read somewhere that the Japanese were consulted during
the retooling, because they were already doing it. Mind you there is a
hell of a lot of mythology surrounding MIJ Fenders. Mostly because of
the crappy documentation, it spilled over to MIK as well. Ask Fender who
made what and they don't know either.

>
>> Strangely I'm sitting here now intonating my MIM 50's reissue;-) My MIJ
>> bass is in the corner, lol. Actually that P-bass is probably about the
>> right age too, mid to late 70's. Sakai. Stuffed if I know who actually
>> built it tho.
>
> A good guitar is wherever you find it. You don't have to put the word
> Lawsuit in front of it. It just didn't happen, and the lawsuit had
> nothing to do with how good a guitar was.

I agree. I'd also go on to add a modern MIA Fender is still pretty much
a copy too.

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

>> Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
>> indicate some level of high quality.

> It can be, in the same way that there are dogs made by Fender USA too.

When talking about Fender copies, the term 'lawsuit' usually applies to
Tokai and Greco. That's what I consider correct use of the term, anyway.

> Every MIJ replica I have played has been great quality. And its more
> than a few too. Same deal with Korea.

The ones made by Vester are pretty crap. They usually have a VN or an
MN serial number. Steer well clear of them.

On May 14, 11:01 am, White Spirit <wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> >> Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
> >> indicate some level of high quality.
> > It can be, in the same way that there are dogs made by Fender USA too.
>
> When talking about Fender copies, the term 'lawsuit' usually applies to
> Tokai and Greco.  That's what I consider correct use of the term, anyway=
.

Wouldn't the actual history determine what you consider correct use of
the term? Did Fender sue Tokai and whoever was making Greco that
week?

rct

rct wrote:

>> When talking about Fender copies, the term 'lawsuit' usually applies to
>> Tokai and Greco. That's what I consider correct use of the term, anyway.

> Wouldn't the actual history determine what you consider correct use of
> the term? Did Fender sue Tokai and whoever was making Greco that
> week?

They certainly had a lawsuit with Tokai, who had to change their
headstock shape. Greco were made by Fuji-gen-gakki, who became Fender
Japan. I'm not sure whether there were legal proceedings with Fuji-gen
before that. Whether the actual history bears out or not, the term has
an accepted usage that, among many collectors, means Greco and Tokai.

White Spirit wrote:
> rct wrote:
>
>>> When talking about Fender copies, the term 'lawsuit' usually applies to
>>> Tokai and Greco. That's what I consider correct use of the term,
>>> anyway.
>
>> Wouldn't the actual history determine what you consider correct use of
>> the term? Did Fender sue Tokai and whoever was making Greco that
>> week?
>
> They certainly had a lawsuit with Tokai, who had to change their
> headstock shape. Greco were made by Fuji-gen-gakki, who became Fender
> Japan. I'm not sure whether there were legal proceedings with Fuji-gen
> before that. Whether the actual history bears out or not, the term has
> an accepted usage that, among many collectors, means Greco and Tokai.

I think there was. That's how Fuji-gen-gakki became Fender Japan. Way I
see it, Fender would have approached them after doing over Greco and
said "You're next, unless you want to sign this contract". Of course the
contract would have been like a carrot to a donkey. Guaranteed cash. Be
crazy not to. Pure conjecture mind you.

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> > Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
> > indicate some level of high quality.

> It can be, in the same way that there are dogs made by Fender USA too.

How can it be used to indicate some level of high quality?

> Every MIJ replica I have played has been great quality. And its more
> than a few too. Same deal with Korea.

Great! What does that have to do with lawsuits?

> > Because it is some guy trying to sell his pretty much worthless copy
> > by calling it a Lawsuit Copy, when there is no such thing.

> I don't look at it like that. I don't care what you call it, the MIJ's I
> have played have been good guitars. Especially from that late 70's to
> mid 80's. Can call it frog's wings for all I care. Its just a name.

If it is just a name, why put the word "Lawsuit" in front of the word
"copy"? Just call it what it is, instead of frogs wings.

> Close, Fender were retooling the US after the CBS sale. They relied on
> Japan even for sales in the US for that period.

Very brief period, yes, there were no American Fenders. I remember it.

> Even today there are still some models sold outside of Japan by FMIC. Jazz=
masters, Jags etc.
> Even some specific Strat and Tele models.

That is today and has nothing to do with lawsuits or the initial
reasons for Japanese production.

> The main reason the MIJ Fenders were sold only to the Japanese market is a=
lso because sales of
> MIA fenders needed bolstering after tooling was up and running.

Not at all. The main reason was because OTHER COMPANIES WERE MAKING
MONEY ON FENDER COPIES. Period. End Of Story. The fellas that
bought the company off CBS did what Leo was too nice to do and CBS was
too lazy to do, and that was to stop the other companies from making
money off the backs of Fender. The lag in American production due to
not owning the equipment was probably farther back than thirdendary,
not at all a main reason.

> > Schultz and Smith then went into the storeroom and got out some 50s
> > guitars they had laying around that Leo had built and they started re-
> > tooling the company to make them just like these.  See, they had no
> > machinery or equipment when they bought it from CBS.  It's all written=

> > down.  Nobody from Japan showed them how to do anything.

> I am sure I have read somewhere that the Japanese were consulted during
> the retooling, because they were already doing it.

Well yeah, consulting is a pretty vague word, don't you think? And
where did Schultz come from? Or was it Smith? Onea them guys.

> Mind you there is a hell of a lot of mythology surrounding MIJ Fenders.

Yes, usually spread by those that covet MIJ Fenders.

> Mostly because of the crappy documentation, it spilled over to MIK as well=
. Ask Fender who
> made what and they don't know either.

I don't agree. There are a few small periods of time, right after the
sale, when overseas production was new, that there may have been some
minor confusions,
mostly because parts were made in one place and assembled in another.
They actually CAN tell you whom made what when and where, people just
don't ask because it might make their guitar worth what a copy is
actually worth: not much.

> I agree. I'd also go on to add a modern MIA Fender is still pretty much
> a copy too.

I don't agree. A Fender is precisely whatever Fender says it is, and
nothing else. I may not agree with what they call a Telecaster, but
it is still a Telecaster because they say it is.

A Mustang looks nothing like a Model T, but it is a Ford. And you and
I can not, no matter how much we want to, no matter how good we make
them, can not make identical cars and call them Rustangs. We'll get
sued, no matter how good or how crappy our cars are. The lawsuit
itself has and had absolutely nothing to do with how good something
was, but you just can't tell the modern day Guitar Genius that,
because everyone gets all their smartz from the eBay.

rct

On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT), rct <Ron.Thompson@faa.gov>
wrote:

>Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>
>> > Yes, the term "Lawsuit" is WAY over used, and is most often used to
>> > indicate some level of high quality.
>
>> It can be, in the same way that there are dogs made by Fender USA too.
>
>How can it be used to indicate some level of high quality?
>
>> Every MIJ replica I have played has been great quality. And its more
>> than a few too. Same deal with Korea.
>
>Great! What does that have to do with lawsuits?
>
>> > Because it is some guy trying to sell his pretty much worthless copy
>> > by calling it a Lawsuit Copy, when there is no such thing.
>
>> I don't look at it like that. I don't care what you call it, the MIJ's I
>> have played have been good guitars. Especially from that late 70's to
>> mid 80's. Can call it frog's wings for all I care. Its just a name.
>
>If it is just a name, why put the word "Lawsuit" in front of the word
>"copy"? Just call it what it is, instead of frogs wings.
>
>> Close, Fender were retooling the US after the CBS sale. They relied on
>> Japan even for sales in the US for that period.
>
>Very brief period, yes, there were no American Fenders. I remember it.
>
>> Even today there are still some models sold outside of Japan by FMIC. Jazzmasters, Jags etc.
>> Even some specific Strat and Tele models.
>
>That is today and has nothing to do with lawsuits or the initial
>reasons for Japanese production.
>
>> The main reason the MIJ Fenders were sold only to the Japanese market is also because sales of
>> MIA fenders needed bolstering after tooling was up and running.
>
>Not at all. The main reason was because OTHER COMPANIES WERE MAKING
>MONEY ON FENDER COPIES. Period. End Of Story. The fellas that
>bought the company off CBS did what Leo was too nice to do and CBS was
>too lazy to do, and that was to stop the other companies from making
>money off the backs of Fender. The lag in American production due to
>not owning the equipment was probably farther back than thirdendary,
>not at all a main reason.
>
>> > Schultz and Smith then went into the storeroom and got out some 50s
>> > guitars they had laying around that Leo had built and they started re-
>> > tooling the company to make them just like these.  See, they had no
>> > machinery or equipment when they bought it from CBS.  It's all written
>> > down.  Nobody from Japan showed them how to do anything.
>
>> I am sure I have read somewhere that the Japanese were consulted during
>> the retooling, because they were already doing it.
>
>Well yeah, consulting is a pretty vague word, don't you think? And
>where did Schultz come from? Or was it Smith? Onea them guys.
>
>> Mind you there is a hell of a lot of mythology surrounding MIJ Fenders.
>
>Yes, usually spread by those that covet MIJ Fenders.
>
>> Mostly because of the crappy documentation, it spilled over to MIK as well. Ask Fender who
>> made what and they don't know either.
>
>I don't agree. There are a few small periods of time, right after the
>sale, when overseas production was new, that there may have been some
>minor confusions,
>mostly because parts were made in one place and assembled in another.
>They actually CAN tell you whom made what when and where, people just
>don't ask because it might make their guitar worth what a copy is
>actually worth: not much.
>
>> I agree. I'd also go on to add a modern MIA Fender is still pretty much
>> a copy too.
>
>I don't agree. A Fender is precisely whatever Fender says it is, and
>nothing else. I may not agree with what they call a Telecaster, but
>it is still a Telecaster because they say it is.
>
>A Mustang looks nothing like a Model T, but it is a Ford. And you and
>I can not, no matter how much we want to, no matter how good we make
>them, can not make identical cars and call them Rustangs. We'll get
>sued, no matter how good or how crappy our cars are. The lawsuit
>itself has and had absolutely nothing to do with how good something
>was, but you just can't tell the modern day Guitar Genius that,
>because everyone gets all their smartz from the eBay.
>
>rct

Aren't you guys glad I brought this up ;-?

jimmy wrote:

> Aren't you guys glad I brought this up ;-?

Yes. Newer youngerer type guitar players see nonsense about Lawsuit
Copy! and they think it means something. Anything that at least gets
the stuff written down again is a good thing.

rct

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:54:08 -0700 (PDT), rct <Ron.Thompson@faa.gov>
wrote:

>jimmy wrote:
>
>> Aren't you guys glad I brought this up ;-?
>
>Yes. Newer youngerer type guitar players see nonsense about Lawsuit
>Copy! and they think it means something. Anything that at least gets
>the stuff written down again is a good thing.
>
>rct


OK, good. I just searched for "lawsuit" on eBay - Musical
Instruments. 47 current & 92 completed listings. Looks like anything
that's from the '70's / 80's and resembles a fenderGibsonMartin can be
flogged as "lawsuit".

I especially like this one.

"Hondo Set Neck Ibanez Artist Style Guitar Black lawsuit"

* tinyurl . com /439pfg (have to log in to see completed
listings I think)

It's a Hondo that "Looks like it's from the lawsuit vintage era". She
went for $301.51.

tony

jimmy wrote:

> >> Aren't you guys glad I brought this up ;-?


> >Yes.  Newer youngerer type guitar players see nonsense about Lawsuit
> >Copy! and they think it means something.  Anything that at least gets
> >the stuff written down again is a good thing.

>   OK, good.  I just searched for "lawsuit" on eBay - Musical
> Instruments.  47 current & 92 completed listings.  Looks like anything=

> that's from the '70's / 80's and resembles a fenderGibsonMartin can be
> flogged as "lawsuit".  

Exactly.

> I especially like this one.

> "Hondo Set Neck Ibanez Artist Style Guitar Black lawsuit"

> It's a Hondo that "Looks like it's from the lawsuit vintage era".  She
> went for $301.51.  

Every Hondo ever made, with cases, extra setta strings, and a 20
dollar cable, all of them aren't worth 301 dollars.

rct