Poll – Has your Martin had binding problems?

[TheGITM]

Clearly, I did not know about the expanded warranty law in CA. I stand corrected on that point. I actually like to learn new stuff...

What I fail to understand is how that would apply to a binding issue on an acoustic guitar. Maybe it does. Seems like the only way it come be a really big issue would be if there was a class action lawsuit, which would make a lot of attorneys a lot of money, and trickle down pennies on the dollar to the consumers from the eventual 'remedy'.

I'm not even sure if separating binding would be considered a 'lemon' issue as it doesn't impair the primary purpose of the item... to make sounds from strings under tension.

I dunno. I like my Martin. There are a lot of good Martin guitars. If the binding starts to separate I can heat it, wick some CA glue into the crack with a toothpick, then tape and clamp... pretty simple and problem likely solved for the remainder of my lifetime...

For anyone that doesn't like Martin now... I get it, and there are plenty of great guitars out there to choose from... many as good or better than Martin (and Taylor, and Gibson).

[zoopeda]

I’d love to see a class action suit over this. I have zero martins with binding issues and therefore no dog in the fight, but this issue seems to have risen to that level.

[sstaylor58]

I bought a custom OM-15, binding issue after 3 years. Fixed under warranty but still not perfect. Hoping it stays. This has been my only Martin. Love it otherwise.

[Mr. Paul]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I’d love to see a class action suit over this. I have zero martins with binding issues and therefore no dog in the fight, but this issue seems to have risen to that level.

A frustrating issue for owners, but proving damages in court would be difficult. I'm sure Martin lawyers would argue that they have been making it right with their customers via warranty repair and that those that have acquired affected guitars via the used market are not their concern. Buyers outside the US that have defective guitars with no warranty would have the best argument but non U.S. citizens suing a U.S. Corporation would be a sticky wicket.

While the outrageous wait times for warranty repair bring up the issue of loss of use, the vast majority of owners are not professionals so it would be difficult to assign a significant $ amount of damages resulting from a hobbyist being without their guitar for a few months.

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul

A frustrating issue for owners, but proving damages in court would be difficult. I'm sure Martin lawyers would argue that they have been making it right with their customers via warranty repair and that those that have acquired affected guitars via the used market are not their concern. Buyers outside the US that have defective guitars with no warranty would have the best argument but non U.S. citizens suing a U.S. Corporation would be a sticky wicket.

While the outrageous wait times for warranty repair bring up the issue of loss of use, the vast majority of owners are not professionals so it would be difficult to assign a significant $ amount of damages resulting from a hobbyist being without their guitar for a few months.

What about a nice Senate inquiry, responsible company culprits identified, criminal charges laid, prison time and recalls and money back? Governments love to have inquiries and House Sittings for all kinds of things....

BluesKing777.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by Mr. Paul

A frustrating issue for owners, but proving damages in court would be difficult. I'm sure Martin lawyers would argue that they have been making it right with their customers via warranty repair and that those that have acquired affected guitars via the used market are not their concern.

While the outrageous wait times for warranty repair bring up the issue of loss of use, the vast majority of owners are not professionals so it would be difficult to assign a significant $ amount of damages resulting from a hobbyist being without their guitar for a few months.

This. I’m not aware of any class-action lawsuits for consumer goods where secondhand purchasers were part of the class. As an example, I was notified of the lawsuit against Apple for premature battery failure because I purchased several iPhones new in the covered period. The lawsuit didn’t require that I still own them at the time of the lawsuit, and I’m fairly certain that anyone who bought one of the iPhones secondhand were not part of the class.

Regarding wait times, I only waited a few weeks for Paul Neri, a very experienced luthier, to repair my 000-18. The repair shouldn’t take months unless the repair person has a huge backlog. I happened to buy the 000-18 new, so the repair was covered under warranty. It’s a 2021 model which indicates that whatever change Martin made in 2018 or so seems to have cut down on the frequency of the issue, but it hasn’t solved it 100%. None of my other Martin guitars (one other bought new, the others used) including an HD-28 from 2013 has had an issue. If the binding comes loose on the ther guitar that I bough new, I’ll have it repaired under warranty. If it happens to one of the guitars I bought used, I’ll pay out of pocket for the repairs. Each of those guitars cost many hundreds of dollars less than the street price of a new guitar—part of that discount is the lack of a warranty.

Is it a nuisance? Yes. Is it a blot on Martin’s reputation? No question. I’m particularly sympathetic to buyers outside of the US who have no warranty coverage.

[Drive914]

All 4 waist areas on my 2015 CEO-7 separated. I had them repaired by Seven C Music in St. Petersburg. I don't know if it will last forever but they did a beautiful, undetectable job. Some of you claim that it is an inexpensive fix. It cost me $400.00 which I don’t consider inexpensive. However, if it is a permanent fix and the fact that its undetectable, as of today I am a happy CEO-7 owner.

[LukeE]

Picked up a used 2020 000-18 in January. No binding issues to report as yet.

[kizz]

Get a D15m, problem solved...

[JayBee1404]

Originally Posted by LukeE

Picked up a used 2020 000-18 in January. No binding issues to report as yet.

Don’t pop the champagne-cork yet - my 2012 D-18 waited nine years before it began shedding its binding in 2021. And yes, it was kept properly humidified in normal house temperatures!

[davidd]

One more time...quoted from the link below.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/ca...warranty-18606

"The lemon law also protects consumer products purchased for personal use.

The California Lemon Law, part of The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, applies to all consumer products purchased for personal use. Although it is most often associated with defective vehicles, the Act provides warranty protections to purchasers and lessees of both new and used consumer goods. A consumer good is virtually any product purchased by an individual for personal or household use, except clothing and consumables. It could be anything from an electric toothbrush to a kitchen appliance.

There have been several calls for creating a computer lemon law, but in fact the law covers computers, musical instruments and even medical devices such as wheel chairs and hearing aids. The only requirement is that it be primarily for personal or family use."

[TheGITM]

Originally Posted by davidd

One more time...quoted from the link below.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/ca...warranty-18606

"The lemon law also protects consumer products purchased for personal use.

The California Lemon Law, part of The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, applies to all consumer products purchased for personal use. Although it is most often associated with defective vehicles, the Act provides warranty protections to purchasers and lessees of both new and used consumer goods. A consumer good is virtually any product purchased by an individual for personal or household use, except clothing and consumables. It could be anything from an electric toothbrush to a kitchen appliance.

There have been several calls for creating a computer lemon law, but in fact the law covers computers, musical instruments and even medical devices such as wheel chairs and hearing aids. The only requirement is that it be primarily for personal or family use."

I think we get it. But, but Martin has a warranty. This doesn't say that manufacturer's are required to produce products that are free from defects. It simply requires a suitable warranty and adequate means for the consumer to execute the warranty... and only in the state of California. I think that Martin can demonstrate they provide a warranty and honor the warranty terms.

Should a consumer in CA feel that Martin is not honoring their warranty they are free to pursue this through the courts.

Why keep posting it?

[davidd]

Originally Posted by TheGITM

I think we get it. But, but Martin has a warranty. This doesn't say that manufacturer's are required to produce products that are free from defects. It simply requires a suitable warranty and adequate means for the consumer to execute the warranty... and only in the state of California. I think that Martin can demonstrate they provide a warranty and honor the warranty terms.

Should a consumer in CA feel that Martin is not honoring their warranty they are free to pursue this through the courts.

Why keep posting it?

Because it applies to items out of warranty!

Also, there is a big difference between a product needing normal maintenance and repair as opposed to systemic failure due to a manufacturing error caused by bad materials used in the construction process.

This is why companies are required to issue general recalls for products that fail because of bad manufacturing.

[TheGITM]

Originally Posted by davidd

Because it applies to items out of warranty!

Also, there is a big difference between a product needing normal maintenance and repair as opposed to systemic failure due to a manufacturing error caused by bad materials used in the construction process.

This is why companies are required to issue general recalls for products that fail because of bad manufacturing.

Then I would suggest finding an attorney that feels that the case has merit. I suspect it wouldn't go far in court, and you'd struggle to find an attorney that would file, but I'm not an attorney so I will attempt to stay in my lane...

Would be an interesting case, should anyone actually ever pursue it.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by TheGITM

Then I would suggest finding an attorney that feels that the case has merit. I suspect it wouldn't go far in court, and you'd struggle to find an attorney that would file, but I'm not an attorney so I will attempt to stay in my lane...

Would be an interesting case, should anyone actually ever pursue it.

No attorney would pursue a case because it would be frivolous. As noted above, the definition of “consumer ‘goods” applies to new goods, with limited exceptions. Product recalls apply to products with defects that pose safety hazards. Recalls are by design prophylactic—remove 9currently) unaffected products in the suspect production run from circulation to prevent possible injury. It would be nonsensical for Martin to issue a recall. First, because loose binding is a cosmetic issue. If headstocks were snapping off and hitting people in the face, that would be another story. Second, if it only affects x% of guitars with binding made in Nazareth (and we have no idea what x is, and probably never will), it doesn’t make sense to recall all guitars. There’s no “repair” that can be done on a guitar for which the binding is currently attached.