RAN guitars offline. Did they close? Update: Trouble Relocating

[narad]

Also, I wonder why people think it is fine and dandy for US, UK, and Japanese builders to make copies but somehow it is not ok for Eastern Europe or China to make copies. RAN made copies of guitars that people here had no chance of being able to afford the original. People in Poland saving up money for ages to order a custom RAN worked the same as a kid saving up for ages in the US to buy an RR1 or KV2. You have to be pretty rich over here to afford any hand made guitars. Idk it just bothers me that people love to trash RAN for making copies yet have no problem with the copies made by Ibanez, ESP, or *gasp* Daemoness...
It's not like they were making straight up forgeries trying to pass off as originals.

I'm not sure. It's obviously going to be a case-by-case basis. Usually the area that irks people the hardest is when a company copies another *small/independent* luthier's work.

Like I know RAN copied Ken Lawrence's headstock, which I think is a pretty shitty thing to do. Not only is it an incredibly unique design -- you're not just going to make a small variation and wind up with a KL headstock --, and not only is it very synonymous with Ken, but Ken's guitars are very expensive / super high quality. So in that respect it seems like it's trying to pass itself off as something more than what it is / becomes more in like with Grote or aliexpress forgeries of small builder's things.

But they can make strats or Vs all day long for all I care.

 

[Nightside]

I'm not sure. It's obviously going to be a case-by-case basis. Usually the area that irks people the hardest is when a company copies another *small/independent* luthier's work.

Like I know RAN copied Ken Lawrence's headstock, which I think is a pretty shitty thing to do. Not only is it an incredibly unique design -- you're not just going to make a small variation and wind up with a KL headstock --, and not only is it very synonymous with Ken, but Ken's guitars are very expensive / super high quality. So in that respect it seems like it's trying to pass itself off as something more than what it is / becomes more in like with Grote or aliexpress forgeries of small builder's things.

But they can make strats or Vs all day long for all I care.

Is it just me or is a KL EXP just a copy of a Gibson made by a small American builder? You take no issue with KL copying an Explorer but you take issue with RAN copying a KL? This is exactly what I am talking about. Ken Lawrence and Dylan Humphreys can make copies of Gibsons and Jacksons all day long and nobody cares because they are "boutique" but if RAN makes copies of Gibsons and Jacksons they are somehow a lower form of life.

 

[Nightside]

More like godfathers. I'm in touch with Mateusz from Mayones and he is an awesome dude. So still family.



Polish companies made copies mainly for domestic market because of demand and neccesity. There is still a big salary gap between Poland and western Europe or USA, in 90s and early 2000s it was way worse than now. We now have national teachers strike because they are fighting for higher wages, some of them earn 600 € gross (before taxes). Compare this to price of typical instrument made in Japan or USA. When I grew up guitars were just impossibly expensive even if we talk about Korean builds (which were way worse in quality than current Indo builds) and also most of the stuff was impossible to get. When I finally managed to save up enough money to buy RG2020x that was my dream guitar at that time, it turned out that distributor had 2 pieces available - one with damaged finish, another with damaged trem. And it was still very expensive for me, it took me a year to collect money to get it. It was also difficult to import something used and domestic market needed good quality guitars.

Builders at that time made mainly stuff for Polish musicians on a budget. And they were copies or at least inspired by something. People wanted guitars that looked like Jackson, ESP, Ibanez, Gibson etc. and they bought these because 1 they couldn't afford original, 2 they couldn't buy original because it was not available in shops. And believe me, everyone wanted originals and even if quality of those custom instruments was incredible (especially for their price), they were always regarded as copies. At some point situation changed - wages went up and inventories in shops improved. Somewhere in later 2000s some of those Polish companies grew up and worked on their own lineup - Mayones introduced Regius and Setius, Ran came up with Crusher. Copies slowly faded away and they're history now.

Edit: attached my 3 Ibanez copies made by Malwood and BC Rich Warlock copy made by Witkowski

Yes this is how my wife told it to me as well. I am American but she is from Gdansk. We moved to Gdansk last year and now I can see for myself how even now it is a huge pain in the ass to find any sort of good musical gear here. There is still a huge gap in wages. My wife works for Amazon here in Gdansk and I get paid in dollars going to online school from my US military benefits plus I earn 1500zl a month on the side and somehow I still cannot afford a Polish guitar . I am keeping an eye on allegro for an old school 90s Mayones KZ Soloist style guitar they used to make just because I really want to have a guitar made in Poland from that era.

 

[Wolfhorsky]

Almost every guitar is a „copy” of Fender or Gibson.

 

[BlacKat Guitars]

I am keeping an eye on allegro for an old school 90s Mayones KZ Soloist style guitar they used to make just because I really want to have a guitar made in Poland from that era.

Here's mine. Unfortunately I sold it long time ago .

 

[narad]

Is it just me or is a KL EXP just a copy of a Gibson made by a small American builder? You take no issue with KL copying an Explorer but you take issue with RAN copying a KL? This is exactly what I am talking about. Ken Lawrence and Dylan Humphreys can make copies of Gibsons and Jacksons all day long and nobody cares because they are "boutique" but if RAN makes copies of Gibsons and Jacksons they are somehow a lower form of life.

That's exactly it. Ken copies an explorer shape, from the 1950s, and does a way better job of it. He makes a couple small design improvements, puts his own spin on things. RAN then copies Ken, who is still alive, building, and steals the unique design element of a KL that makes it distinguishable from a Gibson or any other guitar. And frankly makes a much worse guitar. No offense to Ran, but Ken Lawrence they are not.

Ken's not trying to pass his guitar off as a Gibson. That's beneath him. People don't buy KLs because they can't afford a Gibson explorer -- they want better. In contrast, RAN's building a KL copy for guys who simply can't afford a KL. Do you see the difference?

I mean, this is why patents expire. You have your idea. You're allowed a good chunk of time to cash in on it. And then it goes out in to the world.

Again, if RAN wants to copy guitar designs from 30-70 years ago, be my guest. But ripping off existing builders is bad form.

 

[Wolfhorsky]

That's exactly it. Ken copies an explorer shape, from the 1950s, and does a way better job of it. He makes a couple small design improvements, puts his own spin on things. RAN then copies Ken, who is still alive, building, and steals the unique design element of a KL that makes it distinguishable from a Gibson or any other guitar. And frankly makes a much worse guitar. No offense to Ran, but Ken Lawrence they are not.

Ken's not trying to pass his guitar off as a Gibson. That's beneath him. People don't buy KLs because they can't afford a Gibson explorer -- they want better. In contrast, RAN's building a KL copy for guys who simply can't afford a KL. Do you see the difference?

I mean, this is why patents expire. You have your idea. You're allowed a good chunk of time to cash in on it. And then it goes out in to the world.

Again, if RAN wants to copy guitar designs from 30-70 years ago, be my guest. But ripping off existing builders is bad form.

Let’s agree to disagree.
Ran didn’t copy KL in any of their guitars. Give me any hint or a touch of proof.
You should know the background history of Polish guitars. Please, read carefully the post by Tomek from Blackat. Knowing that, You should take that into consideration before making that serious accusations and judgements.

 

[Nightside]

That's exactly it. Ken copies an explorer shape, from the 1950s, and does a way better job of it. He makes a couple small design improvements, puts his own spin on things. RAN then copies Ken, who is still alive, building, and steals the unique design element of a KL that makes it distinguishable from a Gibson or any other guitar. And frankly makes a much worse guitar. No offense to Ran, but Ken Lawrence they are not.

Ken's not trying to pass his guitar off as a Gibson. That's beneath him. People don't buy KLs because they can't afford a Gibson explorer -- they want better. In contrast, RAN's building a KL copy for guys who simply can't afford a KL. Do you see the difference?

I mean, this is why patents expire. You have your idea. You're allowed a good chunk of time to cash in on it. And then it goes out in to the world.

Again, if RAN wants to copy guitar designs from 30-70 years ago, be my guest. But ripping off existing builders is bad form.

Sooooo... according to your logic, making a copy is fine as long as you make it better than the original? Isn't that a bit subjective? Or do you mean as long as it is more expensive? Even an ESP copy of an EXP will set you back quite a bit more than a Gibson these days. With the QC reputation of Gibson, I am sure RAN could easily be accepted as "better" than an original. So is Dylan in bad form because he makes copies of Grover's designs? Mr. Jackson is still quite alive and well as far as I remember. Are the builders that copy Fenders and Gibsons not stealing the unique design elements that made Fenders and Gibsons distinguishable?

All I'm saying is a copy is a copy regardless of how expensive it is or where it is made. Why people feel the need to shit on some builders because they build affordable copies of guitars for people in their home market (the literal exact same way Ibanez and ESP started out btw) is beyond me. It just comes off as some kind of cork-sniffing snobbery to me. EDIT: Or I should say more comes off as religious people cherry picking which parts of the bible they want to follow and to whom it applies.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Ran didn’t copy KL in any of their guitars. Give me any hint or a touch of proof.

There are more, these were just the first two that showed up within the first dozen or so images when you Google "RAN Guitars".

 

[Nightside]

Also, who was it that was making copies of Fenders and Gibsons way back in the 70s when Fender and Gibson solidbodies were still only in their 20s? People like Paul Reed Smith, Wayne Charvel, Dean Zelinsky?

 

[narad]

Let’s agree to disagree.
Ran didn’t copy KL in any of their guitars. Give me any hint or a touch of proof.
You should know the background history of Polish guitars. Please, read carefully the post by Tomek from Blackat. Knowing that, You should take that into consideration before making that serious accusations and judgements.

This is RAN, no?

Not sure how history would be a factor here -- stop copying other independent luthiers' design statements.

 

[StevenC]

Also, who was it that was making copies of Fenders and Gibsons way back in the 70s when Fender and Gibson solidbodies were still only in their 20s? People like Paul Reed Smith, Wayne Charvel, Dean Zelinsky?

You're still missing narad's point.

It's one thing to get a KL, because a KL is way better than a Gibson and you pay more to get a way better guitar. Getting Ran to build a KL isn't cool because you're just looking for a cheaper KL. I've played a Ran and I've played some KLs. The KLs were way better.

The point of Charvel and PRS was an attempt to make the Strat and the LP better and more relevant to modern players than guitars of the 50s. The difference is between a knock off and an improvement.

 

[narad]

All I'm saying is a copy is a copy regardless of how expensive it is or where it is made. Why people feel the need to shit on some builders because they build affordable copies of guitars for people in their home market (the literal exact same way Ibanez and ESP started out btw) is beyond me. It just comes off as some kind of cork-sniffing snobbery to me. EDIT: Or I should say more comes off as religious people cherry picking which parts of the bible they want to follow and to whom it applies.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not obliged to see it in black-or-white copy-is-a-copy. Ken's making ~12 guitars a year and you're going to rip off his design? Lame. Being in Poland doesn't excuse it IMO.

Regarding these Ibanez / ESP bits, ripping off the huge companies, couldn't care less.

 

[narad]

And they definitely deserve some criticism for putting Ken's headstock on this abomination:

When copyng KL isn't enough, and you just need more brands...

 

[MaxOfMetal]

And they definitely deserve some criticism for putting Ken's headstock on this abomination:

When copyng KL isn't enough, and you just need more brands...

How meta.

 

[narad]

How meta.

There I go again, not understanding the satire.

 

[Nightside]

You're still missing narad's point.

It's one thing to get a KL, because a KL is way better than a Gibson and you pay more to get a way better guitar. Getting Ran to build a KL isn't cool because you're just looking for a cheaper KL. I've played a Ran and I've played some KLs. The KLs were way better.

The point of Charvel and PRS was an attempt to make the Strat and the LP better and more relevant to modern players than guitars of the 50s. The difference is between a knock off and an improvement.

ESP? Ibanez? Tokai? Those were all cheaper ways to get a Gibson, Fender, or Jackson design.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not obliged to see it in black-or-white copy-is-a-copy. Ken's making ~12 guitars a year and you're going to rip off his design? Lame. Being in Poland doesn't excuse it IMO.

Regarding these Ibanez / ESP bits, ripping off the huge companies, couldn't care less.

Gibson maybe. Not really. They weren't as huge then as they are now. Fender was a small builder all the way up until CBS took over. How many guitars does RAN make per year?

If being in Poland doesn't excuse it, then being in the UK, US, or Japan shouldn't excuse it either.

 

[Isurez]

I do not understand where this discussion is going. Ran Guitars will not build a guitar anymore. Neither Skervesen Guitars nor Blackat Guitars offer such guitars as those presented in your posts. Besides, Ran Guitars stopped building copies when Crusher was introduced from what I know. Perhaps this contributed to his financial problems because people wanted to order such guitars. So I have one question: is it the Darek's fault that he was building them or people who wanted to order copies?

 

[Wolfhorsky]

This is RAN, no?

Not sure how history would be a factor here -- stop copying other independent luthiers' design statements.

This is actually very bad example. Their V is their own design. The other post with a copy is another issue: some customers want them to make a one off copy of other guitar.

 

[narad]

Gibson maybe. Not really. They weren't as huge then as they are now. Fender was a small builder all the way up until CBS took over. How many guitars does RAN make per year?

If being in Poland doesn't excuse it, then being in the UK, US, or Japan shouldn't excuse it either.

In fact, you use Dylan as an example. But I recall when a customer wanted a Vik-style headstock on his weird tele-style Daemoness, Dylan contacted Vik to make sure it was okay. Did RAN contact KL to copy his headstock?

I mean, Dylan doesn't get flack, because he doesn't do shit like this.

This is actually very bad example. Their V is their own design. The other post with a copy is another issue: some customers want them to make a one off copy of other guitar.

It's the headstock. They copied the headstock from a small builder in California.