Fuchs Dumble Clone

[Smitty]

I think we are beginning to surface some relevant concepts:

There are some do's and don'ts around building replicas
-the more accurate the replica the harder it is to distinguish from an origianal
-things like mfr badging on a car or an artist's signature on a painting are ways that the market in general rely on to distinguish authenticity
-placing 'by Dumble' on an ODS that is otherwise an exact representation can cause a buyer to think it was actually made by Howard Dumble

There are some do's and don't around selling replicas
-every effort should be made to do no harm to the buyer
-misrepresenting a replica as original is wrong
-a replica that is later sold as an original generates culpability that flows upstream to the original seller and creator

There are some do's and don'ts around buying collectable items
-the item should be authenticated beyond a reasonable doubt
-the community that supports the category of collectible items should support transactions through guidance on authentication
-transaction support should include presenting reputable authenticators to the market
-if reputable authenticators are not widely available the community should protect buyers with information on risks

In Charlie's last post the challenge to identify the amp in the clip as either authentic or not is the challenge that Dumble amp transactions face.
-the builder is generally not accessible to buyers
-there is no 100% accurate registry of built amps
-there is no community of dealers that can suggest reputable authenticators
-some sellers are unscrupulous

I think what we are saying as a community is that the risk that a replica/clone Dumble amp could be misrepresented as an original is multiplied greatly by including 'by Dumble' on the chassis. And that culpability for bad things that happen can flow upstream to persons without intent or malice of forethought like someone who 'builds for fun'. I think in law it is called 'willful neglect', but I'm not a lawyer. This community of builders recognizes the there is no community of dealers that are working to reduce risk of misrepresentation in transactions by making authentication services available to prospective buyers. As a community we discourage the behavior of including 'by Dumble' on your replica build because it has the potential to bring harm to future buyers.

Thank you everyone for your contributions. Although some will feel like these conclusions should be obvious I feel like I understand this better now after having discussed it with you. Please respond if there is more to include.

[martin manning]

Is this a real Dumble or a reproduction?

Unless HAD is building new amps in a multicolored 80's-style, I'd say it's a repro. Who knows? Maybe he is.

I think we are beginning to surface some relevant concepts...

I think those are all good points. Nice work pulling that together. Caveat emptor is the byword, as it is in all transactions involving collectibles.

[Smitty]

Thank you, Martin.

[jelle]

Thank you, Smitty, very well put. I agree 100%.

[jelle]

Is this a real Dumble or a reproduction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Y3lHpKXWY
CW

Its a counterfeit amp, made in California. Its pretty easy to spot to the trained eye.

[FUCHSAUDIO]

Okay: Here we go (again): Many moons ago, a few famous musicians and friends (Andy Brauer and others) suggested that I give Dumble the domain, as a show of good faith and to move on from the fodder surrounding my owning it. "You're doing your own thing, let it go man....". So I did. I contacted HAD and said "it runs out at the end of this month, just take it"). Unlike prior e-mails (which were nasty), this e-mail thanked me for "my noble decision to give him his rightful family name and domain".. The clock ticks... When the domain was halfway to the end of the renewal month (and being told "my people will take care of it") Mr. D then said "I need you to take care of this. It costs a few bucks, but I cannot do it". I told him that it was given to him freely and for free, and I wasn't about to pay anything, plus I needed personal information that I didn't care to know to do it. I also said if he didn't take care of it I would simply renew it. In the meantime, there was a very major endorsement opportunity in play, which was quashed by Mr. D (ouch). I then locked up the domain going forward. If he wants it, it could be purchased. It's owned, by me and it's shelved and basically takes you nowhere. Not to my company, not to anything but a funny picture. He was freely offered it at no cost and he basically didn't act on it, while in the meantime pulled some dirty pool. Sorry, not much else to say here. It's been posted too many times, and I'm tired of typing it up.

Secondly. why it's necessary to post pics from a nearly year-old Reverb listing escapes me but (as Jelle pointed out), it's so blatantly obvious that it's not a real D*mble it's silly. It doesn't take even a "trained eye" to see that the panels (front and back) are lexan, the chassis (although similar) is constructed quite differently, it has chassis straps on top, and the internals are PTP, but no attempt at-all to replicate a D-style layout was made. Not to mention the (genuine) cowhide covering, which I don't think Howard ever offered....It was made to sound like a good D-style amp (and man, it came out great actually), but it's so obviously fake, it's silly. Sure, over the last 10 or 15 years there were a handful (maybe ten or less) visually similar D-style clones I've built, but I no longer do it (I don't have the time nor inclination), and there are plenty of people globally who could help you fill that need these days. That amp lives in Tennessee last I heard, and the customer loves it.

Yes, I own ODS (c) as a trademark, as well as the many product names we make like Overdrive Supreme, Clean Machine, Mantis, Verbrator, etc....I don't own (nor care-to own) Dumble's name or any of the marks he hasn't protected over the years.

We can give this silliness a rest whenever you guys are ready....

[FUCHSAUDIO]

Well, Fuchs apparently does and they go after other guys making clones or clone kits using the OVERDRIVE SPECIAL name.

Entirely false. I have requested (for example) that Brown Note stopped using 'ODS" on his amps and Moss complied willingly. He never knew the mark was mine or that it was even trademarked. I called-out Shad who had ODS on a few panels, and he stopped. I have never policed Overdrive Special, because it's not mine to police. A few people do "OSD" or people like Marsh doing "Overlord Supreme" on his Ceriatone rebranded clones. I resisted legal action when his wife started crying on the phone... .

I have contacted various pedal makers about using ODS on pedals as well, but since they are mostly in Asia, it's difficult, if not impossible to police it. I myself was confronted by Peavey over the use of Supreme, and we were legally found to be able to use it. I was happy to see the guys who cloned Analog Mike's KOT got their pedals smashed by customs though recently !

[FUCHSAUDIO]

Oh wow, didnt expect to see him do an amp with a fake faceplate like that. I've seen people give a lot of flak for doing that even if they're honest about it not being a genuine Dumble.

In the ad it was clearly stated it wasn't a D*mble. The plastic panel is the giveaway. The rear panel is noticeably different too. Not even a remote attempt to pass it off as being a real D*mble.

[martin manning]

I, for one, did not know that whole ODS trademark saga, so thanks for posting. I'm not too surprised by how it went ;^)

[FUCHSAUDIO]

The Reverb listing is Andy's, not Smitty's. I would say selling production amps with HAD's name on the front panel is a bridge too far, but sorta ok if it's just for personal use, provided there is a clear indication that the amp was built by someone other than HAD so it can't be mistaken for an original; It might get sold to someone else later. Chassis are available printed that way, as are replica Fender chassis and faceplates. Mojo no longer sells replica Fender chassis, so Fender probably decided they were a big enough problem to go after them.

It's funny, most of the D-clones I made were for myself, just for fun. The irony was how my ex-wife would say "your amps do more and sound better for your playing, why bother, and would you take an amp with HIS name on a gig and not yours ?"...true. This particular amp is so obviously NOT a Dumb*e, it's almost laughable. I have made a few replicas that (other than the PC board inside) were not detectable from the real thing...just for fun...it's like a Max '59 Les Paul, in it's own way.

BTW: I was not aware Mojo stopped making Fender chassis. Thankfully, there's a guy on E-bay (whom Mojo bought from) who still sells them, and plenty of Fender cabinet clone makers out there...

[FUCHSAUDIO]

I, for one, did not know that whole ODS trademark saga, so thanks for posting. I'm not too surprised by how it went ;^)

Dumble never used 'ODS' on anything, so there was no trademark filed either. ODS and ODSR etc, were just shortened designations for longer names. Overdrive Supreme and ODS were offshoots of Overdrive Special for sure....

[martin manning]

BTW: I was not aware Mojo stopped making Fender chassis. Thankfully, there's a guy on E-bay (whom Mojo bought from) who still sells them, and plenty of Fender cabinet clone makers out there...

Mojo still sells Fender chassis, but the faceplates no longer have the Fender logo stuff on them. Their chassis were never really close to Fenders, except for the overall dimensions. The guy in Thailand still sells really nice repros, though.

[Charlie Wilson]

What is the intellectual property that Howard owns?

Its Alexander Dumble as far as I know, and he owns the sole right to use the DUMBLE brand on Musical Equipment.

Reread the above.
CW

[Charlie Wilson]

Is this a real Dumble or a reproduction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Y3lHpKXWY
CW

Its a counterfeit amp, made in California. Its pretty easy to spot to the trained eye.

I don't think Doug Doppler got the memo.
CW

[jelle]

What is the intellectual property that Howard owns?

Its Alexander Dumble as far as I know, and he owns the sole right to use the DUMBLE brand on Musical Equipment.

Reread the above.
CW

I am not following....