hardware finish and paint complain

[Ian]

When you say them, you mean Musik Schmidt?

 

[Florin]

Yes. Music Schmidt

 

[Ian]

I'm about to order them a new bass, maybe I can deal with them about this situation.

Florin, since you're close to Warwick, do you think they will accept to redo the headstock with no charge ? After all it's not a defect, it's just aesthetics...

 

[ThirdthumB]

I guess I can take this for myself aswell :lol:

No, your's is reasonable. And Ian, you know how I love aesthetics... given what has happened to 2 of my prize possessions. I just think obsessing over the bridge surface is pointless.

I can and will only speak for myself. There's nothing wrong with a rough surface. However, the surface is not supposed to be rough. There is a likeliness that this aesthetical imperfection is caused by a non optimised production process, thus it's not just an aesthetical imperfection, but an imperfection of production. This is what makes this phenomenon interesting to me, and is worth mentioning. I'm also aware that very, very few people will be upset by it.

 

[Florin]

I'm about to order them a new bass, maybe I can deal with them about this situation.

Florin, since you're close to Warwick, do you think they will accept to redo the headstock with no charge ? After all it's not a defect, it's just aesthetics...

I cannot comment here, but I know one thing. A warwick dealer/distributor can make everything to keep the custommer happy. So it's more about them, than about Warwick ;-) If the distributor consider that you need a free replacement, then he will find a solution. In the end it's his call, more or less.
So as an advice... chose very good your dealers, especially when you order such an instrument.
And back to your question, yes, it is an aesthetics problem, but then again, that blue headstock is an aesthetic upgrade you paid for.

CHeers, Florin

 

[iuserneim]

let's not bash anghel !
i understand what he's talking about and he is right.

my first bass was a cheapo cort bass:
perfect hardware

my second bass was a cheapo yamaha:
perfect hardware

my third bass was a cheapo yamaha, too (but 5-strings):
perfect hardware, the bridge was massive, and had a black chrome finish, mirror-like !

i could go on.....

now, if it would be so cheap to make a bridge shiny, how come i bought not only an expensive shiny bridge for 200 euros, but also a wooden body, a maple neck, 1 pickup, ....

sure, warwick has better woods, but that's why they are so expensive, right ?

now, don't bash people because they try to call attention to something that should be done right ! especially, if this person did it in a FRIENDLY MANNER !



just think of this:
if it wouldn't have been anghel talking about the bridge, but a bass magazine, doing a review of an expensive warwick.
and the readers would take it for granted, since they read that magazine for years. and they really want to know what warwick is all about, since they heard good stuff about it.
AND THEN:
the review says: the bridge is rough.
the readers would be shocked, since even the price basses have shiny bridges.

i'm sure we all know what anghel is talking about, and now please, lets stop acting as if casting a bridge correctly would add that much to the price...


sure, warwick make beautiful sounding basses, and i have to say, they even look good. i would even say, that they make my favorite basses.

but that's not an excuse for making a rough bridge like anghel's, isn't it ?!

 

[Florin]

Yes, changing the bridges would make the basses pretty much more expensive, this is the truth. Some things are way more complicated that they seem from outside.
Nobody is excusing here. We are actually far from excusing, we are very proud of our instruments.
FYI, Yamahas are well known for the tuners losing their back caps. Even the expensive ones, like the top of the line trb 5P.