Official Luthiers Forum!

With the high cost of Jigs these days, and the weekend luthier who makes 2 guitars a year, it is not really cost effective to buy an expensive jig. But they would love to get great and consistent results. By leasing the jig, they could get to use an expensive jig and get the results they need, but at a fraction of the cost. A good example of leasing a jig would be the headstock jig sold at luthiertool.com. I would be willing to buy this jig and lease it out to people at say $20 a week with a $100 deposit if I could get enough interest. It would work something like this:

I could set up a calendar on my website that shows the reservation dates for this jig. Anyone wanting it could just look up the item on the calendar, and send me an email with the dates they would want to reserve it(first come first serve). I could also put the instructions on the website also. So what do you think?
Tracy

Sounds like a great idea...why didn't I think of this?

I was hoping we could do something like this to help out the OLF, but this would be an acceptable alternative.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

Not sure I really agree with this concept. The people who design and produce the jigs should be able to make a profit on them. If everyone just rents and they only sell a few, they no longer have any incentive to design and produce jigs. How would you feel if I bought one of each your jigs and I just rent them out to everyone. You probably wouldn't sell as many and I'd be making a profit from your hard work (and if I bought enough, maybe more profit)? Same concept as MichaelP has spoken about with the distribution of unalterable CAD documents. Or how about we go together and buy one spot on the Luthier Showcase and rotate builders, I don't think Brock would go for it. I know that some of the jigs are very expensive, but how long did it take to get the CAD setup, find a producer, or how much was the equipment investment. I would say either buy it or make it yourself as people have done for ages. Lending to others is okay as there is no profit and it might even give the supplier another potential sell. Not trying to step on any toes, just my take on the situation. But reminds me, I need to track down some tapes and a fretwire bender.    

_________________
Don Atwood
Arlington, VA

You make a valid point, Don. But if it's a superior product, the leasing option could induce more to actually buy one. It's a sort of promotional opportunity that a jig maker might otherwise not have. If it's an inferior jig, then it gets discovered quickly and gets relegated to the junk heap. That's ultimately good for the state-of-the-art...kinda Darwinian in a way.

Long live the free market!

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

Don and JJ, you both make valid points. I don't think I would buy the jigs and lease them, I would be making my own jigs, and if they were expensive jigs, then I would have the option of leasing them. As for this specific example of the headstock jig, JJ, I think if Lance is up for it, he could buy the tool and lease it here on the OLF for others to use. I like your idea.

But in defense of my first statement, where Don disagrees about taking someones tool and leasing it, isn't that what leasing centers are already doing? If I don't want to buy a lawn edger or floor sander, I can go rent one. Isn't my proposal the same thing?
Tracy

I think the big difference between leasing equipment and sharing software is that a tool can only be used by one person at a time. Software, if copied, can be used by many. Allowing customers to distribute copies can completely eliminate the market for a software product. That can't happen with a jig. In general, I like the idea.

Joe Volin

[QUOTE=Joe V] I think the big difference between leasing equipment and sharing software is that a tool can only be used by one person at a time. Software, if copied, can be used by many. Allowing customers to distribute copies can completely eliminate the market for a software product. That can't happen with a jig. In general, I like the idea.

Joe Volin[/QUOTE]

It's actually pretty similar.. A lot of these jigs and products aren't hard to build/copy.. Makers don't provide blueprints/specs on their jigs for that reason (just like software makers wont give you the source for their programs). Anyone renting/leasing a jig would have the opportunity to pull it apart to blueprint and copy it.

I would also imagine the shipping could be a problem. Most of these expensive jigs are large and made from plywood and steel. Shipping would probably be more than the rental.

_________________
CVT Inc.
A tour of our shop (Somewhat outdated)
My Personal eBay profile. BCWoodBug

You are right Jason, shipping would be a big obstacle, but I would rent a radius dish. It would have to be small jigs like this headstock jig, or an expensive circle cutting jig. Something like that.
Tracy

Jason,

I think you make a good point especially if its a unique jig. I can't think of any on the market that are unique to the company selling them. For example, LMI sells the Fox Sidebender. They didn't invent it and have no right to protect the idea or design. Or at least they don't claim to. In fact, they sell the plans for customers to make their own. The same is true of various binding jigs and headstock jigs. The difference with all the software I know of is that the vendor has a protectable interest and technically it is not sold, its licensed. I suppose a manufacturer could license its products instead of selling them, but they generally don't. I think its more a question of ethics. Many products are sold with the knowledge that they will be shared or resold. For example, many car manufactures claim their cars will hold their resale value. The manufactures don't object to rental car companies leasing them. They shouldn't object if I let someone borrow it. I feel the same way about other items. Most if not all of the jigs I know of are designs that evolved form many peoples' ideas. Some are outright copies. I just don't see anything wrong with reselling or leasing an item where the vendor's value isn't the idea, but the manufacturing. I would feel differently if the vendor had a unique idea that they have a right to protect. As usual, the devil seems to be in the details. What is right in one situation may be wrong in another.

Joe Volin