Changing guitar name?

I sanded a logo off, but left it plain. Made it look custom made.

I couldn't put a fake name on a guitar. But it would be fun to make a lookalike logo that was slightly different.

That would be interesting... your very own vintage Fedner!

I have a Johnson Tricone. I know folks who've put National decals on those. Couldn't do that, but on another board we discussed making logos like "Rational."
:P

I've seen Faker done in Fender style. Seems apropos.

How about "ofFender"?

Now that I think about it this would be bad for the industry if peeps start doing this and selling cheap 100 buck strats or whatever and putting on a fake Fender logo and selling them for 500 bucks.

I just want to do this to fake people out, I wouldn't sell it or anything. How does a "Deadner" Stratocaster sound?

It's kind of like Johnny Depp changing his Wynona Forever tattoo to read Wino Forever.

Similar except he didn't have it scratched off. :lol:

You could always try "Fercler"
You could be the very first with a Fercler Startacoster

How about "ofFender"?
... now that is appropriate and clever

This also brings up something that I was thinking about a year or two ago, dealing with branding, brand recognition and especially, sponsorship. I think we've all seen the incredible branding done in F1 racing: logos and badges on every available surface of the cars - outside but also inside where the in car camera will see it - and on the drivers' hemlets and suits. People used to joke about it in the 60s, calling them rolling billboards, but that was when they just had "Shell" or "BP" or "Dunlop" on them. You could still see the prancing pony on the Ferraris. Now?

But it takes zillions of dollars to run a Formula One team, and that's where the money comes from.

But it brought up the idea of, say, Fender. Let's say I got a deal and somehow got a sponsorship from Fender. They'd supply me with guitars and what have you, and their logo would be displayed prominantly everywhere. You ever see those after-race interviews with the F1 drivers? They're wearing a cap with the sponsor's logo on the front. The cap is completely brand new - they've never worn it except for that one interview. It would be the same with Fender - Fender everything.

Now let's say, like most of us, Fender *didn't* sponsor me? Do I have an obligation to advertise or them? Are they paying me to present their logo to the public? In fact, did I not have to *buy* their instrument with my own money?

So I was thinking, why should I advertise for you guys if I was the one paying. It's not even free advertising - like when a news crew happens to pan past a Addidas billboard. In fact the manufacturer is getting 'extra' exposure because the client - me - bought the product and then advertises for it free of cost to them.

And I resent that. :)

So I was also thinking, that if I were ever in a position to be in the media, I would, just to spite them, put black tape over all the logos on whatever is in public view. If I ever bought a Marshall, or any other amp, I'd remove the logo. If the audience doesn't know what a Marshall amp or a Fender guitar looks like, then it's not my responsibility to tell them.

Unless I'm sponsored.

That's the way I kind of look at it. If I bought it, I can technically put *my* name on it because it's *mine.* It doesn't belong to the manufacturer any longer - it's mine. Then if I want to sell it, I'm a reseller and I put the logo back on it.

That's the funny thing about logos and brand recognition though: somehow, it's become not only the norm to want only certain brands and labels (like in clothes), but a subconscious obsession, to the point of it being a cliche that we all chuckle at, but *still* the manufacturers sit back and rake in the profits *and* the free advertising!

Maybe I'll just make some stick on labels that say "Unavailable" or "Eyes Only" or "Undisclosed" or "See Attached." lol - maybe that's the way to go.

keep on thinking down the chain....

If because you cover your logos when you are famous, they have to pay extra to advertise, who do you think that cost gets passed onto?

I have a friend, a drummer, who took his drums in to be refinished (lacquer black, like a baby grand) and he had the guy put the 'Steinway' piano logo on them. People have to look twice and quite a few make the comment "I didn't know that Steinway made drums." Which, of course, they don't. They're quite the conversation piece, though, and definitely unique. (Don't know how Steinway would feel about it, though!)

Famous would most likely mean sponsorship, Maybe, maybe not; but when it gets to that point, it's an entirely different level. Sig models for instance: I'm not in the ad strumming an Ibanez. I'm not Dimebag who may or may not be getting a stipend, except maybe for the MXR stuff with his name on it.

Fame makes the person a logo in him/herself, aside from the other unexpected and not so well received things, and there *is* compensation. When there's an artist sig model, there is compensation. When everyone else who is not at that level buys it, they are helping to pay for the artist's compensation, but the advertising we do in the mean time is still free. After we purchase the product, our responsibility ends. If the product is good enough to stand on its own, without the logo, then it deserves to be brought before the public/consumer. If it's not good enough, then it will fade.

Logo, brand recognition or no.

We've all seen countless threads about 'crappy Fenders' or 'brilliant Squiers.' In these cases the name didn't make a difference to the quality or consumer satisfaction. The 'lemon factor' has to be factored in with this of course (quality control issues), but when there is such an obsession with name, then it becomes entirely brand recognition driven, without thought to quality and consumer satisfaction. And that brings it back to the money factor and that comes back to the manufacturer trying to control the market by telling us - in not so many words - that we *must* have their product, and if we don't we're somehow second-rate and not as 'wise' as we could be. They play on prestige in ownership, prestige in name, and many times fall short when the bottom line of actual consumer satisfaction is brought in. And it's not only them: so many GAS threads about such and such a brand only play into their agenda.

They don't need my little company - me - advertising for them, because they already have too much advertising. They've saturated. And since I'm not a reseller and am not getting even wholesale discounts as a perk, why would I want to give them anything for free? This is just regular, non-star people like me I'm talking about.

And when one of us 'makes it?' The instruments are still just instruments. The Fender Strat or the Gibson SG weren't just used as stand alone devices like in a trade show where somebody demonstrates the instrument. When someone makes it, it rarely has anything to do with the instrument they're using. Yo-Yo Mah didn't make it because he played a Strad; he played it after he made it. No, when someone makes it, it's the songs, the talent on the instrument, the singing, the stage presence, and as soon as they do, the vultures swoop in (if at all), asking if they can give the artist a sponsorship.

If the case of expense being passed on to the regular consumer due to our personally bought instruments not having a logo were true (which I'm not saying it isn't, entirely), then sig models should be way cheaper than the normal models, or we should see drastic decrease in price overall. And yet it hasn't happened. The consumer never gets a break because that would be bad for the manufacturer. We never get a break but we're told we are, somehow. And we buy not only the product, but the hype that goes along with it. The 'legends' as it were. Why did Clapton choose the Les Paul? Simply because it was a Gibson? There was a desire in certain parts of the world for 'American' instruments. A legend as it were. I recall a visiting Scot looking at a friend's Jassmaster; it was as though he was looking at a bowl of diamonds. Maybe that had a little to do with the reasons Eric played an LP. But I think it was mostly because it gave him the sound he wanted at that time. The sound and the ability to play at high volumes without problems. Something solid for the road perhaps. A utilitarian perspective.

But after that, the market took off on its own. Marshall and Gibson. I'm sure Eric got a few free LPs back then, maybe a few stacks, but the compansation was way in favor of the manufacturer - and it still is. It lives on as 'legend.'

And people still buy into it, even though playability, sound and other factors may not be what they were back then.

Hey I thought of another logo "Mine For Now."

Good point though Nick. I'm looking 'up' the chain though :)