@Kdogg788 Regardless of the 'make' of a guitar, there are models in the $1k or under that do have 'minor' issues with the cosmetic finishing. They are NOT exempt from some 'issue' that has NO impact on their Playability or function. Whether that is seen as less important because the 'brand' isn't known for the quality and consistency that PRS are known for, that these guitars are the 'top' line of the brand so don't come with the same preconceived opinion that these are all perfect.
In some cases, the issues are unlikely to rear up, if you aren't recessing a back panel, its a lot easier to cover the hole without a gap, a lot easier to just drill a hole and drop a circle of plastic into it as a fret marker. There are guitars though at 'much' higher price points that have cosmetic issues, a bit of stain bleeding into the binding, neck glue that has squeezed out not cleaned properly, Back plates not recessed or not fitting 'perfectly' in the recess (level and/or an even gap all around the edge), something under the finish somewhere - something that isn't necessarily 'perfect' but doesn't necessarily impact on the playability or function as an instrument.
Point is, these guitars are not exempt from having some minor issues regardless of the price or brand. There has to be 'tolerance' levels - a point where imperfections, regardless of what they are, end up not making it out to the retailers. If that 'imperfection' has an impact on the function and/or playability (a twisted neck, electrics shorting out the pick-ups for example). If something has a very minor 'blemish', whether that's a natural thing because of the woods, or some 'mistake' in the finish that has NO impact on its function, doesn't affect the playability and tone, should that guitar be scrapped completely? Its still a fully functioning instrument, fully playable.
If guitar companies don't allow any tolerance at all, then the costs accrued from building these instruments still has to be met and as such, the price of scrapping every guitar that doesn't leave Indonesia/Korea, guitars that 'fail' scrutiny in the US and/or paying staff to have QC checks at numerous stages and the 'instruments' they scrap will be passed on to the consumer. That would push SE's up higher in price. I have seen people complain that their 'SE Standard' has a two piece Mahogany body that isn't 'joined' together perfectly centred - couldn't care less if the guitar works perfectly, couldn't care less that its a 'fully functioning' guitar with no fit/finish issues anywhere but because it had a 'see through' coat, the 'join' between the two pieces of mahogany can be seen and they are not perfectly centred. Should that be scrapped? Should that be sent back to Indonesia and stripped back down just to be refinished in an opaque finish so the next person who buys it can't see the 'join line'?
SE's are not 'built' by PRS so its not directly their fault. The factory deemed those instruments to be of a sufficient quality to send to PRS to be checked. The person who checked it may have a checklist to determine whether that guitar makes it out to a retailer. I don't know what 'standards' they have to go by, what degree of tolerance they have to go by. Its not as if these issues are affecting the playability and functionality, its not as if the neck pocket has a gap where it doesn't fit perfectly, not as if the neck has twisted and/or the frets are wrong, not level or some other issue that stops the guitar being playable and fully functional.
The purchaser has their own set of standards, tolerances that they can accept and anything below that being unacceptable. That applies to the cosmetics too where one may accept, may not even notice a speck of dust under the finish where as another will deem that as a big issue for a guitar costing $1k (or less). The person who checks the guitars before sending them out may not even notice a blemish under the protective coating and, even if they did, wouldn't consider that as a 'major' flaw in the instrument as it still plays and functions exactly as it should. Its not worth scrapping a $1k guitar for something that has absolutely no impact on it as a fully functional and playable musical instrument, something that could be used straight out of the box regardless of whether that is at home, in a studio or out on tour - it would still play, sound and function perfectly for the job it was bought for.
Everything has tolerance levels, the point at which something is deemed fit for sale and anything under is 'scrapped' (or whatever they decide to do with these). As I said, I do not know what PRS guidelines stipulate for SE models that they have not built, not been part of the process and the first time they see it, is the time they open the box in their US factory. I can see a much greater/stricter set of guidelines that every SE must pass where playability and function are concerned as that is the 'most' important aspect. Purely cosmetic issues can be more 'lax' as these have NO affect on whether the Guitar can be played, how it sounds and functions. Like I said, should a guitar be scrapped for a speck of dust under the finish that cannot even be felt? If that matters so much to the purchaser, then check it first or swap it out for another one but I don't believe it should be scrapped as it doesn't affect the functionality, playability or sound of the instrument!!