Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Instruments' started by donbroco84, Apr 20, 2019.
Ok, sorry! No prob !
Exactly, the adjustable stuff that they can deal with by turning screws. Anything having to do with finish and carpentry is totally out of their control. If the factory ships it to them they just take it that it's A-OK apart from possible damage in transit.
There's a 2019 review on YT. The inlays appear to be the same as the OP's guitar.
Is it this one?
I agree that when we pay less we should expect less; it's just how we go about calibrating our expectations. The reason I mentioned the perfectly finished <$400 Epiphones was to show that it's not necessarily about the price point. The main thing though is that there's a remedy.
Maybe the only issues that are flagged with SE's are more to do with the playability and sound, not necessarily an 'aesthetic' that has no impact on it as an instrument. I don't know what the criteria, the staff that PRS employ to check each and every SE as they state, are actually allowing to hit the market. Things like a slight gap in the 'recessed' back plate (considering some very high end instruments don't offer recessed panels) or the position of the birds in the fret spacing (assuming the frets are still perfectly positioned and not a slight misalignment of the fret slot cutting) which has absolutely no impact on its tone, playability and 'function' as a musical instrument may not be part of criteria or within the tolerance levels as far as 'permissible' criteria.
Maybe the criteria is a slight gap that can be seen around 30% of the perimeter of the back plate, maybe its within tolerance if the 'bird' cannot be seen in the wrong fret - meaning that as long as the bird cannot be seen in either the fret above or below, its within the tolerance level so 'can' be just under the fret wire.
As I said I do NOT have any idea as to the PRS guidelines for passing an instrument as 'fit for sale'. I would assume that the tolerance levels on playability and 'function' (the electrics, the bridge, the tuners, the sound) is a lot stricter than slight defects in 'fit and finish' that have no impact on its playability and function. That small gap in a backplates fit has no impact on whether the instrument can be played or affect the function of it as an instrument either - it can still be 100% playable, all the electrics work, all the frets be perfectly level and be perfectly intonated with excellent tonal quality compared to ALL other SE's, stay in tune when you use the whammy bar - 100% functional and playable and that tiny gap assessed as not worth scrapping a relatively pricey instrument. If the Top was a 'mess' or the neck twisted, maybe PRS would scrap that, not allow that through QC but allow 'minor' fit/finish guitars pass through because they are within the tolerance level for a $1k and under guitar.
I would love to hear from PRS on articles regarding these 'issues' - whether they are within the tolerance level between a fully functional instrument passing their QC department or not. I can 'sympathise' with PRS to a degree, they were not responsible for the build and its not as if these guitars are affected as 'functional' instruments. These are 'entry' level PRS at the end of the day too and there is a reason, much more than just US labour costs vs Indonesian/Korean labour - there is a reason that these cost less than 25% of the cost of an equivalent Core and all the QC checks through their build.
Its a bit much to expect PRS to replace the whole fretboard just because the birds are off centre - especially if the Guitar is 'fully functional' as an instrument. If they didn't allow for 'some' degree of Tolerance for things that are purely cosmetic, the cost of scrapping, repairing and/or returning back to Indonesia/Korea to fix/scrap would only increase the 'cost' to the customer. Those purely cosmetic issue guitars were still built by staff, still shipped to the US, still had a 'cost' which would be passed onto the customer to cover to make it financially viable. The 'birds', whilst not perfectly centred still indicate the fret they are on too so its purely cosmetic. Maybe these could or should be sold as 'slight' seconds with a 'small' discount but either way, the 'cost' of building, shipping QC'd and distributed to retailers to sell, with their profits too as they aren't going to sell it at a loss, sell if for 'nothing' for them.
I don't know what the tolerance levels are and therefore cannot say for definite whether these 'cosmetic' issues that we are hearing about in the forums should or should not of left the PRS factory. This is why it would be great to hear what PRS themselves have to say. It would be great to hear what criteria and what tolerance levels are applied. We hear that the SE's should be playable and functional out of the box (or Gig bag in the SE's case) which a lot of these SE's appear to be - those posters aren't complaining about the way it plays, sounds and or feels - just about 'cosmetic' issues that don't appear to be affecting it as an 'instrument'.
I totally understand @bodia response, asking how the instrument functions as an instrument. It does also seem that people only come here, sign up to the Forum just to complain that their cheap (cheap compared to EVERY US built PRS) isn't as cosmetically perfect as they had hoped for and instead of being polite and respectful, just make sweeping negative statements about PRS as a company and instrument maker. Its not about 'upsetting' the regulars who believe that PRS can do no wrong and being overly protective, but that the person complaining is not being polite and fair. This can be seen by reading through the threads where others have signed up and politely stated their issues, being respectful to the community and brand, asking politely for a course of action, for help etc, these regulars are extremely helpful. Of course those that have only signed up to vent and make sweeping statements about PRS don't see that because they haven't seen other threads and have no interest in those either. Therefore make sweeping statements about the 'users' here too...
Actually the birds on the guitar neck in the video look centered (top to bottom) to my eye.
There's a long standing practice of selling guitars with finish defects as "seconds" or B-stock, etc. That's the simple remedy for the manufacturer and customers buy them knowing upfront that there are blemishes.
I have a 1967 Epiphone Casino which is just that - has a "2" stamped on the headstock. I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it back then!
I could be wrong but I assumed the OP was talking more about the birds being under the fretwire. Especially at 12 / 15....
same story with an sg i had in the 1980s, looked over that thing with a microscope and guessed it was maybe sloppy fretboard binding. no one but guitar shops ever knew.
it’s like the inlays are one scale and the frets another. maybe the part moved on the cnc.
Which is what I said a but further into that paragraph. It would still be interesting to hear what PRS have to say on this - what the tolerances are for purely cosmetic issues that have no impact on playability and function. For something to be classified as 'Seconds' or 'B-Stock', the company would have to acknowledge that the issues are outside of their tolerance, outside their accepted margin of error. If a tiny bit of dust is underneath the finish on the back, cannot be felt after the sanding and buffing, is that enough to be classified as a second, as a reason to drop the price down even though it has absolutely NO impact on the playability or function. Its a 'blemish' but is it within 'tolerance' so its sold as a regular SE or should that be a B-stock/second?
Whether the option to sell as Seconds or not arises, there would still have to be a set of standards that dictate which guitars are 'good enough' to be sold as regular SE's, then a set of standards that dictate whether the instrument can be sold as a 'seconds/B-stock' or shouldn't be sold at all because its not even good enough to meet the criteria for seconds/B-stock. The staff who are checking these instruments would need a set of guidelines determining what standards an SE must meet to be passed as good enough to sell as a regular SE and if they 'fail' those, are they good enough to be sold at all as B-stock. Even if these are in place, Customers may not agree with the tolerances, believe that the speck of dust under the finish on the back, neck, sides that cannot be felt, that tiny gap in the fit of the back plate etc is 'too much' of a blemish and should be classified as 'B-stock'. Should 'everything' that isn't 100% perfect regardless of whether it has any impact on playability and function be the standard and anything less be B-stock? If that was the case, I doubt many would be sold as 'standard' because every one would be scrutinising their SE with a Microscope and complaining about something to get it cheaper as a B-stock. I bet the price would jump up too to ensure 100% perfection and/or offset the losses incurred from selling the others as just 'B-stock'
There is - but PRS does not do that.
According to Paul, he always gets the ones with "defects".
Yeah, how does that even happen?
dumpster diving used to happen at gibson, then they started sawing the bodies and snapping the necks.
That would explain why I've never seen PRS factory seconds for sale
At the PRS road show I was at the other night, Bryan said that blemished guitars are cut up. He said years ago, they would put some in a break room for people to smash and let aggression out...until a piece bonked a worker in the head.