Not calling BS, but I'm calling something...

[pilotjones]

Binding is one of those things you'd think would add a huge cost to the manufacturer of an instrument... but it doesn't.

I was referring specifically to the cost of an individual person (the theoretical fraud perpetrator in this case) buying checkerboard binding nowadays, not to the cost for a manufacturer to purchase binding material in general.

Also, binding is a significant cost to a manufacturer, not for material reasons, but for labor. Even if the routing was done by CNC, the application and scraping down are done by hand, complicating the finishing process greatly. It also opens up huge areas for defects to be introduced, requiring further rework, or scrapping out if not repairable. For it to not be a significant cost would require extremely cheap labor. There's good reason why Leo Fender didn't do it when designing his cheap, easily manufacturable instruments. I suppose with the the incredibly cheap labor market in southeast Asia, it could be considered not to expensive.

 

[4IsEnough]

I was referring specifically to the cost of an individual person (the theoretical fraud perpetrator in this case) buying checkerboard binding nowadays, not to the cost for a manufacturer to purchase binding material in general.

Also, binding is a significant cost to a manufacturer, not for material reasons, but for labor. Even if the routing was done by CNC, the application and scraping down are done by hand, complicating the finishing process greatly. It also opens up huge areas for defects to be introduced, requiring further rework, or scrapping out if not repairable. For it to not be a significant cost would require extremely cheap labor. There's good reason why Leo Fender didn't do it when designing his cheap, easily manufacturable instruments. I suppose with the the incredibly cheap labor market in southeast Asia, it could be considered not to expensive.

A lot of it is routed, then "cast" into the route on the edge of the body now. Almost 0 cost or labor.