Eastwood RD Bass

[leftybass]

https://eastwoodcustoms.com/projects/eastwood-rd-artist-bass/

[Alanko]

Audacious use of Gibson's own photography there. I understand the Krist Novoselik model has Jazz bass pickups because Krist's original bass had these, as per some bootleg Nirvana videos I happen to own. I would prefer to see Eastwood use something a little more original but, if nothing else, it will make an interesting modding platform without having to hack up an original.

All of this hinges on pesky crowdfunding though!

[Basvarken]

Weird they base this bass on the Krist Novoselic Sig bass and not on the real RD Artist. 
I've always found those JB single coils an ill fit on the Gibson RD...

[Granny Gremlin]

Their whole justification for calling this an RD Artist vs Standard is that they will include an active treble boost  (a la the RD Artists bright mode).  I find this hilarious as the bright mode was the most useless feature of the RD Artist electronics.  The active (boost and cut) bass and treble tone controls were the best part of that.... and some of us liked the FX mode quite a bit too.

[leftybass]

Alright, well, obviously a bad idea to post about this. Thought someone might dig it. Carry on.

[Basvarken]

Not at all. I just think it's a bit silly they chose the wrong bass to copy.

[Granny Gremlin]

Alright, well, obviously a bad idea to post about this. Thought someone might dig it. Carry on.

Not at all.  We obviously dig RDs, but that doesn't mean the perpetual bellyache squad can't/won't make criticisms and opinionated observations.  Gibson has us very used to such disappointments.

[Pilgrim]

"...the perpetual bellyache squad..."

Well said! 

Cool offering as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not an RD fan, but it's an interesting addition for Eastwood.

[Nocturnal]

Would something like this need to be licensed by Gibson? Just curious how something like this works. 

[Dave W]

Would something like this need to be licensed by Gibson? Just curious how something like this works.

I doubt it. You can't claim trademark on something you no longer produce. That might not stop Gibson from trying to bully them though.

[dadagoboi]

Would something like this need to be licensed by Gibson? Just curious how something like this works.

They only need a license if Gibson has a trademark on the body shape.

If the 'RD Artist' name is trademarked Eastwood couldn't use that either no matter what the body shape.

I doubt it. You can't claim trademark on something you no longer produce.

Actually, you can if no one else has trademarked it.  Phantom Guitar Works owns the trademark on Vox's original Phantom and teardrop shapes because Vox supposedly abandoned it.  That's why the Vox Phantom reissue  (32" scale) is not available in the US. 

Gibson could have applied for a trademark on the RD shape/name when they did the recent reissue if they didn't already have one.

[Alanko]

I doubt Eastwood could ask such a low price if they were considering reproducing the original Moog electronics. It will come down to what they can source already. Artec make a QP clone, for example, with the bigger pole pieces.

I see this as a blessing in disguise. The pickups are the smallest, spatially, that they could use. Therefore there is plenty of room to route for different pickups. Fancy an RD bass with Darkstars? Bartolini soapbars? MM-style humbuckers? It could all be done. There is room in the electronics cavity for all sorts of mischief as well. Fancy spooning an ACG preamp in there?

[Granny Gremlin]

I doubt Eastwood could ask such a low price if they were considering reproducing the original Moog electronics.

Yeah.  I didn't see the price before.  Surprisingly affordable.  My point wasn't that they should have repro'd the Moog circuit at that pricepoint (or at all; probably not worth it), but rather that they should have referred to this as an RD Standard (or just RD).   For fans, the 'Artist' designation means something and this bass isn't it.   I certainly wouldn't want their silly treble boost circuit (in the bass version; might be cool in the geetar).

That pic is of an actual Gibson RD Bass reissue so we don't know what the Eastwood version would look like (details; e.g finish colour as per their speil) or what the pups would be.  Chances are they'd use some sort of J style pup (because that's easy, and their drawings seem to imply that, thugh I'm not sure where those came from), but probably not the same Seymour Duncans Gibson did on the reissue.... Use of the J style is, I think, a mistake in the Gibson reissue/sig, despite Novoselic's vintage bass purportedly sporting them at some point (though if it's his sig, and he wanted it that way, fine, but still think it was a bad decision). They also make no mention of the wood choice.

Not realistic for production, but as a mod I think some G3 Bill Lawrence pups (bridge position not quite so at the bridge) or some lipsticks would be cool in this thing. 

They also need better copy writers.

[uwe]

I'm speechless that they have the nerve to use a Gibson model and then say "ours will be just like it but different enough so they can't sue us". If nothing else, Gibson has rights to that pic. Using it commercially and then even messing around with it to depict how the "own" model will eventually look screams for a cease and desist order IMHO.     I'm generally not very sensitive on these matters, but this is beyond cheeky.

[Granny Gremlin]

That occurred to me too, but we had a similar argument recently (about knock off Les Pauls) and I figured we'd not want to go there again.  ... though this is a little different/miore brazen (though if you recall, that luthier also said something similar, like this is just enough difference from a Gibson so they won't sue... he was wrong).