Check out this $3000 "Fodera"!!

[Rickett Customs]

I guess we'll never know if it was or not built by said person. Nice going ebay police

 

[Marlat]

LOL at this thread.

+1

I guess we can never really know whether this was a Fodera or a Fauxdera.

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

"Now, if you are willing to accept a nod and a wink as proof enough in instances like this, that is your prerogative".

And the conditional was based on nothing I said. That's called "pointless" in most circles. This is no semantics games, your poor wording (or loic) is completely on you. But of course point the finger elsewhere.




Many luthiers' early work don't look like later models.



The bass he designed FOR LAKLAND? If you really think that has any bearing in this situation... wow. What company did Fodera build the ebay bass FOR?


BTW I didn't realize his name used to be Vinny pre-Fodera. Glad he started the company.



So your point is they AREN'T Tobiases?

You're really not very good at this.




But you are making the call. No one else. No conclusive proof and you've decided that even if he did build it, it's not a Fodera... unless he says it's a Fodera. And he hasn't said it isn't one.



Like I said... not very good at this. At all.



If you really don't care and you're going to refuse to look at this logically and objectively.. why are you even here?


People merely not thinking it was a Fodera weren't unreasonable. That clearly was not the issue I was addressing. If it stopped there things would've been fine. It didn't.

I have no dog in this race either. I stated what I'd hope would be some common sense observations (turns out they're seriously alternative thinking to many) about not jumping the gun with accusations. It happens frequently with people who for whatever reasons would rather leap then look.


It never worked for Wile E. Coyote. Maybe you guys are special.

Since logic, objectivism, and common sense are what you are seemingly seeking, let me keep it short and succinct: the bass was claimed to be a Fodera in the ad copy. The bass did not look like a Fodera of any stripe known. There was no proof that the claim was legitimate despite the conflicting eveidence of how the bass looked. Therefore, the logical, common sense approach is to deny the claim and assume it is false until such time that compelling proof is presented, as it was woefully lacking in the ad. This is under the assumption that one equates common sense with basic reasoning skills, as I do, so there is that bias in the conclusion and definition. If you so choose to respond, I'd ask that you argue against that simple four step course of action if your disagreement stands, as that is the pivot-point of my entire contention. Please be certain to explain why the burden of proof was not upon the seller, which runs directly against logic, so that I might repeat his approach.

As to your point about accusations and such, I won't deny that it has merit. However, the seller brought it upon himself by his own actions. There are endless liars, con artists, scammers, and thieves lurking in every corner of the internet, so when one has a somewhat incongruous claim, if they can't back it up, accusations are going to follow as a matter of course. Is it always fair? No, but when large wads of cash are involved, diligence is going to win out over courtesy, nature of the beast. None of this is new, so either the seller was ignorant, or malicious.

As an aside, my point with the mentions of Mr. Tobias was simply that I do not equate a luthier and brand in such a concrete manner as you appear to. A Tobias is a Tobias, an MTD is an MTD, something else by Mike Tobias is something else by Mike Tobias. Tobias is a brand, therefore I find it misleading to call something that is not of the Tobias brand a Tobias bass. A Fender is a Fender whether Leo is involved or not, and a Musicman or a G&L is not a Fender, but it is a bass designed/built/et cetera by Leo Fender. The same point stands with Fodera. Fodera the brand is separate from Fodera the man, and if one claims a bass to be a Fodera bass, it had better be a Fodera the brand bass, or there is some misleading going on. Built by Fodera is not the same as Fodera the brand.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Since logic, objectivism, and common sense are what you are seemingly seeking, let me keep it short and succinct: the bass was claimed to be a Fodera in the ad copy. The bass did not look like a Fodera of any stripe known. There was no proof that the claim was legitimate despite the conflicting eveidence of how the bass looked. Therefore, the logical, common sense approach is to deny the claim and assume it is false until such time that compelling proof is presented, as it was woefully lacking in the ad. This is under the assumption that one equates common sense with basic reasoning skills, as I do, so there is that bias in the conclusion and definition. If you so choose to respond, I'd ask that you argue against that simple four step course of action if your disagreement stands, as that is the pivot-point of my entire contention. Please be certain to explain why the burden of proof was not upon the seller, which runs directly against logic, so that I might repeat his approach.

I already did, apparently you've missed it the multiple times I've explained this. An early work by a luthier does not have to remble any of that luthier's other work to be an early work by that luthier. Period.

It was never "logical" to "assume" anything in this case... other than "assuming" you really don't know all the facts yet.

As to your point about accusations and such, I won't deny that it has merit. However, the seller brought it upon himself by his own actions. There are endless liars, con artists, scammers, and thieves lurking in every corner of the internet, so when one has a somewhat incongruous claim, if they can't back it up, accusations are going to follow as a matter of course. Is it always fair? No, but when large wads of cash are involved, diligence is going to win out over courtesy, nature of the beast. None of this is new, so either the seller was ignorant, or malicious.

The seller clearly wrote that he was checking on authenticity. The pitchforks and torches were already out by that time. Speaking of ignorance... well, I guess many think it only came from the seller's side. I'd disagree. Then again making a hard judgement knowing that you truly don't know all of the facts is probably way beyond ignorant. Ignorance does not have to go hand in hand with negativity.

As an aside, my point with the mentions of Mr. Tobias was simply that I do not equate a luthier and brand in such a concrete manner as you appear to. A Tobias is a Tobias, an MTD is an MTD, something else by Mike Tobias is something else by Mike Tobias. Tobias is a brand, therefore I find it misleading to call something that is not of the Tobias brand a Tobias bass. A Fender is a Fender whether Leo is involved or not, and a Musicman or a G&L is not a Fender, but it is a bass designed/built/et cetera by Leo Fender. The same point stands with Fodera. Fodera the brand is separate from Fodera the man, and if one claims a bass to be a Fodera bass, it had better be a Fodera the brand bass, or there is some misleading going on. Built by Fodera is not the same as Fodera the brand.

What you equate really doesn't determine reality. Your logic is that a bass built by Vinny Fodera before the company was established could not be called a Fodera. So what would it be called? And you say it could be called a Fodera if Vinnie says so. And Vinny hasn't "said" anything so far. Do you still not see the disconnect?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I guess we'll never know if it was or not built by said person. Nice going ebay police

Really. I saw 29 days left on the auction and the chance of someone jumping on that bass for $3k was most likely very low. Non-accusatory posted questions could've just as easily shown that there were questions about the bass as the negative ones.

Always assume guilt. I guess that makes the foot that much tastier later on.

 

[PhatBasstard]

While I do see Brad's point about jumping the gun (and I love to watch him work whether I agree with him or not ), I also see Smerf's point.

I'm not sure how different the overall reaction would have been, but I think the correct course of action (seller) would have been to list this bass as an "Early Vinnie Fodera built bass" or "Pre Fodera brand Vinnie Fodera bass" or something along those lines. I am in the camp of the man not necessarily equalling/being the "brand" as this bass was presented.

 

[Rickett Customs]

I'm not sure how different the overall reaction would have been, but I think the correct course of action (seller) would have been to list this bass as an "Early Vinnie Fodera built bass" or "Pre Fodera brand Vinnie Fodera bass" or something along those lines. I am in the camp of the man not necessarily equalling/being the "brand" as this bass was presented.

I'll play devil's advocate and say that although you may be correct, ultimately It's Vinny's option to say yea or nay, not anyone else's place to to do so. I know if it were me or my work, that's what i'd say about it........

 

[bongomania]

I'm sure somebody's asked Vinnie by now, right? I mean the Pontif showed up with a cryptic but amusing comment, so the line of communication is there...

Sure the auction is down, but it would be easy enough to ask him "did you ever make a P bass with a koa body and an ESP headstock, with no logo?" Come on now, I know there are people here who can easily call him and ask.

 

[Drucifer]

A Fender is a Fender whether Leo is involved or not, and a Musicman or a G&L is not a Fender, but it is a bass designed/built/et cetera by Leo Fender.

^^^^^^

 

[Rickett Customs]

I'm sure somebody's asked Vinnie by now, right?

The real question is would Vinny remember this bass, if he did make it?
Sounds like it's been a long time ago... i'm sure he's been through 1000's of basses

 

[Smurf-o-Deth]

I already did, apparently you've missed it the multiple times I've explained this. An early work by a luthier does not have to remble any of that luthier's other work to be an early work by that luthier. Period.

It was never "logical" to "assume" anything in this case... other than "assuming" you really don't know all the facts yet.



The seller clearly wrote that he was checking on authenticity. The pitchforks and torches were already out by that time. Speaking of ignorance... well, I guess many think it only came from the seller's side. I'd disagree. Then again making a hard judgement knowing that you truly don't know all of the facts is probably way beyond ignorant. Ignorance does not have to go hand in hand with negativity.



What you equate really doesn't determine reality. Your logic is that a bass built by Vinny Fodera before the company was established could not be called a Fodera. So what would it be called? And you say it could be called a Fodera if Vinnie says so. And Vinny hasn't "said" anything so far. Do you still not see the disconnect?

If I am following your line of thinking, then when someone makes a bold, irregular claim and cannot back it up, the proper response is "who knows? Maybe he's telling the truth," and if that is how you operate, that is fine and well, but do not attempt to pass that off as logic. That's called "benefit of the doubt," which is quite unrelated. If you want people to offer benefit of the doubt, say that; do not encourage objectivism and logic, which demand proof. "You all were a bit harsh and could have offered the seller benefit of the doubt long enough to verify his claims," is quite acceptable, and I can support that. However, passing off illogical methodology (accepting at face value a contentious claim with lack of proof) as logic is not something I can support. And, for the record, stating that early works can look nothing like modern works proves absolutely nothing. If that opens up your willingness to grant benefit of the doubt, excellent. But it is not proof. And, pointedly, if the seller could not prove his claim, the possibility of a scam outweighs the possibility of an unjust accusation--all it cost was a removed listing. If he can verify his claim, then he can relist it, and the issue is resolved. If it is unverifiable, why should he benefit from the claim? How is any of that illogical?

Also, it is no one but the seller's responsibility to provide the facts on the item. If he cannot, then we are left to conclude what we can with the given information. Yes, he mentioned he was seeking verification, which, again, proves nothing. If he can verify, he can relist, and I doubt anyone will have a problem with that, myself included. The verification, if there is to be any, should have been done before listing to avoid this sort of outcome. Please, elucidate me on the subject of ignorance as it pertains to that method of thinking.

Finally, what I equate, quite rightly, does not determine reality, and the same can be said in a reciprocal fashion to you. Your contention appears to be a Fodera is a Fodera is a Fodera, which ignores brand recognition, but is valid as a personal opinion. However, in the realm of selling, anything that strays from direct clarity in description is misleading, which preys upon the buyer. Therefore, assuming that a "mostly right" is good enough is unfair to the buyer, and will not hold up in a dispute over a misrepresented sale (especially through Paypal). There is no disconnection here. If Mr. Fodera says that bass is a Fodera, despite the fact that it looks nothing like a Fodera brand bass, who am I to argue? It's his company. If he considers it a prototype worthy of the Fodera brand, that's not my call to make. However, if he says he built it, but it is not part of the Fodera brand, that it is a "pre-Fodera," would you then argue with him that since he built it, it's a Fodera bass?

 

[Electra Player]

Was that really worth posting?



People talk about things on Talkbass... even things you don't think merit discussion.

BTW I have an MPC Outlaw with a couple of working modules. Nice bass.

Um, I don't know if that first part was sarcastic and or baiting, but I'm not here to argue with you, and you don't seem like that type at all.

Quite the opposite.

Anyhow:
Would you mind PM'ing me with some pics/details of your Outlaw? LOVE those!

 

[PhatBasstard]

I'll play devil's advocate and say that although you may be correct, ultimately It's Vinny's option to say yea or nay, not anyone else's place to to do so. I know if it were me or my work, that's what i'd say about it........

Well, no.
A "brand", whether matching the actual builder's "name" or something else, is something legally trademarked specific, and not always attributed to every piece that maker builds, but may also be attributed to something he doesn't currently build from a previously established trademark (Smerf's "Fender-Music Man-G&L" point being the perfect example).

This bass, as listed, was presented as if it was a Fodera brand bass, with all the preconceptions that go along with that brand name in the world of bass.

Whether Vinnie built it or not, if the legally trademarked "brand" had not been established yet, it may be a bass built by Vinnie Fodera, but it is not a "Fodera" brand bass as known.

On another point: the neck/headstock is obviously an ESP (probably a 400 series). If someone lists a car as a "Porsche", not as a car built or designed or work done by a Porsche mechanic or whatever, but shows a picture of an old Volkswagon Bug. Even if it has one of those nifty "Porsche" plate frames, I really don't need someone at Porsche to chime in for me to assume the seller is either out of his tree or full of s**t.

 

[thepontif]

The real question is would Vinny remember this bass, if he did make it?
Sounds like it's been a long time ago... i'm sure he's been through 1000's of basses

He'd certainly remember it if he built it if he saw it. No question whatsoever. I wish I'd seen the pics. If they were available Jason would have shown Vinny and that would have cleared it up. I could ask him, but Jason's right there in the shop...much less obtrusive for him to do it.

Honestly, if it was any weirder looking than a Spector or a Ken Smith BT (Vinny designed the BT bass) it probably wasn't a Vinny baby. Unless it was something specifically requested by a customer. Either way, the brand "Fodera" didn't exist until 1983 or 1984 (somewhere in there). If the bass predates that, it's no more a Fodera than a Ken Smith BT is a Fodera. Regardless of who made it.

 

[bongomania]

So it's unclear, is Jason asking Vinny, or can you page him or something? Again, even without pics, it was a completely Fender-styled P bass with a koa body and an ESP headstock, with no logo... pretty memorable IMO.

 

[thepontif]

Just talked to Joey. Without a picture he says he can't say for sure. There were a few "parts" basses they did very early on (before Fodera existed) but none of them were just straight out of the box parts. The bodies would have been modified to some extent.

Additionally, as Jason said, the Fodera bridge didn't come along until about '87. Original Foderas had the Schaller bridge. So that bridge (assuming it IS a Fodera bridge) would have been installed later. There was one bass they made that was a sort of modified P bass body, but it had a koa TOP and had the Fodera headstock and butterfly. It is serial number 0002 and is probably worth a lot of money.

If anyone can come up with a picture verification is a few clicks away. Might have been a better approach than abushing the seller.......
If it turns out to be legit through some bizarre combination of coincidences some people will have some crow to eat.

It's good with Frank's Red Hot........as is EVERYTHING.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Well, no.
A "brand", whether matching the actual builder's "name" or something else, is something legally trademarked specific, and not always attributed to every piece that maker builds, but may also be attributed to something he doesn't currently build from a previously established trademark (Smerf's "Fender-Music Man-G&L" point being the perfect example).

Ok, this was clear a few pages ago

What I mean by it is this, If I built something long, long ago, perhaps before there was even a company name. We all know this bass would pre date The company, Fodera this is now the common knowledge of this thread by now.
It's "who" actually built it is what i'm saying, not exactly how he has it advertised on ebay, somtimes people get the wrong idea, like the ebay listing, if I had $1 for each one daily, I'd be............. well you know...

Could it have been built by Vinny, we'll never know for sure, because He would know for sure. That's all...

 

[PhatBasstard]

Ok, this was clear a few pages ago

What I mean by it is this, If I built something long, long ago, perhaps before there was even a company name. We all know this bass would pre date The company, Fodera this is now the common knowledge of this thread by now.
It's "who" actually built it is what i'm saying, not exactly how he has it advertised on ebay, somtimes people get the wrong idea, like the ebay listing, if I had $1 for each one daily, I'd be............. well you know...

Could it have been built by Vinny, we'll never know for sure, because He would know for sure. That's all...

Going back, I may have misunderstood your point.

 

[PhatBasstard]

...if it was any weirder looking than a Spector...

EXCUSE ME! Are you saying Spectors are "weird" looking????

Either way, the brand "Fodera" didn't exist until 1983 or 1984 (somewhere in there). If the bass predates that, it's no more a Fodera than a Ken Smith BT is a Fodera. Regardless of who made it.

Which was the point that many were tring to say in light of how it was listed/presented.

It was a P-shaped body with a PJ setup. Bolt on ESP neck. Didn't look like any heavy mods at all except maybe the smallish metal control plate that was only big enough to accomodate the knobs. It did not cover any more of the body like a normal P-bass guard would. It was a nice looking bass as it was.

 

[WarriorJoe7]

Well brad and smurf... neither of you know all of the facts and both of you have taken different stances based on that. There is nothing wrong with this. Smurf is more conservative, and brad is more open-minded. There is room in this world for both views, eh? I mean the world isn't going to end if you 2 don't agree right? I can see which side I'd take but understand points on both sides. To me it's a mattadeer.