Even the best luthiers have their off-days...

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1376427620' post='2173956']
He has been tried and found guilty by a jury of idiots on Talkbass and now it has passed into legend that he is a conman who produces shoddy work and t[b]hen abuses his disgruntled customers[/b] . I expect that is actually some way from the truth of what actually happened here . .
[/quote]

The bit in bold is verifiably true, though.

I can completely forgive the condition of that bass. Maybe there was a genuine miscommunication about the condition. Maybe the postal guys opened it up and abused it. Maybe JC sent the wrong one by mistake. Maybe its just a really sh*t bass. I don't care---sh*t happens, and its forgivable. Personally speaking I'd never spend that kind of cash without trying an instrument anyway, so it really doesn't affect me one bit.

What is completely and utterly unforgivable, in my eyes, is to respond with such obvious bullshit and abuse of a customer. Photoshop? The buyer doesn't deserve a bass like this? Really? Really??? The fact that JC came out with such nonsense actually makes me question even more what went wrong in the first place. A simple "There's been a misunderstanding, its being put right, we take QC very seriously..." and everyone with any sense would have just said "oh well, something weird happened, we probably won't find out what, but its all sorted now". But responding with such aggression and nonsense about photoshop makes it even easier for people to see JC as a bad guy. He's brought it upon himself.

You cannot---cannot---run a business in 2013 without understanding how to market yourself online. You just can't. Yes its a shame if JC's reputation has been hurt because of this but if his reputation has, indeed, been damaged then he has to shoulder a lot of the blame for that. Nobody forced him to respond like that. He chose to.

[Dingus]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1376430603' post='2174004']
I think Jimmy was dishonest throughout. I'm surprised the customer parted with $5000 for a bass he hadn't seen, but with AC's reputation you'd think he could reasonably assume he would be receiving a bass that was brilliant but had some signs of playing wear. That's what Jimmy told him was the reason for the discounted price - some wear and tear due to the bass having been played, but this clearly wasn't true.

Even disregarding the silly glue/oil/camera flash nonsense and the finish problems on the body (which could indeed have been worn while it was being played), there's the rubbish finish job on the face of the headstock, the strange problems on the rear edge of the headstock and the edge of the neck in the first position, the chips on the edge of the fingerboard (that's not 'playing wear' unless someone's been fretting notes with a chisel) and the terrible contouring on the body. Jimmy told the buyer that these imperfections were due to regular wear from the bass being played a lot, and he must have known this was not true. Anybody who has seen the photos knows it's not true.

I think if you knowingly misrepresent a product, you are cheating the customer. And to then compound the mistake by suggesting that the whole thing is the customer's fault, and to effectively call the customer a liar, that's unforgivable. And unfortunately for Jimmy Coppolo you can't do that on the internet without everybody knowing about it.

This mess is entirely of his own making.
[/quote]

The point I keep making over and over again is that[u] you only have the buyers version of events [/u], yet you seem to accept everything he has to say as gospel truth . The other erroneous assumption you are making is that the customer has a right to expect a particular kind of workmanship for $5000 . What is " worth " any given price is a rather arbitrary negotiation , at best . He contacted Jimmy to ask about that particular bass which he had seen and professed to like . Presumably , he had some idea of the approximate quality of the carving and routing from those initial photographs . As I also previously refered to , in all instances , [u]let the buyer beware[/u] .

Edited August 13, 2013 by Dingus

[Cairobill]

I have to say that that is a hideous looking bass. Spalted basses also have a nasty habit of looking wonky and rippled, even with thick poly finishes on them. The wood is horribly soft and is often easy to mark as cork. Spalting is a by product of fungus. Yuck...

[Dingus]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376433463' post='2174051']
Also, how does playing with a pick cause fret buzz?
[/quote]

It causes more fret buzz because it usually causes the eliptical movement of the strings to be more extreme than most fingerstyle playing . A bass that plays cleanly with fingers often buzzes when played hard with a pick .

Edited August 13, 2013 by Dingus

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376433463' post='2174051']
I have never played a JC bass and would have found the opportunity of playing this lefty as a coup, as I'm a lefty and have been disappointed by custom builds in the past. I think the photos show serious finishing issues, both in woodworking and lacquer. I worked for a luthier for 4 years and I can say that no instrument ever left the shop in such an appalling condition as was shown in these picks. Finish sinking does happen, [b]but that fingerboard was a total abortion.[/b] What really is of interest, is that the post on Talkbass from JC, implied that the owner may have photoshopped the pictures.

Also, how does playing with a pick cause fret buzz?
[/quote] aberration ?

[steve-soar]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1376433897' post='2174057']


It causes more fret buzz because it usually causes the eliptical movement of the strings to be more extreme than most fingerstyle playing . That is generally thought to be common knowledge . A bass that plays cleanly with fingers often buzzes when played hard with a pick .
[/quote]Er, in the owners video, he plays with fingers, I can hear fret buzz.

[steve-soar]

"I think he is referring to the fact that Doug Pinnick played the bass quite hard with a pick , which would have been likely to have accentuated any fret buzz problem ."

So, there was a problem to begin with.

Edited August 13, 2013 by steve-soar

[steve-soar]

JC said he would replace the fretboard, why would he do that if the bass was in good order?

[Dingus]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376434262' post='2174061']
"I think he is referring to the fact that Doug Pinnick played the bass quite hard with a pick , which would have been likely to have accentuated any fret buzz problem ."

How so?
[/quote]

Doug Pinnick is well - known as a pick player .When he descibes Doug as playing the bass " like a man " he is implying that he played it quite hard .

[Dingus]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376434093' post='2174059']
Er, in the owners video, he plays with fingers, I can hear fret buzz.
[/quote]

Well , in that case , if he played it with a pick then it would have [i]even more[/i] fret buzz .

[Dingus]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376434441' post='2174066']
JC said he would replace the fretboard, why would he do that if the bass was in good order?
[/quote]

The point of what JC is saying about Doug Pinnick ect is that the problem that is causing the fret buzz is something which has happened to the bass subsequently , and that initially the bass had no such problem . No one is denying there is a problem now . The question is what and / or who has caused it . .

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1376433581' post='2174053']
The point I keep making over and over again is that[u] you only have the buyers version of events[/u][/quote]

Your point is flawed given that Jimmy replied and did not dispute the buyer's version of events. Given that he disputed the validity of the buyer's OBVIOUSLY VALID PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE then surely we can assume that the buyer's version of events met with Jimmy's approval.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1376433581' post='2174053']The other erroneous assumption you are making is that the customer has a right to expect a particular kind of workmanship for $5000 .[/quote]

No. Your position of "No buyer of anything has any right to expect anything better than shoddy workmanship from any supplier" is preposterous.

The customer should reasonably expect excellent workmanship for $5000 given that he could have bought any budget bass built in any factory anywhere in the world for literally a fraction of that price and received a product with a better standard of finish. And given that Alleva Coppolo market themselves as an exclusive, boutique brand, with a price tag to match.

[Dingus]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1376435392' post='2174087']
Your point is flawed given that Jimmy replied and did not dispute the buyer's version of events. Given that he disputed the validity of the buyer's OBVIOUSLY VALID PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE then surely we can assume that the buyer's version of events met with Jimmy's approval.



No. Your position of "No buyer of anything has any right to expect anything better than shoddy workmanship from any supplier" is preposterous.

The customer should reasonably expect excellent workmanship for $5000 given that he could have bought any budget bass built in any factory anywhere in the world for literally a fraction of that price and received a product with a better standard of finish. And given that Alleva Coppolo market themselves as an exclusive, boutique brand, with a price tag to match.
[/quote]

You are wrong on both these counts , I am afraid . Jimmy didn't dispute the buyers version of events , but as I already alluded to , Jimmy is only a bass builder , not an expert on dealing with disgruntled consumers . If he had got a lawyer to take up this matter , the lawyer would have rejected the buyers version of events as a matter of course . You say the customer should expect excellent workmanship for $5000 , but the price tag is not neccesarilly derived from a superlative level of the craftsmanship involved in making the bass . The buyer was so enthusiastic because the bass was a rare , one -off piece . The value could be deemed to be from its' rarity value rather than the calibre of lutherie involved in making the bass . The buyer saw detailed photos of the bass before he bought it , and entered into the transaction of his own free will . That is the argument that a lawyer would put forward in court on Jimmy Coppollo's behalf

[steve-soar]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1376434675' post='2174073']


The point of what JC is saying about Doug Pinnick ect is that the problem that is causing the fret buzz is something which has happened to the bass subsequently , and that initially the bass had no such problem . No one is denying there is a problem now . The question is what and / or who has caused it . .
[/quote]Do you believe the bass had none of these problems initially?

[Dingus]

[quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1376439959' post='2174110']
Do you believe the bass had none of these problems initially?
[/quote]

How could I or anybody else know what problems the bass did or didn't have before it was shipped to the buyer ? My beliefs are immaterial . The pertinent thing is that everyone seems to have taken the buyers version of the transaction as the undisputed truth because they are so "horrified " by the state of the bass . There seems to a collective anxiety that they could themselves spend a lot of money on a bass and end up with a piece of junk in return ( quite possible , too , . if they do ever in fact have the cash to spend and the balls to spend it on one bass ) . Because of that collective anxiety they want to portray Jimmy Coppollo as the bass builder bogeyman , and readily accept any unqualified allegations against him as being true because they so badly [u][i]want[/i] [/u]them to be true . It's a classic example of what Freud called "transferential displacement ".

Lets say that Jimmy Coppollo did sell this punter a substandard bass - it certainly looks that way to me at face value - then it is not neccesarilly as cut and dried a situation as it may at first appear . Was there any verbal contract or spoken understanding between the two parties ? Is the buyer telling the whole truth ? Is his version of events complete and truthful about the negotiations before the sale ? He entered into a contract that clearly stated that all sales were final with the knowledge that the bass had some wear . The onus is on the buyer to ascertain the true state of the goods before agreeing to those conditions of sale , and he should have asked for more details and detailed photographs before he handed over his money . Conversely , where Jimmy Coppollo is coming unstuck is that he appears to have been economical with the truth when he described the wear and tear on the bass , but that is an ambiguous area open to conjecture . I certainly don't think he told the whole truth , but salesmen seldom do . The buyer should have had a healthy schepticism and been more careful , as he now realises himself , and says so in the thread , but by the same token JC should have been more explicit and frank in his description of the goods , that seems clear to me . Neither part has covered themselves in glory , that's for sure . It just seems very unfair to me that Jimmy Coppollo could have his business ruined over this storm in a teacup when both parties are at fault to some degree or another . It is telling to me that ,despite all the publicity and debate this thread has generated, there has been no rush of other disgruntled AC owners and past customers popping up to slate Jimmy and his workmanship . It looks like most AC customers are relatively content with their basses and the customer care they have had from Jimmy . What if , as seems most likely , he's a decent and honest man trying to build up a small business who has made an error of judgement in how he handled this particular sale and the subsequent fallout from it ? Does he deserve to be crucified for that ? These situations happen from time to time in any business and you have to deal with them and hopefully learn from the experience , but in the internet age they can be broadcast to the World in moments .

Edited August 14, 2013 by Dingus

[thisnameistaken]

So if I put up a '62 Jazz on eBay, which turned out not to be a '62 Jazz at all but it did look a lot like one, but I'd advertised it as a '62 Jazz and someone had given me £20,000 for it, would it be their fault that they'd got saddled with a bass that wasn't what they thought it was?

I'd have the plausible deniability - I could say I didn't realise it was fake and I sold it in good faith and as far as I'm concerned it's now the buyer's problem. Is that good enough? Would you be keen to support me with your odd brand of objective pseudo-legal responses?

[Kiwi]

Erm...

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1376462141' post='2174145']
Erm...
[/quote] that's what I was thinking too

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1376433251' post='2174047']
All academic now, but here's the bass, and the purchaser, before the blow-up, with the photos that sold it...

[url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/club-alleva-coppolo-part-20-a-928105/index50.html"]http://www.talkbass....05/index50.html[/url]

...the buyer even uses his graphic skills to simulate different pick-guard options. An interesting read.
The honeymoon was short, it seems...
[/quote]

[url="http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/club-alleva-coppolo-part-21-a-1003967/index5.html#post14723476"]Some comments from the OP re Photoshop.[/url]

[molan]

I see this thread is heading the way of so many others.

Some people just seem to want to see the worst in every situation and appear to want to revel in negative events.

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that there was an issue with an instrument and it was, not particularly amicably, resolved between the seller and buyer. No-one will ever know the exact sequence of events with any level of accuracy other than those two parties.

Continuing to throw mud at either of them does no-one any favours and appears to be breeding ill-feeling and unnecessarily argumentative comments.

I find myself spending less and less time here these days

Maybe I'll spend the day playing a lovely Alleva Coppolo bass instead. . .

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1376472138' post='2174275']
I see this thread is heading the way of so many others.

Some people just seem to want to see the worst in every situation and appear to want to revel in negative events.

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that there was an issue with an instrument and it was, not particularly amicably, resolved between the seller and buyer. No-one will ever know the exact sequence of events with any level of accuracy other than those two parties.

Continuing to throw mud at either of them does no-one any favours and appears to be breeding ill-feeling and unnecessarily argumentative comments.

I find myself spending less and less time here these days

Maybe I'll spend the day playing a lovely Alleva Coppolo bass instead. . .
[/quote]

Oddly all I see is folk discussing an event!

It happens all day, every day in our daily lives; we chat with friends/colleagues and discuss the weather, politics, etc. In fact I've spent time this morning chatting with friends about poor customer service on the High St. (purchase of a fridge-freezer & cooker to be precise) and there were varying viewpoints and experiences shared... it may or may not put my friends off shopping at this particular store but that wasn't the point, we were 'communicating' about experiences.

[Conan]

[quote name='warwickhunt' timestamp='1376472553' post='2174286']
Oddly all I see is folk discussing an event!
[/quote]

Me too. Of course, some people express themselves in rather odd ways... but then again that will happen down the pub, at work, on the terraces, on the High Street, etc as well.

The fact that the luthier in question makes basses that the vast majority of us would never be able to afford or justify kind of gives the situation a certain amount of distance. People can slag JC off safe in the knowledge that they will never have to personally interact with him - therefore they have no personal stake in the debate. That makes it slightly different to criticising, say, Fender or even Barefaced.

Some people just like an argument! Usually these people content themselves with bickering in off topic, but this time it has spilled over into the (usually) more sober gear forums... So it was never likely to end well!

[molan]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1376473541' post='2174308']

Some people just like an argument! Usually these people content themselves with bickering in off topic, but this time it has spilled over into the (usually) more sober gear forums... So it was never likely to end well!
[/quote]

I think this thread started out as people commenting on an event but it's definitely deteriorated as it's progressed.

There are most definitely some people on BC who like nothing more than an argument and provoking others. Strangely they are always right - even when other people disagree with them

[charic]

I actually think the thread is doing a good job of staying fairly objective. People are commenting on what has been said and shown rather than making sweeping generalisation. The problem is Jimmy didn't represent himself very well at all. He was doing much better in my books before he decided to comment. IMO just a targeted response covering each of the points raised would have been the way forward. It's good that he's agreed to refund but he even managed to turn that into a bad thing with the quip about the bass being "legendary" now so it'll sell for more.

I think the only thing we all need to remember here is that we're all posting our opinion of what has happened. My opinion of AC and particularly Jimmy has diminished significantly in all of this. I hope it all gets made right and maybe we see a more calmly thought out response from the luthier in the near future.

[pierreganseman]

This is interesting and is getting in the same vibe as it was on talkbass. People moaning and saying that it's a shame... that "no instrument carrying that price tag should be like this" that "no instrument is worth that much" that "why don't you buy a fender jazz bass , change every thing on it, after all it's the same woods, so its gonna sound the same", quite similar as the talkbass fashion "my SX is as good as your sadowsky" lol

Wether JC reacted in a good or bad way, i would not know. Still on talkbass thread people giving names, writting that the guy quote is "a full on jerk" and more, i know i would have reacted too. That he'll never have a single USD from them.

I am ready to bet more than 90% of people attacking him would have NEVER bought an Alleva- Copollo only cause fenders are better of course :-p . I can only say good things about those basses, I once was in contact with him, he answered professionally. If he's supposed to be a "full on jerk", what should be said about ken smith then? or Jeff Berlin?

If spending huge money on modifying a fender is some one's thing, or what ever really... great...

Alleva copollo has nothing to prove anymore as he managed to make one of the best "fender copy"

I agree the bass is maybe questionable quality / finishing , but I find that giving names to one of the best modern / old school luthier, when people would have probably never bought one of his basses for various reason. Get over it, go play what ever ....

Just leave the guy alone... this is not directed to any one in particular on this thread, just my personal opinion...