Official Luthiers Forum!

Here's a cherry sunburst I built a while ago.

Brad,

Spectacular! I love that burst.

How wide is that beauty at the lower bout?

Can we see the back?

Jeff

Wow... sweet archtop. I like your headstock too....

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Don't let Gibson see that headstock...you could have a legal nightmare on your hands.

Brad

You make some very sweet guitars.

Russell

Brad you da man! Beautiful guitar. I love the burst.

_________________
Beautiful and unusual tone woods at a reasonable price.
http://www.rctonewoods.com/RCT_Store
The Zootman
1109 Military Rd.
Kenmore, NY 14217
(716) 874-1498

Whoa! What a fine guitar and the burst is incredible! I really respect a well done burst. So often the transitions are to bold and not flowing, Brad, your burst look like at tequila sunrise! With the grenadine slowly and softly flowing to the bottom of the glass!

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

That is VERY tastefully done. The burst, the tailpiece, the headstock shape, the whole enchelida (to continue Lance's metaphore) is just graceful and artistically done

John

Great job Brad, love the burst. I am going to try one on my next build.

Beautiful burst Brad. What finish are you spraying?>

_________________
tim...
http://www.mcknightguitars.com

Brad--Very, very nice!
What kind of wood is the top? Looks like some spectacular figure even showing thru the burst.

WOW!!! What a beautiful job! I`m just starting one with Mr. Benedetto`s help. I`m building the mold now and plan to use Hondurus Mahogany since I have a piece thick enough to get a book match for the back and sides. I know that traditionally figured maple is used which I have. However it`s not thick enough to do a book match. I probably will only do this once so I want to get it right. In your opinion is it a deadly mistake to use the Mahogany? A little advice here if you please!

Thanks, Guys,
Jeff Doty- The lower bout measures 18". Even though the 18" is not the most "saleable" model it is my favorite to build. I don't think I have a shot of the back of this one,but I think I have another cherry 'burst.

Jeff Brazilwood- I have used this headstock design for 12 years, it actually is based(not copied) on a Stromberg
design, not Gibson.

Tim-It is nitro,which is the only finish I've ever used,I have had a love-hate relationship with it over the years,but at this point I think I love it more than hate it!

npalen-The top is a very silky piece of Sitka spruce that I bought from Gilmer wood.

Jimmie-good luck on your first burst,a few words of caution:
Wath out for drips!! I can't tell you how many times that (literally) one drip from the gun forced me strip all the color coats off and start again!!
Build the color slowly.
Tape the binding with automotive pinstripe tape as carefully as you can.(thank you Bob Bennedetto)
Try not to get the lacquer too thick at the binding edge so you don't get a ridge there

Dale,
Nothing wrong with Mahogany for back and sides or neck.
Many great sounding archtops have used woods other than maple-go for it!

Very Purdy burst! That headstock is very nice too! Just a very beautiful archtop guitar Brad. Great job!

_________________
Anderson Guitars
Clearwater,Fl. 33755

Brad..that is an excellent guitar and great craftsmanship on your part. You do great work. My comment on the headstock wasn't meant to be derogatory. However, the upper part is "a flying dove" pattern and is part of the trademark of "Gibson". The fact that you've been using it for 12 years could work against you if the issue ever came up. It was included in a patent applied for by Gibson in the early 50's and is still trademarked to present. Not trying to bring a downer on you. Just stating facts and trying to help you avoid any future problems. You've been fortunate not to have had an issue with it but, there have been several legal cases cited over that very design (the upper part). A lot of companies used that design in the 50's and 60's and it slid under the table for many years. However, as years passed, competition grew, and Gibson started tightening the noose on their intellectual property rights, those were eventually hit by Gibson and forced to stop using it. Not sure about "Stromberg". However, looking at their site, I notice they don't use the "flying dove" headstock design. Anyway, no offense intended and hope none taken. Best Regards.Brazilwood38589.4409375

Jeff,
No offence taken.
I was talking about Elmer Stromberg.
They sold the Stromberg name to some company long after he died.If you look at one from the thirties or forties you will see what I mean.
I can't imagine that a patent would be for just the shape
of part of it,(rather than the whole shape of the headstock)but if it is then let them take their best shot at me!! I wouldn't say I was any kind of competition to Gibson at 1 or 2 guitars a year.
I'm curious,do you think Martin has a patent on their headshape?(which is NO shape).
I use 4 other headstock shapes as well.
Brad

That is a good question on Martin..but, I would assume they do have as well. However, I've seen a number of the neck billet blanks being sold with the same design. Maybe the manufacturers have some sort of association with them. Or they don't push the issue, I don't know. I know Gibson is rather antimate about theirs. I have a very good friend who is plant manager at the custom shop there so, I'm pretty up on them. Don't worry..I'd never bring this to their attention though. I struggled with headstock shapes for 4 years trying to come up with something distinctive and unique for my guitars. It's real tough. Almost everything you can think of has been tried. Here is a photo of what I finally came up with and it is in Patent Pending status. According to the patent office, they are about 2 years behind so it could be a while before mine comes through. But, it is pending and dated more than a year ago so, I am protected at this point.

I used to be involved with a lot of intellectual property issues. Most trademarks and design patent issues are only as good as you're willing to spend money defending them in court. In the case of Brad's headstock (which I really like BTW) it could easily be argued that the top is actually the second most used form in all of woodworking. It adorns a great many bed headboards and is present on a lot of cabinetry, secretaries and other closed and open cases. It's use in guitars could be argued is a reasonable extension of that prior art. I think that would likely kill a patent claim, but not a trademark claim. That doesn't mean Gibson might not threaten you. That's cheap and usually effective. What isn't cheap for either you or them is you suing them for relief or them suing you to enforce their claims. That said, they can really only "win" if they can show they've been damaged by your use of the design. Does Brad compete with Gibson? That would probably be a hard sell, so there's really very little Gibson can get out of Brad, but they still might want to prove their rights to the design by winning the case and thus preventing say Taylor from using it.

I still like Brad's a whole lot more than Gibson's so there must be some distinguishing differences. That's just a great looking guitar.

You have touched on and made some very viable points Jerry. And the latter is the most important. You and I realize that Brad is not a threat to Gibson and that any monitary gain would not be the issue. But, as you stated, "Proving their rights to the design" would be the issue (I believe)..and by the way it is a trademark issue that it would entail. Gibsons headstock design is definitely a trademark issue. Even without seeing the name, when you see that headstock shape..what are your first thoughts? Gibson..right? That is the fundamental of a "Trademark". A lasting impression that definitively identifies a company or brand. I too, really like Brads design and don't mean to demeanor him at all. Most likely (if anything ever did come up) a cease and desist order would be the first step that would occur. It would then only progress into further litigation if it were to continue. When I first started building guitars I worked for a luthier named Johnathan Rose on the outskirts of Nashville. His instruments were built under the name "Rose Guitars"for more than 12 years without complication. Subsequently, we did a guitar show in Nashville where "Floyd Rose" just happened to be participating as well. Shortly thereafter..Johnathan received a letter from "Floyd Rose's" attorney with a cease and decist request ! Of course he immediately changed the brand to "Johnathan Rose Guitars". Just goes to show you never know when and where these things can come up. My intentions were to only bring to Brads attention that there is the potential for the issue to arise at some point. We have to watch out for our fellow OLF'ers right ?Brazilwood38589.630474537

Jeff, you have just identified the ONLY good thing about having a name like "Hossom".

Of course I'm biased but when I look at my headstock I never think "Gibson"-if anything I think "Stromberg"

Jerry...I feel the same way about my last name which is "Binion". Of course there is the famous "Binion's Horseshoe Casinos" which they are distant relatives but, they don't know I exhist.

I am not up on USA Patent and Trade Mark law, but if it was used before Gibson Trademarked it, by Stromberg and in fact I'm sure you could find even earlier examples, then wouldn't the trademark be invalid, because there is pre precident.

You might have some arguement with a pre precident theory but, the bottom line is who gets it "Legally Registered" first. That's truly where the rubber meets the road in the legal system as far as Patents and Trademarks. But, that's why there are thousands upon thousands of attorneys who specialize in that field. They set the groundwork for litigation and the courts make the final decisions.Brazilwood38589.7029050926