As I told you in another thread, all those were all Guild models, long before Guild was aquired by Fender.
The Bluesbird solidbody was first introduced in 1970, the Starfires started in 1960 (Starfire I, II and III) and in 1963 (Starfire IV, V, VI).
They also had the S series (started in 1970), which were pretty close to the SG looks (Kim Thayil of Soundgarden played an S-100).

Hey Ceri, I'm going to go ahead and address your comments point by point. Thank you for making them in a fairly rational way and I hope you will take my replies here in the same spirit.





That is certainly a debatable topic in itself. However a good deal of the responses thus far would imply that Fender has some obligation to do this as apposed to Gibson or someone else (which would indicate to me that Fender's more at fault here than Gibson who simply seized a good business opportunity) and would further imply that if Fender won't work with Janie Hendrix that she simply should not pursue this at all...and that's rather ridiculous. Obligation, morality and ethics aside, what it does come down to is "legality" and that's the point I keep trying to make. People keep trying to make this something akin to "spitting on the grave of Jimi Hendrix" and that's really not the situation...it's simply a business affair.

For just one moment let's put aside the issue of "ethics" and "morality" and such. Forget about the names "Hendrix", "Fender" and "Gibson". Let's put thoughts of ideology in a box and close the lid VERY tightly so they don't come leaking out. Now...let's say a person has an idea for a specific product...this product can be anything really but we'll say a "new line of guitars". Now let's also say that said person doesn't have the resources available to build and market said product, at least not in mass quantities. As such the person would take their idea to a "company" who does have these resources and make a sales pitch. Perhaps the person was even approached by said company about their idea. If this person were unable to come to what they felt was an equitable agreement with the company, does this person not have the right to take their idea somewhere else? If company "A" won't meet the persons terms for something this person owns and has the rights too and the company won't pay what the person feels this product is worth, doesn't the person have the right to take this product idea to company "B"? Isn't that part of what capitalism is all about? For us here in the States, isn't that really the American way?

Once you strip the names away and put any passions regarding "idolism" aside (I think I just made up a new word...idolism), this is really a VERY basic issue. As others have told me on this very forum, if I don't want to buy my guitar strings at Guitar Center, I should go buy them somewhere else. Does this very same thing not apply to the topic we're discussing?




I'll give you that one to some degree...but is this topic really about "taste" or is simply about "selling a product"? That said, some of the opinions on this matter have been equally distasteful (perhaps including some of my own). Regardless, the idea of this being "cheap and tacky" is still just an opinion and really has nothing to do with the business aspects of this situation. Further, the whole concept of having "legal rights" is something that we all should keep in mind. If someone were to take your legal rights away based on nothing other than "subjective opinion", would you not be extremely offended by this?

Also...and I'm not trying to be insulting here but I do feel the need to correct your phrasing here a bit...you said that "one has the right to behave with taste"...I think that would be better stated as "one has the right to expect others to behave with taste". That said, that doesn't really reflect the reality of any given situation now does it? The whole topic of "taste" in and of itself is a HIGHLY debatable and subjective issue and I won't get into the philosophical implications of that at this point.



I agree with you in that she probably didn't do it over this particular venture...if they said no to her in the past, it's a pretty safe bet she believed they'd say no again. As such though, I would bring this back to the legal issues...she owns the rights to the Hendrix estate. It really is as simple as that. That's what the courts decided. So if she -knew- Fender wouldn't go along based on her previous experience with the company...personally I'd go elsewhere too. It's also her legal right to ask whatever fee she chooses for use of that licensing.

I would also reiterate that in regards to the licensing fees...one could easily see that as nothing more than Fender being "cheap" (which is certainly nothing unheard of). The term "unrealistic" in regards to those fees may hold some validity but it doesn't really change much. Fender could have worked with her...they chose not too. Even here though I would have to point out that it was probably more of a "business decision" than it was anything else. If Fender...a multi-million dollar corporation...chose not to pay the fees she was asking because they thought they were unrealistic, is that not "just business" as well?

Again we need to separate our passions, emotions and sentimentalism from the equation. Fender -is- a big corporation...literally a cold, heartless "entity" who's ultimate goal is simply that of making a profit. The same is true of Gibson as well. They both make musical instruments and do so for profit. Neither company would exist at all if they didn't make -a lot- of money at it. The very simple issue here is that neither company is around for the "betterment of humanity", neither company is in this business for the sole purpose of deifying any given musician...they're both in it for profit. Simple as that.



I'll give you that one. There is this very human tendency to seek some degree of retribution. That said, -if- she's had troubles with Fender in the past for whatever reason...can you really blame her? Personally I don't know the woman...probably never will. Personally though if I were in the same position, and as I said before...had a problem with a certain company on a certain issue, yea...I'd take my "business" elsewhere and quite honestly I would probably take a good degree of satisfaction in rubbing the first said companies nose in it. Perhaps that makes me a "bad person" but I also think that's pretty typical of human nature.


Ceri...I respect your opinion(s) as being reasonably intelligent and informed and I'm quite grateful that you didn't rant and rave about this issue the way others have (including myself). Ultimately though I still have to disagree with you in that this is merely business on the part of Janie Hendrix and Gibson. If Fender refused to meet her terms...either recently or in the past, I can't blame her for going elsewhere and I have to feel she has every right to do so.


Peace,
Jim

perhaps public opinion means something after all.

As I stated in the other thread about this I noticed the same thing happened the night I posted a comment on their about the guitar so I'm not sure if it's a problem with the site or if they pulled the plug on the guitar. Hope it's the latter

Haha - why, thank you indeed!



No, in fact my syntax was carefully chosen to express a rhetorical point.

In essence, the point I'm making is this: none of this has anything to do with rights or legality. Nobody has behaved illegally; everyone is within their rights. But that is neither here nor there.

We all understand that this is a business decision. That is fine. But there are good business decisions and bad ones, and this is a bad one - for the very reason that it strikes a vast proportion of the guitar buying public as cheap and tacky.

It matters not a hill of beans whether Gibson are legally permitted to make this guitar: in a business so driven by nebulous factors such as taste, fashion and "vibe" alienating your customers by turning them off with what they perceive as a vulgar stunt is bad business.

That's my point.

In support of which: the Gibson webpage previously linked to was clearly put up to test the waters for this product. It specifically invited comment, with a posting box at the bottom. You didn't have to be a member of Gibson's forum to use it: they wanted comments from as broad a viewership as possible.

Given that all the comments bar one were deeply critical it is hard to imagine Gibson's management were hugging themselves with delight at the outcome.

In fact, so aghast must they be at the reaction that the webpage has already been taken down, as STLBlues notes, above.

Gibson have just been taught the lesson Coca-Cola paid so hard to learn a few years ago. I wonder whether we'll hear of the Gibson Hendrix Sig S-Type ever again...?

Cheers - C