Double cream Duncans
- Thread starter Will S-T
- Start date
Ayrton
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
Seriously!
Can't we have one damn thread about DC pups without all the pissing and moaning about Larry's trademark.
Seriously!
Can't we have one damn thread about DC pups without all the pissing and moaning about Larry's trademark.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Double cream Duncans
Well I tell you what. If somebody challenges either this trademark in court, or has a high enough court decide on the issue of parts versus whole thing (a decision that has been made elsewhere but not in the US), and DiMarizo wins, then that's fine with me. If that's the law here, fine.
However, the way it is currently going they hold this trademark because nobody can challenge it, because all the lawyers specializing in intellectual property laws cost > $600/hour and nobody can spend a million bucks or 3 in the guitar world.
And DiMarzio knows this. They sit on this thing dumb, fat and happy and don't even have to think about whether it's justified or the law or what.
Well I tell you what. If somebody challenges either this trademark in court, or has a high enough court decide on the issue of parts versus whole thing (a decision that has been made elsewhere but not in the US), and DiMarizo wins, then that's fine with me. If that's the law here, fine.
However, the way it is currently going they hold this trademark because nobody can challenge it, because all the lawyers specializing in intellectual property laws cost > $600/hour and nobody can spend a million bucks or 3 in the guitar world.
And DiMarzio knows this. They sit on this thing dumb, fat and happy and don't even have to think about whether it's justified or the law or what.
Ayrton
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
Honestly I don't think any pickup manufactures feel it is worth it. I just don't think there is enough demand for double cream pups.
I have bought and sold multiple DC Duncans over the years, and they really don't bring much more than regular ol' zebra (or black).
Honestly I don't think any pickup manufactures feel it is worth it. I just don't think there is enough demand for double cream pups.
I have bought and sold multiple DC Duncans over the years, and they really don't bring much more than regular ol' zebra (or black).
ehdwuld
A Ficus
Re: Double cream Duncans
ya know I would like a set of double cream P-Rail pickups for my Ibby
I would get chrome covered but those wouldn’t fit in the triple-shots I have for them
wonder if the custom shop could whip me up a set?
can the custom shop make double cream pickups?
is it a "can't advertise double creams"?
I would of course be interested in double cream Duncans
might be willing to pay more
if its something I want
hmm Custom/59 set or maybe a JB/Jazz set
ya know I would like a set of double cream P-Rail pickups for my Ibby
I would get chrome covered but those wouldn’t fit in the triple-shots I have for them
wonder if the custom shop could whip me up a set?
can the custom shop make double cream pickups?
is it a "can't advertise double creams"?
I would of course be interested in double cream Duncans
might be willing to pay more
if its something I want
hmm Custom/59 set or maybe a JB/Jazz set
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
And it also only covers that one tint of cream. Double parchment can be done, and IMO it looks 100x better than cream anyhow.
And it also only covers that one tint of cream. Double parchment can be done, and IMO it looks 100x better than cream anyhow.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Double cream Duncans
Well said Rodney. And I do agree - that at the end of the day pickup swappers are mostly about tone. So, we'll put whatever in it to sound whatever. If I NEED a Duncan distortion, I will not settle for a Tone Zone just because it is double cream. My 73 LP NEEDED a Superdistortion, in double cream. I got one.
That said - I disagree that the law is protecting anyone from anything, that it is actually infringing on GIBSON, and that the mechanics as mentioned regarding price of the fight are at the root of this. NONE of that sits well with me as an American. 20 years ago...maybe, and even then it was still wrong to Gibson. Today - bah. Dooshery and unAmerican.
And the trademark is what makes the OP's question exist in the first place. If there WERE Duncan's available in Double Cream, he wouldn't care. But since they are rare...so yes, it needs discussed. Probably not this much.
I'm gonna sendf MJ an old DiMArzio and have her rewind me a Distortion on it.
Well said Rodney. And I do agree - that at the end of the day pickup swappers are mostly about tone. So, we'll put whatever in it to sound whatever. If I NEED a Duncan distortion, I will not settle for a Tone Zone just because it is double cream. My 73 LP NEEDED a Superdistortion, in double cream. I got one.
That said - I disagree that the law is protecting anyone from anything, that it is actually infringing on GIBSON, and that the mechanics as mentioned regarding price of the fight are at the root of this. NONE of that sits well with me as an American. 20 years ago...maybe, and even then it was still wrong to Gibson. Today - bah. Dooshery and unAmerican.
And the trademark is what makes the OP's question exist in the first place. If there WERE Duncan's available in Double Cream, he wouldn't care. But since they are rare...so yes, it needs discussed. Probably not this much.
I'm gonna sendf MJ an old DiMArzio and have her rewind me a Distortion on it.
Last edited:
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Double cream Duncans
You had something to say? What was that? The avatar distracted me. PM a link so I can enjoy that separately from this discussion. Hard to focus...
You had something to say? What was that? The avatar distracted me. PM a link so I can enjoy that separately from this discussion. Hard to focus...
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
Gibson have no legitimate claim to a trademark on double creams. Double creams were never designed to be visible, and were no more indicative of the Gibson brand than a humbucker pickup in general. They did not specifically design double cream pickups. They didn't design any particular bobbin color combination, since their pickups were designed to be covered. How do you think they are deserved a trademark for something that by their own design isn't even supposed to be visible to anyone but a factory worker, or possibly a repair person? By simple definition, something that is not visible – i.e. not a "mark" – is not a trademark. Double cream bobbins were at no time even a de facto trademark of the Gibson brand. They were just something that you saw sometimes on user-modified Gibson guitars. However, for Di'Marzio, double cream was always by design, and always visible. They came to represent the brand...which is why they officially trademarked the look when other aftermarket pickup companies (i.e. Duncan) began to use it. They had every right to do so then, and they have just as much right to hold onto that trademark even today.
Additionally, Gibson's particular tint of "cream" was much less heavy than Di'Marzio's. It was more of a parchment color, not a thick cream color. That particular tint of cream is part of the DMZ trademark, which is why SD can make double white and double parchment pickups without infringing on DMZ's trademark.
Gibson have no legitimate claim to a trademark on double creams. Double creams were never designed to be visible, and were no more indicative of the Gibson brand than a humbucker pickup in general. They did not specifically design double cream pickups. They didn't design any particular bobbin color combination, since their pickups were designed to be covered. How do you think they are deserved a trademark for something that by their own design isn't even supposed to be visible to anyone but a factory worker, or possibly a repair person? By simple definition, something that is not visible – i.e. not a "mark" – is not a trademark. Double cream bobbins were at no time even a de facto trademark of the Gibson brand. They were just something that you saw sometimes on user-modified Gibson guitars. However, for Di'Marzio, double cream was always by design, and always visible. They came to represent the brand...which is why they officially trademarked the look when other aftermarket pickup companies (i.e. Duncan) began to use it. They had every right to do so then, and they have just as much right to hold onto that trademark even today.
Additionally, Gibson's particular tint of "cream" was much less heavy than Di'Marzio's. It was more of a parchment color, not a thick cream color. That particular tint of cream is part of the DMZ trademark, which is why SD can make double white and double parchment pickups without infringing on DMZ's trademark.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Double cream Duncans
But here is the thing: DiMarzio obviously COPIED the Gibson PPAF - including the color of the pups that had been uncovered. They took something that was Gibsons creation, and then decided to NOT let them use it. Shades aside...
But that's a great point about being covered.
But here is the thing: DiMarzio obviously COPIED the Gibson PPAF - including the color of the pups that had been uncovered. They took something that was Gibsons creation, and then decided to NOT let them use it. Shades aside...
But that's a great point about being covered.
Lewguitar
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
I like Double Creams because they're the pickups Jeff Beck used when I met him on the Truth tour.
Jeff was walking across the dance floor at the Grande Ballroom in Detroit in 1967 or 68 with his Les Paul cradled in his arms and I walked up and said: "Can I shake your hand? You're my favorite guitar player."
He switched the Les Paul in this picture to his left hand, smiled, said: "Oh that's great!", stuck out his right hand, I shook it, he nodded a thanks and then he went on to the stage and put on the best show I ever saw at the Grande.
The Jeff Beck Group was fantastic. Ron Wood on bass, Micky Waller on drums, and Rod Stewart on vocals. And, of course, Jeff blazing away through a couple of 100 watt Marshall stacks.
Saw him all three nights that weekend. Two nights at the Grande and the a third night in Ann Arbor.
Dimarzio did not invent double creams - Gibson did. And when I think of double creams I don't think of Dimarzio. I think of that Les Paul Jeff Beck played in Detroit that weekend 45 years ago.
I like Double Creams because they're the pickups Jeff Beck used when I met him on the Truth tour.
Jeff was walking across the dance floor at the Grande Ballroom in Detroit in 1967 or 68 with his Les Paul cradled in his arms and I walked up and said: "Can I shake your hand? You're my favorite guitar player."
He switched the Les Paul in this picture to his left hand, smiled, said: "Oh that's great!", stuck out his right hand, I shook it, he nodded a thanks and then he went on to the stage and put on the best show I ever saw at the Grande.
The Jeff Beck Group was fantastic. Ron Wood on bass, Micky Waller on drums, and Rod Stewart on vocals. And, of course, Jeff blazing away through a couple of 100 watt Marshall stacks.
Saw him all three nights that weekend. Two nights at the Grande and the a third night in Ann Arbor.
Dimarzio did not invent double creams - Gibson did. And when I think of double creams I don't think of Dimarzio. I think of that Les Paul Jeff Beck played in Detroit that weekend 45 years ago.
Last edited:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Double cream Duncans
Trademark really has nothing to do with invention or creation. Those are the things that patents protect. Trademark is all about branding. It has to do with something visual that specifically identifies a thing as being made by you.
Calling it Gibson's creation misses the point re: trademark. Gibson created pickups that happened to have double cream bobbins...and they weren't even meant to ever be visible. Double cream did not ever equal "Gibson Brand Pickup" in the eyes of the market. However it was a deliberate design on Di'Marzio's part, and it was a Di'Marzio trademark in the informal sense before they ever officially trademarked it. They were the first to deliberately design a humbucker with double cream bobbins that were meant to be seen, and which came to specifically represent their brand name. McDonalds didn't invent the letter M in yellow, but you can bet your butt that they trademarked the Golden Arches, and had every right to do so.
And, again, only that certain tone of cream is covered. Anyone can make double white or double parchment 'buckers...and FWIW these colors actually look closer to the original Gibson ones than Di'Marzios do.
Trademark really has nothing to do with invention or creation. Those are the things that patents protect. Trademark is all about branding. It has to do with something visual that specifically identifies a thing as being made by you.
Calling it Gibson's creation misses the point re: trademark. Gibson created pickups that happened to have double cream bobbins...and they weren't even meant to ever be visible. Double cream did not ever equal "Gibson Brand Pickup" in the eyes of the market. However it was a deliberate design on Di'Marzio's part, and it was a Di'Marzio trademark in the informal sense before they ever officially trademarked it. They were the first to deliberately design a humbucker with double cream bobbins that were meant to be seen, and which came to specifically represent their brand name. McDonalds didn't invent the letter M in yellow, but you can bet your butt that they trademarked the Golden Arches, and had every right to do so.
And, again, only that certain tone of cream is covered. Anyone can make double white or double parchment 'buckers...and FWIW these colors actually look closer to the original Gibson ones than Di'Marzios do.
Last edited:
