The top has "some scratches"
 

I know it's French Polish (although I don't think the seller does - he though the serial number was the year of production until I told him otherwise!) but holy cow man......how do you do this to a guitar?????

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antonio-Lori...d#ht_80wt_1152

By playing it like you mean it. By carrying around a restaurant and bumping into things. By using it. By teaching with it.

It's not necessarily abuse. It could be as simple as putting a tool to work. I have a guitar that is about half there. I don't abuse it. But it grts a lot of use in situations where a few bumps and bruises are inevitable.

I did that with one guitar nearly every weekend for over a decade and never put a mark on it;)

It doesn't have to be that way.

If you teach with a classical guitar, before you know it, some kid will pick it up and whale away on it with a pick. Doesn't take much to bump one up either.

I play for kids and am often running from gig to gig. I actually let children strum my guitar. I dance with it while kids dance around me with rattles and such. t happens. I have other priorities in life than keeping my guitars scratch-free. I'm careful, but dings happen. Life goes on. The great thing is that if you don't like scratches you don't have to buy his guitar. I don't mind scratches and have bought a few killer guitars for really great prices, knowing I would put more scratches on them.

Guitars are made to be played. But that means different things to different people. I think it's OK. :-)

It's ugly, but nothing that would deter me if it sounded and played well and the price reflected the condition. Ugly guitars take the anxiety out of ownership.

That's for sure.....

If I spent 2-3k on a classical guitar of this quality I sure wouldn't have it around kids or treat it like that.

It's also probably less than 7-8 years old (they've not been made for longer than that)

That's not "some scratches". Those are full-on dings. I had a cheap Yamaha classical that I started my classical studies with many years ago. I used to use it for flamenco studies as well, but it didn't have a golpeador on it. So the top got pretty dinged-up from me rapping my nails on it. But I can't say it was any worse than that. Obviously, Willie Nelson and his Martin N-20 have proved that a guitar doesn't have to be ding-free to produce sound. So if dings didn't matter to me, I'd have no problem buying such a guitar. But the description "some scratches" seems more than a little understated to me.

Yes, that was my point originally;)

Zactly! Which is why I posted... to support your POV (seemed to have been missed by several). ;)

Not that familiar with the maker so what would one in mint condition be realistically worth? He's offering this on a $500 minimum/no reserve auction so how does that compare to the item's value taking into account the dings he disclosed and photographed?

I'd expect 900-1000 tops. Retail is 3k, but there were dealers not that long ago selling them at 1600 with minor flaws "new with warranty".

My take is that if he took this kind of care of it, who knows if it's been humidified properly etc - zero feedback seller - a real crapshoot.

It may only pull 800 or so?

If this one were mint/used it would be in the 1500 range.

Here's where I agree with you. As someone who buys beat-up guitars occasionally, I wouldn't look at this one. Zero feedback is a starting point. And while I think a guitar can come to that sort of condition through real use, I've got no evidence at all that THAT is what happened. This could have been in a closet being banged around with the vacuum cleaner. Did he humidify it if necessary? Does he even know enough about guitars to tell me something about playability? And with zero feedback, I've got nothing to go on.

My only point was that there are those of us who do beat the beans out of an instrument using it for real work — traveling, running from place to place, playing outdoors, having to switch instruments very quickly, etc.., It's OK with me that you don't put any marks on your guitars. Really. But I do, and there are legitimate reasons for it. It's not that I am irresponsible, disrespectful, or clueless. It's just that I have a job to do, and the music and the experience at the time are infinitely more important to me than keeping the instrument in mint condition. I believe that answers the question about how a guitar might reach that condition. Just offering a different perspective. YMMV and will.

I see where Chris Thile mods his priceless Loar-era mandolins. A lot of people — especially some collectors over on the Mandolin Cafe — gasp in horror. However, none of those folks likely plays the instruments as well as Chris, and Chris was the one to write the checks for those instruments. They belong to him.

We're all different. It's OK by me.

So if he's offering it for an open of $500, that's 1/3 the value for a mint example. That sounds more than reasonable to me as far as condition goes. The seller could still be a dope but doesn't sound like he's not taking condition into account. If I saw a D-28 with those same problems at $500-$600, I'd sure be interested.

I don't think a beat-up guitar needs to be the result of a guitar that's used a lot. But I can see it happening. Heck - I ride the snot out of my mountain bike, and if I tried to keep it looking new, I'd make myself crazy and waste a lot of time and energy. Instead, I keep it maintained and reasonably clean, and it works fine.