The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 06-21-2018, 05:41 AM
Gmountain Gmountain is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Florida Central East Coast
Posts: 2,395
Default

Of course when there is a problem, names should be given. Otherwise other unsuspecting buyers will fall into the same trap- it's no different than selling that guitar without disclosing the defect.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-21-2018, 05:42 AM
Gmountain Gmountain is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Florida Central East Coast
Posts: 2,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lodi_55 View Post
Hey Bruce - I just feel we should be transparent here without bashing. I hope you get your PM, but more importantly I hope that we can all have honest dialogue when things go wildly good or wildly bad.
It's not bashing when information is provided. Everyone seems so afraid to tell the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:08 AM
charles Tauber charles Tauber is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 8,381
Default

I'll offer a somewhat different perspective than those already provided.

First, in the end, the customer should be satisfied if at all possible, particularly at a "boutique" price range. To accomplish that, that might include the maker "eating" the cost of the "defective" guitar. It might include the dealer not making any money on the transaction. It isn't the customer's problem what business arrangement the dealer and maker have: that arrangement should be transparent to the customer.

As one person suggested, it is possible that the dealer hasn't paid the maker for the instrument, but we don't know, nor, particularly, do we care: that shouldn't be the customer's problem. (It would certainly be a problem for the maker, but it is his or her problem, not the customer's.)

With that out of the way...

On the one hand, buyers regard guitars as common commodities that are bought and sold like any other modern mass-produced product. On the other hand, buyers regard guitars as one-of-a-kind objects of "art". Depending upon where one buys into the guitar market, they are both right. The difficulty occurs when one buys one by applying the mindset of the other. That is buying a one-of-a-kind object using the mind set of buying a commodity or buying a commodity and treating it as if it is a one-of-a-kind. I'll explain.

As has been discussed previously on this forum, one of the things that separates a mass-produced object from a one-of-a-kind, "handmade" object is the concept of "workmanship of risk", a concept put forward by David Pye.

Quote:
One of Pye's best known concepts is "the workmanship of risk", by which he means "workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on the judgment, dexterity and care which the maker exercises as he works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pye_(furniture)

When one commissions a one-of-a-kind, "handmade" guitar, both the maker and the person commissioning the guitar enter into a shared risk. That risk is that the guitar, when finished, sound, looks and plays the way the person commissioning it wants/expects it to. The maker does his or her best to meet those expectations, but the actual end result is not predetermined since the instrument does not yet exist.

Usually, the buyer's expectations are subjective. The maker's obligation is to understand those expectations and to achieve them. The buyer's obligation is to determine if his or her expectations have been sufficiently met. It is a mistake on the part of the buyer to assume that those expectations have been met: The onus is on the buyer to make that assessment after the instrument has been made.

If one is buying an already-made guitar, the risk is mostly shifted to the buyer. That is, the instrument already exists and is what it is. The onus is on the buyer to determine if the existing instrument meets his or her expectations. Given that those expectations are subjective, and vary from one potential buyer to the next, the same instrument might well meet one buyer's expectations and not meet another's.

It has been my experience that most guitar players do not have a well-defined methodology to determine in concrete, objective ways, first, what are their expectations for sound and playability and, second, whether or not an individual instrument meets those expectations. Evaluating a guitar is not, for example, a "jam session" in which one runs through one's usual repertoire. A detailed discussion of how to objectively evaluate the "quality" of an individual guitar is best left to another thread rather than derail this one.

Finally, given that the buyer of the "boutique" guitar in the OP did not commission the guitar, but bought one that already existed, he failed to fully evaluate the guitar prior to purchasing it, discovering later that it had a "bum" note that did not meet his subjective criteria for what the instrument should be like. It might well be that another buyer, who has a different subjective criteria for acceptance, might not be bothered by that deficiency: one person's defficiency might be another's perfection.

If one were to sell the "defective" instrument, it is the new buyer's obligation to evaluate for him or herself whether or not THAT instrument meets his or her subjective criteria for acceptance. The instrument exists and it is the obligation of the buyer to assess what he or she is buying. While "defective" for one person, it might not be "defective" for another. It isn't a case of "pawning off" a defect on some unsuspecting buyer, but rather a case of, "This is the guitar, evaluate it and determine whether or not it meets your subjective criteria".

For example, one driver evaluates the "ride" of a Honda Fit and discovers that at 200 Km/hr it has a "defective" undesirable vibration that makes it unfit for his or her driving. Another driver, who never drives faster than 120 Km/hr finds the "ride" is very smooth at his or her driving speeds. Is the car "defective", in one's driving habits are to never exceed 120? Similarly, if a guitar has a "bum" note that one player never plays, is that guitar defective for that player? The onus is on the buyer to determine how well what is purchased meets his or her individual wants. In short, be an educated consumer: educate yourself on how to be an educated consumer.

Last edited by charles Tauber; 06-21-2018 at 06:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:16 AM
Dondoh Dondoh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: NC
Posts: 108
Default

Would it be too much to ask, "Which note? Which string? Which fret?"?
__________________
"As often is the case, I find that I would need a lot of information that others seem to be able to do without." - Howard Klepper
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:26 AM
rokdog49 rokdog49 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 13,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lodi_55 View Post
Why are we so quick to sing the praises of a guitar builder or dealer here, but when something goes wrong we clam up and send PMs to each other?

What if someone is experiencing the same issue with this dealer? Shouldn't we all be armed with that information so that we can make an informed decision?
I agree with you in principle.
However...you are accepting the OP's statements about a problem without hearing from the dealer or the builder.
That is your prerogative.
To make public the names of those involved based on an unsubstantiated accusation and defame them in this manner seems unfair.
Perhaps the OP could contact both and inform them of his intention to go public with this and name names. That way he could give the other parties the opportunity to tell their side of the story here.
I would like to hear what the other two parties have to say before I form an opinion.
__________________
Nothing bothers me unless I let it.

Martin D18
Gibson J45
Gibson J15
Fender Copperburst Telecaster
Squier CV 50 Stratocaster
Squier CV 50 Telecaster
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:40 AM
Guest 1928
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles Tauber View Post
Finally, given that the buyer of the "boutique" guitar in the OP did not commission the guitar, but bought one that already existed, he failed to fully evaluate the guitar prior to purchasing it, discovering later that it had a "bum" note that did not meet his subjective criteria for what the instrument should be like. It might well be that another buyer, who has a different subjective criteria for acceptance, might not be bothered by that deficiency: one person's deficiency might be another's perfection.
Charles, I agree with your whole post but for the sake of screen space have quoted only one part. Seems to me this is indeed a subjective defect rather than a material defect, and is such that it took the buyer a month to figure it out. Had I been the manufacturer, replacement would have never entered the discussion. I'm sure they regret that it did.

I'd also like to know if this "defect" shows up in normal play or only when playing each note with a stopwatch in hand. Given that is was not discovered for a month I suspect it is the later, furthering the notion that it would be inconsequential in actual use.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:13 AM
stringjunky stringjunky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles Tauber View Post
I'll offer a somewhat different perspective than those already provided.

First, in the end, the customer should be satisfied if at all possible, particularly at a "boutique" price range. To accomplish that, that might include the maker "eating" the cost of the "defective" guitar. It might include the dealer not making any money on the transaction. It isn't the customer's problem what business arrangement the dealer and maker have: that arrangement should be transparent to the customer.

As one person suggested, it is possible that the dealer hasn't paid the maker for the instrument, but we don't know, nor, particularly, do we care: that shouldn't be the customer's problem. (It would certainly be a problem for the maker, but it is his or her problem, not the customer's.)

With that out of the way...

On the one hand, buyers regard guitars as common commodities that are bought and sold like any other modern mass-produced product. On the other hand, buyers regard guitars as one-of-a-kind objects of "art". Depending upon where one buys into the guitar market, they are both right. The difficulty occurs when one buys one by applying the mindset of the other. That is buying a one-of-a-kind object using the mind set of buying a commodity or buying a commodity and treating it as if it is a one-of-a-kind. I'll explain.

As has been discussed previously on this forum, one of the things that separates a mass-produced object from a one-of-a-kind, "handmade" object is the concept of "workmanship of risk", a concept put forward by David Pye.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pye_(furniture)

When one commissions a one-of-a-kind, "handmade" guitar, both the maker and the person commissioning the guitar enter into a shared risk. That risk is that the guitar, when finished, sound, looks and plays the way the person commissioning it wants/expects it to. The maker does his or her best to meet those expectations, but the actual end result is not predetermined since the instrument does not yet exist.

Usually, the buyer's expectations are subjective. The maker's obligation is to understand those expectations and to achieve them. The buyer's obligation is to determine if his or her expectations have been sufficiently met. It is a mistake on the part of the buyer to assume that those expectations have been met: The onus is on the buyer to make that assessment after the instrument has been made.

If one is buying an already-made guitar, the risk is mostly shifted to the buyer. That is, the instrument already exists and is what it is. The onus is on the buyer to determine if the existing instrument meets his or her expectations. Given that those expectations are subjective, and vary from one potential buyer to the next, the same instrument might well meet one buyer's expectations and not meet another's.

It has been my experience that most guitar players do not have a well-defined methodology to determine in concrete, objective ways, first, what are their expectations for sound and playability and, second, whether or not an individual instrument meets those expectations. Evaluating a guitar is not, for example, a "jam session" in which one runs through one's usual repertoire. A detailed discussion of how to objectively evaluate the "quality" of an individual guitar is best left to another thread rather than derail this one.

Finally, given that the buyer of the "boutique" guitar in the OP did not commission the guitar, but bought one that already existed, he failed to fully evaluate the guitar prior to purchasing it, discovering later that it had a "bum" note that did not meet his subjective criteria for what the instrument should be like. It might well be that another buyer, who has a different subjective criteria for acceptance, might not be bothered by that deficiency: one person's defficiency might be another's perfection.

If one were to sell the "defective" instrument, it is the new buyer's obligation to evaluate for him or herself whether or not THAT instrument meets his or her subjective criteria for acceptance. The instrument exists and it is the obligation of the buyer to assess what he or she is buying. While "defective" for one person, it might not be "defective" for another. It isn't a case of "pawning off" a defect on some unsuspecting buyer, but rather a case of, "This is the guitar, evaluate it and determine whether or not it meets your subjective criteria".

For example, one driver evaluates the "ride" of a Honda Fit and discovers that at 200 Km/hr it has a "defective" undesirable vibration that makes it unfit for his or her driving. Another driver, who never drives faster than 120 Km/hr finds the "ride" is very smooth at his or her driving speeds. Is the car "defective", in one's driving habits are to never exceed 120? Similarly, if a guitar has a "bum" note that one player never plays, is that guitar defective for that player? The onus is on the buyer to determine how well what is purchased meets his or her individual wants. In short, be an educated consumer: educate yourself on how to be an educated consumer.
This is a spot-on analysis, and Todd's reply. My neighbour had a Lowden with a wolf note (to him) on the A and it did his head in because he used it all the time but the next buyer, who was very experienced, wasn't bothered and he played all over the neck. I think it's a matter of expectation of what one thinks a note should sound like and whether one actually uses that position much... as Charles said.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:39 AM
Big Band Guitar Big Band Guitar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,031
Default

Time to see a lawyer.
__________________
"My opinion is worth every penny you paid for it."

"If you try to play like someone else, Who will play like you". Quote from Johnny Gimble

The only musician I have to impress today is the musician I was yesterday.

No tubes, No capos, No Problems.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:46 AM
Golffishny Golffishny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 810
Default

I agree with the thoughts of Charles and Todd. I recently spent a few hours evaluating several guitars with a friend of mine who is more experienced than I am. He dismissed a guitar that I did not hear the issue with as he did. Hopefully with experience I can learn to better evaluate an instrument. My shortcoming is not the fault of the dealer or manufacturer. I have had stores and manufacturers go beyond their required responsibility to make me happy. Maybe we've become a little spoiled to expect this.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:59 AM
stringjunky stringjunky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golffishny View Post
I agree with the thoughts of Charles and Todd. I recently spent a few hours evaluating several guitars with a friend of mine who is more experienced than I am. He dismissed a guitar that I did not hear the issue with as he did. Hopefully with experience I can learn to better evaluate an instrument. My shortcoming is not the fault of the dealer or manufacturer. I have had stores and manufacturers go beyond their required responsibility to make me happy. Maybe we've become a little spoiled to expect this.
To live with a guitar for a month and not notice is not an elephant in the room. Look at anything for long enough you'll find a fault. Either way, I hope this has a happy ending, or at least the owner becomes philosophical about the organic nature of guitars.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:33 AM
geelinus geelinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MEEEEECHigan
Posts: 574
Default

The O.P. is wise.

Naming names is a really bad idea --Reputations should not be damaged based on second-hand info.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:50 AM
aknow aknow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nipomo, California
Posts: 3,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Br1ck View Post
A while ago a friend called me asking me my opinion on a few guitars. He wanted to buy a new really special guitar, and was leaning toward a very well respected boutique small shop builder. Had to get it online, but I told him he's pretty much like anything in that rarefied price point.

Well, he bought the guitar, was absolutely thrilled, signed up for some lessons and was stoked.

About a month later, he noticed a dead note. Half the length of decay from every other. He called the dealer about the problem. Dealer said, after three days, not my problem. Talk to the manufacturer.

Manufacturer said send us the guitar, we want you to be happy. We can fix it.

Manufacturer said, yes, we see you have a problem. The note is certainly what you say it is. Only had this happen two or three times in all our long history. Maybe we can add a brace that will solve the problem.

My friend thought about this over a weekend, and came to the conclusion any alteration of the guitar would bug him forever, respectfully stated this to the manufacturer who stated that they understood his position, wanted him to be happy, and would build him a new guitar any way he wanted it. If he wanted more inlay, he'd have to pay the difference. But the original guitar did after all have a problem.

Today he got an e mail from the manufacturer, stating that the dealer wouldn't cooperate with a refund, so they couldn't build him a new guitar. They were sending his guitar back to him. They were so sorry. They want him to be happy. Perhaps he could trade his guitar in on another, but don't use the same dealer. In other words, take the financial hit, pawn his defective guitar off on another unsuspecting consumer. Or sell it, and then they would build him anything he wanted. They, after all, want him to be happy.

This is so disappointing to me both from a dealer's standpoint, but ultimately the manufacturer's failure. The manufacturer finally stated they did not want to alter the guitar for fear of making it worse, but had no problem with a defective product being out in the world.

I've tried to state the facts as I know them. I have all this second hand from a friend whom I trust. I have left out names as it is for he to decide. It is he who has the e mail messages.

As far as he trying to pawn this off on an unsuspecting buyer, he recently sold a Collings he dinged when it was brand new. Had the ding repaired so as to be undetectable. He disclosed it to the buyer anyway.

Enough blame to go around? Should he name names? We are certainly talking twice the cost of any guitar I own.
You or he should name names. This cloak of silence/deceit perpetuates this larceny. This is exactly the reason our country is so dishonorable, currently/always.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:57 AM
aknow aknow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nipomo, California
Posts: 3,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BT55 View Post
The dealer is also being disingenuous. Three days and no return privileges. Give me a break. If your friend didn’t pay with a CC they could always take them to small claims court.
Small claims court??? Ride your Unicorn to the courthouse.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:59 AM
89bruin 89bruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tidewater, VA
Posts: 380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aknow View Post
Small claims court??? Ride your Unicorn to the courthouse.
Priceless!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:24 AM
wdean wdean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 336
Default

Personally i am interested as to what the terms of the warranty (assuming there was one) was. I don't want to get into the legal ease of this but I have found for most things I have bought and have found a problem the dealer (store) says:
1. If it is a warranty problem you have to deal with the manufacturer directly. 2. When you contact the manufacturer and explain the problem and tell them you want a new one they usually say well our warranty says (yes all that fine print we never read until we have a problem!?) they can fix it and not necessarily replace it. I have personally gone through this with our products where the manufacturer says the will try to fix it. Sometimes the do and it's OK other times it doesn't come out the way I think it should and they say "sorry that is as much as they are going to do and they think it 's fine" or they do agree the only thing left is replace it and some do. At no time have I found that the dealer (store) gets involved other than to corroborate there is a problem.

It seems to me in this case the manufacturer is standing on the same thing..."I will try to fix it". That is likely his legal (warranty obligation?) but will only replace it if the dealer (store) returns the money to them. What I am surprised at is the manufacturer didn't check with the dealer that they would return the sale proceeds before they offered to replace the guitar!? It seems to me if they told me that they would replace without telling me it would be conditional on the dealer returning the proceeds then it would seem to me the manufacturer is reneging on their offer. I would take them to task. I have been through this one before where the manufacturer says "well the guy/gal that made you that offer wasn't authorised to make you that offer...sorry". Then the fight begins!! If this happens the manufacturer holds all the cards and the only way most of then will give you what you want is possibility of bad publicity?!

Good luck....would be interested how this thing resolves it self!
__________________
Martin D-28
Taylor 814 CE
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=