Define "copy"

[Jkater]

A fellow forum member asked me in reply to a recent (and rather doomed) thread : Define "real". I thought his question was excellent and should have help save the thread from off-topic jokes and oblivion but it was to no avail : few people chipped in and the thread died from hunger...

 

So...new attempt, new approach.

 

What would you consider a "copy"? Obviously, there is a shallow definition to "copy" which refers to a guitar that has a particular style (semi-acoustic, jazzbox, "Les Paul", Strat,etc.) I'm trying to go a little deeper than that.

 

I think giving examples of particular models would be helpful because it would illustrate your thinking better than just words.

 

Thanks!

[zenbu]

this should be good. Looking forward to reading this thread.

Gentlemen...start your engines...

[jrkirkish]

Defining "real" is a bit like trying to answer the "ship of Thesysus" paradox. The story goes that Thesysus has a boat, and on that boat he has a replacement for every structural element of that boat. Goes and sails around, and whenever a beam or member wears out, he replaces it and chucks the used one overboard. The question arises: When Theysus comes back to port, does he arrive in the same ship? Is the ship he left in floating around in the ocean? What if he just needed to replace one plank, instead of the entire ship? At what point does the ship he leaves in become the ship he left in.

 

Now we apply this to guitars: Imagine (and I know this actually happens, I heard about it at the FDP) that you come across some NOS Fender Coronado parts. All the parts are original, and there are enough parts to complete a guitar. Is the guitar you build with these parts an actual Fender Coronado? Why or why not? What if you non-destructively disassembeled your favorite guitar, and made exact duplicates of all it's parts. Would the guitar you then built be a copy?

 

The answer is in the eye of the beholder. I have heard stories of backrooms in guitar shows, where teams of people make *perfect* copies of '54 strats. Forging the signature of the lady that checked the wiring, making perfectly stamped saddles, and using the exact same colors, from the exact same companies. Who is to say that one of these instruments is not a real '54 strat? And if so, why isn't it a '54 strat? Because it was not made by Fender? Does that matter? Because it was not made in Fullerton?

 

I've faced this question myself recently: I have been toying around with the idea of building a Fender Swinger copy. The Swinger was made of leftover parts from a fender bass, with a 22.5" neck thrown on, with a 24" neck being a drop-in 3rd party upgrade. Now, you see, there are only about 150 Swingers ever made. What if I were to get my hands on the Swinger plans, or an original instrument, and duplicate everything exactly. I could throw on a contemporary 24" neck from a Jag or a Mustang, and paint it... oh, let's say Firemist Gold; one of the color options on the Swinger. Every part except the body and pickguard I could easily buy off ebay. So, the question begs, would this be a real Fender Swinger? What if I found a NOS Swinger neck, and attached that? Would that be a Swinger? What about a pickguard from a swinger? Remember, at this point, the only thing not contemporary to 1969 (the year the swinger was made) is the body. Would having all the parts contemporary to the Swinger except the body make it a Swinger? If not, then what about your Gibby Les Paul that had the pickups replaced with EMGs? Is that still a Gibby LP?

 

An intresting parrell to this dialogue is the question, "What makes Holy Land holy?" Is Holy Land holy because something happened there? What if I were to remove an inch of topsoil and move it elsewhere? Would the place I move the topsoil to be holy, or would the original site be holy? What if I excavated a mile-deep hole, and moved that somewhere else? Which site would be the Holy Land?

 

Really, "real" and "copy" are just words, and the differences and differations in the universe are just illusions. The only two things that are irrefutable in the entire universe are truth and probability, but that's probably more than you wanted to know.

 

Since your thread title is a backwards way of defining "real," I'm just going to leave it at that. By the way, I rule scoratic method.

 

Edit: This was my 600th post. Here's to another 600 just like this.

[loner22]

I have to agree, that when it comes to guitars, COPY is a "one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression"

[zenbu]

boy...now I`m really confused.

[Dougy]

a version of a guitar design made by a different company.

[BootRoots]

Originally posted by Dougy a version of a guitar design made by a different company.

 

any post longer than this is too much.

[Dougy]

Originally posted by jrkirkish By the way, I rule scoratic method.

 

 

SOCRATIC.

[CurtisM]

 

Originally posted by Dougy a version of a guitar design made by a different company.

 

 

Ordinarily, id say thats the definition we work with here. I think if you assemble a vintage guitar using almost all (or even all) origional parts, its not a copy, but a replica. Its not quite an origional because it wasnt assembled at the fender factory in 52 or whenever, but its more than just any old copy.

[LaXu]

Originally posted by CurtisM I think if you assemble a vintage guitar using almost all (or even all) origional parts, its not a copy, but a replica. Its not quite an origional because it wasnt assembled at the fender factory in 52 or whenever, but its more than just any old copy.

 

Or if it's made of new parts, it's a "reissue"..Fender or Gibson certainly wouldn't want us talking about "Fender '50s Stratocaster replicas" or "Gibson '59 Les Paul replicas."

 

Where "copy" ends and "inspired by" begins is also a bit of a gray area.

[jhall]

no such thing as a copy. If it's endorsed by a company, it's a real one. If it isn't endorsed, it's a FORGERY.

There are many forgeries in the art world that are excellent but they are still forgeries.

Well made "copies" are generally every bit as good as the guitars they are duplicating. There are a lot of {censored}ty ones out there but a lot of really good ones too.

[Jkater]

 

Originally posted by jrkirkish This was my 600th post. Here's to another 600 just like this.

 

 

And what a post! Happy 600th, jrkirkish!

 

I liked your idea that "real" and "copy" are words that can mean different things to different people wheras "copy" may be a little easier (and less multi-meaning) than "real".

 

True copies which I would go as far as calling "clone", as I see it, are those guitars that were meant to recreate a given model as close as possible. In the 70's, Ibanez made copies of electrics and Takamine made copies of acoustics. Those of us with greying hair will remember when Takamine made ad's showing two guitars side by side with the headstock hiden in a small bag and asking us which is which? They made no excuse, far from it, it was a selling point.

 

I would also call copies the guitars that have the EXACT same shapes and configurations as the original (most copied guitars of all time: strats and Les Pauls). More often than not, they don't match the quality of the original. And so the word "copy" takes on a negative sense, even if it would refer to a superior instrument as the case may be.

 

Some manufacturers have come up with terrific instruments that look on the surface like the most recognized styles : Teles, strats, LP's and ES-335... But if you play these with your eyes closed, meaning, using your ears and feeling the instrument, they could not be more different! Would you still call those copies? As a concrete example: Is the Yamaha Mike Stern sig a copy of a Tele? Or an Ibanez as-200 a copy of a Gibson ES-335?

 

And what about the "originals"? Are today's Gibsons the same instruments as the ones played by our guitar heroes? Or is it like jrkirkish's "ship of Thesysus" where the captain, that is, the head(stock) is the same but not quite what's under it?

[jerry_picker]

Originally posted by jhall no such thing as a copy. If it's endorsed by a company, it's a real one. If it isn't endorsed, it's a FORGERY. There are many forgeries in the art world that are excellent but they are still forgeries. Well made "copies" are generally every bit as good as the guitars they are duplicating. There are a lot of {censored}ty ones out there but a lot of really good ones too.

 

Oh oh! Xerox stock just tanked on your revelation!

 

BTW, "Forgery" is a legal term, and requires intent to defraud with the copied item (just like counterfeit, except there it's for copied money).

 

The need for endorsement depends on the details of patents and brand name registrations. Would you say that the plethora of perfectly good versions of various pickups that are copies of PAF's or Strat-style single coils are "forgeries"?

 

As far as "many forgeries in the art world", sure. But, there are also many student copies done on assignment by art students, most without "endorsement".

 

As far as well-made copies being "every bit as good"...WTF is "good"?

There are also many copies (and copies of copies) of mediocre original guitars out there, some better than the originals. Consider Univox's copies of the Mosrite Ventures, which were, in turn, copied by Eastwood.

 

And what about when a company changes hands, losing the original designers and patent holders? Sure they keep the brand name and right to "endorse", but they lose the historical continuity and possibly the aesthetic justification for doing so, even if it is all legal. In a historical and artistic sense (which ultimately trumps law), the new company is making copies.

 

[if you don't think art trumps law, look at Italian Renaissance painting...the works are still valid and beautiful, while the government is no longer burning Savanarola's ilk at the stake in the town square. ]

 

And what about brand names that have gone under? Their models can be resurrected, and the copies made are surely not "forgeries" if they are sold as new, and not as originals.

 

[JimboJ]

 

Originally posted by jhall no such thing as a copy. If it's endorsed by a company, it's a real one. If it isn't endorsed, it's a FORGERY. There are many forgeries in the art world that are excellent but they are still forgeries. Well made "copies" are generally every bit as good as the guitars they are duplicating. There are a lot of {censored}ty ones out there but a lot of really good ones too.

 

 

Wait a minute. Forgery implies that they are trying to pass it off as the real deal. Lots of companies make Strat copies. I wouldn't call these forgeries. If they put the name Fender on the headstock, that's a forgery.

 

I don't understand why this question is so hard to answer. I can tell in two seconds if a guitar is a copy of something else. If it has the familiar 3 pickup, one volume, two tone, 5 postition switch, tremelo, double cutout body, and no Fender logo, it is a Strat copy.

 

If it has two humbucker, two volume, two tone, 3 position switch, and tune-o-matic bridge, single cutaway body, and no Gibson logo, it is a copy of a Les Paul.

 

They may not be exact copies, and they may not be good copies, but they were obviously intended to copy a certian popular style of guitar.

 

Bottom line is the the designers of the Tokai Love Rock, for example did not some up with that style by accident. Its obviously intended to look and play like a Les Paul.

[JoeBoy]

While your at it, please let us know who killed JFK.

[Edward]

Superb thread!

 

I agree with the gist that different folks will use the terms differently.

 

I tend to regard a "copy" as something which looks the same - or substantially similar to - the "original" i.e. an Agile is a "copy" of a Les Paul, for example.

 

"Replica" is a species of copy, but something much more fasitidous: correct in (almost) every detail, like some of the MIJ Tokais, or the Eastwood reissue of the Jack White Airplane guitar.

 

I would only regard something as a forgery where there is a deliberate intention to pass it off as what it copies - thus the difference between fraudulently selling "forged" "Les Pauls" (fraud = criminal offence; also here there would be infringement of Gibson's Trade Mark(s)), and being sued by Gibson for infringement of any design rights.

 

The one about defunct brands is interesting. To take a real example, I'm trying to save up for a Johnny Ramone Mosrite guitar. There *is* a version made by "Mosrite of California", an official signature model. There is also one made by Tym guitars of Australia, which is an exact replica of the original guitar, except obviuosly it is sold as a Tym "Wosrite", NOT a "Mosrite", i.e. it does not seek to pass itself off as the "original". But is the official copy any more an original Mosrite than the Tym guitar? The Mosrite brand is now owned by a Japanese company, and "Mosrite of California" guitars are all built in Japan, but a company totally other than Semi Moseley's - the only link is that this Japanese company own the name and the designs. But does that make them "real" mosrites?

 

Here we really get into the idea of what value in the name, i think!

[Jkater]

Bump!

[vintage clubber]

[Will Chen]

Real

 

 

 

Copy

 

 

Forgery

 

 

Copy of a forgery?

 

[BryanMichael]

"BTW, "Forgery" is a legal term, and requires intent to defraud with the copied item (just like counterfeit, except there it's for copied money)."

 

This was the point I was trying to make in the other now-infamous threads.

 

An INTENT to deceive or defraud. All the {censored} that no-nothings were spouting about it being "illegal" to own this or that guitar with a Fender decal on the headstock were just...beyond ignorant. There are a range of differences in what is LEGAL and what is ETHICAL and what is is MORAL. While Fender and Gibson have certain LEGAL rights to stop people from creating replicas and copies, the way the law works is that they have to show loss or damages. AN "adequate remedy at law" is usually a cease and desist order and then another and then another. That, and the fact that the very concept of intellectual property varies from country to country and culture to culture means that making cut and dried statements calling people names seemed petty to me.

 

A friend of mine used to work for a company here in town that did large scale reproductions of famous works of art for department stores, malls, universities, etc... They would recreate a famous painting on a wall for example. They were not FORGERIES for Christs sake. No one walked into the GAP and saw Napoleon on a horse and thought "WOW! They got that from the Louvre!" It was painted on a wall- nor did the company try to pretend that the mona lisa on the side of a building was the REAL Mona Lisa

[Willyguitar]

When it comes to guitars, it's basically a figure of speech.

[Carbohydrates]

 

"Replica" is a species of copy, but something much more fasitidous: correct in (almost) every detail, like some of the MIJ Tokais, or the Eastwood reissue of the Jack White Airplane guitar.

 

Interesting second example. Eastwood makes (mostly) visually accurate recreations, but actual construction methods and electronics differ drastically from the old originals. It's a hard one to place - it's based on White's guitar, which might indicate replica, but it's built in a wildly different manner. So is it a copy? I think Eastwood owns the Airline name now, so is it considered to be built by the same company and therefore not a copy? Or is it still a copy because different people built it in a different location at a different time, despite sharing a brand name? Does that make Kalamazoo Gibsons copies of Nashville ones?

 

Also, I like how "replicas" are revered while "copies" are frowned upon by the, uh, monetarily-driven crowd. The Chinese copies coming in from overseas are awful and everyone who sells one is a bad person, but a Max-built LP replica is a treasure. They're both fraudulent copies, are they not? It's just that one is built better than the other, so those of a cork-olfactic persuasion are okay with them.

[Doctor Morbius]

Copy = Agile LP

[knotty]

How did this thread get dragged back from 2005?

[dgo ratt]

A reference point to start from..