Page 50 of 69

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:03 am
by charlyg
Does it smell of patchouli?

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:06 am
by sowhat
Whoa, what a nice thing... it isn't.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:56 am
by dale_fortune
Made from real Hemp?

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:06 am
by kcole4001
I kinda like the colors, the way the green fades to black, but...

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:14 am
by lyle_from_minneapolis
You should see the case. It's a humongous Ziploc baggie.

Smokin' guitar, although the price is high. Sold to "El Kabong" ...for $420. Building it was definitely wasted time. Oh well, time to blow this joint. Peace out.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:18 am
by kcole4001
Good one!
Image

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:35 am
by jingle_jangle
Reading the NYTimes this am, re: the whole toy safety debacle.

Came across this bit, to extend and validate my points re: the industry and licensing in the late '70s.

My observation (a couple of sentences from a long series of long posts):

"Interestingly, when I sort backward in my memory to a point where work and its validity began to be trumped by things of no intrinsic value taking over the marketplace, it came fairly recently for me--in the late '70s, with (believe it or not) the licensing blitz for "Star Wars", which was highly successful. Suddenly we were dealing with "properties", and the act of tacking a famous name or face onto otherwise mediocre stuff, in order to generate consumption, went wild after that. Lucasfilm weren't the first to do this, but they were the first HUGE success, and of course everybody jumped onto the bandwagon. And I watched as my job as a creative designer of new toy concepts was quickly trumped and eclipsed by old stuff recycled with new licenses tacked onto it."

The NYTimes:

"About the same time [1980], toy makers noticed that their earnings from selling ÒStar WarsÓ characters were more profitable than the movies themselves and fully embraced character licensing. Aided by the early Õ80s deregulation of ads, Mattel, Hasbro and others created cartoons that were essentially program-length commercials. These cartoons, like ÒHe-Man and the Masters of the UniverseÓ or ÒCare Bears,Ó promoted toy lines in their story plots and led to an endless wave of toys based on television and movie characters.

At the same time, American toy makers outsourced production, mostly to China, and concentrated on design and marketing, transforming a seasonal industry (mostly at Christmas) into wave after wave of movie-toy promotions. As a result, in 1987, 60 percent of toys sold in the United States were based on licensed characters, compared with about 10 percent in 1980. Toy sales increased from $6.1 billion in 1982 to $12.5 billion in 1986.


The article in its entirety can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/16cross.html?th&emc=th

I lay the blame for this round of toy industry problems, incidentally, squarely on the shoulders of Wal-Mart, which since 1996, has driven Mattel's marketing department (which in turn, controls their product line and its production standards) into the ground with their pricing and delivery demands.

Mattel has asked the government for regulatory standards in order to be able to defend themselves from Wal-Mart, which could drive the toymaker out of business overnight.

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:03 am
by dale_fortune
Wal-Mart also SUX...We do not shop there even if the stuff was being given away for free...

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:12 am
by elysrand
Just recently, Mattel chose to accept blame themselves in the press for their design of the toys, rather than blaming China for having used lead and other **** in making them. That was a false pose designed to mollify the Chinese and WalMart among others, so that all Chinese products would be viewed as unsafe. Of course Mattel did it so that WalMart would not drop them in favor of other brands. WalMart has a vested interest in making the buying public think that most Chinese products are safe... even when we think or know they are not.

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:01 am
by jingle_jangle
Time to resurrect this topic and get it back on track:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Happy nightmares!

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:05 am
by Scastles
When I first saw this latest instrument, and I use the term 'instrument' loosely, it reminded me of a slab of cookie dough before being baked. A praline possibly. A reverent praline, however.

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:51 pm
by lyle_from_minneapolis
Now that's just plain ugly.

Some people sure put a lot of time and effort into it... :|

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:11 pm
by ozover50
It might have been made out of a church pew.

PEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUWWWWWW!!! :lol:

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:07 pm
by lyle_from_minneapolis
Here is a cavalcade of crudity...with a terribly misplaced gem hidden inside. Can you find it?...

http://www.weirdomatic.com/weird-bass-guitars.html

Re: Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:19 pm
by jingle_jangle
Sure. The ZZTop furry ones, right? :wink: