Ibanez Lawsuits

[jzucker]

I think you’re being a little unfair. A Gibson es175 is hardly a Rolex and the 23355 is just as well made and often plays better.

Whether a 50 year old instrument plays better is often a factor of whether it's been planed and refretted moreso than the guitar itself. Most of those older instruments need some planing and refretting due to the upper extension coming up as the center of the instrument pushes down from the pressure of the bridge. But more importantly, the ibanez guitars from that era do not have the classic gibson sound, nor have they (yet) developed the classic Ibanez sound. I simultaneously owned an aria herb ellis and ibanez 23355 and thought the aria was much better made and sounded better.

[Jimmy blue note]

I think you’re being a little unfair. A Gibson es175 is hardly a Rolex and the 23355 is just as well made and often plays better.

I was making a reference to the fact that Gibson made their reputation through hard work and making an admittedly fine piece of workmanship through their days and through their history. What we now call 'branding' was Gibson's reputation which gave them a caché which at times was deserved, sometimes not. Either way, for many, Gibson, like Rolex established a name brand that people lusted after even if they couldn't utilize that piece of machinery to the limits of its potential for which it was created; people buy fantasy and Gibson created an object of fantasy.
So has Ferrari, so has Gucci: objects of fantasy based on reputation extrinsic to native function.
Yeah, so a 175 is a working man's Gibson, but believe it or not, a lot of people want a 175 because [Joe Pass...Jim Hall...Steve Howe and the Gibson ad department] made them fantastic. I don't think I'm being unfair in saying a lot of people want Gibson because of that name on the headstock.
Ibanez took that hunger for some Gibson, that urge and hunger fomented by years of being unattainably outpriced, and gave a guitar craver something they could afford NOW. That's what I'm saying here.
Gibson created an object of fantasy many could not afford. Ibanez created an object that satisfied that want and did it at a price many could afford.
Simple key to their early success.
You may disagree with my assessment of the psychological dynamics of fantasy fulfillment and the commercial models based on those needs, but that's the way I see it.
I do think Ibanez has build superior instruments in their day and to present date. They've built their own place in the guitar fantasy pantheon. Why else would they have gone to such great lengths to build a guitar that Joe Pass, John Scofield, George Benson, Pat Metheny would give their names to?
I'm not talking about guitars. I'm talking about sales.

[entresz]

I don't have much to add, but I wouldn't get too caught up in the 'lawsuit' era MIJ hype.

I had a mid 70s Greco ES-175 clone and while cosmetically it looked very much like the real thing, it didn't feel or sound anything like a Gibson.

I ended up getting a 1983 Epiphone Emperor F (similar to the Aria PE-180), which is also a Japanese made guitar, but IMO is a far superior instrument and compares very favourably to a Gibson.

[Little Jay]

Got my Condor ES-175 copy for $150. For that money it's a superb guitar!
For $1,500? Not so much......

[fep]

After my first cheapo guitar bought by my parents, the first guitar I bought myself was a Takemine, copy of a Martin d-45. That was probably about 1973 or 1974, I guess I was about 16 years old. I had never heard of a lawsuit guitar, but at some point later I discovered that that was a lawsuit guitar. Perhaps I bought it before the lawsuits. Still have that guitar, played it last week, I've had it just about forever.

[John A.]

After my first cheapo guitar bought by my parents, the first guitar I bought myself was a Takemine, copy of a Martin d-45. That was probably about 1973 or 1974, I guess I was about 16 years old. I had never heard of a lawsuit guitar, but at some point later I discovered that that was a lawsuit guitar. Perhaps I bought it before the lawsuits. Still have that guitar, played it last week, I've had it just about forever.

Technically, the only actual lawsuit guitars are Ibanez's Gibson copies with the open book headstock. That suit was filed in 77 and settled in 78. The various Fender and Martin headstock copies were kept out of the US by other means short of suits. And Martin, Fender, and Gibson copies are still sold in countries where the trademarks aren't recognized.

Most of what gets called "lawsuit guitars" are not lawsuit guitars. They're just guitars.

[Archie]

Whether a 50 year old instrument plays better is often a factor of whether it's been planed and refretted moreso than the guitar itself. Most of those older instruments need some planing and refretting due to the upper extension coming up as the center of the instrument pushes down from the pressure of the bridge. But more importantly, the ibanez guitars from that era do not have the classic gibson sound, nor have they (yet) developed the classic Ibanez sound. I simultaneously owned an aria herb ellis and ibanez 23355 and thought the aria was much better made and sounded better.

The Spruce topped 2355 was a bit heavy and had a darker sound than a Gibson ES-175 but I bought one for £500 whilst Es-175's were £1500+
The 2355M (maple top) is a fantastic sounding guitar and from my recollection, every bit as goods as a good ES-175 and again for half the price.
Those subjective views aside, we're still trying to compare guitars half the price. Yes the excitement and mojo of a deal from the 70's carries some extra 'WOW' reviews, that might start to over come the guitars themselves; I don't disagree at all.
The fact is, they are still wonderful guitars if you addd up the sum of their parts and the vintage factor (mojo).
I would take almost any of them at around or under £1500 compared to almost anything coming out of China, which to me still doesn't cut the mustard.

[Archie]

I was making a reference to the fact that Gibson made their reputation through hard work and making an admittedly fine piece of workmanship through their days and through their history. What we now call 'branding' was Gibson's reputation which gave them a caché which at times was deserved, sometimes not. Either way, for many, Gibson, like Rolex established a name brand that people lusted after even if they couldn't utilize that piece of machinery to the limits of its potential for which it was created; people buy fantasy and Gibson created an object of fantasy.
So has Ferrari, so has Gucci: objects of fantasy based on reputation extrinsic to native function.
Yeah, so a 175 is a working man's Gibson, but believe it or not, a lot of people want a 175 because [Joe Pass...Jim Hall...Steve Howe and the Gibson ad department] made them fantastic. I don't think I'm being unfair in saying a lot of people want Gibson because of that name on the headstock.
Ibanez took that hunger for some Gibson, that urge and hunger fomented by years of being unattainably outpriced, and gave a guitar craver something they could afford NOW. That's what I'm saying here.
Gibson created an object of fantasy many could not afford. Ibanez created an object that satisfied that want and did it at a price many could afford.
Simple key to their early success.
You may disagree with my assessment of the psychological dynamics of fantasy fulfillment and the commercial models based on those needs, but that's the way I see it.
I do think Ibanez has build superior instruments in their day and to present date. They've built their own place in the guitar fantasy pantheon. Why else would they have gone to such great lengths to build a guitar that Joe Pass, John Scofield, George Benson, Pat Metheny would give their names to?
I'm not talking about guitars. I'm talking about sales.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

[zecat]

As far as I know, in 1975 and 1976, Ibanez had 4 types of "L5" guitars :
Ibanez 2460 which was a L5CES copy with a formed top
Ibanez 2461 which was a Johnny smith copy with a formed top
Ibanez 2470 which was a L5CES copy with a carved top
Ibanez 2471 which was a L5c copy with a carved top.

After 1977 came the FA series...

A few years ago I had the opportunity to buy a genuine Gibson L5c from 1975 at a price of 5.000 euros.
In the same time I foind a 2471 L5c copy from Ibanez, also from 1975, at 1.200 euros.

The ibanez was far better than the Norlin Gibson I was able to buy. I went with the Ibanez and don't regret it.

When I gave it to my luthier for a check up (he makes nice archtops guitars) he was astonished by the quality of the Ibanez.

I also tried a 2470 from 1975, excellent guitar. It had a pick up upgrade and it makes the job without any problem.

All that to say that if you are looking for the real thing, keep saving money to buy a 50's or 60' Gibson.

If you are on a budget don't spend your money on Gibson from the 70's without trying an Ibanez or a Greco.

I'll finish my post saying that in the US, Ibanez archtops get high prices (from 3.000 to 4.000 dollars) while in Europe they stay at Reasonable prices (from 1.500 to 2.300 euros).

[gianluca]

I agree with you: I’ve recently bought a 1977 Ibanez 2461 (the johnny smith copy - one pickup) and I love its feeling and its unplugged tone. Superior neck and great playability. enough resistant to feedback on loud club gig. electric tone is very nice and smooth. obiuvsly it depends on amp settings, but the pickup is just fine.
never played a real Js but I’ve had a super400, an L5 a Byrdland and a LeGrand and I’m very happy whit this 2461 now.

[Archie]

As far as I know, in 1975 and 1976, Ibanez had 4 types of "L5" guitars :
Ibanez 2460 which was a L5CES copy with a formed top
Ibanez 2461 which was a Johnny smith copy with a formed top
Ibanez 2470 which was a L5CES copy with a carved top
Ibanez 2471 which was a L5c copy with a carved top.

After 1977 came the FA series...

A few years ago I had the opportunity to buy a genuine Gibson L5c from 1975 at a price of 5.000 euros.
In the same time I foind a 2471 L5c copy from Ibanez, also from 1975, at 1.200 euros.

The ibanez was far better than the Norlin Gibson I was able to buy. I went with the Ibanez and don't regret it.

When I gave it to my luthier for a check up (he makes nice archtops guitars) he was astonished by the quality of the Ibanez.

I also tried a 2470 from 1975, excellent guitar. It had a pick up upgrade and it makes the job without any problem.

All that to say that if you are looking for the real thing, keep saving money to buy a 50's or 60' Gibson.

If you are on a budget don't spend your money on Gibson from the 70's without trying an Ibanez or a Greco.

I'll finish my post saying that in the US, Ibanez archtops get high prices (from 3.000 to 4.000 dollars) while in Europe they stay at Reasonable prices (from 1.500 to 2.300 euros).

A correction maybe worth making is that an 'arched top' is still laminated. So the JS is laminated even though it says 'arched'.
The 2460 also has a laminate top.
Apparently unless Ibanez explicitly claim solid or carved spruce, it is laminate.
They did make some pressed tops but that seems to be more random and miss guided based on reading the catalogues.
I'd have to double check but I'm not sure all 2470's were solid carved but this could be the FA700's.
I'm quite sure that some of the FA800's were pressed solid but not all of them.