I don't see how your instrument was historic regardless of what "Mike" said. This isn't the "Ying Yang" bass that was made along with the first one built. To me that would be historic. Again I'm probably missing something here.
Hey Phil. Yeah, I didn't call it "historic". The guy at Fodera did in the listing he posted on their site. You're right, mine wasn't made along with the very first Y/Y, but it was made along with the first one with the new 2006 specs (different woods ... walnut body, figured satinwood/ebony top, etc). But that's not the reason he labelled it "historic". He labelled it that way because it was made alongside Vic's '06, "from adjoining cuts of wood", etc.
Sure, the debate about whether or not that "really" made it "worth more" is interesting, but it really is totally irrelevant to the issue. Things don't have any intrisic value, right? Nothing does. The value of something is nothing more than what 1 or more people are willing to pay for it. For that reason, "value", in my opinion, is kind of an abstract concept, but a simple one. And this bass, when it actually sold to a buyer other than the agent who was supposed to be facilitating the consigment for me, did sell for over 12k. So evidently, we can be sure that atleast one guy felt the bass was worth that amount. Whether it was worth that by some definition or evaluation or other ... is a totally separation discussion. What is central to THIS discussion, is that what I was paid for it was about 50% of the selling price, rather than the agreed upon 80% - another very simple, straight-forward fact.
This kind of discussion really can go on indefinitely, so to avoid the "temptation" of jumping into the thread again, I'm not going to come back to it. I was just curious to check it out, when my friend from another forum told me about it. The issue is still not resolved, and I hope that one day soon I can come back here and let you guys know that Fodera opted to do the right thing.
Peace, Grace & Bass in yer Face,
Robert

