Well then the question should not have been asked if too much was paid, read the thread!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Lets talk about 'Mint'
- Thread starter mr.mow
- Start date
Well then the question should not have been asked if too much was paid, read the thread!
Which is what I said in post #78. The bass is worth less than $2300 in the condition its shown assuming all the dates and numbers match (which hasn't been confirmed) And there are no neck issues that the fret job is hiding. If the numbers are a mismatch its just a pretty player worth about $1500 to $1800.
Overall it's better to slightly underrate your sale pieces, but this one wasn't even close.
You don't know if it was privately owned or not and for all we know a dealer could have leveled the frets because they were not true from the factory -- this is a 70s Fender. The seller built it up pretty good, but he left no question that it is not in "mint" condition.
Op, how about posting more photos. I would like to see clear photos of the pickguard because that would go a long way to showing how much actual play this bass has had.
I don't think anyone is debating the actual condition of the bass versus some of the description language. That should have been obvious from the start, before the OP put his money down.
I think the point being made is, and it pains me to say this, the OP let himself get burnt.
Now, onto the next step:
Regardless of the details of the item description, there are sellers in this world who don't want their instrument going to someone begrudgingly who has remorse, or is upset, unhappy, or angry over the transaction. Some sellers would rather just suck it up and accept a return with a full refund, re-list the item (with a bit more honesty in this case one hopes), and try to find a buyer who will be happy with the purchase. A sincere, diplomatic, respectful appeal, perhaps one that accepts partial blame for not interpreting the warning signs, is worth a shot.
Or, if OP likes and wants to keep the bass, you can make a similar appeal for a partial refund. OP and seller can come to an agreement on what percentage discount is appropriate to conclude the sale to everyone's satisfaction.
Short of either of those succeeding, there is also the possibility of OP's credit card fraud/security department getting involved. Then you are at the mercy of the judging powers that be on both sides of the issue (seller will have his version and protectors to contend with).
It's always unfortunate in a transaction when things are different than you thought they were in your mind; now the only thing to do is work it out and hopefully accept the consequences and move on.
Chef
In Memoriam
I agree. And I'd add that IMHO this is a very seasoned seller. They know just about how far they can go on claims without creating a situation where the buyer can legitimately and without question claim they were lied to. In this case they were on the ragged edge of misrepresentation of their product. If I were the buyer I'd be returning this one fast before that window closes.
FWIW - I've dealt with this company before and didn't have a problem but I read the ad carefully. Believe it or not, I did have an issue with Elderly's back in 2005 where I read their ad as "EC" and in reality it was EC- . When I bought a 1998 MIA precision from them I was appalled to see two one inch chunks of paint gone (all the way to bare wood) where the nitro finish had apparently stuck to a guitar stand. That wasn't my definition of a 7 year old guitar in excellent condition. In their defense, the ad was written something like "EC - 1998 Fender P Bass...". That little space between the EC and the dash makes a lot of difference in how you interpret the ad. They refunded my money but weren't too happy about my inability to correctly read their ad. I'd still buy from them again, its just important to read any ad very very carefully when buying sight unseen.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Oh come on. Never mind the bangs that chip the finish off to the bare wood, the neck has wear marks down to the bare wood - that, combined with the frets, would suggest a bass that has been played pretty heavily.
Actually it implies the neck was played. How much is hard to determine with the pictures shown. I'm not convinced this neck is original on this bass. The seller specifically notes they did not pull the neck or pups to confirm dates for fear of damaging the finish. That combined with other claims the seller made makes me go - hmmmm. I'd be returning it and looking for a better deal from a different seller.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
1. Played down to the bare wood in two spots at least - that's a LOT of playing, which means it ain't mint in any way.
2. If the neck isn't original, it sure isn't mint.
3. Wait - he's worried about "damaging the finish" if he removes the neck, yet it already has multiple chips though to the bare wood?
4. Again, the bass has at least normal wear and tear for a 40 year old instrument, and the covers are mint/new. I'll bet they were replaced.
This guy is full of @#$~~#@~@%#.
2. If the neck isn't original, it sure isn't mint.
3. Wait - he's worried about "damaging the finish" if he removes the neck, yet it already has multiple chips though to the bare wood?
4. Again, the bass has at least normal wear and tear for a 40 year old instrument, and the covers are mint/new. I'll bet they were replaced.
This guy is full of @#$~~#@~@%#.
"Ragged edge"? Disagree. Even the use of "near mint" for this instrument counts as a blatant lie. By the seller's logic, any vintage bass with most of its finish intact can be called "near mint", regardless of dings, scratches, fretwear. Sorry, but as many of us are saying, an instrument's condition cannot be exaggerated based on its age.
The seller did list some of the flaws so one could argue that this should have flagged the OP to investigate further, but the bottom line is that the seller misrepresented the instrument.
I'm glad I switched to 5 string and no longer lust after vintage Fenders!
reading that description, the reverb add claims the case candy is mint.
it calls the bass "conservatively near mint", seems accurate to me. they do call it a "100% collector grade condition" bass, which also seems accurate.
the only thing that claims the bass is mint is the reverb page specs and that might be the closest descriptor the website lets them list.
So what you're saying is the seller didn't accurately describe their product? If so, that's exactly what I'm saying. And in addition to saying that I'm also saying to the buyer, I'd be returning it for full refund. If what you do know looks suspicious then what about what you don't know? Why try working a reduced price with the seller, just return it and look for something that is what its supposed to be and from preferably a different seller.
"Conservatively near mint" means "at the very worst, it's near mint". It'd be very generous to even say it is "liberally near mint" because it is in fact not even close to "near mint" nor is it "100% collector grade"... whatever that means but it sure doesn't mean what's pictured, and with no proof of the hardware dates to boot which no "collector" would accept.
Even if it were "near mint" ... even if it were actually mint, it's grossly overpriced at their $3800 eBay pricing. The seller was looking for a rube, not a knowledgeable "collector".
See my post #111. This seller is slick and knows exactly how to position things in the ad so that they can't be easily taken to task on the accuracy of their claims. For those that haven't, read the ad very carefully and you'll see how it was written to imply and suggest one thing while simultaneously under emphasizing facts and details that show otherwise. Very slick, and usually the type of seller I try to avoid.
