Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum

Forum Ringside => Pickups => Topic started by: buxhamm on September 15, 2010, 06:49:44 AM

Title: true cover look
Post by: buxhamm on September 15, 2010, 06:49:44 AM
I recently purchased the warpig humbucker and keep in mind if your into how the cover looks for the distressed style they cannot get it to look like what is pictured in the main page of the warpig product page.  I sent it back once and they tried to match it but it wasn't at all what was pictured.  I suggested they change the picture to what they normally send out but they haven't.  The pickup is cool and the look is more like an acid washed nickel would be though the colors and design are not the same. I've been burned by too many companies when trying to build my dream guitar and I expect everything to be as it is advertised.  I can completely understand how each individual cover has a different design because of how it is made but just look at the warpig cover picture and tell me it isn't hand painted. Some may say I'm too picky but why don't they just show it as it is??
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: ericsabbath on September 15, 2010, 07:00:37 AM
look at the gallery section and you'll see dozens of different distressed/camo/battle worn covers
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Antag on September 15, 2010, 10:32:25 AM
I'm not sure I really get what you are ranting about here.  So the pattern on the hand distressed pickup cover isn't an exact match for the pic on the product page?  Do you also send a guitar back because the grain of a flame maple top isn't an exact match for the catalog picture?

As you can see  (& read) here (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=584.0), here (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=585.0), here (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=763.0) or here (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=20963.0), there are huge variations in the way a distressed camo cover will look.

In fact, as commented here (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=584.msg24052#msg24052), the acid wash reacts differently with solid nickel covers so the newer ones have a slightly different colour anyway.

I think it's a rather hysterical over-reaction to suggest that BKP are trying to "burn" or otherwise deceive you.
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Afghan Dave on September 15, 2010, 10:50:34 AM
This is my favourite comedy post of the year! - I thought you were serious for a second there...  :lol:

Promise me you won't take your guitar off the wall and play it.

Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: shobet on September 15, 2010, 11:14:15 AM
I never find that the whores I get from those adverts in telephone boxes look the same as advertised either. Society is $%&#ed I tell you!
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: gordiji on September 15, 2010, 12:22:33 PM
i've some sympathy with what you say bux, (and shobet :lol:), but if they've already swapped it for you once and your not happy, i suggest you ask a refund.one thing you can't accuse bkp's of is a bad attitude to it's customers.
i think the analogy to wood grain in a guitar is a good one and if you are very exacting in your requirements maybe
buying blind isn't a good idea.
                                                good luck.......(do you like how it sounds?)
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Philly Q on September 15, 2010, 02:07:36 PM
I think part of the problem is that the distressed/camo pattern is created in quite a random way.  

If you try to make it look like an existing cover it probably ends up looking a bit cr@p.

(As it happens, I don't think the ones on the product page look very good.  There are much nicer examples in the gallery.)
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Roobubba on September 15, 2010, 02:29:08 PM
Pics!

Or you're just trolling ;)
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Transcend on September 15, 2010, 03:49:29 PM
i have had a few burnt chrom covers. and the first two werent like the one on the site but still very cool in there own way. However the last one that i got (MQ) was pretty darn close probably cooler looking actually.

Its just the way the chemical reacton/heating process reacts with the metal in the specific covers.

As with anything that isnt machined you will never get the same thing twice.

Also the ones on the shop/main page are probably a selection of the first ones that came out looking the best.
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: FLgearnut on September 15, 2010, 05:55:26 PM
i rather like the fact no two covers are exactly the same...it kinda gives BKP's a "one off" vibe to them...where else are you gonna get that feeling time after time for less than 200 bucks?
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: ericsabbath on September 15, 2010, 07:02:10 PM
if you're picky about the camo pattern, you should have bought one from a store or an used one
when I wanted a camo nailbomb, I knew that would be only a small chance of getting one that looked exactly like I wanted
so I bought a mint used set with the engraved NAILBOMB as soon as I found one that looked like what i had in my head
 :D
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: lulusg on September 15, 2010, 07:05:13 PM
Well it's kindoff some friend hooking you up with the Playboy centerfold and of course you buy the magazine and look and look and look.... Then she shows up at your doorstep, you open up and.... Nah!!she doesn't looks like the one in the centerfold . Then you slam the door on her face.....!
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: FLgearnut on September 15, 2010, 07:45:10 PM
Well it's kindoff some friend hooking you up with the Playboy centerfold and of course you buy the magazine and look and look and look.... Then she shows up at your doorstep, you open up and.... Nah!!she doesn't looks like the one in the centerfold . Then you slam the door on her face.....!

okay if you slam the door on ANY playboy centerfold, you seriously need your head checked....seriously....
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: lulusg on September 15, 2010, 11:02:47 PM
That's why I said Kindoff...Besides she was the 1961 centerfold !! So that makes her 49! + 25( that's how old she was )
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: ericsabbath on September 16, 2010, 02:23:30 AM
 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Afghan Dave on September 16, 2010, 01:18:36 PM
That's why I said Kindoff...Besides she was the 1961 centerfold !! So that makes her 49! + 25( that's how old she was )

"Relic-ed" or Roadworn can still be desirable to some guitarists...  :D  

Catherine Deneuve (age 66) isn't looking too bad at all...

(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/03/07/va1237295708611/Catherine-Deneuve-5926174.jpg)


Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Mr. Air on September 16, 2010, 03:17:29 PM
That's why I said Kindoff...Besides she was the 1961 centerfold !! So that makes her 49! + 25( that's how old she was )

"Relic-ed" or Roadworn can still be desirable to some guitarists...  :D  

Catherine Deneuve (age 66) isn't looking too bad at all...

(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/03/07/va1237295708611/Catherine-Deneuve-5926174.jpg)




Return of the Afghan!!!  :P
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: FLgearnut on September 16, 2010, 07:15:45 PM
id still hit that.
Title: Re: true cover look
Post by: Fourth Feline on September 16, 2010, 09:26:32 PM
id still hit that.

Even if she doesn't look exactly like the photo that Afghan Dave posted on this site ?  I mean, would you appear un-evenly 'distressed'  if she was wearing less 'camo' for example ? :wink: