Fodera Essence.

[Brad Johnson]

Its interesting that no one seems to consider the fact that to make something at the very top level, means you have to reject a lot "sub-standard" stuff that might not make the top grade, but would be perfectly suitable for very high end. Now, I'm not saying that this defintely applies to Fodera, but more as a general observation.

For example it may be that for every suitable piece of body wood that Fodera will use in their guitars, they have to reject, on average, 20 or 30 blanks sent to them by their supplier. This process would be time comsuing and possibly expensive. Imagine that multiplied by every bit of their hardware and then consider every process in the manufacturing of the bass being exacted to those sort of tolerances. Any slip-up could mean a costly rebuild (using fresh parts).

The point being that it could be that Fodera have imperceptably high standards that, along with their reputation, drives up the price of their basses beyond other boutique basses. Maybe your bass is made out of the wood that Fodera rejects. If that's the case with my basses, that's fine with me. I love my basses. But for someone else, they might want the wood that Fodera accepts and to them, its worth the cost.

I can't see that happening with Fodera, especially with parts. I can't really see them getting substandard parts as anything close to a common occurence. It doesn't take long for suppliers to figure out what'll pass muster with a builder.

With other builders, like those who receive parts already finished, it would be even less of a factor. It doesn't take that long to see a finished part will or will not work.

I know that with Brubaker the picking of wood is an initial step and at some point most luthiers figure out how to do it.

 

[Marlat]

I can't see that happening with Fodera, especially with parts. I can't really see them getting substandard parts as anything close to a common occurence. It doesn't take long for suppliers to figure out what'll pass muster with a builder.

With other builders, like those who receive parts already finished, it would be even less of a factor. It doesn't take that long to see a finished part will or will not work.

I know that with Brubaker the picking of wood is an initial step and at some point most luthiers figure out how to do it.

Sure, but what I am saying is that picking the wood, for a top luthier, is perhaps a longer and more costly process than, for examples sake, Fender picking wood. The luthier has to spend time sourcing and picking blanks that meet its standards which are likely to be higher and more specific than someone buying in bulk with lower standards. That peice of ash that Fodera rejects may be in someone elses bass. The Fodera player is paying for that selection and rejection process.

I understand with parts that its less of an issue, but that doesnt mean that the tolerances wouldn't apply in the building process. For example, a poorly drilled / placed hole for an output jack might require a rebuild on a Fodera that would just be a "design feature" on another bass.

 

[cnltb]

. And as usual high price does not equal high performance.

Exactly.

As to the complexity of building process; I do know luthiers who charge more for instruments that involve more. Rightfully so, I think
.And yes, where ever people are willing to pay a lot for anything, they are, by default justifying the prices.
To quote myselve ; They charge what they can.
Nothing wrong with that. We all do it in our own fields of work.

As to "only top quality stuff", I think this goes for many luthiers who reject a lot of sub standard materials in order to facilitate their high quality instruments. That happens in the process of buying the materials in the first place if I'm not mistaken, so once purchased , materials tend to be used...correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[KJung]

Sure, but what I am saying is that picking the wood, for a top luthier, is perhaps a longer and more costly process than, for examples sake, Fender picking wood. The luthier has to spend time sourcing and picking blanks that meet its standards which are likely to be higher and more specific than someone buying in bulk with lower standards. That peice of ash that Fodera rejects may be in someone elses bass. The Fodera player is paying for that selection and rejection process.

I understand with parts that its less of an issue, but that doesnt mean that the tolerances wouldn't apply in the building process. For example, a poorly drilled / placed hole for an output jack might require a rebuild on a Fodera that would just be a "design feature" on another bass.

Of course, that would apply to every high end luthier who's price increases are a tiny fraction of the massive increases that Fodera has taken. Your hypothesis just doesn't hold water for me.

Again, just to be clear, Fodera is (IMO) GROSSLY undercharging for their instruments (given that even at the ridiculous prices they are charging, they have a three year waiting list). I would immediately add $1,000 to the cost of each bass. I'm not kidding!

This is a PURE supply and demand thing, brought on by making a great instrument (although no better in an absolute sense than many others IME), and being in the 'right place at the right time' (New York in the post fusion era that really cemented their reputation).

 

[Marlat]

Of course, that would apply to every high end luthier who's price increases are a tiny fraction of the massive increases that Fodera has taken. Your hypothesis just doesn't hold water for me.

Unless Fodera's tolerance standards are higher....

Again, just to be clear, Fodera is (IMO) GROSSLY undercharging for their instruments (given that even at the ridiculous prices they are charging, they have a three year waiting list). I would immediately add $1,000 to the cost of each bass. I'm not kidding!

This is a PURE supply and demand thing, brought on by making a great instrument (although no better in an absolute sense than many others IME), and being in the 'right place at the right time' (New York in the post fusion era that really cemented their reputation).

I have no doubt that most of the cost is supply and demand. That doesn't mean other factors can't be in play.

 

[KJung]

Unless Fodera's tolerance standards are higher....

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

And, from owning and playing many Fodera's, their tolerance standards are, at best, equal to other top of the line high end basses. Their fretwork... well.... not so much in general.

 

[Marlat]

Sorry, makes no sense to me.

And, from owning and playing many Fodera's, their tolerance standards are, at best, equal to other top of the line high end basses. Their fretwork... well.... not so much in general.

Makes no sense because their standards arn't higher or makes no sense for an economic point of view? I think its reasonably well established from an economic point of view that seeking higher standards of tolerance is a diminishing returns issue. The closer you try and get to "perfection" the more expensive each incremental step towards it costs. You want every bridge made for you to weigh the same within 0.01 of a gram. You can be that costs more than wanting briges with a weight tolerance of 1 gram. There is nothing that "makes no sense" about the economics of that.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Sure, but what I am saying is that picking the wood, for a top luthier, is perhaps a longer and more costly process than, for examples sake, Fender picking wood. The luthier has to spend time sourcing and picking blanks that meet its standards which are likely to be higher and more specific than someone buying in bulk with lower standards. That peice of ash that Fodera rejects may be in someone elses bass. The Fodera player is paying for that selection and rejection process.

And I'm saying that at this point I doubt that it's as time consuming as you think. I'm sure they have suppliers who know what kinds of woods they look for... unlike smaller builders.

Besides that, wood is not the major cost that many people think it is. At least not from the bassist's POV. It is, relatively speaking, to the luthier, much like other builders. And with some of the upcharges, I'd think they were compensated well. Wood with a story seems to cost more than wood without one.

I understand with parts that its less of an issue, but that doesnt mean that the tolerances wouldn't apply in the building process. For example, a poorly drilled / placed hole for an output jack might require a rebuild on a Fodera that would just be a "design feature" on another bass.

And who would be drilling that poorly drilled/spaced hole?


I have confidence that Fodera's pricing isn't based on boo boos.

 

[KJung]

Makes no sense because their standards arn't higher or makes no sense for an economic point of view? I think its reasonably well established from an economic point of view that seeking higher standards of tolerance is a diminishing returns issue. The closer you try and get to "perfection" the more expensive each incremental step towards it costs. You want every bridge made for you to weigh the same within 0.01 of a gram. You can be that costs more than wanting briges with a weight tolerance of 1 gram. There is nothing that "makes no sense" about the economics of that.

Makes no sense from an economic point of view. It would make sense if they were cranking out massive numbers of units, and the low tolerance/missing the spec was a part of their internal production process (like every once in a while the production line going wanky). Low tolerance rejections could add up in that case. Making a few basses a month... what do you think, that they have a dumpster full of 3/4 finished but rejected high grade Mahogany bodies every Friday

Also, your example of the bridge makes no sense either. Do you think Vinnie gets a box of bridges, throws half away, and then gladly pays the supplier for the entire box The supplier always pays up for a delivery not being in spec. Only if you mess up on raw materials once they are accepted would that cost subtract from your bottom line, and that situation would be rapidly fixed by any competent company (either by changing the process, training, or firing of the person causing the problem).

Back to business school for you

 

[Brad Johnson]

Makes no sense because their standards arn't higher or makes no sense for an economic point of view? I think its reasonably well established from an economic point of view that seeking higher standards of tolerance is a diminishing returns issue. The closer you try and get to "perfection" the more expensive each incremental step towards it costs. You want every bridge made for you to weigh the same within 0.01 of a gram. You can be that costs more than wanting briges with a weight tolerance of 1 gram. There is nothing that "makes no sense" about the economics of that.

When you talk of standards, you really need to look at other examples. As much as I like my Anthony Jackson Contrabass (purchased used), which at the time was a top of the line bass, when I first got it I was surprised by some of the wood choices, especially considering what it sold for originally.

I'd also be surprised if anyone checked bridge tolerances like that. Very surprised.

 

[Marlat]

And I'm saying that at this point I doubt that it's as time consuming as you think.

I'm sure its not that time consuming. Its just another factor in the cost of the instrument.

I'm sure they have suppliers who know what kinds of woods they look for... unlike smaller builders.

No doubt. And I am sure they pay for that service.

Besides that, wood is not the major cost that many people think it is. At least not from the bassist's POV. It is, relatively speaking, to the luthier, much like other builders. And with some of the upcharges, I'd think they were compensated well. Wood with a story seems to cost more than wood without one.

Sure.

And who would be drilling that poorly drilled/spaced hole?


I have confidence that Fodera's pricing isn't based on boo boos.

Yes, I have confidence that Fodera's pricing is in part, based on the experience of making boo boos and now knowing how to avoid them .

 

[cnltb]

It seems to be a mere "people want them" issue.
Many name players are associated with them. People want to ply whet their heroes play.
Not in the least do I mean to imply that they are not good usually though
I have seen as many good foderas as I've seen not so good ones. Just as with any other maker of a certain standart.

 

[Marlat]

Makes no sense from an economic point of view. It would make sense if they were cranking out massive numbers of units, and the low tolerance/missing the spec was a part of their internal production process (like every once in a while the production line going wanky). Low tolerance rejections could add up in that case. Making a few basses a month... what do you think, that they have a dumpster full of 3/4 finished but rejected high grade Mahogany bodies every Friday

Also, your example of the bridge makes no sense either. Do you think Vinnie gets a box of bridges, throws half away, and then gladly pays the supplier for the entire box The supplier always pays up for a delivery not being in spec. Only if you mess up on raw materials once they are accepted would that cost subtract from your bottom line, and that situation would be rapidly fixed by any competent company (either by changing the process, training, or firing of the person causing the problem).

Back to business school for you

I think you're completely misunderstanding my point. I am not assuming Fodera pays for stuff they don't want. However, at some point in the process, they need someone to, for example, make bridges to their specs or make electronic components (ie capacitors) or provide them with wood. If their specs are higher standard than, for example, wishbass, then they are likely to pay more per unit. If they want higher specs in the pickups, preamp etc, they are going to pay more per unit. They are paying for the manufacturer of high spec components to take the risk on cost / rejections. I wouldn't have thought this concept was so difficult to understand - even if I haven't been to business school

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm sure its not that time consuming. Its just another factor in the cost of the instrument.

No doubt. And I am sure they pay for that service.

It's not really a service, Mark. Wood suppliers want builders to buy their wood.

Sure.

Yes, I have confidence that Fodera's pricing is in part, based on the experience of making boo boos and now knowing how to avoid them .

Exactly.

 

[KJung]

I think you're completely misunderstanding my point. I am not assuming Fodera pays for stuff they don't want. However, at some point in the process, they need someone to, for example, make bridges to their specs or make electronic components (ie capacitors) or provide them with wood. If their specs are higher standard than, for example, wishbass, then they are likely to pay more per unit. If they want higher specs in the pickups, preamp etc, they are going to pay more per unit. I wouldn't have thought this concept was so difficult to understand

I totally understand what you are saying

 

[Marlat]

I totally understand what you are saying

Cool. It's not apparent from your response which focus' on Fodera rejecting things.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think you're completely misunderstanding my point. I am not assuming Fodera pays for stuff they don't want. However, at some point in the process, they need someone to, for example, make bridges to their specs or make electronic components (ie capacitors) or provide them with wood. If their specs are higher standard than, for example, wishbass, then they are likely to pay more per unit. If they want higher specs in the pickups, preamp etc, they are going to pay more per unit. They are paying for the manufacturer of high spec components to take the risk on cost / rejections. I wouldn't have thought this concept was so difficult to understand - even if I haven't been to business school

If your components cost more and you charge more... what's the difference?

I'd be interested in the cost of those capacitors, just for grins.


If you can upcharge $1k for a fingerboard...

And I'm not complaining, they can charge whatever they choose as far as I'm concerned. More power to them.

 

[Marlat]

It's not really a service, Mark. Wood suppliers want builders to buy their wood.

So, for example, you've got the XYZ wood co who supplies ash to Fender, Gibson and a few small boutique manufactures. Fender and Gibson could, no doubt, take most, if not all, the instrument grade ash that the wood co can provide. If Fodera wants the XYZ wood co to go through and select the suitable pieces up to their standards, before the bulk is sent to the big manufacturers, they wouldn't have to pay extra for that service?

 

[Marlat]

If your components cost more and you charge more... what's the difference?

I'd be interested in the cost of those capacitors, just for grins.


If you can upcharge $1k for a fingerboard...

And I'm not complaining, they can charge whatever they choose as far as I'm concerned. More power to them.

I'm not saying its the large part of the cost or that it justifies it (see my earlier quote about their cost mostly being supply / demand). I am just saying that if you want higher spec components, you are going to have to pay for them and therefore its a factor in the cost. If you chase the nth degree of high spec, you are going to pay more and more and all those costs add up.

 

[KJung]

Cool. It's not apparent from your response which focus' on Fodera rejecting things.

Tighter tolerance requirements for suppliers would obviously add to the base cost of an instrument (as would licensing the Pope preamp, etc.). It would not, however, explain massive price increases of those instruments year after year after year.

If they didn't have a three year waiting list, I am absolutely sure the price of those basses would be a fraction of what it is, and I'm also absolutely sure Vinnie would still be making a good margin.

Again, the key point a few of us are trying to communicate is, but definition, Fodera's are worth every penny to those who pay for them (or they wouldn't buy them). However, I see NOTHING in the hardware, design, and execution of these instruments that justifies that price on an absolute basis.

I also feel this way about the Sadowsky NYC's, but I own two because I love them. I realize I'm paying a thousand or so extra just because they are 'Sadowsky's. I think what is wild is that, with the Fodera's, you are now paying a FEW thousand more! Whew!

As I said before, as long as there are more people wanting them than Vinnie can make, up the price will go!!!

Edit: Just to be sure readers of this thread know, I'm a Fodera fan, but just love the marketing and business issues behind some of these great brands (so I tend to post in these types of threads). Sadowsky, Lakland, Fodera and Bergantino's business models interest me greatly, since brand positioning, pricing, and new product development are large parts of my 'day gig'.