Japanese Lawsuits (SG & LP etc). What makes them different to the originals?

Neilybob

My Burny MIJ Les Paul's from the early 90's. 

The left one has upgraded Monty's PAFs. Right one is stock. 

Blueingreen

ICBM said:

Probably late to this, but regardless of what internet lore says, there is no such thing as a ‘lawsuit model’. There was never a lawsuit, only a threatened one, it only applied to the US importer of Ibanez, and only to the headstock shape.

I bought a Tokai Springy Sound in the early 80s.  The seller was a business that dabbled in various music-related activities (PA hire, repairs, etc, even band management) but didn't typically sell guitars.  They'd been given the chance to pick up a couple of these Tokais with the spaghetti logo and the "This is a copy of the good old Strat" decal. I believe they were offered these at a good price because they'd become controversial and the retailer they were originally destined for got cold feet about selling them.

What I was told at the time was that Fender had tried to stop these guitars from coming into the country and a lawsuit was pending but a small number had got in.  I knew the business owner well and I'm certain he wasn't feeding me a line.  I can't completely rule out the possibility that he'd swallowed a line himself.

Here's some information from the Tokai Registry website:

There was a lawsuit in 1982 in the UK between Fender and Tokai through their proxies. As a result of that lawsuit, Tokai had to change its logo which contained the word "Strat"

In any case, I'm not sure that there needs to have been a lawsuit for there to have been a "lawsuit model".  If Tokai changed its logo to ward off the threat of a lawsuit - and prima facie, at the least that seems to have happened because supplies of guitars with a logo like mine immediately dried up - I don't think it would be unreasonable to describe the ones with the old logos as "lawsuit models", even if the case never made it to court.  (I believe they were originally referred to as "pre-lawsuit models" but that's more of a mouthful). 

ICBM

Blueingreen said:

In any case, I'm not sure that there needs to have been a lawsuit for there to have been a "lawsuit model".  If Tokai changed its logo to ward off the threat of a lawsuit - and prima facie, at the least that seems to have happened because supplies of guitars with a logo like mine immediately dried up - I don't think it would be unreasonable to describe the ones with the old logos as "lawsuit models", even if the case never made it to court.  (I believe they were originally referred to as "pre-lawsuit models" but that's more of a mouthful). 

Possibly, but that logic still doesn't apply to about 95% of the guitars now commonly called "lawsuit models". Usually as an attempt by sellers to give them some extra desirability they do not deserve - especially things like Les Paul copies with bolt-on necks, arched ply tops over a bridge block, and if you're really unlucky, poor single coil pickups under the humbucker covers.

Even when you're talking about something a bit better than that there are still enormous variations in the construction and build quality - the term is effectively meaningless as any kind of indicator of quality, and absolutely not the implied "these are so good, Gibson sued the manufacturer" which it seems to be taken as.

*Some* Japanese copies are that good... a few.

It's much simpler and more accurate to not use the term.