Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Dr. Stein on August 21, 2010, 11:43:24 PM
-
http://www.carvinchannel.com/play.php?vid=244
Why would you make a video of that? Why?
-
Yep, me too, that's just a terrible, terrible waste.
As Jonathan told me recently, almost any mistake can be recovered or turned into something good (even if it wasn't quite as originally intended), but to just trash that (presumably) good quality wood and then publicise the fact is dumb. Potentially bad PR move from Carvin here...
-
That was brilliant. Definitely my favourite vid of the week.
-
There is also a very real-world reason why they do that, and it's a lesson Hoshino US learned the hard way.
-
bet they re-use the neck :-p but what I really want to know is "will it blend?"
-
bet they re-use the neck :-p but what I really want to know is "will it blend?"
Carvin smoke... dont breathe this!
-
That is just plain waste, how did it make it that far if there was a problem that called for that outcome!
-
Yeah, does seem like a waste, but a GREAT vid! Also good to see the depth that the maple had in the middle of the body... interesting.
-
That is just plain waste, how did it make it that far if there was a problem that called for that outcome!
from they way they were looking at it they were unhappy with the finish/binding
-
I find it deeply upsetting because I hate bandsaws, they frighten the life out of me.....
It does seem a waste - since Carvin is essentially a custom shop selling direct to the public, I don't see anything wrong with just selling it cheap as a "blem" (their word), maybe even without pickups or hardware, so someone could've had themselves a nice project guitar.
-
I had to register to comment on the Carvin page. I find waste like that to purely make it look like they have high standards rather short sighted.
I accept that if indeed the build was indeed buggered, then they might as well recover the neck. However if it's not buggered, then as mentioned above I'd be questioning their QA procedures and it would not give me very much faith in their standards if a duff instrument can make is as far as post finishing before being picked up as not meeting QA. If indeed it is a custom shop then I'd have concerns about the way they work.
-
To be fair, we constantly criticize Gibson for not doing this and letting them out the door!
-
Gibson used to do that (but always before the guitars went to finishing). You used to see rejoined bodies on ebay - but Gibson only did the first cut.
-
I can see why they'd do it. Publiscising it is a little, I dunno, crass.
But not letting the guitar 'out there' with some significant flaw when potential users down the line might not know that it was second class stock sold off cheap or whatever, or someone buys it from them cheap or a worker takes it home and it ends up being sold as a full blown carvin; someones going to be dissapointed with it and word will spread based on a guitar/guitars that are unrepresentative of the brand, if the provenance is lost or intentionally concealed.
So, its a smart move to do it. Its bound to drive up prices, but how much depends on how often they make a cr@p guitar.
-
I am in two minds over this : one set of feelings based on protecting your name /reputation and the other on a more global issue of diminishing resources and the horrific tragedy of waste.
Shobet has summed up my own feelings about the waste of wood etc
I find waste like that to purely make it look like they have high standards rather short sighted.
I accept that if indeed the build was indeed buggered, then they might as well recover the neck. However if it's not buggered, then as mentioned above I'd be questioning their QA procedures and it would not give me very much faith in their standards if a duff instrument can make is as far as post finishing before being picked up as not meeting QA. If indeed it is a custom shop then I'd have concerns about the way they work.
Instead of wasting what looked like looked to me a perfectly good guitar, why don't you simply supply them - with a caveat that they can not sell them on - to a music school or even a normal school which would not normally be able to afford an instrument as good as that. It would make better PR that publicly wasting resources like that.
Out of interest what was wrong with the instrument? If it was unplayable then I understand destroying it, however if it was a misalignment or some other flaw I'd have hoped your QA would have picked that up way before the instrument was finished. If however the flaw was purely cosmetic then I believe my suggestion above is a far more positive thing to do.
And the other opinion expressed by MDV
I can see why they'd do it. Publiscising it is a little, I dunno, crass.
But not letting the guitar 'out there' with some significant flaw when potential users down the line might not know that it was second class stock sold off cheap or whatever, or someone buys it from them cheap or a worker takes it home and it ends up being sold as a full blown carvin; someones going to be dissapointed with it and word will spread based on a guitar/guitars that are unrepresentative of the brand, if the provenance is lost or intentionally concealed.
So, its a smart move to do it. Its bound to drive up prices, but how much depends on how often they make a cr@p guitar.
I also object to cheapo Chinese/Korean companies using up top notch woods in below par guitars as well as other "goods" that get thrown away after a single use - like exotic wood chopsticks
-
I am in two minds over this : one set of feelings based on protecting your name /reputation and the other on a more global issue of diminishing resources and the horrific tragedy of waste.
That's the thing, isn't it? I don't understand why they can't make it obviously a factory second and sell it at a reduced price - use "Factory Seconds" as a headstock logo and serial number if nothing else!
It's possible that this video was just a one off PR move, to show off the depth of maple (which only a couple of us noticed, so maybe not a *good* PR move) and their commitment to quality. Still, such a waste.
-
I am in two minds over this : one set of feelings based on protecting your name /reputation and the other on a more global issue of diminishing resources and the horrific tragedy of waste.
That's the thing, isn't it? I don't understand why they can't make it obviously a factory second and sell it at a reduced price - use "Factory Seconds" as a headstock logo and serial number if nothing else!
It's possible that this video was just a one off PR move, to show off the depth of maple (which only a couple of us noticed, so maybe not a *good* PR move) and their commitment to quality. Still, such a waste.
Gibson used to do just that - they stamped a 2 on the back of the headstock to indicate a second
Musicman also have a bonfire of seconds - to prevent those parts getting reused and damaging company reputation
I would say: cut the headstock off and give the remaining bits to a luthiery college where the body could be stripped and the rest of the neck dug out and a new neck made perhaps
The wood does look exquisite - which is why it's all the more criminal to cut it up and burn it
-
That is just plain waste, how did it make it that far if there was a problem that called for that outcome!
from they way they were looking at it they were unhappy with the finish/binding
Which just makes chopping it up all the worse. They could have stripped the finish, even if it was a stain on that top they could have sanded it down a bit, & surely binding isn't all that difficult to remove & redo?
I could only imagine the guitar being totally unrecoverable if there was something really fundamental like the neck being misaligned by several degrees - in which case, why did it get as far as the paint room?
The only scenario I can imagine where you decide that a guitar which is so far towards completion is beyond help is if a big crack suddenly opened up in the wood or someone dropped it in the workshop...
-
^It is possible for necks to warp beyond repair sometimes, which may explain why it got that far, but they did seem to be looking at the finish.
-
Carvin by name, carvin' by nature
-
Carvin by name, carvin' by nature
That actually made me laugh out loud!
Someone replied to my comment on the Carvin page, but didn't really address the points I made. I can't be arsed to debate with them as it's their toy and I'm very unlikely to ever buy a Carvin anyway.
-
Carvin have been a bunch of idiots recently so this doesn't surprise me.
-
Carvin have been a bunch of idiots recently so this doesn't surprise me.
I've always liked the look of their stuff - over 30 years of ads in Guitar Player! - but never enough to seriously consider buying one, especially since they're so difficult to get hold of.
-
Carvin have been a bunch of idiots recently so this doesn't surprise me.
I've always liked the look of their stuff - over 30 years of ads in Guitar Player! - but never enough to seriously consider buying one, especially since they're so difficult to get hold of.
At US prices I probably would have bought several by now but over here they're just silly money. You can easily spend £2500 on one of their carved tops, which puts them well into the bespoke custom bracket price wise. (by the way Feline, did you notice they've recently ripped off your Lion's neck joint on their new LP model? :lol: )
-
Hm, PRS do exactly the same thing...