One unresolved question has followed the Fender shape dispute from the beginning. Where, precisely, does the protected Stratocaster design begin and end? The cease and desist letters assert a protected design, and the dispute increasingly turns on how the boundaries of that design are to be identified. The most direct formal challenge on that question comes in a response letter from an attorney acting for multiple recipients of Fender’s letters, LsL Instruments among them, which demands that Fender’s counsel answer it specifically. What, precisely, is a Stratocaster?
Where the question comes from
The letter, dated 16 June 2026, is the latest publicly available response from Ronald Bienstock of Fox Rothschild, who represents a number of the brands that received Fender letters, including LsL Instruments, to Bird & Bird, the firm conducting Fender’s cease and desist campaign. Bienstock represented the consortium of companies in the successful 2009 opposition to Fender’s United States trademark applications for the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass body shapes, and his earlier response letter in this dispute, challenging the basis of the Düsseldorf default judgment and raising the variation problem, is already part of the public record through trade reporting. The newer letter was posted publicly on the Unleavened Shred blog on 17 July, and the excerpt below is transcribed word for word from that posting.
In separate remarks provided to Vintage & Rare, Johny Miller, LsL’s Director of Business Development, frames the moment plainly. “Many folks and fans are asking about what comes next with all of this. We get emails and calls daily about it from anxious guitar enthusiasts, other builders, dealers and artists. The answer is simple. Now we wait.” The waiting, he says, is for a definition. “Now that the PRS Silver Sky and Yamaha Pacifica are on this list, the question has gone far passed all of our original question of WHO would be involved, but now it’s a very big WHAT shapes would be involved. These two models are quite different in the eyes of the majority of the guitar buying community. It has us all scratching our heads now.”
The letter’s argument, in its own words
The excerpt argues that Fender’s own catalogue defeats any single definition of the shape the campaign asserts. It reads, in full:
“Moreover, recently Your Client has made a vast number of variations on guitars called a ‘Stratocaster.’ By way of example:
“the Acoustasonic ‘Stratocaster’ has a center sound hole, no pickguard, an entirely different pickup configuration, with minimal forearm bevel (at a different angle) and little back contour.
“The Aerodyne ‘Stratocaster’ has a flat, or slab, body with no contours whatsoever, back or front, and the body is bound, thereby making the radii of the top edge significantly sharper.
“Even more traditional style ‘Stratocasters,’ such as the Cory Wong and Mike McCready ‘Stratocaster’ have pronounced differences, the McCready having very little forearm bevel and a less significant belly carve, while the Cory Wong ‘Stratocaster’ has wholly different proportions with substantial variations in dimensional sizing.
“The Suona F-Hole Stratocaster has no arm bevel at all, with a bound sharp edge, with a notably wider body.
“The ‘Prestige’ Custom Shop line has had a multitude of differences with many models, notably, the Prestige Custom Thinline ‘Stratocaster’ has an entirely beveled body with a scoop in the treble-side cutaway. The electronics configuration is vastly different than other ‘Stratocasters,’ as well, having just two knobs and a toggle switch with the jack on the side of the guitar, and no pickguard.
“The Custom Shop ‘HST’ line of ‘Stratocasters’ have flat tops with no forearm bevel and no radius to the edges, and again, a side-mounted jack with only two control knobs.
“There is no shortage of other ‘Stratocaster’ models over FMIC’s history with different configurations, frequently having no contours on the front and back, such as the Squier Bullet, or flat tops, such as the Power Strat. In the 1990s FMIC sold ‘Stratocasters’ that imitated its competitors with an arched top (violin carve) with binding and a side-mounted jack. All of these guitars called a ‘Stratocaster’ do not match counsel’s fanciful description of the Strat body shape in its court filing. All of these references beg the question, what is a ‘Stratocaster?’ Counsel must delineate the exact reproduction of Your Client’s alleged protectable design elements and the corresponding features of Our Client’s instruments.
“The recent May 29, 2026 Wall Street Journal article referencing PRS Guitars, who we do not represent, regarding PRS Guitars’ receipt of your Warning Letter, makes it even more clear that Your Client does not have an established criterion for what constitutes an infringing Strat guitar. There are no specifics, no benchmark, no unqualifying measurements.”
What the argument does
Stripped to its mechanism, the letter turns Fender’s catalogue into the defence’s exhibit. Copyright protects the original expression embodied in an identifiable work, and infringement turns on whether protected creative elements of that work are reproduced in the accused product. The letter’s list, the Acoustasonic’s sound hole, the Aerodyne’s slab body, the signature models’ differing bevels and proportions, the flat-topped Custom Shop lines, the bound nineties arch-tops, argues that Fender itself applies the name Stratocaster across bodies that differ from one another in precisely the features any definition of the shape would have to rely on.
If Fender’s own use of the Stratocaster name encompasses variations in features that also matter to its assessment of third-party guitars, then, the letter argues, the boundary Fender seeks to enforce remains insufficiently defined. The demand that follows is specific and concrete, identify the exact protected elements and map them against the recipient’s instruments.
The letter’s citation of the Wall Street Journal’s PRS reporting extends the point from Fender’s catalogue to companies receiving Fender notices. Yamaha has confirmed receiving a notice but has not publicly identified the model concerned. If, as Miller characterises it, the Pacifica is within scope alongside the Silver Sky, the letter’s argument is that no clear public criterion can be inferred either from the notices or from the pattern of recipients.
What this is, and what it is not
These are arguments made in legal correspondence, not findings, and the distinction matters as much here as it has at every stage of this dispute. A response letter is one side’s advocacy, the model descriptions within it are counsel’s characterisations, and no court has ruled on whether the definitional challenge has force. Correspondence in this dispute has flowed both ways, Bird & Bird replied to Bienstock’s earlier letter, per trade reporting, and as of 11 August, Fender and Bird & Bird are not known to have replied publicly to the specific demand made in this one.
Fender’s public position throughout has been that the campaign targets close copies of the Stratocaster design, not double-cutaway guitars in general, with the company stressing dialogue and practical solutions. Fender’s stated legal position is that the Stratocaster body is an original creative work entitled to copyright protection and that the campaign is directed at products it considers close reproductions of that protected design. Whether German copyright doctrine requires the kind of delineation the letter demands, and what significance a court would give variation within Fender’s own catalogue, are questions that may be tested in the contested proceedings between Fender and Thomann, or in any proceeding arising from the cease and desist letters.
What the document changes is the shape of the public argument. The dispute has already raised questions about copyrightability, authorship, procedure, enforcement scope, and the significance of the Düsseldorf default judgment. The newer letter gives the definitional question its most specific form yet, using Fender’s own catalogue of Stratocaster variants to demand a delineation of the protected design elements and their alleged reproduction in the recipient’s instruments.
Where it goes next
Miller’s own summary of the position is simpler. “All we can do is wait for definition of what is being considered a ‘Stratocaster’ at this point.” The answer, if it comes, may arrive in correspondence, in a filing in the Fender and Thomann proceedings, or not at all. We will keep our reference article updated at each step.
Editor’s note: The letter excerpt is transcribed word for word from the letter’s public posting on the Unleavened Shred blog, and Johny Miller’s remarks are published verbatim. LsL Instruments is a publicly reported recipient of a Fender cease and desist letter, and readers should weigh its perspective with that context. The model descriptions quoted are counsel’s characterisations from legal correspondence, not Vintage & Rare’s findings. Vintage & Rare operates an online marketplace for vintage, boutique, and rare instruments, is not a party to the dispute, and has not been contacted in connection with this campaign. Our reference article on the case, kept deliberately neutral, is linked above.
Statements: Johny Miller, Director of Business Development, LsL Instruments, in remarks provided to Vintage & Rare, August 2026.
News reporting:Guitar World’s report of 26 May 2026 on Bienstock’s earlier response letter; Guitar.com’s report of 29 May 2026 on the exchange of correspondence, including Bird & Bird’s reply; the Wall Street Journal’s report on PRS Guitars’ receipt of a Fender letter (published online 28 May 2026), as cited in the correspondence.
The autumn 2026 vintage guitar auction season opens on 7 September with five consecutive sales at Gardiner Houlgate in Corsham and closes on 19 November with the Phil Collins archive at Julien’s in Los Angeles. Between them sit Christie’s sale of Johnny Marr’s collection in London on 17 September, Propstore’s music memorabilia sale in London on 1 and 2 October, and two Heritage instrument sales in Dallas, on 15 October and 15 November. Catalogues for the Gardiner Houlgate guitar sales go online on 21 August.
AT A GLANCE
The main autumn 2026 vintage guitar auction season runs from 7 September to 19 November. Vintage & Rare will track sell-through, estimate performance and comparable instrument groups at Gardiner Houlgate, alongside sell-through, prices realised and comparable instrument groups at Heritage, and artist-provenance auctions including the Johnny Marr and Phil Collins collections. Heritage does not publish conventional pre-sale estimates for these instrument auctions, so estimate-based measures apply to Gardiner Houlgate only.
The Marr sale has understandably dominated advance coverage. It is the most photogenic collection to come to market this year and it carries the estimates to match.
But it is worth being clear about what a sale like that can and cannot tell a working dealer. A celebrity provenance sale measures a great deal at once: the artist, documented use, cultural association, the desirability of the model, condition, scarcity, the story attached to the instrument, and the particular group of bidders an auction house assembles for that occasion. All of those are real, and the underlying instrument remains part of the value throughout. What such a sale does not do is translate cleanly into the wider market. Marr’s 1960 Gibson ES-355 will sell for what Marr’s ES-355 is worth, and while year, model, originality and condition still matter to that number, provenance changes the bidding context so substantially that the result is difficult to price anything else against.
The volume sales translate more readily. Gardiner Houlgate will run a high-volume five-day sequence spanning guitars, amplification, effects, spares, an archive collection, and antique and classical instruments. Heritage will hold two dedicated instrument sales inside the same window. Those sales contain the results a dealer can more readily price against, provided comparable instruments are separated from the rest of the catalogue.
So there are two markets about to be measured, not one. This article sets out the calendar and the measurements. It does not predict the outcome, and the results are the point of the exercise.
Autumn 2026 vintage guitar auction dates
Dates below were confirmed against each auction house’s own published material in the week of 10 August 2026.
Monday 7 September, Gardiner Houlgate, Corsham. The J & G Mankowitz Archive Collection. Catalogue already online.
Tuesday 8 to Thursday 10 September, Gardiner Houlgate. The Guitar Auction, Parts I, II and III, one part per day.
Friday 11 September, Gardiner Houlgate. The Guitar Auction, Part IV: Antique and Classical Guitars.
Wednesday 9 to Wednesday 16 September, Christie’s, 8 King Street, London. Pre-sale exhibition of the Marr collection, free entry.
Thursday 17 September, Christie’s, London. Marr’s Guitars: The Johnny Marr Collection. 85 guitars, plus amplifiers and equipment. Christie’s sale page also lists public viewing on the morning of the sale day itself, and the hours vary, so check before travelling.
Thursday 1 and Friday 2 October, Propstore, London. Music Memorabilia Live Auction: London Fall 2026.
Thursday 15 October, Heritage, Dallas. Vintage Guitars and Musical Instruments Signature Auction, sale 7479. Preview 12 to 14 October.
Sunday 15 November, Heritage, Dallas. Play It Forward Vintage Guitars and Musical Instruments Signature Auction, sale 7488.
Thursday 19 November, Julien’s, Los Angeles. The King’s Trust 50th Anniversary Auction Featuring The Phil Collins Archive, 10.00 PST.
Why do the Gardiner Houlgate sales matter?
They matter because of their scale and because much of the run consists of repeat-market instruments, which makes it a more usable pricing reference than a provenance-led trophy sale. Gardiner Houlgate’s September event is routinely described as a guitar auction, singular. It is five separate sales on five consecutive days, and the categories differ across them, which is what makes the run useful rather than merely large.
Their June 2026 equivalent gives the scale: 574 lots on the first guitar day, 482 on the second, 657 on the third, and a further 28 in the antique and classical session. Those are not five days of the same thing. The first day included artist guitars and memorabilia, the second included amplification, and the third was substantially guitar effects, spares and audio equipment. Anyone reading the totals as a headcount of vintage guitars will misread them, and the composition varies from sale to sale.
The operative date for dealers is not 7 September but 21 August, when the catalogues for Parts I to IV go online. That is when the autumn’s largest body of comparable pricing data becomes visible, roughly two and a half weeks before anything sells. The Mankowitz archive catalogue is already up.
What can the Johnny Marr auction tell us?
It can tell us what this particular collection is worth to the people in that room on the day, which is a narrower question than it first appears. Christie’s is offering 85 guitars from Johnny Marr’s collection on 17 September, alongside amplifiers and equipment. Marr is donating the full hammer price of ten lots to Guide Dogs and the National Autistic Society. A New York preview ran from 25 June to 1 July, and the London pre-sale exhibition runs from 9 to 16 September at 8 King Street, free and open to the public.
Christie’s own material confirms the headline estimates: £100,000 to £150,000 for a 1960 cherry red Gibson ES-355, £80,000 to £120,000 for a 1984 Gibson Les Paul Standard, and £60,000 to £80,000 for a 1982 Rickenbacker 330 Jetglo. A 1971 Martin D-28 and a Roger Giffin korina Telecaster are also among the lots drawing advance attention.
One point of confusion is worth clearing up, because it has appeared in published coverage. Some reports have given the sale date as 9 to 16 September. That is the pre-sale exhibition. The sale is on 17 September.
How will Vintage & Rare measure the auction market?
We will apply a fixed set of measurements, declared before any results exist, and we will apply them according to what each house actually publishes.
The temptation with a season like this is to decide in advance what it proves. Two years of tariff changes, currency movement and freight costs have made the state of the mid-market a genuinely open question, and it would be easy to treat the autumn results as a verdict on all of it.
They cannot be. Gardiner Houlgate is a UK saleroom and Heritage is a US one, with different consignor and buyer populations, different currencies and different exposure to the tariff changes that took effect on 24 July. Sale composition shifts from event to event. No pair of auctions can isolate tariffs from currency from freight from the simple question of what happened to be consigned that month.
What auction results can give is evidence about depth and transaction prices, provided the same measurements are applied consistently. Gardiner Houlgate publishes pre-sale estimates and a results listing from which unsold lots can be identified, and that supports the full set. When their September results land, we will track:
Sell-through rate. Sold lots divided by offered lots, measured against the same house’s previous comparable sale, with catalogued, withdrawn and offered counts all preserved so the denominator is auditable.
Median hammer against low estimate. For every sold lot with both a hammer price and a published low estimate, the ratio of one to the other, then the median of those ratios. This shows whether the room is clearing at, above or beneath where the specialists set the floor.
Proportion selling below low estimate. A different and more revealing figure than the average, because it shows the shape of any weakness rather than its size.
Median hammer by comparable instrument group. Calculated only inside a defined group, on definitions fixed before the catalogues are published, so that a day of effects and spares is never averaged into vintage electrics.
Change against the same house’s previous comparable sale. Same house, same metric, same group definitions, and never Gardiner Houlgate against Heritage.
Heritage does not publish conventional pre-sale low and high estimates for these instrument auctions, and its published prices realised include the buyer’s premium. Estimate-accuracy measures are therefore not available on Heritage data, and we will not manufacture an equivalent from starting bids.
Heritage does, however, preserve sold and not-sold status in its auction archive. That means sell-through can be measured where we can reconstruct the complete offered-lot population for a specific sale, with withdrawals treated separately if they can be identified. We will also track the total realised against previous comparable Signature sales, median price realised by instrument group, and same-model results from one sale to the next where sufficiently comparable instruments recur.
Because Heritage’s prices realised include the buyer’s premium, any conversion back to hammer will use the buyer’s-premium terms published for that specific sale and will be stated explicitly. We will not mix premium-inclusive prices and hammer prices in the same series.
Stating those differences plainly matters more than presenting a tidy symmetrical method. Sell-through and comparable-group medians can be tracked at both houses. Estimate performance can only be tracked at Gardiner Houlgate, because only Gardiner Houlgate publishes the estimates it would be measured against.
The hypothesis those measurements are designed to test is narrow, and it is stated in advance: that ordinary collectible guitars are clearing at broadly similar levels to a year ago while artist-owned trophy instruments continue to set exceptional prices.
There is already strong evidence for the second half of it. Christie’s sale of the Jim Irsay Collection in March 2026 produced record-setting results at the top of the category: David Gilmour’s Black Strat at $14.55 million, which established the all-time auction record for a guitar, and Jerry Garcia’s Tiger at $11.56 million. Christie’s states that the three most expensive guitars in auction history were all sold in that single evening sale.
Heritage’s own recent series gives the autumn sales something to be measured against. Their Vintage Guitars and Musical Instruments Signature Auctions realised $700,912 in May 2024, $825,810 in October 2024, $1,491,700 in May 2025, $1,435,689 in December 2025 and $1,286,534 in May 2026. Those are gross realised totals and they reflect what was consigned as much as what the room was willing to pay, so they are a starting point rather than a finding. It is worth noting that a regular Signature series that has generally run twice yearly now has three instrument sales scheduled between 15 October and 4 December 2026.
The first half of the hypothesis is what is untested, and what this autumn can begin to answer. If the volume sales hold their sell-through and hammer-to-estimate ratios while the provenance sales remain strong, there is little evidence of broad weakness in the collectible-guitar market. If the volume sales soften while artist-owned trophy instruments continue to produce exceptional results, the gap between the two parts of the market is widening.
That second outcome would matter to more people than it sounds, because most of the trade is not in six-figure guitars. It is in the instruments that make up the bulk of those September catalogues, and a widening gap is one where headline results stop being useful pricing evidence for anything a working dealer actually owns.
We will not know until the results are in. That is rather the point of publishing the framework first.
Key vintage guitar auction dates for autumn 2026
21 August. Gardiner Houlgate catalogues go online for Parts I to IV.
7 to 11 September. Gardiner Houlgate, five sales.
9 to 16 September. Christie’s London pre-sale exhibition of the Marr collection, free entry.
17 September. Christie’s, Marr’s Guitars.
1 to 2 October. Propstore, London.
15 October. Heritage, Dallas, sale 7479.
15 November. Heritage, Dallas, sale 7488.
19 November. Julien’s, Los Angeles, Phil Collins archive.
How will this auction-market record be updated?
We will update this page in place rather than publishing a separate article for each result, because the value accumulates in one maintained record rather than in a series of news posts.
This is the first entry in a continuing record of the vintage instrument auction market rather than a seasonal preview. It will be updated as catalogues are published, as each sale returns results, and as dates change, with each revision dated at the head of the article. New results will be added beneath the methodology declared above, and that methodology will not be rewritten after the outcomes are known.
The measurements above will be applied to the Gardiner Houlgate and Heritage results through the autumn. Heritage also currently lists a further Vintage Guitars and Musical Instruments Signature Auction, sale 7480, for 4 December, and Gardiner Houlgate’s calendar already carries its next four guitar sessions from 8 to 11 December. Those sales will form part of the December comparison rather than the autumn diary.
Auction dates were confirmed against each auction house’s own published material in the week of 10 August 2026. Vintage & Rare has received no payment or other consideration from any auction house named in this article in connection with this coverage.
On 31 July 2026, the Munich Regional Court ruled against Suno in the case brought by GEMA, the German collecting society for composers, lyricists, and music publishers. I have not obtained the written judgment, so the account below relies on the court’s official release. According to the release, the case concerned six musical works, and lyrics were not at issue.
It has been reported as a win for musicians. Performers’ rights in the recordings were not among the claims described in the court’s release. That matters, but not for the reason usually given.
A client can replace a session guitarist without the generated track copying any performance anyone can point to. That is the gap. Nothing in this ruling closes it.
The player is not legally invisible
The guitarist has a legal category, and it is worth disposing of the opposite claim before making the argument that survives.
German law recognises the performer directly. Under sections 74 to 78 of the Copyright Act, a performer has rights of attribution and integrity, and rights in the fixation of a performance, its reproduction and distribution, its making available, and its broadcasting and other public communication. Those rights attach to the performance, not merely to one master considered as an object, and they sit separately from the phonogram producer’s rights under section 85. GVL administers performers’ secondary exploitation rights and statutory remuneration collectively, while primary exploitation is generally governed by contracts between rights holders and users.
What the guitarist lacks is narrower than that, and harder to name.
Where the gap sits
Existing rights are built around identifiable things. A composition. A particular fixed performance. A name, a likeness, a voice, an implied endorsement. Each of those can be pointed at.
A session guitarist sells the ability to produce the right feel, tone, and phrasing on demand. That ability is built over decades from small, repeatable judgements, including a particular attack on the string, a habit of landing slightly behind the beat, and an instinct for what the track requires. Taken together, those qualities have commercial value, but they are not a composition, a fixed performance, or a name, and those are the things the law knows how to point at.
In twenty-five years around studios and instruments, I have seen guitarists booked not because a client wanted one particular take repeated, but because they could hear what the track needed, find the part quickly, and deliver it before the clock became expensive. The same is true of drummers, bassplayers, horn players etc., and I write about guitarists because that is the working economy I know.
The mismatch between what a client buys and what copyright protects is where the enforcement gap appears. A generated track might copy no composition, sample no master, reproduce no substantial part of any single take, and invoke no player’s name, and still be bought instead of the session. In that transaction, copyright may find no protected work that has been copied. The client still finds a substitute.
Whether a model isolates one guitarist’s playing or approximates it through correlations drawn across genre, production, and many different performers is technically unresolved, and the Munich court did not address it. The output only has to be good enough to take the job.
What other rights can do
Existing law may help where the imitation uses a player’s identity, suggests endorsement, breaches a contract, or copies an identifiable performance. American courts recognised claims over deliberate imitation of a distinctive voice in advertising decades before generative models, in the Midler and Waits cases, and several American states have since enacted digital replica laws reaching voice and AI impersonation. In Germany, personality rights and unfair competition law may become relevant where an imitation is falsely attributed to a known player.
None of those routes gives a guitarist ownership of a way of playing. They run on identity, deception, and endorsement, and each requires proof that something recognisably theirs was taken. Voice legislation shows that lawmakers can protect a recognisable personal attribute when it is tightly bound to identity. It also shows why the instrumental case is harder, since a voice is far easier to identify evidentially than a composite formed jointly by a player, a guitar, an amplifier, a room, a producer, and a song.
Sound-alike advertising, tribute recordings, sample libraries, and session substitution have generated disputes for decades. Scale, cost, and the speed at which a buyer can obtain a substitute have all changed.
Where this lands in the trade
The exposure falls unevenly, and I do not think it falls where the trade press assumes.
The category I expect to be most exposed is the middle tier of commercial guitar work, meaning advertising, library music, demo work, and production cues, where the commission is priced on convenience and the performer’s identity is usually not part of what the client is buying. That is the work that has historically funded serious players between the visible jobs. I am inferring that from the economics of convenience-priced work, without employment data behind it, though the competitive logic is clear.
Physical instruments sit outside this argument. Custody, verified manufacture, material connection to a period, finite supply, and the experience of playing the thing are not things a model reproduces, and Vintage & Rare has no evidence, as of 2026, that generative audio has moved the vintage market in either direction. What is exposed is the income of the people who made those instruments matter, which is a different question from what the instruments are worth.
Nothing is settled
The judgment is not final, Suno has said it is evaluating all options including an appeal, and related European litigation remains unresolved. None of it currently supplies a clear right in the recurring characteristics of a guitarist’s playing.
Organised rights holders and larger commercial claimants are better equipped to litigate these disputes, with registration systems, distribution mechanisms, and the capacity to sustain a lengthy case. Any eventual licensing settlement will reflect who was able to enter the room. Individual guitarists are among those least equipped to do so, and what they would ask the law to protect remains unusually difficult to define.
The law can protect the performance. It may protect the player’s identity. The accumulated judgement a client is actually paying for falls between them.
Written by Nico von Cotta, Vintage & Rare
Nico von Cotta founded Vintage & Rare in 2008 and has spent more than 25 years making music as a guitarist, singer, songwriter, and producer.
What the court decided, in more detail
According to the official release, GEMA alleged that reproductions occurred during training in the United States and that the works were memorised within the model itself. The court assessed the American training activity under American law and rejected Suno’s fair use defence on the facts before it, which is a narrower proposition than the idea that European copyright follows a developer wherever it trains. It treated memorisation within a model hosted on German servers as a separate matter under German law. It attributed the outputs to Suno rather than to the users because the prompts did not specify melody, harmony, rhythm, or arrangement, while Suno operated the models, controlled their architecture, and was responsible for the memorisation of the training data. The claims were largely granted. The release gives no indication that performer or recording rights were pleaded, though the absence of a mention in a summary is not the same as verified confirmation that no such claim appeared anywhere in the pleadings.
Evidential limits
This article is written from the Munich Regional Court’s official release of 31 July 2026 in case no. 42 O 763/25, together with GEMA’s statement, reporting by Variety, Music Week, Music Ally, and Reuters, and published legal commentary. The German performer rights summary is drawn from sections 74 to 78 and section 85 of the Copyright Act. No verified copy of the written judgment or of the English translation reported to be circulating has been obtained. Nothing here should be read as a description of the court’s full reasoning.
Instruments more than 100 years old are exempt from the Section 301 duties that took effect in the United States on 24 July 2026, under an exemption written into the operative tariff annex. Qualifying overseas repair work remains dutiable on the value of the work performed. Both findings sit inside a month in which the United States and the European Union changed the rules on goods crossing their borders, while the United Kingdom confirmed the change it intends to make next.
Updated 6 August 2026 to add the third Court of International Trade challenge, filed on 3 August, and the refund position that follows from it.
Instrument dealers have spent two years reading a tariff story told from one side of one border. July 2026 ended that. The United States imposed new Section 301 duties on 24 July, the European Union began charging a flat customs duty on low-value consignments on 1 July, and the United Kingdom confirmed on 13 July that it will remove the relief that currently exempts consignments under £135. Vintage & Rare found no guitar-press coverage of any of these developments, and none at all of the antiques exemption inside the US action, which is the most commercially useful thing in it.
One number sets the scale. The Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated in May 2026 that the average effective tariff on musical instruments entering the United States, HTS Chapter 92, reached 16.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, approximately three times the 2024 figure. Real Chapter 92 import value over the same period fell 20.4 per cent against Q1 2024, with orchestral strings down 42.3 per cent and wind instruments down 23.2 per cent. That analysis predates everything below, which sits on top of it.
Into the United States
New Section 301 duties took effect on goods from approximately 60 economies on 24 July 2026, following investigations into forced labour practices. The Federal Register notice was published on 28 July and applied retroactively to 12:01 a.m. Eastern on the 24th, with a narrow in-transit grace period for goods loaded before the 24th and entered before 12:01 a.m. on the 28th.
Four groups divide the affected economies, and the group matters more than the headline percentage. Two groups are additive, meaning the new rate sits on top of the existing most-favoured-nation duty. Two are net of MFN, meaning the combined figure is capped. The United Kingdom falls in a 10 per cent additive group and the European Union in a 10 per cent net-of-MFN group, so a British and a German instrument attracting the same headline rate can land at different totals. Japan sits in a 12.5 per cent net-of-MFN group and China in a 12.5 per cent additive group.
Group membership follows the country an instrument was manufactured in, not the country it ships from. A Japanese-built instrument consigned from a dealer in Germany sits in the 12.5 per cent net-of-MFN group rather than the 10 per cent one, and a US-built instrument returning from Europe is not an EU-origin good at all. In a trade where the origin of the stock and the address of the dealer routinely differ, reading the rate off the shipping address will produce the wrong number.
Three features of the regime matter as much as the rates. USTR exempted an additional 471 products in its final action, but set those exemptions in advance and created no mechanism to apply for a product to be carved out afterwards. The duties stack, applying in addition to antidumping and countervailing duties unless an exemption applies. And no fixed expiry date attaches to them, although Section 307 permits later modification and review, which makes this a standing regime rather than a permanent one.
Antiques over 100 years old are exempt
Antiques properly classified under HTS heading 9706 are expressly excluded from these Section 301 duties, and the exclusion sits in the operative tariff annex rather than in practitioner interpretation.
USTR’s final action provides that under heading 9903.05.86, the duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20 through 9903.05.84 do not apply to articles classified under a list of specified provisions. That list ends with three entries, 9705.39.00, 9706.10.00, and 9706.90.00. Heading 9706 covers antiques of an age exceeding 100 years. USTR reached that position having received comments requesting exemptions for art, antique, and collectible products.
For a trade that moves a substantial volume of pre-1926 material, the ordinary MFN-free treatment of those instruments survives this action intact.
One qualification carries real weight. The exemption attaches to classification under heading 9706, not to the calendar, so an instrument being more than 100 years old does not make a 9706 entry automatic. Evidence of age, authenticity, constituent parts, whether substantial later alteration has changed what the object now is, and whether it fits the legal tariff description at all can each be argued. Those arguments predate this action and are familiar territory. What has changed is only that the argument now concerns whether a given instrument qualifies as an antique, and no longer whether antiques are caught by the new duty.
Two Chapter 98 routes, two different outcomes
Chapter 98 entries escape the new duties, but only where CBP accepts the classification, and the 9802 repair provisions are carved back out. Customs and Border Protection implemented the duties through new HTS headings 9903.05.20 to 9903.05.84 and issued guidance on 23 July in CSMS message #69326983. CBP’s wording is precise on the condition attached.
“The additional duties imposed by headings 9903.05.20–9903.05.84 shall not apply to goods for which entry is properly claimed under a provision of chapter 98 of the tariff schedule pursuant to applicable regulations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘CBP’), and whenever CBP agrees that entry under such a provision is appropriate”
That closing condition does real work. An importer claims a Chapter 98 classification; the classification does not execute itself, and CBP has to agree.
The same guidance then treats two situations differently. For goods entered under subheadings 9802.00.40, 9802.00.50, or 9802.00.60, the additional duties apply to the value of repairs, alterations, or processing performed. For goods entered under heading 9802.00.80, a different provision and a different calculation, they apply to the value of the article assembled abroad, less the cost or value of such products of the United States.
An instrument shipped abroad and returned unsold after a show, an approval period, or an unsuccessful consignment is the standard case for heading 9801.00.10, goods returned. That heading has two limbs. US-origin goods qualify where they return without having been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad. Foreign-origin goods qualify where they return within 3 years of export, on the same condition that no advancement in value or improvement in condition took place.
The foreign-origin limb matters more to this trade than the first one, because most of the stock V&R dealers ship is not American. A Japanese or European instrument previously imported into the United States, sent out to a show or on approval and returned unchanged within 3 years, may be able to use heading 9801.00.10 even where US origin cannot be established at all. On that route, the 3-year clock is the constraint, not origin.
An instrument sent abroad for a qualifying repair or alteration and then re-entered falls instead under 9802.00.40 or 9802.00.50, dutiable on the value of the work performed rather than on the value of the instrument. For a dealer using a specialist restorer in Europe or Japan, that is a recurring new cost on a workflow which has been routine for decades.
Two further points sit underneath the contrast, and both are where dealers are most likely to come unstuck.
The word “unsold” is not a customs classification. A 9801.00.10 claim on a US-origin instrument in a shipment valued above $2,500 ordinarily requires declarations addressing the date and port of export, that the goods returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition abroad, who manufactured them and where, the claimant’s ownership or importer status, and whether drawback was allowed on export. CBP may seek further proof, including a manufacturer’s statement, export invoice, bill of lading, or air waybill. On high-value vintage instruments, serial numbers, dated inventory records, export declarations, photographs, carnets, and shipping paperwork may form the practical evidentiary spine, although those are examples rather than an express regulatory checklist.
Failure routes differ by limb. A US-origin claim fails where origin cannot be established, or where the goods were advanced in value or improved abroad. A foreign-origin claim fails where the 3-year window has closed. Either claim fails where work was done abroad, where parts were substituted, where the importer cannot prove the returned instrument is the one that was exported, where drawback was allowed on export, where documentation is inadequate, or where CBP declines the proposed classification.
Not all work counts as a repair or alteration. Treatment under heading 9802 depends on the exported article retaining its identity and essential character, so work that produces a commercially different article, or that substantially completes an unfinished one, may fall outside the provision. A refret or a refinish is one conversation. A major structural restoration, a neck replacement, or an extensive reconstruction combining foreign parts and foreign labour is a different one, and needs classification analysis rather than assumption.
Across both routes, the paperwork now determines the outcome. Two instruments of identical value, crossing the same border in the same direction, can be treated entirely differently depending on which provision the entry is made under, whether the documentary requirements are satisfied, and whether CBP agrees.
Where the legal challenges stand
Case status as at 6 August 2026.
Two suits were filed at the Court of International Trade on 24 July 2026, the day the duties took effect. Burlap & Barrel, Inc. and Collective Horology, LLC v. Greer (CIT 1:26-cv-3345) was brought by the Liberty Justice Center as a proposed class action. Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States (CIT 1:26-cv-3347) was brought by seven plaintiffs, several of whom succeeded in the earlier IEEPA challenge. Both argue on substantially the same ground, that USTR failed to make the properly individualised, country-specific determinations Section 301(b) requires.
A third and much larger action followed on 3 August 2026. State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al. (CIT 26-03467) was brought by 25 states, led by Oregon and including the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania suing in their own right. It pleads three counts, that the tariff action exceeds USTR’s statutory authority, that it is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it is ultra vires. The substantive case is that the investigation was compressed into roughly two and a half months where such investigations ordinarily run twelve or more, that the rates bear no demonstrated relation to the prevalence of forced labour in any given economy, and that no country has a route to cure its conduct and obtain relief, since a 10 per cent floor applies regardless of compliance.
The remedy is what separates the states’ action from the other two. Its prayer for relief asks the court to award refunds for tariffs already paid under the action, and Burlap & Barrel seeks refunds for its proposed class.
None of the three changes what importers pay now. Filing a complaint does not suspend collection, and the duties continue to apply unless a court orders otherwise. Refunds, though, are paid against records, and a refund that cannot be evidenced at entry-line level is not a refund. A dealer importing into the United States should be keeping entry summaries, commercial invoices, and proof of duty paid on every US-bound consignment from 24 July onward, filed so that they can be retrieved by entry date.
Into the European Union
A flat €3 customs duty has applied to low-value consignments entering the European Union from outside it since 1 July 2026, where the goods are sold through distance selling, principally e-commerce sales to consumers. The previous duty relief on those consignments ended on 30 June 2026.
The scope limitation carries more practical weight than the charge. This is not a blanket duty on every commercial movement under €150. Dealer-to-dealer consignments, temporary admissions, repair returns, and other movements outside distance selling sit outside the measure’s core scope, and further exceptions apply, including certain preferential-origin and customs-union entries. A dealer whose EU shipping is not e-commerce to consumers should establish where it falls rather than assume the charge bites.
Where the €3 duty does apply, it is charged per tariff classification and not per parcel. The European Commission’s own worked example puts several T-shirts in one parcel at a single €3 charge because they share a classification, and T-shirts plus a watch at €6, because that is two classifications.
Liability attaches to the declarant, which depending on the arrangement may be the seller, the importer, an IOSS participant, a special-arrangements user, a platform, a carrier or indirect representative, and residually the consumer. “The seller pays” is not a safe assumption in either direction.
Whole instruments rarely fall under €150, so the likely exposure for V&R dealers sits at the other end of the catalogue, in pickups, tuners, bridges, strings, smaller accessories, used parts, and mixed parts orders. That is an inference about typical inventory rather than a measured figure, and it will not hold for every business, since boutique pedals and quality cases frequently exceed €150 and price alone does not determine exposure where the measure turns on distance selling.
The European Commission describes the arrangement as temporary, with guidance referring to application until approximately 1 July 2028, ahead of the broader customs reform. As of August 2026, that is the current timetable rather than a fixed commitment.
Into the United Kingdom, where nothing has changed yet
The £135 low-value import relief remains in force in the United Kingdom as of August 2026. HM Treasury and HMRC published a policy paper on 13 July 2026 confirming that it will go, stating that the measure “will come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint by October 2028 at the latest.”
That represents a change of pace as well as of substance, since Budget 2025 had announced removal “from March 2029 at the latest.” The government describes the October 2028 deadline as an acceleration of 6 months, and the Treasury retains power to appoint an earlier commencement day.
The date is the less consequential half. The same paper introduces a concept with no current equivalent.
“the concept of a fiscal representative (a UK-based business that assumes joint and several liability for any debts incurred by an overseas seller in relation to LVI customs declarations)”
A fiscal representative carries joint and several liability for customs debt arising from another party’s low-value import declarations. Under the announced structure, a dealer outside the United Kingdom selling into it would need a UK-established business willing to accept liability for those debts. A UK-established business, including a UK dealer who handles inbound consignments for overseas colleagues, would face the reverse question of what exactly is being taken on.
Two years is a long lead time, and the commencement date is not fixed. The structural change is confirmed, and it is the kind of change that reshapes who is willing to act for whom.
What to ask your broker
Everything above is regulatory information rather than legal or customs advice, and Vintage & Rare is not in a position to give either. Readers should confirm current rules with the relevant national authority. What the July changes do generate is a specific and answerable list of questions that a broker or customs lawyer can work through for an individual business.
For instruments we ship out of the United States and receive back unsold, are we entering under 9801.00.10, does our documentation satisfy the requirements, and has CBP accepted the classification?
For our non-US-origin stock, are we inside the 3-year window on the foreign-origin limb of 9801.00.10, and how are we evidencing the export date?
For instruments we send abroad for work, does that work qualify as a repair or alteration under 9802.00.40 or 9802.00.50, and how is the dutiable value being calculated?
Is any of our foreign work extensive enough that it might fall outside heading 9802 altogether?
For instruments over 100 years old, do they qualify for classification under 9706.10.00 or 9706.90.00, and what evidence of age and originality would sustain that?
Which Section 301 group applies to each country we buy from, and is the rate additive or net of MFN?
Are we determining that group by country of manufacture rather than by the address the instrument ships from, and can we evidence origin where the two differ?
Are any of the HTS provisions we routinely use on the exemption list at 9903.05.86 or elsewhere in the annex?
If one of the pending challenges succeeds, what records would we need to have kept in order to claim a refund on duty already paid since 24 July?
For EU-bound consignments under €150, are our sales inside the distance-selling scope, who is the declarant, and how many tariff classifications sit in a typical box?
When the UK relief goes, who would act as our fiscal representative, and on what terms?
Three regimes are still moving, no exclusion request process exists on the US side, and the litigation will take its course whatever dealers assume about it. The settled good news is the antiques exemption, provided the classification holds.
Sources
USTR, Section 301 forced labour investigations, final action and annexes, heading 9903.05.86 exemption list including 9706.10.00 and 9706.90.00. ustr.gov
“Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations,” 91 FR doc 2026-15181, published 28 July 2026. federalregister.gov
US Customs and Border Protection, CSMS #69326983, 23 July 2026. CSMS bulletin
19 CFR §10.1, “Domestic products; requirements on entry”. ecfr.gov
European Commission, “Ensuring fairness and safety: €3 customs duty on low-value parcels,” 29 June 2026. commission.europa.eu
HM Treasury and HMRC, “Reforming the customs treatment of low value imports into the UK,” 13 July 2026. gov.uk
HM Treasury, Budget 2025, prior “from March 2029 at the latest” announcement
Peterson Institute for International Economics, “Tariffs slashed US musical instrument imports. What’s the end?”, 26 May 2026. piie.com
Burlap & Barrel, Inc. v. Greer, CIT 1:26-cv-3345, filed 24 July 2026. Liberty Justice Center
Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT 1:26-cv-3347, filed 24 July 2026
State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al., CIT 26-03467, filed 3 August 2026, complaint. oag.ca.gov
I should say upfront that I am a delay nerd. Over the years an unhealthy number of delay pedals has passed through my hands, and I have loved nearly all of them. The Pete Cornish TES is one of the few that stayed. If this article reads like a man explaining a harmless addiction, that is because it is one.
For me, it started with Andy Summers. The way he built spheres of sound over those old Police tracks did something to me that never quite wore off, and somewhere in the chase for that shimmer a collector was born. The roll call since then reads like a history of the effect itself. Original Electro-Harmonix Memory Man pedals. A Binson Echorec with its spinning magnetic drum. Roland Space Echoes. An Ibanez AD80. A Boss DM-2. A Maxon AD999. A TC Electronic 2290, the pristine studio rack that defined the eighties. An original Way Huge Aqua-Puss. A Line 6 DL4, the green box that lived on every board of the era. A Mad Professor Deep Blue Delay and its Dual Blue sibling. Three Carl Martins, a DeLayla, a Red Repeat, and an EchoTone, plus a T-Rex Replica, keeping a corner of the obsession Danish. A Fulltone Tube Tape Echo with actual tape turning inside it. A Toneczar Echoczar. An Industrialectric Echo Degrader, a machine built to fall apart on purpose. An Eventide TimeFactor. A Strymon DIG. A UAFX Starlight Echo Station. A Meris Polymoon. An EarthQuaker Devices Avalanche Run V2. Hungry Robot’s The Wash. And plenty more that arrived, were explored, and moved along.
Here is the thing, though. None of them failed me. People assume an obsession like this is a search for the one perfect delay, and that every purchase is a small disappointment on the road to the next. It never felt that way to me. I simply love exploring what builders do with time, and every one of those machines did something the others could not. The obsession is the destination.
Which brings me to the grey box.
And it really is a grey box. A plain painted slab, closer to a laboratory instrument than a guitar pedal, black knobs, printed labels, and not a hint of glamour anywhere on it. Cornish built tools.
Some years ago, a returning collector I had previously helped sell gear to buyers abroad got in touch again. He asked whether I might be interested in several Pete Cornish pedals he had access to, among them a very rare TES, the Tape Echo Simulator. I will admit the TES had gone completely under my radar. Then he explained how Cornish built them, and something clicked.
Years earlier, Steen Skrydstrup of Skrydstrup R&D had built my first large touring rig. Completed in 2006, it combined three amplifiers, two TC Electronic G-Majors, and around fifteen pedals through a custom routing system. When he later offered to build me a delay around an existing Boss DD-2, the proposal came from someone who knew my rig inside out.
I passed at the time. That kind of delay was not what I was hunting for then, the price was serious, and I suspected the result would land too hi-fi for my taste. The offer got filed away as one of those paths not taken. The TES is widely reported to follow the same philosophy, a Boss digital delay core rebuilt inside Cornish’s own buffering, filtering, and power supply until it becomes a different instrument altogether. Cornish himself never advertised the recipe, and I make no claim beyond what players and technicians have long reported, but I recognised the thinking immediately. I had once been offered the Danish version of this idea. Now the British original was on the phone.
Built like the tools Cornish made for touring rigs. Photograph by Vintage & Rare.
For those who have not met one, the short version is this. Cornish had worked through the compromises of the major echo technologies of his era. Tape drifted, bucket brigades degraded, and early digital delay could sound sterile. So he kept the stability of digital and added a bandwidth control that rolls the repeats off towards the sound of well-worn tape, with the first repeat keeping its full clarity before the fade begins.
And here is the joke of it. The thing that had made me hesitate about the Danish version, the fear of a delay too clean and too perfect, was precisely the thing Cornish had solved. He took the cleanest heart available and gave it a control that lets it grow old on demand.
Mine is PC/12088, with the modulation and dry defeat options. I do not know how many were built. Few enough.
And yes, this is the pedal the dealer copy likes to call Floyd in a box, widely described as having been developed in collaboration with David Gilmour himself. I love Pink Floyd and I love Gilmour. He still had nothing to do with why I wanted this pedal. The Gilmour story is everyone else’s story about the TES. Mine runs through Copenhagen and a Boss DD-2 that never got built.
I remember the first time I actually played it, a 1965 Fender Custom Telecaster into a 1957 tweed Deluxe, the 5E3 kept well below where it starts to break up, because a delay into a dirty amp turns every repeat to porridge. I knew within minutes, and it never left. These days it comes down off the shelf when I want seriously long delay times, the second range running out towards a full second, and that territory is where the TES stops being an effect and becomes a place to play inside.
That is what a keeper means to me. Not the pedal that is always on the board, but the tool that earns a permanent place because there are sounds I cannot reach without it. The TES made me want to keep discovering what happened when the rest of the chain changed around it. I could already hear the number of places it would work.
For a dealer, that kind of attachment is not always simple. Everything we love can become inventory, and some pieces we hope remain exactly where they are.
The TES belongs in the collection, next to the guitars and the amps that also survived every clear-out.
A keeper. For now.
Written by Nico von Cotta, Vintage & Rare
Nico von Cotta founded Vintage & Rare in 2008 and has spent more than 25 years making music as a guitarist, songwriter, and producer. He remains a thoroughly committed gear nerd.
Keepers is about the pieces that, for one reason or another, never quite left the shelf.
Mains powered, fused, earthed, with a ground lift. Cornish built professional equipment that happens to sit on a floor. Photograph by Vintage & Rare.
Pete Cornish TES at a glance
The Pete Cornish TES, short for Tape Echo Simulator, is a hand-built floor delay designed to combine the stability and clarity of digital delay with the progressive high-frequency loss that gives tape and analogue echoes their character. A bandwidth control moves the repeats from full clarity towards the sound of well-worn tape, with the original signal and first repeat keeping their full bandwidth. Two footswitchable time ranges take the maximum delay towards a full second. It is mains powered through a fused and earthed IEC inlet with a ground lift switch, rather than running from a pedalboard supply. Optioned examples, like the unit in this article, carry a modulation circuit that recreates tape-style speed drift and a dry defeat for studio and parallel rigs. The TES is widely described as having been developed in collaboration with David Gilmour, and it is widely reported, though never advertised by Cornish, to be built around a Boss DD-2 digital delay core rebuilt inside Cornish’s own buffering, filtering, and power supply. Units surface for sale rarely.
Who is Pete Cornish?
Pete Cornish is a British electronics designer and engineer who has been building custom effects, pedalboards, and professional touring systems since the early 1970s. After leaving school, he undertook electronics training with the Air Ministry. By 1972, he was chief engineer at Grafton Electrical and Music Industries, the company behind London’s Sound City, Music City, and Drum City stores, where he repaired, modified, and designed equipment for working musicians. That experience shaped his emphasis on touring reliability, consistent signal quality, and active buffering through long and complex rigs.
His custom systems and effects have been used by players including David Gilmour, Eric Clapton, and Pete Townshend. Designs such as the G-2, SS-3, and P-2 are among his best-known stand-alone pedals and are sought after on the used market. Cornish products continue to be individually hand-built to order, which helps explain why unusual models such as the TES appear for sale infrequently.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Pete Cornish TES? A hand-built delay unit that pairs digital stability with adjustable tape-style bandwidth loss, allowing the repeats to move from clear to progressively more worn while the original signal and first repeat retain their full bandwidth.
Was the TES developed with David Gilmour? It is widely described that way by dealers and specialist sources, and Gilmour is documented using a TES in his rigs. Cornish’s accessible public materials do not clearly set out the complete development story, so we describe the collaboration as widely reported rather than manufacturer-confirmed.
Is the TES based on a Boss DD-2? The Boss DD-2 is the longstanding donor cited by players, technicians, rig historians, and specialist sources. Cornish has not publicly advertised the circuit recipe in the materials we have reviewed, so we treat the connection as widely reported rather than manufacturer-confirmed.
How rare is the TES? We have found no published production total. Units appear for sale infrequently, and the used market treats them as rare. The example in this article, serial PC/12088, carries the modulation and dry defeat options.
Does Pete Cornish still build pedals? At the time of writing, the Pete Cornish website states that products are individually hand-built to order and that orders are accepted by email. Whether the TES specifically remains available should be confirmed with Cornish directly.
Why do some players consider the Pete Cornish TES special? A few reasons recur. It combines stable digital timing with progressive tape-style bandwidth loss under one control. It reflects Cornish’s longstanding emphasis on professional-stage reliability and signal integrity. Units surface rarely. And for many players the Gilmour association carries weight, though as the column above argues, the pedal stands perfectly well on its own without it.
The verified guitar show calendar for 2026-27, covering vintage guitar, gear, and luthier shows across Europe, the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, and China, now expanding into dedicated bass, effects, and drum events, with dates, full venue addresses, official organiser websites, and direct ticket links where available.
Every listing is checked against the organiser’s own website and re-verified by the Vintage & Rare team on the 1st and 15th of each month.
Updated 3 August 2026 · 70 shows · 7 regions · next verification 15 August 2026
The next guitar show in the UK is the Leeds Bradford Guitar Show on 6 Sep 2026 at Pudsey Civic Hall. The next show in continental Europe is Yeahman’s Guitar Fest in Burgdorf, Switzerland, on 6 Sep 2026. In the USA, the next show is the Guitarfest Guitar Show in Tallmadge on 16 Aug 2026.
Guitar Summit in Mannheim, widely described as Europe’s largest guitar and gear show, runs 25-27 September 2026. The Vintage Guitar Show Veenendaal, billed by its organiser as Europe’s biggest dedicated vintage guitar show, is on 19 September 2026 with around 100 exhibitors.
Newly added in this update, Amsterdam Guitar Heaven debuts at Q-Factory on 21 November 2026 with 70+ brands, and the calendar now covers drum and effects events including The UK Drum Show in Liverpool (24-25 October 2026) and the Synth & Pedal Expo circuit. The Paris Guitar Festival has moved to 5-9 May 2027.
Music China in Shanghai, running from 28 to 31 October 2026, is open to the public with free online pre-registration. In Japan, Tokyo Gakki EXPO runs 31 October – 1 November 2026; in Australia, the Melbourne Guitar Show returns 13-14 March 2027.
Confirmed through mid-2027 are 37 shows in the USA & Canada, 14 in the UK, 15 in continental Europe, 3 in Asia, plus Australia below.
How much does entry to a guitar show usually cost?
Most regional shows charge a modest door fee, typically $10-25 in North America, £6-9 in the UK, and €10-20 on the continent, with children usually free when accompanied. Larger festivals and multi-day events (Guitar Summit, Fretboard Summit, Ullapool) price higher, and a few community shows are free.
What are the biggest guitar shows in Europe?
The Guitar Summit in Mannheim is Europe’s largest gear show overall, while the Vintage Guitar Show Veenendaal is the continent’s biggest dedicated vintage event. Guitar Show Bologna, SHG Milano, Cremona Musica, and the Montreux International Guitar Show round out the major continental dates.
Can the public attend trade fairs like Music China or NAMM?
Music China and Music Guangzhou welcome public visitors with pre-registration. The NAMM Show remains trade-only; attendance requires industry credentials.
How is this calendar maintained?
We verify every listing against the organiser’s own website and review the full calendar on the 1st and 15th of each month, prioritising events in the next 60 days. Where a third-party calendar and an organiser disagree, we follow the organiser, and where an organiser has not yet confirmed details, we say so in the listing.
How do I get a show listed?
Listings are free. Send dates, venue, admission, and a link to info@vintageandrare.com and we’ll verify and add it in the next review cycle.
Archive of recent shows
Concluded editions, most recent first.
Manchester Guitar Show · 2 August 2026 · Urmston, UK
LVGS Summer Showcase Guitar Show · 1 August 2026 · Leesport, PA, USA
Leicestershire Guitar Show · 26 July 2026 · UK
Music City Drum Show · 18-19 July 2026 · Nashville, TN, USA
North Yorkshire Guitar Show · 5 July 2026 · Thirsk, UK
Tri-Cities Guitar Expo · 20 June 2026 · Johnson City, TN, USA
Ohio Guitar Show (Summer) · 14 June 2026 · Columbus, OH, USA
Amigo SoCal Guitar Show · 13-14 June 2026 · Costa Mesa, CA, USA
Groenlo Muziekvlooienmarkt · 6 June 2026 · Groenlo, Netherlands
Sarasota Guitar and Amp Show · 5-7 June 2026 · Sarasota, FL, USA
BRIDGE Guitar Convention · 30 May 2026 · Eindhoven, Netherlands
Oxfordshire Guitar Show · 24 May 2026 · UK
Tokyo Handcraft Guitar Fes · 23-24 May 2026 · Tokyo, Japan
Dallas International Guitar Festival · May 2026 · Dallas, TX, USA
North West Guitar Show · 17 May 2026 · Haydock Park, UK
Sound Messe Osaka · 16-17 May 2026 · Osaka, Japan
Chicago Drum Show · 16-17 May 2026 · St. Charles, IL, USA
Guitar Show Bologna · 15-17 May 2026 · Bologna, Italy
Umeå Guitarshow · 9-10 May 2026 · Umeå, Sweden
Poland Guitar Fest · 25-26 April 2026 · Kraków, Poland
Montreux International Guitar Show · 24-26 April 2026 · Montreux, Switzerland
GotGuitars · 17-19 April 2026 · Gothenburg, Sweden
Sydney Guitar Show · March 2026 · Sydney, Australia
Amigo Nashville Guitar Show · 21-22 March 2026 · Franklin, TN, USA
Guitars and More · 22 March 2026 · Wettingen, Switzerland
Vintage Guitar Show Veenendaal (spring) · 21 March 2026 · Veenendaal, Netherlands
The Guitar Show / The Bass Show · 28 Feb – 1 March 2026 · Solihull, UK
Tonefest · 28 Feb – 1 March 2026 · Tuusula, Finland
Gitaarbeurs Groesbeek · 22 February 2026 · Groesbeek, Netherlands
Muziekbeurs Antwerp Expo · 15 February 2026 · Antwerp, Belgium
Toulouse Vintage Amps & Guitars EXPO · 23-24 January 2026 · Ramonville, France
The NAMM Show 2026 · January 2026 · Anaheim, CA, USA
Amigo Bay Area Guitar Show · 10-11 January 2026 · San Rafael, CA, USA
Much of the critical commentary around the Fender dispute assumes the same thing. The argument is that a vocal part of the community is furious, its members buy guitars, and the campaign is therefore creating a reputational cost that Fender may eventually need to repair. That logic runs through videos, forum threads, and much of the trade commentary, often ending in the same question. Why would a company risk alienating part of its own customer base?
Johny Miller of LsL Instruments has a different theory, one that does not require Fender to be making a mistake.
The theory, in his words
Miller is Director of Business Development at LsL Instruments, the Santa Clarita builder that became the first company publicly confirmed as a recipient of a Fender cease and desist letter in May. His line “we don’t hate Fender” became one of the dispute’s most widely repeated responses. We interviewed him at length in July about the workshop side of the story. After the interview was published, he sent us a further thought and approved it for publication in full. It is his reading of the situation, not Fender’s account of its own strategy, which the company has framed as the protection of its designs through dialogue and practical solutions.
“An open attempt for victory at the expense of legacy is what we are seeing here. The original guitar buying generation is almost gone. So the current abandonment of that buyer is ‘just business’.
“The next generation won’t care about the history of it all. There will be nothing to forgive. Honestly, that’s precisely why there is little to no concern about the current upset in the guitar community.
“I am guessing that the remnant of the current guitar buying community will dive into boutique guitars for their last few purchases. The next generation buyer will most likely enter the cycle that we have seen for the last 7 decades. The most visible brands will earn business first. The next gen buyer has no previous experience to hold any negative sentiment towards the brand, and the cycle continues. It’s quite brilliant indeed.”
Whether “quite brilliant” is admiration, bitter irony, or some measure of both, the calculation he describes is the same.
What the theory claims
Unpacked, the argument runs like this. The theory assumes that much of the present anger sits with older buyers who carry the longest memories of the market. A buyer discovering the electric guitar in the years ahead may arrive with no personal memory of the dispute of 2026, no existing attachment to the builders involved, and no grievance of their own. What that buyer meets, in Miller’s account, is shelf presence, brand visibility, and the gravitational pull of one of the market’s most famous names. On this reading, the backlash is real but time-limited, concentrated within a generation whose peak buying years may be drawing toward their end, while any lasting commercial gains from the enforcement campaign could outlive it.
The sharpest part of the theory is the phrase “nothing to forgive”. Redemption stories, boycotts, and reputational pressure all assume a future customer who remembers. Miller’s argument is that the customer who matters most will not.
What the theory is, and what it is not
This is one builder’s reading, and its evidential boundary needs stating plainly. Fender’s public statements do not describe a generational calculation. They stress stewardship of the company’s designs, action against close copies, constructive engagement, and practical paths forward. Miller’s theory is an outside inference, not inside knowledge. It sits alongside other plausible readings. The campaign may be a conventional rights-enforcement exercise, a miscalculation, or a process that ends in the negotiated accommodations Fender says it prefers.
It is also worth placing the theory beside Miller’s previously published optimism. In our interview he described the community’s unity as unprecedented and spoke of the redemption story waiting for Fender if it reversed course. The generational theory is the colder companion to that hope. If the next generation arrives without memory, redemption is not required. Forgetting does the same work for free. The two readings are not necessarily contradictory. Fender could still have a redemption story available if it changed course, while facing less long-term pressure to seek one if future buyers do not inherit the present dispute.
Why it matters for this market
If the theory holds even partly, it carries a specific implication for the boutique trade. Miller predicts the remaining members of the current buying generation will “dive into boutique guitars for their last few purchases”. Whether or not that happens, builders and dealers still face the larger question of how demand changes as today’s buyers age and new ones enter the market. That question exists regardless of how the Fender case ends. The dispute has simply made it visible sooner.
Whether the next generation arrives without inherited memory is the theory’s most uncertain assumption. The videos and reporting of 2026 need not disappear by 2036. Dealers, artists, teachers, older players, and specialist media may carry the story forward. A future buyer need not have lived through the dispute to inherit somebody else’s account of it.
Miller’s proposed mechanism is plausible but unproven. Fender’s visibility and the Stratocaster’s cultural reach are formidable advantages, whatever happens in court. The litigation may reshape what reaches the market, but it cannot decide how long a generation remembers.
Editor’s note: Johny Miller’s remarks are published in full and with his approval. LsL Instruments is a publicly reported recipient of a Fender cease and desist letter, and readers should weigh his perspective with that context. Vintage & Rare operates a marketplace for vintage, boutique, and independently built instruments. We are not a party to the dispute, we have not received a notice in the campaign, and our reference article on the case, kept deliberately neutral, is linked above.
Sources and further reading
Quoted remarks: Johny Miller, Director of Business Development, LsL Instruments, to Vintage & Rare, July 2026, published with approval.
In a summer when the Fender shape dispute has become one of the dominant conversations in the guitar trade, LsL Instruments has found itself at the centre of a story that has reached far beyond its own workshop. The Santa Clarita company was among the first builders publicly connected to the Fender Stratocaster shape dispute, and when its Director of Business Development, Johny Miller, told Guitar.com “We don’t hate Fender,” the line became one of the most repeated statements in the whole affair.
Lance Lerman checks a body in the workshop. He still play tests every guitar before it leaves. Photo courtesy of LsL Instruments / VintageandRare.com
What came back deserves to be read in full. The interview was conducted by email in July 2026. Answers have been lightly edited for clarity and are published with LsL’s approval. Vintage & Rare is not a party to the dispute, and our full reference on the case, kept deliberately neutral, is here. This conversation is about the workshop side of the story, the human one.
Editor’s note: This interview does not address the legal merits of the Fender dispute. The answers reflect Johny Miller’s perspective on LsL Instruments as a workshop, on its people, its instruments, and its plans.
The shop
LsL has been building in Santa Clarita for nearly two decades, but a lot of people only met the name through the news this summer. For them, who is LsL, who are the people behind it, and what do you build?
LSL is Lance and Lisa Lerman’s vision. A really great husband and wife duo that has deep passion for woodworking and custom guitar making. They love their employees like family and treat them as such.
We have a very small team. About 12 of us at any given time. We all do our part. Lance still builds with the team and fills in where he is needed, mostly in the aging department these days. And he still play tests each guitar before it leaves. Lisa and I handle the business end of the company and our build team makes it all possible by producing the best guitars we can muster day in and day out. A fairly simple operation. Very old school Americana in my view.
Relic work at the bench, “mostly in the aging department these days.” Every wear mark on an LsL aged finish is put there by hand. Photo courtesy of LsL Instruments / VintageandRare.com
We build vintage-inspired electric guitars. Mainly S and T, some offset models and even some shredder models. 90% of what we do is done with nitrocellulose lacquer so it has that old time goodness to it that keeps getting better. We still build our guitars the old way, the hard way, the long way. Tons of man hours go into each one, which is something that has cost us a fortune over nearly 20 years. But you can’t make a better guitar with less time in it. You can make it more profitable, but it will not profit the owner as much, if that makes sense.
Neck shaping by hand. “We still build our guitars the old way, the hard way, the long way.” Photo courtesy of LsL Instruments / VintageandRare.com
What does a normal week in the LsL workshop look like, when the world is not watching?
A normal work week for an old school company like us is mainly based on meat and potatoes stuff. Day in and day out. Show up, build great guitars, encourage each other to keep moving forward and serve anyone that comes our way the very best we can. We have done this behind the scenes all these years and will continue. We have very little flash or fluff in our day to day and zero corporate feel to us whatsoever. We’re simply not interested in that way of doing business. We keep it very human.
Oil finish going on by hand at the finishing bench. “Tons of man hours go into each one.” Photo courtesy of LsL Instruments / VintageandRare.com
This moment
What has this period of the Fender dispute been like inside the LsL shop, day to day?
All this has been very dramatic to say the least. You would be surprised how distracting and disrupting the presence of the largest guitar brand on earth meaning you harm in your own backyard can be. A small company like us is not able to withstand such a thing, so it really does a number on the emotions and sense of well-being in business.
The team stands behind Lance and Lisa. They know that they care about them and will do all they can to keep LSL alive. So there is a new bonding that has taken place, because all of this is very real now. When things are more pleasant and easy going, it is a bit harder to see that it’s hard enough to earn a living building guitars. But when adversity comes, and it becomes evident that our future is much less in our own hands than we previously enjoyed, the team really becomes more closely connected, much like a family does when hard times hit home.
You told Guitar.com “We don’t hate Fender,” and that line travelled further than most statements in this whole story. What did you mean by it?
I hope and pray that line rings out for a long long time. We have received so many emails, sharing of opinions and phone calls regarding the sentiment against Fender since this started. I have heard more expletives towards them than I have in 25 years working in the guitar business. And because we are front and center in this, people have expected us to feel the same way.
The truth is that we don’t feel that way. What we feel like is that Fender is basically just Fender. They are no more or no less special than us or Suhr or Anderson or any other boutique brand. They should have a right to do business for loyal fans that they have gained over time, and they should have the right to earn new fans and customers here and now and into the future.
However. What sets us and our boutique colleagues apart is this. We earn our new fans through hard work by hand. We earn respect and our place in the market by investing more and more man hours into our guitars, in order for each build to be the calling card that makes you a fan for life.
Fender has chosen a far different path. Why would we hate them for that? Hating someone for causing inconvenience, irritation and time and resources lost feels less than profitable. We also know that it’s not “Fender” but certain elements and agents in that machine that chose this path. The guitar world spoke up, and it would seem that any logical and sensible person, company, entity that wants to earn new business and revive old business would simply turn the ship around and rework the plan.
We didn’t hate them before all this malarkey. We don’t hate them now. And we won’t hate them tomorrow. We can’t speak for anyone else, but hurt is a lot different than hate.
The community response has come from players, other builders, and people you have never met. What has that support meant, and has any of it surprised you?
We are blown away by the support. The unity that has come from all of this is a first in guitar history. I started in the guitar industry in 1999 and have never seen the guitar world united like this. It’s truly incredible.
The funny thing is, if Fender rights the ship then they will actually feel massive benefit and renewed support from a united guitar world. Because everyone wants to see them reformed and be great again. Watch all the videos. They are begging for it. How powerful a redemption story is waiting right around the corner there.
The instruments
In the middle of everything, June was one of your biggest months of news, with the BARIBASS and then the Santa Clarita Dreadnaught. Tell us about each, and why now.
Oh man, now that’s the good stuff! And there is more where that came from.
The BARIBASS was a creation of necessity for guitar players who create music and content at home or in their own studio. Guitarists can play bass by default to some degree. But they don’t necessarily want to play a full-size bass.
My least favorite part about recording is programming bass lines. 100% of the time I program the bare minimum, because it’s a major hassle trying to lock in any kind of human feel and dial in velocities and whatnot. When I play bass in a song I have written, I focus on harmony and melody and being creative. But when I program a bass line I just want to get it over with.
BARIBASS is the answer to this! It’s a bass with tons of punch that is only 27.5″ scale length and barely the size of our baritone guitars. Chris Fleming calls it “Barely Bass,” LOL! I have half a mind to go with that name, ha! Well done Chris. Long story short, it’s a bass that doesn’t feel like a bass, to make studio playing that much easier. We hope you guys love it.
The Santa Clarita Acoustic is a long-time dream and vision as well. It was inspired by guitars that I have personally owned over the last 30 years that made a difference in songwriting for me. I always gravitated towards rosewood and cedar, because it has such a mellow feel to it when played.
We wanted our first acoustic to be something that matches our electrics in purpose. We build for players mainly. So this guitar needed to say “player” at first sight. It has a mellow feel to it that is perfect for singer-songwriters, and a luxurious look to it for the fancy folks as well.
We searched for years to find the right acoustic luthier team to partner with. We are not set up for acoustics at LSL. So these are made by a team of builders in mainland China that do things the old way like we do. All handcrafted, all solid woods, nitrocellulose lacquer finishes. Premium quality at half the price of what we could ever make one for in our shop. It’s a wonderful instrument and we hope you all enjoy them very much.
The Era Series and the Chris Fleming Series came from a clear reading of where boutique pricing was heading. How do you see the boutique market right now, and where does LsL fit in it?
That is a great question. I would agree with you on the Era Series. Not so much on the Chris Fleming Series. Here’s why.
When the pandemic hit, a lot of free money flowed and all brands saw increase. When that money dried up, all brands saw decrease. LSL was consistently selling for about $3,999 for custom models. But all of a sudden that entire market died! Everyone felt it and it shocked us all.
When you are a made-to-order boutique builder, and your number one price point falls off the face of the planet, then you have to act, and you have to act quickly.
So we read the room and presented the world with our Era Series. A production-style guitar with flash-coat nitro finishes. Funny thing is that the guitar world picked up on it very quickly. People called it our best work, because it was so simple. And it saved them a ton of money on an American boutique guitar.
Dealer, owner and fan feedback kept coming back asking us to upgrade pickups and allow for upgraded materials, adding colors and so on. They pretty much wanted us to make them custom for the same price as a production guitar. This told us that we had given them all a great guitar at a great price, but that the heart of what we do, and what people really want from us, is to stick to our roots as a custom guitar company.
We will hold onto the Era Series as long as we can. But building guitars in California is very expensive and we can only hold out on such low pricing for so long. I recommend getting them while they last, as they say! Don’t worry though, we will provide something outstanding in its place, to have an LSL that knocks your socks off in the mid $2k range. But I do recommend that serious buyers get their hands on the Era Series as it exists now. More soon on that!
The Chris Fleming Series was a different story. Chris was so unexpected for us and we are so grateful for his friendship and partnership. This is truly a guitar tale of the ages. Two master builders came together to build some of the best guitars we have made to date. And we did it all by going backwards! Simply put, we are building Time Machine guitars with Chris Fleming that incorporate 100% Lance Lerman and 100% Chris Fleming principles of guitar building. The end result is a guitar that may very well have you shelving other builds to play these more. Price point had very little to do with this series. It was all about relationships, and continuing Chris’ legacy through LSL, and it has been a very good thing.
Chris Fleming with Time Machine builds in progress. “Two master builders came together to build some of the best guitars we have made to date.” Photo courtesy of LsL Instruments / VintageandRare.com
When LsL designs something new, the Saticoy headstock being the obvious example, how do you think about making an instrument recognisably yours?
We don’t think that way really. We simply think about what we have not done that should be done. Then we do it. Some of the new models that are coming up, such as the Mongrel SC Semi Hollow, Mongrel Carve Top SC, XATICOY 24 Fret, BARIBASS and another surprise bass, are all created out of necessity, from our own need as players and most of all by the feedback we get from our fans.
We listen, then we build. It’s a great strategy.
Looking ahead
You said you hope for a return to normality. What does normality look like for LsL when all this is behind you?
Show up, build guitars, sell guitars, repeat. With no hindrance. That is normality for LSL.
You are sold out and working on something new. What can you tell us about what is coming?
Most companies would be tight lipped about this, but hey, we’ll spill the beans!
The BARIBASS will be available as a high quality import for a great price. This is a tool and should be available for a reasonable cost. USA models will be available as well for our die-hard fans. Nitrocellulose finishes will make it even better. I need one for myself!
We will be coming out with a 30″ T6-BASS that mixes T style with S style in a long scale platform, for the players that need to go deep!
We have the new XATICOY in the works as well for the European Union. It is a hybrid between our Saticoy and our XT4. 24 frets of vintage-inspired goodness that should make a lot of players happy.
We have two other hybrid models that we call Mongrel SC and Mongrel SC Carve Top. These will be our short scale guitars that were born from the age old question, “when is LSL gonna make a single cut?” Short answer is never, LOL! But we can bring you something different in a short scale package that will make that 24.75″ scale player very very happy. We should have something to show you there very soon.
Our acoustic line will be growing. We’ll be doing them all in nitrocellulose lacquer and hope to blow you away with some incredible builds there in small batches.
We should probably do a 5-string bass as well. I mean, it’s been 18 years. Why not.
Our artist signatures are going to be a big push for us: Ray Parker Jr, Carl Verheyen, Marcos Curiel (P.O.D), Maurice Arenas, Toby Friesen (Jeremy Camp), Michael Westbrook (Crowder), Buddy Blues, Scott Holt (Foghat), Ty Jackson (CeCe Winans), Charles English (Alabama) and more will be available.
To say the least, this is the hardest time we have ever faced as a company. But we have never felt more drive and passion to grow and give it our all. We owe our old fans and new fans a great big push to break through, and ensure that 10 or 20 years from now LSL will still be around and still be putting players first.
This is a Vintage & Rare original feature. The interview was conducted by email in July 2026, and all quotes are published with Johny Miller’s approval.
For the full background on the Fender and Thomann dispute, including the timeline and the legal questions, see our reference article. Our May feature on what the dispute means for builders is here.
From the archive: our January 2013 visit to the LsL workshop with Lance Lerman, filmed more than a decade before this summer’s events.
We tested the Vemuram Spiritone, the dual-channel Char signature drive, with a Gibson DG-335 into a tweed Fender Vibrolux, and in a comparison session with a single-coil Macmull S-Classic into a Morgan 1×12 against three Klon rivals, to establish whether it earns a place among Klon-derived overdrives. We found a coloured, harmonically dense, low- to medium-gain drive with superb dynamics, although its two channels are less independent than the format suggests.
The Vintage & Rare verdict
With four Klon rivals on the bench, we kept circling back to the Spiritone. Whatever we matched it against, its dynamic response and harmonic depth made it the pedal we wanted to keep playing. It will not do high gain, and its two channels share one gain structure, but neither stopped it becoming the drive we reached for first. Bought with our own money, tested on our own rig.
Pros and cons
Pros
Dense, harmonically rich drive voice
Superb dynamic response with just the right bite
Equally convincing with humbuckers and single coils
Preferred over the Centavo, the Archer, and the Nordvang No.1 in our comparisons
Distinctive Vemuram tonal character
Stacks superbly, verified with drives both before and after it
Useful brighter second mode for leads
Adjustable saturation and switchable buffer
High construction and finish quality
Cons
Large and heavy by modern pedalboard standards
Expensive within a crowded Klon-derived market
The two channels share gain and equalisation
The B channel would benefit from an independent gain control
The strongest SAT settings reduce clarity
Tonally coloured, despite some descriptions suggesting neutrality
Limited gain range when used alone
At a glance
Question
Answer
Transparent?
A word we are not going to use. Coloured voice, superb touch response
High gain?
No, low to medium gain alone
Good on its own?
Yes, within a low-gain ceiling
Best quality
Dynamic response
Main limitation
The B channel shares gain with the A channel
Stacking?
It stacked superbly in both directions
Worth it?
Yes, for players who want Vemuram’s harmonic voice
Why we reached this verdict
We recommend the Spiritone to players who want a harmonically rich, Klon-flavoured drive for low-gain vintage work, but not to those seeking a compact pedal, a neutral overdrive, or high gain from a single box. Its strongest quality is a dynamic response that follows picking strength with real precision and delivers just the right amount of bite. Its main limitation is the B channel, whose single knob raises the level and gain together. Street prices sit around $540 in the US and €460 to €560 in Europe as of July 2026, with the spread reflecting sale against standard retail pricing. Conclusions are based on our own hands-on testing through the rig listed below, with the Spiritone as the only drive pedal in the chain. Its widely reported strength as a stacking pedal is noted where relevant, but was not tested by us.
What is the Spiritone?
Zicca aX on the side panel, Char’s own imprint on the collaboration. Photo, Vintage & Rare.
The Spiritone starts where Char’s Centaur left off, borrows the boost behaviour of the CE-1 and the Watkins Copicat, and lands as a drive you could build a board around. It is the signature pedal of the Japanese guitarist Char (Hisato Takenaka), developed over roughly a year of collaboration with Vemuram. According to Vemuram, the starting point was Char’s personal Klon Centaur, studied alongside several Centaurs from the company’s own collection. Development reportedly included Char gigging the prototypes live and feeding back from the stage, and two emerged between which he could not choose, so both went into production. Notably, Vemuram states the two circuits are almost identical, with the tonal difference coming from the tuning of components and constants rather than a separate design. The A channel is voiced warm and vintage with smooth saturation, while the B channel, short for bright channel, is punchier and more aggressive. It has its own level knob and footswitch, but it still shares the pedal’s gain and equalisation.
Children of the korn
The review unit, serial ST02595. Photo, Vintage & Rare.
The review is based on two separate test sessions. The main listening impressions come from the following rig.
2007 Gibson Dave Grohl DG-335
Strymon BigSky
1959 Fender Vibrolux 5F11
The signal chain ran from the DG-335 into the Spiritone, then into the BigSky, and finally into the Vibrolux. The Spiritone was the only drive pedal used in the chain, so no stacking with other drives took place.
In that session we ran the Spiritone against the Centavo and the Archer with settings matched as closely as each pedal’s controls allowed, and against the Nordvang as a straight A/B, using the Macmull into the Morgan 1×12. The SAT trimmer sat at its factory setting throughout, apart from the range mapping described in the controls section. A later stacking session added a DryBell Unit67 in front of the Spiritone and a DryBell The Engine after it, covering both stacking directions
We bought the Spiritone review unit with our own money at full retail price, 17,900 baht, from Strings Shop in Bangkok. The Nordvang Custom No.1 is our own pedal too, bought with our own money, and it has sat in our rig for quite some time. No manufacturer, distributor, or dealer had any involvement in or approval over this review. Testing took place in July 2026.
First impressions
We should say upfront that the Spiritone had eight months to work on us before this review. We first met it in November 2025 at Strings Shop in Bangkok, where it caught our eye from shelves holding what must be three hundred pedals. We spent an hour with it that day, taken by the sound, the response, and the looks, and could hardly put it down. We still walked out without it, regretted that almost immediately, and went home to read every review we could find. Eight months later, back in Bangkok, we went straight to Strings Shop knowing exactly why. A pedal that stays in your head that long has already told you something, and this time it came home with us. That first hour is not part of the test record, everything in this review comes from the July 2026 sessions, but it explains why this particular pedal ended up on the bench.
The Spiritone announces its price point before it makes a sound. Vemuram says the Spiritone was designed for the joy of ownership as much as for its sound, and it shows. On looks alone, the Spiritone is one of the most beautiful overdrive pedals we have seen. Four ash white Bakelite knobs and a single deep red knob for the B channel sit on a dark face that fades into polished brass at the edges, and the combination gives it a presence few painted aluminium boxes can match. The enclosure is heavy and substantial at 815 g, the knobs turn with a smooth, damped feel, and the finish is up to the standard Vemuram is known for. The footprint is the first practical consideration. At 157 mm wide, this is a large pedal by modern standards, and it will dominate a small board. Build quality gave us nothing to criticise.
How do the controls behave?
The full control layout, Level B-ch on the far left with its deep red knob, the buffer toggle centre, and a footswitch per channel. Photo, Vintage & Rare.
Every control on the Spiritone earns its place, though they carry unequal weight, and the Gain, the SAT trimmer, and the B channel level shape the pedal’s character most.
The Gain control rewards patience. It behaves less like a distortion dial and more like a thickness control, working in step with the output level. Set low, the drive never quite takes shape. Push it beyond the halfway mark, and the pedal finds its voice, filling out with the layered overtones the brand is known for.
The SAT trimmer is one of the most consequential controls on the pedal. Vemuram describes its purpose as fine-tuning a saturation modelled on the power tubes of a valve amplifier, adjustable to suit different gear combinations and venues, and that matches how it behaves.
The rear panel. The SAT trimmer the review maps, the centre negative power input, and Char’s signature in gold. Photo, Vintage & Rare.
Around its middle range, the feel drifts towards the thicker, more harmonically active response of pedals like the Mythos Mjolnir. Wound down, it tightens up towards the cleaner, more restrained feel of the Klon KTR and other faithful replicas. Wound fully up, the sound loses composure, with added compression and saturation reducing definition, and we found little practical use for the top of the range. Beyond that mapping, every other impression in this review, including the comparisons, was formed with the SAT at its factory setting, which we found well judged and had no urge to move away from.
The B channel is engaged with its own footswitch and governed by the Level B-ch knob on the far left. Raising that level also drives the shared gain structure harder, so volume and saturation increase together. The B channel has no independent gain control.
The two-band EQ is unusually effective for a Klon-derived pedal. Small movements change the character noticeably, and both controls stay musical across the ranges we used. The Treble brightens without turning brittle, keeping the top end refined as it comes up, and the Bass adds thickness while holding definition, with no drift into mud. The buffer is the quietest control on the pedal. Switching it on made very little audible difference in our chain, and we regard it as insurance for long cable runs and heavily loaded boards rather than a tone shaper. Owner reports we have read reach the same conclusions on all three counts.
What does the pedal sound like?
The Spiritone is a coloured, midrange-forward, low- to medium-gain overdrive with unusually dense harmonics. Even with the gain rolled fully down, engaging the pedal brings in a familiar Klon-style midrange lift, but the character on top is pure Vemuram, richer in harmonics than the original circuit ever was.
What struck us most was the dynamic response. The Spiritone follows picking strength with real precision, and it delivers just the right amount of bite, enough to give notes an edge without hardening the tone. That balance of bite and warmth is what lifts it from a good drive to a genuinely great one.
Vemuram and several retailers describe the Spiritone as a medium-gain overdrive, and low to medium gain is a fair label. Used on its own it lives in the lower half of that range, producing a strong, textured vintage drive at its upper settings without ever reaching into high-gain territory.
In short, the Spiritone pairs outstanding dynamics with dense harmonics, sits in the lower half of its medium-gain billing, and was the most open-sounding of the Klon pedals we compared.
Is the Spiritone transparent?
You will meet the word transparent in half the coverage of this pedal, and we are not going to use it. In 25 years of gear obsession we have rarely met two players who mean quite the same thing by it. For some it means the pedal leaves the EQ alone, for others it means it responds to their fingers, and for a fair few it seems to mean they like the pedal. So we will skip the label and tell you what we actually heard.
The Spiritone has a voice of its own. The Klon-style midrange lift is present even with the gain at zero, and the pedal adds a recognisable harmonic texture rather than simply enlarging the sound entering it. If the Jan Ray is Vemuram’s more neutral drive, the Spiritone is its coloured one. Worth noting, Vemuram never calls the pedal transparent either, its own description speaks of a versatile medium-gain drive with vintage tone and feel, so the label floating around comes from dealers and players, not the maker.
What we can report instead is how it behaved on the bench. In our matched comparison against the Warm Audio Centavo and the J. Rockett Archer, with the single-coil Macmull into the Morgan 1×12, the Spiritone was the most open-sounding of the three, and its response to picking strength set it apart. Whichever way we matched the settings, it kept sounding better and more inspiring to play, and the difference was dynamic range.
Put simply, the Spiritone colours your sound and answers your hands. Whether you call that transparent is your business. We call it a pedal with a voice worth having.
How different are the two channels?
The A and B channels of the Spiritone are distinct, but they do not function as separate overdrive circuits. Vemuram describes the B channel as brighter, more aggressive, and punchier, and we found that broadly accurate, but the two voices remain closely related because they share the Gain, Treble, Bass, and SAT settings. The B channel, therefore, acts as a hotter second mode rather than a fully independent second channel, which is consistent with Vemuram’s own account of the two circuits as almost identical, differing in component tuning rather than design. A dedicated B channel gain control would have made the pedal considerably more flexible, though the one-knob approach does keep things simple on a dark stage. Owner reports add a practical note here, the B channel’s output runs high enough that some players find little use for it at domestic volumes, while the A channel stays easy to manage on home amplifiers. That squares with the shared-gain behaviour we describe, since raising the B level adds drive as well as loudness.
Overall, the B channel is a footswitchable hotter mode of the same voice, not a second independent overdrive.
Does the Spiritone work well on its own?
Used alone, the Spiritone tops out at a rich, textured vintage drive and goes no further. With the gain maxed and the B channel engaged, it remains articulate and dynamic, but players seeking thick distortion or compressed sustain will need another gain stage. Published player impressions are mixed here. Some owners describe it as their preferred Klon-derived drive on its own, while others find it slightly stiff by itself and prefer it as a boost, and a detailed owner comparison against an original Centaur reports that the Spiritone alone supplies only light overdrive and will not reach Char’s promotional tones without a driven amplifier or another gain stage in the chain. Our own testing covered it solely as the single drive in the chain, and in that role it delivered a dynamic, articulate low-gain voice we enjoyed, within the gain ceiling described above.
Our platform testing covered two pickup types across two amplifiers, a humbucker semi-hollow into a tweed-style valve amp and a single-coil S-style into a Morgan 1×12, and the pedal sounded absolutely great with both. The dynamic response and harmonic character we describe held whichever guitar we picked up, and neither pickup type exposed a weakness. We have not tested it into a mid-forward British-style platform, so that combination remains unverified by us.
In practice, the Spiritone works well alone as a dynamic low-gain drive, but it will not go beyond that ceiling without help.
Is the Spiritone a good stacking pedal?
Yes. We tested it stacked in both directions, with a DryBell Unit67 in front of the Spiritone and a DryBell The Engine after it, and it handled both placements superbly.
The two placements covered the roles players ask about. The Unit67 put the Spiritone on the receiving end of boost and compression. The Engine put it in the pushing role, driving a British-voiced gain stage, the job owners have long described using it for into amplifiers.
That lands where the published record pointed all along. Owners describe successful lead-boost pairings with the Vemuram TSV808, the Jan Ray, the Shanks ODS-1, and Rat-style pedals, one Japanese review characterises it as a pushing device that brings out the best in an amplifier, and several owners note how naturally it blends with other Vemuram pedals on the same board. The design logic explains why. A midrange-forward voice is well suited to pushing a following gain stage, the harmonic density keeps a combined sound from thinning, and the B channel offers a footswitchable step-up in level and drive without another pedal.
In short, the reports were right, the Spiritone stacks superbly, and this is no longer a gap in the review.
How does it compare with the closest alternatives?
A note on the basis first. The Warm Audio Centavo and J. Rockett Archer comparisons come from our own matched testing, run with the single-coil Macmull into a Morgan 1×12 with settings matched as closely as each pedal’s controls allowed, and an A/B test against the Nordvang Custom No.1 sits on the same first-hand basis. The KTR comparison draws on prior hands-on experience with both pedals, while the Tumnus Deluxe and King of Tone comparisons draw on their published characteristics and our knowledge of the category rather than matched same-session testing. Against the original Klon Centaur, the pedal’s stated starting point, we can only compare indirectly. We have not tested this unit alongside a Centaur, so the KTR is our nearest available reference. A detailed published owner comparison against an original silver Centaur supports that indirect picture, reporting that the Spiritone can be dialled towards the Centaur but remains distinguishable, sounding more compressed and concentrated where the original is wider and more polished, and judging the Spiritone closer in tendency to the KTR than to the Centaur itself. That broadly aligns with our own reading of the pedal’s character.
Pedal
Circuit family
Channels and controls
Typical price, July 2026
Best for
Vemuram Spiritone
Klon-derived, Char signature
Two voices sharing Gain, Bass, Treble, and SAT, with a main Level, a B channel level, and a footswitch each
New street, around $540 US, €460 to €560 EU
A coloured low-gain drive with a footswitchable hotter mode
Klon KTR
Klon, Bill Finnegan production
Single channel, Gain, Treble, Output, switchable buffered or true bypass
New, limited availability, recent listings around $659, used higher
The faithful Klon reference
Warm Audio Centavo
Klon recreation
Single channel, Gain, Treble, Output, rear Mod switch extending bass
New street, around $180
The affordable faithful big-box Centaur experience
J. Rockett Archer
Klon family
Single channel, Volume, Treble, Gain
New street, around $200
A robust, cleaner-voiced Klon-style boost
Nordvang Custom No.1 (original)
Klon-derived, Danish hand-built
Single channel with expanded control options
Discontinued 2020, used market only, the Signature successor sells new around $300
A refined high-end Klon take, the closest rival we compared
Wampler Tumnus Deluxe
Klon-derived
Single channel with a three-band EQ and a hot switch
New street, around $200
The Klon flavour at compact size and price
Vemuram Jan Ray
Blackface-style, neutral-leaning drive
Single channel, Volume, Gain, Bass, Treble, saturation trimmer
New, from around $379
Vemuram’s most neutral voice
Analogman King of Tone
Bluesbreaker family
Two genuinely independent channels
Direct, around $285 with a long waiting list, secondary far higher
A premium dual-channel drive with true channel independence
Prices are indicative street or direct figures at the date of writing and vary by region and availability, and they are not directly comparable because availability differs between brands.
We would choose the Spiritone over a Klon KTR when we want more harmonic density, a coloured voice, and two footswitchable levels, but we would choose the KTR when compact size and a more faithful, restrained Klon response matter more.
The matched test produced our clearest comparative finding. Against both the Centavo and the Archer, whichever way we matched the settings, we kept preferring the Spiritone, and the reason was dynamic range. It responded to picking in a way neither rival matched, and it was simply more inspiring to play. Both rivals remain excellent value all the same, the Centavo is the affordable route to a faithful big-box Centaur experience, and the Archer is a proven, solidly built take with a cleaner boost character. We would choose either over the Spiritone on budget alone, and the Spiritone over both on feel.
We also ran the Spiritone A/B against the Nordvang Custom No.1 in its original version, the Danish hand-built refinement of the Klon circuit produced from 2014 to 2020 and since succeeded by the more strictly faithful No.1 Signature. This is the comparison we can speak to with the most familiarity, the Nordvang is our own pedal and has sat in our rig for quite some time. The original carries a strong reputation at the high end of the family. It deserves that reputation. It is a superb-sounding pedal, and of everything we compared, it ran the Spiritone closest. Yet we kept circling back to the Spiritone. The margin was not tone so much as feel, the same dynamic openness that separated it from the Centavo and the Archer, and something about the way it kept inviting us to play. Between these two the decision is genuinely close, and price will settle it for many players, but ours went to the Spiritone.
Against the Wampler Tumnus Deluxe, the responsible comparison rests on published specifications and construction. The Spiritone sits clearly higher on build standard and materials, while the Tumnus wins decisively on price and board space, and it remains the sensible choice for anyone who simply wants the Klon flavour without the boutique premium. The harmonic density and dynamics we describe elsewhere in this review are qualities we verified in the Spiritone alone. We have not run the two pedals side by side.
Against the Analogman King of Tone, the comparison is really about the voicing family. Both are premium dual-channel drives at a similar level of ambition, but the King of Tone works in Bluesbreaker territory, where the Spiritone works in Klon territory, so the choice follows the midrange character a player is after, with the King of Tone offering more genuinely independent channels.
Within Vemuram’s own range, the Jan Ray remains the pick for players who want the brand’s most neutral voice, while the Spiritone is the pick for players who want its colour.
There are comparisons we would have liked to run and could not, because we did not have access to the pedals at the time of testing. The Decibelics Golden Horse is widely praised as one of the most faithful component-level Klon recreations, in an ultra-compact enclosure that would have made a telling contrast with the Spiritone’s footprint. The Ceriatone Centura is the hand-wired big-box replica many players treat as the authentic blueprint, at roughly half the Spiritone’s price. And a genuinely independent dual drive such as the KingTone Duellist, where each side carries its own full control set, would show most clearly what the Spiritone’s shared gain and EQ give up. All three carry strong reputations among players, and we note them here both as honest gaps and as candidates for future matched testing.
Is the Spiritone good value?
We consider the Spiritone good value only for players who will actually use what differentiates it, the harmonic density, the dynamics, and the second footswitchable level. At around $540, it sits at the expensive end of the overdrive market, and the limited independence of the B channel weakens the case for replacing two separate pedals. It does more than a basic Klon replica, but it enters a crowded category full of smaller, cheaper alternatives that cover the core job.
Japanese domestic pricing adds useful context. The Spiritone retails at 59,840 yen including tax at home, and one owner there frames the value question well, an original Centaur now commands between five hundred thousand and one million yen, so sixty thousand yen for a serious take on the circuit family reads as reasonable rather than extravagant.
The bottom line is that it offers good value for players who will use its harmonics, dynamics, and second level, and poor value for anyone who only needs the core Klon job.
Who is it for, and who is it not for?
The Spiritone is best for low-gain and vintage-voiced players who build their drive sound in stages and want a firmer rhythm setting and a brighter, louder lead mode in a single enclosure. On the strength of published reports and its design rather than our own stacking test, it also suits dedicated stackers and players who push another pedal or an amplifier. And it suits Klon-curious players who find faithful Centaur replicas slightly restrained, since it keeps that family’s midrange focus while adding harmonic complexity.
It is not the right pedal for players who need high gain from a single box. It will not satisfy anyone who wants two independently adjustable channels, because the voices share Gain, Bass, Treble, and SAT. It is a poor fit for a tightly packed board at 157 mm wide and 815 g. And players seeking the closest possible Klon reproduction at the lowest cost should look at compact alternatives such as the Tumnus instead.
Verdict
We recommend the Spiritone for players who already respond to Vemuram’s voice and want a coloured, dynamic, low- to medium-gain drive in a Klon-flavoured, dual-channel format, provided that they do not need high gain or true channel independence from a single box. Its greatest verified strength is its dynamic response, which followed our picking with real precision, delivered bite without hardness, and carried it past the Warm Audio Centavo and J. Rockett Archer in our matched comparison, with a closer A/B against the Nordvang Custom No.1 landing the same way.
Its strength as a stacking pedal, long reported by owners, held up in our own tests. We would choose a compact faithful replica instead when the decision is led by board space, neutrality, or budget. For committed Vemuram players it slots straight into the family. For everyone else, its size, shared controls, and premium price make it a pedal worth auditioning before committing.
Specifications and current pricing
Effect type
Dual-channel overdrive
Controls
Level B-ch, Gain, Bass, Treble, Level (left to right), SAT trimmer, buffer on/off
Footswitches
Bypass, B channel
Bypass
Selectable true bypass or buffered bypass per two independent retailers, not stated in Vemuram’s own documentation, unconfirmed by us
Power
9V, centre negative, 006P battery or adapter per Vemuram’s specification, current draw 21 mA per Vemuram, 28 mA in most dealer listings, 17 mA in one retailer’s in-house measurement
Enclosure
Brass
Knobs
Ash white Bakelite, with a deep red B channel knob
Dimensions
157 x 103 x 53 mm (retailer heights vary from 50 to 57 mm, apparently depending on whether the knobs are included)
Weight
815 g
Components
Custom footswitches, jacks, and capacitors, selected NOS parts
Country of manufacture
Japan
Street price
Around $540 US, €460 to €560 EU, DKK 4,199 in Denmark, ¥59,840 in Japan, sale and standard retail mixed
Confirmed purchase price
17,900 baht, full retail, Strings Shop Bangkok, July 2026
Pricing checked
July 2026
Vemuram notes that NOS component supply may lead to circuit revisions without notice, and goes further, stating that sales may be suspended or ended entirely if sound quality cannot be maintained with alternative components. Buyers should treat the Spiritone as a pedal with no guaranteed production future.
Written by Nico von Cotta, Vintage & Rare
Nico von Cotta founded Vintage & Rare in 2008 and has spent more than 25 years making music as a guitarist, songwriter, and producer. He remains a thoroughly committed gear nerd. Keepers is about the pieces that, for one reason or another, never quite left the shelf. Every review is based on hands-on testing. We usually buy the gear ourselves, and when a company supplies a test sample, we disclose it in the review.
The Stratocaster shape dispute has reached the stage the whole story has been building toward. Fender has filed a copyright infringement action against Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, as reported by Reuters on 16 July, in response to the lawsuit Thomann brought in June. The validity of Fender’s claimed copyright and whether the challenged Harley Benton designs infringe it are now before a court with fully resourced parties on each side. That creates the first publicly identified, fully resourced vehicle for the contested test the dispute has lacked from the start.
What has happened
Fender’s filing, made this week in Düsseldorf, alleges that Harley Benton-brand guitars developed and sold by Thomann copy the Stratocaster shape. In a statement, Fender described the action as “the expected next step in the legal process”, framing it as the procedural consequence of the case Thomann started. Fender’s statement also argues that Thomann is no small independent builder but one of the world’s largest instrument retailers, one of Fender’s own largest retail partners, and the owner of Harley Benton, one of Europe’s largest guitar brands. The statement also discloses that Fender’s engagement after the Düsseldorf ruling extended to online marketplaces across Europe, alongside manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, and says that in many instances companies have chosen collaborative solutions, including design modifications.
Reuters’ report and Fender’s statement also identify, for the first time in the public record, the legal vehicle used by Thomann in June. It is described as a Declaration of Non-Infringement. Reuters reports that Thomann disputes the validity of Fender’s claimed copyright, arguing in part that it rests on a default judgment that was never tested against a defence, while Fender says Thomann is seeking a determination that it may continue selling the challenged Harley Benton designs. Until now, the legal form of Thomann’s action had not been publicly identified.
Reuters’ account of the filing carries market figures the dispute has not had before. Fender says it sells about 500,000 Stratocasters a year, with around 34,000 of those sold in Germany, and cites Thomann’s own estimate that the retailer sells roughly 10,000 Fender Stratocasters a year.
The sequence, stated fairly
In June, Fender’s chief executive said the company was not suing anyone at that time and preferred practical solutions. Days later, Thomann filed its declaration action. Fender now characterises its infringement filing as a response to proceedings Thomann began, and its statement says the company’s preference was dialogue rather than litigation. Read in sequence, both positions can be accurate. Fender did not bring the first court action between the parties, and it has now filed an infringement action of its own. Thomann, for its part, framed its filing as standing in for manufacturers and dealers without the resources to defend themselves, and has urged Fender to withdraw the cease and desist campaign and return to a cooperative relationship. Readers can weigh the framings. The filings are what now matter.
Why this changes the dispute
Every stage of this story until now has rested on a claim considered only on an uncontested record. The Düsseldorf default judgment of 22 December 2025 was entered against a seller who never appeared. The cease and desist campaign was built on that record, and the central question our reference article has tracked from the start is how the copyright claim fares against an opponent who contests it. That question now has a vehicle. An infringement action and a declaration of non-infringement concerning the same claimed shape are now before the court, creating the first opportunity for both sides to present evidence and argument on a contested record.
Any substantive outcome will matter far beyond the two parties. A ruling that the Stratocaster shape is protected and that the challenged Harley Benton designs infringe would strengthen Fender’s position across the European market. A ruling that the shape does not clear the copyright threshold would undercut the foundation of the letter campaign. A narrower ruling that particular Harley Benton designs do not infringe could weaken Fender’s wider position, though its effect on other recipients would depend on the court’s reasoning and the designs concerned. If the proceedings reach a judgment on the merits, the core copyright questions would, for the first time, be considered on a contested record rather than through a default judgment.
What is and is not known
Confirmed, per Reuters and the parties’ statements, Fender has filed an infringement action against Thomann in Düsseldorf, Thomann’s June action has been identified as a Declaration of Non-Infringement, and the market figures above come from Fender’s filing as reported. No case numbers have been made public, and it is not known which Harley Benton models are at issue, what specific relief Fender seeks beyond the infringement allegation, whether the two actions will be joined, when any hearing might take place, or how long a contested proceeding of this kind will take. Neither pleading has been made publicly available in the sources we have reviewed, so accounts of the filings currently rest on the parties’ statements and press reporting. Much of the procedure will unfold through written submissions, so public developments may continue to arrive intermittently.
Where it goes next
Further responses, any consolidation of the actions, and other procedural steps are likely to unfold over months, although no public timetable or hearing date is currently available. Settlement remains possible at any point, and both companies’ statements leave room for it, Fender’s by stressing dialogue, Thomann’s by urging a return to cooperation. If the case runs to judgment on the merits, it could produce the first publicly identified contested ruling in this campaign on whether the Stratocaster body shape is Fender’s protected work. We will keep our reference article updated at each step.
Disclosure: Vintage & Rare operates an online marketplace for vintage, boutique, and rare instruments, including sales into Europe. Vintage & Rare has not been contacted in connection with this campaign.
Sources and further reading
News reporting: Reuters’ report of 16 July 2026 on Fender’s filing against Thomann.
Company statements: Fender’s full statement, as published by Guitar World on 17 July 2026, and Thomann’s June 2026 statement on its legal action.
Primary court record, background: Regional Court of Düsseldorf, default judgment of 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25.
