• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Has Gretsch been lying to us for over a decade?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taken from: Definition of FRAUD

fraud
noun

\ ˈfrȯd \

Definition of fraud


1a: DECEIT, TRICKERY specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right was accused of credit card fraud

b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK automobile insurance frauds

2a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud. also : one who defrauds : CHEAT


b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be :The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud.

It appears there is more than one definition for "Fraud". I know for me, with Lobsters 1st video, "Fender Lying" had more impact to me than the red "FRAUD" stamp. I find 'lying' is pretty specific and 'fraud' is much less specific. I try not to get wrapped around semantics. Great job Mr. Lobster, keep up the good work.
There are specific legal definitions of both fraud and libel, and both are notoriously hard to prove in a court of law because the aspect of intent is often hard to pinpoint without blatant hard evidence, like memos stating clear intent and knowledge and an understanding that deception would take place.

I'm not a lawyer and that's as far as I want to go in talking about all this because I don't want to pretend to be something I'm not; I'm just going by what I've seen happen to people I know. But the reality is that without facts on the table, all any of us are doing here is guessing, which is why it is upsetting to me that others in this thread want me to jump into the mob with my torch ablaze when I clearly do not have the facts required for me to feel comfortable doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doran.dragic
The problem is that it's hard to imagine that no one at FMIC has ever seen the bottom side of a neck pickup in one of these basses, and/or has never so much as plugged one in and checked it for hum. It's hard to imagine that no one at FMIC has ever known about this. So it follows that it is intentionally deceptive to continue to market this bass as having humbucking pickups, even if they didn't initially intend to deceive.

So the best case scenario is that the QC process for this line of production is astonishingly bad. A major defect was never found over ten years of production. But I think the most likely scenario is FMIC became aware of this somewhere along the line, and rather than just doing the right thing, a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis was made and the final decision was to do nothing. In other words, the conclusion was "they're selling with the product and the advertising as-is, just leave it."

I doubt that anything made in that factory ever passes through the USA facility. With FMIC most warranty claims are through authorized service centers so even those wouldn't come back. And then you have to figure that the service centers probably don't know all of the published specs so its easy for me to believe this could have went for awhile being unknown.

I don't know about the factory or executives or what happened to who but If they've been advertising humbuckers for 10 years but they are really single coils, something is wrong.

I mean 10 years is a lot of time to change your spec sheet, when you can do it without notice.

There is no proof at this point that it was all 10 years. That has been thrown around a lot including in the original video. No one has that information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hot Rats
I doubt that anything made in that factory ever passes through the USA facility. With FMIC most warranty claims are through authorized service centers so even those wouldn't come back. And then you have to figure that the service centers probably don't know all of the published specs so its easy for me to believe this could have went for awhile being unknown.



There is no proof at this point that it was all 10 years. That has been thrown around a lot including in the original video. No one has that information.
True. Just saying that if you change specs in the middle of the year, you probably have time to change the spec sheet the next year. Or the year after. Or the year after. Or........
 
Well, regardless of the issue at hand, I have to say - this is a fun bass and it sounds great. Especially through a Broughton Calamity. I like it so much, in fact, that I just ordered a fretted neck for my defretted Mustang PJ and it will be the ADGC bass. I haven't played rounds in ages and I'll definitely keep rounds on Gretsch.
 
There are three points to keep in mind with all this.

#1. Saying that because it was made in China by a subcontractor somehow clears Fender/Gretsch of responsibility is not an excuse.
#2. Even if Lobster's question to Fender/Gretsch was the dumbest question in the world, which it was not, it does not justify Fender/Gretsch's not responding to a customer's inquiry about a product.
#3. Arguing that, because it's a less expensive instrument, somehow the bar is lower for accurate representation of a product does not hold water.

The fact is, Fender/Gretsch are aware of the serious questions raised by Lobster's video (along with others expressing similar concerns) and I would hazard a guess that Fender/Gretsch and/or their marketing agencies regularly follow forums, especially those discussing their product, and particularly those calling one in particular into question. This makes their non-response/silence very disconcerting, especially to those who purchased the bass guitar in question, to say the least. And remember...

A corporation cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.
 
I think the villagers should put down the torches and take a couple of deep breaths .
But I’m surprised there has been no reply from Fender or Gretsch .

Surely somebody can say they goofed up .
I would guess that legal has told them not to say anything until they can gather the facts. With the torches and pitchforks already out, you know they're watching everything that's said here and they know that one careless comment from someone there that gets negatively interpreted is going to fire up the mob even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12BitSlab and COYS
I really don't see any apologists.
Check out the Gretsch forum thread. Or, maybe don't. :D

There's only a handful here who insist it's a Top Secret dual-coil humbucker cleverly disguised as a single-coil pickup.


This is not how reasonable people discuss things. Maybe it is in the age of social media, but it's not how I was taught conversations are conducted.
Social media didn't magically change human behavior in 2015. People have always acted this way, we just couldn't instantly read the quasi-anonymous opinions of millions of people in real time.

As a quick example, here's a thread about zealotry about operating systems on a tech web forum from 1999... wars of the words over OSs were already old hat by then:
Why is there so much zealotry amongst computer enthusiasts? - Ars Technica OpenForum

Or, read up on early US political history. The elections of 1796 and 1800 were very nasty, including claims that Jefferson was mixed-race and Adams was a hermaphrodite. 1828 was apparently worse, with Jackson attacked as an ill-mannered murderer married to a bigamist. Similar to social media today, many of the attackers were anonymously published.

I could go on, but.... I really don't know when the world had a Golden Age of Politesse.

That said, Lobster did select an inflammatory position in his video, and from what I can tell did not consider reasons other than fraud (e.g. a manufacturing mistake that sailed past QC). That's his choice, and it does not justify any of the ad hominem attacks. However, it seems that his framing contributed to the high temperature of the debate.
 
Everyone seems to be waiting on an electrical engineer/pick-up maker to take one of thesw apart and make an informed, professional, and technical description of what's going on with those pups. Once that's done, the attacks should stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldandbold
If email doesn't get a response, then I will reach out over social media. Companies tend to be more responsive there.

To do this the proper way, any complainants who have purchased the bass in question first need to send a complaint letter to Fender/Gretsch. Email and especially social media usually do not constitute verifiable means of communication to resolve an issue. If you have not done so already, do a screen grab of the manufacturer's website for the bass that shows the claim that the pups are humbucking. That could quietly disappear and it's good to have evidence.

The letter should explain the problem and outline how you wish the matter to be resolved. You could also consider leaving the door open for them to offer fair resolution. The complaint letter needs to be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

Be polite, reasonable and also patient. It may take time to wind its way through their organization.

If direct communication proves a non-starter, a formal complaint to your state's consumer protection agency, which is usually the Attorney General, is a viable next step. To find the appropriate contact for your locale, this will give you what you need. State Consumer Protection Offices | USAGov

Lobster et al have tried to resolve this amicably. If Fender/Gretsch wishes to ignore them, so be it. But they cannot ignore government consumer protection agencies and they do investigate consumer complaints. If those who have purchased this bass and feel misled persist, Fender/Gretsch will be obligated to address this one way or another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts