• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Beware Fodera's "certified pre-owned" web page and consignment deals

#81
Phil Smith said:
Yeah, we are in agreement on that, but why buy a used Yin Yang for 12,000 when you can get a new one for $9,000? To each their own.
Click to expand...

Because it was made from the same wood source and right along side Victor Wooten's identical bass - his current one, not his original yin yang. I'm guessing this is a collector who may or may not be a player, and I'm guessing he won't be playing this particular bass much, if at all, rather putting it in a weather proof sealed glass room somewhere until such time as the bass is worth what he figures its peak value is, at which time he'll probably sell it for a hefty profit.

Regardless, this isn't about the "value" of the bass, it's about the very real sale price of the bass and how 80% of that sale price was supposed to go to the original owner of the bass upon its sale. If the bass sold for $12000, then the original owner should get 80% of that sale price, not 80% of whatever Mike told him he sold it for.
 
#82
bradjonesbass said:
Because it was made from the same wood source and right along side Victor Wooten's identical bass - his current one, not his original yin yang. I'm guessing this is a collector who may or may not be a player, and I'm guessing he won't be playing this particular bass much, if at all, rather putting it in a weather proof sealed glass room somewhere until such time as the bass is worth what he figures its peak value is, at which time he'll probably sell it for a hefty profit.
Click to expand...

To me this doesn't really mean anything because Vic's current bass could sonically not be as good as the original or any other bass so the speculation here that leads to the leap in value is to me, well, a leap.

After you've dropped 12 large on the bass, I don't know where the hefty profit is going to come from as Vic's copy probably won't even sell for that.

Regardless, this isn't about the "value" of the bass, it's about the very real sale price of the bass and how 80% of that sale price was supposed to go to the original owner of the bass upon its sale. If the bass sold for $12000, then the original owner should get 80% of that sale price, not 80% of whatever Mike told him he sold it for.
Click to expand...

The very real sale price of the bass depends upon when it was sold and nobody but the seller knows that. But again when you agree to the amount, accept the money and cash the check the deal is done.
 
#83
Phil Smith said:
Yeah, but you weren't there so you don't know if it sold, got bought and then sold again as a lot can happen in weeks or even in a day. Moreover none of us have access to the written agreement if one indeed exists and so we don't know what the terms and conditions were. In most cases when you accept the money i.e. cash the check the deal is done with the implication that you agree with the terms and the conditions. This is especially true when you've received fair market value for the item.

And if you find you've been mislead as to value (hypothetically speaking of course)...? Still a done deal?

No. Do you disagree?


Yeah, we are in agreement on that, but why buy a used Yin Yang for 12,000 when you can get a new one for $9,000? To each their own.
Click to expand...


Why buy anything like this? Because you want it.
:D
Click to expand...
 
#86
Phil Smith said:
To me this doesn't really mean anything because Vic's current bass could sonically not be as good as the original or any other bass so the speculation here that leads to the leap in value is to me, well, a leap.
Click to expand...

They're called collectors. They pay money that most people wouldn't to collect things.

How much is a corn flake worth?
:smug:

After you've dropped 12 large on the bass, I don't know where the hefty profit is going to come from as Vic's copy probably won't even sell for that.
Click to expand...

And neither would this one sell for $12k, according to some conventional wisdom... yet it did.
:hiding:

The very real sale price of the bass depends upon when it was sold and nobody but the seller knows that. But again when you agree to the amount, accept the money and cash the check the deal is done.
Click to expand...

The seller doesn't even know when it was really sold:smug:. It was supposedly sold before it was advertised on the website, then sold again at a much higher price through the same people. I can see a potential problem there and apparently you don't.

He didn't appear to know it was being bought by the person who was handling the consignment. That's the problem.

The hypothesis that Mike didn't know the value until he was told by the mystery "first buyer" after that buyer paid $7800 and then asked him to sell it again seems like one heck of a stretch. Maybe it did happen.
 
#88
Phil Smith said:
Brad, we both know that one doesn't always get the full value of what something is worth, which is why you can make a nice profit on basses that you have bought which turn out to be worth more than what you paid for them. :D
Click to expand...

This is fun. Here's the problem with that... generally speaking, you're right. Now what does that have to do with a specific incident?
:D

How many times has someone said "I've never seen one go for that much BEFORE!"?

Never? Nope.
:cool:
 
#89
To me, this is not a money issue, rather, it's an issue of honesty and integrity and reputation. From the original post, if factually accurate, "Mike's" actions were dishonest, demonstrate a lack of integrity and damage the reputation of the Fodera name. For these reasons, the situation should be resolved promptly and fairly. JMO. ;)
 
#90
Hawaii Islander said:
To me, this is not a money issue, rather, it's an issue of honesty and integrity and reputation. From the original post, if factually accurate, "Mike's" actions were dishonest, demonstrate a lack of integrity and damage the reputation of the Fodera name. For these reasons, the situation should be resolved promptly and fairly. JMO. ;)
Click to expand...

There's always two sides of a story and we've only kinda of heard one, as they say the devil is in the details. :D
 
#94
Still we are only hearing your side, not "mikes" and certainly not Foderas, whose name is being defamed here.
My question is still, why didn't you do some research on what you had before you sold it? Did you ask Joey or Vinnie about your bass? I have and they tell me everything that there ito know about my basses, rarity, resale value and cost to make one like it today.
 
#96
CelinderMotoMan said:
Still we are only hearing your side, not "mikes" and certainly not Foderas, whose name is being defamed here.
My question is still, why didn't you do some research on what you had before you sold it? Did you ask Joey or Vinnie about your bass? I have and they tell me everything that there ito know about my basses, rarity, resale value and cost to make one like it today.
Click to expand...


Now you're assuming he didn't... despite the fact that he was selling his bass through them. Why?
 
#97
Brad Johnson said:
That's all it could represent at this point. That's why he didn't didn't take a hard position and allowed for the fact that we've only heard one side.
Click to expand...

My comments aren't directed at him per se but more so to the folks that are responding as if they know all there is to know about the situation. Personally I think one needs more information to determine what actually happened as there are too many IF's here.

And his (the OP's) name seems to be Robert Bates... that hardly seems anonymous.

:D
Click to expand...

This is the internet, you do know that right? :D
 
#98
You guys are missing the point. Really.

He was told that he would get 80% which was 6200 because "Mike" already had a buyer. The OP agreed to 80%. "Mike" puts on his capitalism jacket before the transaction is even finalized knowing the bass is worth more.

This "Mike" lied about the buyer and the 80% value.

Whether or not "Mike" just runs his own shop with Fodera, Fodera has this type of petty thievery associated with them now.

Yes, he stole the difference and lied to the OP. They had a verbal agreement for 80% of the sale price.

You guys need to get off your high horse. Really. This is a dirty way to do business. Period.
 
#99
CelinderMotoMan said:
Still we are only hearing your side, not "mikes" and certainly not Foderas, whose name is being defamed here.
My question is still, why didn't you do some research on what you had before you sold it? Did you ask Joey or Vinnie about your bass? I have and they tell me everything that there ito know about my basses, rarity, resale value and cost to make one like it today.
Click to expand...

My side is the only side I can give, right? So it doesn't make since to imply that it's somehow "suspicious" that I'm not telling you anyone else's side. And again, I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything. Whether or not you believe that my description of what happened is factual is, quite frankly, of no consequence to me. Keep in mind, I didn't post this here. That's not meant to be disrespectful, just truthful.

Research? The whole "boutique" thing was new to me. Maybe my viewpoint was simplistic or naive, but I didn't know there was anything unique about the history of the bass, and it didn't occur to me to ask the question, "Hey Joey, is there anything that any prospective buyer might consider an added collectbility factor about this bass that I should know about?"

I guess my question to you in response would be, when Fodera's records regarding my bass were reviewed by the guy handling the consignment when they received my bass, and he discovered that it was (in his words from the listing he created on their site after sending me a check) a "historic instrument" ... what does the fact that he kept that info close to his chest and chose to not share it with me, indicate to you about his intentions, and the level of integrity of those intentions? That's "ok" in your opinion?

I understand that some Fodera lovers/enthusiasts are inclined and compelled to argue in their defense in response to this. From a "3rd party" perspective, without having been directly involved & therefore directly aware of what happened, I might very well take a similar position, because I too had the highest admiration for them. It has been a major disappointment in that respect. And as for the artistry and excellence of their instruments, I still do feel that respect and high regard. But that's not what's at issue here.

Robert
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back