blackeye effects white pine

[rocket88]

Grrr frank. You kill me with all this talk about mojo. Lol

I'm just coming from my point of view on this. I mean we see it all the time in things other then pedals. If we look at something like watches. If you buy one that is sold as a Rolex, but is made by timex you'ld be pissed. But if you bought a watch that looks like a Rolex, but you're told it's actually a timex it's another story. Just one way of looking at it. It's about being up front, otherwise you're swindling people.

Just like some builder that take orders for pedals and don't deliver, and disappear (guy who made the oracle) or take money to invest in a new product, but use it for your personal bills and stuff (deviever).

[Beaker]

I totally see you point, but you are forgetting why Jim Marshall started making amps in the first place. The trade embargos that existed in the early 60's between the UK and USA meant that American guitars and amps were effectively impossible to get hold of in the UK. Even if you could find one, you could not afford it!

You can blame the US government for the predomidance of British amps.

As a side note, I don't think you can use the term "clone" (in the way we use it) in reference to '60's products - I don't think anyone then would even recognise the concept, and would probably laugh at you if you tried to explain it.

[motterpaul]

Beaker , I didn't know about those trade embargoes or else I certainly would have put that in the article. I do remember seeing the early Voxes here in America, though.

FYI: My original copy said that JTM looked at a Bassman and decided it was conventional enough that there wouldn't be a patent infringement if he used it as a basis to get started. Reverb.com sent my writing to a "Marshall historian" and then I did not do the final edit (Peter Schu did) - so I honestly don't know what was said by Marshall about this. That's what happens with writing.

But I think the main point is that no one denies Marshall used the Bassman to get started, but that the first commercial (for sale) version of a Marshall amp was not just a Fender Bassman clone. The differences were not that many, but basic guitar tube amps back then we not that varied. I am sure Silvertone, Heathkit & Guild all look about the same. But anyway - the Marshall did sound different, and it was in how they saturated the output stage - more compressing output tubes (5881 instead of 6L6) - and a different V1 (this makes a huge difference, and i think everyone knows this, the difference between an ECC81 (Fender used a 12ay7) and an ECC83 (Marshall used), and the the beefed up feedback loop (more gain).

Before Marshall, people were looking at the speakers for distortion (the Fender approach). Marshall put it in the preamp and the OT stage. As time went on, both the pre and OT stages for Marshall got even beefier, while Fender stayed with the clean Twin Reverb type of sound.

By the time the 2203 Master Volume Marshalls came along they were damn beefy. Even more important, Clapton was one of the first people to stick a boost into a Marshall, A Rangemaster into his Bluesbreaker to record with John Mayall in 1966. I remember the first LPB1s, they were little boxes with guitar plugs sticking out the bottom. You plugged them right into your amp, and then plugged your guitar into the box (no footswitch).



Also Zach - I did not know you could not patent a schematic, I am a little surprised but I guess it makes some sense since circuits have so much in common. So yeah, in that case you certainly can make clones with no issues.

[motterpaul]

<quote>As a side note, I don't think you can use the term "clone" (in the way we use it) in reference to '60's products - I don't think anyone then would even recognise the concept, and would probably laugh at you if you tried to explain it.<quote author="Beaker">

That is pretty funny - yeah, we thought the future would be flying cars and robots delivering the mail. But I can tell you we had something called "bootlegs" that were something like "clones" - especially if they came on tape (like 8-trks or cassettes).

[induction]

motterpaul wrote

Also Zach - I did not know you could not patent a schematic, I am a little surprised but I guess it makes some sense since circuits have so much in common. So yeah, in that case you certainly can make clones with no issues.

You can patent a circuit, but in practice it is very difficult. Patents will only be granted for new, novel designs. Most pedals are based on other circuits, and even those that are completely original are usually not unique or innovative enough to qualify for patent protection.

For example, Boss patented assymetrical clipping (but never enforced it, from what I understand), and Mike Fuller patented some part of the Plimsoul circuit. The funny thing is, in most cases (including these two, I believe) the patent holders are demonstrably not the first people to sell circuits with the patented features. Since the technology in question is an obvious 'variation' on existing works, the patents should probably never have been granted.

I also believe that R.G. Keen generates lots of patents, though he doesn't own the patents himself. What happens is he comes up with a clever circuit idea and publishes it to his website without applying for a patent. Then 6 months later, someone reads his article and applies for (and often receives) a patent based on his design. Obviously, this is not how its supposed to work, but patent enforcement is very expensive for both sides, so I don't think many patent snipers successfully make money by patenting someone else's ideas, at least in the pedal world.

[kirshman]

So i found a used one at a good price and bought it out of curiosity.  I can see the 2 caps on top left are both a slightly different value, and haven't chased the resistors yet.  I honestly don't have a problem with people selling clones, I have and will again, but at least say based off, and give credit where credit is due.