Summer Namm 2008, Nashville!!

[Jacksonite]

yeah, but reb beach is the shit.....

fucker can just play

[Newc]

That last part's debateable

The Jackson Winger Sig bass was great (solid lacewood), but Kip shoulda stayed with Alice Cooper

[Jacksonite]

I am trying to get a futura made, in the neck through version...

WINGER RULES!!!

[Newc]

Hey McD!
It would be pretty awsome if you released an C20 Concert bass in a Neck through with double EMG's, that would bring a lot of sales for sure! =D

Ehhh, historically, Jackson basses simply do not sell very well or for very long.

The Futura, for example, was neckthrough and had dual EMG-style pickups (bar shaped, not the P/J). It was then made a bolt-on, then dropped.

Same with every other Jackson bass. I dunno why they don't sell, they were all great basses.

[shreddermon]

Yep, it's a touchy subject with the J/C fan base. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about anyway, though.

[Jacksonite]

boy did I open a can of worms with my joke.

[_koppen]

Hey McD!
It would be pretty awsome if you released an C20 Concert bass in a Neck through with double EMG's, that would bring a lot of sales for sure! =D

[Newc]

Anyone compare the VA Strats to the Fenders? How close are they?

Do the new Charvels bear any licensing info for the bodies like for the headstocks?

Or has Fender accepted the fact that they have a Classic Design as far as the body goes, and focus on protecting the headstock and logo more than the body?

[Varth Dader]

For the same reason Gretsch doesn't make Strats: they are separate companies under one umbrella.

Gibson isn't making Strats, Valley Arts is. What the subsidiary does is not what the parent does.

I understand that folks miss the old Jackson roundhorn Vs and Explorers and other "lawsuit" shapes, but whenever the topic is brought up, let's try to keep the facts straight, and not twist them around to suit our own personal agendas.

This isn't the Nancy Grace forum.

Jackson has plenty of their own shapes, they don't need Gibson's designs.

Once you open that door, it swings both ways - you don't really want to see someone playing a Gibson Kelly or Fender Rhoads or other such nonsense, do you? Especially with the "market flooding" potential those two giants possess?

Every hot new act will be given brand new Gibson Warriors and Fender Soloists, and the Jackson brand name will die.

Then what?

You're actually proving the point that you disagree with in that statement. The bottom line is that fans of Jackson would like to see these models return. Hamer is under the same FMIC umbrella as Jackson.

[Dave L]

For the same reason Gretsch doesn't make Strats: they are separate companies under one umbrella.

Gibson isn't making Strats, Valley Arts is. What the subsidiary does is not what the parent does.

I understand that folks miss the old Jackson roundhorn Vs and Explorers and other "lawsuit" shapes, but whenever the topic is brought up, let's try to keep the facts straight, and not twist them around to suit our own personal agendas.

This isn't the Nancy Grace forum.

Jackson has plenty of their own shapes, they don't need Gibson's designs.

Once you open that door, it swings both ways - you don't really want to see someone playing a Gibson Kelly or Fender Rhoads or other such nonsense, do you? Especially with the "market flooding" potential those two giants possess?

Every hot new act will be given brand new Gibson Warriors and Fender Soloists, and the Jackson brand name will die.

Then what?

Well, I for one don´t have a personal agenda in this... I don´t like the Gibson shapes, wouldn´t buy the Jackson versions and I don´t advocate that anyone should copy stuff, I´m just curious about this whole intricate situation that I know very little about. You make very good points, Newc, but I don´t get how VA under Gibson can build strats without violating the "agreement" and Jackson can´t do Gibson types under Fender? Is there a difference in ownership, or am I missing the point?

I´m absolutely not trying to pick a fight or ruffle any feathers, I just want to be educated on the subject... but I guess my opening statement might have been a bit brash. Sorry, guys.

[Newc]

+1



Not to mention Kramer - which is also owned by Gibson -building superstrat and RR-like models, etc. ...Oh wait. That's OK because Kramer built those models back in their 80s heyday, right? Well, Jackson built custom roundhorn Vs, Explorers, and Firebirds back in the 80s, too. So why isn't that OK?

Clearly, the "gentleman's agreement" is not a two-way street with both parties holding up their end of the bargain. I just don't get why FMIC still wants to hold up their end, when the other party isn't. ...Not to mention that, from a legal perspective, the "gentleman's agreement" is very likely an illegal anti-competitive practice by two market-dominating firms.



Jackson/Charvel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fender Musicial Insturments Corporation, its parent company. And your whole argument falls apart right there.

Whatever you want to believe

[shreddermon]

...and firebirds, and roundhorn Vs.

sully

+1

Seems to me that the gentleman´s agreement isn´t on anymore, since Gibson owns Valley Arts. I don´t see any difference between VA building strats and teles and Jackson building Gibson-type guitars.

Not to mention Kramer - which is also owned by Gibson -building superstrat and RR-like models, etc. ...Oh wait. That's OK because Kramer built those models back in their 80s heyday, right? Well, Jackson built custom roundhorn Vs, Explorers, and Firebirds back in the 80s, too. So why isn't that OK?

Clearly, the "gentleman's agreement" is not a two-way street with both parties holding up their end of the bargain. I just don't get why FMIC still wants to hold up their end, when the other party isn't. ...Not to mention that, from a legal perspective, the "gentleman's agreement" is very likely an illegal anti-competitive practice by two market-dominating firms.

Gibson isn't making Strats, Valley Arts is. What the subsidiary does is not what the parent does.

Jackson/Charvel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fender Musicial Insturments Corporation, its parent company. And your whole argument falls apart right there.

[Newc]

Seems to me that the gentleman´s agreement isn´t on anymore, since Gibson owns Valley Arts. I don´t see any difference between VA building strats and teles and Jackson building Gibson-type guitars.

For the same reason Gretsch doesn't make Strats: they are separate companies under one umbrella.

Gibson isn't making Strats, Valley Arts is. What the subsidiary does is not what the parent does.

I understand that folks miss the old Jackson roundhorn Vs and Explorers and other "lawsuit" shapes, but whenever the topic is brought up, let's try to keep the facts straight, and not twist them around to suit our own personal agendas.

This isn't the Nancy Grace forum.

Jackson has plenty of their own shapes, they don't need Gibson's designs.

Once you open that door, it swings both ways - you don't really want to see someone playing a Gibson Kelly or Fender Rhoads or other such nonsense, do you? Especially with the "market flooding" potential those two giants possess?

Every hot new act will be given brand new Gibson Warriors and Fender Soloists, and the Jackson brand name will die.

Then what?

[Firebird V]

...and firebirds, and roundhorn Vs.

sully

Yes. F-birds...

[StukaJU87]

Hamer's designs were proven to be different enough from Gibson to be well within the limits of their trademarks, IIRC. I'm no expert though.

I don't believe this is the case. Besides, when you look at this guitar, you can't tell me you don't think "Gibson" at first glance. That's what legally matters.

Same thing with the Hamer Standard. First glance and it looks like an Explorer to me. The Jackson Explorer at least had a pointy headstock. The Hamer headstock is kinda similar to the Gibson design.