Page 1 of 2
MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:58 pm
by jingle_jangle
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:59 pm
by cjj
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:41 pm
by Scastles
Now there's a guitar challenged design that would embarrass a DeArmond Jetstar. Except the Jetstar likely sounds better and can be had for about 10% of the cost this seller is asking.
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:48 pm
by jingle_jangle
There was an 18-page thread in OSG (which I can't link), which took much of May '09, and began when the "designer" of these guitars--he has six and one bass--posted a link to photos and made a big deal which seemed like a sales pitch. He asked for honest opinions from the members and was virtually universally panned. He hung in for a couple hundred posts over ten days or so. He basically rejected every comment that was negative, regardless of validity, and kept promoting, promoting, promoting. Even took a booth at Summer NAMM.
Then he disappeared.
Now he's got one up on eBay at a ridiculous price.
I should point out that there are a lot of obsessive fellows out there who think they've got the next best "___________________" (fill in the blank). Typically, it was an inspiration they got (often their only original thought in memory), that they fell into love with before an honest appraisal. I call it "inventor's beer goggles" (IBG).
This guy sketched up an arbitrary shape with little practical consideration, invented a rationale ("it's better than an offset Fender") and then went on to spend lots of money having somebody else build a raft of prototypes. Bottom line: He thought they "made sense", and in that "sense" was beauty. Everybody else thought they were hideous. The kitchen got hot and he left. Now he's trying to recoup his losses.
It was painful to see this come and go, but most of us could have predicted the outcome back BEFORE May '09, had we been aware of these...
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:09 pm
by cjj
But, he says he patented the design. So, it's just gotta be great, right? He even offers to sign it if the buyer (or as he says "winner") wants...
I don't think "winner" is exactly the word I'd choose to use anywhere near this thing...
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:20 pm
by jingle_jangle
A design patent is the weakest bang for the buck in the IP area. No doubt it feels like added validity to some people.
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:29 pm
by cjj
Yeah, I couldn't find a sarcasm emoticon...
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:36 pm
by jps
They look like dancing fairies!

Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:58 pm
by cjj
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:04 am
by jingle_jangle
Yep. That is, I believe, partly intentional, as he says the headstock shape was "inspired by a dancer's foot"...

Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:07 am
by jps
I think I'd get one of those Fairies before buying
this, um, er, Oh my....................

Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:44 am
by paologregorio
Help me, my guitars are melting!

Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:23 am
by electrofaro
For that kind of money I can make my own electric
wood blob guitar

Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:01 pm
by jimk
Half the deal at twice the price.
JimK
Re: MORE (BAD) AMATEUR DESIGN
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:24 pm
by robbo63
You're not supposed to keep your guitar in a hot car trunk!