Members mateo150 Posted August 28, 2005 Members Share Posted August 28, 2005 I've heard that a Takamine F360s is the "martin lawsuit guitar", what the hell is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members leftync Posted August 28, 2005 Members Share Posted August 28, 2005 My understanding is that in the '70s, some guitar companies put out instruments that intentionally copied the look of Martins. That doesn't sound unusual, as Martin has standardized so much about guitars. But these instruments even copied the lettering style on the headstock, over which Martin apparently sued. That's about all I know, and I've never seen one, but I'm sure one of our educated brethren or sistren will add to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kwakatak Posted August 28, 2005 Members Share Posted August 28, 2005 I've heard that the whole "lawsuit" thing was an urban legend. At least that's what Takamine has told people, but something motivated them to change their headstock design sometime in the mid-1970s. I have the laminated-top version of this guitar. I've had it for about 12-13 years now but according to the serial number it was built in Sept 1973 in the main plant in Japan. Here are some pics: Close-up of Martin-style logo on the headstock: Front view (laminated tan spruce top): Back view (laminated rosewood, possibly Brazilian, but the inner and outer "ply"s are only about 1/32" thick): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members solitaire Posted August 28, 2005 Members Share Posted August 28, 2005 Originally posted by kwakatak I've heard that the whole "lawsuit" thing was an urban legend. At least that's what Takamine has told people, but something motivated them to change their headstock design sometime in the mid-1970s. I have the laminated-top version of this guitar. I've had it for about 12-13 years now but according to the serial number it was built in Sept 1973 in the main plant in Japan. Here are some pics: Close-up of Martin-style logo on the headstock: Front view (laminated tan spruce top): Back view (laminated rosewood, possibly Brazilian, but the inner and outer "ply"s are only about 1/32" thick): No wonder why CF Martin went haywire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kwakatak Posted August 29, 2005 Members Share Posted August 29, 2005 Yeah, it looks like a Martin but up close you can tell that the materials aren't in the same league. It doesn't sound like a Martin, but it sure sounds a helluva lot better than the current line of Tak G series that I've tried at GC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bigjoe55 Posted June 27, 2011 Members Share Posted June 27, 2011 I have an F360 and F360s. They both are about 80% of a well set up d-28. The d-28's I tried were so inconsistant on sound. I bought a D16gt because my friend needed to sell it. I sold the D-16gt because it paled in comparison to the Taks. I am looking to sell the F360, it's a 1976. I can easily afford a d-28 but I would not swap the 360s for one. The Taks have a real rumble on the bass and a decent sound on the highs. If my F360S were stolen or whatever I would pay a grand for one that matched the sound I get for my current Tak. I have no idea about the consistancy of the old taks but the one's I had the chance to play I bought on the spot. 300 for the 360 and 400 for the 360s. By the way I want 300 for the 360 if anyone is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members totamus Posted June 27, 2011 Members Share Posted June 27, 2011 The lawsuit Takamines are just a myth, often peretuated by sellers trying to make buyers believe that the guitar they are selling is identical to Martin and a Lawsuit resulted. Never happened. The real story: Martin's lawyers sent the Takamine company a letter requesting that they alter the headstock so that it does not infringe upon Martin's trademark. Thats it. Takmine changed it after the letter was received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fastblueheeler Posted June 27, 2011 Members Share Posted June 27, 2011 It's a wonderful myth! I bought a Tak F340S at a pawn shop a few years ago for $125. I sold it for $400 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OldGuitarPlayer Posted June 28, 2011 Members Share Posted June 28, 2011 The lawsuit Takamines are just a myth, often peretuated by sellers trying to make buyers believe that the guitar they are selling is identical to Martin and a Lawsuit resulted. Never happened. The real story: Martin's lawyers sent the Takamine company a letter requesting that they alter the headstock so that it does not infringe upon Martin's trademark. Thats it. Takmine changed it after the letter was received. This is correct. If I recall correctly in the 1970's either Gibson sued or threatend to sue Ibanez over the fact that they used the "open book" headstock. The term "lawsuit" is thrown around a lot and sometimes erroneously used to describe any "copy" guitar made in Japan in the 1970's. This is really not the case. It's just a tactic used to justify overpriced junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members missedmyexit Posted June 28, 2011 Members Share Posted June 28, 2011 The lawsuit Takamines are just a myth, often peretuated by sellers trying to make buyers believe that the guitar they are selling is identical to Martin and a Lawsuit resulted. Never happened. The real story: Martin's lawyers sent the Takamine company a letter requesting that they alter the headstock so that it does not infringe upon Martin's trademark. Thats it. Takmine changed it after the letter was received. Yep, I have a 12'er that's a Tak Lawsuit. Generally they do get a little more money on the trade market then other lammy Taks from that time. From the one I have I can say that they are pretty good for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.