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

[merlin666]

Originally Posted by Goat Whiskey Picks

I definitely understand the OP's point but on the other side we're talking about guitars that are in the $4500 - $7000 price range. How many of us would pay that much for a new guitar and be ok with some signs of minor wear like described? If the dealer takes it back they won't be able to sell the guitar without some really steep discounts.

I would say that if an online store offer these "trial" features then the risk should be on the side of the vendor who is to profit from the deal, and who would also be able to get insurance for this practice and then roll the cost of insurance premiums into the price of their products. The business can easily write off losses such as these as well. Of course one would expect the use of trial periods to be reasonable on both sides, and abuse not be acceptable. I am certain that there is some legal precedent in case law, but lawyer cost might easily exceed cost of an authentic.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Offer to pay a "restocking fee" to reimburse the shop for buffing it out.

This is a solid suggestion.
Taking your situation at face value, if the dealer is truly reputable, they know that very faint scratches can be removed rather easily. As an example, Lay's Guitar in Akron removed super glue completely from my D18 that had been spilled on it. It took all of 20 minutes and cost me $30. Yes, I said completely.
I can buff very light scratches out of my own guitars rather easily as well, even the ones on my two Sunburst guitars.

If they refuse to do this, I would let them know of my displeasure. I would certainly not do business with them again and would take any opportunity to let others know how I was treated.

[jaymarsch]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

This is a solid suggestion.
Taking your situation at face value, if the dealer is truly reputable, they know that very faint scratches can be removed rather easily. As an example, Lay's Guitar in Akron removed super glue completely from my D18 that had been spilled on it. It took all of 20 minutes and cost me $30. Yes, I said completely.
I can buff very light scratches out of my own guitars rather easily as well, even the ones on my two Sunburst guitars.

If they refuse to do this, I would let them know of my displeasure. I would certainly not do business with them again and would take any opportunity to let others know how I was treated.

I agree that offering to pay a restocking fee shows that you are willing to present a reasonable solution. If they refuse and it goes to mediation or another legal route, there is already proof that you were willing to offer a solution to the issue. Good luck and I am sorry this happened. Please do keep us apprised of how it plays out.

Best,
Jayne

[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?

[Woolbury]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Offer to pay a "restocking fee" to reimburse the shop for buffing it out.

I agree. Something of this sort has to be the answer. You can't just eat the guitar. How much does the dealer have to knock off price because of "out of the box" condition? Thats the fairest solution, and that's being generous to the dealer. I mean, you're still buying a guitar from him, right? He ought to have a little cost of doing business mindset. Hope you work out a fair deal. If not, bring the power of the internet to his door.

[MIGAS79]

If you can absorb it until you sell it yourself, I would rather take the potential hit than give him or her a restocking fee, personally. But I also wouldn’t offer trial periods and expect something played to be 100% unplayed.

Sorry you have to go through this. I think I would be tempted to send both back if a conversation with the vendor doesn’t get you anywhere.

[Beakybird]

Please post the pics of the "damage."

[ctvolfan]

if you truly believe that you did not scratch it then I would try to dispute it with your credit card company. If they wanted to sue they would probably spend more on legal fees than the worth of the depreciation of the guitar. But again, only if you honestly knew that you were not in the wrong. The company you bought it from has an obligation to the truth just as much as you do.

[Yeah]

Originally Posted by merlin666

I would say that if an online store offer these "trial" features then the risk should be on the side of the vendor who is to profit from the deal, and who would also be able to get insurance for this practice and then roll the cost of insurance premiums into the price of their products. The business can easily write off losses such as these as well. Of course one would expect the use of trial periods to be reasonable on both sides, and abuse not be acceptable. I am certain that there is some legal precedent in case law, but lawyer cost might easily exceed cost of an authentic.

Agree on this. If return policy bares no risk to the seller, then wirtually anyone would offer it. Trial period is there because sellers know that having to lower the price on some of the guitars they get returned is a lot cheaper than having an actual store where they can showcase guitars. Even in stores where you try before you buy, there is a minimmum risk of stock getting damaged.

If the seller truly knew beforehand that the guitar is REEEEAAALLY easy scratchable, and impossible to fix, then he souldn´t have offered a trial period at all.

I don´t know how consumer rights work in your country, but I would recommend filing a formal complaint (to save time) and in parallel keep conversations with the seller to find a solution.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Wild Fiddler

But the dealer tells me even the smallest mark would be an issue for other customers.

Yes. There have been many posts on various threads saying "If I bought a $XXXX guitar I would expect it to be perfect. Send it back!"

[gr81dorn]

Restocking fees are often 10-15%. Betwixt shipping both ways and restock fees, you could be in as deep as $900-1000 on this return. That's a big hit.

I do know that buffing can be issue-ridden, especially on those thin finishes, so it is a fair argument that they can't bring it back to the condition they believe is what they sent it in.

I think it's too bad that the store hasn't been more collaborative or personal in their dealing on this. My favorite stores and those I'm most loyal to would almost certainly make a personal phone call to explain and try and find a solution that made you both happy vs some robotic "denied" message being sent.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Yes. There have been many posts on various threads saying "If I bought a $XXXX guitar I would expect it to be perfect. Send it back!"

There have also been many threads on buying unseen and unplayed because it’s so easy to return it if you don’t like it.

Maybe that type of advice will thin out.

[vindibona1]

You have to be super careful when doing trials. A couple thoughts...

Do you have a musical instruments insurance policy of some sort? I currently have mine as a scheduled rider on my homeowners insurance. They will cover any instrument for 30 days before registering it. Not sure how I'd play that one due to the legality of who owns the instrument at a particular moment.

However, I think a "return denied" is kind a bogus thing. If it did have micro-scratches and it was your fault I can see how they might want you to pay for buffing them out, but to deny a return outright? I think the first thing I would do is challenge the charges with my credit card and let the credit company fight a little bit for you. At least it could move them off the dime of all or nothing.

The lesson for all is that when you get an instrument you have go over it with a microscop and document every single little thing and report back to the seller immediately. Then document it again as you pack it up to send it back. Personally, if you've told us the complete truth, they're trying to screw you.

Who is the seller? I'd like to avoid them like the plague.

[Mr. Paul]

So we have one side of the story that states the dealer is refusing return because of what the OP says is damage that most folks wouldn't even notice with a naked eye exam. This in spite of the fact that the OP just bought another guitar from them. With only this much information it doesn't sound right.

Right now it seems like a scenario that has repeated here on AGF, lots of opinions based on one side of the story. There have been requests that the OP provide the photo he has in his possession showing the damage. It's as close as we're probably going to get to hearing the other side of the story.

[Pura Vida]

I'm sorry to read that you're going through this. It seems that the vendor should have done a better job explaining their expectations on the return, including the risk of the delicate finish on this particular model. The vendor agreed to ship two guitars for a trial period, so a reasonable amount of playing / use should be expected.

Offering an in-home trial implies a reasonable amount of risk, and it seems to me that you did not exceed it. I would refuse payment through my credit card company and consider returning the second guitar, as long as I was still within the return window and didn't have any more noticeable signs of wear.

Good luck -- I hope this works out for you.

Edit: agree with Mr. Paul. We're only hearing one side of the story, so it would be helpful to see the scratches.