PRS Single-cuts...
- Thread starter casblah
- Start date
aleclee
Major General GAS
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
Depends on your definition of "collector's item". IMO, they'll have a certain appeal like other lawsuit models (e.g., 70's Ibanez) but you'll probably have to wait several decades (if ever) before they get particularly expensive relative to today's prices.
Depends on your definition of "collector's item". IMO, they'll have a certain appeal like other lawsuit models (e.g., 70's Ibanez) but you'll probably have to wait several decades (if ever) before they get particularly expensive relative to today's prices.
S
Skarekrough
Guest
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
They're not especially "vintage" items. Most folks hanging onto them are doing so as players or rarely for speculation that it may be worth something.
The reason why is two-fold, but together they kind of make sense why Gibson wanted a "cease and desist":
-Other manufacturers license from Gibson to use the design. Heritage pays a certain fee to use the design. Hamer pays a fee to Gibson to use the design. PRS never bothered to seek licensing from Gibson.
-PRS made a very stupid mistake and let a memo slip out stating that they were looking to cut into Gibsons market and the Singlecuts were going to be the model they would do exaclty that wih.
casblah said:
They're not especially "vintage" items. Most folks hanging onto them are doing so as players or rarely for speculation that it may be worth something.
The reason why is two-fold, but together they kind of make sense why Gibson wanted a "cease and desist":
-Other manufacturers license from Gibson to use the design. Heritage pays a certain fee to use the design. Hamer pays a fee to Gibson to use the design. PRS never bothered to seek licensing from Gibson.
-PRS made a very stupid mistake and let a memo slip out stating that they were looking to cut into Gibsons market and the Singlecuts were going to be the model they would do exaclty that wih.
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
I wanted so badly to score a black Singlecut on Ebay yesterday for $1550, but I've been staying out of the gear game for awhile, so I can save some money. That was one guitar I wanted badly, because I could play it for 5 years, and the value would just climb as I owned it. I still can't believe it ended without a buyer at the cheap price of $1550!
In 10 years, it'll be worth $2600.
I wanted so badly to score a black Singlecut on Ebay yesterday for $1550, but I've been staying out of the gear game for awhile, so I can save some money. That was one guitar I wanted badly, because I could play it for 5 years, and the value would just climb as I owned it. I still can't believe it ended without a buyer at the cheap price of $1550!
In 10 years, it'll be worth $2600.
JacksonMIA
Lemur-buckerologist
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
Yep, PRS could really hurt their sales, too. I mean, Hamers, Carvins, and the like aren't doing it so much, since a big part of their market are people that would never be able to afford to spend $2000 or more on a guitar. When people can spend that much and have a choice, well, Gibson could be in trouble...especially with all the "poor quality control" talk going on lately - whether it's true or not.Skarekrough said:
S
Skarekrough
Guest
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
Gibson using that memo was more to enforce the "cease and desist" than anything.
The market out there is big enough for PRS and Gibson. Gibsons just decided that they need to have a good pissing contest and that PRS are the guys to do it with.
The lawsuit is stupid because PRS stands to make money by licensing from Gibson and making Singlecuts again and Gibson stands to make money from the licensing. The only person or group getting hurt in this lawsuit is the consumer when someone gouges another on the premise that a Singlecut WILL be a collectors item.
JacksonMIA said:
Gibson using that memo was more to enforce the "cease and desist" than anything.
The market out there is big enough for PRS and Gibson. Gibsons just decided that they need to have a good pissing contest and that PRS are the guys to do it with.
The lawsuit is stupid because PRS stands to make money by licensing from Gibson and making Singlecuts again and Gibson stands to make money from the licensing. The only person or group getting hurt in this lawsuit is the consumer when someone gouges another on the premise that a Singlecut WILL be a collectors item.
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
I loved the Singlecuts when they used to be around. I never played one that I wanted to put down. A good Gibson will do the same thing, but the quality control on PRS just seems to be all around better. If I had the cash, I would still buy one today (even with the inflated prices).
I loved the Singlecuts when they used to be around. I never played one that I wanted to put down. A good Gibson will do the same thing, but the quality control on PRS just seems to be all around better. If I had the cash, I would still buy one today (even with the inflated prices).
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
I'm still bummed that I let that one go. A black Singlecut that was NOT labeled with any Tremonti crap. I should have swooped it up for $1550, but it IS still a lot of money. I got other expenses in my life too!
I'm still bummed that I let that one go. A black Singlecut that was NOT labeled with any Tremonti crap. I should have swooped it up for $1550, but it IS still a lot of money. I got other expenses in my life too!
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
No, PRS knowingly decided to break trademark laws and not license the shape out (as they were originally offered by Gibson BEFORE the lawsuit was filed) with the firm and sole intent of damaging Gibson´s sales (and they made the added mistake of circulating an ih house memo which stated this relatively clearly with "Let´s make a Les Paul Killer"). PRS made a decision based on pure capitalism, greed and malicious intent, devoid of any legal foothold or backup, and rightly were made to pay for doing so by being forced to discontinue the line.
Again, PRS REFUSED to license, it was offered to them..... They thought that they could do whatever they want, and were shown different... In this situation, where the "Suee" refuses to comply, one company stands to constantly have legal battles becouse of the other´s trademark infringement, costing the legal owner of the design extra money, and the other is also losing money because he´s constantly in Court defending his illegal practices (Can anyone say ESP? They´ve been pissing off J/C, Gibson, Fender and others like this for decades, and there´s no end in sight.....)... Where´s the profit except in image and being able to bash the "legit" company for defending it´s own original designs?
Had PRS played by internationaly accepted rules (At least everywhere but Japan and China) and licensed the design out, the entire discussion would have never started..... But hey, why miss the chance to bash Gibson?
I find it absolutely hilarious when the same people that support PRS for suing others over their headstock and shape go up in arms when PRS ****s up, openly, knowingly and purposely breaks National and International Trademark law, and then gets sued for it..... Do you guys know what you´re saying?? You´re essentially saying it´s ok for PRS to protect their rights, but not for anyone else... I´m not even going to start on what that would be if we were talking about actual people here and not guitars......... :yell::laugh2:
If Gibson had copied the PRS shape and gotten sued for it a lot of these people would be rejoicing and they know it..... But laws can´t be turned off and on just because you like it better that way one time and the other way the next
BTW: Have any of you ever considered that all of these constant lawsuits, which ESP started 25 years ago, may have had the sole purpose of WEAKENING the US companies such as Gibson so that they can´t afford to work the way they used to anymore?? Causing quality issues, making it easier for Import Knockoffs to take market share???
Sun Tzu´s "Art of War" states that it´s always best to weaken your enemy from the inside.... That´s what these situations have been doing for decades.... Weakening US guitar companies, to the point we have today where the Japs can jack up the prices because they now HAVE our market share..... WE are a lot more at fault than most of us realize or even would be willing to admit if we did, because we didn´t just let it happen, we openly supported it by buying the products anyway, on the sole premise of them being cheaper...
Skarekrough said:
No, PRS knowingly decided to break trademark laws and not license the shape out (as they were originally offered by Gibson BEFORE the lawsuit was filed) with the firm and sole intent of damaging Gibson´s sales (and they made the added mistake of circulating an ih house memo which stated this relatively clearly with "Let´s make a Les Paul Killer"). PRS made a decision based on pure capitalism, greed and malicious intent, devoid of any legal foothold or backup, and rightly were made to pay for doing so by being forced to discontinue the line.
Again, PRS REFUSED to license, it was offered to them..... They thought that they could do whatever they want, and were shown different... In this situation, where the "Suee" refuses to comply, one company stands to constantly have legal battles becouse of the other´s trademark infringement, costing the legal owner of the design extra money, and the other is also losing money because he´s constantly in Court defending his illegal practices (Can anyone say ESP? They´ve been pissing off J/C, Gibson, Fender and others like this for decades, and there´s no end in sight.....)... Where´s the profit except in image and being able to bash the "legit" company for defending it´s own original designs?
Had PRS played by internationaly accepted rules (At least everywhere but Japan and China) and licensed the design out, the entire discussion would have never started..... But hey, why miss the chance to bash Gibson?
I find it absolutely hilarious when the same people that support PRS for suing others over their headstock and shape go up in arms when PRS ****s up, openly, knowingly and purposely breaks National and International Trademark law, and then gets sued for it..... Do you guys know what you´re saying?? You´re essentially saying it´s ok for PRS to protect their rights, but not for anyone else... I´m not even going to start on what that would be if we were talking about actual people here and not guitars......... :yell::laugh2:
If Gibson had copied the PRS shape and gotten sued for it a lot of these people would be rejoicing and they know it..... But laws can´t be turned off and on just because you like it better that way one time and the other way the next
BTW: Have any of you ever considered that all of these constant lawsuits, which ESP started 25 years ago, may have had the sole purpose of WEAKENING the US companies such as Gibson so that they can´t afford to work the way they used to anymore?? Causing quality issues, making it easier for Import Knockoffs to take market share???
Sun Tzu´s "Art of War" states that it´s always best to weaken your enemy from the inside.... That´s what these situations have been doing for decades.... Weakening US guitar companies, to the point we have today where the Japs can jack up the prices because they now HAVE our market share..... WE are a lot more at fault than most of us realize or even would be willing to admit if we did, because we didn´t just let it happen, we openly supported it by buying the products anyway, on the sole premise of them being cheaper...
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: PRS Single-cuts...
I hate to admit it (seeing as I really do like PRS guitars), but Zerb absolutely nailed it. :beerchug:
I'm not so sure that having Gibson clones out there would weaken Gibson, I think it would give Gibson that little bit of an incentive to make superior guitars. However, the bottom line, as Zerb mentioned, was that Gibson owns the trademark and their biggest competitor tried using that design, marketing it to the same crowd in hopes to gain an edge in sales and it backfired on them (rightfully so).
I hate to admit it (seeing as I really do like PRS guitars), but Zerb absolutely nailed it. :beerchug:
I'm not so sure that having Gibson clones out there would weaken Gibson, I think it would give Gibson that little bit of an incentive to make superior guitars. However, the bottom line, as Zerb mentioned, was that Gibson owns the trademark and their biggest competitor tried using that design, marketing it to the same crowd in hopes to gain an edge in sales and it backfired on them (rightfully so).
