Chinese Suhrs!!??!

[Shiny_Surface]

If clones have to exist I like the idea that whether you have $ 10,000 or $ 300 you can buy one.

Not that I would of course...

 

[ejecta]

Not that you commented at all toward me, but I want to state here that dfrattaroli took what I said completely out of context. I commented on their tops only and never in any way was referencing the quality or tone of the guitars.

Yeah was me who said I didn't jive with the tones or feel of the ones I played. Someone posted about them feeling "stiff". I think that's a good word plus the tone was just kinda flat and not very lively. Like whats been said before... all guitar builders have hits and misses. Hell I love Shur's Koko boost and think it's one the best pedals ever made for my needs and wants.... but I was not impressed at all with his other pedals that played. No knock on Suhr but that was my experience.

 

[Doughboy]

Sooooo, Yaron building a Les Paul copy is fine since he's a master builder & the Chinese selling a Les Paul knock off is wrong since it's junk?

If you take ethics into account, aren't both wrong?

Like I said $10,000 buys a shit ton of forum cred.

I wonder how much more forum cred one would garner if he was to put in a set of $600 Tom Holmes pickups in a Chinese knock off.

 

[spliffsperlunk]

$400.00 Chinese Suhr knockoff = -5000 pts of forum Cred .

 

[ejecta]

$400.00 Chinese Suhr knockoff = -5000 pts of forum Cred .

I submit exhibit A your Honor....... that $10,000 buys you a shit ton of forum cred.

 

[dirtyfunkg]

Sooooo, Yaron building a Les Paul copy is fine since he's a master builder & the Chinese selling a Les Paul knock off is wrong since it's junk?

If you take ethics into account, aren't both wrong?

BTW, this and other boards herald the greatness of Japanese knockoffs also. I play an Edwards mainly, though I now recently have acquired a Gibson. The Edwards is still my main guitar for several reasons--most importantly it's an awesome guitar.

I'm not against knockoffs specifically, but I am against forgeries. Using the name Suhr or Gibson when the product is not made by them. This has a two-fold hit to the actual, legitimate manufacturer:

1) It can cut into their actual sales. I doubt that someone in the market for an actual Suhr wouldn't smell something fishy when it's selling for $400, but what if they're buying used and the price is well into the thousands?

2) More important and more real, is that it tarnishes the image of Suhr when a guitar bearing his name does not bear the quality a Suhr is meant to bear. This creates negative buzz about the product as being "overrated/overpriced," etc.

Here's the scenario: Someone buys a Chinese Suhr knockoff, and eventually (or immediately) sells it to Guitar Center as a real Suhr at what could end up being a hefty profit. That guitar now sits on the used shelf or in the Platinum Room (whatever it's called) at Guitar Center being advertised as a Suhr. People come in, ogle at the "Suhr" on the wall, and ask to try it. Those who already know Suhr gear may pick up on the counterfeit nature of the guitar, but how many people actually own a Suhr, let alone multiple? Several other people come in and try the guitar, and convince themselves that it's awesome because it has the Suhr name on it, and a Suhr just can't be a bad guitar. Invariably, at some point, there will be someone who comes in who tries the guitar expecting awesomeness, and wonders why it plays/feels/sounds/looks crappy. The problem is that this guy will still think it's a real Suhr.

The next day the topic atop TGP or some other hugely trafficked forum is "So I tried a Suhr today..." with the opening post going into detail about how horrible the experience was, and how it's criminal for such a crappy guitar to be sold for such money.

 

[Red_Label]

Sooooo, Yaron building a Les Paul copy is fine since he's a master builder & the Chinese selling a Les Paul knock off is wrong since it's junk?

If you take ethics into account, aren't both wrong?

BTW, this and other boards herald the greatness of Japanese knockoffs also. I play an Edwards mainly, though I now recently have acquired a Gibson. The Edwards is still my main guitar for several reasons--most importantly it's an awesome guitar.

I'm not against knockoffs specifically, but I am against forgeries. Using the name Suhr or Gibson when the product is not made by them. This has a two-fold hit to the actual, legitimate manufacturer:

1) It can cut into their actual sales. I doubt that someone in the market for an actual Suhr wouldn't smell something fishy when it's selling for $400, but what if they're buying used and the price is well into the thousands?

2) More important and more real, is that it tarnishes the image of Suhr when a guitar bearing his name does not bear the quality a Suhr is meant to bear. This creates negative buzz about the product as being "overrated/overpriced," etc.

Here's the scenario: Someone buys a Chinese Suhr knockoff, and eventually (or immediately) sells it to Guitar Center as a real Suhr at what could end up being a hefty profit. That guitar now sits on the used shelf or in the Platinum Room (whatever it's called) at Guitar Center being advertised as a Suhr. People come in, ogle at the "Suhr" on the wall, and ask to try it. Those who already know Suhr gear may pick up on the counterfeit nature of the guitar, but how many people actually own a Suhr, let alone multiple? Several other people come in and try the guitar, and convince themselves that it's awesome because it has the Suhr name on it, and a Suhr just can't be a bad guitar. Invariably, at some point, there will be someone who comes in who tries the guitar expecting awesomeness, and wonders why it plays/feels/sounds/looks crappy. The problem is that this guy will still think it's a real Suhr.

The next day the topic atop TGP or some other hugely trafficked forum is "So I tried a Suhr today..." with the opening post going into detail about how horrible the experience was, and how it's criminal for such a crappy guitar to be sold for such money.

Nailed it!

When it's got someone else's name on the headstock (even when in similar script to the original), it can be judged on its own merits. When it's a total forgery... it gets lumped-in with the original by those who don't know better. Most gear forum snobs can tell the difference instantly. But the average joe just knows that it's a "Gibson Les Paul".

There was a local pawn shop who supposedly got stuck with a purple Custom knock-off last summer, thinking it was real. As soon as I saw their CL ad, I ran down there thinking "it's a fake". Sure enough, the second the guy handed it to me I said "it's a fake". They were selling it as real (though at a very cheap price). After my heads-up, they lowered the price... but were still pretty proud of it ($600). I would laugh every time I went in there. It looked pretty good from a distance... until you looked at the edge of the fretboard and saw WHITE-OUT (or white model paint) being used to paint the edge of the frets. At any rate... I have NO doubt they would have sold it as an actual Gibson LP Custom if I (or someone else) hadn't called them on it. You can't do that with a guitar (no matter how close) that has someone else's name on the headstock. Clones may rip-off everything from the original... but at least they are HONEST about who REALLY built the guitar. Forgeries are not. They just aren't the same thing in terms of dishonesty.

 

[Shiny_Surface]

I'm not against knockoffs specifically, but I am against forgeries. Using the name Suhr or Gibson when the product is not made by them. This has a two-fold hit to the actual, legitimate manufacturer:

1) It can cut into their actual sales. I doubt that someone in the market for an actual Suhr wouldn't smell something fishy when it's selling for $400, but what if they're buying used and the price is well into the thousands?

2) More important and more real, is that it tarnishes the image of Suhr when a guitar bearing his name does not bear the quality a Suhr is meant to bear. This creates negative buzz about the product as being "overrated/overpriced," etc.

It's still selective ethics imo, even though the high end replica's are an easier pill to swallow/justify.

Some of the more famous celebrity owned high end replicas are/were forgeries I believe.

It comes across as giving a pass to those who have the means to acquire a high end forgery but those with less money aren't allowed to buy a low end forgery.

Not all forgeries are low end...the high end ones are less in number and harder to trace so they aren't as easy a target.

 

[dirtyfunkg]

I'm not against knockoffs specifically, but I am against forgeries. Using the name Suhr or Gibson when the product is not made by them. This has a two-fold hit to the actual, legitimate manufacturer:

1) It can cut into their actual sales. I doubt that someone in the market for an actual Suhr wouldn't smell something fishy when it's selling for $400, but what if they're buying used and the price is well into the thousands?

2) More important and more real, is that it tarnishes the image of Suhr when a guitar bearing his name does not bear the quality a Suhr is meant to bear. This creates negative buzz about the product as being "overrated/overpriced," etc.

It's still selective ethics imo, even though the high end replica's are an easier pill to swallow/justify.

Some of the more famous celebrity owned high end replicas are/were forgeries I believe.

It comes across as giving a pass to those who have the means to acquire a high end forgery but those with less money aren't allowed to buy a low end forgery.

Not all forgeries are low end...the high end ones are less in number and harder to trace so they aren't as easy a target.

I agree that it is an issue of selective ethics. I guess I am being selective to a certain degree. But that brings us back to the point that most Suhr and Anderson guitars are based on Fender body shapes. So where do you draw the line? The only brands allowed to make a S shaped guitar should be Fender owned? What about the the assortment of double cut Ibanez, most notably the RG? Schecter? ESP? Anderson? Suhr?

If Slash's "Gibson" was ghost built, Gibson should still be happy that Slash is playing a guitar bearing the Gibson name because it helps sell real Gibson guitars and builds the Gibson brand. Mark Knopfler playing a Schecter Strat knockoff helped Fender ultimately sell more Strats. The list can go on and on.

Unfortunately, from the legit manufacturer's perspective, a high end forgery ends up being a positive reflection of the brand, and can help sell more of the legit manufacturer's instruments. It's essentially free marketing, and it doesn't enter the marketplace. If it gets into the marketplace and resell market, then I think it's bad because it can potentially steal the sale of a legit build, but at least it's still high enough quality to be a positive reflection of the brand. A low end forgery getting out into the marketplace is a negative reflection of the brand and tarnishes the brand name/image.

 

[Shiny_Surface]

I agree that it is an issue of selective ethics. I guess I am being selective to a certain degree. But that brings us back to the point that most Suhr and Anderson guitars are based on Fender body shapes. So where do you draw the line? The only brands allowed to make a S shaped guitar should be Fender owned? What about the the assortment of double cut Ibanez, most notably the RG? Schecter? ESP? Anderson? Suhr?

If Slash's "Gibson" was ghost built, Gibson should still be happy that Slash is playing a guitar bearing the Gibson name because it helps sell real Gibson guitars and builds the Gibson brand. Mark Knopfler playing a Schecter Strat knockoff helped Fender ultimately sell more Strats. The list can go on and on.

Unfortunately, from the legit manufacturer's perspective, a high end forgery ends up being a positive reflection of the brand, and can help sell more of the legit manufacturer's instruments. It's essentially free marketing, and it doesn't enter the marketplace. If it gets into the marketplace and resell market, then I think it's bad because it can potentially steal the sale of a legit build, but at least it's still high enough quality to be a positive reflection of the brand. A low end forgery getting out into the marketplace is a negative reflection of the brand and tarnishes the brand name/image.

All good points, I'm certainly not trying to sway anyone one way or the other. Looking at the responses in the thread you can see where everyone has firmly made up their mind to position themselves.

 

[ejecta]

I agree that it is an issue of selective ethics. I guess I am being selective to a certain degree. But that brings us back to the point that most Suhr and Anderson guitars are based on Fender body shapes. So where do you draw the line?

The body shapes are no longer protected. You draw the line at what is protected like trademarked names like "Les Paul" which the Yorn does. The "Gilyorn" in the Gibson font on a almost exact copy of headstock shape..... is getting really close to being a knock off but just a hair different to be argued that it isn't. IMHO I still think that crosses a line.

Tom Anderson isn't using "stratocaster" on his guitars or putting "Anderson" in the Fender font. Plus his headstock are completely different than Fenders. I don't see him crossing any line.

 

[Red_Label]

I'm not against knockoffs specifically, but I am against forgeries. Using the name Suhr or Gibson when the product is not made by them. This has a two-fold hit to the actual, legitimate manufacturer:

1) It can cut into their actual sales. I doubt that someone in the market for an actual Suhr wouldn't smell something fishy when it's selling for $400, but what if they're buying used and the price is well into the thousands?

2) More important and more real, is that it tarnishes the image of Suhr when a guitar bearing his name does not bear the quality a Suhr is meant to bear. This creates negative buzz about the product as being "overrated/overpriced," etc.

It's still selective ethics imo, even though the high end replica's are an easier pill to swallow/justify.

Some of the more famous celebrity owned high end replicas are/were forgeries I believe.

It comes across as giving a pass to those who have the means to acquire a high end forgery but those with less money aren't allowed to buy a low end forgery.

Not all forgeries are low end...the high end ones are less in number and harder to trace so they aren't as easy a target.

I agree that it is an issue of selective ethics. I guess I am being selective to a certain degree. But that brings us back to the point that most Suhr and Anderson guitars are based on Fender body shapes. So where do you draw the line? The only brands allowed to make a S shaped guitar should be Fender owned? What about the the assortment of double cut Ibanez, most notably the RG? Schecter? ESP? Anderson? Suhr?

If Slash's "Gibson" was ghost built, Gibson should still be happy that Slash is playing a guitar bearing the Gibson name because it helps sell real Gibson guitars and builds the Gibson brand. Mark Knopfler playing a Schecter Strat knockoff helped Fender ultimately sell more Strats. The list can go on and on.

Unfortunately, from the legit manufacturer's perspective, a high end forgery ends up being a positive reflection of the brand, and can help sell more of the legit manufacturer's instruments. It's essentially free marketing, and it doesn't enter the marketplace. If it gets into the marketplace and resell market, then I think it's bad because it can potentially steal the sale of a legit build, but at least it's still high enough quality to be a positive reflection of the brand. A low end forgery getting out into the marketplace is a negative reflection of the brand and tarnishes the brand name/image.

That's dead-on right there! In that case, a great forgery/clone may actually help the original brand. But a poor one may hurt it (if people judge the original thinking that the forgery is real).

At any rate... people will have to agree to disagree on this subject I guess.

 

[dirtyfunkg]

For the record, I think any forgery is wrong, and I define a forgery as the use of the name. "Gibson" and "Les Paul" and "Stratocaster" or "Strat" or "Tele" etc...

I have no problem with knockoffs that are clear that they are knockoffs. A player picks up a knockoff, it says clearly on the head stock and the player knows immediately that they are playing a Burny or Greco or what have you.

I'm with ejecta on this, I think. I'll mention that there are obvious examples of Gibson-esque shapes that are deemed perfectly fine in the Dean Soltero, PRS Single Cut, Charvel Desolation, Agile, ESP/LTD Eclipse, Carvin California Single, etc.