"Return Denied" on a trial guitar... any guidance?

[MIGAS79]

I guess I don’t really think we are making the final ruling so I find demands for photos a bit odd. If you can’t give an opinion based on what he has said, you don’t have to.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul

The OP still has not shared the photo of the damage so lawyer talk is a bit premature.

Absolutely correct but let’s not be deterred by an absence of evidence before deciding on who’s guilty. It’s become a national pastime.

[Gjimmy]

I believe the satin finish on the 00-17 Authentic would be hard to buff without making a shine. The OP stated this as why the dealer didn’t accept the buffing solution.

[lowrider]

Most of you will be surprised to see that you really don't have the ''right to return'' things you buy. It's mostly up to store policy.

Here is a list of how each state handles it;

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consume...-by-state.html

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by lowrider

Most of you will be surprised to see that you really don't have the ''right to return'' things you buy. It's mostly up to store policy.

Here is a list of how each state handles it;

https://consumer.findlaw.com/consume...-by-state.html

Thanks for debunking what has been touted as a safe way to audition guitars without having to travel to play them. There is risk and that risk is apparently on the shoulders of the “buyer”.

[ThermiteTermite]

Originally Posted by Mich Novice

I guess I don’t really think we are making the final ruling so I find demands for photos a bit odd. If you can’t give an opinion based on what he has said, you don’t have to.

No one 'has' to give any opinion at all on the forum.

Both sides have competing financial interests in the outcome of this dispute.

One interested party is not represented here, and the other interested party came un asked to solicit opinions. The only evidence he provided is his written description of the damage as an interested party.

A written description from someone who stands to gain or lose money in the transaction is about as far from reliable or objective evidence as you can get.

I think your phrase 'demands for photos' is an exaggeration.

I'm not sure about who is 'demanding' images but it is not unreasonable to 'ask' for images in order to have more objective evidence upon which to give an opinion.

[Beakybird]

I remember unsuccessfully trying to return a puppy.
"You said it was toilet trained!"
"No, I said it pees on the paper."
"Yeah, well it pees on the paper while I'm reading it!"

[Maryc-k]

It’s tough being a retailer these days. The profit margins are thin on Martins, plus credit card fees (retailers are charged both on purchases and returns), and everyone wanting a price match.

There are a lot of buyers who use the buy and return process to try out merchandise. We want stores to stay in business, but we also want to get something for the lowest price. It’s a balance.

That said, anyone who believes they can just return a credit card charge needs to read their card agreement. There are limits on returning a charge. It is generally 72 hours (depending on the laws on your state), unless there’s fraud.

Sometimes it’s worth the drive to a store to play things in person, despite what might look like a better deal. It could prove cheaper to try it there rather than being unable to return something you don’t want but are forced to keep.

[HeyMikey]

So you are handed a nice guitar in a store to try. You play it for a while, decide it isn’t what you want, hand it back. As you’re walking out the door the manager grabs you, and with magnifying glass in hand and says “Not so fast buddy, there is a swirl mark on the finish so now you owe me $5000!”

Uh, “no”. That is completely reasonable and expected wear. So unless the damage is truly more extensive than the OP explained and there is “before” photographic evidence that it did not exist at the time the guitar was packed and shipped to the user then the shop owns this.

Contact your CC company and dispute the charge, with evidence that it was returned and received, as a first step.

[ThermiteTermite]

Originally Posted by HeyMikey

So you are handed a nice guitar in a store to try. You play it for a while, decide it isn’t what you want, hand it back. As you’re walking out the door the manager grabs you with magnifying glass in hand and says “not so fast buddy, there is a swirl mark on the finish so now you owe me $5000!”

Uh, “no”. That is completely reasonable and expected wear. So unless the damage is truly more extensive than the OP explained and there is “before” photographic evidence that it did not exist at the time the guitar was packed and shipped to the user then the shop owns this.

.. More like, they go to the back and get a new (not a demo) instrument out of stock and give it to you to take home for a week and try out. At the end of the week you bring it back..then the damage dispute pops up. And without images of the 'damage' no one on this forum knows if a magnifying glass is necessary to see the damage...

and apparently, the interested party on this forum has images of the damage and has not provided them for some reason.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by HeyMikey

So you are handed a nice guitar in a store to try. You play it for a while, decide it isn’t what you want, hand it back. As you’re walking out the door the manager grabs you with magnifying glass in hand and says “not so fast buddy, there is a swirl mark on the finish so now you owe me $5000!”

Uh, “no”. That is completely reasonable and expected wear. So unless the damage is truly more extensive than the OP explained and there is “before” photographic evidence that it did not exist at the time the guitar was packed and shipped to the user then the shop owns this.

This isn’t remotely what occurred but it made interesting reading, just not related to the actual issue at hand. The shop doesn’t “own this” at all, as evidenced by the actual law on returns offered by another post.

[zhunter]

Originally Posted by Gjimmy

I believe the satin finish on the 00-17 Authentic would be hard to buff without making a shine. The OP stated this as why the dealer didn’t accept the buffing solution.

Yes. "Vintage Gloss". Reading about the finish on Martin's website tells me buffing is not a solution. Plus folks around here go off on a fleck in the wood grain. The idea of an after market buff job on a >$4K mahogany guitar is not really reasonable. No one posting here would tolerate that in a guitar they were buying if they knew about it. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone putting themselves in the seller role as a private individual would be so eager to side with the buyer in this case.

Sell it if you truly don't want it. Suck it up and take the hit.

hunter

[Maryc-k]

Originally Posted by HeyMikey

So you are handed a nice guitar in a store to try. You play it for a while, decide it isn’t what you want, hand it back. As you’re walking out the door the manager grabs you with magnifying glass in hand and says “not so fast buddy, there is a swirl mark on the finish so now you owe me $5000!”

Uh, “no”. That is completely reasonable and expected wear. So unless the damage is truly more extensive than the OP explained and there is “before” photographic evidence that it did not exist at the time the guitar was packed and shipped to the user then the shop owns this.

True story: a guy goes into Mandolin Brothers about ten or twelve years ago, sits down and tries out three different Collings D1a guitars. Stan (god rest his soul) is waiting on this guy, and sitting there while the guy plays each of them. Unfortunately, the guy inadvertently puts a small mark on one of them. Stan looks at the guy, and tells him, well, that’s the one you are buying. When the guy protests that he wasn’t ready to buy a guitar that day and just came in to look, Stan writes up a layaway form for the purchase, and takes a deposit.

Just an FYI, two weeks is a pretty generous layaway period. However, the longer you keep the guitar in your possession, the more chance there is that something can happen. Personally, I have seen buyers return guitars that they’ve had set up, have changed strings on and nicked the headstock. I have a friend who owns a shop where a buyer bought a guitar, then installed a pickup in it himself (and not very well) and then asked to return it for a full refund. So, while the circumstances here might seem benign, I am sure that the dealer involved here has many stories he or she could tell that have led to this shop’s policies. As they, say, the many pay for the abuse of the few.

[gr81dorn]

It's impossible to compare a guitar shipped to someone's house to try to that of one in a store.

A) many higher end stores agonizingly inspect your clothing and such before they even hand it to you and some even have temporary covers/pickguards to protect the finishes.

B) all of these stores have insurance (or should) so if something's damaged in the showroom, unless it was intentional or egregious, they have a means to recoup if something's really unsellable or largely devalued by a customer's reasonable handling or honest accidents that shouldn't be the burden of a customer.

C) I think we all, as customers, walk into a brick and mortar store with completely different expectations. I expect anything on the wall to have some signs of being handled, even if it's with white gloves and hazmat suits, I expect to see a scratch or swirl here and there. I also expect that the salesperson in there will be reasonable if I love the guitar and that little mark takes away 0.00001% of my enjoyment in buying brand new and I'd be shocked if they didn't either offer to try and clean it up, offer me a discount or give me some freebies to make me happy. The personal experience of an in-store purchase has so many more opportunities to make sure you're happy and largely because it's all happening together with the buyer and seller in the same place at the same time with the same expectations.

I have no comment on this exact situation cuz I haven't seen anything to support either side, but I do think it's a completely different circumstance when dealing face to face with someone and having to look someone in the eye to work these things out.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by lowrider

When I bought a Martin from Maury's, they were very specific about what not to do in the 14 day evaluation period. They didn't even want me to scratch the plastic on the pick-guard.

I'm surprised that so many of you are ganging up on the seller. They are in business to sell new guitars, not to screw people. So WF sent a guitar back with what he calls ''micro scratches''. What's the seller supposed to do? A guitar with ''micro scratches'' is no longer a new guitar.

It has been "interesting" to read through this thread.

I, too, think that there is a lot of over-reaction in some of the posts, with a surprising amount of hostility being expressed towards that dealer. I think it is a bit crazy to presume that the dealer is being nefarious or trying to rip off OP. HE IS IN BUSINESS...HE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CUSTOMERS, HE DOESN'T WANT NEGATIVE REVIEWS ONLINE. Most likely, he wants harmonious, successful transactions, and is trying to deal with a difficult situation: a high-priced instrument has been returned to him, and its condition upon being returned is (in his opinion) problematic.

For those who are saying, "I will never buy a guitar on trial", I'd like to say that I have returned maybe 5 guitars over the past 7 years (I've kept 5 others ordered online...so about a 50% success rate), and I've never had a problem. Sometimes I paid return shipping (as was agreed in advance). That's all. Some of the guitars have gone back to AGF sponsors, most have gone back to independent dealers who offered a 3 day trial period.

OP sounds like a reasonable guy. I look forward to reading his post today to see how the dealer responds to the idea of paying a restocking fee.

Maybe nobody in this situation is a "bad guy".