Sanding "Squire" off the headstock

thebreeze

prowla said:

thebreeze said:

prowla said:

thegummy said:

thebreeze said:

thegummy said:

There's a bit of a parallel between this and reliccing.

Casual onlookers will think a relicced guitar really is old and a guitar with a fender decal is really a fender.

For the people who say they just like the look of relics and it's not about faking age and wear, what if someone says they just prefer the look of the fender logo?

I've always felt that reliccing is very rarely nothing to do with faking age and wear even if that's not the only reason people go for it.

Why do you get so worked up about all this (obviously it's different if someone is deliberately setting out to deceive someone for whatever reason)?  I just prefer the look of the Fender logo - there you go, so what?  Snobbery, inverse snobbery - it's all the same.
These things are supposed to be fun and enjoyable.

Don't know what makes you think I'm getting worked up about it, it's not exactly making my blood boil.

It's not snobbery though; snobbery would be looking down on someone for having a Squier which I, of course, wouldn't do. It's when they doctor their Squier to pretend it's a Fender that I don't like because I don't believe it really is solely because they personally prefer the look, I believe they are trying to deceive people in to thinking it's made by Fender.

In these internet days, you can't dislike something, you have to be a hater; you can't post an opposing comment, you have to be worked up about it, and so-on.

Like you, I think that up-branding is deceit.

It's got nothing to do with what you say in your first sentence, which is obviously something you think/feel, but that has nothing to do with what I say.  I'm trying to be clear here because I think you're trying to fuel a difference which doesn't exist.  Which is also ironic because that's very much what seems to happen "in these internet days". 

Why do you get so worked up about all this?

?  

At it again though, I see.

Philly_Q

prowla said:

hollywoodrox said:

I seem to recall a thread on here where in the past a guy had wanted a certain strat with a certain neck/fingerboard  (maple not rosewood etc ) and the dealer said ,we’ll just swap it round with another in the shop . Can’t remember the post though . I imagine this event would have taken place in the 80s or something though 

I remember that one.

I don't know if that was my post, but I certainly had that happen with Jeff Pumfrett (RIP), then of Machinehead Music. 

I wanted a sunburst Strat with a maple board and they just swapped necks.  It would've been around 1994 or 1995, because it had a 40th Anniversary badge on the headstock.

HAL9000

CeeJay said:

They're all bits of tree............

 No. Some are bits of the tree...

thegummy

hollywoodrox said:

I seem to recall a thread on here where in the past a guy had wanted a certain strat with a certain neck/fingerboard  (maple not rosewood etc ) and the dealer said ,we’ll just swap it round with another in the shop . Can’t remember the post though . I imagine this event would have taken place in the 80s or something though 

I came across something similar a few months ago - at a guitar shop in Glasgow I was looking for a mint green Sterling Ray 4 (which only comes with a maple fingerboard). They had the mint green Ray 4 but it had a rosewood fingerboard and he said it was because another customer wanted a different colour that only came with rosewood but the customer wanted that colour with maple so the shop just swapped the necks.

As much as it was mildly disappointing that they didn't have the one I wanted in stock already, I just thought it was cool of them that they were willing to do that for a customer. Didn't even cross my mind that there would be any issue with devaluing the bass. I could understand if it was a different brand or a neck from a different priced instrument but since it was the same model I didn't think there would be any issue.

That's an interesting question then for @digitalscream - if it's a Mexican Standard Strat body with a Mexican Standard Strat neck but not the one it originally came with - is that allowed to be sold on here?

Presumably there are cases like that where the seller isn't even aware that that is the case but when the seller does know, would it be allowed?

Could get slightly complicated really - considering the way Fender guitars are made where the neck and body aren't made specifically for each other, they're just put with each other at the factory.

digitalscream

thegummy said:

That's an interesting question then for @digitalscream - if it's a Mexican Standard Strat body with a Mexican Standard Strat neck but not the one it originally came with - is that allowed to be sold on here?

Then it's not pretending to be something it isn't, and therefore it's fine.

It's not a difficult concept, really...

prowla

I wonder if there is a market there for Fender (et al) to ship bodies and necks separately, so they can be mix & matched at the store.

Car makers do that - the shipper or dealer can do some of the final assembly and add options en-route or prior to handover.

digitalscream

prowla said:

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

Dominic said:

prowla said:

Dominic said:

I have a tele partscaster with a real Fender Baja neck which ,not unusually ,says Fender on it.
Apparently I need to sand that real Fender logo off the guitar to advertise it for sale because it wasn't actually assembled by Fender .
I'm tempted to sand it off and put a Gibson logo on it just for the belligerence and cussedness.

No you don't that's the original logo on the neck, as applied by the manufacturer.

I've got a Precision made from parts and its Fender logo is firmly planted on its neck. Just like the Status Graphite logo is on another one's.

My current project is a Fender MIM Strat body with a Fender MIM Strat neck; the logo stays there too!

However, I would not add a Fender logo to something that isn't, including up-branding a Squier (by Fender)...

TOTALLY WRONG APPARENTLY  - I TRIED TO ADVERTISE IT ON HERE 
My ad was taken down and it was carefully and politely explained by mods that it cannot be advertised ( even tho' I was clearly explaining that it was a Partcaster with the benefit of a Fender Baja neck )
 Apparently because it was not "ASSEMBLED" by Fender.
It's ridiculous......the neck is a component part and I was advertising it as a Partscaster with benefit of Fender neck .
 By the same token ;
You cannot advertise your Fender Strat because it's got Seymour Duncan Pickups retro fitted ?
 Your Volkswagon Golf because its got a Motech Bodykit ?
 Your Berkeley Homes house because you fitted an Amdega Conservatory ?
NONSENSE

That is, with due respect to the mods, utter nonsense!

There is no way I would remove an original factory-applied Fender (or any other brand) logo from a part to satisfy some misplaced sense of ethical duty.

Actually, it's not nonsense; it's the law of the land, and it doesn't care about your opinion of it. Regardless of your thoughts on it, a guitar with a logo on it which could fool the average potential buyer into thinking it's an original instrument is considered counterfeit. It doesn't matter whether you're honest about it in your ad, because the next guy to sell it might not be. For a concrete example of this (albeit not with counterfeits), check out the thread on Essex Recording Studios' adverts on Reverb.

Allowing such sales puts both the forum and me personally at risk for facilitating the sale of counterfeits, so explain to me...why should I take that risk so somebody can get a few quid for their partscaster?

There are only two ways to legally sell such an instrument - either part it out (at which point each individual part is exactly what it claims to be) or remove the logo.

Can you show a link to the specific law of the land which states that the component parts of an instrument are not allowed to contain their original manufacturer's logo and you must therefore remove it?

I am 100% with you regarding honesty, up-branding, the picture forming part of the description, saying nudge-nude wink-wing, "cheeky logo", and so on is counterfeiting, but the original logo on a Fender neck is not counterfeiting.

As far as the next person selling it on as if it were all original, then they are the ones who are breaking the law at that point in the future.

Christ on a bike, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The logo on the neck is fine, if it's being sold on its own.

However, when you assemble that into a guitar, the logo now represents the origin of the entire instrument, and therefore it's not fine.

This has been discussed many times before and - unlike you and all the other folk trying to rules-lawyer their way around this - I've actually had genuine legal advice about it, because there are direct legal consequences to me. Guess what? The anti-counterfeiting laws are alive and kicking, and partscasters and fake guitars are not a special case just because lots of people do it.

"As far as the next person selling it on as if it were all original, then they are the ones who are breaking the law at that point in the future."

This just shows that you don't understand the law at all.

I'll put it simply: it's either this, or we do it the way Basschat solved the Rickenbacker problem: no partscaster sales allowed at all on this site, whether they've got a logo or not, and anybody attempting to do so will be banned.

So...does anybody still want to argue about it?

JAYJO

Personalize it. It may be a bit like engraving a watch in that it will devalue it so   Make sure! you change your name first.to. 
 Fender USA
 

skinfreak

prowla said:

I wonder if there is a market there for Fender (et al) to ship bodies and necks separately, so they can be mix & matched at the store.

Car makers do that - the shipper or dealer can do some of the final assembly and add options en-route or prior to handover.

They do and you can buy them direct. Ever noticed a neck with a Fender box on ebay? It's common although I think they are overpriced (see here: https://shop.fender.com/en-GB/parts/necks/?rl=en_US). £300 fro a Mexican neck seems steep but then again Fender want to sell guitars and these are replacement parts. 

So here's a though: if I buy a neck and a body separably direct from Fender, the neck will have a serial number, the body will be stamped in the neck pocket. Aside from the silliness and expense, it's an official partscaster? ;-)

WezV

I'm modding a Squier Mustang because I wanted a fun project.  The aim is to make it as good as it can be, but its still  Squier so i will make sure it still says that on the headstock.

I have even managed to preserve the original logo, and make it look like an original fender decal with some careful sanding when stripping the neck.  here it is with a few fresh coats on nitro



i did remove the serials from the back though.  only because i stole the guitar

impmann

Back in the 90s when I worked in a music shop, we had three US Standard strats arrive with damaged maple necks (twisted to buggery). We called to request returns but Arbiter (the distributor back then) offered us replacement necks for us to fit ourselves. These came through and were all rosewood boarded jobs. 

So here is the thing... those three US Strats are not real US Fenders, as they weren't assembled in the US factory. Also the serial numbers (on the headstocks) were a year later than the build of the body. However, they were sold as new US Standard Strats - and they were great guitars. Now they are officially "vintage" and I'm sure that with time, they will be as "collectible" as other US Fenders. 

Then there are two Gibson Les Pauls that arrived at the store damaged - one had fingerboard issues (can't remember the exact nature) and the other had a separating neck joint. Both were reworked by a local tech - as advised by Rose Morris, who used to distribute them. One gained a replacement fingerboard and the other had extensive work in the neck joint. Both were sold as "new" because they were - and because of the quality of the rework, you'd never know either had been touched.

I've run set up/QC lines for different manufacturers. In some cases, the rework on the guitars took longer than the actual assembly in the first place! Some gained refrets before they left the business. Some were made up out of the best bits of several guitars to maximise the yield from a shipment. I know of one batch that were refinished in the UK due to paint issues. So not exactly as they left the factory, but equally the quality of the work was such you'd never know it had been done.

Equally, I've also seen factory refinishes - where they needed colour "A" to finish a shipment but had colour "B" bodies on the finished rack... so they ran them through the paint shop again to make up a shipment...

Point is - folks have got too worked up about "original" when it comes to guitars. I understand and align with the rules of this site - I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation (and it *is* an interpretation, as all things to do with law have to be), but rules is rules. "Fake" is banded around a lot and some is legitimately "fake" - but there comes a point where common sense has to take place. Even before you get your hands on your guitar brand new, you'd be very surprised what can take place and who has worked on it - and sometimes by a completely third party to the name on the headstock. 

As for sanding the logo off... you instantly devalue the neck. Therefore, if you want to sell through here - part it out. Also you will get more money that way, as complete partcasters appear to be about as valuable as COVID-19 infected tissues with some... yet the bits are of interest.

YMMV

digitalscream

impmann said:

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation (and it *is* an interpretation, as all things to do with law have to be), but rules is rules. 

Indeed, but just to pick up this point - I've had this "interpretation" validated by three separate law professionals, which to me removes the need to consider any alternative approaches.

Even if you take that out of the equation (which I won't, for the reasons above)...if we used your "common sense" approach, we'd have to make a value judgement on every single partscaster bearing a logo that came up for sale, followed by the inevitable arguments that ensue; literally every single person who's ever had an advert denied on here because it falls foul of these rules has then gone through the site looking for any piece of gear that's had so much as a volume knob replaced and cried "BIAS!" (yes, that really happened) trying to rules-lawyer us into getting their own way.

We don't have the time or inclination for that.

impmann

digitalscream said:

impmann said:

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation (and it *is* an interpretation, as all things to do with law have to be), but rules is rules. 

Indeed, but just to pick up this point - I've had this "interpretation" validated by three separate law professionals, which to me removes the need to consider any alternative approaches.

Even if you take that out of the equation (which I won't, for the reasons above)...if we used your "common sense" approach, we'd have to make a value judgement on every single partscaster bearing a logo that came up for sale, followed by the inevitable arguments that ensue; literally every single person who's ever had an advert denied on here because it falls foul of these rules has then gone through the site looking for any piece of gear that's had so much as a volume knob replaced and cried "BIAS!" (yes, that really happened) trying to rules-lawyer us into getting their own way.

We don't have the time or inclination for that.

Fair enough, mate.

I totally understand and align with your decisions. 

digitalscream

impmann said:

digitalscream said:

impmann said:

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation (and it *is* an interpretation, as all things to do with law have to be), but rules is rules. 

Indeed, but just to pick up this point - I've had this "interpretation" validated by three separate law professionals, which to me removes the need to consider any alternative approaches.

Even if you take that out of the equation (which I won't, for the reasons above)...if we used your "common sense" approach, we'd have to make a value judgement on every single partscaster bearing a logo that came up for sale, followed by the inevitable arguments that ensue; literally every single person who's ever had an advert denied on here because it falls foul of these rules has then gone through the site looking for any piece of gear that's had so much as a volume knob replaced and cried "BIAS!" (yes, that really happened) trying to rules-lawyer us into getting their own way.

We don't have the time or inclination for that.

Fair enough, mate.

I totally understand and align with your decisions. 

Cheers. And...that post reads a bit grumpier than I intended, sorry about that

impmann

digitalscream said:

impmann said:

digitalscream said:

impmann said:

I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation (and it *is* an interpretation, as all things to do with law have to be), but rules is rules. 

Indeed, but just to pick up this point - I've had this "interpretation" validated by three separate law professionals, which to me removes the need to consider any alternative approaches.

Even if you take that out of the equation (which I won't, for the reasons above)...if we used your "common sense" approach, we'd have to make a value judgement on every single partscaster bearing a logo that came up for sale, followed by the inevitable arguments that ensue; literally every single person who's ever had an advert denied on here because it falls foul of these rules has then gone through the site looking for any piece of gear that's had so much as a volume knob replaced and cried "BIAS!" (yes, that really happened) trying to rules-lawyer us into getting their own way.

We don't have the time or inclination for that.

Fair enough, mate.

I totally understand and align with your decisions. 

Cheers. And...that post reads a bit grumpier than I intended, sorry about that

No problem, mate. It didn't across grumpy.

prowla

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

Dominic said:

prowla said:

Dominic said:

I have a tele partscaster with a real Fender Baja neck which ,not unusually ,says Fender on it.
Apparently I need to sand that real Fender logo off the guitar to advertise it for sale because it wasn't actually assembled by Fender .
I'm tempted to sand it off and put a Gibson logo on it just for the belligerence and cussedness.

No you don't that's the original logo on the neck, as applied by the manufacturer.

I've got a Precision made from parts and its Fender logo is firmly planted on its neck. Just like the Status Graphite logo is on another one's.

My current project is a Fender MIM Strat body with a Fender MIM Strat neck; the logo stays there too!

However, I would not add a Fender logo to something that isn't, including up-branding a Squier (by Fender)...

TOTALLY WRONG APPARENTLY  - I TRIED TO ADVERTISE IT ON HERE 
My ad was taken down and it was carefully and politely explained by mods that it cannot be advertised ( even tho' I was clearly explaining that it was a Partcaster with the benefit of a Fender Baja neck )
 Apparently because it was not "ASSEMBLED" by Fender.
It's ridiculous......the neck is a component part and I was advertising it as a Partscaster with benefit of Fender neck .
 By the same token ;
You cannot advertise your Fender Strat because it's got Seymour Duncan Pickups retro fitted ?
 Your Volkswagon Golf because its got a Motech Bodykit ?
 Your Berkeley Homes house because you fitted an Amdega Conservatory ?
NONSENSE

That is, with due respect to the mods, utter nonsense!

There is no way I would remove an original factory-applied Fender (or any other brand) logo from a part to satisfy some misplaced sense of ethical duty.

Actually, it's not nonsense; it's the law of the land, and it doesn't care about your opinion of it. Regardless of your thoughts on it, a guitar with a logo on it which could fool the average potential buyer into thinking it's an original instrument is considered counterfeit. It doesn't matter whether you're honest about it in your ad, because the next guy to sell it might not be. For a concrete example of this (albeit not with counterfeits), check out the thread on Essex Recording Studios' adverts on Reverb.

Allowing such sales puts both the forum and me personally at risk for facilitating the sale of counterfeits, so explain to me...why should I take that risk so somebody can get a few quid for their partscaster?

There are only two ways to legally sell such an instrument - either part it out (at which point each individual part is exactly what it claims to be) or remove the logo.

Can you show a link to the specific law of the land which states that the component parts of an instrument are not allowed to contain their original manufacturer's logo and you must therefore remove it?

I am 100% with you regarding honesty, up-branding, the picture forming part of the description, saying nudge-nude wink-wing, "cheeky logo", and so on is counterfeiting, but the original logo on a Fender neck is not counterfeiting.

As far as the next person selling it on as if it were all original, then they are the ones who are breaking the law at that point in the future.

Christ on a bike, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The logo on the neck is fine, if it's being sold on its own.

However, when you assemble that into a guitar, the logo now represents the origin of the entire instrument, and therefore it's not fine.

This has been discussed many times before and - unlike you and all the other folk trying to rules-lawyer their way around this - I've actually had genuine legal advice about it, because there are direct legal consequences to me. Guess what? The anti-counterfeiting laws are alive and kicking, and partscasters and fake guitars are not a special case just because lots of people do it.

"As far as the next person selling it on as if it were all original, then they are the ones who are breaking the law at that point in the future."

This just shows that you don't understand the law at all.

I'll put it simply: it's either this, or we do it the way Basschat solved the Rickenbacker problem: no partscaster sales allowed at all on this site, whether they've got a logo or not, and anybody attempting to do so will be banned.

So...does anybody still want to argue about it?

Where does the law say that?

Where does the law state that if you put a Fender neck on a non-Fender body you have to remove the logo?

What is the precise legal advice which says that someone is breaking the law by putting a Fender neck on another brand body?

Where do Fender say that if you buy one of their necks you have to remove the logo if you put it onto another body? (They certainly don't on their online store and at https://shop.fender.com/en-GB/parts/electric-guitar-parts/necks/replacement-necks/american-original-60s-stratocaster-neck/0990120921.html they even state that "This replacement neck is for a Fender or Squier® by Fender guitar.", thereby explicitly endorsing the fitting of a Fender branded neck to a Squier.)

You will not be able to produce that, because it does not exist.

You mention BassChat, but actually they just reacted to Rickenbacker's contact by just stepping away from the argument and refusing to have anything to do with the company's products, or copies thereof. However, they do still endorse the selling of partscaster (partsblasters for basses!), even with aftermarket logos (because I've argued against allowing fake logos there!).

Now, I accept that you can set the rules for what appears on the site, and I don't argue with that, nor if you (rightly) feel the need to cover yourself; however, legal "advice" is often just opinion and can be wrong.

Regarding wrong legal advice (and by way of demonstration rather than to go off-topic), I've heard legal experts on radio shows advising people that they have to pay private parking "fines" because of a "deemed contract", whereas the fact is that many people challenge them in court and win; therefore the legal advice is not an absolute.

digitalscream

prowla said:

Where does the law say that?

Where does the law state that if you put a Fender neck on a non-Fender body you have to remove the logo?

What is the precise legal advice which says that someone is breaking the law by putting a Fender neck on another brand body?

Well, this is comedy gold. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the law doesn't mention the Fender brand, anything goes?

EDIT: To be clear (as if I need to), the law covers trademarks and the improper use of them to infer authenticity. When you have a Fender neck, the logo is correctly applied. When you have a Fender neck on a non-Fender body, that logo is implied (by common convention) to apply to the whole instrument, thus implying authenticity where it's not warranted. It's legal to own one, but it's not legal to sell one. Feel free to call Action Fraud if you don't believe me.

prowla said:

Now, I accept that you can set the rules for what appears on the site, and I don't argue with that, nor if you (rightly) feel the need to cover yourself; however, legal "advice" is often just opinion and can be wrong.

Regarding wrong legal advice (and by way of demonstration rather than to go off-topic), I've heard legal experts on radio shows advising people that they have to pay private parking "fines" because of a "deemed contract", whereas the fact is that many people challenge them in court and win; therefore the legal advice is not an absolute.

LOL - more comedy gold!

"I've got an example of how a lawyer was wrong once on a completely unrelated topic, so all legal advice is just opinion and I'm right."

JayGee

Every time we end up here I always get this comic vision of Fender tracking down the last seller and current owner of Eric Clapton’s “Blackie” to sue the bejesus out of one for selling a fake and insist that the other hand it over for destruction... 

It’ll never happen[1] but it would be absolutely hilarious if it did... :-)

[1] Apart from anything else I have a vague recollection of Fender operating a scheme/scam[2] to retrospectively bless high profile bitsas with The Holy Seal Of Authenticity.

[2] Delete where not applicable.

hollywoodrox

Philly_Q said:

prowla said:

hollywoodrox said:

I seem to recall a thread on here where in the past a guy had wanted a certain strat with a certain neck/fingerboard  (maple not rosewood etc ) and the dealer said ,we’ll just swap it round with another in the shop . Can’t remember the post though . I imagine this event would have taken place in the 80s or something though 

I remember that one.

I don't know if that was my post, but I certainly had that happen with Jeff Pumfrett (RIP), then of Machinehead Music. 

I wanted a sunburst Strat with a maple board and they just swapped necks.  It would've been around 1994 or 1995, because it had a 40th Anniversary badge on the headstock.

I knew I’d seen it, quite funny when you think about it now. My uncle had one of those 40th anniversary strats ,very nice . They were quite reasonable too

prowla

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

Where does the law say that?

Where does the law state that if you put a Fender neck on a non-Fender body you have to remove the logo?

What is the precise legal advice which says that someone is breaking the law by putting a Fender neck on another brand body?

Well, this is comedy gold. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because the law doesn't mention the Fender brand, anything goes?

EDIT: To be clear (as if I need to), the law covers trademarks and the improper use of them to infer authenticity. When you have a Fender neck, the logo is correctly applied. When you have a Fender neck on a non-Fender body, that logo is implied (by common convention) to apply to the whole instrument, thus implying authenticity where it's not warranted. It's legal to own one, but it's not legal to sell one. Feel free to call Action Fraud if you don't believe me.

No, that is not what I was saying, and well you know it. :-)

The question is whether marrying one branded item to another requires the branding to be removed and I highlighted Fender because it is the specific brand in question here; however, it is (of course) not unique to that brand.

Fender sell Fender branded necks and explicitly state they are for use with Fender and Squier instruments.

I also gave an example of a Status Graphite neck on another body, which is not an implication that the whole instrument is a Status (and indeed removing the branding would irreparably damage it).

Base on those two specific examples, the assertion that you have to remove branding from an item if you marry it up with another is untrue.

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

Now, I accept that you can set the rules for what appears on the site, and I don't argue with that, nor if you (rightly) feel the need to cover yourself; however, legal "advice" is often just opinion and can be wrong.

Regarding wrong legal advice (and by way of demonstration rather than to go off-topic), I've heard legal experts on radio shows advising people that they have to pay private parking "fines" because of a "deemed contract", whereas the fact is that many people challenge them in court and win; therefore the legal advice is not an absolute.

LOL - more comedy gold!

"I've got an example of how a lawyer was wrong once on a completely unrelated topic, so all legal advice is just opinion and I'm right."

Merely pointing out that the "legal" advice can be an opinion, rather than an absolute; sorry if it wasn't clear, but I cited something as an example, but it is not unique (and of course it does not imply that all advice is bad either).

However, the "advice" given in this instance appears to be ignorant of the facts, ie. that Fender themselves will sell you a Fender neck explicitly to put on a Squier guitar; all of the opinions and bluster in the world cannot change that fact.

Further on the authority of legal advice in general; if legal advice was absolutely deterministic and infallible then there would never be any court cases, as there would never be any argument. (Which of course does not imply the suggestion that therefore all legal advice is bad.)

Anyway, as I've said it's not my site and I don't set the in-site rules; however this particular ruling and the law of the land are not one and the same.