You know WHY this isnt true ? If one actually plays a Gibson (and not just stares at it.. there are other brands for that 😅), there are no tuning issues. The nut is the problem - the strings angle, so either you wear it out by playing - bending, tuning etc.. or you help it with some graphite/pencil dust.. 🙃 Btw - it is like with Bigsby´s.. the more you use it, the better it stays in tune... just doesnt like idling, needs some workout to wear it in, to work properly
@@jamescbender43081 Sure enough - smarter strings angle at the nut, and of the headstock too.. but what is it good for, when the guitar just never sounds like an LP - which it tried so hard to emulate ? The scale is a cross between a Gibson and Fender... a catch-all attempt that didnt work that great... The devil is in the detail... But most importantly for me - I´ve tried for many years to like PRS.. but even the fanciest ones left me cold.. the guitar is a very personal thing... you touch it to make sounds... I do not feel it with PRS, even if stays in tune from the box..so 🙃 I dont need cold perfection when the vibe is not there. See, it is the same as Collings vs Martin... which one do you think I prefer ?
@@blueslawyer I was just having a bit of a laugh at you're expense. I've been a Luthier since 1978 and Gibson certified since 1985, so I've seen it all when it comes to Gibson, good and bad. Gibson is in a good place right now. Gibson had every reason to sue over the Singlecut. Gibson should have sued Dean and Hamer a long time ago. Two companies that took advantage of Gibson a long time ago. Again, I think that Gibson is firing on all 8 cylinders right now. I really like what they are doing at Epiphone. You can get a good Gibson (Epiphone) for under $1k with good electronics and fretwork.
Matt and I love our Gibson guitars. Epiphone has more leeway to be "adventurous" and try new things and Gibson is a bit hamstrung by "tradition" and "purists"... they haven't done themselves a lot of favors, but the guitars are still works of art and sound fantastic.
Like if someone buys a Gibson thinking it was a PRS that they saw, Gibson makes money. If someone buys a PRS instead and thinks it's a Gibson... Is that bad or does that make them look better?
@@blueslawyer I actually posted my comment before you covered Gibson's absurd "smoky bar scenario". I agree entirely with the reasoning to strike that nonsense down by the judge. PRS being viewed as a high-quality brand does nothing to injure Gibson's presumed premium standing, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. You covered this nicely in the video. PRS is seen as somewhat of a boutique brand in some respects. I imagine that there is significant buyer crossover between the two brands based on their pricing and offerings, so I can only assume Gibson's attorneys were hoping for some level of ignorance on the judge's part about the respective companies relative impression amongst the guitar buying public? My original snark is more a suggestion that Gibson's problems don't stem from PRS or any other guitar maker that uses the classic LP design, their issues stem from ridiculous pricing, poor quality and features for that pricing, and marketing to a diminishing demographic, namely Gen X and Boomers. This lawsuit, and others like it, are futile attempt to lash out at external entities, while refusing to look inward at the true inadequacies of their business. Gibson is, through very much fault of their own practices, seen as an old man brand (as a Gen X'er I hate to lump myself in there, but if the shoe fits...) resulting in an ever-shrinking customer base. As I understand it, companies must be vigilant in protecting their copyrights or trademarks against imposters, but specious arguments such as the smoky bar are pretty weak fare. Such is the life of a corporate attorney when forced to fight such cases, I guess. I am NOT an attorney, so I could be speaking from a hell of a lot of ignorance here. :D Not the first time, certainly won't be the last.
@@blueslawyer The control meme idiots bring up again and again was years ago, Gipson today isn’t today what it was years ago! If you actually owned one instead of a Made in China rip-off you’d know this!
Here's a note for Gibson. There aren't any smoky bars anymore. In the 9 state I've played and lived in this country the bars, pubs, nightclubs or lounges smoking isn't allowed anymore. You have to smoke outside or in another designated area for it. It just goes to show that Gibson executives are so out of touch with the people they don't know what it's like in a music venue.
There may certainly be smoky bars at different places in the world, here in Sweden smoking in bars and restaurants is not allowed anymore since quite a long time fortunately and the same for many other places like workplaces for example. When i started working in the 80´s you could have someone sitting smoking at the desk next to yours when working.
You did a great job breaking down the issues here. Estoppel will almost certainly be used by Dean Guitars in their appeal against Gibson. You're probably right that Dean will cease to use the name "Hummungbird", but the V, Z, and Gran Sport body shapes will most likely return to Dean in the appeal. Gibson is a company that I want to like: they did make legendary guitars, they have been on a multitude of recordings, and they do have an incredible tone. The Les Paul Standard wasn't called 'the standard' for nothing. But as so many have observed before, their pricing is outrageously expensive and the quality of their guitars have had a checkered past. I don't see much hope in seeing their prices go down-they see themselves as a top-tier guitar manufacturer and their brand is for 'real' players who appreciate the difference between a Gibson and any other brand ( kinda like Mercedes Benz-no one would buy a cheap Mercedes). You would have thought that Gibson, facing competition from Dean and PRS, would be looking to improve their QC and perhaps introduce some innovations that would justify a claim that their products are better and thus justified in being more expensive, but maybe Gibson can't push it any further forward without adulterating other attributes their guitars possess. It might be that Gibson has trapped itself-painting itself into a corner where they rely on vintage body shapes that just can't be improved upon in any meaningful way. One thing I wish Gibson would do is bring back the Les Paul doublecuts. They do make one now, but this is actually an opportunity for them to make a quality guitar at a lower price more available to younger [layers and those who don't possess the means to spend $2,500 on a LP Standard.
I agree, the thing with the pricing is tough though, a 1950's Stratocaster cost $2,000 in today's money for instance. I don't think it's possible to build a great guitar for much less, the cheaper guitars have cheap electronics and low grade hardware that I dislike so to get a guitar that has high quality parts it cost a good buck. That said, I like Squier guitars for what they are. I do like my 2019 Les Paul Special a whole lot too!
I have always wanted to buy a LP but i love my PRS... I think its so crazy that Gibson just wants to overcharge and freaking sue everyone over everything...
Great video explaining just how ridiculous Gibson’s lawsuits are becoming. These lawsuits and their boy Mark have done more harm to their reputation than anything else.
Gibson seems to sue American companies who produce guitars based on their designs, who have better quality instruments. This has been my personal experience and seems to be the consensus of folks who demand high quality.
Don't see them suing Thomann anytime soon, and neither do I see HB stopping to reimagine any good guitar design that they can find. And the guitar world is better that way.
@@solacedagony1234 that's your opinion. I personally find Gibson far better than the sterile PRS. That's my opinion. Unlike you, I know it's simply a subjective position.
The ridiculous part of that lawsuit is that there are many other guitar makes that blatantly copy the Les Paul and they didn't get sued. Paul Reed Smith basically took what he liked from the Les Paul and incorporated it into the design and basically paid tribute to Gibson. I think it was just sour grapes on Gibsons part.
Exactly... you get inspired to get a guitar and you either go to a store to try them out and see what speaks to you or you order online. In both cases, you select with a lot of available information.
@@blueslawyer I have another Fernandes which takes a 9 volt battery to help it sustain. I think they have a basic good build quality which makes them good to play. I picked up the sustainer at a very low price new at Guitar Guitar in Edinburgh (Scotland), maybe 12 or 15 years so.. I think it was £120 or so (new), down from maybe £300 (?).. It's been in its case for ages, you have inspired me to get it out and stick a new battery in!
I just got it out of its case. It us an FG05 (2005 i think) in red wood with locking tuners. It has great acoustic resonance and was still in tune after several years! It does feel good for the price.
That's a great point. On some level, all trucks have doors, beds, wheels, etc... but if you copy every design detail to make it nearly indistinguishable--what are you doing? I remember for a long time, every Hyundai looked like last year's Honda.
I have a 1978 Takamine 12 string that is identical to a Martin. In fact, Takamine was sued for it. Even the Takamine name on the headstock used the same font as Martin.
Gibson needs to pay more attention to the quality control and the products that they produce and stop suing people at the drop of a hat. They are offering less and less value for the price that they are demanding. You can usually get a much superior instrument for the exact same price as one of theirs if you go with another company. The Les Paul guitar produced by Eastman comes to mind.
@@philomelodia no it's not. Gibson quality has made leaps and bounds since JC took over in 2019 and their sales are soaring. It's literally you who is behind.
I am sure Gibson's legal team and their manufacturing teams are able to laser focus on their unique objectives, anyone who makes comments like this, that focus on legal concerns is distracting from manufacturing comes across as anti-gibson, probably cause they cant afford one or two.
Thanks for this informative video. As an owner of two Les Paul Standards and a PRS Singlecut, I will pay the extra for PRS. I still love my Les Pauls, but I will probably not buy another Gibson.
Gibson should only have a trademark on the headstock. The single cut body is roughly the equivalent of the Florentine cutaway which has been used way before Gibson existed.
Venetian. Florentine is pointy, Venetian is rounded. PRS in fact has the Florentine and since that difference is something rhat goes back a couple hundred years in guitar design I'd say they have a pretty strong defense. Justifying their plagiarism of Gibson's more specific calling cards, mahogany and maple, set necks, chambered reliefs, LP electronic suites ect... ...that might be a harder ask.
@@dickstryker Well Gibson is in for a fight they won't win... A lot of guitar makers are using the combo of mahogany and maple cap. I don't think that Gibson players are converting to PRS because of similarities but mainly due to better built quality and attention to detail.
Things that crack me up about this: Gibson should take the money they are paying their lawyers and improve quality to try to catch up with PRS. Also, how many epiphone copies of fender guitars are out there. Thse days, Gibson is more of a lifestyle brand, like harley. Crap quality and high prices don't work out real well in the long term.
Even Blind Lemon Chitlin could tell the difference between a PRS and a Gibson just by touching the headstock. I think the bean counters at Gibson are just jealous that PRS was created on a shoestring by one young man's vision and was brought to market and proved to be a superior guitar. Do I like Gibsons...yes and I like PRS as well (especially the DGT model) but they've priced themselves out of reach for most of players.
Gipson has every single right to do whatever it wishes to protect its company and at the very least I know when I buy a Gipson it would be made in the USA and not cheaply mass produced overseas! Unlike most of the those leaving comments here I actually care about keeping American made guitars in America that provide jobs for Americans!
Yup as an American manufacturing worker I like that idea to. That said if I make a product to compete in the high-end market and it has multiple QC issues then I deserve to loss the job to another company that can do it better for the same price. It wouldn't be my customers fault for sourcing through somebody else. It would be mine for giving them a reason to. Gibson lost my respect by making a product not worthy of my respect. When your guitars quality looks like what you'd expect on a $500 guitar and you ask 2500- 4000 for it. Yup you lost a purchase from me.
@@blueslawyer I have some PRS Guitars of my own, the Santana signature model and the Custom 24 are my favorites. I was in college when the lawsuit came about. I could never understand why Gibson targeted PRS at the time but the decision by the appellate court was really insightful. Is it true that the parties came to a settlement which is why that case never got appealed further?
It might be wiser for them to use that motivation to improve the product and/or reputation than to drag everyone into a lawsuit, no? I can hear G Harrison singing.
I think the smoky bar scenario should go like this. The guy at the bar was playing a Gibson. The audience viewer went to the music store and bought a PRS because it was the same shape roughly. The PRS turned out to be crap and gave Gibson a bad name.
Sounds about right--with the exception of Gibson acknowledging that PRS produces fine instruments. In all honesty, different guitars speak to different people. Generally, if you go to a guitar store to get a singlecut and go home with a Gibson, PRS, Heritage, Knaggs, Collings, etc that makes you happy and you are OK with the price then that's the guitar for you.
How did Gibson trademark the shape of Les Paul in 1988 when they have been making them since 1952? It there no statue of limitations on applying to a trademark? Can the estate of Antonio de Torres Jurado get a trademark on the modern classical guitar from the 1850's?
The Dean case is different from the PRS case. The PRS single cut shape ISN'T a Les Paul silhouette. It's quite different. The Dean V, however, is EXTREMELY similar to the Gibson. It's not a one to one comparison, but it is close enough to make confusion.
As for the Smoky Bar thing, you don't make bad arguments if you have good arguments. It has "sue them into bankruptcy" written all over it, I'd guess as these petty lawsuits pile up more judges will roll their eyes and say "This again, really?"
Thank you for explaining all this. I've got a question concerning the headstock shape: How come Tokai has been using the open-book-shape for decades without being sued by Gibson? Or have they?
it feels like the more valid iteration of the "smoky bar scenario" would be if said blues guitarist was actually playing a Gibson but the budding guitarist picks up a PRS single cut thinking it was the guitar being played - that said, the logic for the ruling following the scenario i dont think would change either way
In that case, the brand of Gibson isn't being diminished--the guitar shopper bought a PRS thinking it's a Gibson and purchased a very fine instrument. If they ignored the PRS logo on the head, they'd continue their lives thinking that the Gibsons were finely crafted instruments. Alternatively, if they had the chance to play both guitars at the store, reviewed the pros and cons and made the decision that the PRS best fit their playing and was in their desired price range, the shopper was not tricked into purchasing a guitar. They selected a preferred instrument. In neither scenario is Gibson truly harmed.
@@blueslawyer They would have to argue that PRS quality is in fact lesser than that of Gibson for this to work that way. Which they shot themselves in the foot by proclaiming that PRS produced "high quality" guitars. Honestly speaking though, I do feel for Gibson, and in a similar way, Fender as well. I've never seen an industry with such rampant design copying and having the buyers think that is totally normal. How many T-style guitars are there from various brands? And Les Paul style guitars? Just because you put the switches in a slightly different place doesn't mean the design isn't being blatantly copied. Having to look at the headstock to differentiate what brand it is is actually kind of ridiculous. Imagine if you had to do this with cars, two identical cars but you had to look at the logo to tell whats what. It doesn't exist in other industries to the extent that it does in the guitar world. Even though you see similar looking cars, you dont see dimension by dimension, fold by fold, crease by crease identical models across brands unless theres a branding agreement.
I agree. The real damage is Gibson losing a sale because the buyer doesn’t know better. I’m sure Gibson isn’t at all worried about accidentally selling guitars to people
What's funny is that around 1999-2000, when I could afford a Les Paul, I tried and tried to buy one, but the QC was so miserable - back then - I couldn't find one, under around $4k, that was worth a darn. So ultimately I ended up buying both a new 2000 Singlecut (10-top) and a new Triple Soapbar (also a 10-top). I was absolutely disgusted with Gibson. In '08, I added another Core Singlecut, but it was a 245. Fast forward to 2019 and the new Gibson leadership, I heard that "Gibson is back!" As much as I loved the PRSi, I still hadn't achieved that Les Paul tone, so I gambled and ordered a new Standard 6/19. Whew! Talk about scratching the itch. I love my burst Standard and haven't had to do anything more than change the strings on it. I still have my 2000 Singlecut (wife loves the quilt top), but I now reach for my Gibsons nowadays and they deliver in spades. Now Gibson, don't go and screw up again!
I love these videos, you explain everything very simply enough to at least get a grasp of what is being said, without the fluff of a fancy suit or over-the-top-I-know-more-about-this-than-you-do tone, you earned a sub, well done!
The video states that Nashville is in the Fifth Circuit. That is incorrect. Gibson sued PRS in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville. The district court ruled in favor of Gibson. PRS appealed to the SIXTH Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court´s decision.
@@blueslawyer The Sixth Circuit opinion is reported at 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005). The district court opinion is at 311 F. Supp.2d 690 (M.D. Tenn. 2004).
This is an explanation of that ruling. When we did this video, it was right at the first Dean ruling and there were a lot of questions on the ownership of body shapes.
I have both. The PRS may look like a les Paul but it feels and sounds nothing like one. I’m a huge fan of both. No way you confuse the two. I’m actually wanting a Heritage now.
I kind of get where Gibson is coming from, if I were a company who designed a product that became very very culturally significant, I would want to make sure no one would be able to take my design and make money off it. Just the fact the phrase "Les Paul copy" exists, means that Gibson's history of the guitar has a lot of positive feelings for a lot of players
There is an issue about the shape (and branding). It was designed by Les Paul (real name Lester Polsfuss) and, in fact, for quite a while, The Gibson guitar and mandolin company refused to actually brand them as Gibson.
@@victorblakey4260 I think you’re butchering history quite significantly there. The Les Paul model was always made by Gibson. There was never a time when they refused to put their brand name on that design. I believe you’re thinking about the “Log” style guitars that Les Paul cobbled together and brought to Gibson in the 1940s as technology demonstrators for solid body electric guitars encouraging them to make something like that but was sent away. Those guitars had almost nothing in common with the design of the Les Paul models that came out in the fifties and were always Gibson branded instruments. There is a bit more debate over how much Les Paul himself was involved in the design of the Les Paul model guitars, but even Les didn’t claim he brought that design to Gibson, only that he designed it with them. Gibson’s legendary President at the time, Ted McCarty told that the Les Paul model design was complete before they took it to Les Paul to approve as his signature model, and that the only real design input that Les had into the model was the finish options (Goldtop for the ‘standard’ model and ebony with gold hardware for the Custom).
Gibson's brand value is in the quality of the guitar that they sell to to consumer. If they are so worried about up and coming competition, instead of wasting money on lawyers how about putting the money into R&D and keep improving to keep the quality gap and in turn keep the "top spot". Most consumers of high end guitars like Gibson's are buying for the tone 1st and looks 2nd. Kids in smoky bars wanting to learn generally get a Squier, Ibanez, Jackson.
my take is this: if PRS wants to be its own brand then make your own guitar. instead they make their own and make strats and les pauls. i like both and own both. but i own a McCarty guitar, their guitar, not their copies of fender and gibson.
This is so confusing. Think about Tokai, Patrick Eggle Macon, Heritage Standard, Gil Yaron Bone, Frank Hartung, Maybach, etc etc. These are guitars that look EXACTLY like a Les Paul. Why isn't Gibson concerned with those manufacturers? The PRS Single Cut has many differences.
You missed a very important fact here. Gibson is under new ownership and the new owners can attempt to assert control over their designs and trademarks. They have a small window to do so before they fall victim to what cost Gibson previous suits because they didn't vigorously defend them in the past.
even Epiphone seem to make better SC's. these days, like the limited 59 was a killer even the standard 50's they got is great and the newer prophecys which is hilarious when you consider Gibsons owns Epiphone. i think its time Gibson looks more at themselves and their pricing, and the fact you dont get a vintage correct long neck tenen in a Tribute/Studio and the pretty expensive standard 50's/60's but you do in the Epiphones AND PRS SE 245/Mccarthy's is just ridicilous
I don't get why people bring up the price of the Gibson guitar as a justification for invalidating Trademarks. It's like saying that I can't afford a Mercedes Benz so I will build my own copy and sell it as an MB copy. How do you think MB would react, or Ford or GM or anyone else. Fender is in exactly the same dilemma as Gibson since there are so many knock offs of Strat and Tele guitar shapes. The mistake that these awesome brands did was to allow others to copy and did not take vigorous action right at the start.
i mean.. Gibson doesnt even give you a Vintage correct long neck Tenen on their expensive "standard" 50/60's les pauls.. ud think something thats called the "standard" would offer all the Authentic details a les paul is supposed to have. no surprise they lost the lawsuit when they cant even do basic logic on their guitars..
Guitar costs are generally in QC, finishing, and handcraft time. The cnc machines are all the same. If I were in charge, I'd hire an outside quality control group that does the checks like they do at Sweetwater, but before it goes out of the shop.
@@blueslawyer they do. It’s a Custom Shop model. It would be commercially naive in the extreme to put all of the same features onto a USA ‘production’ instrument.
Oh by the way, I have an fgn ls10 ag ( $2200) an eastman sb59 ($2200). I have tried at Leas 20 gibson lp standards in different shops. None came even close to either of these 2. At almost times the price
It's funny that Gibsons take so much heat over quality. I'm not familiar with them in the last 15 years but the 3 Les Pauls that I bought near year 2000 were excellent. No quality issues and no tuning issues. They were also light-years better than any of the Epiphone I've ever played. So many great guitarists have used them and shaped the musical landscape with them that it surprises me that dissing on them doesn't make much sense to me. They must have really fallen apart in the last decade or so
It's a mix of other brands providing players more choices, Gibson having known QC issues (original Murphy Lab paint), epic model failures (Firebird X, robot tuners), Gibson being bought by a hedge fund, and now this litigious strategy. That being said, other brands are struggling with QC as well... Check out Solar guitars, for example.
The Gibson headstock shape is a “cupid’s bow”. It’s common wood working design that is thousands of years old and used all over the world. They should never be allowed to copyright or patent that.
The argument is that the headstock shape is iconic and identifiable as their brand. That being said, I have a Firebird that has a completely different head and the Explorer has a completely different head as well. *shrug*
And these trademark lawsuits are not about how many cutaways there are on a design. Trademark law is much more nuanced than that. Gibson does not own, and no matter what anyone tries to say is not trying to claim it owns, the trademark to the single cutaway electric guitar. Gibson’s registered guitar shape trademarks (and they hold a number of such official trademark registrations in the USA) include a guitar outline image as part of the trademark registration precisely because the shape that is being trademarked is nuanced and small details matter with respect to breach, and indeed avoiding breach, of those trademarks.
PRS guitars are so much higher quality and better sounding guitars than Gibson made guitars. I have been a professional musician since 1967 and have owned Gibson guitars (as well as guitars made by most major guitar manufacturers) and began playing PRS guitars 10 years ago…they are my go-to guitars at least 75% of the time today. Gibson must sue every one of its competitors since their guitar’s quality and sound no longer is good enough to attract professional guitarists.
@@werewolflover8636 I have been a recording musician for 53 years. In the 60s through the 70s the vast majority of professional guitarists played Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker, and Gretsch guitars. But three three guitars most everyone brought to the studio was a Telecaster, a Stratocaster and.a Les Paul. Back the, all three of those guitars were well made and had “the sound” that producers were looking for. Starting in the 80s, with Metal becoming more popular other guitars, like those made by Dean, started to become popular with metal guitarists. Then, in the late 80s and 90s, both Fender and Gibson quality started to slide and new competitors, like PRS, arrived on the scene. PRS in particular started attracting “A” list professionals and they were bringing them into the studios with them. This is how their popularity started to grow quickly, one musician spreading the word to others in studios all over the US and other countries. Paul Smith was a great experimenter and listener, he welcomed feedback from everyone who offered it…and most importantly, took it into real consideration. That has led to the development of a line of instruments that are truly the best made and which have the best tone of any guitars available…including custom one of a kind luthier made guitars in my experience. I was late to the PRS game. I own a number of “vintage” guitars, including Les Pauls. While they are great guitars (as long as the get proper care and maintenance), I much prefer my PRS guitars. I am largely retired now (being over 70) and have started giving guitars to my grand kids (several of which are also gigging and recording musicians)…but my PRS guitars will be the last ones to go…once I’m dead! PRS guitars just have a quality feel, playability and tone that no other guitar has…in my opinion.
Gibson also sued Heritage guitars and basically lost. I’m friends with the lawyer that represented Heritage, and they settled that Heritage would stop putting the ring around the pickup selector, and one other small change to their guitars.
That's excellent. You should check out our Heritage Guitars video... with that in mind, would you be open to connecting us with your friend so we can do a follow-up video? blconfessional@gmail.com
PRS is so much better in every way !!! First off a PRS stays in tune ! More consistent, the curves are different and pickups are way better in quality ! Everyone makes a Gibson better than Gibson !!! And everyone makes a Fender better than Fender !!!🤣🤣 Especially Suhr and Anderson !
Pickups are subjective, but it's telling that Gibson is one of the few guitar companies who can sell their pickups as after market upgrades to other guitars. PRS doesn't sell theirs.
Yes. But Fender guitars have the Fender logo on their headstocks. Gibson guitars have the Gibson logo on their headstocks. Both Fender and Gibson represent over 70 years each of guitar manufacture. That still counts for a lot for many people. I love what PRS has done. But given the choice between a Gibson / Fender and PRS of similar standard, I would always prefer the Gibson or Fender instrument.
How can gibson claim the "les paul" body style when Gibson stole the design from Bigsby. Bigsby made that body style for Merle Travis a couple years before Gibson ever made a Les Paul.
Think the Smokey bar scenario hurts Gibson brand if the budding player can't find the design colors and layout in Gibson form and is confused bc they never realized it wasn't a Gibson offering to begin with. It's a prs. So the similarity breeds confusion when going to buy a look you liked that you thought you saw. It happens .
Either way it's a bizarre argument: see a PRS, buy a Gibson--Gibson gets a sale. See a Gibson, buy a PRS--person liked the Gibson on stage but after careful consideration and trying it out in the store, PRS was the better value to that buyer.
The smoky bar scenario is the epitome of a paper theory. On paper, it’s possible. In reality it’s highly improbable and is banking on the buyer - who’s set to spend $2500 + on a new guitar - to be completely ignorant of guitar brands partnering with either an ignorant salesperson in a guitar shop who also doesn’t know the difference between Gibson and PRS, or the ignorant person miraculously searching for “PRS Singlecut” rather then “Les Paul” for example. This is absurd in every way and why after 30 + years of playing Gibson Les Pauls I switched to PRS. I think Paul would actually be humbled by someone “copying” his designs rather than suing. Probably because he knows the quality of his work is what matters and what they’re trying to replicate. I’m pretty sure no one has ever tried to copy Gibson’s “quality of work “. Just saying.
Exactly. If someone ends up getting a Gibson instead of a PRS, Gibson gets the sale. If they end up buying the PRS, that means they went to the store and tried it and liked it better. It's possible someone takes a chance on a PRS SE online vs ordering a Gibson Studio or Special but then they have the whole internet to do research and make a decision... There's no brand confusion and the buyer is far removed from any smokey bar (which is banned in most states anyway)
Confusion wouldn't just be harm to the brand due to association with an inferior product, but also confusion that allows one to make money of off another's mark. That is dilution of the value of the mark as the owner's IP. No? Anyway, as a licensed attorney, the idea that shapes and colors are marks is stupid law, especially functional guys shapes, a patent for which would be long expired.
Artist guitars Australia reproduce PRS, Fender and Gibson clones with better quality control for 25% of the prices. There shouldn’t be valid any patents from 50 years ago.
They also cost what instruments made in expensive places like the USA cost to make, to cover USA business overheads and to make a reasonable profit. So many people who criticise Gibson prices are also the ones who refer to them going into bankruptcy protection just a few years ago - can’t really have it both ways… if they were struggling to make a profit back then (with broadly similar pricing as now taking inflation into account) then we need to accept that their pricing is in line with their production costs. Let’s recognise that you can’t make and sell US guitars for comparable prices to Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, or even Korean and Japanese guitars. It’s fine not to see value in US manufacture, but it’s not reasonable to expect US made guitars from the likes of Gibson, PRS and Fender (whose guitars are all very similarly priced when we consider similar spec instruments) to be priced at or close to the prices of guitars made in other parts of the world.
Gibson should do more to insure that they make their products to higher standards then other brands to justify the premium cost. They continue to be notorious for sub-par production practices and letting quite a few quality issues go out the door unchecked to the point where anybody in the know really wants to handle their products in person before a purchase. They focus way too much on getting rid of competition rather than making better products hell, some Epiphone products are made better than the Gibsons that they are copies of lol.
It would probably be a good move to add an outside Quality Assurance element that reviews what's been approved by internal QC. That way they get a feedback loop and the customers have the extra assurance of quality. Sweetwater does their own presale check, but that only goes so far.
It's kind of like MLB saying only Rawlings baseballs can be round, not Wilson, Dudley or any other brand is allowed to be round.......Question; Is the lawsuit because PRS (higher end) is made in the USA and not foreign made ??
It’s really nothing like that at all! 🤣🤣🤣 For a start an electric guitar doesn’t have to be the shape of a Les Paul to be functional. Small changes to the shape can protect one from trademark infringement (as this PRS case demonstrated) and the guitar is still just as valid as an instrument - small changes to the shape of a ball would destroy its function. But more fundamentally, Rawlings, Wilson, etc. did not invent the ball shape! They have no trademark rights in it as a result. Gibson invented and popularised the Les Paul body shape and as such they have a right in, or at least a claim to, the trademark to that design.
Gibson is like IBM, perhaps? Too big to compete but not too big for inovators to outperform? Will Apple make guitars next, I wonder. Right now, the electric guitar seems to be a growing cottage industry as people are buying and selling kits and hobbyists on the internets (and salespersons too) are giving set up tips to improve the playability of the cheaper model guitars. IMO, an accoustic guitar has a bigger effect on the tone of the music than an electric guitar which sounds like whatever the amplifier and/or foot pedals adjustments are, IMO. I believe that the cottage industries will grow and put some of the big guns back in their starting places, perhaps?
I play electric guitars since 1972. Gibson guitars gave me all I ever needed and cared for. Fenders too. I tried to like PRS for so many years-- to see what the hype is all about, birds and all.. but mostly the sound and feel of the guitar .. Sadly, all I found was that it was as exciting as my old ex was. Those PRS I´ve played never gave me the willies 🙃 Cold and uninspiring. Shitty pickups, but Korean quality.
@@blueslawyer and I have my semi-hollow SE, that I would put up against any Gibson I've ever played. Stock tuners, upgraded pots, and SD Pearly Gates pickups, and I can pull Gibson tones through both of my 5-6 watt tube amps. I bought ALL of my gear for the price of a new Les Paul (pedals, cables, all of it). I recently went to all the guitar stores around, specifically to see how nice the Gibby's are, and I came away extremely disappointed. Noteworthy is that each guitar store had a half dozen or more LP's, but not a one had a USA PRS. I asked the employees, and they replied that they can't keep PRS on the walls, they get sold as soon as they hit the sales floor. The same Gibsons are still there months later.
Gibsons are a classic design, pop culture, and legendary. They are super cool. But PRS takes guitar building much more seriously. PRS’s are much higher quality instruments as a whole.
I don’t find it fair that Gibson is doing this & aren’t focusing on their own quality of their own guitars. If they did that, they would be able to get more money instead of suing people for a 50/50 chance for a payday.
I wish they went back and released something closer to the Faded Special that they had in the early 00's. I have the SG and since there's no real finish to it, there's no finish QC issues. It was also like $500 new--which is nuts.
Hate for Gibson aside, the duplicate market was really bad in India, for over 20 years we've had a company called Givson, and new buyers have no idea how costly Gibson is, or generally guitars are What was funnier is there was a brand Hobner, and about a decade back we got a Hobmer, the story on the street being that the two brothers split and the other formed this brand It was only when I bought a Hofner 7 years back that I realised this was the original and Hobner was a duplicate all along And now we have a duplicate of a duplicate 😅
Nope. Tennessee is in the 6th Circuit, not the 5th Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit covers appeals from U.S. District Courts including the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Western District of Tennessee.
How many shapes can there be? It's an hourglass shape with one cutaway. As long as the dimensions aren't exactly the same, what can they do? Some of these law suits have been ridiculous. It's like GM taking Kia to court because their car has a hood, trunk, and four doors. It's pretty hard to beat a PRS 245. Especially the SE models for $700.
Gibson sueing other guitar companies is like Trash talking other racers and sayin you're gunna win by a mile, then you lose by two...Then calling foul, they cheated.
I have a Japanese Burny 335 that has the exact headstock as the Gibson, complete with the open book design. I could be incorrect, but I haven’t heard of Gibson suing Bruney\Fernandez……yet! 😂
Prs should've sued when gibson put out those double cutaway Paul's. Those things are weird looking . What's the truth behind the gibson v matsumoko or Martin v Takamine in the 80s ? I have a "lawsuit" 85 Takamine g330 and it's pretty much identical to a d 18 , my favorite guitar I own . I like it better than my d 18 . I always thought it was ridiculous that a American company could sue a Japanese company but I never knew.
@@blueslawyer do you know anything about those Martin v Takamine lawsuits or the gibson v aria ones? I know there was a judgements on takemine because they were using the same type face font on the headstock as c.f. Martin.
How dumb is the guy going to be at the bar you can tell from a mile away by the headstock o yeah I’m just going to spend 3 to 4 k on a guitar I can barely see smh lol
Do smoky bars still exist? Where I live bars have been smoke-free for nearly two decades which has meant my asthmatic wife can come see me play and my guitar doesn't smell like an ashtray after a show.
I prefer an ESP, a Charvel, or a Jackson; all with a Floyd Rose over anything Gibson or PRS makes. Play what you love most, opinions mean nothing when it comes to anything related to music, photography, intimate relationships, motorcycles, or anything else!
The easiest way to tell a PRS from a Gibson is that the PRS stays in tune.
Rimshot.
You know WHY this isnt true ? If one actually plays a Gibson (and not just stares at it.. there are other brands for that 😅), there are no tuning issues. The nut is the problem - the strings angle, so either you wear it out by playing - bending, tuning etc.. or you help it with some graphite/pencil dust.. 🙃
Btw - it is like with Bigsby´s.. the more you use it, the better it stays in tune... just doesnt like idling, needs some workout to wear it in, to work properly
@@tomasvanecek8626 a PRS stays in tune out of the box, so…
@@jamescbender43081 Sure enough - smarter strings angle at the nut, and of the headstock too.. but what is it good for, when the guitar just never sounds like an LP - which it tried so hard to emulate ? The scale is a cross between a Gibson and Fender... a catch-all attempt that didnt work that great... The devil is in the detail...
But most importantly for me - I´ve tried for many years to like PRS.. but even the fanciest ones left me cold.. the guitar is a very personal thing... you touch it to make sounds... I do not feel it with PRS, even if stays in tune from the box..so 🙃
I dont need cold perfection when the vibe is not there. See, it is the same as Collings vs Martin... which one do you think I prefer ?
I'm sure there are some nice Gibsons out there but most are overpriced duds, PRS did it better. Sour Grapes
Gibson was pissed because the PRS was a superior guitar in every detail.
The attention to detail and QC at PRS is unmatched--but you pay for that in an extra $1k for a Core Standard vs a Gibson Standard.
@@blueslawyer I was just having a bit of a laugh at you're expense. I've been a Luthier since 1978 and Gibson certified since 1985, so I've seen it all when it comes to Gibson, good and bad. Gibson is in a good place right now. Gibson had every reason to sue over the Singlecut. Gibson should have sued Dean and Hamer a long time ago. Two companies that took advantage of Gibson a long time ago.
Again, I think that Gibson is firing on all 8 cylinders right now. I really like what they are doing at Epiphone. You can get a good Gibson (Epiphone) for under $1k with good electronics and fretwork.
Matt and I love our Gibson guitars. Epiphone has more leeway to be "adventurous" and try new things and Gibson is a bit hamstrung by "tradition" and "purists"... they haven't done themselves a lot of favors, but the guitars are still works of art and sound fantastic.
Les Pauls are great until you need to play anything besides a single note bend or some simple dad blues licks above the 17th fret
Dad blues is the basis of this youtube channel...
LOL. As if Gibson needs any help damaging their brand. Their pricing and QC are handling that better than any third party could hope to do.
Like if someone buys a Gibson thinking it was a PRS that they saw, Gibson makes money. If someone buys a PRS instead and thinks it's a Gibson... Is that bad or does that make them look better?
@@blueslawyer I actually posted my comment before you covered Gibson's absurd "smoky bar scenario". I agree entirely with the reasoning to strike that nonsense down by the judge. PRS being viewed as a high-quality brand does nothing to injure Gibson's presumed premium standing, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. You covered this nicely in the video. PRS is seen as somewhat of a boutique brand in some respects. I imagine that there is significant buyer crossover between the two brands based on their pricing and offerings, so I can only assume Gibson's attorneys were hoping for some level of ignorance on the judge's part about the respective companies relative impression amongst the guitar buying public?
My original snark is more a suggestion that Gibson's problems don't stem from PRS or any other guitar maker that uses the classic LP design, their issues stem from ridiculous pricing, poor quality and features for that pricing, and marketing to a diminishing demographic, namely Gen X and Boomers. This lawsuit, and others like it, are futile attempt to lash out at external entities, while refusing to look inward at the true inadequacies of their business. Gibson is, through very much fault of their own practices, seen as an old man brand (as a Gen X'er I hate to lump myself in there, but if the shoe fits...) resulting in an ever-shrinking customer base.
As I understand it, companies must be vigilant in protecting their copyrights or trademarks against imposters, but specious arguments such as the smoky bar are pretty weak fare. Such is the life of a corporate attorney when forced to fight such cases, I guess.
I am NOT an attorney, so I could be speaking from a hell of a lot of ignorance here. :D Not the first time, certainly won't be the last.
Pricing perhaps...but as far as QC...you clearly haven't perused the CS or Murphy instruments as of late.
@@blueslawyer The control meme idiots bring up again and again was years ago, Gipson today isn’t today what it was years ago! If you actually owned one instead of a Made in China rip-off you’d know this!
That’s why Gibson are out of business now. No, wait…
Here's a note for Gibson. There aren't any smoky bars anymore. In the 9 state I've played and lived in this country the bars, pubs, nightclubs or lounges smoking isn't allowed anymore. You have to smoke outside or in another designated area for it. It just goes to show that Gibson executives are so out of touch with the people they don't know what it's like in a music venue.
I'm so happy about the fact smoking is gone from bars and venues. All my gear smells so much better when I get home.
No so fast. We still have bars in Georgia that allow smoking.
There may certainly be smoky bars at different places in the world, here in Sweden smoking in bars and restaurants is not allowed anymore since quite a long time fortunately and the same for many other places like workplaces for example. When i started working in the 80´s you could have someone sitting smoking at the desk next to yours when working.
Smoking in bars is totally still a thing in many red states.
@@chuckmckillip5377 that's unbelievable in 2022 that cigarettes are still a thing.
You did a great job breaking down the issues here. Estoppel will almost certainly be used by Dean Guitars in their appeal against Gibson. You're probably right that Dean will cease to use the name "Hummungbird", but the V, Z, and Gran Sport body shapes will most likely return to Dean in the appeal. Gibson is a company that I want to like: they did make legendary guitars, they have been on a multitude of recordings, and they do have an incredible tone. The Les Paul Standard wasn't called 'the standard' for nothing. But as so many have observed before, their pricing is outrageously expensive and the quality of their guitars have had a checkered past. I don't see much hope in seeing their prices go down-they see themselves as a top-tier guitar manufacturer and their brand is for 'real' players who appreciate the difference between a Gibson and any other brand ( kinda like Mercedes Benz-no one would buy a cheap Mercedes). You would have thought that Gibson, facing competition from Dean and PRS, would be looking to improve their QC and perhaps introduce some innovations that would justify a claim that their products are better and thus justified in being more expensive, but maybe Gibson can't push it any further forward without adulterating other attributes their guitars possess. It might be that Gibson has trapped itself-painting itself into a corner where they rely on vintage body shapes that just can't be improved upon in any meaningful way. One thing I wish Gibson would do is bring back the Les Paul doublecuts. They do make one now, but this is actually an opportunity for them to make a quality guitar at a lower price more available to younger [layers and those who don't possess the means to spend $2,500 on a LP Standard.
I agree, the thing with the pricing is tough though, a 1950's Stratocaster cost $2,000 in today's money for instance. I don't think it's possible to build a great guitar for much less, the cheaper guitars have cheap electronics and low grade hardware that I dislike so to get a guitar that has high quality parts it cost a good buck. That said, I like Squier guitars for what they are. I do like my 2019 Les Paul Special a whole lot too!
The headstock on Dean is way different . easy to tell who is what.
I have always wanted to buy a LP but i love my PRS...
I think its so crazy that Gibson just wants to overcharge and freaking sue everyone over everything...
Great video explaining just how ridiculous Gibson’s lawsuits are becoming. These lawsuits and their boy Mark have done more harm to their reputation than anything else.
Greasy Agnesi any1?
what's wrong with trying to protect their designs. how these other companies innovate
@@herewegoagain7403 A bit much after NOT doing so for 60 odd years! Horse well & truly bolted!
Why the hate on Mark ???
@@michaelgranka7904 He's a Gibson stooge!
Gibson seems to sue American companies who produce guitars based on their designs, who have better quality instruments. This has been my personal experience and seems to be the consensus of folks who demand high quality.
They’re not “better” that’s completely your opinion and nothing more!
Don't see them suing Thomann anytime soon, and neither do I see HB stopping to reimagine any good guitar design that they can find. And the guitar world is better that way.
@@werewolflover8636 prs > Gibson
@@solacedagony1234 if you like sticky polyester finishes and plinky sounding pups
@@solacedagony1234 that's your opinion. I personally find Gibson far better than the sterile PRS. That's my opinion. Unlike you, I know it's simply a subjective position.
The ridiculous part of that lawsuit is that there are many other guitar makes that blatantly copy the Les Paul and they didn't get sued. Paul Reed Smith basically took what he liked from the Les Paul and incorporated it into the design and basically paid tribute to Gibson. I think it was just sour grapes on Gibsons part.
no, he copied the design of the guitar. thats called infringment.
People are not going to go and buy a prs thinking it's a gibson, they're going to buy a prs because it's a superior guitar !
Exactly... you get inspired to get a guitar and you either go to a store to try them out and see what speaks to you or you order online. In both cases, you select with a lot of available information.
I have a "Lawsuit" Fernandes Revival, a Strat copy. It was £360 retail in 1985, but half price as the shop was closing. It plays well.
Fernandes is good stuff. I greatly enjoy my Native (tele)
@@blueslawyer I have another Fernandes which takes a 9 volt battery to help it sustain. I think they have a basic good build quality which makes them good to play. I picked up the sustainer at a very low price new at Guitar Guitar in Edinburgh (Scotland), maybe 12 or 15 years so.. I think it was £120 or so (new), down from maybe £300 (?)..
It's been in its case for ages, you have inspired me to get it out and stick a new battery in!
I just got it out of its case. It us an FG05 (2005 i think) in red wood with locking tuners. It has great acoustic resonance and was still in tune after several years! It does feel good for the price.
When i try to explain these gibson suits to people i tell them to look at how different brands of trucks look so close
That's a great point. On some level, all trucks have doors, beds, wheels, etc... but if you copy every design detail to make it nearly indistinguishable--what are you doing? I remember for a long time, every Hyundai looked like last year's Honda.
Could you imagine if Martin trademarked dreadnaughts, this is pretty much what the Les Paul is
Yup... There are like 4 acoustic shapes
I have a 1978 Takamine 12 string that is identical to a Martin. In fact, Takamine was sued for it. Even the Takamine name on the headstock used the same font as Martin.
I love my Takamine... my EN10C is fantastic.
Gibson needs to pay more attention to the quality control and the products that they produce and stop suing people at the drop of a hat. They are offering less and less value for the price that they are demanding. You can usually get a much superior instrument for the exact same price as one of theirs if you go with another company. The Les Paul guitar produced by Eastman comes to mind.
Eastman guitars are nice! Also, you get similar history and nostalgia with the Heritage brand.
That was years ago kid! Stop bringing up crap just because you heard someone else say it!
@@werewolflover8636 keep up with the times. This is still relevant.
@@philomelodia no it's not. Gibson quality has made leaps and bounds since JC took over in 2019 and their sales are soaring. It's literally you who is behind.
I am sure Gibson's legal team and their manufacturing teams are able to laser focus on their unique objectives, anyone who makes comments like this, that focus on legal concerns is distracting from manufacturing comes across as anti-gibson, probably cause they cant afford one or two.
Dean should just call their “V” an “A” shaped guitar
The "reverse A"...
The Fuckin' A!
Thanks for this informative video. As an owner of two Les Paul Standards and a PRS Singlecut, I will pay the extra for PRS. I still love my Les Pauls, but I will probably not buy another Gibson.
Thanks Jimmy!
Gibson should only have a trademark on the headstock. The single cut body is roughly the equivalent of the Florentine cutaway which has been used way before Gibson existed.
Venetian. Florentine is pointy, Venetian is rounded. PRS in fact has the Florentine and since that difference is something rhat goes back a couple hundred years in guitar design I'd say they have a pretty strong defense.
Justifying their plagiarism of Gibson's more specific calling cards, mahogany and maple, set necks, chambered reliefs, LP electronic suites ect...
...that might be a harder ask.
@@dickstryker Well Gibson is in for a fight they won't win... A lot of guitar makers are using the combo of mahogany and maple cap. I don't think that Gibson players are converting to PRS because of similarities but mainly due to better built quality and attention to detail.
Things that crack me up about this: Gibson should take the money they are paying their lawyers and improve quality to try to catch up with PRS. Also, how many epiphone copies of fender guitars are out there. Thse days, Gibson is more of a lifestyle brand, like harley. Crap quality and high prices don't work out real well in the long term.
Even Blind Lemon Chitlin could tell the difference between a PRS and a Gibson just by touching the headstock. I think the bean counters at Gibson are just jealous that PRS was created on a shoestring by one young man's vision and was brought to market and proved to be a superior guitar. Do I like Gibsons...yes and I like PRS as well (especially the DGT model) but they've priced themselves out of reach for most of players.
Gipson has every single right to do whatever it wishes to protect its company and at the very least I know when I buy a Gipson it would be made in the USA and not cheaply mass produced overseas! Unlike most of the those leaving comments here I actually care about keeping American made guitars in America that provide jobs for Americans!
Yup as an American manufacturing worker I like that idea to. That said if I make a product to compete in the high-end market and it has multiple QC issues then I deserve to loss the job to another company that can do it better for the same price. It wouldn't be my customers fault for sourcing through somebody else. It would be mine for giving them a reason to. Gibson lost my respect by making a product not worthy of my respect. When your guitars quality looks like what you'd expect on a $500 guitar and you ask 2500- 4000 for it. Yup you lost a purchase from me.
@Werewolf Lover - Who is this "Gipson" company you speak of? I need to check them out. Maybe you could sell me one of your awesome "Gipsons"?
Thank you so much for this video. As a lawyer who loves to play guitars, I greatly appreciate the way you explained this lawsuit. Great job!
Thank you! Comments like this make our efforts feel worthwhile. What's your favorite guitar?
@@blueslawyer I have some PRS Guitars of my own, the Santana signature model and the Custom 24 are my favorites. I was in college when the lawsuit came about. I could never understand why Gibson targeted PRS at the time but the decision by the appellate court was really insightful. Is it true that the parties came to a settlement which is why that case never got appealed further?
no guitar player will confuse gibson, prs
Exactly... even if you were a guitar noob, you could easily see the name on the headstock.
@@blueslawyer the single cut shape is just the most basic most functional shape.
Exactly. Is like cars and trucks can really only look a certain number of ways
Thanks for the discussion and make us understand the decision by the judge.
Good competition is always a great motivator
It might be wiser for them to use that motivation to improve the product and/or reputation than to drag everyone into a lawsuit, no? I can hear G Harrison singing.
I think the smoky bar scenario should go like this. The guy at the bar was playing a Gibson. The audience viewer went to the music store and bought a PRS because it was the same shape roughly. The PRS turned out to be crap and gave Gibson a bad name.
Sounds about right--with the exception of Gibson acknowledging that PRS produces fine instruments. In all honesty, different guitars speak to different people. Generally, if you go to a guitar store to get a singlecut and go home with a Gibson, PRS, Heritage, Knaggs, Collings, etc that makes you happy and you are OK with the price then that's the guitar for you.
That’s a good point. The whole argument is absurd as you said.
How did Gibson trademark the shape of Les Paul in 1988 when they have been making them since 1952? It there no statue of limitations on applying to a trademark? Can the estate of Antonio de Torres Jurado get a trademark on the modern classical guitar from the 1850's?
We'll have to dig into the world of classic designs and the implications. Thanks for the comments!
The Dean case is different from the PRS case. The PRS single cut shape ISN'T a Les Paul silhouette. It's quite different. The Dean V, however, is EXTREMELY similar to the Gibson. It's not a one to one comparison, but it is close enough to make confusion.
That PRS looks identical to the les paul at first glance. thats what counts.
As for the Smoky Bar thing, you don't make bad arguments if you have good arguments. It has "sue them into bankruptcy" written all over it, I'd guess as these petty lawsuits pile up more judges will roll their eyes and say "This again, really?"
Smokey bars? More like I'm so drunk I can't tell what guitar they're playing!
Only guitar players care what guitar the guitar player is playing. I'm the weirdo who goes to the stage to critique their pedalboard.
PRS makes a much better Les Paul type guitar, the McCarty 594. Love them. Best guitar I've ever owned.
Thank you for explaining all this. I've got a question concerning the headstock shape: How come Tokai has been using the open-book-shape for decades without being sued by Gibson? Or have they?
To the best of my research, Tokai stopped using the headstock design as well as the LP shape.
Gibsons design with TED Mccarty's name on the patent of that guitar.
The LP body shape patent does not have Gibson's name on it anywhere
it feels like the more valid iteration of the "smoky bar scenario" would be if said blues guitarist was actually playing a Gibson but the budding guitarist picks up a PRS single cut thinking it was the guitar being played - that said, the logic for the ruling following the scenario i dont think would change either way
In that case, the brand of Gibson isn't being diminished--the guitar shopper bought a PRS thinking it's a Gibson and purchased a very fine instrument. If they ignored the PRS logo on the head, they'd continue their lives thinking that the Gibsons were finely crafted instruments. Alternatively, if they had the chance to play both guitars at the store, reviewed the pros and cons and made the decision that the PRS best fit their playing and was in their desired price range, the shopper was not tricked into purchasing a guitar. They selected a preferred instrument. In neither scenario is Gibson truly harmed.
@@blueslawyer They would have to argue that PRS quality is in fact lesser than that of Gibson for this to work that way. Which they shot themselves in the foot by proclaiming that PRS produced "high quality" guitars. Honestly speaking though, I do feel for Gibson, and in a similar way, Fender as well. I've never seen an industry with such rampant design copying and having the buyers think that is totally normal. How many T-style guitars are there from various brands? And Les Paul style guitars? Just because you put the switches in a slightly different place doesn't mean the design isn't being blatantly copied. Having to look at the headstock to differentiate what brand it is is actually kind of ridiculous. Imagine if you had to do this with cars, two identical cars but you had to look at the logo to tell whats what. It doesn't exist in other industries to the extent that it does in the guitar world. Even though you see similar looking cars, you dont see dimension by dimension, fold by fold, crease by crease identical models across brands unless theres a branding agreement.
I agree. The real damage is Gibson losing a sale because the buyer doesn’t know better. I’m sure Gibson isn’t at all worried about accidentally selling guitars to people
What's funny is that around 1999-2000, when I could afford a Les Paul, I tried and tried to buy one, but the QC was so miserable - back then - I couldn't find one, under around $4k, that was worth a darn. So ultimately I ended up buying both a new 2000 Singlecut (10-top) and a new Triple Soapbar (also a 10-top). I was absolutely disgusted with Gibson. In '08, I added another Core Singlecut, but it was a 245.
Fast forward to 2019 and the new Gibson leadership, I heard that "Gibson is back!" As much as I loved the PRSi, I still hadn't achieved that Les Paul tone, so I gambled and ordered a new Standard 6/19. Whew! Talk about scratching the itch. I love my burst Standard and haven't had to do anything more than change the strings on it.
I still have my 2000 Singlecut (wife loves the quilt top), but I now reach for my Gibsons nowadays and they deliver in spades.
Now Gibson, don't go and screw up again!
Love my Gibson’s and my PRS guitars.
The one solution no one talks about is everyone should buy both guitars.
Ive heard so many stories of Gibson suing too many companies.
I love these videos, you explain everything very simply enough to at least get a grasp of what is being said, without the fluff of a fancy suit or over-the-top-I-know-more-about-this-than-you-do tone, you earned a sub, well done!
Thank you! That means a lot. We look forward to earning your views and comments going forward!
did you say Circus or Circuit?
Nice one
The video states that Nashville is in the Fifth Circuit. That is incorrect. Gibson sued PRS in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville. The district court ruled in favor of Gibson. PRS appealed to the SIXTH Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court´s decision.
Matt may have read that wrong and I missed it in the edit. We'll double check and if you're right, you'll get a shout out in the follow-up video!
@@blueslawyer The Sixth Circuit opinion is reported at 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005). The district court opinion is at 311 F. Supp.2d 690 (M.D. Tenn. 2004).
I thought this whole single cut thing was settled over 10 years ago. How different is this one vs the previous lawsuit?
This is an explanation of that ruling. When we did this video, it was right at the first Dean ruling and there were a lot of questions on the ownership of body shapes.
I have both. The PRS may look like a les Paul but it feels and sounds nothing like one. I’m a huge fan of both. No way you confuse the two. I’m actually wanting a Heritage now.
I kind of get where Gibson is coming from, if I were a company who designed a product that became very very culturally significant, I would want to make sure no one would be able to take my design and make money off it. Just the fact the phrase "Les Paul copy" exists, means that Gibson's history of the guitar has a lot of positive feelings for a lot of players
The Les Paul 2D Shape is basically the shape of most acoustic Guitars.
There is an issue about the shape (and branding).
It was designed by Les Paul (real name Lester Polsfuss) and, in fact, for quite a while, The Gibson guitar and mandolin company refused to actually brand them as Gibson.
@@victorblakey4260 I thought I heard some controversy as to whether Les Paul actually participated in the design process.
@@victorblakey4260 I think you’re butchering history quite significantly there.
The Les Paul model was always made by Gibson. There was never a time when they refused to put their brand name on that design. I believe you’re thinking about the “Log” style guitars that Les Paul cobbled together and brought to Gibson in the 1940s as technology demonstrators for solid body electric guitars encouraging them to make something like that but was sent away. Those guitars had almost nothing in common with the design of the Les Paul models that came out in the fifties and were always Gibson branded instruments.
There is a bit more debate over how much Les Paul himself was involved in the design of the Les Paul model guitars, but even Les didn’t claim he brought that design to Gibson, only that he designed it with them. Gibson’s legendary President at the time, Ted McCarty told that the Les Paul model design was complete before they took it to Les Paul to approve as his signature model, and that the only real design input that Les had into the model was the finish options (Goldtop for the ‘standard’ model and ebony with gold hardware for the Custom).
Look at how many car shapes are really similar to each other from different manufacturers
Gibson's brand value is in the quality of the guitar that they sell to to consumer.
If they are so worried about up and coming competition, instead of wasting money
on lawyers how about putting the money into R&D and keep improving to keep the
quality gap and in turn keep the "top spot".
Most consumers of high end guitars like Gibson's are buying for the tone 1st and looks 2nd.
Kids in smoky bars wanting to learn generally get a Squier, Ibanez, Jackson.
A Gibson Custom would never step foot in a smoky bar for fear of losing resell value
my take is this: if PRS wants to be its own brand then make your own guitar. instead they make their own and make strats and les pauls. i like both and own both. but i own a McCarty guitar, their guitar, not their copies of fender and gibson.
This is so confusing. Think about Tokai, Patrick Eggle Macon, Heritage Standard, Gil Yaron Bone, Frank Hartung, Maybach, etc etc. These are guitars that look EXACTLY like a Les Paul. Why isn't Gibson concerned with those manufacturers? The PRS Single Cut has many differences.
Check out our Heritage video :)
Strange that Gibson can own the trademark to a shape that was in use before the Les Paul existed.
Ah you watched the JHS video about the Bigsby Travis?
@@blueslawyer Hah! Maaaybe.
@@TOBORtheMighty most excellent. We have some research to do with some details that will hopefully clear some things up.
You missed a very important fact here. Gibson is under new ownership and the new owners can attempt to assert control over their designs and trademarks. They have a small window to do so before they fall victim to what cost Gibson previous suits because they didn't vigorously defend them in the past.
I swear Matt noted in one of the videos the hedge fund that owns Gibson.
Can you blame PRS for making better SC guitars then Gibson?
even Epiphone seem to make better SC's. these days, like the limited 59 was a killer even the standard 50's they got is great and the newer prophecys which is hilarious when you consider Gibsons owns Epiphone. i think its time Gibson looks more at themselves and their pricing, and the fact you dont get a vintage correct long neck tenen in a Tribute/Studio and the pretty expensive standard 50's/60's but you do in the Epiphones AND PRS SE 245/Mccarthy's is just ridicilous
Those Prophecy guitars are just sweet
Competition brings out the best in everyone, right?
I don't get why people bring up the price of the Gibson guitar as a justification for invalidating Trademarks. It's like saying that I can't afford a Mercedes Benz so I will build my own copy and sell it as an MB copy. How do you think MB would react, or Ford or GM or anyone else. Fender is in exactly the same dilemma as Gibson since there are so many knock offs of Strat and Tele guitar shapes. The mistake that these awesome brands did was to allow others to copy and did not take vigorous action right at the start.
i mean.. Gibson doesnt even give you a Vintage correct long neck Tenen on their expensive "standard" 50/60's les pauls.. ud think something thats called the "standard" would offer all the Authentic details a les paul is supposed to have. no surprise they lost the lawsuit when they cant even do basic logic on their guitars..
It would be neat if they offered a "vintage exact" model that was built exactly like they did in 1959.
@@blueslawyer yea but if they do that its probably going to cost 4-5k because reasons i guess
Guitar costs are generally in QC, finishing, and handcraft time. The cnc machines are all the same. If I were in charge, I'd hire an outside quality control group that does the checks like they do at Sweetwater, but before it goes out of the shop.
@@blueslawyer they do. It’s a Custom Shop model. It would be commercially naive in the extreme to put all of the same features onto a USA ‘production’ instrument.
So what is the percentage before you cross the line in building a product?
A reasonable jury would suggest body shapes are ok but head stocks and logos/names are a no go.
@@blueslawyer how did Gibson win their lawsuit against Dean when Dean has a different headstock? BTW I'm not from USA So the laws will different here
@@jecos1966 we have a couple videos about the Dean case with a new one coming. There's some inconsistency with the rulings.
@@blueslawyer So has Dean made an appeal?
Oh by the way, I have an fgn ls10 ag ( $2200) an eastman sb59 ($2200). I have tried at Leas 20 gibson lp standards in different shops. None came even close to either of these 2. At almost times the price
Officially selling my Les Paul and buying a PRS
What year and how much?
It's funny that Gibsons take so much heat over quality. I'm not familiar with them in the last 15 years but the 3 Les Pauls that I bought near year 2000 were excellent. No quality issues and no tuning issues. They were also light-years better than any of the Epiphone I've ever played. So many great guitarists have used them and shaped the musical landscape with them that it surprises me that dissing on them doesn't make much sense to me. They must have really fallen apart in the last decade or so
It's a mix of other brands providing players more choices, Gibson having known QC issues (original Murphy Lab paint), epic model failures (Firebird X, robot tuners), Gibson being bought by a hedge fund, and now this litigious strategy. That being said, other brands are struggling with QC as well... Check out Solar guitars, for example.
The Gibson headstock shape is a “cupid’s bow”. It’s common wood working design that is thousands of years old and used all over the world. They should never be allowed to copyright or patent that.
The argument is that the headstock shape is iconic and identifiable as their brand. That being said, I have a Firebird that has a completely different head and the Explorer has a completely different head as well. *shrug*
I used to love Gibson. Now I wish they'd go out of business. I've been playing 35 years. Never heard anybody confuse POS PRS and greedy Gib$on.
So a Gretsch Jr Jet and say EVH or Music Man Axis... or even a Taylor (2 D shape right?)
Are what?
Presumably because Ernie Ball and Fender are too big to bully.
Anyone spending $800-6000 for a guitar knows what they are buying. Gibson wasn’t the first to use a cutaway or double cutaway.
Unless it's online :p
And these trademark lawsuits are not about how many cutaways there are on a design. Trademark law is much more nuanced than that. Gibson does not own, and no matter what anyone tries to say is not trying to claim it owns, the trademark to the single cutaway electric guitar. Gibson’s registered guitar shape trademarks (and they hold a number of such official trademark registrations in the USA) include a guitar outline image as part of the trademark registration precisely because the shape that is being trademarked is nuanced and small details matter with respect to breach, and indeed avoiding breach, of those trademarks.
You say no one uses of messes with the open book headstock. What about current tokai les Paul's which are an identical Gibson copy?
I don't see any new Love Rock models on their website, but maybe we're wrong.
@@blueslawyer I see that now also. Thanks.
@@tumadsvids Tokai has some nice stuff though... have you played their LP copy?
@@blueslawyer yes I owned 2 until I switched to PRS
@@blueslawyer They've never shown Les Paul, SG, ES, Explorer or Flying V on a website but they still make them.
I have a PRS single cut and a Les Paul. I gave the Les Paul to my son and kept the PRS. Guess why?
Because you love your son very much?
Shit....I bought this single cut guitar and it stays in tune.....must not be a Gibson.....I got tricked.....damn you PRS!
Take it back to your tech and hopefully they can snap the headstock for you so you can get the authentic experience
PRS guitars are so much higher quality and better sounding guitars than Gibson made guitars. I have been a professional musician since 1967 and have owned Gibson guitars (as well as guitars made by most major guitar manufacturers) and began playing PRS guitars 10 years ago…they are my go-to guitars at least 75% of the time today. Gibson must sue every one of its competitors since their guitar’s quality and sound no longer is good enough to attract professional guitarists.
You can't beat Maryland quality
LOL sure!
@@werewolflover8636 I have been a recording musician for 53 years. In the 60s through the 70s the vast majority of professional guitarists played Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker, and Gretsch guitars. But three three guitars most everyone brought to the studio was a Telecaster, a Stratocaster and.a Les Paul. Back the, all three of those guitars were well made and had “the sound” that producers were looking for. Starting in the 80s, with Metal becoming more popular other guitars, like those made by Dean, started to become popular with metal guitarists. Then, in the late 80s and 90s, both Fender and Gibson quality started to slide and new competitors, like PRS, arrived on the scene. PRS in particular started attracting “A” list professionals and they were bringing them into the studios with them. This is how their popularity started to grow quickly, one musician spreading the word to others in studios all over the US and other countries. Paul Smith was a great experimenter and listener, he welcomed feedback from everyone who offered it…and most importantly, took it into real consideration. That has led to the development of a line of instruments that are truly the best made and which have the best tone of any guitars available…including custom one of a kind luthier made guitars in my experience. I was late to the PRS game. I own a number of “vintage” guitars, including Les Pauls. While they are great guitars (as long as the get proper care and maintenance), I much prefer my PRS guitars. I am largely retired now (being over 70) and have started giving guitars to my grand kids (several of which are also gigging and recording musicians)…but my PRS guitars will be the last ones to go…once I’m dead! PRS guitars just have a quality feel, playability and tone that no other guitar has…in my opinion.
Gibson also sued Heritage guitars and basically lost. I’m friends with the lawyer that represented Heritage, and they settled that Heritage would stop putting the ring around the pickup selector, and one other small change to their guitars.
That's excellent. You should check out our Heritage Guitars video... with that in mind, would you be open to connecting us with your friend so we can do a follow-up video? blconfessional@gmail.com
PRS is so much better in every way !!! First off a PRS stays in tune ! More consistent, the curves are different and pickups are way better in quality ! Everyone makes a Gibson better than Gibson !!!
And everyone makes a Fender better than Fender !!!🤣🤣
Especially Suhr and Anderson !
Pickups are subjective, but it's telling that Gibson is one of the few guitar companies who can sell their pickups as after market upgrades to other guitars. PRS doesn't sell theirs.
Yes. But Fender guitars have the Fender logo on their headstocks. Gibson guitars have the Gibson logo on their headstocks. Both Fender and Gibson represent over 70 years each of guitar manufacture. That still counts for a lot for many people. I love what PRS has done. But given the choice between a Gibson / Fender and PRS of similar standard, I would always prefer the Gibson or Fender instrument.
Bruh even their off brand Epiphone does Gibson better than Gibson
Vee is a silly design... well, yeah, sure, of course. But which woould you rather lean against a wall or an amp: Vee or Explorer?
Triangle is the strongest shape.
How can gibson claim the "les paul" body style when Gibson stole the design from Bigsby. Bigsby made that body style for Merle Travis a couple years before Gibson ever made a Les Paul.
Don't forget OW Appleton!
I think they called it the "smokey-bar theory of confusion"!
I'm pretty happy that I don't ruin my gear and lungs as much now that you can't have smoking inside venues
@@blueslawyer Amen! Every Guitar I gigged with that had white binding is now a yellowish brown.....and I do smoke just not around my instruments!
Think the Smokey bar scenario hurts Gibson brand if the budding player can't find the design colors and layout in Gibson form and is confused bc they never realized it wasn't a Gibson offering to begin with. It's a prs. So the similarity breeds confusion when going to buy a look you liked that you thought you saw. It happens .
I don't know if the lawyer made the smoky bar argument backwards, shouldn't it have been that someone buys a PRS after listening to a Gibson
Either way it's a bizarre argument: see a PRS, buy a Gibson--Gibson gets a sale. See a Gibson, buy a PRS--person liked the Gibson on stage but after careful consideration and trying it out in the store, PRS was the better value to that buyer.
@@blueslawyer ya get your point but not everyone is aware, as mentioned in my other comment, often people, especially newbs, will buy on brand/look
Did somebody forget to tell BC Rich that there are are only so many body shapes? Seems like they offered 20+ over the years.
It's (PRS) a way better built guitar then Gibson's LP and their body's are nothing like each other!
The smoky bar scenario is the epitome of a paper theory. On paper, it’s possible. In reality it’s highly improbable and is banking on the buyer - who’s set to spend $2500 + on a new guitar - to be completely ignorant of guitar brands partnering with either an ignorant salesperson in a guitar shop who also doesn’t know the difference between Gibson and PRS, or the ignorant person miraculously searching for “PRS Singlecut” rather then “Les Paul” for example.
This is absurd in every way and why after 30 + years of playing Gibson Les Pauls I switched to PRS. I think Paul would actually be humbled by someone “copying” his designs rather than suing. Probably because he knows the quality of his work is what matters and what they’re trying to replicate.
I’m pretty sure no one has ever tried to copy Gibson’s “quality of work “. Just saying.
Exactly. If someone ends up getting a Gibson instead of a PRS, Gibson gets the sale. If they end up buying the PRS, that means they went to the store and tried it and liked it better. It's possible someone takes a chance on a PRS SE online vs ordering a Gibson Studio or Special but then they have the whole internet to do research and make a decision... There's no brand confusion and the buyer is far removed from any smokey bar (which is banned in most states anyway)
@@blueslawyer 100% agreed. I just found the channel this morning and subbed. Good stuff.
@@jasonlewis5350 thank you for your support!
Confusion wouldn't just be harm to the brand due to association with an inferior product, but also confusion that allows one to make money of off another's mark. That is dilution of the value of the mark as the owner's IP. No?
Anyway, as a licensed attorney, the idea that shapes and colors are marks is stupid law, especially functional guys shapes, a patent for which would be long expired.
Great points! The law is stupid sometimes. We will discuss your notes in an upcoming Viewers Comments video.
@@blueslawyer I can't wait to watch it.
Smokey bar? Damn
Seems like a fair ruling. Perhaps Gibson can get back to focusing on quality/affordability.
As a jazzmaster player I am amused by gibson the creator of the firebird shouting copycat
Ah we should do a whole Firebird vs Jazzmaster video.
Artist guitars Australia reproduce PRS, Fender and Gibson clones with better quality control for 25% of the prices. There shouldn’t be valid any patents from 50 years ago.
I have a hard time believing the Artist Cimmerian is of comparable quality at $175, but maybe I'm a snob.
Most important thing is, Both companies are ridiculously Overpriced!
They cost what people are willing to pay...
They also cost what instruments made in expensive places like the USA cost to make, to cover USA business overheads and to make a reasonable profit. So many people who criticise Gibson prices are also the ones who refer to them going into bankruptcy protection just a few years ago - can’t really have it both ways… if they were struggling to make a profit back then (with broadly similar pricing as now taking inflation into account) then we need to accept that their pricing is in line with their production costs. Let’s recognise that you can’t make and sell US guitars for comparable prices to Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, or even Korean and Japanese guitars. It’s fine not to see value in US manufacture, but it’s not reasonable to expect US made guitars from the likes of Gibson, PRS and Fender (whose guitars are all very similarly priced when we consider similar spec instruments) to be priced at or close to the prices of guitars made in other parts of the world.
I PRS my case your honour
Zing!
Gibson should do more to insure that they make their products to higher standards then other brands to justify the premium cost. They continue to be notorious for sub-par production practices and letting quite a few quality issues go out the door unchecked to the point where anybody in the know really wants to handle their products in person before a purchase. They focus way too much on getting rid of competition rather than making better products hell, some Epiphone products are made better than the Gibsons that they are copies of lol.
It would probably be a good move to add an outside Quality Assurance element that reviews what's been approved by internal QC. That way they get a feedback loop and the customers have the extra assurance of quality. Sweetwater does their own presale check, but that only goes so far.
I decided to get the PRS because it plays 100 times better , QC is way better and it plays and feels so great, and sounds better too..
Which one did you get?
It's kind of like MLB saying only Rawlings baseballs can be round, not Wilson, Dudley or any other brand is allowed to be round.......Question; Is the lawsuit because PRS (higher end) is made in the USA and not foreign made ??
Location plays a part
It’s really nothing like that at all! 🤣🤣🤣 For a start an electric guitar doesn’t have to be the shape of a Les Paul to be functional. Small changes to the shape can protect one from trademark infringement (as this PRS case demonstrated) and the guitar is still just as valid as an instrument - small changes to the shape of a ball would destroy its function.
But more fundamentally, Rawlings, Wilson, etc. did not invent the ball shape! They have no trademark rights in it as a result. Gibson invented and popularised the Les Paul body shape and as such they have a right in, or at least a claim to, the trademark to that design.
Gibson is like IBM, perhaps? Too big to compete but not too big for inovators to outperform? Will Apple make guitars next, I wonder. Right now, the electric guitar seems to be a growing cottage industry as people are buying and selling kits and hobbyists on the internets (and salespersons too) are giving set up tips to improve the playability of the cheaper model guitars. IMO, an accoustic guitar has a bigger effect on the tone of the music than an electric guitar which sounds like whatever the amplifier and/or foot pedals adjustments are, IMO.
I believe that the cottage industries will grow and put some of the big guns back in their starting places, perhaps?
Gibson is definitely hamstrung by historical purists and tradition.
I play electric guitars since 1972. Gibson guitars gave me all I ever needed and cared for. Fenders too. I tried to like PRS for so many years-- to see what the hype is all about, birds and all.. but mostly the sound and feel of the guitar .. Sadly, all I found was that it was as exciting as my old ex was. Those PRS I´ve played never gave me the willies 🙃 Cold and uninspiring. Shitty pickups, but Korean quality.
Jokes about your ex are always welcome!
@@blueslawyer Thats the way it goes.. sorry :) But guitars are a serious matter.. thats why I never got rid even of the oldest one
@@tomasvanecek8626 guitars are always there for you :)
@@blueslawyer So right... cos they never have a "headache" ;)
What "budding musician" goes and buys a Gibson or PRS?
That was their argument. In reality, that's what the PRS SE line and Epi models are for, right?
@@blueslawyer and I have my semi-hollow SE, that I would put up against any Gibson I've ever played.
Stock tuners, upgraded pots, and SD Pearly Gates pickups, and I can pull Gibson tones through both of my 5-6 watt tube amps. I bought ALL of my gear for the price of a new Les Paul (pedals, cables, all of it).
I recently went to all the guitar stores around, specifically to see how nice the Gibby's are, and I came away extremely disappointed.
Noteworthy is that each guitar store had a half dozen or more LP's, but not a one had a USA PRS. I asked the employees, and they replied that they can't keep PRS on the walls, they get sold as soon as they hit the sales floor. The same Gibsons are still there months later.
Gibsons are a classic design, pop culture, and legendary. They are super cool. But PRS takes guitar building much more seriously. PRS’s are much higher quality instruments as a whole.
PRS definitely has a higher level of standard QC but it comes at a higher price
I don’t find it fair that Gibson is doing this & aren’t focusing on their own quality of their own guitars. If they did that, they would be able to get more money instead of suing people for a 50/50 chance for a payday.
I wish they went back and released something closer to the Faded Special that they had in the early 00's. I have the SG and since there's no real finish to it, there's no finish QC issues. It was also like $500 new--which is nuts.
Hate for Gibson aside, the duplicate market was really bad in India, for over 20 years we've had a company called Givson, and new buyers have no idea how costly Gibson is, or generally guitars are
What was funnier is there was a brand Hobner, and about a decade back we got a Hobmer, the story on the street being that the two brothers split and the other formed this brand
It was only when I bought a Hofner 7 years back that I realised this was the original and Hobner was a duplicate all along
And now we have a duplicate of a duplicate 😅
Nope. Tennessee is in the 6th Circuit, not the 5th Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit covers appeals from U.S. District Courts including the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Western District of Tennessee.
Yes that was an error
But you're not allowed to smoke in bars anymore.
That makes me so happy. Everything used to smell like smoke at the end of the night.
This case was 25 years ago. Bars were quite different back then.
How many shapes can there be? It's an hourglass shape with one cutaway. As long as the dimensions aren't exactly the same, what can they do? Some of these law suits have been ridiculous. It's like GM taking Kia to court because their car has a hood, trunk, and four doors. It's pretty hard to beat a PRS 245. Especially the SE models for $700.
Im sorry, are you comparing a korean import to an American made instrument?
Sold my LP Custom. Going to buy a PRS or a Suhr. Cuz they are better guitars.
You've got some good money to play with after selling an LP custom. What are you thinking of in the PRS or Suhr catalog?
Gibson sueing other guitar companies is like Trash talking other racers and sayin you're gunna win by a mile, then you lose by two...Then calling foul, they cheated.
I have a Japanese Burny 335 that has the exact headstock as the Gibson, complete with the open book design. I could be incorrect, but I haven’t heard of Gibson suing Bruney\Fernandez……yet! 😂
those are known as Law Suit models. I doubt you can import one today.
@@ebeing2955 I’m military. Just put it in my household goods! Easy peasy, lemon squeezie! 😉
I think Vs are the least ridiculous shape. Its the best shape for the human body
It has that helpful elbow nook at the end so you can play standing up with your guitar up at your nipples as God intended.
@@blueslawyeryou can shred three note per string runs up high when you pro it up on your leg. Cant do that with a les paul or a strat...easily
Prs should've sued when gibson put out those double cutaway Paul's. Those things are weird looking . What's the truth behind the gibson v matsumoko or Martin v Takamine in the 80s ? I have a "lawsuit" 85 Takamine g330 and it's pretty much identical to a d 18 , my favorite guitar I own . I like it better than my d 18 . I always thought it was ridiculous that a American company could sue a Japanese company but I never knew.
Takamines are finely crafted works of art.
@@blueslawyer do you know anything about those Martin v Takamine lawsuits or the gibson v aria ones? I know there was a judgements on takemine because they were using the same type face font on the headstock as c.f. Martin.
How dumb is the guy going to be at the bar you can tell from a mile away by the headstock o yeah I’m just going to spend 3 to 4 k on a guitar I can barely see smh lol
Are they confused that the name has Paul in it?!? Haha.
How do you tell a PRS from a LP in a smokey bar?
Listen to weather or not the G and D strings are out of tune!
Rimshot
PRS is a high quality guitar. Gibson is not, it's barely quality.
But why didn't Gibson sue Slash?
Oh. he made them money.
Do smoky bars still exist? Where I live bars have been smoke-free for nearly two decades which has meant my asthmatic wife can come see me play and my guitar doesn't smell like an ashtray after a show.
I'm so happy about that. It was terrible back in the day.
I prefer an ESP, a Charvel, or a Jackson; all with a Floyd Rose over anything Gibson or PRS makes. Play what you love most, opinions mean nothing when it comes to anything related to music, photography, intimate relationships, motorcycles, or anything else!
If it makes you happy, that's all that matters
@@blueslawyer yes, a truism about everything!