#46
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
It's not bashing when information is provided. Everyone seems so afraid to tell the facts.
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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:
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
The O.P. is wise.
Naming names is a really bad idea --Reputations should not be damaged based on second-hand info. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Small claims court??? Ride your Unicorn to the courthouse.
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Priceless!!!!
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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 |