True... but how many know to disassemble a guitar to examine it, and how many of those selling would allow it?the neck heel will be branded with Warmoth's turtle logo
I dont care if you dont agree with me. Most do according to the poll . I tink its hypocritical to say that neck is wrong but its ok to change the pickups and the bridge to a different brand. I guess as long as the decal is still the original, thats fine eh? The Warmoth neck is most likely better than the MIM neck anyways."Debbie Downers" = those who don't agree with you?
No, it's a Fender guitar guitar because it was always a Fender guitar and when one part failed it has been replaced by an authorized replacement part. The manufacture of the neck is irrelevant. If the dude wants to keep calling it a Fender guitar because that's easiest, or because he just wants to, or whatever, then it's a Fender guitar, period. It's his, not ours. Let him do what he wants to do with it.Is it? Is a Fender-licensed Warmoth neck, because it is licensed by Fender, a Fender neck? Authorized "replacement" neck, but NOT a Fender neck is what I say it is.....
I explained this elsewhere in the thread, but let me repeat it since a few people have said the same thing as you; Fender doesn't have a great selection of necks available for sale, and they're quite pricey. Since I wanted a rosewood board that would mean I would have had to buy an American Tele neck (buying from Fender's website) which costs as much as a brand new MIM Tele let alone what my '93 MIM is worth (in banged up shape with a jacked up neck.)You should have just bought a real Fender neck from Fender, or the Stratosphere (parts).
Warmoth actually used to have the licensing agreement on their website. It is no longer there. So I am going from memory.I agree....do YOU what the licensing agreement between Fender and Warmoth says?
This gets at what my lengthier post earlier was getting at - if I swap out everything on my Strat but keep the neck, is it ok to keep the logo just because it's still a fender neck? There seems to be a consensus, historically speaking, that it's ok.If I bought a Ron Kirn Signature Strat and later I put a Fender neck on it... Should I keep the Fender logo on the neck or scrape it off?
If I took the neckless Fender strat that I have now and put the Ron Kirn neck on it... Should I keep the Ron Kirn logo on the neck or scrape it off?
Both guitars are mine, what obligation do I have to do anything with the logos that are now on the "wrong" guitars?
None... these are my guitars, I do what I want with them.
You posted the outlandish scenario about the OP (or some other dastardly lawbreaker) getting busted by the "trademark police" at a gig. The reality here, regardless of how much you want to win points here, is that "the law"...the "Fender posse"...the Federal criminal agencies...won't look at this as an attempt to commit fraud. They would be more concerned about someone building replica's of said Fender guitars and trying to pass them off as the real deal. We both know this...so does everyone else on this thread...Context.. ?? Like what context.... let's review....
I simply stated that applying the registered trademark of a guitar manufacturer to a guitar made by a private individual is a fraud... using the word as whoever makes such determinations intended. Since deceit is one of the definitions of the word Fraud, it is a completely correct application of the word. That's not spin, that's not out of context.. that's a dead on bawlz perfect application of the word..
You retorted, "that is wrong... it is not fraud..." Which is, of course, wrong...
I posted the definition of the word Fraud.. guess some cannot read.... I'll just repeat here in case ya missed it the first time around, "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities" and also listed are a few synonyms to reenforce the definition....among which are, Imposter, Fake, Cheat, Phony, .. Clearly showing my application of the word Fraud is the correct usage, your blather that I was in some way creating a warped application of a simple word, distorting it's meaning.. is.. what's the word Oh yeah, here it comes . . WRONG... don't ya hate it when that happens..
Gawd.. didja notice, PHONY and FAKE among the synonyms... can ya imagine 'em spinning something out of context like that?
and you might wanna take note, I was in Communications from the mid 60's until 1980.... in News and Advertising where "spinning" is a prerequisite for employment and an art form... OH. .we don't use the word "spin" anymore... it has a negative context... Today we don't "spin" we "pivot"., we "deflect", etc., etc.,. If we have access to "air time" we just ramble on until we consume the allowed time designated for that "segment"... or talk loudly over anyone making a counterpoint, that is credible.... specially if it's credible. . . or, we just espouse disinformation (i love that one) Disinformation means ya just lie...
Point is... sticking a registered trademark on anything without the owner of the intellectual property's permission is just plain wrong... and since ya don't care for the word fraud, you can substitute any word you care to... it dosen't change the intent of the act... there is that consciousness of guilt thingy.... However, since we live in a time where doing what's just plain wrong has become "chic".. "avant garde" .. I rather suspect the frauds will continue... both in and out of context..