Rimshot.

You know WHY this isnt true ? If one actually plays a Gibson (and not just stares at it.. there are other brands for that 😅), there are no tuning issues. The nut is the problem - the strings angle, so either you wear it out by playing - bending, tuning etc.. or you help it with some graphite/pencil dust.. 🙃 Btw - it is like with Bigsby´s.. the more you use it, the better it stays in tune... just doesnt like idling, needs some workout to wear it in, to work properly

@@tomasvanecek8626 a PRS stays in tune out of the box, so…

@@jamescbender43081 Sure enough - smarter strings angle at the nut, and of the headstock too.. but what is it good for, when the guitar just never sounds like an LP - which it tried so hard to emulate ? The scale is a cross between a Gibson and Fender... a catch-all attempt that didnt work that great... The devil is in the detail... But most importantly for me - I´ve tried for many years to like PRS.. but even the fanciest ones left me cold.. the guitar is a very personal thing... you touch it to make sounds... I do not feel it with PRS, even if stays in tune from the box..so 🙃 I dont need cold perfection when the vibe is not there. See, it is the same as Collings vs Martin... which one do you think I prefer ?

I'm sure there are some nice Gibsons out there but most are overpriced duds, PRS did it better. Sour Grapes

The attention to detail and QC at PRS is unmatched--but you pay for that in an extra $1k for a Core Standard vs a Gibson Standard.

@@blueslawyer I was just having a bit of a laugh at you're expense. I've been a Luthier since 1978 and Gibson certified since 1985, so I've seen it all when it comes to Gibson, good and bad. Gibson is in a good place right now. Gibson had every reason to sue over the Singlecut. Gibson should have sued Dean and Hamer a long time ago. Two companies that took advantage of Gibson a long time ago. Again, I think that Gibson is firing on all 8 cylinders right now. I really like what they are doing at Epiphone. You can get a good Gibson (Epiphone) for under $1k with good electronics and fretwork.

Matt and I love our Gibson guitars. Epiphone has more leeway to be "adventurous" and try new things and Gibson is a bit hamstrung by "tradition" and "purists"... they haven't done themselves a lot of favors, but the guitars are still works of art and sound fantastic.

Les Pauls are great until you need to play anything besides a single note bend or some simple dad blues licks above the 17th fret

Dad blues is the basis of this youtube channel...

Like if someone buys a Gibson thinking it was a PRS that they saw, Gibson makes money. If someone buys a PRS instead and thinks it's a Gibson... Is that bad or does that make them look better?

@@blueslawyer I actually posted my comment before you covered Gibson's absurd "smoky bar scenario". I agree entirely with the reasoning to strike that nonsense down by the judge. PRS being viewed as a high-quality brand does nothing to injure Gibson's presumed premium standing, quite the opposite as a matter of fact. You covered this nicely in the video. PRS is seen as somewhat of a boutique brand in some respects. I imagine that there is significant buyer crossover between the two brands based on their pricing and offerings, so I can only assume Gibson's attorneys were hoping for some level of ignorance on the judge's part about the respective companies relative impression amongst the guitar buying public? My original snark is more a suggestion that Gibson's problems don't stem from PRS or any other guitar maker that uses the classic LP design, their issues stem from ridiculous pricing, poor quality and features for that pricing, and marketing to a diminishing demographic, namely Gen X and Boomers. This lawsuit, and others like it, are futile attempt to lash out at external entities, while refusing to look inward at the true inadequacies of their business. Gibson is, through very much fault of their own practices, seen as an old man brand (as a Gen X'er I hate to lump myself in there, but if the shoe fits...) resulting in an ever-shrinking customer base. As I understand it, companies must be vigilant in protecting their copyrights or trademarks against imposters, but specious arguments such as the smoky bar are pretty weak fare. Such is the life of a corporate attorney when forced to fight such cases, I guess. I am NOT an attorney, so I could be speaking from a hell of a lot of ignorance here. :D Not the first time, certainly won't be the last.

Pricing perhaps...but as far as QC...you clearly haven't perused the CS or Murphy instruments as of late.

@@blueslawyer The control meme idiots bring up again and again was years ago, Gipson today isn’t today what it was years ago! If you actually owned one instead of a Made in China rip-off you’d know this!

That’s why Gibson are out of business now. No, wait…

I'm so happy about the fact smoking is gone from bars and venues. All my gear smells so much better when I get home.

No so fast. We still have bars in Georgia that allow smoking.

There may certainly be smoky bars at different places in the world, here in Sweden smoking in bars and restaurants is not allowed anymore since quite a long time fortunately and the same for many other places like workplaces for example. When i started working in the 80´s you could have someone sitting smoking at the desk next to yours when working.

Smoking in bars is totally still a thing in many red states.

@@chuckmckillip5377 that's unbelievable in 2022 that cigarettes are still a thing.

I agree, the thing with the pricing is tough though, a 1950's Stratocaster cost $2,000 in today's money for instance. I don't think it's possible to build a great guitar for much less, the cheaper guitars have cheap electronics and low grade hardware that I dislike so to get a guitar that has high quality parts it cost a good buck. That said, I like Squier guitars for what they are. I do like my 2019 Les Paul Special a whole lot too!

The headstock on Dean is way different . easy to tell who is what.

They’re not “better” that’s completely your opinion and nothing more!

Don't see them suing Thomann anytime soon, and neither do I see HB stopping to reimagine any good guitar design that they can find. And the guitar world is better that way.

@@werewolflover8636 prs > Gibson

@@solacedagony1234 if you like sticky polyester finishes and plinky sounding pups

@@solacedagony1234 that's your opinion. I personally find Gibson far better than the sterile PRS. That's my opinion. Unlike you, I know it's simply a subjective position.

Greasy Agnesi any1?

what's wrong with trying to protect their designs. how these other companies innovate

@@herewegoagain7403 A bit much after NOT doing so for 60 odd years! Horse well & truly bolted!

Why the hate on Mark ???

@@michaelgranka7904 He's a Gibson stooge!

Fernandes is good stuff. I greatly enjoy my Native (tele)

@@blueslawyer I have another Fernandes which takes a 9 volt battery to help it sustain. I think they have a basic good build quality which makes them good to play. I picked up the sustainer at a very low price new at Guitar Guitar in Edinburgh (Scotland), maybe 12 or 15 years so.. I think it was £120 or so (new), down from maybe £300 (?).. It's been in its case for ages, you have inspired me to get it out and stick a new battery in!

I just got it out of its case. It us an FG05 (2005 i think) in red wood with locking tuners. It has great acoustic resonance and was still in tune after several years! It does feel good for the price.

Thank you! That means a lot. We look forward to earning your views and comments going forward!

Thank you! Comments like this make our efforts feel worthwhile. What's your favorite guitar?

@@blueslawyer I have some PRS Guitars of my own, the Santana signature model and the Custom 24 are my favorites. I was in college when the lawsuit came about. I could never understand why Gibson targeted PRS at the time but the decision by the appellate court was really insightful. Is it true that the parties came to a settlement which is why that case never got appealed further?

no, he copied the design of the guitar. thats called infringment.

That's a great point. On some level, all trucks have doors, beds, wheels, etc... but if you copy every design detail to make it nearly indistinguishable--what are you doing? I remember for a long time, every Hyundai looked like last year's Honda.

Thanks Jimmy!

Yup... There are like 4 acoustic shapes

I have a 1978 Takamine 12 string that is identical to a Martin. In fact, Takamine was sued for it. Even the Takamine name on the headstock used the same font as Martin.

I love my Takamine... my EN10C is fantastic.

The "reverse A"...

The Fuckin' A!

Eastman guitars are nice! Also, you get similar history and nostalgia with the Heritage brand.

That was years ago kid! Stop bringing up crap just because you heard someone else say it!

@@werewolflover8636 keep up with the times. This is still relevant.

@@philomelodia no it's not. Gibson quality has made leaps and bounds since JC took over in 2019 and their sales are soaring. It's literally you who is behind.

I am sure Gibson's legal team and their manufacturing teams are able to laser focus on their unique objectives, anyone who makes comments like this, that focus on legal concerns is distracting from manufacturing comes across as anti-gibson, probably cause they cant afford one or two.

Exactly... you get inspired to get a guitar and you either go to a store to try them out and see what speaks to you or you order online. In both cases, you select with a lot of available information.

Venetian. Florentine is pointy, Venetian is rounded. PRS in fact has the Florentine and since that difference is something rhat goes back a couple hundred years in guitar design I'd say they have a pretty strong defense. Justifying their plagiarism of Gibson's more specific calling cards, mahogany and maple, set necks, chambered reliefs, LP electronic suites ect... ...that might be a harder ask.

@@dickstryker Well Gibson is in for a fight they won't win... A lot of guitar makers are using the combo of mahogany and maple cap. I don't think that Gibson players are converting to PRS because of similarities but mainly due to better built quality and attention to detail.

It might be wiser for them to use that motivation to improve the product and/or reputation than to drag everyone into a lawsuit, no? I can hear G Harrison singing.

To the best of my research, Tokai stopped using the headstock design as well as the LP shape.

In that case, the brand of Gibson isn't being diminished--the guitar shopper bought a PRS thinking it's a Gibson and purchased a very fine instrument. If they ignored the PRS logo on the head, they'd continue their lives thinking that the Gibsons were finely crafted instruments. Alternatively, if they had the chance to play both guitars at the store, reviewed the pros and cons and made the decision that the PRS best fit their playing and was in their desired price range, the shopper was not tricked into purchasing a guitar. They selected a preferred instrument. In neither scenario is Gibson truly harmed.

@@blueslawyer They would have to argue that PRS quality is in fact lesser than that of Gibson for this to work that way. Which they shot themselves in the foot by proclaiming that PRS produced "high quality" guitars. Honestly speaking though, I do feel for Gibson, and in a similar way, Fender as well. I've never seen an industry with such rampant design copying and having the buyers think that is totally normal. How many T-style guitars are there from various brands? And Les Paul style guitars? Just because you put the switches in a slightly different place doesn't mean the design isn't being blatantly copied. Having to look at the headstock to differentiate what brand it is is actually kind of ridiculous. Imagine if you had to do this with cars, two identical cars but you had to look at the logo to tell whats what. It doesn't exist in other industries to the extent that it does in the guitar world. Even though you see similar looking cars, you dont see dimension by dimension, fold by fold, crease by crease identical models across brands unless theres a branding agreement.

I agree. The real damage is Gibson losing a sale because the buyer doesn’t know better. I’m sure Gibson isn’t at all worried about accidentally selling guitars to people

thanks! we look forward to having you around!

Sounds about right--with the exception of Gibson acknowledging that PRS produces fine instruments. In all honesty, different guitars speak to different people. Generally, if you go to a guitar store to get a singlecut and go home with a Gibson, PRS, Heritage, Knaggs, Collings, etc that makes you happy and you are OK with the price then that's the guitar for you.

That’s a good point. The whole argument is absurd as you said.

The one solution no one talks about is everyone should buy both guitars.

That PRS looks identical to the les paul at first glance. thats what counts.

This is an explanation of that ruling. When we did this video, it was right at the first Dean ruling and there were a lot of questions on the ownership of body shapes.

The Les Paul 2D Shape is basically the shape of most acoustic Guitars.

There is an issue about the shape (and branding). It was designed by Les Paul (real name Lester Polsfuss) and, in fact, for quite a while, The Gibson guitar and mandolin company refused to actually brand them as Gibson.

@@victorblakey4260 I thought I heard some controversy as to whether Les Paul actually participated in the design process.

@@victorblakey4260 I think you’re butchering history quite significantly there. The Les Paul model was always made by Gibson. There was never a time when they refused to put their brand name on that design. I believe you’re thinking about the “Log” style guitars that Les Paul cobbled together and brought to Gibson in the 1940s as technology demonstrators for solid body electric guitars encouraging them to make something like that but was sent away. Those guitars had almost nothing in common with the design of the Les Paul models that came out in the fifties and were always Gibson branded instruments. There is a bit more debate over how much Les Paul himself was involved in the design of the Les Paul model guitars, but even Les didn’t claim he brought that design to Gibson, only that he designed it with them. Gibson’s legendary President at the time, Ted McCarty told that the Les Paul model design was complete before they took it to Les Paul to approve as his signature model, and that the only real design input that Les had into the model was the finish options (Goldtop for the ‘standard’ model and ebony with gold hardware for the Custom).

Look at how many car shapes are really similar to each other from different manufacturers

I don't see any new Love Rock models on their website, but maybe we're wrong.

@@blueslawyer I see that now also. Thanks.

@@tumadsvids Tokai has some nice stuff though... have you played their LP copy?

@@blueslawyer yes I owned 2 until I switched to PRS

@@blueslawyer They've never shown Les Paul, SG, ES, Explorer or Flying V on a website but they still make them.

A reasonable jury would suggest body shapes are ok but head stocks and logos/names are a no go.

@@blueslawyer how did Gibson win their lawsuit against Dean when Dean has a different headstock? BTW I'm not from USA So the laws will different here

@@jecos1966 we have a couple videos about the Dean case with a new one coming. There's some inconsistency with the rulings.

@@blueslawyer So has Dean made an appeal?

Exactly... even if you were a guitar noob, you could easily see the name on the headstock.

@@blueslawyer the single cut shape is just the most basic most functional shape.

Exactly. Is like cars and trucks can really only look a certain number of ways

those are known as Law Suit models. I doubt you can import one today.

@@ebeing2955 I’m military. Just put it in my household goods! Easy peasy, lemon squeezie! 😉

A Gibson Custom would never step foot in a smoky bar for fear of losing resell value

That's excellent. You should check out our Heritage Guitars video... with that in mind, would you be open to connecting us with your friend so we can do a follow-up video? blconfessional@gmail.com

We'll have to dig into the world of classic designs and the implications. Thanks for the comments!

It's a mix of other brands providing players more choices, Gibson having known QC issues (original Murphy Lab paint), epic model failures (Firebird X, robot tuners), Gibson being bought by a hedge fund, and now this litigious strategy. That being said, other brands are struggling with QC as well... Check out Solar guitars, for example.

Presumably because Ernie Ball and Fender are too big to bully.

Only guitar players care what guitar the guitar player is playing. I'm the weirdo who goes to the stage to critique their pedalboard.

Triangle is the strongest shape.

Yup as an American manufacturing worker I like that idea to. That said if I make a product to compete in the high-end market and it has multiple QC issues then I deserve to loss the job to another company that can do it better for the same price. It wouldn't be my customers fault for sourcing through somebody else. It would be mine for giving them a reason to. Gibson lost my respect by making a product not worthy of my respect. When your guitars quality looks like what you'd expect on a $500 guitar and you ask 2500- 4000 for it. Yup you lost a purchase from me.

@Werewolf Lover - Who is this "Gipson" company you speak of? I need to check them out. Maybe you could sell me one of your awesome "Gipsons"?

What year and how much?

I'm pretty happy that I don't ruin my gear and lungs as much now that you can't have smoking inside venues

@@blueslawyer Amen! Every Guitar I gigged with that had white binding is now a yellowish brown.....and I do smoke just not around my instruments!

Jokes about your ex are always welcome!

@@blueslawyer Thats the way it goes.. sorry :) But guitars are a serious matter.. thats why I never got rid even of the oldest one

@@tomasvanecek8626 guitars are always there for you :)

@@blueslawyer So right... cos they never have a "headache" ;)

Because you love your son very much?

Nice one

The video states that Nashville is in the Fifth Circuit. That is incorrect. Gibson sued PRS in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville. The district court ruled in favor of Gibson. PRS appealed to the SIXTH Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court´s decision.

Matt may have read that wrong and I missed it in the edit. We'll double check and if you're right, you'll get a shout out in the follow-up video!

@@blueslawyer The Sixth Circuit opinion is reported at 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005). The district court opinion is at 311 F. Supp.2d 690 (M.D. Tenn. 2004).

Gibson is definitely hamstrung by historical purists and tradition.

Ah you watched the JHS video about the Bigsby Travis?

@@blueslawyer Hah! Maaaybe.

@@TOBORtheMighty most excellent. We have some research to do with some details that will hopefully clear some things up.

Takamines are finely crafted works of art.

@@blueslawyer do you know anything about those Martin v Takamine lawsuits or the gibson v aria ones? I know there was a judgements on takemine because they were using the same type face font on the headstock as c.f. Martin.

The argument is that the headstock shape is iconic and identifiable as their brand. That being said, I have a Firebird that has a completely different head and the Explorer has a completely different head as well. *shrug*

I swear Matt noted in one of the videos the hedge fund that owns Gibson.

It would probably be a good move to add an outside Quality Assurance element that reviews what's been approved by internal QC. That way they get a feedback loop and the customers have the extra assurance of quality. Sweetwater does their own presale check, but that only goes so far.

Im sorry, are you comparing a korean import to an American made instrument?

Check out our Heritage video :)

Location plays a part

It’s really nothing like that at all! 🤣🤣🤣 For a start an electric guitar doesn’t have to be the shape of a Les Paul to be functional. Small changes to the shape can protect one from trademark infringement (as this PRS case demonstrated) and the guitar is still just as valid as an instrument - small changes to the shape of a ball would destroy its function. But more fundamentally, Rawlings, Wilson, etc. did not invent the ball shape! They have no trademark rights in it as a result. Gibson invented and popularised the Les Paul body shape and as such they have a right in, or at least a claim to, the trademark to that design.

You can't beat Maryland quality

LOL sure!

@@werewolflover8636 I have been a recording musician for 53 years. In the 60s through the 70s the vast majority of professional guitarists played Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker, and Gretsch guitars. But three three guitars most everyone brought to the studio was a Telecaster, a Stratocaster and.a Les Paul. Back the, all three of those guitars were well made and had “the sound” that producers were looking for. Starting in the 80s, with Metal becoming more popular other guitars, like those made by Dean, started to become popular with metal guitarists. Then, in the late 80s and 90s, both Fender and Gibson quality started to slide and new competitors, like PRS, arrived on the scene. PRS in particular started attracting “A” list professionals and they were bringing them into the studios with them. This is how their popularity started to grow quickly, one musician spreading the word to others in studios all over the US and other countries. Paul Smith was a great experimenter and listener, he welcomed feedback from everyone who offered it…and most importantly, took it into real consideration. That has led to the development of a line of instruments that are truly the best made and which have the best tone of any guitars available…including custom one of a kind luthier made guitars in my experience. I was late to the PRS game. I own a number of “vintage” guitars, including Les Pauls. While they are great guitars (as long as the get proper care and maintenance), I much prefer my PRS guitars. I am largely retired now (being over 70) and have started giving guitars to my grand kids (several of which are also gigging and recording musicians)…but my PRS guitars will be the last ones to go…once I’m dead! PRS guitars just have a quality feel, playability and tone that no other guitar has…in my opinion.

You've got some good money to play with after selling an LP custom. What are you thinking of in the PRS or Suhr catalog?

Zing!

Yes that was an error

Take it back to your tech and hopefully they can snap the headstock for you so you can get the authentic experience

Which one did you get?

It has that helpful elbow nook at the end so you can play standing up with your guitar up at your nipples as God intended.

@@blueslawyeryou can shred three note per string runs up high when you pro it up on your leg. Cant do that with a les paul or a strat...easily

That makes me so happy. Everything used to smell like smoke at the end of the night.

This case was 25 years ago. Bars were quite different back then.

It would be neat if they offered a "vintage exact" model that was built exactly like they did in 1959.

@@blueslawyer yea but if they do that its probably going to cost 4-5k because reasons i guess

Guitar costs are generally in QC, finishing, and handcraft time. The cnc machines are all the same. If I were in charge, I'd hire an outside quality control group that does the checks like they do at Sweetwater, but before it goes out of the shop.

@@blueslawyer they do. It’s a Custom Shop model. It would be commercially naive in the extreme to put all of the same features onto a USA ‘production’ instrument.

I'm not sure anyone will ever copy the Moderne :(

Either way it's a bizarre argument: see a PRS, buy a Gibson--Gibson gets a sale. See a Gibson, buy a PRS--person liked the Gibson on stage but after careful consideration and trying it out in the store, PRS was the better value to that buyer.

@@blueslawyer ya get your point but not everyone is aware, as mentioned in my other comment, often people, especially newbs, will buy on brand/look

Presumably, you'd try it out in a store.

I always like to buy guitars to play as opposed to looking at them as investments.

Are they confused that the name has Paul in it?!? Haha.

Great points! The law is stupid sometimes. We will discuss your notes in an upcoming Viewers Comments video.

@@blueslawyer I can't wait to watch it.

They cost what people are willing to pay...

They also cost what instruments made in expensive places like the USA cost to make, to cover USA business overheads and to make a reasonable profit. So many people who criticise Gibson prices are also the ones who refer to them going into bankruptcy protection just a few years ago - can’t really have it both ways… if they were struggling to make a profit back then (with broadly similar pricing as now taking inflation into account) then we need to accept that their pricing is in line with their production costs. Let’s recognise that you can’t make and sell US guitars for comparable prices to Chinese, Indonesian, Mexican, or even Korean and Japanese guitars. It’s fine not to see value in US manufacture, but it’s not reasonable to expect US made guitars from the likes of Gibson, PRS and Fender (whose guitars are all very similarly priced when we consider similar spec instruments) to be priced at or close to the prices of guitars made in other parts of the world.

🤣😂👍

I'm so happy about that. It was terrible back in the day.

PRS puts in a lot of time and money in craftsmanship and QC. If you want a "not overpriced" PRS, check out their SE models.

@@blueslawyer sorry, i'll stick with my '69 Mustang & Squire Strat. I can do anything I need with those -- in the market for an acoustic though.....

The Gibson smells better, when in doubt Steve, always follow your nose.

Chibson is an amorphous entity. Legitimate brands don't mess with the open book head shape.

@@blueslawyer I know, but I DID mention brands LIKE Tokai & J&D! They use this shape also!

Location matters, presumably. I wonder when Gibson will go after Harley Benton

@@blueslawyer Haha! WHO knows? But I think HB's shapes are derivative enough that you CAN'T confuse an HB SC-450 for a GIBSON 'Les Paul!' Usually something like 7% difference is enough! THAT being said, I have a Tokai copy of a Rick 330. It is the CLOSEST you'll GET without Rickenbacker on the head stock! Uses the model 'Rebelrocker' on the head stock! And you KNOW how vigorous Rick are with THEIR designs, (UNLIKE G or F have been over the past 60 odd years!) They did a C&D on Tokai in China! they did a 330/6, a 330/12 & a 4003 style bass! You can no longer GET them!

Exactly. If someone ends up getting a Gibson instead of a PRS, Gibson gets the sale. If they end up buying the PRS, that means they went to the store and tried it and liked it better. It's possible someone takes a chance on a PRS SE online vs ordering a Gibson Studio or Special but then they have the whole internet to do research and make a decision... There's no brand confusion and the buyer is far removed from any smokey bar (which is banned in most states anyway)

@@blueslawyer 100% agreed. I just found the channel this morning and subbed. Good stuff.

@@jasonlewis5350 thank you for your support!

Unless it's online :p

And these trademark lawsuits are not about how many cutaways there are on a design. Trademark law is much more nuanced than that. Gibson does not own, and no matter what anyone tries to say is not trying to claim it owns, the trademark to the single cutaway electric guitar. Gibson’s registered guitar shape trademarks (and they hold a number of such official trademark registrations in the USA) include a guitar outline image as part of the trademark registration precisely because the shape that is being trademarked is nuanced and small details matter with respect to breach, and indeed avoiding breach, of those trademarks.

I have a hard time believing the Artist Cimmerian is of comparable quality at $175, but maybe I'm a snob.