• 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.

Club Alleva-Coppolo (Part 21)

#161
#162
Vic said:
One last very general comment. I have MANY MANY years in customer service (global management at a previous company, everything from basic sales support to tech support/customer service and even deep technical training).

It's a FACT that when a scenario gets to where this one got, there is no chance for a graceful exit. The absolute best possible scenario... or rather, least negative... is to resolve the situation as quietly as possible and move on as fast as you can.

As has already been proven here since my last post, anything said will just encourage more irritation. "Anything you say can and will be used against you...."... there's a good reason that comment is in the Miranda Rights.
Click to expand...

All true. Anyone in the "people business" would do well to understand that concept.

I'll take it one step further....virtually anything posted on the internet will piss off someone, somewhere. If your livelihood depends on your reputation, it's probably best to STFU most of the time.

There, see? I bet I just irked a few hundred readers with my comments. lol
 
#163
smcd said:
No way. The heat required to do that kind of damage would kill the driver of the service truck.
Click to expand...

You're possibly referring to the glue on the fretboard, but that was just one of many, many problems with the bass, few of which could be heat-related.

I know nothing of bass finishes, so was just curious as I saw paint and glue problems. But the wood, yea different story.

On another note, It wasn't a good idea to send the bass out in that condition, nor was Jimmy's response classy, but the issue has been resolved. It shows the power of this forum. Everyone is human and makes mistakes, some big, some small. I vote to just lay the issue to rest and move on. Lets show our class now.
 
#164
Vic said:
One last very general comment. I have MANY MANY years in customer service (global management at a previous company, everything from basic sales support to tech support/customer service and even deep technical training).

It's a FACT that when a scenario gets to where this one got, there is no chance for a graceful exit. The absolute best possible scenario... or rather, least negative... is to resolve the situation as quietly as possible and move on as fast as you can.

As has already been proven here since my last post, anything said will just encourage more irritation. "Anything you say can and will be used against you...."... there's a good reason that comment is in the Miranda Rights.

Just trust me on this.

If you still choose to disagree with me, that's cool, but I think I've already been proven correct a few times here. :)
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. I don't see how you could be proven right (or wrong), I think the answer is unknowable. Not just "anything" was said, it was pretty close to the worst thing possible. If instead the answer was much better, the result very well may have been different. Or not.:)
 
#165
nukes_da_bass said:
I, for one, have ZERO expectations of rational behavior out of an artist or artisan- right brain creatives are seldom socially balanced people. Jimmy's post was bad, but its what i would have expected after people blew up his email and FB page, which was also poor behavior.
Addison is the winner- he was vindicated (or will be) by $5000.00.
Click to expand...

"artisan?" man, the dude is a jerk and a would-be swindler. let's call it what it is. he's not some lofty artist who's above decency. obviously people were right to blow up his email since he only did the right thing after being beat up a little. and he talked trash every step of the way. it doesn't matter if people are right or left brained, we are what we do, and no one gets a pass.
 
#166
All I want to say is that the now-closed thread and the lingering discussion on this thread is undoubtedly the MOST FUN I'VE HAD ON TB IN LONG TIME!![/QUOTE]

+1

But it does make me mad to see what was sent to the buyer with that price tag attached to it. That alone would eat me up inside, if I was the builder and let that go out of my shop with that many issues. Because this is what would happen. It would be put out for all to see on the web.
 
#167
I have refrained from saying this, but I just can't help myself.

I get the loyalty to Jimmy Coppola, especially for those who know him and/or have had successful transactions with him, but I ask two questions... If this bass was delivered to you after you laid down your hard-earned $5K, would it be acceptable with you? If you contacted JC with your concerns (especially in the manner that Addison did) and were responded to by JC the way Addison was, would it be acceptable with you?
 
#168
ddhm said:
Since there is so much question about photoshopping,
http://fotoforensics.com/
Supposedly, they can tell if something doctored.
I ran the photo in question (I think) through for your viewing pleasure. It's up to you to make sense outta the results.
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=98b197f4a375a6bfb47ce82b43520041efe4a8af.609601
Nope, I'm not a club member. I'm just one of the dregs that's looking at the aftermath. Perhaps this will shed some light?
Click to expand...
Ok, I really, REALLY want to move past this, but I'm actually kind of getting tired of the "photoshop" controversy being brought up. Frankly, it's ridiculous and the original insinuation was in fact pretty hurtful to me.

The pictures were in fact ALL "Photoshopped" but not in any way that would cause any deception.

The original high resolution images that I took with my camera were all imported into photoshop, resized to a much smaller size, the text was added to the lower right corner, and they were exported using the "Save for Web" function which mildly "auto balances" the color and sharpens them a bit, so they look better when viewed on a computer monitor, as opposed to being printed on paper.

That's it.

If anyone actually believes the absolutely INSANE notion that I somehow edited these photos to worsen the look of the bass somehow, they not only are giving me WAY more credit than I deserve as a designer, but I could easily provide a link to anyone to download the original unedited HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES that in fact show the poor construction in EVEN MORE DETAIL.

I'd rather not do this, however, since I'D REALLY like to get my refund and move on.

Second of all, I also have VIDEO documentation that was never shared with anyone that clearly shows the same exact construction issues that the photos do. Since it's video, it's certainly not as detailed as the photos are, but it's all there in full color.

And since I don't work at ILM (in my friggin' dreams), there's no way I could have faked that.

I hope that clears up a few things.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'm done with this. I will not be commenting on it again until the money is back on my card and I make one last update to the original thread telling everyone who cares that it is all officially OVER.

I'd ask that everyone else here please let the guys who love their A-C basses have their thread back.

They're real people with real basses that they love and they deserve to be able to talk about them without this being brought up over and over again.

Thanks.
 
#170
ricksy said:
Ill start out by saying I'm glad that Addison is getting refunded and things seem to be getting solved- that being said, I want to clarify the "photo doctoring" comment in Jimmy's post, as it was I that noticed and mentioned it to him- the point was never that it was photoshoped/doctored- nor did it pertain to the body. It was only to the fingerboard, and how, when you shoot flash closeup onto it it will always show imperfections beyond what the eye usually sees- just like paint swirls on a car, or lint on clothes.... What was meant to be expressed is that IF or IF NOT there was flaws on the board, it's probably not the fairest way to shoot the board. Natural light shows what you really see. Ill say again- I'm not saying he's lying, cheating, tweaking photos- from the photos it looks bad! But the way it was shot sure helps it to look that way. Here's and example of the exact same board with and without flash big difference! View attachment 355817View attachment 355818

Hopefully I explained that correctly- actually not looking for more fight- just want people to understand what was meant by that- as it seems it was kinda misunderstood-
Click to expand...

As a studio photographer of over 20 years, I need to chime in on this. The reason we photographers use diffused light sources (umbrellas, soft boxes, reflectors, etc.) is to hide imperfections. That's why facial imperfections look better when NOT shot with a straight on camera flash. Oftentimes in medical photography, in order to capture extreme detail, a ring light is mounted on the front of the lens in order to really expose details. With that said, I would hope a $5000+ instrument can hold up to a simple on-camera flash. I guarantee the glue marks would be visible with either type of light source. Same with the depressions in the finish. The imperfections on the headstock would probably still show up even if you underexposed the image by 2 stops.

Also, (let me toot my horn a bit) I am considered a master at retouching images in Photoshop by my peers and I can tell you with certainty in order to do what Jimmy is implying would require great technical skill. Not to say it can't be done, but just because you're a graphic designer with knowledge of Photoshop doesn't automatically endow you with the ability to accomplish these feats.

That's pretty weak to call someone out in public like that without any knowledge of what it takes to do that type of photo "doctoring". That's like saying "you have a CNC machine, you can build instruments."
 
#171
I've already given sympathy to Chris Addison, so I'll add it to those of you who own beautiful AC instruments. Most of you were rightfully shocked by the incident as well, as I would be if my favorite luthier behaved that way.

Folks here will move on soon enough. But the incident is truly stunning, so expect that to take a little while yet.
 
#172
IronLung1986 said:
"artisan?" man, the dude is a jerk and a would-be swindler. let's call it what it is. he's not some lofty artist who's above decency. obviously people were right to blow up his email since he only did the right thing after being beat up a little. and he talked trash every step of the way. it doesn't matter if people are right or left brained, we are what we do, and no one gets a pass.
Click to expand...

These sort of sentiments ignore the fact that Alleva Coppolo has put out hundreds of very high quality basses. As far as I know this is the first MAJOR issue I've seen with one of Jimmy's basses. When I played a couple of ACs I thought they were great basses? Flawless? Nope, they had some hallmarks of being hand built, but I see that as personality more than red flags.

This particular bass just had more flaws, and serious ones. Is Jimmy being honest when he says it played fine and he didn't see any of these flaws when he shipped it? Maybe, maybe not. Only he knows for sure. Perhaps he's right that in normal lighting they aren't as visible but under hi-res flash photography they are glaring. Or maybe he saw the flaws and sold the bass anyway. I don't know.

But people bombarding him with hate mail may have helped get a resolution but I'm quite sure it also contributed to the very defensive (and yes, unexcusable) tone that his response took.

At the end of the day, Addison got the refund he deserved, Jimmy took a public bashing and it's time to move on.
 
#174
Addison said:
Ok, I really, REALLY want to move past this, but I'm actually kind of getting tired of the "photoshop" controversy being brought up. Frankly, it's ridiculous and the original insinuation was in fact pretty hurtful to me.

The pictures were in fact ALL "Photoshopped" but not in any way that would cause any deception.

The original high resolution images that I took with my camera were all imported into photoshop, resized to a much smaller size, the text was added to the lower right corner, and they were exported using the "Save for Web" function which mildly "auto balances" the color and sharpens them a bit, so they look better when viewed on a computer monitor, as opposed to being printed on paper.

That's it.

If anyone actually believes the absolutely INSANE notion that I somehow edited these photos to worsen the look of the bass somehow, they not only are giving me WAY more credit than I deserve as a designer, but I could easily provide a link to anyone to download the original unedited HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES that in fact show the poor construction in EVEN MORE DETAIL.

I'd rather not do this, however, since I'D REALLY like to get my refund and move on.

Second of all, I also have VIDEO documentation that was never shared with anyone that clearly shows the same exact construction issues that the photos do. Since it's video, it's certainly not as detailed as the photos are, but it's all there in full color.

And since I don't work at ILM (in my friggin' dreams), there's no way I could have faked that.

I hope that clears up a few things.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'm done with this. I will not be commenting on it again until the money is back on my card and I make one last update to the original thread telling everyone who cares that it is all officially OVER.

I'd ask that everyone else here please let the guys who love their A-C basses have their thread back.

They're real people with real basses that they love and they deserve to be able to talk about them without this being brought up over and over again.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Addison, I for one, will honor your request and cease discussion of your situation.
 
#175
Addison said:
Ok, I really, REALLY want to move past this, but I'm actually kind of getting tired of the "photoshop" controversy being brought up. Frankly, it's ridiculous and the original insinuation was in fact pretty hurtful to me.

The pictures were in fact ALL "Photoshopped" but not in any way that would cause any deception.

The original high resolution images that I took with my camera were all imported into photoshop, resized to a much smaller size, the text was added to the lower right corner, and they were exported using the "Save for Web" function which mildly "auto balances" the color and sharpens them a bit, so they look better when viewed on a computer monitor, as opposed to being printed on paper.

That's it.

If anyone actually believes the absolutely INSANE notion that I somehow edited these photos to worsen the look of the bass somehow, they not only are giving me WAY more credit than I deserve as a designer, but I could easily provide a link to anyone to download the original unedited HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES that in fact show the poor construction in EVEN MORE DETAIL.

I'd rather not do this, however, since I'D REALLY like to get my refund and move on.

Second of all, I also have VIDEO documentation that was never shared with anyone that clearly shows the same exact construction issues that the photos do. Since it's video, it's certainly not as detailed as the photos are, but it's all there in full color.

And since I don't work at ILM (in my friggin' dreams), there's no way I could have faked that.

I hope that clears up a few things.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'm done with this. I will not be commenting on it again until the money is back on my card and I make one last update to the original thread telling everyone who cares that it is all officially OVER.

I'd ask that everyone else here please let the guys who love their A-C basses have their thread back.

They're real people with real basses that they love and they deserve to be able to talk about them without this being brought up over and over again.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hey Addison,

First and foremost, I'm sooooooooo happy for you to have the situation resolved (almost anyways). Good on you for bringing all of this out and I'm very sorry that you had to go through that. At least you got through it without your dreams totally crushed... as in no bass and no $.

Second, I was trying to disprove any suggestions that you edited the photos for your own advantage. It would seem VERY silly for you to order your dream bass and then photoshop an excuse to return it. Just what? Really? Why on Earth would anyone ever do that?

I hope I didn't inadvertently throw salt in a wound. It was certainly not my intention. I wish you the best of luck in your next purchase and everything else.

Lastly, I suppose I should apologize to the thread, A.C. owners and Jimmy himself for even posting in here. Sorry guys. Genuinely sorry. I'm not trying to swat the hornet's nest here. I should have thought about that before I posted.

Be good,
Dan
 
#176
awilkie84 said:
Other than the play dings, that's pretty. That 1st knob being so close to the pickguard is setting off my OCD, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the whole knob arrangement and lack of control plate has been off'n discussed here. A long time ago, I even suggested a simple change to the guard where that angular cut was simply rounded to make it look like it sorta' "fit" the knob better... making it look more deliberate/intended... but since then, I've gotten used to the look... kinda' like the headstock... you just get used to it. Further, mine doesn't have a guard on it, so I really never think about it anymore.

Anyway, just a bit of background, FWIW.
 
#177
vision said:
Just a quick note on the price - a typical AC doesn't cost that much. That model had exotic woods which are a pretty big upgrade cost for AC's. But you can get a 5 string jazz (LM5, LG5) from AC for around the same base cost as other boutique jazz builders (mid 3k range).
Click to expand...

Good deal! I do think it is crazy for a builder to bump the price by that much for a spalted alder body, though. To me that is far from exotic. IMO only! And from experiance in buying woods to build basses. I know how much that stuff costs.

Also I know I mentioned I do not see spending that much for a bass but who knows if money was no object, then I am sure I would have my Wal dream bass built!
 
#178
vision said:
Just a quick note on the price - a typical AC doesn't cost that much. That model had exotic woods which are a pretty big upgrade cost for AC's. But you can get a 5 string jazz (LM5, LG5) from AC for around the same base cost as other boutique jazz builders (mid 3k range).
Click to expand...
thebassbuilder said:
Good deal! I do think it is crazy for a builder to bump the price by that much for a spalted alder body, though. To me that is far from exotic. IMO only! And from experiance in buying woods to build basses. I know how much that stuff costs.

Also I know I mentioned I do not see spending that much for a bass but who knows if money was no object, then I am sure I would have my Wal dream bass built!
Click to expand...
There are two reasons I went with the standard model that I did, and one was the price for upgrades... the other was it'd kinda' defeat my purpose of getting a model that epitomized Jimmy's core design goals... for faithfully replicating a fairly specific Jazz bass genre experience. I couldn't be any happier with how mine came out. Even if money were no object today, if I were to spec an AC at this point, I'd do the same thing again.

Carried further, I have a J5 from another builder that is probably my most often played specific bass at this point, and it (also) couldn't be more basic in config.

Just because you're looking at a high end instrument, doesn't mean you have to necessarily also go down the expensive window dressing route. Keep in mind the most important stuff goes into stuff you don't really see visually, like careful wood blank selection, tone, playability, etc.

FWIW.
 
#179
Vic said:
Yeah, the whole knob arrangement and lack of control plate has been off'n discussed here. A long time ago, I even suggested a simple change to the guard where that angular cut was simply rounded to make it look like it sorta' "fit" the knob better... making it look more deliberate/intended... but since then, I've gotten used to the look... kinda' like the headstock... you just get used to it. Further, mine doesn't have a guard on it, so I really never think about it anymore.

Anyway, just a bit of background, FWIW.
Click to expand...

I think even just shifting the knob down 1/4" would do my mind justice. lol The knobs are so well spaced and then there's no gab between the guard and 1st knob. As I said before...just my OCD, though. :D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back