ceemonster - Posted - 06/11/2024:  17:09:41

I think part of the speculative suspense about the banjo product itself, is a wistful hope that Gibson had enough regard for the legacy to insist on ensuring that the top models at minimum equalled the quality of the better RK and GT models.   Let's face it, many would see those as close to, or equal, or in some instances better than, the Gibson reissues.    I think there's a wistful wish that Gibson would have enough pride in its own legacy not to go below that quality standard.

Edited by - ceemonster on 06/11/2024 17:12:46

Old Hickory - Posted - 06/11/2024:  18:34:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C

To anyone who claims that the issue of who has the right to use a particular trademark, including Mastertone, “Is NOT complicated and is straightforward”. I disagree. Read the following and you can decide for yourself. Be sure to read the part where it says what registering a trademark “does not do”. (Hint: Federal registration does not guarantee ownership/exclusive right to use a particular trademark.)

The very fact that we have two competing companies utilizing the same presumably registered trademark for similar category products supports the idea that trademark ownership is in fact complex. Many trademark fights involve teams of lawyers and years in the courts. I don't call that "straightforward."

---

Are you an IP lawyer? I've been accused -- not by name, but the accusation fits no one else in this discussion-- if being a layperson arguing with a professional expert. I don't intend to argue with an IP attorney who brings professional and case-specific knowledge and experience to the discussion of trademark.

I believe what I was saying was simple and straightforward was the issue of ownership. As I quoted and linked to about, USPTO says federal registration provides the presumption of ownership. I realize you're saying USPTO says ownership doesn't guarantee the right use. Please quote the passage and provide a link to it. As I said before, a link to an entire website or large document was not helpful.

I can't understand why federal trademark registration would on the one hand provide a presumption of ownership and would not on the other hand guarantee the owner the right to use it. But if that's the case and an expert can explain why I'd love to be educated.

-  -  -  -  -

FWIW, my opinion on the Mastertone name is that Gold Tone's seizing of it is an insult to the banjo community. Everyone at Gold Tone knows what the name Mastertone on a banjo represented, and it was never Chinese copies of revered American instruments. It was appropriation of the worst kind, saying to the banjo community that money and lawyering is all it takes to wrap yourself in someone else's history, tradition, and reputation. I was of the impression that Gold Tone was gaining new respect for its banjos with the introduction of the OB150 and then the Twanger.

I have no evidence Gold Tone has lost respect for claiming Mastertone. It could be plenty of people don't care.

I don't think Mastertone belongs on these new Epiphone banjos, either. And that's totally independent of who owns the name. 

-  -  -  -  -

Finally: What I see as one of the give-aways to these banjos' generic Asian origins is the excess wood beyond the 22nd fret, sufficient to add a 23rd fret. Hate it.

waystation - Posted - 06/11/2024:  20:46:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

FWIW, my opinion on the Mastertone name is that Gold Tone's seizing of it is an insult to the banjo community. Everyone at Gold Tone knows what the name Mastertone on a banjo represented, and it was never Chinese copies of revered American instruments. It was appropriation of the worst kind, saying to the banjo community that money and lawyering is all it takes to wrap yourself in someone else's history, tradition, and reputation. I was of the impression that Gold Tone was gaining new respect for its banjos with the introduction of the OB150 and then the Twanger.

I have no evidence Gold Tone has lost respect for claiming Mastertone. It could be plenty of people don't care.

 

---

I have no dog in this hunt, and we're drifting ever further from the Epiphone topic, but I see the Chinese-made but American-designed banjos from firms like Gold Tone, Gold Star and Recording King as a completely different animal from the BSOs (Banjo-shaped objects) that were blindly copied by companies who think the only purpose of a banjo is to make money for its manufacturer.

The folks behind these companies set out to make quality instruments at an affordable price, after too many banjo players got priced out of the market for quality American-made instruments. As far as I know, design, materials, sourcing and factory supervision are on par with those from American companies that produce factory-made instruments, with management of the factories at least initially in the hands of experienced Americans. Turns out you don't have to be an American on American soil to build a quality banjo, as long as there is someone knowledgeable showing you how to do it.

There are powerhouse banjo designers behind the companies you mention in your post, and their products reflect their expertise. The fact that one of those companies would eventually make a play for the Mastertone trademark that Gibson abandoned after the Nashville flood should not come as a surprise to anyone.

If it hadn't been Gold Tone, it would have been someone else, and I'd put good money down on the thought that if Gold Tone hadn't revived the trademark, Gibson would have just let it lie in its grave for another quarter century, or forever. Gibson is simply staking a claim to something they threw away years ago and suddenly realize still has value. The fact that they don't understand how valuable the name is, even today, is underscored by the fact that they have brought out their Mastertones as Asian-built Epiphones instead of restarting an American factory and building them as Gibsons. If you want to point fingers at a company that's failing to show respect for the "history, tradition and reputation" of the Mastertone name, you don't need any evidence other than that decision to lay that lack of respect at Gibson's own feet.

The Mastertone mark is not the first example of appropriation of abandoned tradmarks in the banjo world. Recording King was a Gibson brand before the war, and the company that builds the modern ones use not only the name, but the original trade dress - the logo and other visual cues - of both the original Gibson-made RKs and other Gibson designs like inlay and flange hole patterns that also happened to fall into the public domain due to Gibson's lack of concern for the value of their intellectual property.

Going back even further, Gibson didn't even try to pay homage to SS Stewart when they used that abandoned trademark on a low-cost line of banjos in the 1930s. They just took their Style 11 and stenciled the Stewart name on the headstock instead of Gibson. That logo, and the lack of an adjustable truss rod, were the only things that distinguished a Gibson Style 11 from an SS Stewart Style 11. I'm not sure, but I think the Stewart trademark had been abandoned for about as long when Gibson picked it up, as the Mastertone name was when Gold Tone staked their claim. Why did Gibson use it? Probably for the commercial value of the goodwill associated with the name by the previous generation of banjo players who had grown up with the original.

Unlike you, I'm not surprised that Gold Tone didn't lose respect when they switched out "Gold Tone" for "Mastertone" on the neck block. It was clear from the people involved and the product itself that they were interested in far more than just moving product in the cheapest way possible. Watch Robby Boone's videos on YouTube to get an idea of how committed people were to building an instrument that lived up to the name, no matter where in the world they had to go to accomplish that. While I hope Epiphone has some of the same motivation here - and it will be impossible to tell until we have instruments in hand - there are enough clues, from the visual appearance of the banjos in the online catalog to the price points they selected, to make it appear that these banjos are more along the lines of Gibson's takeover of SS Stewart than of Recording King's takeover of, well, Recording King, or Gold Tone's takeover of the Mastertone trademark. Make a few bucks and try to undo a bad decision to give away a valuable trademark. The quality of the product, in that strategy, is of secondary importance, if even that.

Finally, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that you probably haven't played a high-end Chinese-made Mastertone-style (or Mastertone) banjo. You should give one a try. I've had a series of them over the past fourteen years - a Chinese Gold Star GF-85, a couple of RKs, and currently a Twanger - and they are quality instruments, some of which are at least on par with what was coming out of Gibson in the first decade of the 2000s, the Twanger being the best of the lot IMO. I don't make that statement lightly - I also own a Greg Rich era Granada, which I bought new, and an original prewar flathead, which I decidedly didn't, and gig regularly and teach with both.

I have seen the quality of these Chinese instruments improve steadily since I bought my GF-85 in 2007. The old Mastertones are unquestionably better banjos, but the gap isn't as wide as you'd think. The Twanger is the first one I've owned that I've been willing to gig with, but current RKs and Gold Stars are probably right up there given the additional time they've had to refine their products and the feedback they've gotten from players. You should seek one of these out and give it a spin - you might be surprised to find that the tradition is alive and well, and that the move to China has just allowed creative companies and their product managers to keep offering great instruments at a price that normal folks can afford.

Will Epiphone, and by extension Gibson, be one of those companies? We'll just have to wait and see. They shouldn't be counted out just because their factories are in China. But I've been looking hard for anything else Gibson has done to make these banjos into Mastertones, other than slapping on a name they no longer own.

phb - Posted - 06/12/2024:  00:54:26

quote:

---

Originally posted by KCJones

Which probably explains why you haven't given much input, there's nothing more annoying for a knowledgeable professional than trying to reason with an ignorant layman.

---

Well, I'm no expert on US IP law and, when it comes to the law, you guys tend to have it all backwards anyway compared to what we do over here...

Also, it's not like much depends on a few guys on the internet talking about things they don't really know (to which I could only add a little more of "I don't know for sure but..."). 

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/12/2024:  05:30:46

waystation slight correction, the "S. S. Stewart" banjos built by Gibson was the private label trademark of Buegeleisen and Jacobson an instrument jobber and distributor with a true and direct succession to the original Stewart banjo by way of Keenophone.

A better comparison would be Deering to "Vega", who, if one reads the associated documents of public record, filed a entirely new trademark. They were only granted the trademark after their attorney called the trademark office after denial, and presumably convinced them that Galaxy had abandoned it. You will notice that Deering's literature uses the phrase "acquired the Vega name". They acquired it by filing a new and unique trademark application. The public documents does not show a trademark ownership transfer.

Likewise, Deering has filed new trademarks on:

S. S. Stewart
Cole
Fairbanks

And attempted to get, but were denied:

Orpheum
Paramount

It seems that they are just sitting on these to prevent others from using them.

waystation - Posted - 06/12/2024:  05:59:46

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

waystation slight correction, the "S. S. Stewart" banjos built by Gibson was the private label trademark of Buegeleisen and Jacobson an instrument jobber and distributor with a true and direct succession to the original Stewart banjo by way of Keenophone.

 

---

Thanks for the clarification, Joel. I didn't know exactly how Gibson came by the Stewart name, or if anyone would have been around to defend it if they had just decided to register it. The goal was the same in either case, though - to trade on what was, at the time, a well-respected trade name to give an unjustified marketing boost to a related but completely different product.

I also hadn't realized that Deering registered all those old names without using them. If they are actually sitting on them to prevent use, we might actually owe them thanks that we haven't seen a wave of cheap Asian Fairbanks & Coles, Orpheums and Paramounts ruining the reputation of those great old manufacturers. Deering's use of Vega seems much like Recording King or Gold Tone - they are producing banjos, unlike their main Deering line, in the style and spirit of the originals. Greg Deering's statement on the Vega page says that those banjos are an homage to the originals. Personally, I respect him for reviving not just the name but many of the actual instrument designs that had been unavailable for years, other than the product of custom shops.

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/12/2024:  06:13:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by waystation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

waystation slight correction, the "S. S. Stewart" banjos built by Gibson was the private label trademark of Buegeleisen and Jacobson an instrument jobber and distributor with a true and direct succession to the original Stewart banjo by way of Keenophone.

 

---

Thanks for the clarification, Joel. I didn't know exactly how Gibson came by the Stewart name, or if anyone would have been around to defend it if they had just decided to register it. The goal was the same in either case, though - to trade on what was, at the time, a well-respected trade name to give an unjustified marketing boost to a related but completely different product.

I also hadn't realized that Deering registered all those old names without using them. If they are actually sitting on them to prevent use, we might actually owe them thanks that we haven't seen a wave of cheap Asian Fairbanks & Coles, Orpheums and Paramounts ruining the reputation of those great old manufacturers. Deering's use of Vega seems much like Recording King or Gold Tone - they are producing banjos, unlike their main Deering line, in the style and spirit of the originals. Greg Deering's statement on the Vega page says that those banjos are an homage to the originals. Personally, I respect him for reviving not just the name but many of the actual instrument designs that had been unavailable for years, other than the product of custom shops.

---

Deering "Vega" banjos kinda look like the 1960s Vega (the worst decade IMO) and that is it.  Their model designation does not conform to anything Vega did-- Their "little Wonder" has a wood rim only and is a 5 string.  Their "#2" is a tubaphone ring.  They are Deering banjos with "Vega" on the peghead.  They use the generic "Gibson" scales and not what Vega used.

To be clear, they were denied Orpheum and Paramount, meaning, they don't have those.

I view it differently, more like an IP grab.  That seems to be their MO along with filing patents on other's ideas or long established designs.

Edited by - Joel Hooks on 06/12/2024 06:13:48

waystation - Posted - 06/12/2024:  06:47:36

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

I view it differently, more like an IP grab.  That seems to be their MO along with filing patents on other's ideas or long established designs.

 

---

Fair enough, if you put it that way. Chalk it up to my relative lack of knowledge about Vegas. Sorry to hear that's the case, though.

250gibson - Posted - 06/12/2024:  11:53:43

Gold tone presumably knows Gibson/Epiphone are using the mastertone name, and are not fighting it. This coupled with the fact that Gibson withdrew their challenge to GoldTone’s application, leads me to believe that there has been some kind of deal between Goldtone and Gibson regarding use of the name. My speculation is that Gibson had a legitimate argument that they did not abandon the trademark, but lost the ability to make banjos and therefore continue use of the trademark when their factory was destroyed by the flood. The grey area that neither wanted to go in front of a judge about would be Gibson’s plans on re-entering the banjo world after the flood.

Emiel - Posted - 06/12/2024:  12:09:57

quote:

---

Originally posted by 250gibson

My speculation is that Gibson had a legitimate argument that they did not abandon the trademark, but lost the ability to make banjos and therefore continue use of the trademark when their factory was destroyed by the flood. 

---

Gibson already shut down banjo production before the flood. It has been confirmed many times here on the BHO from banjo industry  people who were eye-witnesses. This is what Scott Zimmerman said in 2016 in this thread banjohangout.org/archive/316612:

"Most here know these facts but new people join all the time.

Gibson essentially SHUT DOWN Opry Mills, the mandolin Dobro and banjo shop in OCTOBER of 2009. When we went there during IBMA  Gibson had laid off all but 3 of the aproximately 22 +- craftsman. The three remaining were essentially making floor sweep instruments. This is very well documented and the reason why 20 year veteran banjo master Ed Weber now makes Recording King banjos. then fast foreward to spring of 2010 god sent Gibson a gift, the flood. They quickly filed a claim, gave up ALL tooling damaged or not and laughed on the way to the bank.

I know of three WELL KNOWN names in banjo making that have made formal proposals to Gibson to make their banjos, ALL have failed, all for the same reason, which I wont post here."

250gibson - Posted - 06/12/2024:  13:08:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emiel

quote:

---

Originally posted by 250gibson

My speculation is that Gibson had a legitimate argument that they did not abandon the trademark, but lost the ability to make banjos and therefore continue use of the trademark when their factory was destroyed by the flood. 

---

Gibson already shut down banjo production before the flood. It has been confirmed many times here on the BHO from banjo industry  people who were eye-witnesses. This is what Scott Zimmerman said in 2016 in this thread banjohangout.org/archive/316612:

"Most here know these facts but new people join all the time.

Gibson essentially SHUT DOWN Opry Mills, the mandolin Dobro and banjo shop in OCTOBER of 2009. When we went there during IBMA  Gibson had laid off all but 3 of the aproximately 22 +- craftsman. The three remaining were essentially making floor sweep instruments. This is very well documented and the reason why 20 year veteran banjo master Ed Weber now makes Recording King banjos. then fast foreward to spring of 2010 god sent Gibson a gift, the flood. They quickly filed a claim, gave up ALL tooling damaged or not and laughed on the way to the bank.

I know of three WELL KNOWN names in banjo making that have made formal proposals to Gibson to make their banjos, ALL have failed, all for the same reason, which I wont post here."

---

So did they shut down or scale operations back?  It was said they shut down, but then they were making floor sweeps. It can't be both. Manufacturing less then you did before is not ceasing production/abandoning a trademark. Manufacturing actually stopped when they lost all their equipment due to a flood.    

Brian Murphy - Posted - 06/12/2024:  13:47:46

I know of three WELL KNOWN names in banjo making that have made formal proposals to Gibson to make their banjos, ALL have failed, all for the same reason, which I wont post here."

---

Reportedly, the Sullivan VRB line was designed to be a Gibson-licensed line.  Gibson stupidly said no.  I played one of the early ones that was proposed to Gibson.  Monster banjo.

Emiel - Posted - 06/12/2024:  14:00:42

quote:

---

Originally posted by 250gibson

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emiel

quote:

---

Originally posted by 250gibson

My speculation is that Gibson had a legitimate argument that they did not abandon the trademark, but lost the ability to make banjos and therefore continue use of the trademark when their factory was destroyed by the flood. 

---

Gibson already shut down banjo production before the flood. It has been confirmed many times here on the BHO from banjo industry  people who were eye-witnesses. This is what Scott Zimmerman said in 2016 in this thread banjohangout.org/archive/316612:

"Most here know these facts but new people join all the time.

Gibson essentially SHUT DOWN Opry Mills, the mandolin Dobro and banjo shop in OCTOBER of 2009. When we went there during IBMA  Gibson had laid off all but 3 of the aproximately 22 +- craftsman. The three remaining were essentially making floor sweep instruments. This is very well documented and the reason why 20 year veteran banjo master Ed Weber now makes Recording King banjos. then fast foreward to spring of 2010 god sent Gibson a gift, the flood. They quickly filed a claim, gave up ALL tooling damaged or not and laughed on the way to the bank.

I know of three WELL KNOWN names in banjo making that have made formal proposals to Gibson to make their banjos, ALL have failed, all for the same reason, which I wont post here."

---

So did they shut down or scale operations back?  It was said they shut down, but then they were making floor sweeps. It can't be both. 

---

Just making use of left-over parts lying around. Making banjos out of those parts till they are gone.

Old Hickory - Posted - 06/12/2024:  15:41:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C

Read the following . . . Be sure to read the part where it says what registering a trademark “does not do”. (Hint: Federal registration does not guarantee ownership/exclusive right to use a particular trademark.)

---

The statement at the link absolutely does not say that Federal registration of a trademark does not guarantee its use.

What it exactly says is (quoting here):

 "The USPTO does not:

• Decide whether you have the right to use the mark (which differs from the right to register)."



This is referring solely to what the THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE does not do. Not what trademark registration does or does not do.

In fact, the whole list from which this one point comes  is clearly and simply a run-down of trademark and legal services, opinions, advice, and assistance that USPTO does not perform or provide. Their job is to accept, review, and grant or deny trademark applications. USPTO does not make any determination as to what you can and can't do with your registered trademark. That's not their job. The law already makes that determination; courts make rulings based on the law.

For a qualified professional opinion on what registration does, here's a quote from the website of the IP attorneys at the Rapake Law Group:

"A federal trademark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and it will give the owner the exclusive right to use the registered trademark in connection with their goods and services throughout the United States." (emphasis added)

"Federal trademarks are valid for as long as you keep paying the renewal fees."

address for the above: arapackelaw.com/trademarks/sta...l%20fees.

David Ciaffardini - Posted - 06/12/2024:  16:43:35

The fact remains that there are two competing companies using the same trademark for similar products. Registered or not, that’s not exclusive. Is either company infringing on rights or breaking a law? If so, tell it to the judge. But I would not bet on it either way. Nor do I think anyone commenting on this website Is in a position to know with certainty how this will play out in the marketplace or in the courts. But I maintain that discussion about this issue is absolutely relevant to the original posting and should not be censored or redirected as some have suggested. And of course it’s trivia, but triviality Continues to be a powerful, attractive force, a lifeblood fueling so much Internet blabbing. Should we really expect discussions about banjos to be any different? To the average person on the street, this entire website and nearly everything discussed on it could be considered a monument to triviality despite the tones of Self-righteous banjo-obsessed gravitas that reverberates throughout this forum. And, of course, we love it. 

more as the story develops…

Edited by - David Ciaffardini on 06/12/2024 16:46:39

Old Hickory - Posted - 06/12/2024:  17:13:31

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C

The fact remains that there are two competing companies using the same trademark for similar products. Registered or not, that’s not exclusive. Is either company infringing on rights or breaking a law? If so, tell it to the judge. But I would not bet on it either way. Nor do I think anyone commenting on this website Is in a position to know with certainty how this will play out in the marketplace or in the courts. 

---

Two competing companies using the same mark does not negate that registration confers on only one of them the exclusive right to use it. It's possible the one without registration is infringing. That's the kind of thing to be sorted out. As I've said at least three times, USPTP says registration carries with it the presumption of ownership.

A whole other possibility is that Gibson's then-future right to use Mastertone may have been negotiated between the two companies back in 2021 and might have been a quid pro quo for Gibson withdrawing its challenge to Gold Tone's registration. 

The longer this goes on without Gold Tone challenging Gibson, the more it will appear this is something the parties agreed to non-publicly. Same as the substance of an agreement between Gold Tone and Potter Violins is not publicly known. In other words, there may be no conflict between Gold Tone and Gibson, this may not lead to legal action or end up in court, and the current situation may be the resolution.

Waltraud - Posted - 06/15/2024:  16:07:28

Bill Peck can be found and heard playing one of the new Epi Scruggs models on facebook video, sounds good! I don’t know anything about the quality but am quite tempted. The last masterclone banjo I had was a Twanger and frankly it sounded pretty much as good as any Gibson I’ve had, which is a few.

rockyjo - Posted - 06/17/2024:  23:19:12

GaryHopkins so what’s the scoop on this banjo?

You appear to be the only one who’s (claimed to have) had one in hand, and offered to tell about it and why you sent it back. So far, crickets. It’s been 8 days, so thinking you rec’d the refund by now…

What were you expecting and what did you find?

Rockyjo

GaryHopkins - Posted - 06/18/2024:  06:01:44

quote:

---

Originally posted by rockyjo

GaryHopkins so what’s the scoop on this banjo?

What were you expecting and what did you find?



Rockyjo

It arrived. I opened the box. Cosmetically it was so-so. The book-matched resonator overlay looked bad. There were washers on the hooks. The worst was the heel cut. The neck touched the pot at the stretcher band and the bottom of the heel. It didn't touch at the top lag bolt. The neck angle was way off. It sounded like crap when tuned up. The hardware looked very cheap the best thing about the banjo was the inlay work. It looked decent, and the inlays were MOP.. The head was tuned to a G, and the bridge was in the right spot and looked like a decent bridge...... I have liked Epiphone's guitars, but this is the first EPI banjo I've had hands on since I bought and sold a EB88 back in the late 70s. That was a good banjo. 

---

The Old Timer - Posted - 06/18/2024:  07:10:34

Epiphone Earl Scruggs Golden Deluxe shows up on eBay this morning, new. Cheesy looking. Interesting tailpiece choice. $1299

ebay.com/itm/204839380343?mkev...ame=11021

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/18/2024:  07:36:51

That ebay listing is the first non doctored photos I have seen. To me, with my very little experience, it does seem to just be a fairly generic stencil banjo that has Epiphone specified dressing, but the thick poly finish and general construction looks to be identical to many other Chinese banjos.

My thoughts are that this was never meant to be embraced by the banjo community but rather to sell to the guitar community based on name alone.

I have to admit, I kind of want one. I'd recut the heel to zero angle and set it up for classic banjo playing. I expect these will hit the second hand market in a few years at 40-60% of the retail.

The Old Timer - Posted - 06/18/2024:  07:49:06

Probably a very nice "intermediate" banjo though. That's a big market.

GrahamHawker - Posted - 06/18/2024:  07:53:15

Here's some playing along with an early Goldstar. He says the tone ring is a mystery.

youtube.com/watch?v=FBbXArQM-IM

rockyjo - Posted - 06/18/2024:  07:57:35

Thank you, Gary! GaryHopkins

Rockyjo

GaryHopkins - Posted - 06/18/2024:  08:06:08

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

That ebay listing is the first non doctored photos I have seen. 



I have to admit, I kind of want one. I'd recut the heel to zero angle and set it up for classic banjo playing. I expect these will hit the second hand market in a few years at 40-60% of the retail.

You would have to graft wood onto the neck to re-cut it. They cut off too much. 

---

From Greylock to Bean Blossom - Posted - 06/18/2024:  08:10:21

Does not sound good to my ears. Would take a goodtime over it.
ken

GaryHopkins - Posted - 06/18/2024:  08:14:42

I would imagine Epiphone will address the issues found on these banjos. The one I got and one other I know of should have been culled out and not sold. Their quality control seems to be lacking. We'll see what happens down the road.

MatthewH - Posted - 06/18/2024:  08:15:10

The sunburst and back of resonator on these look like absolute garbage.

The RK 35/36/75/76 look light years better than these Epiphones.

waystation - Posted - 06/18/2024:  09:42:52

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Old Timer

Probably a very nice "intermediate" banjo though. That's a big market.

---

"very nice" is probably overstatement, given you can buy what appears to be sonically the same instrument for half the price or less.

To their credit, it looks like they replaced the generic stamped armrest with one that's actually engraved, and in the Granada/Golden Deluxe pattern too.

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/18/2024:  10:39:46

quote:

---

Originally posted by waystation

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Old Timer

Probably a very nice "intermediate" banjo though. That's a big market.

---

"very nice" is probably overstatement, given you can buy what appears to be sonically the same instrument for half the price or less.

To their credit, it looks like they replaced the generic stamped armrest with one that's actually engraved, and in the Granada/Golden Deluxe pattern too.

---

Considering I can't find a clear photo of the "engraving", I expect that the word "engraving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.  I would not be surprised if it was laser etched or some similar production method.

GrahamHawker - Posted - 06/18/2024:  11:41:53

quote:

---

Originally posted by GaryHopkins

I would imagine Epiphone will address the issues found on these banjos. The one I got and one other I know of should have been culled out and not sold. Their quality control seems to be lacking. We'll see what happens down the road.

---

Quality control depends on where these are being made. If they have ordered them in from some factory or other then Epiphone will be unlikely to do any quality control and rely on poor quality control in the factory. And if they act like musical instrument distributors then they wouldn't check them at their end either.

Brian Murphy - Posted - 06/18/2024:  11:51:28

It's very hard to believe Gibson would contract out all mfg and quality and just badge these with "Mastertone" and "Earl Scruggs." If that is true, that is hugely disappointing. Companies that have done well with China production (Eastman, Music Link, Gold Tone) either own or control the process or are heavily involved in QA. I have tried to keep an open mind and urged others to do so, but the initial reports we are getting are not promising. And it is irresponsible to launch something like this without good influencer/reviewers on board. Gold Tone has done that very effectively, which has improved the credibility of its products out of the gate.

waystation - Posted - 06/18/2024:  12:28:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

quote:

---

Originally posted by waystation

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Old Timer

Probably a very nice "intermediate" banjo though. That's a big market.

---

"very nice" is probably overstatement, given you can buy what appears to be sonically the same instrument for half the price or less.

To their credit, it looks like they replaced the generic stamped armrest with one that's actually engraved, and in the Granada/Golden Deluxe pattern too.

---

Considering I can't find a clear photo of the "engraving", I expect that the word "engraving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.  I would not be surprised if it was laser etched or some similar production method.

---

The eBay auction on the previous page had many detailed pictures of what looks to be a production example, right down to the inspection stickers. The armrest close-up looks pretty good to me. 

Here's the link again, so you don't have to hunt for it: ebay.com/itm/204839380343?mkev...ame=11021

KCJones - Posted - 06/18/2024:  22:40:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Murphy

It's very hard to believe Gibson would contract out all mfg and quality and just badge these with "Mastertone" and "Earl Scruggs." If that is true, that is hugely disappointing. 

---

It's pretty easy to believe when you consider how Gibson has operated in the last 15 or so years. Hugely Disappointing could be their slogan at this point. 

Brian Murphy - Posted - 06/19/2024:  05:38:47

quote:

---

Originally posted by KCJones

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Murphy

It's very hard to believe Gibson would contract out all mfg and quality and just badge these with "Mastertone" and "Earl Scruggs." If that is true, that is hugely disappointing. 

---

It's pretty easy to believe when you consider how Gibson has operated in the last 15 or so years. Hugely Disappointing could be their slogan at this point. 

---

From following some guitar sites, I thought Epiphone's marketing plan was to increase the quality of its products and to have them rival (or in some limited instances, make) domestic guitars.  Some of the new higher-end Epiphone guitars are well regarded.  So when they dusted off the Mastertone label and invoked the name of Earl, it seemed logical that they found a way to make really good banjos.  But, as you say, "hugely disappointing."

waystation - Posted - 06/21/2024:  06:32:19

I have the Epiphone eBay auction on my watch list. I just received (and declined) an offer from the seller of 10% off and free shipping.

So, if anyone really wants this banjo, there are deals to be made.

B_Shull - Posted - 07/13/2024:  05:40:44

Sound aside. The fit and finish looks low quality. There is no way I would feel comfortable buying something like this over a RK or Gold Tone.

waystation - Posted - 07/13/2024:  08:24:54

Thanks, Brian, for bumping this topic back up into awareness. It's been close to a month since these banjos went on sale; has anyone played or even seen one yet?

chuckv97 - Posted - 08/28/2024:  13:21:00

Steve Arms runs it through his assessment….
youtu.be/tHSTeEGOe9A

Brian Murphy - Posted - 08/28/2024:  14:04:18

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

Steve Arms runs it through his assessment….

youtu.be/tHSTeEGOe9A

---

OMG - that is junk.  Rubber shims on the neck?  Daylight between heel and pot.  Those pot dimensions are nuts as well.  

rcc56 - Posted - 08/28/2024:  15:27:18

I've been pretty much ignoring this topic, since I figured out long ago that for a long time, the "iconic" [choke choke] Gibson company and its subsidiaries have been surviving mostly on marketing and an ancient reputation that they haven't deserved for many years.



As long as their marketing works, they'll sell a lot of instruments.

And they're good at marketing. They can really get the drums beating and the banners flying.



As far as their products are concerned, if you've got the bucks to buy one of their ultra high end models, you might get a good instrument. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot at best.



Gibson is no more than a dinosaur that hasn't run out of food yet.

Forget about the ancient name, and set your eyes on the alternatives instead. There are plenty of good instruments being made by others these days, including those in a modest price range.

Edited by - rcc56 on 08/28/2024 15:33:38

GrahamHawker - Posted - 08/28/2024:  23:22:03

This seems to have similar faults to those found on the Ibanez B200 and similar rebadged banjos like my Gewa. I wonder if Epiphone are using the same facility.

From Greylock to Bean Blossom - Posted - 08/29/2024:  11:28:10

It is sad, with that name on it they could have made it right, sold it for more and sold a lot.
ken

thundertone - Posted - 09/01/2024:  15:22:03

I saw a friend of mine do a magnet test on the gold model and it stuck to the tone ring. If thats the case its probably not even close to the 3lb sweetness. Not blaming or shaming just saying.

rcc56 - Posted - 09/01/2024:  17:11:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by GrahamHawker

This seems to have similar faults to those found on the Ibanez B200 and similar rebadged banjos like my Gewa. I wonder if Epiphone are using the same facility.

---

Very possible.  Or Gibson's own contractor is making the instruments to the same specs.

It's amazing what a little marketing will do.  Gibson/Epiphone releases a few ads announcing their new products and raises great expectations.  But when the new products are released, they turn out to be no different from what was previously produced, except for a few cosmetic changes.  An old horse with new clothes.

Why should we expect anything else?   It's been well over 50 years [and some might say 90 years] since Epiphone produced any professional grade banjos.

Edited by - rcc56 on 09/01/2024 17:21:52

Old Hickory - Posted - 10/24/2024:  12:04:30

I had a chance to see and play one of these last week at the Gibson Garage showroom and retail store in Nashville. It was comfortable to play. Beyond that, I was not impressed. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, this picture of the neck-to-pot fit should tell you all you need to know. OK, I'll add a few words. 

To be clear what you're seeing: The light spot at the end of the heel is sunlight on the carpet at my feet. The banjo was in my lap in playing position. I should not see the floor through the banjo. That's a gap of a sixteenth to an eighth of an inch between the top of the heel and the tone ring. You can see how set back the ring skirt is from the wood band of the rim. It was that way all around. That is, the ring was not at or overhanging the band at the tail end.

Pity the banjo neophyte who buys one of these and doesn't know this isn't right.

Neck fit on Epiphone Mastertone Classic

 

thundertone - Posted - 10/24/2024:  13:13:49

Again not hating or shaming but too many companies including their " engineers, consultants, designers " american included build " Banjo Bait ". They build a super model for salesmen then churn out 100 models that are good for the wood stove. Taking advantage of new music students for the sole purpose of extorting money. Its sad and an insult to genuine music folk culture.

Old Hickory - Posted - 10/24/2024:  13:31:38

I think now the Epiphone I played was the mahogany and nickel Mastertone Classic, not the maple and gold Earl Scruggs.

HighLonesomeF5 - Posted - 10/24/2024:  13:38:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by thundertone

Again not hating or shaming but too many companies including their " engineers, consultants, designers " american included build " Banjo Bait ". They build a super model for salesmen then churn out 100 models that are good for the wood stove. Taking advantage of new music students for the sole purpose of extorting money. Its sad and an insult to genuine music folk culture.

---

Engineers design what they can, given the restrictions they have from the "budget".  Bean counters are the problem.