Thunderbird IV Bass Limited

Started by gearHed289, March 16, 2012, 09:29:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nofi

speaking of which, i always wondered why sx had to change their headstocks. there are many more faithful renditions of fender's design out there. a lot of boutique 'fender' basses come to mind as well as tons of cheap knock offs.
"life is a blur of republicans and meat"- zippy the pinhead

dadagoboi

Quote from: nofi on March 18, 2012, 02:40:23 PM
speaking of which, i always wondered why sx had to change their headstocks. there are many more faithful renditions of fender's design out there. a lot of boutique 'fender' basses come to mind as well as tons of cheap knock offs.

Fender has a trademark on it's headstock shape and does enforce it in the US  with licenses and suits, etc.  I use Allparts MIJs which are licensed.

The old SX headstock can be trimmed to closely resemble the modern Fender shape.  My theory is Fender told them they could build Squiers, maybe even Fenders for them if they changed the SX so it couldn't be modified that way.  So they did.  Anyway, that's my theory.

Modded original SX headstock

Pilgrim

Quote from: Dave W on March 17, 2012, 06:16:55 PM

Maybe hell will freeze over first.  ;D  They do have to consider their target guitar market, any composite would probably not be considered.

I get that.  With the high prices they charge in the Gibson line, they have to pretend their instruments are at least 75% unobtanium.  Nothing so plebeian as a composite would be acceptable.
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."

Dave W

Quote from: Pilgrim on March 18, 2012, 04:23:43 PM
I get that.  With the high prices they charge in the Gibson line, they have to pretend their instruments are at least 75% unobtanium.  Nothing so plebeian as a composite would be acceptable.

It's not just price, it's what the buyers expect, even in the economy Gibsons like the Melody Maker or the several faded models. Hagstrom doesn't have that problem, since the brand had been off the market for years and was reintroduced as a lower priced import line.

lowend1

Quote from: nofi on March 18, 2012, 02:40:23 PM
speaking of which, i always wondered why sx had to change their headstocks. there are many more faithful renditions of fender's design out there. a lot of boutique 'fender' basses come to mind as well as tons of cheap knock offs.

The SX headstock change had nothing to do with Fender. As I understand it, Sterling Ball was the one who got his panties all bunched up over it.
If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter

Nocturnal

I always thought the SX headstock looked very similar to Lakland's headstock, but I never knew who forced the change. I think the current Ursa headstock is fugly tho.  :puke:
TWINKLE TWINKLE LITTLE BAT
HOW I WONDER WHAT YOU'RE AT

exiledarchangel

New SX headstocks remind me of Ibanez thingies. Maybe Ibanez should lawsuit em. :D
Don't be stupid, be a smartie - come and join die schwarze Hardware party!