Fodera Essence.

[KJung]

I don't know; in my experience I think that in terms of sanding, varnishing, gluing, Fodera may not be up to the standards of some other builders, although I think if they used more gloss finishes instead of matte I may not think this way. In terms of the neck and fretwork and everything though, I've not played any other basses that come close. I'm sure others have, but IME, I've found that it is easier to get stupid low action with no buzz out of a Fodera than out of any other bass. I know that I will have loads of people chipping in now with my Stamborgh / Skold / Ken Smith / Celinder / ________________ (insert name of custom of choice here) has lower action than Fodera X, Y, Z that I tried, but... and flame away folks, there must be a reason why the Greys, Gwizdalas, Wootens, Garrisons, Jacksons, Popes etc. choose them apart from their NYC location, because believe me, they're not getting them for free.

Also, just to piss some people off doubly, I do think there is an elegance to their designs (well, except the AJ contrabass) that you don't see on a lot of other customs. Except MTDs.

Feel free to tell me I'm talking rubbish

My point was, they are excellent... similar to the other top of the line basses you mention. I have not seen any difference in playability or the ability to set a Fodera up with low action as any other very good bass. I have been disappointed with the set-up and fretwork that I've seen on some that come right from the shop, which resulted in my fretwork comment. However, a little bit of set-up work from a local luthier, and they were good to go, and surely play as well as anything else. I've never had a problem setting up a high quality bass to any action level I wanted.

And +1, most of the big name guys who play Fodera pay for them like most of the big name guys that play Sadowsky, Alleva, or whatever. However, obviously, this is not the case with the 'signature model' players, who I expect get free instruments in trade for the use of their name. Again, excellent marketing!

As far as the reason that the guys you mention play Fodera's, it's the same reason that others play other basses. They like them, they were able to try them given the NY location, and they fit their playing style, etc.

 

[Marlat]

Apparently I do. It depends on what one piece of wood is and what you do with it. A more skilled luthier most certainly can get more tops out of one piece of wood than a less skilled one. Did you know that? It's not merely physics.

You're either being facetious or don't understand the point. If you're just being facetious lets drop the subject. If you don't understand the point, let me know and I will explain it more clearly for you.

In terms of the point I was making overall, let me make it clear so that there is no further disagreement:

1. Part of the cost of an instrument is the cost of its parts.

2. The cost of individual parts will increase as the quality of the parts increases.

3. A person seeking to build an instrument with higher quality parts will pay more for those parts.

4. If Fodera is building instruments with what it perceives to be the highest quality parts, it is likely that the cost per unit of materials alone is higher than a builder who is using lesser quality parts.

5. If the costs of raw materials / parts is higher, then that will be a factor in pricing the overall instrument.

Now, that is the only point I am making. Let me know if you disagree with any of that.

 

[KJung]

Ken, bearing in mind that you and Brad are responding to my post (which was not in response to either of yours), let me start by asking a question of you. Can you please show me where in my post I gave you the impression that I was talking only about the increase rather than the absolute cost of the instrument?



No, and i've never said otherwise that I am aware of. But if you feel that I have, please do let me know where and I will explain what I meant to say. Maybe I mistyped. Here is a summary of the point I was making from earlier:



I thought you agreed with that. Maybe I was misreading you. If you were making the point about price increases then I am not sure why you were responding to my posts which were about the overall cost of the instrument. If I was responding to your posts, I would have quoted you, as you did me.

I enjoy the discussion. It seems we are all moving among various topics. I probably miscommunicated also. I am only talking about the massive current price that has increased to the point of these basses being almost double the cost of the other high end competition, and the fact that the Fodera brand seems to have taken about double or triple the price increases of most other brands. Given the three year wait, I'm attributing that (the increase in price) to good old supply and demand.

You points on why Fodera's have always been at the high price point in the market (although quite a bit closer to the other competition in past years) is obviously valid

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ken, bearing in mind that you and Brad are responding to my post (which was not in response to either of yours), let me start by asking a question of you. Can you please show me where in my post I gave you the impression that I was talking only about the increase rather than the absolute cost of the instrument?

I was responding to this because I didn't think it was a factor.

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.

You assumed no one considered this when in fact we didn't consider it to be of much importance in reference to this thread. There's a difference.

 

[Marlat]

the fact that the Fodera brand seems to have taken about double or triple the price increases of most other brands. Given the three year wait, I'm attributing that (the increase in price) to good old supply and demand

Of course, by that logic, Ken Benbense should be charging 3-4x the cost of a Fodera for his instruments!

 

[KJung]

Of course, by that logic, Ken Benbense should be charging 3-4x the cost of a Fodera for his instruments!

 

[Marlat]

I was responding to this because I didn't think it was a factor.

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.

You assumed no one considered this when in fact we didn't consider it to be of much importance in reference to this thread. There's a difference.

Perhaps by "we" you mean "I", unless you have some kind of mandate I am unaware of?

Otherwise, I agree I shouldn't have used the words "no one seems to consider" and replaced them with "no one in this thread has raised", as that was the relevant point. I don't know what you do and don't consider unless its written.

 

[Brad Johnson]

You're either being facetious or don't understand the point. If you're just being facetious lets drop the subject. If you don't understand the point, let me know and I will explain it more clearly for you.

I wasn't being facetious, I was trying to make you aware of something you weren't aware of.

If you'd like to take that attitude rather than understand the very cogent point I made, feel free to drop it.

Simple physics tell you what you can do with one piece of wood? Wrong. I gave an example of why you're mistaken. If you want to ignore that, fine.

If builder A charges X dollars for a top, and builder B charges Y for a top and builder B can get more tops out of the same piece of wood (yes, it can physically be done) than builder A can, do you not see how that would affect the costs of each builder? I do.

In terms of the point I was making overall, let me make it clear so that there is no further disagreement:

1. Part of the cost of an instrument is the cost of its parts.

In this case, a small part.

2. The cost of individual parts will increase as the quality of the parts increases.

This does not have to be an appreciable amount and as such can have a very minimal effect on overall cost.

3. A person seeking to build an instrument with higher quality parts will pay more for those parts.

And if they charge more, it can end up costing less on their bottom line... which is the point of the business, isn't it?

4. If Fodera is building instruments with what it perceives to be the highest quality parts, it is likely that the cost per unit of materials alone is higher than a builder who is using lesser quality parts.

And isolating those costs proves what? I seriously doubt that's a negotiating point when buying a bass.

5. If the costs of raw materials / parts is higher, then that will be a factor in pricing the overall instrument.

And if you charge more, you can make more.

Now, that is the only point I am making. Let me know if you disagree with any of that.

Let me know if your basic point wasn't that people weren't considering all of this... which is what I disagreed with. Most of these things have a negligible effect on what the buyer will pay. Do you disagree with that? If not, then do you see you're proving a negligible point?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Perhaps by "we" you mean "I", unless you have some kind of mandate I am unaware of?

Did you not mention Ken and I? Do Ken and I appear to be at odds on this point?

Now we're getting to this point.

Otherwise, I agree I shouldn't have used the words "no one seems to consider" and replaced them with "no one in this thread has raised", as that was the relevant point. I don't know what you do and don't consider unless its written.

Then try not to take me to task for what you wrote... I just went by your words. That's all I have to go on. I disagreed with them.

 

[Marlat]

I wasn't being facetious, I was trying to make you aware oif something you weren't aware of.

If you'd like to take that attitude rather than understand the very cogent point I made, feel free to drop it.

Simple physics tell you what you can do with one piece of wood? Wrong. I gave an example of why you're mistaken. If you want to ignore that, fine.

If builder A charges X dollars for a top, and builder B charges Y for a top and builder B can get more tops out of the same piece of wood (yes, it can physically be done) than builder A can, do you not see how that would affect the costs of each builder? I do.

Cool, you misunderstood my point. That's okay. Maybe I wasn't clear. I am aware that the same log can produce more than on top / venue / body blank etc. But, that's not what I was saying. The amount of tops / basses / pens / dashboards / whatever from a single log is finite. Once the wood in that log is gone. Its gone. The walnut piece that my MTD top came from also was used to make a top for Vic. However, now, that piece of wood is in two basses and no more tops can be made out of it. Given wood is a finite source, and some pieces are better than others, someone is always going to get "the best" piece. That piece may cost more than "the next best" piece. Do builders get wood of a similar quality? Sure. Do they get the same quality? Perhaps not - someone might always get the best piece. I hope that cleared it up for you.

In this case, a small part.

This does not have to be an appreciable amount and as such can have a very minimal effect on overall cost.

And if they charge more, it can end up costing less on their bottom line... which is the point of the business, isn't it?

And isolating those costs proves what? I seriously doubt that's a negotiating point when buying a bass.

And if you charge more, you can make more.

Let me know if your basic point wasn't that people weren't considering all of this... which is what I disagreed with. Most of these things have a negligible effect on what the buyer will pay. Do you disagree with that? If not, then do you see you're proving a negligible point?

Sorry, I asked you to show me where you disagreed and you didn't seem to disagree with anything I said?

 

[Marlat]

Did you not mention Ken and I? Do Ken and I appear to be at odds on this point?

Yes:

You points on why Fodera's have always been at the high price point in the market (although quite a bit closer to the other competition in past years) is obviously valid

Then try not to take me to task for what you wrote... I just went by your words. That's all I have to go on. I disagreed with them.

I'm taking you to task over what you wrote in response to me. There's a difference

 

[Brad Johnson]

Yes:





I'm taking you to task over what you wrote in response to me. There's a difference

I'd say nice try but it actually wasn't. Not for you.

"You assumed no one considered this when in fact we didn't consider it to be of much importance in reference to this thread. There's a difference".

Do Ken and I disagree on this or not?

 

[Marlat]

I'd say nice try but it actually wasn't. Not for you.

"You assumed no one considered this when in fact we didn't consider it to be of much importance in reference to this thread. There's a difference".

Do Ken and I disagree on this or not?

I'll let Ken speak for himself. I am sure if he's still interested in this thread and where its got to, he will jump in. Although I wouldn't hold my breath. He's usually above this sort of thing.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Cool, you misunderstood my point. That's okay. Maybe I wasn't clear.

Ya think?

I am aware that the same log can produce more than on top / venue / body blank etc. But, that's not what I was saying. The amount of tops / basses / pens / dashboards / whatever from a single log is finite.

Yet it obviously can vary from luthier to luthier. Do you disagree? If your point is AFTER the wood is used, that seems like an odd point to make at best.

Once the wood in that log is gone. Its gone. The walnut piece that my MTD top came from also was used to make a top for Vic. However, now, that piece of wood is in two basses and no more tops can be made out of it.

Yet in another luthier's hands it could've ended up as only one top. Or maybe three or four. All for the same cost for the wood to the luthier.

Given wood is a finite source, and some pieces are better than others, someone is always going to get "the best" piece.

This is assuming there is a "best" piece, which IME is one hell of a leap if you really understand the subject.

For example, back when my Spalted Maple Xtreme 5 was being built, Kevin's wood supplier showed him a lot of very nice Spalted Maple pieces. Kevin bought some of them but noticed some really crazy looking pieces in the wood guy's scrap pile.

So what was the best piece and how much do you think it cost? You're trying to oversimplify a mutifaceted situation.

That piece may cost more than "the next best" piece.

And per my example, it may not.

Do builders get wood of a similar quality? Sure. Do they get the same quality? Perhaps not - someone might always get the best piece. I hope that cleared it up for you.

You've made it clear that you don't really know much about this subject. No offense, just an observation. The esthetics of woods is a very subjective thing... that you're trying to make objective.

Sorry, I asked you to show me where you disagreed and you didn't seem to disagree with anything I said?

I've shown you a couple of times now:
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.

 

[KJung]

Well, one thing is for sure. The three of us love the dialectic!!!! Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think there is as much disagreement as it seems, just intertwining topics that have taken each of us down a slightly different logic path at one point or the other.

That being said, I've pretty much said everything I can think of saying on this one

I do enjoy the marketing and finance part of this though, and it's fun to noodle these issues, even though it probably causes a combination of consternation, amusement, and at points I'm sure, anger among the companies we often discuss

 

[Brad Johnson]

I'll let Ken speak for himself. I am sure if he's still interested in this thread and where its got to, he will jump in. Although I wouldn't hold my breath. He's usually above this sort of thing.

Above what? You've read his posts and you didn't get that impression?


You've made valid points about something that doesn't have much to do with the prices we're talking about in this thread.

 

[Marlat]

Brad, rather than respond point by point, as its obvious that this could go on forever if I let it, let me ask you a question. What will I need to say in my next post to satisfy you?

You disagreed with a very specific thing I said:

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.

Rather than just point out initially that you disagreed with it for the reasons you eventually gave, you went through a circuitous process to get there. That's fine. I have already said that the statement above was poorly worded. Is there anything else you need clarified to satisfy you, otherwise, feel free to take this to PM with me if you want to continue the point by point arguing so as not to bore the other users with more of this.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well, one thing is for sure. The three of us love the dialectic!!!! Nothing wrong with that.

maybe, maybe not. I seem to be rubbing Mark the wrong way now.

I don't think there is as much disagreement as it seems, just intertwining topics that have taken each of us down a slightly different logic path at one point or the other.

That being said, I've pretty much said everything I can think of saying on this one

I do enjoy the marketing and finance part of this though, and it's fun to noodle these issues, even though it probably causes a combination of consternation, amusement, and at points I'm sure, anger among the companies we often discuss

Here's my distilled version of this: It would seem that neither you nor I think that material costs is a driving force behind the price increases. It's supply and demand. Mark was saying that people didn't consider the costs of buying higher quality components and while he thinks that supply and demand is key, he apparently sees the material costs as relevant. You said other luthiers use higher quality stuff too, a point I don't disagree with.

 

[chris.gotfunk]

This has been a lot of fun to read. Thank you guys!!!!

I have to admit, you are all making great valid points. Might I add, I think this all is based on the fact that Fodera's prices seem to have skyrocketed at a higher rate than the other builders on that level (ie. Ken Smith, MTD....).
I too am a Fodera lover/previous owner and I ordered my Imperial 5 in Jan of 2004. I paid $5,200 for the bass seen here.

I will admit this. I was told by Anthony Wellington to just place my Fodera order to "lock in" the current prices because Fodera price increases can a be a little steep. So, with that knowledge in hand I sent them $1,000 to hold my order at the price I was given. So, it has been known for a while now that the price increases do occur and at a higher rate than most. For what reasons? We can only speculate!
Sorry, just thought I would add my .02.

Peace,
Chris

 

[Marlat]

maybe, maybe not. I seem to be rubbing Mark the wrong way now.

Nah, you're just boring me. There's a difference

Here's my distilled version of this: It would seem that neither you nor I think that material costs is a driving force behind the price increases. It's supply and demand. Mark who wasn't commenting specifically on the increases was saying that people didn't appear to consider the costs of buying higher quality components in manufacturing a higher cost instrument and while he thinks that supply and demand is key, he apparently sees the material costs as a relevant factor in the cost of an instrument. You said other luthiers use higher quality stuff too, a point I don't disagree with.

Actually I pretty much agree with all of that and, apart from my first post which I said was poorly worded, I have made a few changes to more accurately reflect what I was saying. Other than that, your summary looks good.