DVD-quality lessons (including tabs/sheet music) available for immediate viewing on any device.
Take your playing to the next level with the help of a local or online banjo teacher.
Weekly newsletter includes free lessons, favorite member content, banjo news and more.
Premier Sponsors
|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/396433
Joel Hooks - Posted - 03/22/2024: 06:05:18
Bill Rogers , I can't help but think that my mention of counterfeit banjos got the ivory discussion hidden.
For my understanding, is posting about the counterfeit banjos in the classifieds a rule offence, and if so could that be made clear in the official rules?
I understand that counterfeit Gibson banjos are prevalent and likely provide a bit of revenue for the website and as a long time Union member I support the site making money and don't want to compromise that.
So please let me/us know if the subject is officially off limits so that I won't break the rule again.
And by "counterfeit" I do not mean "conversion" (which IMO leans that direction if marked with trademarked logos).
KCJones - Posted - 03/22/2024: 07:19:17
There's a few people here that make a lot of money selling counterfeit Gibsons. If it's acceptable to sell them, I don't see why we wouldn't be allowed to talk about them.
Eric A - Posted - 03/22/2024: 07:40:38
Every time I see a post about "where exactly is THE LINE", I know that is a guy who wants to push the line. And what are you doing here, exactly???
Old Hickory - Posted - 03/22/2024: 10:25:50
What do you mean by counterfeit?
Copies passed off as genuine? That's counterfeit in all senses of the word. Especially with the intent to defraud.
Or do you mean copies that are represented as copies? I realize those are probably counterfeit, too. But if a seller is being honest and not trying to deceive, then there's an entirely different intent.
I accept that the long history of builders copying Gibsons doesn't make it right. I'm just uncomfortable calling all copies counterfeit when they're not made or sold with any intent to defraud.
I'll admit I don't know what to call them.
Texasbanjo - Posted - 03/22/2024: 11:12:38
Here's what Bill said about why he hid/locked that topic and I think that should answer your question. If Bill disagrees with me, he will let us know. " I hid it. The original question was “asked and answered.” The thread then headed off to argue about BHO policies and various laws and legal questions that none of us is qualified to answer."
Perhaps it wasn't just your post, but that and the ones that followed it that got the topic locked.
Bill Rogers - Posted - 03/22/2024: 11:21:19
No problem with discussing fake Gibsons. I wanted to 1) Get away from the ivory issue, which was answered 2) Leave the Gibson question for its own thread if someone wanted to ontinue it. Seemed to me it became a two-topic thread, and rather confusing. As with sports officials, a judgment call.
On the ivory issue: Discussing what the rules are is fine, but whether the rules are fair and what CITES should be is a political issue, so there’s that too. It’s a fine line.
@Joel Hooks
Dan Gellert - Posted - 03/22/2024: 12:30:57
I was away for a couple days, and completely missed the now-deleted ivory thread, so excuse my ignorance.
Joel, are you asking if it is against the rules to point out something that appears to you to be false advertising? I certainly hope not. Someone as obsessive as you seem to be regarding clarity and precision in our language is just naturally going to be triggered by the two words "Gibson banjo"-- a phrase which has been abused and obfuscated to the point of FUBAR. Of course you're bound to get some hostility from folks who take your comments much more personally than they should. Don't let them run you off. Even when I disagree with your conclusion or definition (which I do often), I always appreciate the way you challenge "common knowledge" and habitual thinking.
Bill Rogers - Posted - 03/22/2024: 13:20:17
It’s always appropriate to point out “NotaGibson” banjos. Or renecked ones. Note though, that Earl’s Granada lost it’s “original” status when Gibson put on the bowtie (neck? fretboard?) and its all-Gibson status when he got the hearts and flowers neck. Once in a while you see banjos like my first real bluegrass instrument: PB1 shell (1926); RB-100 neck; Gibson flathead tone ring (1962). All-Gibson, but a multi-generation parts banjo.
banjoT1 - Posted - 03/30/2024: 23:30:59
I was one of the earlier participants of the 'ivory' thread - and most recently a poster in the Lemon Banjos 'Stand in Line' thread. The purpose in identifying myself here is to inform the Moderators that I had a personal interest in the topics otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time to compose my posts.
First, do we agree that BHO is a 'for-profit', 'commercial', revenue-generating website ? Yes - in spite of the rule-of-thumb that 'orgs' are typically reserved for non-commercial purposes. And, I doubt that the Moderators are giving their free time because its simply the right thing to do.
So, as a participant/lurker to only 2 or 3 different web forums, my intent is to listen and learn, but when I can, or when I believe I could add to a thread, I'll post something that is either opinion, personal knowledge or a citation of other's academic findings. But regardless, a posted reply may be perceived by other BHOers as positive or negative but the mix and exchange normally advances a thread along for awhile until it dies from exhaustion and lack of interest- or, until the Moderators pull the plug prematurely as I've read lately. Imo.
I personally appreciate it when a) the M's call out abusive and inappropriate posts - normally seen as ignorant language or intent to be mean-spirited and harmful, and b) when it's helpful to BHO thread readers when and how thread replies transition the thread topic into divergent issues. IMO that's 'keeping the topic on track'.
and a good time to provide clarification. We all don't comprehend with the same meaning nor have a shared agreement of word definitions therefore, IMO, the M's could zoom out of actual discussions but take a more constructive and analytical perspective of what's decent, helpful, and/or multi-headed.
About the 'ivory' thread - a specific CITES/ivory thread could have been opened.
About the Lemon Banjos thread - rather than threatening a 'time out' there was a prime but missed opportunity for the M to interject some wisdom and clarity.
IMO, note that I say 'IMO', we all are students in life and desire to learn and use the internet accordingly - BHO in this case. But with hit-or-miss inconsistency or unclear 'rules' of engagement then really, except in a few instances, I'm wasting my time on here.
