Mark at Bassdirect

[Truckstop]

Hello all,

Some of you might remember a while ago I started a thread about how good Mark was at his job. He was super nice to me, pulled out the stops for me and really provided a great service when I bought an '83 Fender Precision off him. I was full of praise for him because he had done me a massive favour by accepting a cheque and letting me take the bass home on the same day.

However, since then the bass has been proved to be a fake. The whys and wherefores are not important, but the facts are, are that the neck is off an '84 P and the body is marked AUG 1997. There are more foibles that are littered around on the body that indicates it's not original, but I can't be 100% certain and they are neither here nor there. Things like missing stamps and stickers in cavities, wrong paintjob/lacquer, unoriginal pickguard, basswood or poplar body perhaps etc etc.

Anyway, this post is more about Marks attitude towards me raising this (quite expensive) issue with him. He took the opportunity in one email to me to say that the bass is (paraphrasing) 'definitely genuine' which leads me to have suspicions over his ability to identify and correctly date vintage instruments. He also says that he "sold it [to me] in good faith" which for some reason means that I'm not entitled to get my money back.

I'm not particularly sure about this, but I don't know where I stand (any help with this would be appreciated folks).

I guess I'm just annoyed that he hasn't offered me an apology and he hasnt taken any responsibility for the fact he advertised to sell an '83 Precision bass when it patently was not.

Just be careful when dealing with Bassdirect and any other vintage instrument retailer.

Thanks

Alex

[Machines]

I have asked Mark to reply to this publically so we can see both sides of the incident. This is not an exercise to apportion blame, merely establish facts and a best way forward for Truckstop.

[poptart]

Alex

In response to your post.

The bass in question was brought in to my shop by a very good customer who was looking to px the bass, I was unsure of its date so we checked the serial number on the headstock on the Fender website and got 1983, to confirm this I took the bass over to my guitar tech who has over 20 years experience with Fenders and as soon as he saw the instrument he immediately declared it an '83 as it has a very specific neck radius and fingerboard edge. He also commented that the finish on the bass was also correct as they used a finish that was rather brittle and prone to flaking off and indeed there were signs of this. The bridge also tallied from that period.

The bass did come in an unoriginal Fender Tweed case, but apart from that no further checks were made as to its origins. I marketed the bass as a 1983 instrument based on the above information and originally had the bass at well over £1000 which would have been appropriate for a bass of that Vintage, however over a period of time I dropped the price to £699 which was very close to what I had paid for it as I felt it was time to move it on and was happy to get my costs back.

I was very surprised to received your email Alex, and I am sorry you are having this problem with your customer, however all second hand items sold through any shop are "sold as seen". You always have the opportunity when coming into a shop to assess whether the item is what it appears to be or not. You have your statutory rights as a consumer to return the item within 7 days if you are not happy of if there is a fault.

I feel that I have acted honestly, responsibly and appropriately in this situation.

Regards

Mark

[ThomBassmonkey]

Was it sold as an '83 P bass or was it sold as a P bass that Mark thought was from '83? If it was sold specificially as an '83 and there's hard evidence that it's not, then it's not as described. If Mark said he thought it was an '83 when you talked to him, but it doesn't properly say it anywhere (website, price tag etc), then there's nothing binding him to it.

How long have you had it?

[Linus27]

As both parties have responded, I really think this thread needs to go private and possibly dealt with out of basschat or with a mediator. Nothing good can come from keeping this thread open I feel.

[Machines]

I don't want this thread to descend into a blamefest, so will lock it and leave it visible for anyone that wishes to read it. A previous thread was removed due to some of the things said in it, but this one is acceptable. If anyone feels it should be left open for discussion please PM me and i'll consider the reasons.

[Machines]

From Trading Standards:

[quote]Faulty goods

When you buy goods from a trader, such as a shop, market stall, garage, etc., you enter into a contract that is controlled by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994). The law gives you certain statutory rights under this contract. These rights mean that goods should be:

Of a Satisfactory Quality, i.e. of a standard that a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory - generally free from fault or defect, as well as being fit for their usual purpose, of a reasonable appearance and finish, safe and durable;
Fit for the purpose - as well as being fit for the purpose for which they are generally sold, goods should also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known at the time of the agreement;
As described - goods should correspond with any description applied to them. This could be verbally, words or pictures on a sign, packaging or an advert.
If the goods are not of satisfactory quality, or not fit for their purpose, or[b] not as described[/b], you are entitled to reject the goods and claim a full refund - [b]providing this is done soon after the purchase was made.[/b]

Once you have "accepted" the goods i.e. kept them for a reasonable amount of time, you are no longer entitled to a refund, but are entitled to damages - the difference in value between the value of the faulty goods and the price paid. In practice this often amounts to having the goods repaired - although strictly there is no legal right to this - or to a replacement - but often a repair or a replacement is an acceptable solution.

You are not entitled to a refund if:

You have changed your mind about wanting the goods;
You were told about the fault before purchasing the item;
You examined the goods before purchasing and should have noticed the fault;
You have already accepted a credit note;
You are responsible for the damage.[/quote]

More details here: [url="http://www.walsall.gov.uk/index/shopping_rights.htm"]http://www.walsall.gov.uk/index/shopping_rights.htm[/url]

[Machines]

After receiving several PMs, I have reopened this thread.

I politely insist that no-one posts libelous or disparaging comments, please stay to the facts.

[stingrayPete1977]

I'm a big fan of BassDirect but where is the argument? The date on the body says Aug 97 so the rest is tittle tattle unless Mark feels that Alex has added that himself (which I'm sure he doesn't). Refund and resell with new description and everyone is a winner except Mark for a few hundred pounds if it resells for say £450-550 which is a lesson learnt to get the neck off the next one IMO. Why should Alex lose out because Mark didn't do his own detective work? It's not like a solid bridge saddle that should be hollow or similar it's a date stamp. My only tuppence on the matter

[skej21]

[quote name='poptart' post='1196830' date='Apr 12 2011, 02:13 PM']Alex

In response to your post.

The bass in question was brought in to my shop by a very good customer who was looking to px the bass, I was unsure of its date so we checked the [b]serial number on the headstock on the [u]Fender[/u] website and got 1983,[/b] to confirm this I took the bass over to my guitar tech who has over 20 years experience with Fenders and as soon as he saw the instrument he immediately declared it an '83 as it has a very specific neck radius and fingerboard edge. He also commented that the finish on the bass was also correct as they used a finish that was rather brittle and prone to flaking off and indeed there were signs of this. The bridge also tallied from that period.

[b]The bass did come in an unoriginal [u]Fende[/u]r Tweed case,[/b] but apart from that no further checks were made as to its origins. I marketed the bass as a 1983 instrument based on the above information and originally had the bass at well over £1000 which would have been appropriate for a bass of that Vintage, however over a period of time I dropped the price to £699 which was very close to what I had paid for it as I felt it was time to move it on and was happy to get my costs back.

I was very surprised to received your email Alex, and I am sorry you are having this problem with your customer, [b]however all second hand items sold through any shop are "[u]sold as seen[/u]"[/b]. You always have the opportunity when coming into a shop to assess whether the item is what it appears to be or not. You have your statutory rights as a consumer to return the item within 7 days if you are not happy of if there is a fault.

I feel that I have acted honestly, responsibly and appropriately in this situation.

Regards

Mark[/quote]

I have to say, as an outsider, the lack of accurate research and care taken over this sale (from what I've read) by Bassdirect is discouraging me from taking my custom there again. (I will back this up with facts!)

Firstly, the details provided within the advertisement of this instrument is essential.

From what I can make out from what has been posted, the bass was advertised (or at the very least IMPLIED to be) a 1983 Fender bass. The parts highlighted show that the customer, who has walked into a specialist bass shop looking to buy from sales staff with expertise, has [u][b]seen[/b][/u] a 1983 Fender bass in a Fender branded tweed hard case and has purchased from a source that he believed to have expertise in selling bass guitars, and therefore puts trust into the seller that a degree of understanding/researching was involved with creating an advertisement for the instrument.

So, if the instrument was implied/advertised to be a 1983 Fender bass, and the customer was not explicitly informed that the shop/staff were unable to verify this, UK law states that;

'In the UK, sellers are required to provide consumers with goods that are as described, fit for purpose, and of satisfactory quality. If the trade description and the advertisement do not match, then you may be entitled to a refund or compensation.'

Therefore, the 'sold as seen' declaration stated by the shop is invalid, as the customer is not expected to clarify that advertising is correct before purchase. It is a legal requirement that the seller provides the customer with a product that matches the advertising.

Edited April 12, 2011 by skej21

[Johngh]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1197304' date='Apr 12 2011, 08:51 PM']I'm a big fan of BassDirect but where is the argument? The date on the body says Aug 97 so the rest is tittle tattle unless Mark feels that Alex has added that himself (which I'm sure he doesn't). Refund and resell with new description and everyone is a winner except Mark for a few hundred pounds if it resells for say £450-550 which is a lesson learnt to get the neck off the next one IMO. Why should Alex lose out because Mark didn't do his own detective work? It's not like a solid bridge saddle that should be hollow or similar it's a date stamp. My only tuppence on the matter [/quote]


+1 It's a no brainer.

Goodwill and all that.

[Wooks79]

[quote name='poptart' post='1196830' date='Apr 12 2011, 02:13 PM']Alex

In response to your post.

The bass in question was brought in to my shop by a very good customer who was looking to px the bass, I was unsure of its date so we checked the serial number on the headstock on the Fender website and got 1983, to confirm this I took the bass over to my guitar tech who has over 20 years experience with Fenders and as soon as he saw the instrument he immediately declared it an '83 as it has a very specific neck radius and fingerboard edge. He also commented that the finish on the bass was also correct as they used a finish that was rather brittle and prone to flaking off and indeed there were signs of this. The bridge also tallied from that period.

The bass did come in an unoriginal Fender Tweed case, but apart from that no further checks were made as to its origins. I marketed the bass as a 1983 instrument based on the above information and originally had the bass at well over £1000 which would have been appropriate for a bass of that Vintage, however over a period of time I dropped the price to £699 which was very close to what I had paid for it as I felt it was time to move it on and was happy to get my costs back.

I was very surprised to received your email Alex, and I am sorry you are having this problem with your customer, however [b]all second hand items sold through any shop are "sold as seen". You always have the opportunity when coming into a shop to assess whether the item is what it appears to be or not. [/b]You have your statutory rights as a consumer to return the item within 7 days if you are not happy of if there is a fault.

I feel that I have acted honestly, responsibly and appropriately in this situation.

Regards

Mark[/quote]

Mark, Surely if Alex had asked you prior to buying the instrument, to take the alleged '83 bass apart (to find the things that have now become apparent to show it isn't an '83) you would have said no to the instrument being taken to pieces?

I imagine if you had been happy for this to happen, then you would have done it yourself before purchasing it in to the shop, which you obviously didn't?

As far as I'm concerned you advertised it and sold it on the basis of it being an '83 P-bass, as I'm sure the label or tag did not say "assumed to be an '83 P-bass, but might not be"?

To me, that means this bass has been incorrectly sold by the person at Bassdirect, and personally with a combination of the fact that care wasn't take to not misrepresent what was on sale, and Mark and Bassdirects idea of 'after sales service' or 'customer care', I for one will not be making any purchases there from now on.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Wooks79

[risingson]

[quote name='poptart' post='1196830' date='Apr 12 2011, 02:13 PM']The bass in question was brought in to my shop by a very good customer who was looking to px the bass, I was unsure of its date so we checked the serial number on the headstock on the Fender website and got 1983, to confirm this I took the bass over to my guitar tech who has over 20 years experience with Fenders and as soon as he saw the instrument he immediately declared it an '83 as it has a very specific neck radius and fingerboard edge.[/quote]

The serial is stamped on the headstock of the neck, which by the sounds of things is '83/'84 (I'm fairly certain there's a slight overlap with Fender serials claiming to be one year and actually being the next one, but I could be wrong and I'm no expert). I could have assessed this to be the case myself, it's not hard to check on the Fender site! It doesn't sound to me like the Fender bloke with the 20 years of experience has looked closely enough at the body. Unless the part about the body being 1997 is an outright lie then with the greatest of respect, I would strongly recommend you find yourself a more competent guitar tech to assess vintage gear because with the greatest of respect to the guy, if he was any good at what he did then he would have picked up on the body being a mismatch. Any old person could have typed in a serial number on the website and found out that the [b]neck[/b] was from 1983/4.

I wouldn't like to assess the legality of the sale as I don't know anything about consumer rights but I would never consider purchasing a vintage Fender (something I'd like to do in the future) from a store that doesn't screen their stock properly. Like someone said... it's a bit of a no-brainer, I think you'd be wise to speak to Truckstop personally to see how the situation can be amended. I for one would certainly like to see the outcome of this to be a positive one for Alex.

Edited April 12, 2011 by risingson

[Chris2112]

I wish Bass Direct got more used stock in, as I am looking to buy a bass at the moment. However, in this case I'd probably suggest that the blame lies with Alex for failing to do the proper research within the time limits alloted by law or prior to purchase. This is me with my legal hat on.

On the other hand, if I were in Alex's position I'd feel quite pissed off too.

[Wooks79]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1197367' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:36 PM']I wish Bass Direct got more used stock in, as I am looking to buy a bass at the moment. However, in this case I'd probably suggest that the blame lies with Alex for failing to do the proper research within the time limits alloted by law or prior to purchase. This is me with my legal hat on.

On the other hand, if I were in Alex's position I'd feel quite pissed off too.[/quote]

That surprises me, as isn't this pretty much what musicground went to court for doing a lot of, but has just explained by someone (Alex) who has given the benefit of the doubt to the seller that they did not know that this was not what it said it was?

In my opinion the buck stops with the store that misrepresents (knowingly or not) what is on sale.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Wooks79

[Chris2112]

[quote name='Wooks79' post='1197373' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:39 PM']That surprises me, as isn't this pretty much what musicground went to court for doing a lot of, but has just explained by someone (Alex) who has given the benefit of the doubt to the seller that they did not know that this was not what it said it was?[/quote]

I think the issue with Music Ground was wilful misrepresentation. This seems to be more a case of mistaken identity by a well meaning individual. I'm sure even the Fender buffs amoung us here will admit verifying the age can be difficult even for an experienced eye.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1197367' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:36 PM']I wish Bass Direct got more used stock in, as I am looking to buy a bass at the moment. However, in this case I'd probably suggest that the blame lies with Alex for failing to do the proper research within the time limits alloted by law or prior to purchase. This is me with my legal hat on.

On the other hand, if I were in Alex's position I'd feel quite pissed off too.[/quote]

How was he supposed to know???

[skankdelvar]

Cock-up or conspiracy. sh*t happens. Hindsight is 20:20. Caveat emptor. People make mistakes. Give a dog a bad name. A mended relationship is stronger than a new one. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Everyone's a winner.

If you see what I mean.

[Chris2112]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='1197381' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:43 PM']How was he supposed to know???[/quote]

As I said, I've tried looking at both sides of the argument. My legal view is that the buck must stop somewhere, for better or worse. Some onus must be placed on the customer to know what they are buying, if they lack sufficient knowledge then they may take instructon from the seller. And if the seller has done everything in their power to present the item sold in an accurate light, can blame be apportioned to them? Legally, it seems not. As I said, the buck most stop somewhere.

OTOH, if I were in Alex's position I'd be angry and probably in quiet talks with the vendor looking for some resolution.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1197367' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:36 PM']I wish Bass Direct got more used stock in, as I am looking to buy a bass at the moment. However, in this case I'd probably suggest that the blame lies with Alex for failing to do the proper research within the time limits alloted by law or prior to purchase. This is me with my legal hat on.

On the other hand, if I were in Alex's position I'd feel quite pissed off too.[/quote]
As far as I know Chris Alex raised it asap and Marks response and with no other options has led to this and last weeks thread?

[Beedster]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='1197384' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:45 PM']A mended relationship is stronger than a new one.[/quote]

Take the hint Mark

C

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1197379' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:43 PM']I think the issue with Music Ground was wilful misrepresentation. This seems to be more a case of mistaken identity by a well meaning individual. I'm sure even the Fender buffs amoung us here will admit verifying the age can be difficult even for an experienced eye.[/quote]
What with a date stamp visible, That does not make you any form of expert if you can't spot that! My pre EB knowledge out weighs all parties involved Fender knowledge if that's the case Chris.

[yorks5stringer]

Got to say, if I was in business selling musical instruments and a lot of my customers were from a certain well read website, I'd make damn sure if one of them had an issue I'd do my utmost to try and resolve it before it went public, and once it did, try and be a bit more accomodating publicly.

We are talking about the cost of a couple of £100 here versus losing a sizeable amount of goodwill that has been built up by the business. To me it's a no-brainer, but what do I know?

Edited April 12, 2011 by yorks5stringer

[voxpop]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1197367' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:36 PM']I wish Bass Direct got more used stock in, as I am looking to buy a bass at the moment. However, in this case I'd probably suggest that the blame lies with Alex for failing to do the proper research within the time limits alloted by law or prior to purchase. This is me with my legal hat on.

On the other hand, if I were in Alex's position I'd feel quite pissed off too.[/quote]

+1 on this. It is not just Marks fault, as buyers we have the responsibility to check and recheck all claims on vintage / old basses.

On the other hand I have a great amount of sympathy for all concerned, and hope something can resolved quickly and amicably.

[Chris2112]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1197394' date='Apr 12 2011, 09:52 PM']What with a date stamp visible, That does not make you any form of expert if you can't spot that! My pre EB knowledge out weighs all parties involved Fender knowledge if that's the case Chris.[/quote]

I've got to say Pete, I'm not reading this one particularly well. I'm distracted by Dragon Age II!