Are Harley Benton pointing the way to the real future of the guitar industry?

impmann

carlos said:

impmann said:

However, buying an expensive HB is going to be a lot more of a gamble as I don't know what to expect - and so I probably wouldn't... not without trying one in a shop... and that ain't going to happen.

I think you're fine as there are no expensive HBs. Just checked and their most expensive is a double necked SG copy that comes in at a whopping £430. 

I was using HB as an example of someone launching a high end model within a brand with a perception of cheapness and based in the Far East (manufacturing wise, that is).  But hey, thanks for pointing that out. :-)

NelsonP

@Three-ColourSunburst
@impmann writes a post which, based on his direct experience, broadly agrees with the initial point in your thread i.e. that far eastern manufacturers are able to produce decent quality guitars at reasonable prices.

You should just agree to differ on the tonewood point. It may be moot point anyway, depending on your point of view. And even if it isn't then perhaps we can just assume that the far east manufacturers good get access to the same quality wood if they wanted to.

carlos

@impmann ;
What I meant is that Thomann would likely create a new brand for high end stuff. Even their Suhr-like models are coming out at £350. For that sort of cash I can take a punt and return it within 30 days.

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

It’s probably worth mentioning that one of the most highly-renowned builders of ultra-accurate Gibson replicas in the world comes from the famous traditional guitar-making country of...
















Israel.

Terry Morgan's an Israeli?

(sorry @richardhomer)

Sporky

Three-ColourSunburst said:

p90fool said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

 Even if a maple top affected the sound of the guitar 

You accidentally made some valid points in your post, but this renders any discussion with you pointless. 

Sorry, I don't understand. I used the word 'if' to leave open the possibility that using a maple top might affect the sound, then moved on to my point about the flame only been of cosmetic importance.

Even if we believed your explanation, you must know that "even if" is a phrase redolent with implications.

For clarity, when you say "even if [x]" you are heavily implying "[x] is not the case, but if it were..."

[edit] erm... that first line was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, rather than downright dickish as it sounds on reading it back... sorry.

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Surely it doesn't really matter if a body is made from one, two or six pieces

Surely it does? What if it was twenty pieces? What if it was a hundred, or a million? At what point does wood fibre and glue have different properties from a solid piece of wood? Only it definitely does, because chipboard, MDF, ply (in its various grades and types) and solid timber all behave differently in a number of ways and are used for different things because of those different properties.

Three-ColourSunburst

Sporky said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Surely it doesn't really matter if a body is made from one, two or six pieces

Surely it does? What if it was twenty pieces? What if it was a hundred, or a million? At what point does wood fibre and glue have different properties from a solid piece of wood? Only it definitely does, because chipboard, MDF, ply (in its various grades and types) and solid timber all behave differently in a number of ways and are used for different things because of those different properties.

I said 'one, two or six pieces', not a million!

Yes, the number of pieces used is of relevance in some areas. For example a guitar body built of multiple pieces can be more stable than a single piece as the individual pieces can be arranged so that the internal tensions in the grain of each piece counteract each other. However, in relation to the supposition that using a single piece improves the sound or playability of an instrument, I don't think so!

People probably covet single-piece bodies simply because such wood is hard to find and expensive because of the relatively few perfect pieces of timber of that size that can be obtained from raw timber, and if you are paying a lot of money for a guitar you might expect to find no evidence of anything that might be perceived as cost-cutting. However these days such material might simply be hard to find, and it won't make any difference to the sound or playability of the instrument in any case

Just look back to that video of Darrell Braun who demonstrates that, when an amp is being driven hard, it is all but impossible to even tell a Strat from a Les Paul. Then again, I would bet that there some who would still claim that not only can they tell what wood a guitar is made from, but the number of pieces that make up the body and perhaps even the amount of flame in a maple top!
 

Sporky

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I said 'one, two or six pieces', not a million! 

Yes, the number of pieces used is of relevance

I know; I quoted where you said that and then expanded on the idea. In the post you quoted. This is getting a bit meta! 

I'm glad that you agree that the number of pieces of wood used is important in guitar construction and has an impact on the finished instrument. 

darthed1981

Still those Harley Bentons look good eh?

Three-ColourSunburst

Sporky said:

I'm glad that you agree that the number of pieces of wood used is important in guitar construction and has an impact on the finished instrument. 

I know what you mean. The number of pieces of wood used certainly have an impact on the looks of this. But just think how much better it would sound if it had a one-piece body instead of been made out of plywood.  

NelsonP

darthed1981 said:

Still those Harley Bentons look good eh?

Which Harley Bentons? ;-)

sweepy

Im amazed Rickenbacker haven't had a quiet word over those 12 strings 

darthed1981

sweepy said:

Im amazed Rickenbacker haven't had a quiet word over those 12 strings 

If it gets a guitarist (say, me) into playing that shape and style of guitar, their next purchase might be a proper Rickenbacker.

There is a benefit to it, the real deal goes for about £1200 new, so a £200 cheapy isn't nicking their market.

I kinda want one actually.

crunchman

sweepy said:

Im amazed Rickenbacker haven't had a quiet word over those 12 strings 

While the influence is obvious, they aren't identical.  The body shape is different with the kink in the upper horn, the body is bound rather than rounded at the sides, the tailpiece is different, the scratchplate is flat without the ridge that the Rick has, the f hole is a different shape, the pickups look different whatever is underneath the covers, the headstock is different and the inlays on the fingerboard are different.

Smaller companies might be cowed by a letter but Thomann are big enough that they can afford lawyers who will write back and point these differences out.  They could also afford to go to court if necessary.  I suspect that Rickenbacker would be on very tricky ground in court given all those differences, and they would know it.

Sporky

But compare with a few other models - that hooked horn is a Rickenbacker thing, and the 620 has a flat pickguard. The Model 1996 had a "normal" F-hole, and they've used pickups that look more Filtertronish as well. It's not a replica, but it's clearly meant to make you think Rickenbacker when you see it, and pretty much every notable feature has appeared on a Rickenbacker model.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/db9a906df9c476ae30279a1ac8c7336c-480-80.jpg

impmann

Sporky said:

But compare with a few other models - that hooked horn is a Rickenbacker thing, and the 620 has a flat pickguard. The Model 1996 had a "normal" F-hole, and they've used pickups that look more Filtertronish as well. It's not a replica, but it's clearly meant to make you think Rickenbacker when you see it, and pretty much every notable feature has appeared on a Rickenbacker model.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/db9a906df9c476ae30279a1ac8c7336c-480-80.jpg

True, but if its not a direct replica of a guitar that is made by Rickenbacker and just has elements that *could* be part of a great many of their designs, the lawyers can write all they like.

For example, a version of that top horn shape was also used on Odyssey guitars back in the late 1970s...



Of course the HB is meant to reference Rickenbacker... but as its not a clone, a copy or an infringement of their bodyshapes, nor can it be rebadged/modded into looking like one, they can't do anything.

carlos

IANAL (I'm not a lawyer) but those are some shaky grounds to make a copyright claim. They'd easily bully an independent builder, but Thomann the giant? Nah.

Rocker

Over the weekend I saw and heard a guy playing what I thought was an Ibanez. It was actually a HB. It looked and sounded the business, the player told me he had fitted a pair of SD humbuckers to it. Lovely looking guitar. 

ICBM

My guess is that they've actually done their research and have carefully skated around the design elements that Rickenbacker have trademarked.

Note that they have specifically avoided 'toaster' pickups (the centre bar isn't complete), the 'slash' soundhole, the headstock shape, the truss rod cover, and although the upper body horn is from the 620 series, the body outline is otherwise not close and I doubt that one element is trademarked. RIC are *very* aggressive about trademark enforcement - there won't be a "quiet word", it's a lawyer's Cease And Desist letter. They would have no qualms about taking on even a company as large as Thomann if they had a case.

Only the pickguard shape is very overtly Rick - without that it would actually look more like a typical Italian or Japanese junk guitar from the late 60s-early 70s than a Rickenbacker. Personally I think it looks rubbish too... no way I would buy one if I was looking for a Rick.

crunchman

ICBM said:

My guess is that they've actually done their research and have carefully skated around the design elements that Rickenbacker have trademarked.

Note that they have specifically avoided 'toaster' pickups (the centre bar isn't complete), the 'slash' soundhole, the headstock shape, the truss rod cover, and although the upper body horn is from the 620 series, the body outline is otherwise not close and I doubt that one element is trademarked. RIC are *very* aggressive about trademark enforcement - there won't be a "quiet word", it's a lawyer's Cease And Desist letter. They would have no qualms about taking on even a company as large as Thomann if they had a case.

Only the pickguard shape is very overtly Rick - without that it would actually look more like a typical Italian or Japanese junk guitar from the late 60s-early 70s than a Rickenbacker. Personally I think it looks rubbish too... no way I would buy one if I was looking for a Rick.

I wouldn't want to tie up that much money in a Rick, but that HB does tempt me.  A 12 string might be a nice option at an inexpensive price.

Sporky

impmann said:

Of course the HB is meant to reference Rickenbacker... but as its not a clone, a copy or an infringement of their bodyshapes, nor can it be rebadged/modded into looking like one, they can't do anything.

I suspect you're right - or they would have done something.

I suppose it'd fool an idiot in a hurry, but not an interested buyer.