A surface crack should be listed how?

[Ralph124C41]

I've been looking at some used acoustics online and I've come across several times at different retailers where a guitar is showing cracked tops, bottoms or other problems ... but the problems arenot listed and the guitar is marked as being "good" or even "very good" condition.

Just now I came across a guitar marked in "good " condition. I talked to a salesman who looked it over and he noticed the crack , which he freely admitted looked "scary". He sent me some photos of it and it appears to be a standard humidity, or whatever crack, running from the bottom of the bridge all the way to the bottom edge.

My Alvarez AD710 developed a similar crack years ago when I left it out on its stand and didn't take care of its humidification needs. Now I keep all my guitars in their cases when not in use and they have humidifiers.

My point is I don't think a guitar listed as "good" condition should have a crack or other obvious structural problem. Yet I've come across this several times.

Am I being too picky? To me a cracked top should be pointed out to the consumer. To me it is not a cosmetic problem but something that needs to be repaired as soon as possible. At the very least the consumer should be told of the problem, especially if the seller offers no warranty.

I once came across a guitar being sold in which the private seller pointed out it had several cracks ... but he seemed to dismiss them saying they didn't affect the sound.

[jaymarsch]

When I sell a guitar, I am honest and direct about any blemishes, scratches and/or cracks. I have even taken guitars to be evaluated by a respected repair person to be as accurate as I can be to prospective buyers. At the same time, I also am honest if said crack truly has no structural or tonal consequence.
As a buyer, if I’m concerned about a crack in a guitar that I am considering, I consult with a luthier just so I am aware of having any problems down the road.
I listed a guitar for sale a number of years back that had a repaired crack that had no structural consequences as in “excellent” condition. I fully described where the crack was and how it was repaired. From the outside the repair was virtually undetectable.
Obviously, being completely transparent is ideal but not every seller will choose to do that.
Best,
Jayne

[Ralph124C41]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

When I sell a guitar, I am honest and direct about any blemishes, scratches and/or cracks. I have even taken guitars to be evaluated by a respected repair person to be as accurate as I can be to prospective buyers. At the same time, I also am honest if said crack truly has no structural or tonal consequence.
As a buyer, if I’m concerned about a crack in a guitar that I am considering, I consult with a luthier just so I am aware of having any problems down the road.
I listed a guitar for sale a number of years back that had a repaired crack that had no structural consequences as in “excellent” condition. I fully described where the crack was and how it was repaired. From the outside the repair was virtually undetectable.
Obviously, being completely transparent is ideal but not every seller will choose to do that.
Best,
Jayne

Thanks for your comment ... and your honesty as a seller.

As for these guitars I don't know why they are listed.

It could be pure deception in a bid to sell a guitar. It could be that the problem occurred at a store after the ad was listed ... maybe dropped by a customer or something. Or maybe the person making the listing didn't think a crack was a major issue ... such as that seller I cited who just acknowledged the cracks but just didn't seem they were all that important because the sound quality seemed unaffected.

But whatever the reason for the listing ... these guitars were (and are) being listed as guitars with no cracks or other problems.

[warfrat73]

There is some disagreement on this... I tend to adhere to the Elderly system, which is to describe the overall cosmetic condition, and disclose any cracks or playability issues, which they explain like this:

"We also often will give you the cosmetic rating and then qualify it by stating "except . . ." The exceptions may sound as if the rating should be in a lower category. Technically that may be correct, but we find that if, for example, we rate a beautifully clean guitar as "GC" because it has a 1" repaired side crack that is hard to see, it gives the incorrect impression of the guitar. So, we will probably rate it as "EC except small repaired crack in the side". What we are saying is that cosmetically this is a really nice guitar but we want you to know that it is not absolutely perfect. We urge you to read the entire description if you are interested in a used instrument."

[tadol]

Clearly, anything that was not as originally built should be disclosed if known (except when it might not be known what was original, like bridge pins or tuners that cover all traces of the old ones). But cracks that are open, unrepaired, and obvious, should be disclosed, and if repairs have been done (and done well enough that they may not be obvious) those should be disclosed as well. As far as judging condition - I like how Elderly does it as well -

[TDavis]

I recently bought a guitar from a seller who I met through a friend...and he described it as in "very good" condition, EXCEPT for a "finish crack" from behind the bridge in a straight line ending at the rear of the top. When I got it, I had the tech/luthier I tend to use most frequently examine it...and he found it was much more than a surface crack, and he could feel it on the inside. He said it would require cleats to stabilize. I'm super particular about my guitars...and I'm thankful the seller received the guitar back and refunded my money (the amount was substantial).

I learned my lesson though. I only buy guitars used from those with high post counts and long tenure here on the AGF, or brand new. I trust folks here, and have never had a single issue with deceptive descriptions.

[Shortfinger]

Full description with photos out and in.

What you would want to see if buying, no?

[drive-south]

No such thing as a "surface crack". Either the wood is cracked or it's not. If not it's most likely a lacquer crack.

Defects should always be disclosed, whether the guitar is new or ancient. A smart businessman will disclose these defects so they don't have to accept a return and pay shipping both ways. It's just smart business and helps maintain a good reputation.

[warfrat73]

Originally Posted by TDavis

I recently bought a guitar from a seller who I met through a friend...and he described it as in "very good" condition, EXCEPT for a "finish crack" from behind the bridge in a straight line ending at the rear of the top. When I got it, I had the tech/luthier I tend to use most frequently examine it...and he found it was much more than a surface crack, and he could feel it on the inside. He said it would require cleats to stabilize. I'm super particular about my guitars...and I'm thankful the seller received the guitar back and refunded my money (the amount was substantial).

I did see an ad for something the other day (forget if it was a guitar or mandolin) that said something along the lines of "there is a small cosmetic crack in the finish, but you can see it from the inside too." That seemed odd, a few red flags there.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes even the most well intentioned people just don't know what the heck they're talking about... they don't know what they don't know. And, other times, not well intentioned people just lie.

Anyway, I do really think that overall condition grades that don't separate cosmetics from other issues are frequently problematic.

[mawmow]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

When I sell a guitar, I am honest and direct about any blemishes, scratches and/or cracks. I have even taken guitars to be evaluated by a respected repair person to be as accurate as I can be to prospective buyers. At the same time, I also am honest if said crack truly has no structural or tonal consequence.
As a buyer, if I’m concerned about a crack in a guitar that I am considering, I consult with a luthier just so I am aware of having any problems down the road.
I listed a guitar for sale a number of years back that had a repaired crack that had no structural consequences as in “excellent” condition. I fully described where the crack was and how it was repaired. From the outside the repair was virtually undetectable.
Obviously, being completely transparent is ideal but not every seller will choose to do that.
Best,
Jayne

Totally agree !

[Osage]

Originally Posted by Ralph124C41

My point is I don't think a guitar listed as "good" condition should have a crack or other obvious structural problem. Yet I've come across this several times.

Am I being too picky?

A crack should obviously be pointed out in the description. No question about that. As for it being listed as "good", when you sell on Reverb they make you pick the condition from a drop down menu. Good is nowhere near the top of the list. Here is how they describe "good":


"Good condition includes items that are in fine working order, but have significant cosmetic imperfections. A pedal with scratches and dents on its chassis, a guitar with some cracks in the binding, or an old snare drum with some corrosion on the lugs would all be classified as Good. Items with dents, cracks or corrosion qualify as Good as long as they are still playable and fully functional."

[TDavis]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

When I sell a guitar, I am honest and direct about any blemishes, scratches and/or cracks. I have even taken guitars to be evaluated by a respected repair person to be as accurate as I can be to prospective buyers. At the same time, I also am honest if said crack truly has no structural or tonal consequence.
As a buyer, if I’m concerned about a crack in a guitar that I am considering, I consult with a luthier just so I am aware of having any problems down the road.
I listed a guitar for sale a number of years back that had a repaired crack that had no structural consequences as in “excellent” condition. I fully described where the crack was and how it was repaired. From the outside the repair was virtually undetectable.
Obviously, being completely transparent is ideal but not every seller will choose to do that.
Best,
Jayne

That's the reason I stick to those being sold used here on the AGF...by members that have been here awhile, have a good reputation, and/or I have communicated with and/or bought from in the past. Most here adhere to a proper description of an instruments condition...warts & all, so there isn't a problem when the smoke clears. I've never had any issue doing business with members here that meet that criteria. Full-disclosure is a great business acumen!

[Ralph124C41]

Originally Posted by Osage

A crack should obviously be pointed out in the description. No question about that. As for it being listed as "good", when you sell on Reverb they make you pick the condition from a drop down menu. Good is nowhere near the top of the list. Here is how they describe "good":


"Good condition includes items that are in fine working order, but have significant cosmetic imperfections. A pedal with scratches and dents on its chassis, a guitar with some cracks in the binding, or an old snare drum with some corrosion on the lugs would all be classified as Good. Items with dents, cracks or corrosion qualify as Good as long as they are still playable and fully functional."

I agree with that basically. I tell the seller I don't mind wear and tear ...scratches, worn finishes, etc. ... but I draw the line at what I consider structural problems .. such as cracks (not finish cracks however), lifting bridges, necks needing a reset, etc.

Years ago I bought a Guild D-55. The one owner I was told was a local guy who played it out at a lot of gigs ... and I mean a lot of gigs. The finish on the left lower bout under the playing arm was worn through to the wood. The bridge had been replaced and a Martin first generation Thinline pickup had been installed.

(The pickup I later found was failing so I had it removed). The guitar had a lot of cosmetic problems but was sound structurally. The seller threw it in a beat-up hardshell case too.

But I got that D-55 for $400. But that was probably 35 or so years ago so I imagine a new one nowadays costs a wee bit more.

[tadol]

Originally Posted by Osage

A crack should obviously be pointed out in the description. No question about that. As for it being listed as "good", when you sell on Reverb they make you pick the condition from a drop down menu. Good is nowhere near the top of the list. Here is how they describe "good":


"Good condition includes items that are in fine working order, but have significant cosmetic imperfections. A pedal with scratches and dents on its chassis, a guitar with some cracks in the binding, or an old snare drum with some corrosion on the lugs would all be classified as Good. Items with dents, cracks or corrosion qualify as Good as long as they are still playable and fully functional."

Yup - Trigger would qualify as “good” -

[frankmcr]

Isn't there maybe a difference between a crack caused by improper humidification, that can be taken care of by rehumidifying the instrument, and a crack caused by dropping or other trauma, that will require cleating etc.?