Anyone else find this deeply upsetting?

[Dr. Stein]

http://www.carvinchannel.com/play.php?vid=244

Why would you make a video of that? Why?

[Antag]

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...

[Denim n Leather]

That was brilliant. Definitely my favourite vid of the week.

[Denim n Leather]

There is also a very real-world reason why they do that, and it's a lesson Hoshino US learned the hard way.

[Lew]

bet they re-use the neck :-p but what I really want to know is "will it blend?"

[Dmoney]

bet they re-use the neck :-p but what I really want to know is "will it blend?"

Carvin smoke... dont breathe this!

[kevinr]

That is just plain waste, how did it make it that far if there was a problem that called for that outcome!

[MrBump]

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.

[Transcend]

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

[Philly Q]

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.

[shobet]

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.

[Lew]

To be fair, we constantly criticize Gibson for not doing this and letting them out the door!

[PhilKing]

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.

[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.

[FELINEGUITARS]

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