Recent experience with Zon Guitars (do your research before buying)

[TFunkadelic]

I went back and forth on making this thread for awhile and figured it'd be fair to post only after resolving the problem I was having with my Zon Sonus (for better or worse).

I bought this Sonus Custom 5 fretless brand new in 2009. I went to the shop planning to pick up an MTD but tried the Zon on a whim and to my tastes it just sounded played better. After that it quickly became my primary gigging bass.

About a year after purchase I noticed a very faint line had developed on the neck near the heel of the neck where it meets the neck pocket. I took pictures and emailed them to Zon and they got back to me claiming it was merely a cosmetic issue that sometimess occurred with age and that I could send the neck in to have it refinished if I wanted.
Since I was using the bass regularly for work I opted to just keep playing it and deal with the cosmetic flaw since it was not impacting playability. I put it out of my mind and nothing happened for years.

Fast forward to 2019 and I notice that this very faint line has grown longer and deeper. At this point, instead of appearing as only a surface discoloration (it started out as a very faint white line against the otherwise black finish), it was now an obvious hairline crack. Again, I took pictures and sent them to Zon. I got the same response back; that it was a cosmetic finish defect and would not impact playability or practical function of the instrument. Because the bass was now out of warranty I was told that refinishing the neck would cost me $375. I decided to keep playing the bass as it was and ignore the flaw. The crack didn't seem to worsen for some time after that.

It became obvious recently that this crack was not just a cosmetic finish issue, though, and ultimately became the reason for this post.

About three weeks ago I picked up the bass to practice and immediately noticed something was off; my eyes first went to the neck heel where I saw that the fingerboard had actually separated from the neck where the hairline crack had been for years. The fingerboard was raised about 3-4MM and the length of the crack had spread a bit further. This made the bass unplayable as a working instrument.

Once again I contacted Zon with updated pictures and description of the problem and I was told that refinishing the neck would cost $475. I wrote them back explaining the history of the problem, and that if I had known the problem was a structural one instead of a cosmetic one as they claimed that I would have sent it in for work while it was still under warranty. At this point I hoped that they would try to meet me in the middle, but instead was told that I would have to send the neck in to them before they could tell me how much it would cost to repair.

I felt very apprehensive about sending the neck to them for two reasons;

1 - I didn't trust them to finish the repair work in any kind of timely fashion. It doesn't seem uncommon for repairs to take 8-10 months to finish and I use the bass for work.

2 - I didn't trust them to be honest about the nature of the crack/ "cosmetic" problem, and thought it likely they would not honor the warranty in good faith based on our communications to that point. I didn't want them to hold the neck hostage for $475 (or more, depending on their repair quote) and end up stuck with no bass at all.


After talking it over with a some friends who work in guitar repair I decided to do the repair job myself. I cleaned out the debris in the crack with a razor blade and a very small pick, and blasted out the remaining dust with compressed air. I bought some high strength epoxy and mixed it in to a glue syringe that I used to inject the epoxy as far in to the crack as I could, and then I clamped it and let it sit for a few days. A week out from DIY repair at the time of this writing the bass is holding up well and seems to be "fixed." I didn't refinish the neck so the crack in the finish is still visible, but it is truly only cosmetic at this point and for me that's good enough.

Having said all that, here are my thoughts on my bass (and Zon as a company more generally).

- These instruments sound, look, and feel incredible. It is still, over a decade later, the best sounding bass I've ever played. I've travelled all over the country and over seas playing this bass and some of my best memories as a musician were made playing it. I wouldn't sell or trade it for something else.

- My experience dealing with Zon customer service left a lot to be desired. I can't prove that they lied about the nature of the cosmetic issue that turned out to be something more serious, but I do think they should have repaired the neck after it became obvious the problem was structural and not cosmetic. Looking at everything in hindsight, it really feels like they knew it might have been a structural problem but hoped it wouldn't become a problem *they* had to address until the bass was out of warranty.

I still love the bass and will continue to pay it and gig with it. If it didn't sound and play as good as it does that would be tough to do. It'd also be very tough for me to recommend a Zon to anyone who can't stomach the idea that they might end up in a situation like me, where a DIY repair to keep the bass working is the only acceptable solution.

*EDIT* PICTURE BELOW

 

[TFunkadelic]

 

[SleepyShark]

Not sure if you're aware, but there's a stickied thread on the whole Zon situation, I'll link it below. Best of luck in getting this resolved!

Zon basses - is everything OK ?

 

[mike buzzetti]

Ya thats NOT cosmetic unless ur a dog or somethin ???

 

[TFunkadelic]

Ya thats NOT cosmetic unless ur a dog or somethin ???

To be fair it didn't start out looking this way. That picture is showing the crack after it completely separated.

 

[Zooberwerx]

Is Jerry Dorsch still in business (Graphite Guitar Systems)? IME, this needs to be professionally addressed...I can understand the hesitancy to pursue via Zon.

Riis

 

[mike buzzetti]

post a PIX of the repaired neck please

 

[TFunkadelic]

Is Jerry Dorsch still in business (Graphite Guitar Systems)? IME, this needs to be professionally addressed...I can understand the hesitancy to pursue via Zon.

Riis

I asked around a bit and the concensus was that it was just a clean, glue (epoxy) and clamp job. Refinishing the neck to make the repair invisible would require a bit more than that, though.

 

[Joe Nerve]

I have a recurring nightmare that that happens to one of my basses. And it completely winds up falling apart. Sucks in a dream. Sucks worse in real life. I hope you get it resolved.

 

[TFunkadelic]

I have a recurring nightmare that that happens to one of my basses. And it completely winds up falling apart. Sucks in a dream. Sucks worse in real life. I hope you get it resolved.

It was actually a very easy repair (anyone even a little bit handy could do it in an afternoon) so even if your nightmare comes true its not the end of the world. I have resolved the issue to my satisfaction, it's just a bummer Zon wasn't more helpful.

 

[Dennis Kong]

Did you call Joe or his rep?
650 366 3516
He does much of my repair work for my Statii basses and I ve never had an issue.
His shop is an hour drive from my house.
He is very good about his repair work.

 

[TFunkadelic]

Did you call Joe or his rep?
650 366 3516
He does much of my repair work for my Statii basses and I ve never had an issue.
His shop is an hour drive from my house.
He is very good about his repair work.

I only spoke with them via email. I don't doubt for a second that he is a very capable technician and woodworker. My issue is more that they (in my estimation) misrepresented and minimized the initial problem, and then tried to charge me to repair the problem after it was clear they were wrong in their initial assessment(which again, should have been covered under warranty).

 

[Angus]

Do you have pictures of the initial hairline crack?

The reason why I ask is that that is a very common thing to happen (on both carbon fiber necked instruments like Zon, Modulus, Status, etc) or even painted wood-necked basses, and the vast majority of the time it is cosmetic. It settles, stays where it is, and nothing happens. Even without seeing the pictures from 2010, my suspicion is that that they genuinely did think it was cosmetic, because the vast majority of the time it is. Seeing the pictures from 2010 (or whenever the early pictures were) and 2019 would help.

But I wouldn't jump to misrepresentation or that they were trying to get out of making repairs. It is usually cosmetic and they did offer to repair it when it first happened. Besides, they didn't really get to assess it because all they had was a picture, so harder to hold them to that assessment. Maybe they would've felt differently if they had the instrument in their hands.

The other thing I'll say, and this can be frustrating to hear, is that the bass is 13 years old. It's going to need some maintenance from time to time, no different than a car. Usually that maintenance is minor, but every once in a while for some instruments it requires more extensive service. It's the nature of the beast. If you took your car under warranty to the dealership because you thought it was developing an issue, they offered to address it and you said no because of inconvenience, and then 12 years later that problem became worse, I think the service facility would be justified charge you for repairs to an out of warranty vehicle. They did offer initially.

Don't get me wrong- it sucks. I've had to completely refret two basses (not Zons) about a year after I got them and they were out of warranty. Been there and it was frustrating. Just trying to be objective to the situation.

 

[TFunkadelic]

Do you have pictures of the initial hairline crack?

The reason why I ask is that that is a very common thing to happen (on both carbon fiber necked instruments like Zon, Modulus, Status, etc) or even painted wood-necked basses, and the vast majority of the time it is cosmetic. It settles, stays where it is, and nothing happens. Even without seeing the pictures from 2010, my suspicion is that that they genuinely did think it was cosmetic, because the vast majority of the time it is. Seeing the pictures from 2010 (or whenever the early pictures were) and 2019 would help.

But I wouldn't jump to misrepresentation or that they were trying to get out of making repairs. It is usually cosmetic and they did offer to repair it when it first happened. Besides, they didn't really get to assess it because all they had was a picture, so harder to hold them to that assessment. Maybe they would've felt differently if they had the instrument in their hands.

The other thing I'll say, and this can be frustrating to hear, is that the bass is 13 years old. It's going to need some maintenance from time to time, no different than a car. Usually that maintenance is minor, but every once in a while for some instruments it requires more extensive service. It's the nature of the beast. If you took your car under warranty to the dealership because you thought it was developing an issue, they offered to address it and you said no because of inconvenience, and then 12 years later that problem became worse, I think the service facility would be justified charge you for repairs to an out of warranty vehicle. They did offer initially.

Don't get me wrong- it sucks. I've had to completely refret two basses (not Zons) about a year after I got them and they were out of warranty. Been there and it was frustrating. Just trying to be objective to the situation.

I'll try to dig up the old pictures later on when I'm back home.

But I disagree with your take on the situation for a few reasons;

First, and perhaps I wasn't clear on this in my initial post (apologies if that's the case), Zon never offered to repair the crack FOR FREE even when the bass was under warranty. They claimed from the very beginning that it was a cosmetic issue and as such was not covered by the warranty, but that I could send it to them for refinishing. Furthermore, Joe Zon claimed (via an email I still have) that he had never seen this issue on his basses. If it makes a difference, I'm happy to provide a screen capture of that email. As the crack progressed over time (and after I sent updated pictures of the developing problem), they maintained that it was entirely cosmetic.

Second, to your point about maintenance and the automotive analogy...I have several basses, some older, some newer than the Zon, including a 1991 Modulus Quantum. All of them have required maintenance, as you mentioned, but none of them due to what is clearly a manufacturing defect like my Zon had.

Lets take a closer look at the automotive analogy. When I initially contacted Zon with my concerns about the finish crack (and I was concerned mostly because it made me question the long term stability of the neck) they told me that there was no problem with the bass that would be covered by warranty. They told me that the problem was cosmetic and that I would have to pay for it if I wanted it corrected. They maintained that position even as I provided them with pictures of the crack worsening over time.

Say I buy a brand new car from Toyota and when I'm driving off the lot I notice a small crack in the paint on the A-pillar. I go right back to the service department and point it out to them, and they tell me "oh that's a cosmetic flaw. it happens all the time on the A-pillar. it's a little annoying but it's not structural, and it's not covered by warranty." The crack continues to spread so I bring it back again and they tell me, once again, that it's cosmetic and not structural, not covered by the warranty. So I keep driving the car and one day as I'm on the road doing 30mph the car suffers chassis failure causing an accident and is a total loss due to the damage. If I have documentation of the worsening problem as well as Toyota's persistent denial that it's a problem at all, isn't it clear why I'd take issue with Toyota's handling of the situation? In fact, I think there'd be a pretty strong case for negligence on Toyota's part, especially if anyone was hurt.

It's worth pointing out, when car manufacturers have problems like this (especially involving safety of vehicles), there are often class action lawsuits that allow affected customers to claim damages even if the vehicles in question are now out of warranty.

 

[Angus]

I'll try to dig up the old pictures later on when I'm back home.

But I disagree with your take on the situation for a few reasons;

First, and perhaps I wasn't clear on this in my initial post (apologies if that's the case), Zon never offered to repair the crack FOR FREE even when the bass was under warranty. They claimed from the very beginning that it was a cosmetic issue and as such was not covered by the warranty, but that I could send it to them for refinishing. Furthermore, Joe Zon claimed (via an email I still have) that he had never seen this issue on his basses. If it makes a difference, I'm happy to provide a screen capture of that email. As the crack progressed over time (and after I sent updated pictures of the developing problem), they maintained that it was entirely cosmetic.

Not covering it when it was under warranty- that part I agree, they should have evaluated it at that time, and if there had been an issue that was more than a cosmetic defect, they should have covered it. No argument there. Though they never got to evaluate it in person. Pictures (except in blatant situations) are never substitutes for in-person evaluations.

In the circumstances, given the very very high likelihood that it was cosmetic, I do not know how they could have made another conclusion. The only way as the crack was progressing would have been to have them see the bass in person. I absolutely believe that was their stance, and while I don't know their intent, I would completely believe that was a genuinely held belief and they were not trying to swindle you out of a repair. It is usually a cosmetic thing.

Second, to your point about maintenance and the automotive analogy...I have several basses, some older, some newer than the Zon, including a 1991 Modulus Quantum. All of them have required maintenance, as you mentioned, but none of them due to what is clearly a manufacturing defect like my Zon had.

This is the nature of probability. Most things require no/minimal maintenance, but cosmically some do. My SUV had a rare oil cooler failure that, in the end, cost me like $7500 to repair. Manufacturer defect? Maybe. But it's also almost 10 years old. It absolutely could be manufacturing defect, but it also could be how it was stored, moisture or heat/cold damage, etc etc. I'm not saying yours is that case, but to say "clearly a manufacturing defect" in 13 year old bass is probably too strong of a stance. Would you blame a glue defect if a portion of a wood fretboard warped after a decade? Some things will just need more maintenance than others as a consequence of things beyond manufacturing. Not a stance I would agree with within the first year, but hard to argue against (except in dramatic circumstances) after over a decade. That said, I still wouldn't expect the fingerboard adhesive to fail at this stage.

The history of the unrepaired cosmetic is absolutely related, but it is hard to tell if a) the hairline crack was the start of the fretboard warping or epoxy failing or b) if the hairline crack was a finish defect that allowed in moisture that resulted in (a) over time. Frustrating, because the neck near the heel is a common area for finish cracks (on any bass; I have a bunch with this), but it usually does not cause this problem.

I guess I've also seen cases with this fingerboard material (on Zons and other bassses) that warps over time, but never to this extent. Hard to tell from the picture if it is a problem intrinsic to the fingerboard or from the adhesive.

That said, if I were the manufacturer, when it was progressing over time, I would have asked to see the bass in person and see if a structural repair was required. If yes, I would've covered it. If no and out of warranty, most businesses would not cover that. But, if I had evaluated it in person, said it was cosmetic and then this happened, I absolutely would have covered the repair even out of warranty. Totally on your side in that case. Pictures would not count, but I personally would have insisted to see the bass in person as it got worse.

Lets take a closer look at the automotive analogy. When I initially contacted Zon with my concerns about the finish crack (and I was concerned mostly because it made me question the long term stability of the neck) they told me that there was no problem with the bass that would be covered by warranty. They told me that the problem was cosmetic and that I would have to pay for it if I wanted it corrected. They maintained that position even as I provided them with pictures of the crack worsening over time.

I certainly can't/won't defend that part. I would not have said the same. I would have maybe said the same if I had confirmed it was cosmetic in person, but that goes to my scenario above.

Say I buy a brand new car from Toyota and when I'm driving off the lot I notice a small crack in the paint on the A-pillar. I go right back to the service department and point it out to them, and they tell me "oh that's a cosmetic flaw. it happens all the time on the A-pillar. it's a little annoying but it's not structural, and it's not covered by warranty." The crack continues to spread so I bring it back again and they tell me, once again, that it's cosmetic and not structural, not covered by the warranty. So I keep driving the car and one day as I'm on the road doing 30mph the car suffers chassis failure causing an accident and is a total loss due to the damage. If I have documentation of the worsening problem as well as Toyota's persistent denial that it's a problem at all, isn't it clear why I'd take issue with Toyota's handling of the situation? In fact, I think there'd be a pretty strong case for negligence on Toyota's part, especially if anyone was hurt.

It's worth pointing out, when car manufacturers have problems like this (especially involving safety of vehicles), there are often class action lawsuits that allow affected customers to claim damages even if the vehicles in question are now out of warranty.

Not fully analogous. Your story would translate to "a year after I bought my Toyota, I took it back to the lot with a crack in the A-pillar"- there is no way they would cover the repair if it was cosmetic, but should if it was evaluated and deemed to be structural (no argument). No less, the story would not hold in court if you were sending pictures to Toyota but denying them the option to evaluate it in person (there would be appropriate arguments both ways). I know it isn't your point, but the class action scenario doesn't really apply because though this structural, it isn't a safety issue, so the levels of responsibility and consequence are not the same.

I do not want to make it seem like I'm defending Zon (I would have handled it differently) or that you are wrong to be upset- I would be too, especially with the chronology of the emails and the tone of the responses. I'd be super annoyed. I'm not trying to frustrate you further, I promise. But hindsight is 20/20 here. I'm just trying to point out that it was not necessarily malicious, and in other circumstances/arenas would be hard to expect a manufacturer to cover this. A really cool one would/should work with you on a solution (I would), but none are bound to it, sadly.

 

[TFunkadelic]

Not covering it when it was under warranty- that part I agree, they should have evaluated it at that time, and if there had been an issue that was more than a cosmetic defect, they should have covered it. No argument there. Though they never got to evaluate it in person. Pictures (except in blatant situations) are never substitutes for in-person evaluations.

They didn't ask to evaluate it in person. They asked for pictures, and then they said that they had never heard of that issue before (dubious, because a simple google search returns results on the topic).

In the circumstances, given the very very high likelihood that it was cosmetic, I do not know how they could have made another conclusion. The only way as the crack was progressing would have been to have them see the bass in person. I absolutely believe that was their stance, and while I don't know their intent, I would completely believe that was a genuinely held belief and they were not trying to swindle you out of a repair. It is usually a cosmetic thing.

Again, they denied that this was even an issue that they were aware of. I doubt that, because there are posts in this forum and others discussing this exact issue. They did not ask to inspect the bass in person.

This is the nature of probability. Most things require no/minimal maintenance, but cosmically some do. My SUV had a rare oil cooler failure that, in the end, cost me like $7500 to repair. Manufacturer defect? Maybe. But it's also almost 10 years old. It absolutely could be manufacturing defect, but it also could be how it was stored, moisture or heat/cold damage, etc etc. I'm not saying yours is that case, but to say "clearly a manufacturing defect" in 13 year old bass is probably too strong of a stance.

The beginning of the crack was noticeable very early on, when the bass was pretty much brand new, and progressed over time.

Would you blame a glue defect if a portion of a wood fretboard warped after a decade?

If that fretboard failed in a way that many other fretboards of the same model failed, and that failure had been demonstrated to be the result of faulty glue used in the manufacturing process, yes I would blame it on the manufacturer.

The history of the unrepaired cosmetic is absolutely related, but it is hard to tell if a) the hairline crack was the start of the fretboard warping or epoxy failing or b) if the hairline crack was a finish defect that allowed in moisture that resulted in (a) over time. Frustrating, because the neck near the heel is a common area for finish cracks (on any bass; I have a bunch with this), but it usually does not cause this problem.

All of those things you just listed are manufacturing defects that should be covered by warranty.

I certainly can't/won't defend that part. I would not have said the same. I would have maybe said the same if I had confirmed it was cosmetic in person, but that goes to my scenario above.

They didn't ask to see the bass in person. They asked to see pictures, which I sent at different points over time as the crack progressed.

Not fully analogous. Your story would translate to "a year after I bought my Toyota, I took it back to the lot with a crack in the A-pillar"- there is no way they would cover the repair if it was cosmetic, but should if it was evaluated and deemed to be structural (no argument). No less, the story would not hold in court if you were sending pictures to Toyota but denying them the option to evaluate it in person (there would be appropriate arguments both ways). I know it isn't your point, but the class action scenario doesn't really apply because though this structural, it isn't a safety issue, so the levels of responsibility and consequence are not the same. [/qoute]

They didn't ask to see the bass in person. They requested pictures, and even after assessing the problem over the course of years maintained it was only cosmetic. Funny enough, the first time they *have* asked to see the bass in person is now after it is out of warranty and in need of repair.

I do not want to make it seem like I'm defending Zon (I would have handled it differently) or that you are wrong to be upset- I would be too, especially with the chronology of the emails and the tone of the responses. I'd be super annoyed. I'm not trying to frustrate you further, I promise. But hindsight is 20/20 here. I'm just trying to point out that it was not necessarily malicious, and in other circumstances/arenas would be hard to expect a manufacturer to cover this.

For someone not trying to defend Zon you're going to some lengths to say they aren't necessarily being malicious when there's a lot of indication they are.

 

[Blueinred]

I agree with you, TFunk. If the bass didn't perform as well to your liking as it does you would have moved on by now. This "defect repair" stance by Zon is not a loyalty building stance and, therefore, not a good business model. You wouldn't buy another Zon (I'm assuming) if it didn't play and sound really good. The old adage that you "take care of your customers and they will take care of you" still holds true in the 21st century. It's good that you posted this here on TB and someone should alert Zon to come see what's being said about them by the very customer base they are seeking.

 

[Leif Dering]

Not the first time I've heard of stuff like this regarding Zon basses, at least it seems like you're repair has worked well (I'm not a master technician, but I do a good bit of work on guitars/basses and you did the right thing!) They seem like great instruments, it's a shame it turned out like this.

 

[India_Sierra]

It's really sad to hear another in unhappy Zon customer. They have had a PR disaster these past few years.

 

[prowla]

It's now stuck in my mind to research a brand before buying their kit.
I'm calling it the Zon-incentive...