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

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by lowrider

You can all stop arguing. The OP abandoned the thread many pages ago!

Nope: OP is back! Check out post #130. So we get to keep arguing!!!!!!!:rolle yes:

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by buddyhu

Nope: OP is back! Check out post #130. So we get to keep arguing!!!!!!!:rolle yes:

Well, according to his post, you've got til Monday. So let er rip!

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by Wild Fiddler

OP here again.

It wasn't possible for me to speak with the dealer on Friday, but we both plan to talk on Monday and decide how to proceed at that time.

Just so you know, I'm not asking anyone to take "sides." Ultimately we're all in this together, players and dealers, professionals and amateurs. I thank everyone for being generous sharing their own experiences. That's definitely a lot more helpful than being hasty to assume too many things about this specific situation, the dealer, or about me. There's plenty of food for thought here on what is reasonable, as players and as dealers.

Thanks especially to all of you who wrote about falling in love with a guitar for how it feels and sounds. In the end, at least for me, a guitar is about the love of music. Same with my 200 year old violin. Although the warranty on the violin might come into question at some point...

Some of you wondered why I would order a Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 on trial, only to return it. There were none of these guitars locally, and so it seemed worth a shot. My main guitar is a custom Froggy Bottom H-12 with a wider 1 13/16 nut. I love the wider nut and string spacing. Am eager to have another short scale guitar to keep in standard tuning, and dedicate the Frog to various alternate tunings. While this Martin certainly lives up its reputation for build and sound, the unknown for me was how I'd get on with its even wider 1 7/8 nut and distictive neck profile. Turns out this authentic neck profile feels fabulous in my hands. But the 1 7/8 is just too wide for me to easily switch back and forth between this and my Froggy Bottom. Some things you can't know unless you try.

If the Martin Authentic does come back to me, I will take some careful photos under neutral light and try to figure out how to post them. Might need some help on that... it's not like just dragging a photo into an email.

Thanks for reading and sharing your different perspectives. And mostly, thanks for being part of a community that loves real instruments, and live music.

Thanks for the update. Let us know how everything turns out.

[Mr. Paul]

Probably the best outcome at this point is the buyer gives up a bit more than he'd hoped, seller accepts a little less than he'd intended and both parties end up slightly irritated but not mad.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul

Probably the best outcome at this point is the buyer gives up a bit more than he'd hoped, seller accepts a little less than he'd intended and both parties end up slightly irritated but not mad.

That's the perfect definition of 'compromise'.

[catndahats]

I've read this with a lot of interest, and my own quiet wonders.

WildFiddler, as my late father would say, "I am sorry you are having to go through this." And, I'll add that I hope it is resolved fairly since I have been in your position before with a very expensive instrument.

Again, wish you the best and hope you find some happy music in the meantime.
CAT

Originally Posted by Wild Fiddler

OP here again.

It wasn't possible for me to speak with the dealer on Friday, but we both plan to talk on Monday and decide how to proceed at that time.

Just so you know, I'm not asking anyone to take "sides." Ultimately we're all in this together, players and dealers, professionals and amateurs. I thank everyone for being generous sharing their own experiences. That's definitely a lot more helpful than being hasty to assume too many things about this specific situation, the dealer, or about me. There's plenty of food for thought here on what is reasonable, as players and as dealers.

Thanks especially to all of you who wrote about falling in love with a guitar for how it feels and sounds. In the end, at least for me, a guitar is about the love of music. Same with my 200 year old violin. Although the warranty on the violin might come into question at some point...

Some of you wondered why I would order a Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 on trial, only to return it. There were none of these guitars locally, and so it seemed worth a shot. My main guitar is a custom Froggy Bottom H-12 with a wider 1 13/16 nut. I love the wider nut and string spacing. Am eager to have another short scale guitar to keep in standard tuning, and dedicate the Frog to various alternate tunings. While this Martin certainly lives up its reputation for build and sound, the unknown for me was how I'd get on with its even wider 1 7/8 nut and distictive neck profile. Turns out this authentic neck profile feels fabulous in my hands. But the 1 7/8 is just too wide for me to easily switch back and forth between this and my Froggy Bottom. Some things you can't know unless you try.

If the Martin Authentic does come back to me, I will take some careful photos under neutral light and try to figure out how to post them. Might need some help on that... it's not like just dragging a photo into an email.

Thanks for reading and sharing your different perspectives. And mostly, thanks for being part of a community that loves real instruments, and live music.

[Yeah]

Originally Posted by JakeStone

IMO, This is 100% the dealer's problem not buyers.

If they offer a trial period then they run the risk of "minor" signs of play/use. It's no different than a guitar hanging in store.

Not to mention the OP bought 1 of the guitars. So it's not like they returned both. This is BS on the stores part.

If the item is in "the store's possession" and you have proof of delivery? Call CC company and dispute the charge. They'll sort it out in your favor.

This adds to what I previously said. The dealer is the one who offers trial period. Scratches so small that can't even be seen (assuming the OP is telling the truth) are reasonably going to happen if you ship guitars and let the buyers try them for 30 days. It is just not reasonable for me to tell you "hey, you can borrow this guitar for 30 days and try it but return it in the exact perfect same conditions".

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by Yeah

This adds to what I previously said. The dealer is the one who offers trial period. Scratches so small that can't even be seen (assuming the OP is telling the truth) are reasonably going to happen if you ship guitars and let the buyers try them for 30 days. It is just not reasonable for me to tell you "hey, you can borrow this guitar for 30 days and try it but return it in the exact perfect same conditions".

If the terms of how a given retailer does business are spelled out to customers, then a customer shouldn't necessarily expect something else.
Nobody forced the OP to do business with whomever it is he ordered the guitars from.
We may think it is unreasonable but it was part of the transaction.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Yeah

It is just not reasonable for me to tell you "hey, you can borrow this guitar for 30 days and try it but return it in the exact perfect same conditions".

Isn't that the ONLY reasonable way of offering a trial on a new item?

Consider the alternative. Let's exaggerate the situation for "clarity". Let's assume you want to try a jar of peanuts. I offer them to you in a sealed, new jar. You open the jar, taste 10% of them, then decide you don't like them and return them to me. I accept them.

I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts. So, I send them the "new" jar that you tried, but it is now only 90% full. That person tries 10% of them and then decides he or she doesn't like them and then returns them to me. I accept them.

I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts, same thing happens and I send them a jar now 80% full. Continue this exaggerated situation to a conclusion and I'll end up with an empty jar of nuts that I wasn't paid for who's "value" is now depleted. I "eat" the cost of the jar of nuts.

It might well be that at some point prior to entire depletion of value, someone wanted to buy the partially emptied jar of nuts. Is it fair to charge them for a full jar of nuts if only, say, 60% of the nuts (value of the jar of nuts) are left?

Sure, guitars aren't nuts. But, what is common in the situation is that if each person who "tries" the "product" depreciates the value of the product, then returns it, who pays for or absorbs the loss of value? The buyer? The seller? Both? Neither: the insurance company? (If the insurance company, the cost of insurance will eventually go up and that will be passed on to you, the consumer.) Who pays for it should be, and usually is, spelled out in writing and should be clear to buyer and seller prior to any transaction.

How else could the loss of value possibly be "fairly" assigned but for, "You devalue it, you pay for the devaluation", or, "You break it, you bought it"? The seller won't stay in business long if they can't pass on their costs to buyers, in order to make a profit.

[hbg]

Originally Posted by Wild Fiddler

BUFFING OUT IDEAS
I'd be happy to cover any costs for buffing out the finish swirls. They are almost too small to see without a magnifying glass. But they are faintly there in a close up photo.

I'd never notice them myself (and would never turn down a guitar I loved otherwise just because of them). But the dealer tells me even the smallest mark would be an issue for other customers. He also tells me the special thin finish on these Authentic models can't be buffed out without leaving a "shiny" tell-tale mark. Hence the "Return Denied."

Does anyone have experience buffing out tiny swirls on an Authentic Martin?

Maybe the dealer should not offer trial periods on the Authentic model Martins, or have a no return policy on them.

[Beakybird]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Consider the alternative. Let's exaggerate the situation for "clarity". Let's assume you want to try a jar of peanuts. I offer them to you in a sealed, new jar. You open the jar, taste 10% of them, then decide you don't like them and return them to me. I accept them.

I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts. So, I send them the "new" jar that you tried, but it is now only 90% full. That person tries 10% of them and then decides he or she doesn't like them and then returns them to me. I accept them.

I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts, same thing happens and I send them a jar now 80% full. Continue this exaggerated situation to a conclusion and I'll end up with an empty jar of nuts that I wasn't paid for who's "value" is now depleted. I "eat" the cost of the jar of nuts.

It might well be that at some point prior to entire depletion of value, someone wanted to buy the partially emptied jar of nuts. Is it fair to charge them for a full jar of nuts if only, say, 60% of the nuts (value of the jar of nuts) are left?

I'd say whoever's returning that jar has some kind of nuts.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Yeah

This adds to what I previously said. The dealer is the one who offers trial period. Scratches so small that can't even be seen (assuming the OP is telling the truth) are reasonably going to happen if you ship guitars and let the buyers try them for 30 days. It is just not reasonable for me to tell you "hey, you can borrow this guitar for 30 days and try it but return it in the exact perfect same conditions".

Oh no...he didn't "borrow" the guitar, he BOUGHT it, there's quite a difference.
Wasn't a great analogy for that reason, but I get your point. It's just that it isn't a businesslike approach to the problem. It isn't backed by the law or store policy, clearly spelled out I'm sure. Would you agree that they have a written policy?
He only gets to RETURN the guitar if it's the same as when it left the shop.
And that's also why they don't LOAN guitars, they SELL them.

[jimmy bookout]

I guess I'm missing something. By the OP's admission, there are scratches (no matter how small) in the guitar that the seller claims were NOT there when the OP received the guitar. The return policy is clear. The seller sets the rules of what is acceptable damage.

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by hbg

Maybe the dealer should not offer trial periods on the Authentic model Martins, or have a no return policy on them.

I sure wouldn't offer a trial period on ANY guitar over $2K.

[Yeah]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Sure, guitars aren't nuts. But, what is common in the situation is that if each person who "tries" the "product" depreciates the value of the product, then returns it, who pays for or absorbs the loss of value? The buyer? The seller? Both? Neither: the insurance company? .

This is the seller's problem, if you offer a service, you must honor it. If you offer reimbursement within some conditions, those conditions must be possibly fullfillable (sory for my bad english). To offer unfulfillable conditions in a contract IS illegal.

What I am saynig is that:

1) it's not the customer's problem if the return policy is ruining the dealers's business, or if it's non profitable for him. That's on the dealer's side to decide.

2) Without even seing the scrathces, I'm just saying that the EXACT same conditions are never going to be possible, and that there's an obvious wear the guitar is going to suffer. For example, you ship a guitar with return policy, the guitar is worth $300 and the strings $30, you get ir returned, but you deny the reimbursement because the strings are used now, so the guitar has lost 10% of it's price. That´s just not a legal thing to do.

At least in EU, when you receive something on "guarantee" to trial it and then decide wether you buy it ( don't know the english legal term for "comodato") your obligation is to give it the maximmum responsible use, and the negligence of the user must be proved or visible to see.

I just believe that if the scratches are truly invisible to the naked eye then the seller is behaving illegitimate.

Terms and conditions have to be legal and reasonable to apply, in every legislation. On the other hand, I could put an asterisk here saying that by reading my pos you are obliged to pay $10. That wouldn' t be reasonable nor legal. Neither would it be to pretend that exact same conditions actually mean absolute zero wear. That' s impossible.

I understand the seller's point of view, this is just my opinion anyway, ....