I'm not that bothered about it, it's fair enough associating them with the artists to indicate what they were designed to do (and, obviously, to make some money off them!), but to actually call them "signature" models is going a bit too far. :)
Agree to disagree --
To paraphrase Richard Dreyfus in Jaws, if a pedal maker comes out with a replica of the Sam Ash fuzz pedal, people say, "Huh?" Put Bolin's name on it, and it makes tonnes more sense.
You now have an iconic, identifiable tone to associate with the effect.
It's certainly better than saying "Oh, it sounds like the fuzz Gallagher used". So, why not put his name on it in the 1st instance?
I dunno, anyone who knows who Tommy Bolin was, and likes his sound enough to try to emulate it probably knows that Mr. Bolin played through a Sam Ash booster pedal.
(I thought he dug HiWatt amps, though?)
And as far as getting access to the Holy Fuzzpedal argument, couldn't the maker just call his product "inspired by/copied from an effect much loved by Jimi/Rory/Tommy/My Mom" (whaitaminit....) without slapping an actual endorsement on it?
Then again, it doesn't really bother me one way or the other.
