Solo Builder Indemnification Fund

[tadol]

Originally Posted by cpabolting

One can only do so much due diligence.... the real problem cames from a sudden illness or accident....there should be some security of the deposits that protect the buyer from unforseen circumstances.

Regarding insurance, I am not honestly a fan of insurance as an investment vehicle, but there are lot of circumstances when term insurance is appropriate....when you have children, especially birth through the college years, or when you are still in growth mode, or when there are CASH NEEDS of a business that must be promptly handled. And disability policies won't cover deposits of customers unless you have that specifically covered. At the end of the day, each luthier should put it on his shoulders to assess his personal situation and make sure they have a specific and detailed plan so people don't get caught in the lurch plain and simple.

Substitute "luthier" with "craftsman" or "businessman" and you have some very sound, but basic and generic, advice.

When you choose to do business with someone - for any kind of design, production, manufacture, and delivery of a specialized product - you need to have a basic level of confidence about the basic business relationship and the abilities of the person you are hiring. There is nothing unique or unusual about luthiery that requires those in this profession, or those that would desire to hire them, to not follow that basic advice. Whether its custom kitchen cabinets, leaded glass windows, the restoration of a fine antique or painting or any of a few hundred (thousand?) other possible scenarios - anyone with the means to hire an individual artisan to do something custom, for their unique enjoyment, should observe some basic precautions.

Now, when you work directly with an artisan, you save some money, and you get the chance to be very intimately involved in a creative process - very enjoyable - but if you want all those chain-store protections that have been outlined in this thread, maybe the best way to get all that is to work through a dealer - a businessperson whose business is to act as a middleman. The builder gets the assurance that the instrument is going to be paid for when completed - regardless of the situation with the customer. And the customer can use their credit cards, arrange for lay-away payments, or even get some type of insurance beyond what the builder may offer. There are fewer risks and many potential rewards with that relationship - but it does cost you more - sometimes a fair bit. But that's really what most general contractors do - assume risk, and ensure completion.

You could also buy from a small shop that has more than one person involved in the building, so that you know that anything involving any one individual will minimally affect the completion of the instrument being built.

But for those who feel that maintaining a separate account to protect their funds - perhaps it makes more sense for the customer to pay a non-refundable deposit for the initial design and evaluation, and then put the entire purchase price into a security or escrow account immediately upon start of construction, that would guarantee the builder that the instrument would be paid in full immediately on completion, and that they do not need to worry about anything happening to the customer that might prevent the balance from being paid in full. I mean, even if there is plenty of insurance money, the family may not feel any desire to pay a large balance for an instrument that none of them desire, and would only need to try to deal with re-selling ( and possibly losing even more money ) almost immediately. Its fair to say that alot of custom instruments are ordered by individuals that are living out a dream that only their age and circumstance allow them to pursue. And if something happens to the builder and the instrument is not completed, then there is the option to negotiate a price for the instrument at whatever state of completion it is at, and the balance can be refunded to the customer or surrendered to another builder to use for completion.

But to me, the assumption that solo luthiers need to standardize anything to deal with these concerns is just taking it all a bit too far. If someone wants to design a contract that they can try to offer when negotiating a build - go for it - but no luthier should be required or even expected to use it if they have something they are more comfortable and familiar with.

Good thread for the discussion offered, and hopefully anyone considering a custom build may have a better idea of the reality of what they are getting into, and the issues they need to discuss and be comfortable with when they choose an artisan for their job. Even if it is for some kitchen cabinets.

And you should check your personal insurance - I think you'll find that many of these issues are covered, or can be, at an extremely minimal cost.

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I understand the topic of discussion completely. My company is the preferred research supplier for a public company worth over 21 billion. I've been in the industry for nearly two decades now and we still do multi year deals on a piece of email and a PDF invoice -- and I do business with luthiers the same way. Am I exposed to losing more money? Of course -- but like I said that's how I prefer to do business, and by the current standards of the lutherie industry, it all seems like that's the way the reputable guys do it, too.

There is no amount of paperwork that will reassure me more than the builder's reputation. Your opinion may differ, which is totally fine.

Of course we must also shop on the basis of reputation, that goes without saying. However, one does not preclude the other. In other words, it would burnish just as much the standing of those of good repute to adopt transparent and carefully thought out means to safeguard customer deposuits, as it would do to luthiers of lesser reputation.

The example you gave is entirely different from our case in question. Your company has legal recourse should the customer renege on the contract and your customers will cretainly pony up if they lose the suit - legal fees and expenses and lawyers on retainer are all part of the cost of doing big business. It is very different from the case that customers face iwth luthiers - the amounts are usually not high enough to make legal action worthwhile and the customer and luthier are usually not rich enough to have lawyers on retainer for such things.

The customer basically has no recourse if the luthier dies and the deposits are swallowed up by the costs of the estate or taken by the heirs. Why is there so muchr esistance to the idea that customers deserve a better way to safeguard their deposits in such circumstances?

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Well, just in case anybody wants to know what the OP's original point was:



Steve

OK, fair enough, I did not spot that post. However, even if it is not the OP's viewpoint, my point would hold true as a separate rationale altogether.

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by tadol

But to me, the assumption that solo luthiers need to standardize anything to deal with these concerns is just taking it all a bit too far. If someone wants to design a contract that they can try to offer when negotiating a build - go for it - but no luthier should be required or even expected to use it if they have something they are more comfortable and familiar with.

You make good points in your post. I would say though pertaining to the issue of standardisation that i for one did not intend my post to be understood to mean that all luthiers should keep a separate account for their deposits. My thinking was rather that luthiers should apply their minds to the problem and come up with solutions that address this adequately and this will be a competitive advantage for them and give them a better image to potential customers as well. Such an attitude would be more customer-oriented and therefore more responsive to the market than becoming defensive and protective of one's own existing practices.

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

This is the opinion that has been repeated by, I believe, every luthier who has posted on this thread. And, once again, I, for one, am perfectly willing to accept this.

It is abundantly clear that the luthiers who have posted simply do not see this as an issue, and, since the OP was offered as a discussion point for the luthier community, not as a discussion point for the guitar buying community, then, unless another builder posts his/her interest in inuslating him/herself from lost deposits or, in my case, complete payments, due to the misfortunes or bad actions of flakey (a term I have heard several times from builders), I am content.

Steve

With respect, I do not think such a rationale was the right starting point anyway for this discussion, which is very worthwhile for you to raise actually. If you phrase it that way, of course it is very easy for luthiers to dismiss the whole issue as a non-issue.

IMHO the issue is not protecting reputable luthiers from flaky luthiers at all. It is about protecting the buyer from the death or incapacitation of the luthier after a large deposit has been paid and about how canny luthiers can respond to this problem by providing for such means so as to further increase their standing and improve their reputation and give potential customers even more peace of mind. What transparent and well-structured means exist in the luthiers' practices to ensure that the buyer's right to get a refund of the deposit from the heirs or executors of the late luthier's estate in such cases, or at least that the buyer is not out of pocket?

The solution can be as Simon Fay has suggested and which many luthiers follow - take a smaller deposit of $500 and only bill the rest when the guitar is finished. Or it can be to create a trust account to put a more substantial deposit into and to bill progressive, as I have suggested. Or it can be to buy insurance as some others have suggested.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by airguitarro

The example you gave is entirely different from our case in question. Your company has legal recourse should the customer renege on the contract and your customers will cretainly pony up if they lose the suit - legal fees and expenses and lawyers on retainer are all part of the cost of doing big business. It is very different from the case that customers face iwth luthiers - the amounts are usually not high enough to make legal action worthwhile and the customer and luthier are usually not rich enough to have lawyers on retainer for such things.

The customer basically has no recourse if the luthier dies and the deposits are swallowed up by the costs of the estate or taken by the heirs. Why is there so muchr esistance to the idea that customers deserve a better way to safeguard their deposits in such circumstances?

You know, I'm not even arguing with you but you keep coming back saying I don't get it... There's no offense taken but I just want to remind you that it's ok to disagree with me.

All I've said is that I'm comfortable with the risk and prefer to do business in a less formal setting -- and it seems like several luthiers feel the same. That in no way interferes with anybody else's preferences on that matter.

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

You know, I'm not even arguing with you but you keep coming back saying I don't get it... There's no offense taken but I just want to remind you that it's ok to disagree with me.

All I've said is that I'm comfortable with the risk and prefer to do business in a less formal setting -- and it seems like several luthiers feel the same. That in no way interferes with anybody else's preferences on that matter.

Sorry, I should explain that I am not arguing with you and I am not suggesting that you do not understand. I respect your preference to keep it informal and that's perfectly understandable. I was talking about something else though - i.e. of the need to safeguard the deposit and of the competitive advantage to luthiers who meet this need. You had made some references to the lack of paperwork in the business of your employer and I was merely pointing out that your company would not be fazed by that because of their recourse to legal representation. You used that example to illlustrate your comfort level with informality whereas I was suggesting that your company is comfortable with that lack of documentation because they have access to legal representation to force their customer to pay them if they do not pay, whereas it would not be worthwhile for you to do so.

In other words, both our points are valid, but I was merely pointing out that your employer may not necessarily do the same thing that you do from the same reasons.

[cpabolting]

All make fairly good points... at the end of the day, I think it doesn't make sense to overly complicate things on a guitar purchase that is not typically a massive financial transaction... I mean $7,000 is not pocket change, but it also isn't $45,000. I think some of the luthiers here have pretty reasonable deposits....and I think that is the way I would probably lean.... but I think 50% deposit at the end of the day... winds up being a bit much to put at risk inmost situations.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by airguitarro

Sorry, I should explain that I am not arguing with you and I am not suggesting that you do not understand. I respect your preference to keep it informal and that's perfectly understandable. I was talking about something else though - i.e. of the need to safeguard the deposit and of the competitive advantage to luthiers who meet this need. You had made some references to the lack of paperwork in the business of your employer and I was merely pointing out that your company would not be fazed by that because of their recourse to legal representation. You used that example to illlustrate your comfort level with informality whereas I was suggesting that your company is comfortable with that lack of documentation because they have access to legal representation to force their customer to pay them if they do not pay, whereas it would not be worthwhile for you to do so.

In other words, both our points are valid, but I was merely pointing out that your employer may not necessarily do the same thing that you do from the same reasons.

It's cool. I pointed out my company as an example of risk assessment, not as an exact analogy of a typical transaction with a luthier.

It's also my own company we're talking about, so I'm fully aware of the risks that it's exposed to or otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up (not that it makes any difference to the main discussion in this thread anyway).

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by cpabolting

All make fairly good points... at the end of the day, I think it doesn't make sense to overly complicate things on a guitar purchase that is not typically a massive financial transaction... I mean $7,000 is not pocket change, but it also isn't $45,000. I think some of the luthiers here have pretty reasonable deposits....and I think that is the way I would probably lean.... but I think 50% deposit at the end of the day... winds up being a bit much to put at risk inmost situations.

What you said pretty much summarizes my thoughts exactly.

[harvl]

This is a really interesting thread and one I think needs to happen. I for one am grateful. As a builder it’s important to know why more people don’t take the plunge on custom guitars even if they can afford to. I do see it as a big issue but I see it in the same way that any industry would if there existed a level of integrity that lowered the public opinion of the overall trade, guilt by association. Personally I want to do everything I can to attract customers.
The system I have has been proven effective and accepted without question for many years, for me to want to change it I would need to see a proven method that was superior. Show me something that is of equal added benefit to builder and customer and I’ll be happy to give it a shot. Talk of unexpected death is a separate thing but I know for a fact that the 3 guitars I have been involved with, the combined total extra that I have charged to finish the builds is less than 1/5 of what I have lost on a single deadbeat customer before I had my current policy... All of the builds I’ve completed would have been no-brainers had they used my policy and still had 2/3’s waiting for completion.

From the customers standpoint there is a great deal of comfort level that can be achieved these days on the net. Is it foolproof ? No. but it’s better than doing a web search for 99% of the customers I have built for over the years. Do a web search for me and you will find that; I’ve been building for 40 years, have built 360 guitars and counting ranging in price from $5,000.00 – $125,000.00, I invented Voyage Air and still own a significant portion (meaning that even after I die my heirs may still have an income source), I have enough of a reputation in the guitar world to have Martin, send me the 1.5 Millionth Martin, (valued at "...more than a million dollars..." http://youtu.be/tV7pZzsDFn0) to hack up with a router and stick inlays into it. You’ll also find that I require a 1/3 deposit and the balance prior to shipping your guitar. You won’t find that I’ve held deposits on guitars that were more than the price of a Ryan or Olson (OK, now you will...) and that these customers are only willing to do that because of an understanding that I didn’t get where I am by stealing deposits from unsuspecting clients. I do keep deposits in a separate account until I begin your build but that means nothing really since it’s still my account and my wife has access access to it (all kidding aside, she is the voice of reason that insisted we do it this way). Trust, Reputation, Honesty, Integrity... these are the things that are even more valuable than a piece of paper that controls the money or some verbal agreement. If that’s not “safe” enough than you really shouldn’t be buying a custom made guitar.

Talk is cheap...I hear a lot of observation that luthiers won’t change to a policy that favors the client, but if they did so, a bounty of orders await.... Would I wave my 1/3 down and agree to a $500 deposit and the balance upon completion? Yes... if I liked your story and the guitar was very basic, so I could resell it to someone else (from this new found bounty of basic orders!!!). Here’s your chance... prove to me that if I had a different policy it would increase my sales... it might even be fun for me since I almost never build anything basic.

Harv

[airguitarro]

Originally Posted by harvl

This is a really interesting thread and one I think needs to happen. I for one am grateful. As a builder it’s important to know why more people don’t take the plunge on custom guitars even if they can afford to. I do see it as a big issue but I see it in the same way that any industry would if there existed a level of integrity that lowered the public opinion of the overall trade, guilt by association. Personally I want to do everything I can to attract customers.
The system I have has been proven effective and accepted without question for many years, for me to want to change it I would need to see a proven method that was superior. Show me something that is of equal added benefit to builder and customer and I’ll be happy to give it a shot. Talk of unexpected death is a separate thing but I know for a fact that the 3 guitars I have been involved with, the combined total extra that I have charged to finish the builds is less than 1/5 of what I have lost on a single deadbeat customer before I had my current policy... All of the builds I’ve completed would have been no-brainers had they used my policy and still had 2/3’s waiting for completion.

From the customers standpoint there is a great deal of comfort level that can be achieved these days on the net. Is it foolproof ? No. but it’s better than doing a web search for 99% of the customers I have built for over the years. Do a web search for me and you will find that; I’ve been building for 40 years, have built 360 guitars and counting ranging in price from $5,000.00 – $125,000.00, I invented Voyage Air and still own a significant portion (meaning that even after I die my heirs may still have an income source), I have enough of a reputation in the guitar world to have Martin, send me the 1.5 Millionth Martin, (valued at "...more than a million dollars..." http://youtu.be/tV7pZzsDFn0) to hack up with a router and stick inlays into it. You’ll also find that I require a 1/3 deposit and the balance prior to shipping your guitar. You won’t find that I’ve held deposits on guitars that were more than the price of a Ryan or Olson (OK, now you will...) and that these customers are only willing to do that because of an understanding that I didn’t get where I am by stealing deposits from unsuspecting clients. I do keep deposits in a separate account until I begin your build but that means nothing really since it’s still my account and my wife has access access to it (all kidding aside, she is the voice of reason that insisted we do it this way). Trust, Reputation, Honesty, Integrity... these are the things that are even more valuable than a piece of paper that controls the money or some verbal agreement. If that’s not “safe” enough than you really shouldn’t be buying a custom made guitar.

Talk is cheap...I hear a lot of observation that luthiers won’t change to a policy that favors the client, but if they did so, a bounty of orders await.... Would I wave my 1/3 down and agree to a $500 deposit and the balance upon completion? Yes... if I liked your story and the guitar was very basic, so I could resell it to someone else (from this new found bounty of basic orders!!!). Here’s your chance... prove to me that if I had a different policy it would increase my sales... it might even be fun for me since I almost never build anything basic.

Harv

Hello Harv, there is nothing wrong at all with your system to keep it in a separate account. That is basically what I suggested except that I suggested making that account a trust account.

There is no perfect system - whatever works for the luthier and stil provides that reassurance that in the event the luthier is no longer around, there are enough structures in place to ensure that his heirs will know that that money does not belong to them but to the customers. Or that the deposit is so low relatively speaking that it's no big deal tot he customer if they do not get it back.

I was also not suggesting that adopting a more transparent system will lead to a bounty of orders. What I think it does is to give a competitive advantage as the custom guitar market continues to mature and become more sophisticated and larger in volume - how big it is remains to be seen and it is only one factor among all the other things that the luthier has to do to establish his trustworthy reputation i.e. the long years of building good guiitars on time and giving value to the customers.

[Haans]

Originally Posted by airguitarro

There is no perfect system - whatever works for the luthier and stil provides that reassurance that in the event the luthier is no longer around, there are enough structures in place to ensure that his heirs will know that that money does not belong to them but to the customers. Or that the deposit is so low relatively speaking that it's no big deal tot he customer if they do not get it back.

I was also not suggesting that adopting a more transparent system will lead to a bounty of orders. What I think it does is to give a competitive advantage as the custom guitar market continues to mature and become more sophisticated and larger in volume - how big it is remains to be seen and it is only one factor among all the other things that the luthier has to do to establish his trustworthy reputation i.e. the long years of building good guiitars on time and giving value to the customers.

IMHO, there is a lot of sense in this quote. It's a matter of "reasonability". Each of my orders is a written contract with the customer. What I charge seems reasonable to them otherwise they wouldn't sign and I won't sign unless they are satisfied with the terms. Beyond that it is my business, not anyone else's. After all, this is the "Free Market" isn't it?
What bothers me about all this is that you are discouraging new builders from entering the business by thinking you can impose a set of standards on custom builders. My guess is that you wouldn't want to pay for all a builder would charge you for everything you want.
Because a very few got burned by a few builders under extreme circumstance does not mean you impose your "hedge fund" theories, trying to ensure that you are covered in every circumstance AND having the builder pay for it. Custom building is as custom as the business.
As I originally said in the beginning of this debacle, most all builders have thought this one out, and have come up with reasonable plans to deal with contingencies and maintain a reasonable price line.
What I am saying is that all this talk does not hurt the "established builders", but will hurt and discourage up and coming builders. Personally, I don't care what you end up "doing" because (1) I'm pretty much out of the business and (2) as witnessed in the last page, all talk eventually turns to "sports talk" , and nothing will come of it aside from discouraging said up and coming builders.
We are probably looking at the decline of the "Golden Age" of custom instrument making anyway. Foxconn will be building your instruments in the future...

[airguitarro]

I reckon that there will always be a place for the talented and innovative young luthier who finds a better and new way to hang his shingle that serves customers' needs better than other luthiers - even the well-established ones. Other industries show us that standards should always rise not only in build conditions but also in business standards. In time, a new standard of behaviour will be set and leaders among luthiers will create practices which will be followed by other luthiers as customers respond to them.

This thread has been much more interesting than most of the threads over on the General Discussion board, most of which seem to be retreads of threads one has seen before at least once. The last sentence Haans alluded to is OTT but interesting in a new direction - is the Golden Age of lutherie coming to an end? Personally I suspect that the growing shortage of the great tonewoods will put a crimp on things and drive prices up. As well, changing music trends may eventually turn away from the guitar to other instruments - especially the guitar's mortal enemy the keyboard/piano. On the other hand this can work to foster a smaller number of luthiers who charge higher prices but whose work will have to reach greater heights.

I think that as time goes by and people become ever wiser to marketing hype, the upper end will become increasingly populated by the Somogyis and Matsudas of the future who will push the envelope. There will be a greater distaste for mass manufactured items and a greater and greater desire for unique handcrafted pieces which are one-off. In such a world, there will always be a place for the highly skilled artisan but the custom guitar will eventually become a luxury item for the seriously well-heeled only.

[Howard Klepper]

Wouldn't the luthier with the most longstanding reputation for integrity, other things being equal, be the one closest to dying?

Just a thought.