Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Standard Guitars' started by MetalHead40, Mar 7, 2017.
It really goes to show the importance of that last 1/8...
Also the 23 fret Kelly got fixed, the extra fret just ended up on this -
I don't have a horse in this race, but I just can't accept Kiesel's gross-ass headstock designs. Yuck!
I won't talk about SH guy after this, because the guy was happy with the solution, and you're the only one still trying to really hold on to painting him as being abused by Carvin- just because you were not treated well in your case. It's really a testament to the quantity/quality of your supposedly plentiful examples that you're holding on so dearly to that one specifically- where the buyer didn't even have an issue with it himself, and which btw is so old that the company wasn't even called Kiesel at that point.
As for the Vader with the unique option-50 nut option, Kiesel refinished the guitar immediately on the spot when it had cosmetic issues upon delivery and the buyer got exactly what they ordered, so on what grounds would he have been entitled to a refund? An immediate fix there was more than reasonable, and I can't think of other manufacturers (certainly not the majority) who would offer you a better resolution, especially considering that it was refinished extremely quickly. Kiesel basically offered the industry standard, except much faster than anyone else. If he were to push a refund, it would be 100% a "change of mind" or "buyer's remorse" case, because he got exactly what he ordered, and in a timely manner. His guitar didn't have any structural or functional issues. He had cosmetic concerns that slipped through the QC cracks, and that they took on with an immediate solution at their cost. His only argument was "I don't want it anymore" after having Kiesel build him something that he knew was non-standard.
And you know the kicker?
Even though it was buyer's remorse, even though he got exactly what he ordered, even though he had willingly ordered something non-refundable.....he still got a refund
As for your "intellectually dishonesty", it's a rich case of pot calling the kettle black, especially following your last few posts. It's 100% dishonest to strip away all context to try and distort a saying like you're doing. Good thing you linked the whole post because if you actually read through, you'll see that it means "nobody will entertain a full refund on a non refundable guitar for cosmetic things like a couple scratches". Nobody will entertain refunds for buyer's remorse on non-refundable things either btw. But if that was not clear enough for your, I even pre-emptively clarify after (explicitly and literally) that for egregious things that cannot be fixed, people should get refunds. Like the egregious 23-frets Kelly. Or your Suhr.
First of all, sounds like the worst Suhr I've ever heard about, if the neck cannot be fixed after not one but two services, and it still has other issues after that. But if you got a refund in that scenario, it was because you had an unplayable buzzy guitar that just couldn't be fixed. Try buying a custom guitar, even from Suhr and tell them and your dealer "You know what guys? You built my guitar, addressed all my issues, but I just don't want it anymore, please give me my money back" and see what you get. Not just Suhr, ask any other builders, especially smaller ones to refund you all your money after they get you exactly what you ordered (like what Vader guy got - exactly what he ordered) and see. Your double standards are more apparent than ever here btw. You got a functionally flawed guitar from Suhr, so you gave them the opportunity to fix it (not once, but twice), they were not able to do it plus the guitar had other issues - and you sing their praise. Vader guy got a functionally good guitar with cosmetic issues that were addressed on the spot, yet changed his mind afterwards and still got a refund - you shit on Kiesel. What kind of hypocrisy is that?
Again- We're talking literally "change of mind" or buyer's remorse here, and it's literally the type of thing that is not a reason to return for bespoke/custom items. First, legally in most places: if you had bespoke work done in good faith and got what you asked for, you don't just get your money back. And morally as well, because you had someone invest his time, resources and effort to build you something unique with costs that he may not be able to recoup if you change your mind. And yes, that squarely includes the opportunity for the builder to make things right, like immediately fixing the cosmetic issues for the Vader. Oh but I forgot, what are morals right? Apparently your solution to buyer's remorse or having to wait a bit for a fix should just be "aggressive chargeback" and the builder can just deal with it . And you wonder why people even have "non refundable deposits / all orders final " policies in the first place when that's the attitude from some buyers...
The day you have a contractor build you custom cabinets for your kitchen in an awkward and unique shape, and they don't see some scratches upon delivery, are you going to tell them you don't want them anymore and they can just keep them while you charge back your payments? Even though the cabinets have been installed, work perfect, and they have now sanded and polished out the scratches to perfection? Even though the contractor is out their materials and their time and effort? Is that the world you live in? Because that's pretty much what you would like the situation to be for the Vader guy. And the funniest thing is that Kiesel still took the cabinets back and gave a refund, and you still shit on them
Again, keeping aside customer service experience which can be bad, then at the very worse Kiesel applies the industry standard in their practices. And it's their bare minimum, because in the large majority of cases the options and outcomes are better than the industry standard. On 90% of their guitars, you can return/refund, no questions asked. When you are in the 10% of non-returnable cases, they are still going to offer you options that include the typical fix/refinish/repair/rebuild. And even after the fixes, it turns out that apparently they'll still allow you to get a refund, even for buyer's remorse cases like Vader guy. With your problematic build with them, you were not even in those 10%. You were in the 1% of 1% of custom over custom double order. And your situation was one of the most frustrating ones. And yet even you got a polite refund from Jeff in the end.
After all this text, you still have literally 0 example showing otherwise
Oh wow I had never seen this one
What is it with Jackson and not being able to count frets
Agreed. I'll go as far as saying that kiesel has made a lot of mistakes, and had a lot of very visible and ridiculous public issues. There's no denying that. Plus documented problems in both customer service, and the experience of customer service (people not feeling they're treated well). Also understand 100% people not willing to do business with the company because they don't like Jeff Kiesel.
But for some reason that's not enough to hate on, so a lot of discussion is imagined/made-up issues or just hypocritical takes and double standards galore.
I'll second something like Anderson in the "will be absolutely phenomenal every single time if you have the money". Never touched one that was less than amazing, they're so consistent. But the fact that some great Carvin/Kiesels can even touch them (like, on things like fretwork Kiesel has become indistinguishable from the very best nowadays) at their price point, and with their diverse choices is amazing. Like, unfortunately, Anderson cannot build me a 7-string neck-through headless with a piezo (not that I would be able to afford it new anyway ). Sure, maybe the quality may fluctuate a bit more (although even Suhr can have necks that are unfixable after 2 tries apparently...), say from just pretty good to amazing. But then the mere fact that you're able to try different things and return them until you get that amazing combination is also pretty unique. I have no idea why people hate on that, just because there are some documented options that you cannot just return on a whim...
Imagine twisting a situation where a customer received a scratched guitar, and did NOT want it repaired/refinished because he paid for a new instrument to be built without issues the first time. And then call it buyers remorse
They did exactly what I accuse them of, illegally using Option 50 as a means to deny refunds.
That's where the chargebacks come in, if you are being denied something within your rights, then you go. Chargebacks are also only LAST RESORT option when the manufacturer chooses not to be fair to the customer, legally not building what was agreed on/damaging it/or sending defective goods legally entitles you to a refund.
Even as someone who likes Kiesel, I definitely think they demonstrate uniquely bad customer service at times. A brand like Jackson is basically faceless, and when they screw up you usually have the dealer as an intermediary.
But when Kiesel shipped that RIDICULOUS mismatched neck and fretboard, to a 29 time previous customer, he was PUBLICLY HUMILIATED by the VP and face of the company. So in that guys case getting a neck rebuilt involved a public tar and feathering by the VP of the company.
Jeff is uniquely bad among mainstream guitar brands, I don’t think I’ve seen one other example of the head of a mainstream guitar brand behaving that way. And to top at all off, after all of that plus several tantrums, all it took was a teary apology and a new policy of treating roasted neck and fretboard matching the same way EVERYONE ELSE including Harley Benton does for the fanboys to declare Jeff a “game changer.” Again, I like Kiesel, but it’s easy to see why they rub people the wrong way.
This has been my problem since Jeff became the face of the company. His cult of personality and just general demeanor has completely put me off the brand, even though they tend to make very well-built instruments. The toxic "bro" mentality needs to be stopped.
Imagine having so few arguments or examples that you pivot once again to some brand new BS instead of answering anything, and think you're actually making any sense.
The guy paid for a new guitar and got a new guitar. What is that all about? He didn't get a second hand guitar or a floor model or a return. It also had scratches upon delivery, yep that happens. Those were fixed as quickly as possible. I doubt there's a single builder out there who hasn't delivered a single guitar with a scratch on it upon delivery, but if there is, they surely are the exception and it is bound to happen sooner or later. It happened to me on waaayyy more expensive than Kiesel, and you don't see me bashing the builder as a result. I don't go online and pretend it was not a new guitar anymore because it had a scratch from the factory. Contrary to what you think, scratches, especially if immediately adressed hardly qualify as "not building what was agreed on" or "delivering something defective". Far, far from it. Things happen, and it's hardly a big problem if some scratches are fixed. Or if it's a problem in your opinion, then you have to disqualify all the other builders too, not just Kiesel. But you won't because of...reasons... Yet a way more expensive Suhr guitar is literally unplayable upon delivery, and even after trying twice to fix it - plus it has other undisclosed issues (your example, not mine) and....somehow they're so much better? I think we need a new expression above double standards because it just doesn't cut it at this point.
Not to mention that Vader guy even got a refund anyway .
I really don't wish anyone to do custom work for you in the future. It sounds like you'd have absolutely no qualms in walking away from them at completion time, wasting their expertise and time, plus deny their efforts and materials investment in building something bespoke for you, even after they made it 100% right and 100% as ordered by you. All that because you managed to find a "gotcha" scratch that they even fix right away. As mentioned, that's both legally and morally wrong, but you do you.
This is just literally the nightmare customer for someone doing custom/bespoke work. Invest time, effort and material, fix everything, deliver as per order - and the customer still does an aggressive refund or chargeback on something bespoke that won't serve anyone else.
But even then, even in the last example you're still trying to hold on to, even though it was literally buyer's remorse / change of mind (getting exactly what you ordered, and yet still wanting to send it back for a refund)... did I mention that Kiesel took the L and still refunded the guy anyway ?
Agreed 100%, and I miss the good-ole Carvin days there... and sadly it doesn't look like they have much incentive to change because the business seems to be going great with record orders...
I pulled the trigger and ordered another Vader 7. I did the same last year during the Black Friday sale and got a stunning instrument. Mine was “not returnable” because I got a poplar top but it was/is pretty darn perfect.
He didn't receive a new guitar, it had imperfections, aka - defective. It doesn't matter if he got a refund in the end, he was obstructed of one upfront.
It's so weird that you don't seem to get this, Kiesel eventually making it right doesn't change the fact that they tried to prevent a refund by enforcing an unenforceable policy.
It's actually wild to me that you have such a large tolerance for defects on your expensive instruments. The more I spend, the more I'll nitpick. Because I value my time and money, and unlike you represent me I give every manufacturer the opportunity to fix an issue and make it right. The same opportunity I gave Kiesel which they fucked up
And I'm glad you brought up scratches, because shipping damage is a very different thing. And usually predictably pretty easily identifiable and catastrophic.
Shipping damage due to improper packing of an instrument, manufacturer's fault.
Shipping damage due to improper handling of a package, carrier's fault.
In the case of "scratches", unless your guitar is going through customs and the moron checking your package makes a slip up. There's practically zero opportunity for scratches to develop in transit. So if the manufacturer built an instrument, inspected it, and still sent it out with scratches. It is no longer a new instrument, it should not be sold as such and the manufacturer should offer both the options of a warranty repair OR a refund/replacement.
But it should be up to the fucking buyer, and in the Vader's case. Homeboy wanted a full refund from the get go, which he was denied unfairly. I don't give a single shit if scratches don't cross your severity threshold. He was in his right and wanted a refund, he was entitled to it by law.
And you bring up my Suhr Classic? Which cost me 1k less than the K Series I owned? Why are you assuming the cost of these instruments if you have no fucking clue what you're talking about?
You know they literally didn't build my guitar with several specs I requested In what way did Kiesel build me anything "100%" how I ordered LOL.
Wrong Neck Laminates, even though both guitars were meant to be twin builds other than the top.
Wrong finish applied to the guitar.
Missing the matching redwood backplate I ordered.
Vertical indentation across several frets, requiring warranty fretwork.
Upon repair, dings in the neck of the guitar that couldn't be fixed without sanding down the neck profile.
Scratches and scuffs in the gloss of the guitar.
How the hell is that 100%? I wasn't even offered a rebuild until I pushed for anything other than a warranty repair. And at that point after waiting until the new year, I pushed for my refund because I was sick and tired of getting jerked around.
This is pretty cowardly and dishonest right here, I've worked with 8 brands and been a repeat customer with 6 of those 8 with custom instruments. Why are you making it look like I'd find a micro-scratch and try to screw a builder unfairly out of the build without giving them a chance to make it right? For someone who screams nuance at every opportunity you seem to have fairly low bar for it since all I'm stating are consumer rights laws.
For fuck sake dude give it a rest. You don't like Kiesel. We get it. Move along and go sing the praises of the brands that you do like.
OK so as usual you bring up tons of absolutely unrelated stuff in the form of shipping damages and whatever. Nobody talks about that and it has 0 relevance. Nobody talked about transit. Seriously what? Why don't you stop the strawman arguments at least for once . Why don't you reply on an actual point for once? All because you cannot find a single good example? Can we leave shipping aside now? OK?
Now, to your point. So something with a scratch not caught in QA means it's no longer new now? Talk about a stretch .
The point above is simple: I doubt you could find a single manufacturer who hasn't had a guitar slip through the cracks with something minor like some scratches slipping past QA. To wit, even your Suhr (epitome of QA and consistency) passed QA despite a broken unfixable necks and 2 other undisclosed issues...so that's a little bit more egregious than a few scratches when talking about an instrument. Yet, you got it new and you considered it new. Just like the owner of the Vader got his guitar new. You should really check the definition of new in a dictionary because you clearly don't get it, or else it just means that you've dropped all pretense and are just being 100% disingenuous now.
Hint: "new" usually goes by something like "newly created not existing before", not "newly created not existing before- except for Kiesel where it's not new if it has a couple of scratches that went past QA - but Suhr and others can have issues though they're good it's just Kiesel that we hate specifically screw them". I know it can be tricky and the two definition can seem the same to some people, but the latter is actually the entry for "new when I'm being a hypocrite and only holding Kiesel to impossible made-up standards while all other brands get a pass". I doesn't help that the two are right next to each other in the dictionary, I'll give you that. But the more you know !
So for all intents and purposes Vader guy got a new guitar (again...unless you want to change the meaning of the word just for Kiesel - wouldn't surprise me with your double standards), with cosmetic issues addressed right away, and 100% matching his order. So no basis for a refund, nobody else would have offered him a refund -and yet he got it fixed, and yet he was still able to get a refund. Doh!
PS: I didn't "bring up" your Suhr classic (how would I have known about this guitar lmao), like I didn't bring up Jackson earlier. You brought it up so it's a bit rich to complain now that I reply and the arguments actually go against you
I know your guitar was built wrong. I know all the details, since you've laid it out already many times here. But knock yourself out and do it once more, sure. I'm the first to say you were not treated well by Kiesel, and for the umptieth time, I even take your example to try and discourage anyone from getting something so custom from Kiesel. Why do you need to reiterate your own experience one more time as we went over it already 10 times and we all agree? What else do you want? Will you not be satisfied until anyone and everyone else is barred from ordering something custom from them because your order went wrong. Jesus, talk about self-centered...
I was not talking about your past experience, I was laying out a hypothetical. "You'd" means "you would", not "you did". English is not even my second language so I may be wrong, but I believe "did" (unlike "had" or "would") doesn't contracts to " 'd". And did you have issues with surface scratches that were fixed through refinish on your order? No- and I know because I read your story already countless times. So clearly it's not what we're talking about! Reading comprehension much? Are you also going to confuse kitchen cabinets from the same example with your guitar? I cannot believe you don't get it, so again, most likely just bad faith arguing.
Anyway- to that hypothetical. Based on your two main points now, which are: "scratches can make it a returnable defect/not new/not as ordered, even if it is fixed" + "It would be fair to do a chargeback for a defect that one can find, even if that defect is fixed - because I believe it's the law". Here you may come with your usual "hurr durr I never said that give me quoooote", but if you didn't say it, then it would just mean that Vader guy was treated as expected, so I'll assume we're good.
Point is simple here as well. If we go by your logic for Vader guy, then anyone who finds a scratch, even if it's fixed 100% on a custom built anything (guitar or ukulele or kitchen cabinet or whatever) can just say "haha it's not what I ordered" and do a hard chargeback. And the builder is basically screwed despite delivering something custom that's up to specs, as ordered, and fixing all issues. Despite spending expertise, time, energy and materials with contractual understanding that the item was custom and one-off. No matter what you say, that's both legally and morally wrong. In this particular case, for scratches that were refinished right away, it would have been fair to just give the buyer exactly what he ordered, with any concern addressed. It would have been the exact treatment from pretty much any other builder out there.
But actually, not sure if I mentioned it already, but in case you haven't heard, Kiesel even agreed to a refund, despite the guitar ending up being exactly what the buyer ordered, and despite it having the zero-fret that the buyer agreed to waive his 10-day trial for. Crazy, right? I know... Just wait til you hear that they also agree to returns no questions asked on 90% of their builds if you just want to, that nobody forces you to buy something non returnable, and that unlike popular thinking they don't actually void warranties. It will blow...your...mind!
Well, this IS the kiesel criticism thread. There’s another thread about positive kiesel stuff. You can’t really fault the guy for posting criticism in the criticism thread. If you really like kiesel, you should probably head over here: https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/the-carvin-kiesel-thread.158783/
No offense, but your comment adds nothing to the discussion. Turn your advice to yourself and walk away from the conversation if you have nothing to add.
I liked my Kiesels, have no problem admitting they were great, but am also calling out bad business practices. If you want a hivemind brand circle jerk go find a brand related Facebook Group to join, but AFAIK you're inserting yourself into an existing conversation on a forum.
Dude I am completely over this, you keep using the same circling debate tactics and twist/deny examples. "I doubt you'd find any other companies...", "No that one doesn't count because..."
Now you're going to circle around me because you need cited sources on the definition of what is "new"? Which I'll indulge you before I drop out of the discussion.
In the context of product sales, Google (Merchant FAQ Information) defines item conditions as:
Ebay (Ebay Seller FAQ/Help section) defines item conditions as:
Remind me to never buy anything from you, apparently scratches aren't damages.
Professionally restored products are by definition Refurbished, and are resold as B Stocks regularly in the music world. If you sold me something and marked it New, but it arrived with damage, I would 100% return it to you unless you made it right via other avenues.
Like my Suhr, it actually arrived and over the course of a few weeks the neck warped. Something uncontrollable that developed over time for a number of reasons, the difference is they delivered a product to the agreed spec, it was unfortunately defective. And once it was given the repair attempts, they simply offered me a return it was the logical step because they thought it was unreasonable to force their customer to wait another 5 months for a rebuild. They offered me both options and let me make my own choice, beautifully handled and I still own their instruments because I respect them and love their guitars
Laws are concrete, your threshold for what is new is extremely liberal and that is extremely corporate friendly. You do you, but as someone who values their time and money I will hold high end products to high end standards and act accordingly when I receive something. Aka, Give them a chance to make it right, if they don't do that then I will get my valued money back. Simple as that, you bring ethics and morality into a legal argument concerning a transaction between a business and it's client, when the business fails to uphold their contract.
The Kiesel family will be just fine if they have to refund/rebuild guitars that they mess up, especially since it's such a minor number of instruments with issues in the first place like you mention right?
Back to those Vaders, whenever news pops up about them or the next Kiesel news cycle
I get that. But sometimes it goes beyond criticism.
By your own definition, Vader guy got a brand new guitar when he received it.
To wit: he was the first one to open the guitar box and case after it left the Kiesel factory, just like any other Kiesel buyer.
It was also undamaged, the exact same way your Suhr was undamaged. They both had factory flaws: one cosmetic as marks in the finish and bubble near the logo, one pretty seriously functional if the neck is unworkable. Plus 2 others still undisclosed flaws that you mentioned but didn't specify btw, so Kiesel QA is not even that bad in comparison. Anything that happens before leaving the factory and packaging of the item is by definition a factory flaw (it's even right there in the name), not a used-item damage. Then both guitars went back to service.
Those two are exactly the same case. Literally and demonstrably the same thing. And yet you consider your guitar new and not the Kiesel.
This is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's impossible to have a discussion with you. It's obvious you have zero objectivity regarding Kiesel, and maybe that's understandable based on your bad experience with them- but even double standards don't start to describe it.
When did I say I considered my Suhr new? I literally said it developed a defect, and is considered defective at that point. Once the repair was attempted, it was then refurbished by definition. All shit I said word for word above man, what double standards are you talking about?
Also, I said "There was more than just the neck to complain about", didn't mention 2 other flaws anywhere? Kiesel QA was worse by a wide margin easily.
One was delivered issue free, later developing an issue. And the other was built from the get go not to the agreed spec to start with, and not the expected quality and standards. You cannot speak about objectivity but completely ignore these facts, the last two days of back and forth has been pretty subjective because we clearly have different thresholds for what we accept when we purchase something. But if you want to start defining stuff and speak of objectivity, then your points fall short, definitions of new and refurbished are unanimously used in online merchant websites that sell New/Used/Refurbished/As-Is products.
There is no need for the defect/damage to be cosmetic or functional to strip any product of it's title of "Sold as New".
Exactly, so both the Kiesel and Suhr were sold as new and had some level of factory defect. One had cosmetic issue from the factory, one had functional ones.
Exactly the same and it's mindboggling that you cannot see your double standards.
You said you received it new by the way...doesn't matter what happened later and what became refurbished or whatever- that's just you trying to muddy the waters.