Ordered NEW Martin, received NOS

[drathbun]

Ok.. I trying to put myself in your shoes.

 

If I ordered a "New" guitar which 'Supposedly" was coming direct from Martin in PA. Then I would expect a 2016-17 serial number. In addition, If I was told ahead of time.. Hey we have this 3-4 year old guitar (new and never opened). I would prob not accept it... Wondering why it is around so long. Plus I would think a price reduction is in order. I would expect a discount. Plus I would have wanted it "checked" and setup from factory.

 

On the other hand.. What If this really was started in production in 2013 and finally complete in 2017 (for some odd reason)... Then I would want to know what the reason was!

 

Lastly, I'm with you... What if it was some sort of return (new unsold and dealer found an issue years ago and returned it) ... Then this year, Martin finally got around to repairing and putting back on the shelf for sale.

 

All I think you are after is what is the history of the guitar... Am I right?

 

Yes. It is KNOWING that is important for me. Knowing I haven't been duped. Knowing that I'm not being played. Knowing what to put in my signature line... 2013? 2017? My sales receipt says 2017 I suppose that's when the guitar is NEW right?

[kidblast]

Yes. It is KNOWING that is important for me. Knowing I haven't been duped. Knowing that I'm not being played. Knowing what to put in my signature line... 2013? 2017? My sales receipt says 2017 I suppose that's when the guitar is NEW right?

 

it's all of bit off putting to me too. I hope that someone offers a satisfactory explanation.

[bobouz]

So even though I have a brilliant instrument, I'll always have a bad taste in my mouth that there was something wrong with the deal. Hence, my interest in finding out what has gone down here. If I find that this is business as usual between Martin and their dealers, then fine. But if I find out that it was a situation where "he'll never know, let's give him this one we've been unable to sell for the last four years" it will change my perspective on future dealings with L&M or my attitude towards Martin as a company. Right now I'm still very supportive of both.

Okay, after reading the above, I'll say it again: Ask Martin to send the store a new 2017 version of the model, fresh off the line, for you to compare & choose between it and the 2013.

 

You will either take the 2017, or conclude that the 2013 is superior & maybe rather special to the breed, and you'll forever be satisfied that you had the opportunity to choose the best one. This personally worked for me, and I'm probably just as picky as you. Bottom line, nothing beats an A-B comparison with guitars in hand.

[sbpark]

Lots of good points made here for both sides of the argument, and it's hard for me to take one side or the other. It's also tough to decide because we all have different reasons, rationales and criteria when we buy a guitar, be it new or used. Some people will only buy brand new, and they want it pristine untouched and messed with by others, fresh from the factory, and as mint as they come, and the most recent, latest and greatest. Others are bargain hunters and will overlook a couple bumps, bruises, nicks, dings, etc. for a few bucks off if the guitar sounds great to their ear, because to them that's the most important thing. Some want a recent serial number. All those reasons are legitimate and substantial if it's something that's important to you because you're the one who will be playing the guitar.

 

I do think though in this situation given the guitar is several years old, it should have been disclosed to the buyer by the shop. Just making that simple statement could have avoided any potential future confusion or regret, dealing with returns, exchanges, etc. Be upfront from the get go, maintain your integrity and if the buyer declines, then so be it and move on. With this situation nobody knows yet what the shop's intent was. Did they try and pawn off a 2013 as "brand new", or was it a simple, innocent mistake? I'd say if this is bugging the buyer that much even a refund isn't going to sit well with him, because he will go through every single possible scenario along with all the others that members have suggested regarding what this guitar may have gone through in it's life so far. was is a warranty return and repair? Was it something the shop forgot about? If the history of the guitar is bothering the buyer that much just simply return it and move on. If you absolutely love the sound of the guitar and there's nothing structurally wrong with the guitar and the Martin warranty applies to it, then maybe kindly state your concern to the shop you bought it from, and ask for a partial refund. If they say no you have two choices 1.) Keep the guitar and enjoy it. 2.) Return it.

[drathbun]

bobouz: Thanks for your comments but I'm not interested in doing an A/B comparison. I just need to know what happened as I said above. Besides, this is not a regularly stocked item with L&M and as such, is subject to a 10% non-refundable deposit. So even if the guitar I have had come and I didn't like it, I'd be on the hook for $500. So I was pretty much committed to this guitar when I ordered it. Now if it was scratched or broken, L&M would have waived that and got me a new one.

 

sbpark: I agree it should have been disclosed. However, I don't know yet whether this information was being deliberately withheld by either the dealer or Martin. I have sent emails to both parties and if the answers are reasonable, I have no problems. I will be keeping this guitar regardless of the outcome. :)

[sbpark]

bobouz: Thanks for your comments but I'm not interested in doing an A/B comparison. I just need to know what happened as I said above. Besides, this is not a regularly stocked item with L&M and as such, is subject to a 10% non-refundable deposit. So even if the guitar I have had come and I didn't like it, I'd be on the hook for $500. So I was pretty much committed to this guitar when I ordered it. Now if it was scratched or broken, L&M would have waived that and got me a new one.

 

sbpark: I agree it should have been disclosed. However, I don't know yet whether this information was being deliberately withheld by either the dealer or Martin. I have sent emails to both parties and if the answers are reasonable, I have no problems. I will be keeping this guitar regardless of the outcome. :)

 

If you've already decided to keep the guitar regardless of outcome, then I don't think the shop really has any obligation to, or there's no need from here on out to know the history of the guitar. You already made your decision to keep it. So regardless of what they tell you, if anything, what does it matter at this point? If you actually were thinking of sending the guitar back though, and given that the year of manufacture was not originally disclosed, I'd say L&M are obligated to take the guitar back, and NOT charge you the 10% restocking fee.

[usernameinvalid]

So even though I have a brilliant instrument, I'll always have a bad taste in my mouth that there was something wrong with the deal.

 

If you can't get rid of that bad taste with a couple of shots of tequila don't keep it. Take it back to L&M they're usually pretty easy to get along with.

 

Sit down with that brilliant instrument (your words not mine) have a beer and play some tune if the taste is still there back it goes.

I'd hate to see your next post to be about the one that got away.

[bobouz]

bobouz: Thanks for your comments but I'm not interested in doing an A/B comparison.

My thought was that Martin might take the high road & send a new one to L&M, and agree to take back whichever instrument you declined (maybe less the cost of shipping?). Unless you find out otherwise, it seems like the breakdown was at Martin's end for retaining & then sending out old inventory without any advance communication.

 

You do have a rather convoluted scenario, since the guitar was special ordered and a substantial trade-in was involved - so there are a number of significant factors to consider.

 

Hope it all works out to your satisfaction.

[GuitarPlayer919]

I'd contact the shop asking them to supply you with the exact history of the guitar.

 

They should easily be able to contact Martin on this.

 

I'd give them 72 hours..

[OldCowboy]

Have you decided anything?

[drathbun]

I'd contact the shop asking them to supply you with the exact history of the guitar.

 

They should easily be able to contact Martin on this.

 

I'd give them 72 hours..

 

Thanks, GP and OC. I wrote to Martin support on Sunday asking for provenance on the Martin. I wrote to my guitar department manager at Long & McQuade yesterday asking for whatever information they had on the guitar's journey from Pennsylvania. I have yet to hear from either of them, although I know the manager at L&M is making inquiries as we speak.

[OldCowboy]

Encouraging!

[BryanMichael]

IMO - when it comes to things like this, "NEW" means "un-sold" or un-used by a previous owner. In that regard, a 2013 that is sitting on the shelf for a couple of years unsold, is still "new" to me. I never worried much about the "NOS" definition. That said, you should get what you pay for - a transaction is a contract, entered into in good faith, and if things are not accurately disclosed, there is no good faith. If you are happy with the guitar, I would keep it - you never know what you are going to get if they try to replace it!, but I would demand some kind of compensation for the failure to disclose - even if (and I would assume the best, here) it was not intentional, they should give you a discount or something - even at 10% or something.

[drathbun]

I just spoke with Martin Customer Service.

 

Me: Where has this guitar been for four years?

 

CS: (looks it up) It was shipped to Long & McQuade in Canada the beginning of April 2017. That's all I can tell you about it.

[drathbun]

IMO - when it comes to things like this, "NEW" means "un-sold" or un-used by a previous owner. In that regard, a 2013 that is sitting on the shelf for a couple of years unsold, is still "new" to me. I never worried much about the "NOS" definition. That said, you should get what you pay for - a transaction is a contract, entered into in good faith, and if things are not accurately disclosed, there is no good faith. If you are happy with the guitar, I would keep it - you never know what you are going to get if they try to replace it!, but I would demand some kind of compensation for the failure to disclose - even if (and I would assume the best, here) it was not intentional, they should give you a discount or something - even at 10% or something.

 

I'm really not even interested in any compensation. I would like a straight answer. Martin says their policy is to take the oldest guitar from the distribution center and ship that one when an order is received. If that was TRUE, why do I have one built in 2013 but delivered new in April 2017 when I personally know someone with the same model built in 2016? Where has this guitar been for four years?

[sbpark]

I'm really not even interested in any compensation. I would like a straight answer. Martin says their policy is to take the oldest guitar from the distribution center and ship that one when an order is received. If that was TRUE, why do I have one built in 2013 but delivered new in April 2017 when I personally know someone with the same model built in 2016? Where has this guitar been for four years?

 

I think at this point op, you need to move on. You stated you're keeping it regardless, and you're not interested in any kind of compensation or discount, so at this point Id' say it's a moot point and both Martin and L&M owe you nothing form this point on.

[j45nick]

I just spoke with Martin Customer Service.

 

Me: Where has this guitar been for four years?

 

CS: (looks it up) It was shipped to Long & McQuade in Canada the beginning of April 2017. That's all I can tell you about it.

 

 

It's hard to imagine that guitar was built on spec, and just sat around for four years in a box in Nazareth waiting for you to order it. If that is the real story, you have to wonder how it transpired.

 

The model year doesn't really bother me, providing the spec is correct and the guitar is unused. It just seems like an unusual situation. Guitar model year only matters when there is a change in specification, like going from an unterrified top to a terrified top.

 

It ain't like a car, where there is a clear link between model year and value, even if little or nothing changes.

[drathbun]

It's hard to imagine that guitar was built on spec, and just sat around for four years in a box in Nazareth waiting for you to order it. If that is the real story, you have to wonder how it transpired.

 

The model year doesn't really bother me, providing the spec is correct and the guitar is unused. It just seems like an unusual situation. Guitar model year only matters when there is a change in specification, like going from an unterrified top to a terrified top.

 

It ain't like a car, where there is a clear link between model year and value, even if little or nothing changes.

 

The spec changed for 2017. 19 frets instead of 20.

[drathbun]

I think at this point op, you need to move on. You stated you're keeping it regardless, and you're not interested in any kind of compensation or discount, so at this point Id' say it's a moot point and both Martin and L&M owe you nothing form this point on.

 

I think I've said this before, but I'm a fan of both Martin and Long & McQuade. I would like some closure on this if only to keep my positive attitude about these two companies (I worked for one of them for two years). Getting the stonewall from Martin customer support doesn't bode well.

[sbpark]

I think I've said this before, but I'm a fan of both Martin and Long & McQuade. I would like some closure on this if only to keep my positive attitude about these two companies (I worked for one of them for two years). Getting the stonewall from Martin customer support doesn't bode well.

 

Still think it's a little weird and somewhat unreasonable to make these demands, given that you already said the guitar isn't going anywhere. I've bought a LOT of guitars in my time, both new and used, and whenever I've bought them I've never demanded the seller to give me a timeline of the guitars history. I've said it a couple times, and I guess I'll say it again, if this really is bothering you that much you should return it, demand to not be charged a restocking fee and find a brand new guitar that meets your personal, and very specific criteria. Neither Martin or L&M owe you any kind of explanation of the history of the guitar. If this bothers you, move on and keep searching, but simply because you want to know, or want closure or whatever doesn't mean that the seller has to accommodate you on this. It's not like there is Carfax for guitars. Suck it up.

[BluesKing777]

Has to be a return or re- finish there somewhere!

 

Let us see - 2 years to get them to answer an email about a finish problem, 2 years to do it, a year to send it back to the guitarist that has left the area......returned to factory....

 

Like my mechanic who puts an answering machine on with a message to leave phone, name etc and doesn't ring back AT all, so you just have to 'catch him'....

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[fortyearspickn]

Up until now, I've been in the 'if you like it, keep it and move on" camp.

But - given the answer from Martin - which was basically a non-answer, I think I'd send them a letter asking for an explanation of the 'provenance' of this guitar. It's unbelievable that it sat in Martin's "Finished Goods Warehouse" for four years. They are very good at moving guitars, and it is hard to believe a high ender could have sat anywhere that long. They track them by s/n on a computer, etc. While anything is 'possible' - if that's the case, I don't see why they wouldn't admit it just 'got lost in the warehouse'. That would assure you it wasn't something less desirable,

But - if I were me and they continue to stonewall me - I'd judge the guitar on its own merits, as you have, and keep it and love it as much as my others.

We don't really 'own' beautiful guitars like this. We keep them until they get passed down to the next generation. While $ changes hands, or we die.

[drathbun]

Well, it has been a few weeks but I've finally received some answers about my "new" 2013 Martin 000-28vs.

 

I had my store guitar manager following up with Martin's distribution company Kief Music. There was some speculation from Kief that since this model is made in batches of only 25 at a time, one could have been left behind on the shelf when a new batch arrived. Kief suggested that Martin may just grab random serial numbers off the shelf from the pool of that model. Kief did say that Martin does NOT sell refurbished or rebuilt guitars and samples and demos are clearly marked.

 

I wrote a paper letter to Martin directly last week asking specifically about NOS, refurbished and rebuilt guitars and why mine had an older serial number when other customers before me had 2016 serial numbers. This afternoon, I received a phone call from Harry in Customer Service at Martin, Nazareth. He was polite, respectful and had lots of good information for me. He confirmed that Martin's policy is to ship the oldest serial numbers first. That being said, my particular guitar obviously fell through the cracks in the system. He explained something about a system process change back in 2013/14 that could be the cause of the guitar getting lost in the shuffle. He confirmed the guitar is brand new and never left their climate controlled facility. He also, like many here, commented that the guitar should be considered "nicely aged" like a fine bottle of wine. He confirmed that Martin does NOT sell refurbished or rebuilt guitars.

 

I indicated that my only concern was the provenance of the guitar and have no problem accepting Martin's assurance that the guitar was in their custody since it was built. Harry also apologised for Martin not following up on my submission via their website. Apparently, that fell through some technical cracks as well.

 

So all is well. The guitar never left the factory until April 15, 2017. I changed the strings on it yesterday and even though it sounded amazing with the four-year-old factory strings on it, with the new strings it totally blew me away.

 

Overall, my concern was that I wasn't somehow being taken or duped. I needed assurance that Martin was a company with great integrity, as I had always assumed it was and is.

 

I take great pleasure in owning a GIBSON guitar because not only is it one of the finest acoustic guitars in the world, Gibson Acoustic (Boseman) is comprised of first-rate people who genuinely care about their customers and their products. I know this first hand.

 

I am relatively new to Martin, having purchased my first Martin (000-17sm) just a couple of years ago after owning Gibsons, Taylors, Larrivees and Yamahas over 43 years of guitar acquisition. I'm pleased to say that Martin is every bit the fine guitar company Gibson is, with fine customer service and products.

 

It may rankle some purists when you talk about rival guitar makers, but I like to point out excellence wherever and whenever I see it. Some of the best, person to person, customer service experiences I've ever had were from guitar companies; Gibson (Jeremy), Rickenbacker (John Hall), Larrivee (Matthew Larrivee) and Martin (Harry).

[fortyearspickn]

Drat, glad it turned out great. Thanks for the closure.

"And Now... for the rest of the story." Paul Harvey

[kelly campbell]

Best of luck to you, That is one sweet guitar. Hope it all works out how you need it to.