Jesus. You really have no idea what I was trying to say.
And you are completely missing the point too. These are fully functional quality instruments in their price bracket. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way they function as an instrument, the way the sound, the way they play etc. This is still a $1k guitar because it still plays, functions etc as ALL the other $1k SE's. They may not be a 'Chinese' copy but they are an Asian copy made in the same factories as all the other imported guitars from brands like Chapman, Schecter, Ibanez, Sterling etc - Certainly a lot of Guitars that are in the same price bracket as PRS and not completely exempt from issues that some purchaser has deemed 'unacceptable' for the money they spent.
Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with them as 'instruments'. They can be taken straight out of the box and be played without any issue which I assume is the primary reason they go to PRS to be checked to see if they are fully functional and playable instruments or not. As such, PRS has deemed that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them as 'instruments'. Its not as if the neck is twisted, the frets are not level or properly spaced so they cannot be properly intonated, not as if the Bridge doesn't function as a tremolo or the tuners keep slipping, the electrics all work as expected etc You can plug it in and play and it will play, function and sound as expected. as it was built to do, as every other $1k SE.
Whilst I can understand the disappointment in buying an instrument at any price point and discovering a purely cosmetic 'issue' that you as a customer dislike. I have seen £2-3k guitars being sold with 'cosmetic' issues where stain has bled into the binding, those multi-layer binding not aligned properly when they meet, ugly glue ridge around the neck pocket where it was 'squeezed' out when the neck was glued in. I have even seen a gap in the neck pocket join, Side dots not aligned and centred properly (Something Henning Pauly often points out - a pet peeve of his), talking of HP42, tuner knobs not sanded so the mould edge is visible and can be felt too, Back plates not recessed (a pet peeve of mine - especially on guitars over £1k), screw missing on a scratch plate, tuners that are not fitted properly (they may work, but from the back they are not perfectly aligned - cosmetic issue), marks in the fretboard that must be where 'chips' have been repaired on a brand new guitar etc. I have seen issues that affect the function too - tone/volume knobs that don't function properly - get down to 3 or 4 and anything below that does nothing or just cuts out, switches that aren't fitted properly, nut slots not cut properly, cut evenly and even with 'sharp' edges that can cut people, loose tuners, something 'sharp' on the bridge that causes strings to break etc. I know if I was to buy a £3k guitar and I hadn't noticed one (or more) of these issues in store or in 'pictures' on the website (as Pictures can be misleading as well as not show everything clearly - especially areas that may contain an issue), I too would be disappointed. I know that for some $500 is a LOT of money to spend on a guitar let alone $1k and they want their guitar to look 'perfect' (in their eyes) whether its a Made in the US 'core' or an Asia made copy built cheaply to sell as an 'official licenced copy' as the SE line is.
Any purchaser of an SE though is still getting one of the best instruments in its price point as far as playability and function. What one person thinks is a cosmetic flaw, another may consider it a cosmetic quirk, something that makes that different and more unique than any of the others that are the same model and colour. These people are still getting a $1k guitar that plays, sounds and functions perfectly like all other $1k guitar in the same model line.
Point is that guitars make it to market that aren't '100%' cosmetically perfect, some that aren't 'perfect' to play either without spending time and effort to get them up to standard. Take the 'side-dots' as an example, should a guitar be scrapped because the side dots are not perfectly aligned with the 'middle' of the Fret, some also not perfectly aligned with the middle of the 'binding' or fretboard - some a but lower than others? That's the same principal as the 'birds' not being dead centre of the fret and the side dots is generally what the player sees and uses when they play. These are 'cosmetically' not 'perfect' either but do not affect the instrument as far as playability and function. Should a $1k (or more) Guitar be scrapped because someone drilled the hole for the side dot slightly out of perfect alignment - does that render the whole guitar as 'scrap' because its not 'perfect' cosmetically?
Cosmetics is a very grey area as what someone considers not a major issue, may even like the fact its not 'perfect' because it shows some 'human' error compared to machine like perfection. The whole 10-top too is some persons personal opinion on what makes one bit of maple cosmetically better than some others. I personally don't like a lot of the '10-top' guitars as much as the regular core versions - my Custom 24 or example to me is one of the best tops I have seen - mostly because of the 'Chevron' style book matching. I don't really like the flame maple tops that look very even and look almost like a ruler has been used to draw lines across the body as quite a few 10tops do. I much prefer the tops that has more irregular lines, different lengths, thicknesses etc as well as being able to see the natural grain quite easily as I think these more irregular looking tops have more character, more unique qualities.
Again getting a bit off topic but does illustrate that cosmetics are a grey area - what one deems worthy of a 10top, another may not. What PRS deem 'acceptable' for their SE line cosmetically speaking, another may not - even if both agree that the guitar is a fully functioning, fully playable musical instrument. Both PRS and Customer may agree that the guitar plays, sounds and functions perfectly as anyone expected that guitar to play, sound and function! What we have here though is a 'difference' of opinion over the tolerance limit for cosmetics - what PRS has deemed as acceptable, within tolerance, the permissible limit or limits of variation in the cosmetic finish, another has disagreed.
Paul himself will talk about PRS tolerances for their 'US' made guitar line, something that makes all US built PRS guitars amazingly consistent. PRS have much stricter tolerances with QC checks along the way so that 'any' US built PRS that is not up to standard at any point will either be fixed before it progresses or scrapped so no more time, money and effort is wasted on it. These are 'not' PRS guitars in the sense that they were built and assembled by PRS staff with all the same QC checks along the way but basically a licensed Asian 'copy' contracted by and built for PRS cheaply so they can offer a 'PRS' guitar to the $1k and under guitar purchasers. These guitars that have been built abroad have been deemed good enough to send to PRS by the Indonesian (I assume) manufacturer. Obviously, the fact it has PRS on the headstock, PRS want to check each instrument to see if it comes up to a certain standard, that it is at least 'fit for purpose'. As far as I can tell, every one of these guitars have been 'fit for purpose' on that they play, sound and function like every other $1k SE in the same model line.
As far as hitting the criteria of a fully functioning and playable instrument, that criteria appears to have been met. The tolerance limit PRS uses to asses them 'cosmetically' though haven't met the customers expectation. So again I state, at what point does a 'cosmetic only' issue fall outside the tolerance for an instrument built by another company for PRS? It doesn't matter that the customer should have been more vigilant because that guitar was still on the market and could still have been bought. Assuming it was checked by PRS, that guitar must have passed the cosmetic tolerance limit but again I also ask, at what point does PRS deem a guitar's cosmetic issue to significant enough, it has to be scrapped even if it meets all the criteria for a fully functioning instrument? There are still a LOT of people that could make full use of it because its a fully working and playable instrument - Kids, schools, veterans etc - it's still a $1k guitar as far as playability, parts and functionality. If PRS were to give these guitars away, that cost would have to be met by customers and therefore push prices up.
I think I have made my point that no doubt you will still completely miss. The fact that some SE's may hit the $1k mark - certainly not all - is irrelevant, the guitar is still a fully functioning guitar that plays, sounds and works the same as all other $1k SE's in the same model line. It still works, plays and sounds like all the other $1k SE's, they are still getting all the features, the hardware, the electronics etc that all other $1k SE's have. It doesn't have a repaired broken Headstock or a big dent in it where it was dropped, the birds are still in the right frets so not 'confusing' to play so should this really be scrapped, should PRS write off a $1k guitar for something that doesn't actually effect its use and function?
