Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

User avatar
Veenture
Master Contributor
Posts: 4127
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby Veenture » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:19 am

dorkrockrecords wrote:To be honest, I think we're dealing with a faked '63 assembled from the Canadian parts cache. As recently as four or five years ago there were still many Semie Moseley signed and dated (and unfinished/seconded) necks in the remnants, and they also displayed the same yet-to-be contoured heels and misaligned tuning peg holes...

Good for you Adam; most enjoyable also and with all this conclusive 'forensic evidence' having been brought to light…we may well say that the Ed Roman guitar [edit: as portrayed by him] does not deserve any praise from the jury.

User avatar
zarfnober
Top Producer
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:19 pm
Location: Bolingbrook, Ill
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby zarfnober » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:53 pm

I saw probably hundreds of the bodies , necks, etc when I visited Loretta. Most necks were signed and to my then very untrained eye, there were plenty of "seconds" amongst all the parts.

As usual, buyer beware.

Rocco
www.rockometeramp.com Vinatge spec American and British style cabs, custom cabs, recovers, regrills and restorations.

User avatar
dubtrub
Administrator
Posts: 3795
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 10:12 am
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby dubtrub » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:59 pm

Did anyone notice the size of the position markers? ;)
Danny Ellison

User avatar
oipunkguy
Master Contributor
Posts: 2208
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:05 am
Location: Winchester, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby oipunkguy » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:42 am

Thanks for expounding Adam; always appreciate your expertise, guitar- as well as language wise ;)

Aaron, I’m sure you’ve made us curious now as to whether or not any of the tuners on your Mo’s are indeed lopsided –not that it will make any difference to playing... :geek:


i see it now, yeah it is way off. this isn't like any of my mosrites, or any other I've seen for that matter. again i hate to try to slam anyone when they aren’t here to defend themselves, but from what i've heard (i have no idea if this is truth or fiction) but as the story goes, Ed roman use to be a dealer with PRS and lost his deal with them by forging copy guitars.
Also danny in all fairness, the dot inlays are larger on most 70’s mosrites so this could be a possible custom feature I would think, but also due to all the other sub par work, I think dorkrock is right, that it’s really just a parts-rite guitar.
Cheers,
Aaron
Facebook.com/aarons.guitars

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
— Mark Twain

User avatar
dorkrockrecords
Master Contributor
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:06 pm
Location: Camden ME
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby dorkrockrecords » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:06 am

dubtrub wrote:Did anyone notice the size of the position markers? ;)

Yep. Those are the standard '80s dots (not the '70s dots, oipunkguy).

User avatar
oipunkguy
Master Contributor
Posts: 2208
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:05 am
Location: Winchester, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby oipunkguy » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:50 pm

Yep. Those are the standard '80s dots (not the '70s dots, oipunkguy).

I really can't tell from the pictures. And what do you mean by 80's dots?????? :?: :?: :?: :?:
Cheers,
Aaron
Facebook.com/aarons.guitars

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
— Mark Twain

User avatar
dorkrockrecords
Master Contributor
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:06 pm
Location: Camden ME
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby dorkrockrecords » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:06 pm

oipunkguy wrote:Yep. Those are the standard '80s dots (not the '70s dots, oipunkguy).

I really can't tell from the pictures. And what do you mean by 80's dots?????? :?: :?: :?: :?:

Uhm, '80s (as in the 1980s) not "80's" (as in a possessive of the number 80).

To generalize, Mosrite dots were in the '60s tiny, in the '70s large (like on your V-IIs), and in the '80s small but noticeably larger than the '60s tiny stock. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the neck on the Roman "'63" is definitively 1980s at the earliest.

User avatar
MWaldorf
Site Admin
Posts: 3264
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 1:21 pm
Location: Alameda, California
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby MWaldorf » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:32 am

dorkrockrecords wrote:
oipunkguy wrote:Yep. Those are the standard '80s dots (not the '70s dots, oipunkguy).

I really can't tell from the pictures. And what do you mean by 80's dots?????? :?: :?: :?: :?:

Uhm, '80s (as in the 1980s) not "80's" (as in a possessive of the number 80).

To generalize, Mosrite dots were in the '60s tiny, in the '70s large (like on your V-IIs), and in the '80s small but noticeably larger than the '60s tiny stock. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the neck on the Roman "'63" is definitively 1980s at the earliest.


Beyond the size of the dots is the number of dots. On '60s Mosrites, there is only one dot per fret marker above the 12th fret, placed in the center of the fretboard. This guitar has two dots in these positions, placed on the treble and bass sides of the fretboard. As far as I know, Mosrite didn't start the double dots above the 12th fret until the '80s.
Oy vey - it's MESHUGGA BEACH PARTY - The world's premier Jewish Surf Music Band!

Image

What? Couldn't tell the logo is a link? So click here, what's the hold up? http://www.meshuggabeachparty.com

User avatar
oipunkguy
Master Contributor
Posts: 2208
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:05 am
Location: Winchester, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby oipunkguy » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:47 am

Uhm, '80s (as in the 1980s) not "80's" (as in a possessive of the number 80).

To generalize, Mosrite dots were in the '60s tiny, in the '70s large (like on your V-IIs), and in the '80s small but noticeably larger than the '60s tiny stock. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but the neck on the Roman "'63" is definitively 1980s at the earliest.


i know what you meant by 80's dorkrock, jeez..... lol. I just didnt know there was dot inlays that were a different size on mosrites in the 80's.
I wonder if this guitar was a 63 reissue that semie made in the 80's, and was scrapped before finishing it.
Cheers,
Aaron
Facebook.com/aarons.guitars

"Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason."
— Mark Twain

Haole Jim
Top Producer
Posts: 526
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:20 am
Location: Central Coast USA (the Great Lakes) metro Chicago
Contact:

Re: Ed Romans response to the lawsuit

Postby Haole Jim » Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:19 am

'Purchased a real Mk I from Ed Roman a couple years ago when he had the big store, and could not be happier.

'Was in LV for business and went there several nights to play and maybe choose. Excellent selection, great staff. They provided the amp of choice and a private space and tuner. For several hours.

'Bought one and they shipped in excellent packing a long distance.

More than fair price, excellent setup, positive gem of an instrument and case.

NO issues with Ed, in fact, 'highly recommend him, based on this experience.


Return to “Modern Mosrites & Clones”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests