Srv #1 Build

[DivebombInc]

This was a from scratch build including the body and neck.

[Our Souls inc.]

the tuners are too shiny for the guitar.

that and I don't like forgeries.

Otherwise, nice work, I guess.

[jessejames]

Very nice job! Looks awesome! Very close to the original!

[jimmy g]

Impressive work, forgery or not. It looks like you could probably make anything you like.

[Johnny Foreigner]

This is great work.

Personally, I will *never* understand why you'd want to deliberately beat up a beautiful guitar just because some famous dead dude had a beat up guitar, but that's just me.

[FireFly]

Well, I think you did a good job on this replica!

As far as forgeries go, our souls, you're kinda calling the kettle black aren't you? If I'm not mistaken, the explorer is a patented design.

Edited December 24, 2010 by FireFly

[westhemann]

The reason it is a "forgery" is because it has a patented brand name on the headstock and the forged sig on the back...You guys should stop adding your own negative connotations to the words...the word "forgery" by definition is a suitable word IMO..but that does NOT automatically make it a bad thing.

I understand why some might not like it...years from now it may be used badly...but whatever.As long as this guy keeps it for himself i don't care.

A copy of an existing design is just a copy...a replica is just something made to look like a specific thing,but not necessarily exactly the same..a forgery is what happens when you use a logo and a sig that is not yours to use.

[westhemann]

By the way nobody in their right mind would ever mistake Our Soul's guitar for a Gibson

[Our Souls inc.]

By the way nobody in their right mind would ever mistake Our Soul's guitar for a Gibson

no doubt about it.

It doesn't say gibson anywhere on it.

There was a beautiful flying V in the GOTM a few months back.... had a big fake gibson logo. If it had the builders sig, it would have got my vote, but I stick by my story, I don't like forgeries. Didn't mean it to knock down this work at all - *I could not build a guitar this good*

but that don't mean I gotta like it.

[FireFly]

Ah, didn't notice the logo... Sorry.

[avengers63]

From dictionary.com:

for·ger·y

–noun, plural -ger·ies.

1. the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing of another person's name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger's name.

2. the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like.

3. something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery.

4. an act of producing something forged.

rep·li·ca

–noun

1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision.

2. any close or exact copy or reproduction.

re·pro·duc·tion

–noun

1. the act or process of reproducing.

2. the state of being reproduced.

3. something made by reproducing an original; copy; duplicate: a photographic reproduction; a reproduction of a Roman vase.

4. Biology . the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.

This statement....

This was a from scratch build including the body and neck.

...combined with the context in which it was made - this forum and the WIP section - gives clear indication that DivebombInc is stating that this is his own work. As there is no claim that the item is the original, there can be, by definition, no lable of forgery accurately applied to the piece. Thus it is better to call it a replica or reproduction.

Dontcha love the tangents we go off on?

All that being said, I think it's a great looking replica. Doing a relic piece is a completely different set of skills from straight lutherie. Making a reproduction of an existing piece takes it to a whole nother level. Bravo. (golf clap)

[Our Souls inc.]

I stand corrected.

I still think the Fender logo is a wrinkle, but thats just me.

[westhemann]

As there is no claim that the item is the original, there can be, by definition, no lable of forgery accurately applied to the piece. Thus it is better to call it a replica or reproduction.

I think even you have to admit that is a stretch.We all know this falls exactly in the middle between replica and forgery...but the "sig" s what will hang you in a court of law

simulated signing of another person's name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger's name.

And this also applies to a patented logo..just because it wasn't in the definition you found does not mean it isn't true.What exactly do you think they would call it in court?

I sure as heck would not want to rely on that one line out of four..especially considering the rest of the lines tend to skirt around it..I think we all know that the Fender logo and the SRV signature on the back make it a forgery,not a replica...try and sell it and see what happens.

The intended use has nothing to do with it.

What do you guys call those forged Chinese Gibson's?they are not nearly as identical as this is to the original,and China does not even operate under our patent laws,yet we all know they are forgeries.

But having said all that,I still stand by the fact that it doesn't bother me.I even have one of those Chinese pieces of junk.

[avengers63]

The intended use has nothing to do with it.

I completely disagree.

Until there is a clear intent to convince another that the immitated item is legitimate, no law has been broken and no action can be taken. The underlying theme with forgeries is the criminal and duplicitous aspects of it.

Consider art prints. A print of a lithograph (which is a print itself) can accurately reproduce to the smallest detail every part of the original. It can even include the artist's signature. Yet the print store can still sell it. Why? They state clearly that it's a reproduction, not an original. Yes, they are making a profit from the artist's work, but the work is licensed from the artist (or their estate) giving the shop legal rights to sell them. By your arguments, they're selling forgeries, not reproductions.

The Chinese knockoffs are forgeries because they claim that they are genuine Gibsons. They intend to fool the customer into believing that they are buying a genuine Gibson, when they are not.

So yes, while the definition may be riding along a razor's edge, it is still 100% about intent.

Then we get into fair use laws and usages of copyrighted shapes, logos, etc., which this clearly falls into.... unless he tries to make a profit from it. If he makes it clear that it is a copy, but if he makes a profit from it's sale, it's copyright infringement, not forgery.

[WezV]

but back to the guitar - the front is awesome, some of the lacquer shapes around the back look a bit less convincing

[kpcrash]

but back to the guitar - the front is awesome, some of the lacquer shapes around the back look a bit less convincing

Agreed

[westhemann]

I completely disagree

That's okay.It won't be the first time you were wrong

Just joking,by the way...

[Tim37]

didn't Pauliemc win gotm with a srv replica a while back? i dont remember him getting all the greef yall are dishing out tonight.

well nice job with it and i don't think any one will ever mistake it for a fender custome shop version because it looks much better.

[westhemann]

I don't consider it giving him grief,at least that is not what I am doing.It's just the term "forgery" vs "replica" that is the sticking point.

There is a signature on the back.Stevie did not put it there and it was not done with a Stevie authorized stamp like the factories do sigs..that makes it a forged sig...there is a Fender logo on the headstock that Fender did not put there and did not supply...That makes it a forged logo...

That is how I see it.But again,I don't care...mainly because there is only one #1 and it is well documented,so I can't see this one ever being passed off as such.

[jessejames]

It's not a forgery unless he tries to sell it as an original, or states it is an original, until then, it's a replica.

That's federal law, your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but suffice to say in this case it is wrong as proven by facts.

Not trying to start anything with you, but you're giving him undue grief.

[westhemann]

but you're giving him undue grief.

Who is giving grief?You people need to not tell me what I am thinking,because you are clueless.Don't tell me what federal law is,because you know no more than me.

Did I not say I didn't care..it is just a conversation about definitions of words. B)

Now read this and tell me who is wrong?

http://www.investorwords.com/2047/forgery.html

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/forgery

http://www.uslawbooks.com/books/forgery.htm

In the last link pay special attention to this line

A signature made without the person knowing of or consenting to it.

Which totally over rides any intent...

So..as I SAID..the guitar is not a forgery..the signature and the logo ARE.

You guys need to study more.By the way,as long as he does not ever sell it with the intent to defraud it is not "actionable",but it is still a forgery of a signature and a logo by definition

Unfortunately a lot of younger people these days think these laws don't apply to them,as they are but one person,but as has been shown by the music downloading lawsuits,that isn't the case.There is a whole topic in the solidbody section about copyright infringement,and if you read it you see a whole bevy of people insisting that the law does not apply to them.

http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14450&st=0

Not that I care one bit about a law just because it is a law,but if you want to argue definitions of words we can do it all day.

Anyway,Merry Christmas

[guitar2005]

I don't consider it giving him grief,at least that is not what I am doing.It's just the term "forgery" vs "replica" that is the sticking point.

There is a signature on the back.Stevie did not put it there and it was not done with a Stevie authorized stamp like the factories do sigs..that makes it a forged sig...there is a Fender logo on the headstock that Fender did not put there and did not supply...That makes it a forged logo...

That is how I see it.But again,I don't care...mainly because there is only one #1 and it is well documented,so I can't see this one ever being passed off as such.

I completely agree. People have to stop building and manufacturing these fake guitars. Its hurting the industry. Its bad enough to have the Asian countries make forgeries and copies, but to have luthiers and/or casual builders/assemblers do the same is uncomprehensible to me.

In the local classified ads, I see more and more forgeries. There's always at least 1 active listing of an illegal guitar and people don't always advertise them as such.

I pride myself in the quality of my work and would never want to put someone else's name on my guitars, nor would I want anyone to steal my logos, name and reputation to put on their products. People think its ok because Fender, Ibanez and Gibson are large companies. Just have a look at this:

[IPA or death]

I bet he really regrets posting that guitar now. Seems like a lot of builds (by non-regulars) end up causing some sort of controversy around here nowadays for some reason. Either that or the backhanded compliments like "I don't usually like ugly guitars but yours is okay I guess". That's what someone wants to hear when they've worked their tails off on something after all. I guess not everyone's mother was like mine with the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" advice. Now we'll hear how insults are supposed to make people better builders.

I think this is a nice version of the SRV guitar by someone who likely didn't want to spend (or didn't have it to spend) the large price for a Fender version. I have personally put Fender decals on the headstocks of a couple of my guitars but sign the back of the headstock with a silver Sharpie. I just don't think it looks right without the logo. If you can get around it by making your own version like Ferden or Tender or whatever, that's one way to go. Add your own logo is another. But When someone says "this is my hand built guitar" I assume they don't work for Fender so they're not trying to fool anyone. If they do, that's their dishonestly and it's their problem imo.

[WezV]

That's what someone wants to hear when they've worked their tails off on something after all. I guess not everyone's mother was like mine with the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" advice. Now we'll hear how insults are supposed to make people better builders.

I am more of the constructive criticism camp - which should be positive as well as pointing out any room for improvement - tbh i get quite annoyed when all i get is "wow - nice build" responses. Thats fine in everyday life (and from my mother) but i want something more constructive from a bunch of specialists so thats what i try and give.

I couldnt give a buggery about the logo thing, unless i saw it listed for sale somewhere as genuine

[Tim37]

"I don't usually like ugly guitars but yours is okay I guess".

i have made similar comments of that effect not trying to critisize but to complment. for one in general i dont like v's infact i have never seen a gibson v that i liked but i have seen builders on here build some pretty awsome ones that i do like.