why are Foderas so expensive?

[Eublet]

There are those who will tell you a lesser priced bass is just as good, and to their ears it may sound that way; someone that knows the sound and playability of Fodera will never say it though.

I know the sound of many a Fodera, and I will say it. They are not better.

You are speaking from personal taste. I have a couple of basses that I prefer the sound and playability of over any Fodera I've ever touched. A few of them are much cheaper than a Fodera. That doesn't devalue Fodera at all. If you feel that way, that fine. But you saying something as if it's a universal fact of "people in the know", and it is not.

 

[Eric Perry]

I perused this thread, and in all honesty, have NO desire to digest the whole thing. If I may sprout my worthless opinion, however...

When you get into customs worth several thousand + dollars, there's really no difference in build quality. AND, as said several times before, sound is completely subjective. Some may choose an SX over a Fodera. With all that crap being said, I'd MUCH sooner choose a Roscoe, Nordstrand, or another Conklin over any Fodera, any day.

Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge... Same with Ritter. Overpriced. Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it. And for all you Victor peeps.... Wooten will make an SX sound AMAZING. If anyone doesn't buy that, then there's really no hope for you.

 

[basses55]

I'm sorry...I just love this little scene. I burp a chuckle everytime I get to drag it out ( only the second time !) Click it.

 

[Shelly]

It's not in your hands. It's in your hands AND your instrument AND your rig and the room your in, etc. etc. To say "it's in your hands" is an oversimplification, not to mention just another cliche that's thrown around too easily. In certain circumstances, I can understand its application. But when the statement stands alone without any context, it is blatantly false.

+1. If it were all just "in our hands", we'd all be fine with a Squire bass set up to taste. Good tone accounts for a lot.

 

[Brad Johnson]

It's not in your hands. It's in your hands AND your instrument AND your rig and the room your in, etc. etc. To say "it's in your hands" is an oversimplification, not to mention just another cliche that's thrown around too easily. In certain circumstances, I can understand its application. But when the statement stands alone without any context, it is blatantly false.

If you think about it, the statement wasn't made without context, was it? To then contend what you did with a complete disregard for that is blatantly something.

What differentiated me from the other players in the situation I mentioned was not the room, rig, instrument, etc. None of those changed. The ONLY thing that changed was the player.



Think about it. I found this very amusing:

"It's not in your hands. It's in your hands AND your instrument AND your rig and the room your in, etc. etc.".

You probably meant to say it's not ONLY in your hands, otherwise that sentence is nonsensical... and since I never said it's ONLY in your hands (even though in the scenario I laid out it was), what exactly are you disagreeing about?

Whenever this subject is broached, out jerk the knees in a particular direction.

 

[Brad Johnson]

+1. If it were all just "in our hands", we'd all be fine with a Squire bass set up to taste. Good tone accounts for a lot.

That would assume that everyone's development was the same, which is just plain silly.

Maybe it's a coincidence but most of the people I see balk at the contention always seem to insert absolutes in where they didn't exist. Maybe they haven't worked on developing their touch to the same degree. No doubt that will offend somebody.

And I am fine with a Squier bass... are you?

 

[Brad Johnson]

I perused this thread, and in all honesty, have NO desire to digest the whole thing. If I may sprout my worthless opinion, however...

When you get into customs worth several thousand + dollars, there's really no difference in build quality. AND, as said several times before, sound is completely subjective. Some may choose an SX over a Fodera. With all that crap being said, I'd MUCH sooner choose a Roscoe, Nordstrand, or another Conklin over any Fodera, any day.

There are very real differences... there is no generic quality mark that they all hit.

Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge... Same with Ritter. Overpriced. Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it. And for all you Victor peeps.... Wooten will make an SX sound AMAZING. If anyone doesn't buy that, then there's really no hope for you.

They aren't worth it to you. No problem. Then you extend that by telling others what it shouldn't be worth to them. Problem. You don't get to decide that for others.

And if people pay the price, how could it not be "worth it"? You have your proof right there.

 

[Eric Perry]

They aren't worth it to you. No problem. Then you extend that by telling others what it shouldn't be worth to them. Problem. You don't get to decide that for others.

At no point did I do that. Read what I typed again.

 

[Brad Johnson]

At no point did I do that. Read what I typed again.

If you insist:

"Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge".

To which I said:"They aren't worth it to you. No problem. ".

So that's not what you meant?

"Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it".

To which I replied: "Then you extend that by telling others what it shouldn't be worth to them".

Are you not posing a value proposition to others at this point?

 

[Silversorcerer]

It's not in your hands. It's in your hands AND your instrument AND your rig and the room your in, etc. etc. To say "it's in your hands" is an oversimplification, not to mention just another cliche that's thrown around too easily. In certain circumstances, I can understand its application. But when the statement stands alone without any context, it is blatantly false.

There's a great deal of control in the hands over the sound an instrument makes. But there is also a huge range of responsive variation from one instrument to another. My own experience playing and recording with a Fender P for 31 years is that most players will not exhaust the possibilities of an instrument that good. However there are some players who will take a direction that is eventually limited or even stifled by an instrument. I was able to get many different sounds from the Fender. But what I find is I can get all of those kinds of sounds more easily with my Ritters, and there are many new nuances of sound previously unavailable. Then there's the weight (the Ritters are lighter) and the neck feel is far more comfortable to me. I just don't get fatigued playing these basses. Even after a year I am still totally captivated with the sound. Of course I think the same kind of player instrument relationship that I have is probably what every player seeks when they look for a custom made. The technique is in your fingers. But there are just some basses where the technique requires less effort, the instrument responds quicker or better to different things. If you feel more relaxed playing, you are going to play better.

 

[justabass]

I still gotta say after reading all this...Your hands have more to do with "your" sound than any instrument or amp IMO. Proof? Search "Fodera" and "me" on Youtube...I agree the gear does come into play but how many gear snobs do we all know who's "sound" is less than one would expect from all that $$$ spent? Some musician's can learn better hands and some are born with them. Some will never ever get it. But at least they aren't playing guitar wink wink... Again....IMO
Oh yeah...far as the cost of a Fodera. How many do you see selling used for "bargain" prices? They are a great investment if you can afford it. Great resale!

 

[Eric Perry]

If you insist:

"Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge".

To which I said:"They aren't worth it to you. No problem. ".

So that's not what you meant?

"Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it".

To which I replied: "Then you extend that by telling others what it shouldn't be worth to them".

Are you not posing a value proposition to others at this point?

"Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it". That is a VERY general statement. I don't think a '50's Fender is worth the crazy money people pay. BUT, if someone pays it, it's worth it to THEM. Same with a Fodera, or a Ritter... Or even a Wishbass, if someone wants to pay what Steve charges. it's all relative.

With regard to my statement, It was also general, Brad.

 

[Lo end PUNCH]

Like so many luxury items, they are there for people to spend their money on. Are there basses that are made as well and sound as good? Arguably, yes. Are there cars that are as fast and drive as well as a farrari? Again, probably. However, if you buy them, you wont be able to say that you own a farrari or a fodera.

I have a fossil watch that tells time as well as a Rolex (I'm sure the rolex is more accurate, but you get the point). The difference in the thousands of $$ in the two watches is that one gives you the privelage of saying that you own a rolex.

This makes more since than almost any reply here, and I totally agree.

 

[Lo end PUNCH]

He didn't say they were the best bass. He said they have the "reputation" for being the best bass, which holds a lot of truth.

Well, so does Alembic, Sadowsky, Ken Smith, MTD etc. So it still makes his reply valid, there is no best, reputation or no.

 

[Flintc]

For someone stuck with Tobias and Carvin you sure are willing to bet a lot.

Well, I don't have any Carvins and probably never will. But the inaccuracy here seems pretty indicative of the poster. Nor am I "stuck" with anything. I'm pretty much able to get whatever sounds and feels right to me.

I claim (clearly, no evidence has been collected) that (1) People doing blindfold tests will be consistent in what they personally prefer; and (2) their consistent (and perfectly fine) preferences will have little correlation with price or reputation, beyond a certain point.

I'll make another empty claim here, that there's a price point above which ONLY taste matters. So as not to irritate Brad Johnson, I'll cheerfully admit that there are very expensive instruments out there with build issues or uninteresting sounds. And the converse is also true - there are some inexpensive basses that sound wonderful. But assuming solid experienced conscientious craftsmanship, the cost of the phyiscal parts (woods, pickups, preamps, etc.) has an effective maximum. Proper aging of woods seems well documented (and presumably conscientious craftsmanship will respect this).

Some name luthier (can't recall offhand) has said that any skilled luthier can make an excellent living selling his basses for $2500. Maybe a bit more for extremely rare woods whose purpose is glamour only. The super high dollar stuff relies on what the blindfolded tester can't see (the brand name). NOT on what he CAN feel and hear.

I have a fossil watch that tells time as well as a Rolex (I'm sure the rolex is more accurate, but you get the point). The difference in the thousands of $$ in the two watches is that one gives you the privelage of saying that you own a rolex.

If Rolex watches use quartz, same as Timex, they are just as accurate as Timex. If they don't use quartz, they are LESS accurate than Timex. And this is the point. Use excellent (properly dried and aged) woods, excellent construction, best hardware and electronics, and you have built as good a bass as can be built. The very best luthiers may have "Golden ears" and can rap their knuckles on a plank and decide it will or won't make a great sounding bass. But your taste may differ.

 

[Brad Johnson]

"Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it". That is a VERY general statement. I don't think a '50's Fender is worth the crazy money people pay. BUT, if someone pays it, it's worth it to THEM. Same with a Fodera, or a Ritter... Or even a Wishbass, if someone wants to pay what Steve charges. it's all relative.

With regard to my statement, It was also general, Brad.

So did you generally do it or not? I didn't say you told anyone specifically.


"Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge... Same with Ritter. Overpriced. Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it".

In context, it sure looks like you're saying that Foderas and Ritters are overpriced and then proceed to tell others that just because they're overpriced doesn't mean they're literally worth it.

That's the jist of what I generally got from these statements, in context. Not what you meant or not what you said?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well, I don't have any Carvins and probably never will. But the inaccuracy here seems pretty indicative of the poster. Nor am I "stuck" with anything. I'm pretty much able to get whatever sounds and feels right to me.

I claim (clearly, no evidence has been collected) that (1) People doing blindfold tests will be consistent in what they personally prefer; and (2) their consistent (and perfectly fine) preferences will have little correlation with price or reputation, beyond a certain point.

I'll make another empty claim here, that there's a price point above which ONLY taste matters. So as not to irritate Brad Johnson, I'll cheerfully admit that there are very expensive instruments out there with build issues or uninteresting sounds. And the converse is also true - there are some inexpensive basses that sound wonderful. But assuming solid experienced conscientious craftsmanship, the cost of the phyiscal parts (woods, pickups, preamps, etc.) has an effective maximum. Proper aging of woods seems well documented (and presumably conscientious craftsmanship will respect this).

Some name luthier (can't recall offhand) has said that any skilled luthier can make an excellent living selling his basses for $2500. Maybe a bit more for extremely rare woods whose purpose is glamour only. The super high dollar stuff relies on what the blindfolded tester can't see (the brand name). NOT on what he CAN feel and hear.

If Rolex watches use quartz, same as Timex, they are just as accurate as Timex. If they don't use quartz, they are LESS accurate than Timex. And this is the point. Use excellent (properly dried and aged) woods, excellent construction, best hardware and electronics, and you have built as good a bass as can be built. The very best luthiers may have "Golden ears" and can rap their knuckles on a plank and decide it will or won't make a great sounding bass. But your taste may differ.

Quite the contrary...

You haven't irritated me yet. The only thing you do is highlight what you believe. I see gigantic gaping holes in your logic and that seems to irritate YOU.
I haven't talked to you in a while and for some reason you brought me up.


So quartz is the most accurate way to build a watch?

Define excellent construction, excellent woods, hardware, electronics? What does that have to do with building as good a bass as can be built?

Would you consider paint a visual thing? How would you do a blindfold test on sunbursts? Do esthetics have no value?

Have you ever "felt" a difference in a bass while holding it? Do all necks feels the same.


What you apparently will never understand is that no matter how much you want to make this about laundry lists, thinking that as long as you check off every box an excellent bass will pop out, it's just plain naive. Some luthiers "get it" better than others. Most builders know that there is no particular level that can reached that will make people at that level equals. Everybody's got their something, there are a ton of intangibles and you simply don't want to deal with that fact.

And I'm still as far from irritated as you can imagine... in fact I'm LOL.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

The fact that $10/hr is closer to the truth only emphasizes the point - these people are undercharging for their work.

I definitely agree. I have to say that given the amount of time put into some basses that they are being sold at a bargain in the grand scheme of things. If I want my car worked on for an hour I'm going to be $80+ out of pocket just for labour.

 

[Silversorcerer]

So did you generally do it or not? I didn't say you told anyone specifically.


"Not to take ANYTHING away from Fodera, I simply don;t think they are worth the coin they charge... Same with Ritter. Overpriced. Remember kids, just cause someone charges an arm and a left nut, DOESN'T mean said item is literally worth it".

In context, it sure looks like you're saying that Foderas and Ritters are overpriced and then proceed to tell others that just because they're overpriced doesn't mean they're literally worth it.

That's the jist of what I generally got from these statements, in context. Not what you meant or not what you said?

I guess I would be arguing what the definition of overpriced is, but just as the devil's advocate: We've pretty much established that these makers are not getting filthy rich, that the work they do is extremely time consuming and labor intensive and requires a very high degree of skill and experience. We know the materials they use are the most expensive. The used market for the instruments indicates that the values hold up. $5500 for the only used Ritter I've ever seen for sale. Only about 10 or so new ones for sale at any one time, and they get snapped up before he can build 10 more. By those stats these basses are not overpriced. Just because most people wouldn't spend that doesn't matter. These are not most basses.

 

[Geoff St. Germaine]

So quartz is the most accurate way to build a watch?

Cesium will be more accurate.

I want 9 192 631 770 cycles on my watch to be the definition of 1 second.