The pictures that I am talking about have a set neck, a different shaped headstock, and what looks like a shelf for a locking nut on the neck. I wasn't talking about the cheapo models on the Gibson product pages. I am thinking that Gibson is also working on a more expensive Copycaster, probably in their limited run line, to come out later. There seem to be a number of different models in the works.

These.
http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/B ... n-USA.aspx

are totally different than these

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electri ... ndrix.aspx

_________________
The time has gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say.

Yea...now that I look at the pictures without the haze of being extremely over-tired...yes, there does appear to be a bit of a difference in the headstock designs there. In fact, if you compare the picture of the bodies in that first link with the bodies on the models already out, they are shaped differently as well with the larger side of the bottom being towards the top rather than the bottom.

Quite possible that Gibson has something else coming out soon to go along with these other instruments. My apologies for making a correction to your comments...you were right.

Peace,
Jim

Hey, no problem. Sometimes I don't make myself too clear so it's not your fault.

This is probably a big deal for Gibson. I guess this will be an entirely new line of products under the Gibson banner. Who knows how many different guitars and accessories we will see come out of this.

_________________
The time has gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say.

Yes, you are right. There's the cheap-o Chinese Boxed Junk and the probably-big-bucks Gibson SuperStrat. Gibson drunk the KoolAid.

Let's see how successful all of this becomes! Any bets?

_________________
Member #26797
My other guitar is a Strat.

Well...cheap guitars typically sell themselves if they are marketed right. There's lots of folks looking to buy their first guitar...or something for their kid...who don't really know anything at all about guitars either way. The number of "cheap" Strat copies out there from the likes of Yamaha, Johnson, Excel, Behringer and the many others over the years (Lotus, Takai, Memphis...) easily proves this. In the case of someone buying a guitar for their kid, they will certainly sell a few of the cheaper instruments to some older folks like myself who perhaps don't know anything about guitars but were big Hendrix fans...as I said earlier, like it or not that Hendrix name is a very marketable commodity. If they price them right and put them in, say department stores along side of "Starcasters" and "First Act", they'll probably sell a ton of them. If they can get them in to the smaller "Mom and Pop" music stores, again at a reasonable price, same thing...they will sell.

As far as nicer instruments from Gibson, a lot of that is going to depend on how they set the prices. Remembering that Gibson guitars in general are typically WAY more expensive than Fenders, I don't think many people will buy a "Gibson Strat" for $700 or $800 when they can get a Fender MIM of comparable quality for only $500. They're certainly not going to buy a $2000 Gibson Strat when they can get an American Standard for $1200. -If- however Gibson can price them competitively with comparable or better quality, then they certainly have a shot. Yea, some people are anally retentive about "a name" but just as many, if not more are more concerned simply with having a good instrument or getting the better instrument for their money. If I were looking for a brand new Strat and I was looking at two...one Fender and one Gibson, assuming the price was the same (or really d*mn close), I'd buy the instrument the played and sounded better...and if that happened to be the Gibson, that's what I'd get.

BTW...on the issue of "a name" there's another consideration here too. Certainly the Fender fans who hang out here are a bit disgruntled over this whole issue but you have to remember that there's probably just as many Gibson fans out there as there are Fender fans. People who've owned Les Pauls or SGs all their lives who are just as loyal to the Gibson name as Strat and Tele fans are to Fender. For better or for worse, "brand loyalty" is certainly a factor here. Some folks like this who would -never- buy a Fender...because it's NOT a Gibson, might buy a Gibson Strat.

Yes...there is certainly a potential market here. I won't put any bets down though...it really is going to depend on the price vs. quality factor.

Just my $.02 worth.
Jim

"A rose by any other name would wither and die..." - Peter O'Toole, "My Favorite Year"

I've been on Gibson's forum and website(and many other sites)voicing my disgust over this vulgar and blatantly mercenary farce to rake in money capitalizing on Jimi's fame and talent.Does anyone know an email address to get in touch with the vultures now handling Jimi"s legacy?All I could find was service@jimihendrix.com I simply can't let this rest.As a musician I owe Jimi Hendrix a huge amount of gratitude.It was through Jimi's music that I found to be the best possible player your music must come from your soul not your fingers.I'm sure that if Jimi and Al were alive today they would not sanction such a boondoggle.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

It is one cheesy looking guitar, isn't it? The sticker just says cheap too. Not the way I would remember a great icon like Jimi.

You keep tellin yourself that. As I said earlier, the truth of the matter is that Jimi did own Gibsons and did work with Gibson on at least one occasion. Second, -if- he were alive now a days, there's not telling WHAT he would be playing...he might have ended up endorsing Jackson or PRS for all we know and it's certainly possible that if someone offered to make his own line of guitars, he may very well have gone for it.. Third, while you're sitting there calling these people "vultures" and such, remember that Jimi was one of, it not -the- highest payed musician of his time commanding $100,000 a performance...he did NOT do this stuff for free. Fourth, the people handling the Hendrix estate are within their full legal rights to do this as is Gibson. In other words, you can whine all you want but it's NOT going to change a single thing and all it does is make -you- look rather stupid and petty.

You don't like it, fine...that's your choice...don't buy one of the guitars. Of course, if they turn out to be decent axes, that'll be your loss. Beyond that again as I said before, this is not a sacrilege of any kind...it's business. Period. Hendrix was just a man and Fender and Gibson both make guitars. Get over it and get used to it.

It's just opinions fellows. Don't get all worked up.

There is such a thing as business ethics, alongside other words like integrity, respect and so on. They may not be in everybody's vocabulary and in my perception they don't look like being in Gibson's vocabulary.
Yes, it is my choice, as a music lover and a guitar player, to feel personally offended by this whole Gibson Hendrix thing.
Yes, it my personal choice to boycott everything bearing the name Gibson, as well as Authentic Hendrix.
In my book, this business is not just business; it's not about selling home appliances, some new version of office software, nor ketchup at the supermarket.
In my book, this whole music business deals ultimately with touching people's souls in a way no other human activity possibly can.
But hey, I may well have grown older and none wiser; in my naivety I may have missed that the real world actually belongs to the cynics and greed is the ultimate value, while money is the measure of all things.

After pondering how Gibson developed the balls to declare they had created the "signature line", It seems more appropriate to label it a "forgery line" when you consider he may not have personally endorsed this fiasco. You know that this is the tip of the iceberg, we have been told. It is just the set up for the $15,000 flying V,yet to be announced, that they can proudly boast he actually did play occasionally. There is how they will reclaim their integrity, so they think.

AT the risk of sounding stupid,petty or whining I must say Purple put it pretty straight,it's about ethics.As for Jimi's concert earnings and ethics do a little reading up on Michael Jeffries and you'll find that Jimi was ripped off in life and as a devoted "Hendrix Freak" I can't let this pass without trying to do something to right this.I've already sent emails to Janie and Gibson stating my disgust and I see I am far from alone.A great many people think this a deplorable money grab that cheapens Jimi's memory.He was ripped off in life and many don't want to see himripped off in death.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

Remember the '02 Fender Frontline had a cover with a Strat and VERY Les Paul-looking Guild with flame top and humbucking pickups, called "Bluesbird". Remember, Gibson had the "Blueshawk" just before that. Also pictured and described on page 12 and other pups shown called "P-90s", and page 13 had an ES-335 clone.

It took Gibson 7 years to "return the favour" with help from Jimi Hendrix' sister.....

Well...considering the other thread on these forums regarding Fender's involvement with being named in a law suite for price fixing with GC, their being fined by the EPA for multiple violations, a number of people's personal experience with the customer service (or lack there of)...I'm sorry...what were you saying about "business ethics"? Yea...right...

I would be willing to bet Janie Hendix probably did go to Fender to try and cut a deal on this and Fender was likely unwilling to fork out a royalty to her...I can't prove it but enough people have suggested it that it certainly could be true. If that's the case, then...I'm sorry...what's this about all your sentimentalism? Business ethics?



Yes...that's your choice. You're welcome to waste your energy any way you choose.



Yes, that's also your choice and if you think it's going to make ANY difference AT ALL, good luck to you. I have no doubt that Gibson made this decision knowing full well that some people certainly would not buy these instruments...I doubt it will hurt their business in even the tiniest fraction. Ultimately the -only- person you're hurting is yourself....so please...enjoy.



Really?? You mean the act of selling a product such as "guitars" isn't about making a profit? It isn't about competition? It's not about mass production? It isn't about capitalism? Wow...silly me. I've been such a bloody fool actually paying for all my guitars over the years! Well...that being the case, my suggestion to you is to start your own guitar company and give away EVERY instrument you make...by the 10's of thousands. And please...make sure my name is at the top of the delivery list, I'm really curious about the kind of quality you will produce since this won't really be a "business" for you! Should also be interesting to see how long your capitol investment holds out....oh wait...no capitol investment because after all, this isn't a business. Better go grab an axe there bud...you got A LOT of trees to start chopping down!



Err...you don't know much about the record industry do you? Exactly how is someone like Brittney Spears supposed to "touch my soul"?? More to the point, do you really believe that the record companies gave Hendrix a recording contract because they thought he was going to have some sort of mythical spiritual influence over people? They gave him a recording contract because the thought he was going to "sell records"...DUH!!!!

Either way, I guess that means that you don't charge people for gigs that you yourself play live? If you were to do a tour, it would simply be for the purpose of "touching peoples souls" and you wouldn't charge a dime? If you were to some how cut a record (CD, Blue Ray, whatever), you wouldn't want any royalties at all...just give it all away (why thank you Mr. Presley!)? My...how completely selfless of you. Hopefully someone will be good enough to nominate you for Sainthood someday.

Yes...music can touch people's souls in ways that few other mediums can but for most people, it's still about making money. That is simply the nature of the civilization that we all...or at least most of us live in. You make "investments", i.e. you buy equipment, you take lessons, you (hopefully) perfect your skills, etc., so that at some point you get some kind of return for that investment and if you're real lucky, that return will significantly outweigh the investment by playing local clubs and such. You then re-invest buying better equipment...maybe some recording equipment or time at a studio so that you can play even bigger gigs and thus make an even greater return on your investment. For people who are lucky enough to be doing this kind of work for a living, it's their "day job" and it -is- work...and the greatest majority of them do expect to be payed!

Yes...I play because I personally enjoy playing and it is my hope to be able to entertain as many people as I can. That said, if I were lucky enough to be touring let alone of similar popularity as someone like Hendrix, you can bet that I would -NOT- be doing this for FREE!!! And all sentimental thoughts aside, I -SERIOUSLY- doubt you'd be that foolish either. Of course, that would make you something of a hypocrite wouldn't it?



For better or for worse, that is in fact often the case. We do in fact live in a world that is often driven by money and greed and not the ideologies of dreamers. I don't know about you but personally I have bills that have to be payed...gas, electric, house payment, insurance, etc., just to name a few. These bills don't get payed unless I have money coming in. Now I will admit that I actually have a lower standard of living that many people...I only live in a $40,000 home, I'm driving a beat up old Chevy that I bought used for $600 and so forth and the TV in my living room is only 27" which I got for $20 at Goodwill. In other words, I've learned to be "happy with less". Lot's of folks particularly here in the US however seem to think they're entitled to a $400,000 home, a brand new SUV in the driveway every 4 years, a 60" plasma flat screen and so on. I don't know what part of the world you live in, but this is the reality of things here in the US

That said, again you go and start giving away guitars by the tens of thousands...you go and start giving away your music...and your "soul" for free and then after you've done all that, come back and tell me if it was really worth it. Being a dreamer is fine but there does come a point where one simply has to be pragmatic as well.






Again...business...ethics...what does one have to do with the other? Again this isn't a matter of "right" and "wrong" but more often than not the expression "business ethics" is very much akin to "military intelligence"...it's an oxymoran.

Let's say for a moment that Fender was indeed approached by Janis Hendrix and that they turned her down because she wanted royalties. Now first and foremost, how exactly is it wrong that she deserves royalties which she is legally entitled too? Second, if that is indeed the case, based on some of the views here, if Fender was too cheap to pay those royalties, doesn't that make them just as guilty of all the things people are accusing Gibson of...being cheap and greedy and so forth? And if that's the case, doesn't Janis have the legal right to take her business elsewhere especially considering that Fender lost the trademark issues they were trying to press earlier this year...which were likely pressed in the first place also due to greed?



The man is dead...how the devil do you think you're going to right any of it? Even if he was "ripped off in life", I'm still willing to be he made a pretty penny...certainly a lot more than most of us here on this forum make as musicians.




And you really think this did anything other than perpetuating your own sense of dismay over the situation? Do you really think for one single moment that -if- your letter was read at all, the person who read it (certainly representatives of either party) did much more than laugh? Further, as I stated above, do you really think your insignificant little rant make even a bit of difference? Quite clearly the facts that I've tried to share here in regards to the truth haven't swayed your opinion in the slightest...and in this case there's not even any money involved. Do you really believe for one moment that your letter made ANY difference at all? Are you truly that naive? The ONLY thing you've accomplished is flinging some proverbial poo at a bigger monkey sitting in different tree...and your poo probably didn't even make it to that other tree let alone hit the other monkey in the face. Of course, if that's what makes you feel good...fling away.



I see...so somehow you seem to think that if Fender were to make gobs of money of this instead of Gibson, that somehow that would be less of a rip off to the late Jimi Hendrix? Really?? Wow.....

By the way, if you want to talk about the issue of what "cheapens Jimi's memory", let's talk about all the people here who seem willing to speak for the man almost 40 years after his death....people who very likely never even met the man, let alone knew him personally. I'm sorry but in my mind it is extraordinarily presumptuous to speak for someone you never even knew let alone to do so after so much time has passed. Does that not terribly cheapen the man's memory?

As I've said before, if Hendrix were alive today, there's no telling what he'd be playing, who he'd be endorsing (or who'd be endorsing him) or what his life and career would have been like. Yea, he could still be of the icon status of people like Clapton, Townsend, Page and all the other's who did survive. On the other hand, he may have grown tired of it all and gone in to accounting. Maybe his mind would be nothing more than applesauce like Sid Barretts...we DON'T know. We can imagine, we can dream and we can wish all we want but there isn't a single thing that indicates how he would feel AT ALL over this thing with Gibson.

-------------------

You folks have just been sooooooo convincing in your arguments over this matter. Wow, I'll bet the folks at Gibson will just feel totally compelled to drop the whole "Authentic Hendrix" line now and I'm sure they'll just give the rest of the guitars away at no charge to every little Hendrix freak who drools and slobbers and cries out that Hendrix is God. Not.

Don't get me wrong here...I like Hendix's music and I like Strats...I wouldn't be on these forums if I didn't like Strats. That said I have to reiterate, Hendrix was just a man, not a deity and a Strat is just a guitar. Both Janie Hendrix and Gibson are within their full legal rights to do what they have chosen to do. Please put your passions aside and apply a little bit of pragmatism here before ya'll drive yourself nuts over something that is otherwise completely irrelevant and that you ultimately have no influence over in any case.


L8r,
Jim


(...and when I die people are going to look back and say, "wow...that guy really could write a lot! LOL!!!)

I'm not much fussed over this Gibson Hendrix guitar. I think it's a schlocky product which will attract little enthusiasm, at most selling in moderate numbers to non-musician fathers buying Christmas presents for non-guitarist sons.

However:

We keep being told that Gibson are within their rights. As if the right to do something is the same as an obligation.

Being legally permitted does not make it a duty to do something cheap and tacky. One also has the right to behave with taste - which would be a better course.

BTW: I strongly doubt that Janie Hendrix went to Fender with this first. She and the estate have a long standing antagonism towards Fender, who would not meet their unrealistic demands for licensing fees for a Hendrix Sig Strat many years ago. Which is why there isn't one.

I bet Janie thinks of this whole thing as "one in the eye for Fender"...

Sigh... - C