Warwick ad - See we do look at them!

[pietruszka]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying it's in any way cheap, but then Warwick do say "If you can dream it, we can build it". But still, at least companies are doing this, and when it becomes standard practice the price should (holds breath) come down. But only time will tell!

Of course the solution it seems is to recycle, or to put it another way, buy second hand.



Dan

[Machines]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1347807101' post='1805220']
Have you seen the upcharge for the FSC woods?

As Flyfisher points out, you would have to spend so much energy to earn the money to pay for the smugness it would bring in knowing you are saving the planet.

It's all bollocks.
[/quote]

I imagine the people who'd pay extra also offset their carbon footprint when they buy tickets online. I wonder what the margins are on FSC wood - I bet it's not cost.

[steve-soar]

Just looking at the vision stagergies of FSC, I fully support this. Keeping the biodiversity of all forests is essential.

Cheap flooring and furniture demand in Japan, USA and Europe is responsible for a lot of the illeagal logging. Recycling is what we should be doing with our wood and furniture.

In our home we have the wifes grandma's bedroom furniture set, including the bed, all of our wardrobes and draws are old, we have original flooring in this Victorian house and our dining room furniture is all recycled, from family of other sources.

I treat wood as something magical and very precious, to waste it is very sad.

Stupid hippy.

[Machines]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1347809958' post='1805277']
I treat wood as something magical and very precious, to waste it is very sad.

Stupid hippy.
[/quote]

I suppose it's not like the stuff grows on trees is it ?

[steve-soar]

[quote name='Machines' timestamp='1347811553' post='1805311']
I suppose it's not like the stuff grows on trees is it ?
[/quote]

[flyfisher]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1347809958' post='1805277']
In our home we have the wifes grandma's bedroom furniture set, including the bed, all of our wardrobes and draws are old, we have original flooring in this Victorian house and our dining room furniture is all recycled, from family of other sources.
[/quote]

Quite right too. All the best people inherit their furniture.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1347805018' post='1805186']
I've never had a Warwick bass but I'm quite prepared to believe they are wonderful things.

However, I really don't buy the "sustainability" thing. Sustainability isn't really about planting a new tree to replace a bit of wood, it's fundamentally about energy and the fact that our lifestyles are seriously in the red as far as energy is concerned. For the time being we're living the high-life by spending our 'fossil fuel savings', but we know it can't last. It's simply not sustainable.

The amount of energy we use is proportional to the amount of money involved. The more money involved, the more energy is used. These are high-priced luxury items and people have to earn a lot of money to pay for them. Earning that money involves using a lot of energy and spending that money sustains a lot of other people in their similarly high-energy lifestyles.

So, yes, the wood involved may be 'green' and the low-energy lightbulbs and solar cells used in their factory may be 'green' (although are you aware of the energy-intensive manufacturing processes involved in both those items?), but that's a long way from being truly sustainable.

Just a bit more 'greenwash' marketing, I'm sorry to say.
[/quote]

I have no problem with a company who uses lots of tropical woods deciding in some cases not to use them, and in others trying to get them from sustainable sources.
Not perfect though.
Problem is if every business who makes small steps gets accused of "greenwashing" why would any make the small steps?

[Machines]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1347811649' post='1805316']

[/quote]

My point is steve-soar, there seems to be a huge up-charge by Warwick for this which they seem to make out they're the good guys when I expect all they're doing is buying from another supplier who has the certification (please correct me if I am wrong anyone). I was not referencing furniture - most of mine is passed down too.

[steve-soar]

[quote name='Machines' timestamp='1347812760' post='1805341']
My point is steve-soar, there seems to be a huge up-charge by Warwick for this which they seem to make out they're the good guys when I expect all they're doing is buying from another supplier who has the certification (please correct me if I am wrong anyone). I was not referencing furniture - most of mine is passed down too.
[/quote]Call me Steve. That is just what I've been doing in my previous posts. The upcharge is shocking. On everything.

BTW, was because of the corny joke, nowt else.

[flyfisher]

Anyone truly serious about adjusting their lifestyle to live within the average means of the planet would probably find it necessary to give up expensive toys altogether.

Spending 9.9x more than your income might be better than spending 10x more than your income, but it's not actually going to make much differences to the practical consequences . . . . in which case we might as well party-on and enjoy ourselves while we can, which seems to be the vast majority's approach to environmental issues.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1347823137' post='1805511']
Anyone truly serious about adjusting their lifestyle to live within the average means of the planet would probably find it necessary to give up expensive toys altogether.

Spending 9.9x more than your income might be better than spending 10x more than your income, but it's not actually going to make much differences to the practical consequences . . . . in which case we might as well party-on and enjoy ourselves while we can, which seems to be the vast majority's approach to environmental issues.
[/quote]
but but but... there are a number of flaws in these ideas.
1) you are directly linking money to products. It's not been for decades- maybe if we built our economy on what we produce in a material sense then it would but not anymore. So much of money in circulation has been created out of thin air that the argument "x costs so much so therefore has an environmental consequence" doesn't work. I get what you mean, and agree up to a point but it doesn't work that simply.
2) I'm not sure it's an either or option. Yes we could live utterly within our means, or we could not bother, but I don't think I would disparage the small steps. If you go to germany the attitude towards the enviroment and recycling is fundamentally different than in the UK. So maybe that's just a few people making incremental changes but as a policy that can add up to major gains over time.
3) I don't believe the philosophy[color=#000000][font=sans-serif] you seem to suggest - that a serious living within means would [/font][/color]ascetically[font="sans-serif"][color="#000000"] see us give up partying and enjoyment- I think part of life and what makes us human is art and music - it's the debate you have as a student when you meet a load of stuck up "we save the world" medical students - you ask, which is a more important discipline- art or medicine? without one we would die, and without the other would it be worth living?
So an ecologically sound life would have music - and also the instruments that make it. Possibly more expensive and valued more than we do today with our super cheap mass produced stuff[/color][/font]

[flyfisher]

I agree it's not simple. That's my point.

Germany might well have a 'better' attitude towards the environment and recycling than the UK, but the fact remains that they have one of the highest standards of living in the word - a standard of living sustained by a massive consumption of energy from fossil fuels and for which there is no sustainable alternative. And that's just Germany - imagine the energy requirements of 6 billion people (10 billion by 2050) living a similarly luxurious lifestyle. It's simply not sustainable. It's also not a question of choosing between art or medicine - we can't sustain either.

These sorts of debates often get bogged down by the details of recycling and tree-planting, but zoom out a bit and consider the entire picture - 6+ billion people all striving to lead the luxurious lifestyle that we're privileged to enjoy but without the energy resources to sustain it. THAT'S the real issue, not how 'green' our basses might be.

[Jacqueslemac]

Amazing, the topic started off discussing the aesthetics of a green bass and now we're talking about the ethics of a green company.

[thodrik]

I don't mind it to be honest. I think that a lot of people are just trained to think that only Fender models are capable of looking 'aged', so the seeing a Warwick with the same process just looks 'off' or 'wrong'.

I would just find it awkward to play any expensive new bass which is pre-aged. Would I be careful to make sure that it wouldn't get any ding, or would the fact that it was beaten up already actually be a good thing as I could play it without being worried about getting any cosmetic damage?

[xilddx]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1347805018' post='1805186']
I've never had a Warwick bass but I'm quite prepared to believe they are wonderful things.

However, I really don't buy the "sustainability" thing. Sustainability isn't really about planting a new tree to replace a bit of wood, it's fundamentally about energy and the fact that our lifestyles are seriously in the red as far as energy is concerned. For the time being we're living the high-life by spending our 'fossil fuel savings', but we know it can't last. It's simply not sustainable.

The amount of energy we use is proportional to the amount of money involved. The more money involved, the more energy is used. These are high-priced luxury items and people have to earn a lot of money to pay for them. Earning that money involves using a lot of energy and spending that money sustains a lot of other people in their similarly high-energy lifestyles.

So, yes, the wood involved may be 'green' and the low-energy lightbulbs and solar cells used in their factory may be 'green' (although are you aware of the energy-intensive manufacturing processes involved in both those items?), but that's a long way from being truly sustainable.

Just a bit more 'greenwash' marketing, I'm sorry to say.
[/quote]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Warwick are 14001 accredited so they are clearly doing something positive and demonstrating continual improvement in their EMS.

[throwoff]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1347807900' post='1805238']
Take a look at page 14 of the German basses and Custom Shop option price list.

Over £500 upcharge to have your body made from FSC woods.

£206 upcharge on the price of an ebony fingerboard, or you can pay £911 for a Rio Rosewood fingerboard, totally endangered but for the right money, Warwick will build it.
[/quote]

Gotta disagree with this point.

Warwicks Rio Stocks are from before the ban, they are the same as any other company in that they cannot buy anymore.

Hence the price, they have a limited amount cut long before the ban and sat in wood storage at Markneukirchen.

Offering it at a high price to customers who want it will hardly change the rarity of the trees.

[Mog]

Don't like it myself. Probably the ugliest Streamer I've seen. Then again, most relic'd guitars look pants IMO. I was a massive Warwick fan for many years and have to say that they do make fantastic instruments but I sold all but one of mine because they're customer service policy is total balls if you live in Ireland.


Re the sustainable thing, its a hell of a lot more complicated than replacing a tree you've cut down. The greenhouse gases produced by harvesting the wood, producing the product, shipping etc are massive when compared to what a sapling can negate. There's also the topic of ecosystem destruction in harvest areas to be taken into account. Basically its a bit of a catch 22. Of course its great that companies are trying to lessen environmental impacts but people need to be aware of the greenwashing that major corporations throw at consumers.

[Warwick_Official]

We now offer FSC-Certified Maple, Swamp Ash, Wenge, Ebony, and Rosewood. FSC-Certified (forest stewardship council) means that there is an unbroken chain of custody from the forest to the factory that uses the wood. The forest must be certified and sustainably managed - meaning only a certain amount of trees can be cut, those cut are replanted, the forest cannot be in an area of civil or traditional rights violations, the wood cannot be from a forest cleared for future agriculture, and there can be no genetically modified trees harvested or planted. Once the wood is harvested, it must be milled by an FSC-certified sawmill - tagged and shipped by a certified shipper, and delivered to our facility which is also FSC-certified. Along the entire journey, there is a detailed record of board feet, which even has to have shrinkage from drying and milling calculated - as well as amount we use vs. how much we lose to sawdust etc during the production process. All FSC wood has to be stored separately from non-FSC wood. Every step must be documented, even through final production - and only instruments that use 100% FSC-certified wood can be sold as FSC instruments. The body, neck, fingerboard, etc ALL must be FSC.

Warwick also has the largest solar panel array in Saxony, we burn all of our wood waste in an environmental burner to collect thermal energy, and we catch and store all excess heat from the building and store it for later use. Starting last month, we also have a new array of wind-powered turbines to supplement our energy use.[color=#00000A]125.262 kilograms of carbon dioxide was offset by Warwick headquarter's solar panel in the just first six months of 2012. [/color][color=#00000A]The solar panels total output is about 274 kWp (kilowatt peak = top performance of the solar cells), the annual yield[/color][color=#00000A] amounts to approximately 265.000 kWh. We[/color][color=#00000A] are nearly independent of non-renewable energy sources, and in the next few years will be 100% self-sufficient in terms of our energy usage.[/color]

[color=#00000A]We are continually looking forward, to implement new methods of green energy, sustainably harvested wood, and preserving the environment. Yes, there is a lot of greenwashing out there as you stated, but we feel we are truly doing the right thing. With time, these methods can only get stronger, and we hope to see more companies on board. [/color]

[color=#00000A]Here is the latest model we have, made from 100% FSC-certified Swamp Ash, Wenge, and Ebony. Thanks![/color]

[color=#00000A][/color]

[4 Strings]

So certified wood makes for a pretty bass and you'll need to pay a little more to be responsible. Fair enough to me.

[dc2009]

I've got to agree with the comments on Warwick's marketing tactics; every day I get several nice Warwick basses (and Framus guitars but let's not get into that again) posted to my Facebook feed, and I know, to look at them, these are very expensive, yet no price tag is mentioned, almost as if they're ashamed of them.

Ultimately, I think the prices are too high for what the basses are (bloody good basses), especially when second hand ones can be had so cheaply - I got mine on here for £1100 in perfect condition with all original case and accessories, it retailed at £2300 and would probably be even more under the current price regime - and do I think I got a good deal for £1100? Yes. Would I buy one for £2300 or more? No, unless I had a lottery win! I'm proud to be a Warwick owner, but I don't even look at their new prices anymore, and when a German made model can be had in mint condition S/H for the price of a new Korean/Chinese one, I'm not likely to be tempted in the near future either.

I also think that the Warwick marketing is poor. It's all a matter of taste, but when they hand signature models to blokes I've barely/never heard of, it doesn't exactly impress me, especially when I then get spammed loads with a bass I don't particularly like! Even the old custom models that Warwick bring up photos of to advertise I tend to think are a lot less attractive than some I have seen in my years of trawling through the site. I know it's a question of taste, but I swear their marketing guys don't quite pick them as well as other brands can (thinking Sandberg here).

[4 Strings]

[quote name='dc2009' timestamp='1347926488' post='1806861']
I also think that the Warwick marketing is poor. It's all a matter of taste, but when they hand signature models to blokes I've barely/never heard of, it doesn't exactly impress me, especially when I then get spammed loads with a bass I don't particularly like! Even the old custom models that Warwick bring up photos of to advertise I tend to think are a lot less attractive than some I have seen in my years of trawling through the site. I know it's a question of taste, but I swear their marketing guys don't quite pick them as well as other brands can (thinking Sandberg here).
[/quote]

Perhaps Warwick would be unimpressed with your knowledge of bass players and if you sign up to their marketing FB page, guess what, they'll send you marketing stuff, even if they don't know what specific basses you like you've told them you like Warwicks.

You make an interesting point about s/h prices, people describe Ricks as 'love or hate them', maybe Warwicks are even more so, some love them enough to pay eye-watering prices for new but not enough others do to maintain their s/h value, passing at hugely reduced prices.

I'm one of the latter, I certainly see them as clearly beautifully, carefully designed and made basses but I'm always disappointed when I see a bass player I like using one! Why?

Edited September 18, 2012 by 4 Strings

[johnthebassist]

I've gotta say, I love Warwick basses, I've had three Streamers (a '97 Pro-M, a '98 Stage I and a 2005 Stage II), all bought second-hand. I can kinda see how something like this happened though.

I've never been remotely concerned with looking fashionable/cool, but lots of people are. Though Warwick basses were all the rage in the late 90's (mostly due to Mr Z and P-Nut), they definitely appeared to fall out of favour with the return of that indie/punk sound and the move back to traditional/vintage-looking instruments that happened in the last seven or eight years. With their trademark modern, sleek lines and smooth finishes, Warwick basses didn't really fit into that beaten/road-worn/vintage thing - they inspire people to look after them, rather than smash them around! I guess that photo kinda says it all really - they don't lend themselves to looking beaten.

Oh yeah, I've gotta agree - the list prices are pretty eye-watering, especially for the custom stuff! I was on the Status site yesterday and I was really surprised at how affordable they are in comparison. That said, they're a completely different beast, so probably not fair to compare.

I think Warwick basses are brilliant instruments, so if I have to buy mine second-hand, that's alright with me. I like to think that fits into their whole sustainable vibe anyway. I will have my custom-shop Warwick one day though

Edited September 18, 2012 by johnthebassist

[jaydentaku]

What a very interesting topic, thanks guys. I adore my Warwick and I am really impressed with the Warwick ethos.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='johnthebassist' timestamp='1347954923' post='1806979']
Oh yeah, I've gotta agree - the list prices are pretty eye-watering, especially for the custom stuff!
[/quote]

If you don't mind waiting you can get a handbuilt Jaydee for a third of the money. Go and watch it being built too.

[loki]

I've never quite understood the 'new' price of Warwicks vs. the 'used' price. I've got three now and I've had many more in the past. I would never buy a new one though, not these days.