Lets talk about 'Mint'

[DiabolusInMusic]

Well then, I guess I stand corrected.
An earlier post was claimed to be the ad and it clearly said near mint. If in fact the ad you saw said mint then it was clearly misrepresented.

A mint 1975 Fender P bass with the original case and case candy all in mint condition is probably worth $4000 right now. In the cosmetic condition that bass is in I'd say its worth about 30% less than mint, bringing it down to about $2800. But if you factor in some of the unknown issues around the frets and authenticity of the case candy and dealer honesty I'd take another 20% off of that bringing the final offer to around $2240. If the seller won't go below $2300 I'd send it back.

I would be shocked if somebody actually got 4k for a mid-70s P bass. I am sure many folks are asking it but not many are selling it.

Price quotes are for supporting members, but OP has wasted enough money on import and taxes. No way that thing fetches more than $2,500 USD even from a dealer to a "right buyer." You can find mid-to-late-70s Ps in actual excellent condition all day long for $1700ish. If it was a 1970 then it might be pushing the $2500-$3000 mark, but not for a 75.

 

[GBassNorth]

No it was listed on reverb as 'mint', I'm not misrepresenting it at all.. I did not purchase it through ebay. The seller is not an individual but a store (or claim to be)

Reverb has guidelines to conditions. As stated, I was aware it had some minor marks from long term storage and general handling. That is entirely different from ground frets and bare timber/through lacquer impacts.

There's no buyers remorse here, it's a great instrument.. But there is the sting of misrepresentation. I don't deal in vintage gear usually so I wasn't entirely sure if I was being unrealistic in my expectations.. From reading the feedback on here.. I'm not

Ok OP - what gives? Is the Reverb ad that King Biscuit posted the one you bought? If so, I'll stand by my original statement, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of what you and the seller claim.

Looks to me like the seller used a "grab your attention headline" claiming mint then went on in the description to list most of the issues and call it "near mint". That's not the kind of seller I like to do business with and the bass is clearly not mint, its EC- at best.

I'd return it and look for a more honest seller.

 

[electracoyote]

Ok OP - what gives? Is the Reverb ad that King Biscuit posted the one you bought? If so, I'll stand by my original statement, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of what you and the seller claim.

Looks to me like the seller used a "grab your attention headline" claiming mint then went on in the description to list most of the issues and call it "near mint". That's not the kind of seller I like to do business with and the bass is clearly not mint, its EC- at best.

I'd return it and look for a more honest seller.

It isn't "mint" and the seller tips his hand and makes that clear in his description. Instead of reading between the lines, buyer locked onto the word "mint" and got romanced. I hate to put a pall over this thread, but it will be very difficult to make a case for a return. Partial discount refund, maybe. It all depends on the ethics of the seller.

That being the case, the bass is now in the buyer's hands. It is in remarkable shape for its age. It is an impressive specimen.

How does it play and sound? I think you have to reach a point where, if you want to keep it, you can't let the remorse and "what if's" continue to spoil the fact you own a beautiful vintage player in great shape.

 

[mr.mow]

Reverb has a condition listing in addition to the description.. It was listed in the mint category..

Again, the description to me implies minor storage/handling marks.. Which I WOULD consider completely acceptable for a bass of this age.. that had as they stated (I'm paraphrasing here) 'say around unowned but had been picked up once or twice'.

Dings to the bare wood and scratches.. No.

Now if it were described as 'mint nos condition, never owned, sat in its case for 40 years so has been handled minimally'..

Oh wait it was..!

But it wasn't in the described condition, I'm not hanging on mint at all, mint with minor handling marks, yeah I get that completely.

But this is more 'lightly used', world of difference.

 

[GhettoBrassGuy]

They said in the description that it has *never been privately owned* and that is a blatant lie.

 

[StayLow]

Is it possible to get import tax refunded if the item is returned?

Not sure if it's been answered already. The answer is yes. You just send a note to the proper pigs with proof of what you paid and, ideally, proof you returned it.

 

[StayLow]

OP, it is silly not to have all of the information out there. Here is copy from the ebay ad (not my sale by the way, but a quick google search turned up the bass):

Naturally, this bass has existed for 39 years and while it is uncirculated, there are a few extremely faint signs that it has been pulled out of the case a time or two. When turned in the light there are a few very faint marks in the pick path and two or three light impressions in the back, smaller than the lead at the tip of a pencil. There is a 1" hairline spot of wear through the sunburst finish finish at the tail end of the belly contour on the back from rubbing against the interior case edge and a tiny mark near the rear strap button (both marks are clearly visible if you zoom in on photo #11). Otherwise, this is a stunningly clean and conservatively near mint example. In fact, we don't expect to ever see another this minty. It's a one in a million find!

[This invalid link has been removed]

Thanks. WOW, $3800!? Even if the description were accurate it should go for nowhere near that amount. It's a '75 not '65.

 

[Liam Wald]

No, you are not being too picky. Unless, of course, it is a "Road Worn" or "Relic" bass.
To me, "mint" means that it is essentially in brand new/showroom condition.
That bass is by no means mint in my opinion either.
They absolutely misrepresented the condition.
I would say the condition is "Fair+".

 

[StayLow]

At any rate, it is clear from the ad this is not a "mint" bass as it is being defined here. You can see blemishes in the photos, and the seller describes blemishes. The issue is not whether the OP was lied to about it being "mint," he wasn't. The ad copy even describes it as near mint, which it certainly is. I think there may be some buyers remorse here.

"Near mint" is a very generous stretching of the term. In fact, it's not at all "near mint". Look at the frets!

 

[bikeplate]

Mint in my brain means unplayed. Same as left the builder

 

[GBassNorth]

Funny thing is, I've seen brand new basses at Guitar Center hanging on the wall that have never been privately owned and only have storage and handling marks in worse condition than this bass (not considering the potential fret issues). So again, I wouldn't call the sellers ad a lie but I still wouldn't list the bass in mint condition.

I suppose its possible some music store took possession of this bass new and after a couple of years on display without sale it could have been used by the store as an in store trainer or student bass for lessons. Then you could still claim its NOS and any wear is just minor handling and storage wear. Still doesn't explain the fret concerns others have noted unless they had a real hack in their set up shop.

Regardless, because its not exactly as advertised or the advertising is conveniently misleading and the fact that nobody has popped the hood to confirm build dates (which I would not recommend the OP do) I'd just return it and look for a more honest seller.

 

[StayLow]

Can I ask from you guys.. Considering it is in excellent condition in general, is very light weigh, plays very nicely.

What WOULD you pay (and I'm asking real world here).

Thanks

Having bought and sold many mid-70's Fenders, I wouldn't go over $2k. Maybe $2500 if it's your ideal color & year and it plays like a dream.

 

[electracoyote]

When I read a description of a bass, I try to leave off the adjectives and get to the heart of the matter. I don't care about how many, or few, owners it has had. I'm not impressed by flowery language and subjective terminology like "mint" (in fact, that term makes me very leery). I'm reading between the lines and making my own determination about the instrument's condition.

Here are some of the seller's very telling phrases from his description, sans flowery adjectives:

"oxidizing of the metal"
"mark on the headstock edge"
"crackling of the pots"
"marks in the pick path"
"impressions in the back"
"wear through the sunburst finish at the tail end of the belly contour on the back"
"mark near the rear strap button"
"conservatively near-mint example" (what? He used "mint" three times prior. Again, I don't trust that word.)

Some of these flaws can be seen in the photos.

After reading and seeing that, anyone knows this is not a mint instrument. Anyone knows it has been more than "pulled out of the case a time or two."

It has obviously been played, bumped, and bruised.

Well, that would have been my conclusion anyway.

 

[king_biscuit]

Mint in my brain means unplayed. Same as left the builder

Did you read the ad for the bass? That is clearly not what was stated in the ad copy for the bass; the OP misstated the original ad and refused to link it here so that posters could make up their minds with all of the facts. The seller also mentions that he would take more photos upon request. Btw, for those stating this bass is beaten or in roadworn condition, I don't know what to say except, have have you ever seen a Fender Roadworn bass?

 

[GBassNorth]

When I read a description of a bass, I try to leave off the adjectives and get to the heart of the matter. I don't care about how many, or few, owners it has had. I'm not impressed by flowery language and subjective terminology like "mint" (in fact, that term makes me very leery). I'm reading between the lines and making my own determination about the instrument's condition.

Here are some of the seller's very telling phrases from his description, sans flowery adjectives:

"oxidizing of the metal"
"mark on the headstock edge"
"crackling of the pots"
"marks in the pick path"
"impressions in the back"
"wear through the sunburst finish at the tail end of the belly contour on the back"
"mark near the rear strap button"
"conservatively near-mint example" (what? He used "mint" three times prior. Again, I don't trust that word.)

Some of these flaws can be seen in the photos.

After reading and seeing that, anyone knows this is not a mint instrument. Anyone knows it has been more than "pulled out of the case a time or two."

It has obviously been played, bumped, and bruised.

Well, that would have been my conclusion anyway.

And that is exactly how one should go about buying a bass or a car or any other pre owned gear of significant value!

 

[mdogs]

Mid 70's P, no more than $2200 in my book, there is a 75/76 J in the classifieds for $1975, yes it has had a few issues. There is also a 69 J for $4350 (wish I still had the 69 I bought in high school for $400). I can't imagine any P from the 70's being worth anywhere close to $4K...

 

[king_biscuit]

Mid 70's P, no more than $2200 in my book, there is a 75/76 J in the classifieds for $1975, yes it has had a few issues. There is also a 69 J for $4350 (wish I still had the 69 I bought in high school for $400). I can't imagine any P from the 70's being worth anywhere close to $4K...

That's fine, but this thread is not about the fair market value of the bass.

 

[Spinal Tapper]

Mid 70's P, no more than $2200 in my book, there is a 75/76 J in the classifieds for $1975, yes it has had a few issues. There is also a 69 J for $4350 (wish I still had the 69 I bought in high school for $400). I can't imagine any P from the 70's being worth anywhere close to $4K...

Maybe a custom color, but OP payed almost $4k for a sunburst 75 Precision. I just hope the "mint" thing wasn't justification for it being a collectors item one day, because at the price he paid, it's gonna take a LONNNNGG time to get that dollar back. I mean, did you plan on ever even playing it?

OP, you have an out, I suppose, because it was listed as mint. But I'm filing this under severe buyer's remorse because IMO a 75 P in sunburst is about as common as they get and you now realize you spent about $2k too much.

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

Did you read the ad for the bass? That is clearly not what was stated in the ad copy for the bass; the OP misstated the original ad and refused to link it here so that posters could make up their minds with all of the facts. The seller also mentions that he would take more photos upon request. Btw, for those stating this bass is beaten or in roadworn condition, I don't know what to say except, have have you ever seen a Fender Roadworn bass?

Did you read the ad?

"This stunningly clean instrument has *never been privately owned* and was recently acquired from another dealer, complete with all of the original case candy and a near flawless hardshell case."

That is the second sentence. You mind telling us how a bass that was never privately owned managed to get the frets worn down and levelled? It certainly isn't the "100% original collector grade condition" mentioned in the first sentence either.

That bass could arguably be "very good," I think it is a stretch to call it anything better. The OP got burnt.

 

[quickfix]

Don't let them snow you. A 70 year old mandolin thats never been touched will have a somewhat faded finish and yellowed, perhaps shrunken celluloid trim and accoutrements. It can't possibly be described as mint, or even near mint, and in no way should be advertised as such.