Members DonK Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Here's what it looked like before Martin threatened them. I think they ought to go back to it (without the bling), since there's nothing Martin can do to them now in light of the decision in the PRS v. Gibson case.
Members T0MCAT Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 That's a really cool looking headstock with that inlay. Nice looking guitar too.
Members RKW Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 The ugliest headstock on a guitar that is otherwise worth owning has to be Durango. Look at that stupid cartoon of a broken plank. It's looks like an old route 66 billboard for a Stucky's Restaurant. How embarassing.
Members Queequeg Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 CFM must have scared the begeezez outa them. they went from *elegant* to *hideous* in one fell-swoop.
Members J. Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 How tough is Martin regarding copyrights? Either way, it would be nice to see the Blueridges with better headstocks. The look doesn't bother me actually, but the poor string pull in the design is what wrecks it. Just be thankful that they didn't get threatened by Rickenbacker. Those guys are copyright nazis.
Members Cldplytkmn Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 they could have just put a notch in the top or something... i'm not sure what was in the water the day they drew up their current design.
Members LiveMusic Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Can you swap out a headstock? How much would that cost? Dumb question? Uh... I guess it and the neck are one piece?
Members knockwood Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Man, that is one seriously beautiful headstock, and I don't even care for abalone in general... They certainly made a 180-degree aesthetic turn after the Martin threat... Someone posted an excellent link a while back re. the procedure for overlaying a gaudy Blueridge headstock. I think they are such great guitars except for the bling and the unbelievably dumb tuning peg layout - which didn't appear to be a problem on the original headstock...
Members Freeman Keller Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 I was trying to find a good picture of a style 42 "torch" headstock but this is the best I could do Compare with Don's I guess I can see why Martin would feel there was infringement
Members bjorn-fjord Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 It is a complete rip-off of Martin's inlay. The headstock shape is completely ubiquitous but that inlay is classic Martin. I wonder why they didn't just keep the shape and change the inlay?
Members knockwood Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 It is a complete rip-off of Martin's inlay. The headstock shape is completely ubiquitous but that inlay is classic Martin. I wonder why they didn't just keep the shape and change the inlay? I was wondering the same thing. The headstock shape by itself is worlds better than the current shape, and the current inlay is an abomination. Agree the old inlay was a super-flagrant Martin rip. If I walked into a room and saw that dread in Don's post, I'd automatically assume it was a Marty.
Members AugTPD Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Aren't the ugly Durango headstocks and the ugly Blueridge headstocks both produced by Saga music???? I've never played a Blueridge (no dealers around here) but everyone that plays one seems to think they are great sounding, quality built guitars but also says they would never buy one because of the headstock. I think if they changed that that their guitars could be big sellers....
Members bbarkow Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Can you swap out a headstock? How much would that cost? Dumb question? Uh... I guess it and the neck are one piece? It would be fairly easy to cover it with a new overlay.
Members DonK Posted March 22, 2007 Author Members Posted March 22, 2007 How tough is Martin regarding copyrights? Either way, it would be nice to see the Blueridges with better headstocks. The look doesn't bother me actually, but the poor string pull in the design is what wrecks it. Just be thankful that they didn't get threatened by Rickenbacker. Those guys are copyright nazis. The trademark thing is really a thing of the past since PRS won it's case against Gibson over the PRS Singlecut. Gibson sued PRS alleging that the Singlecut violated its trademark, i.e., the shape of the Les Paul. Gibson won the early rounds, but the Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of PRS, stating that there was no way anyone could confuse a Singlecut with a Les Paul other than momentarily, and that isn't enough to meet the test of trademark infringement. In essence, the court set a standard whereby the design similarity would have to be sufficiently confusing that a buyer could get home after buying a Singlecut but think he'd actually bought a Les Paul. Manufacturers of fake Rolex watches still have to worry, but makers of Martin knock-off's evidently don't. And Martin would have the added baggage of not having defended their "trademark" headstock shape, if they want to call it that, against the likes of Santa Cruz, Collings, Weber and others.
Members guit30 Posted March 22, 2007 Members Posted March 22, 2007 Blueridge make very nice sounding quality guitars, wish they could have gone with a more traditional headstock, love the guitarsJimPS-Durango is a cheaper Saga guitar, both designed by Greg Rich, before he went to Johnson for the Carolina series(The Larry Brown of guitars?)Jim
Members Berkleo Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 I was trying to find a good picture of a style 42 "torch" headstock but this is the best I could do Compare with Don's I guess I can see why Martin would feel there was infringement Freeman I'm sorry for being this dumb but are those photos of Martin and Blueridge headstocks respectively?
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 Seems silly to obsess over a dreadnaught guitar resembling a Martin when 90% (more or less) of all made in the last 35 years do...along w/ Stratocasters and Antonio Torres-styled classicals, it's the most copied design in guitars! The Blueridge headstocks, both original and current, look fine to me, but they're not Guild or Taylor-cool...as for being embarrassed by the headstock on a Durango, I envy a life w/ nothing more important to be concerned over!
Members Freeman Keller Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 Freeman I'm sorry for being this dumb but are those photos of Martin and Blueridge headstocks respectively? Not dumb at at all. The top picture was taken from a vintage martin site and was titled "Torch peghead inlay and "snowflake" fingerboard inlays as used on 1914 to 1938 style 45 Martins." The second one was Don's of the Blueridge version - I was trying to show that they were very similar - if copyrights were involved I think that it is pretty obvious that Blueridge did copy Martin. During the 70's there were several Asian guitars, most notably Takamine, that had the same shaped headstock as Martin with their logo curved in almost the same fashion as the CFMartin script - these are fondly known as "lawsuit guitars" because Martin's legal council agressively brought action (and some of them are great gits). I think it is kind of ironic that a company would want to make their guitars look like something else - if you saw a performer on stage and all you could see was that torch inlay you would think she was playing a Martin. If I was the marketing director of Blueridge I would want it obvious that she was playing a Blueridge. So I would design some sort of ugly headstock that nobody would confuse LOL.
Members theGOOCH Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 How can you sue someone for making a plain, squared off headstock? P.S. Am I the only one who actually likes their current headstock?
Members babablowfish Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 How can you sue someone for making a plain, squared off headstock?P.S.Am I the only one who actually likes their current headstock? I actually like the inlay, but I agree that the design is poor because of the way the tuners are laid out, jamming the strings together.
Members bjorn-fjord Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 Seems silly to obsess over a dreadnaught guitar resembling a Martin when 90% (more or less) of all made in the last 35 years do...along w/ Stratocasters and Antonio Torres-styled classicals, it's the most copied design in guitars! The Blueridge headstocks, both original and current, look fine to me, but they're not Guild or Taylor-cool...as for being embarrassed by the headstock on a Durango, I envy a life w/ nothing more important to be concerned over! The issue with the new headstock is that the second and fifth string actually come in contact with the tuner posts of the first and sixth string. If not the post itself then at least the winding of the strings around the post. What a terrible oversight.
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 How can you sue someone for making a plain, squared off headstock? P.S. Am I the only one who actually likes their current headstock? I can take or leave the design of Blueridge's headstock...I've DEFINITELY seen worse!
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 The issue with the new headstock is that the second and fifth string actually come in contact with the tuner posts of the first and sixth string. If not the post itself then at least the winding of the strings around the post. What a terrible oversight. Hmmmm....guess they fixed that "oversight", 'cause the ones I've seen, while close, weren't touching post or string winding...
Members bloolight Posted March 23, 2007 Members Posted March 23, 2007 Isn't it amazing how much difference a headstock design can make on the overall impact of a guitar? I have this problem with Seagulls...I just can't get past that damn headstock! I think finding just the right design is one of the biggest hurdles a guitar maker faces when it comes to marketing their instruments.
Members DonK Posted March 23, 2007 Author Members Posted March 23, 2007 How can you sue someone for making a plain, squared off headstock?P.S.Am I the only one who actually likes their current headstock? Hi, Gooch. You "can" sue for anything: the question is can you win? Prior to the PRS decision I think most imitators thought it was an open question whether Martin could win, but guys like Saga didn't want to waste money on legal fees (plus, as others have pointed out, Blueridge went beyond the squared-off headstock - at least on some models - to a blatant copy of the torch inlay (thanks Freeman!). Post-PRS v. Gibson, I doubt anyone would pay attention to a cease-desist-letter from Martin or anyone else. I've seen a few recent guitars that copy the both the Taylor headstock and bridge shape. I don't mind the current headstock. In fact, I'm close to pulling the trigger on a BR-163 to satisfy my yearning for the 000-28 I stupidly sold a few years ago. TAH, the reason I've spent so much time writing about the Blueridge issue is because I'm fascinated with the whole issue of copyright and trademark law in modern society. People and companies are attempting to copyright and/or trademark everything in sight, and I agree with Gooch that something as simple as a squared-off headstock ought to be off limits (since it's already been copied to death).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.