Brand New 000-28 Total Disappointment

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

I fail to understand how *Reverb Protection* even matters. Taking the things the OP says at face value, these are warranty/QC issues. Plus, is there something insinuating as wrong with contacting dealers directly?

The OP contacted the dealer directly and avoided paying Reverb fees. This is strictly against their (Reverb's) rules (as it should be).

Reverb does protect the buyer in a situation like this. They (Reverb) have A LOT more clout with a selling shop than an individual customer.

If anyone wants to bypass any site like Reverb or ebay (for example), that's fine. Spend the time and do the research on your own. These sites aren't FREE, the way they make MONEY is fees attached to buying/selling goods.

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by ALBD

I would be too if it wasn’t Martin. Where there is smoke there’s fire and lawdy Martin puts out a lot of smoke. Of course it’s just based on what I read here and elsewhere. I suppose it’s possible there are just a lot of liars out there that are bent on hurting Martin’s rep.

There have been a lot of very questionable posts over the years regarding problems with any number of guitars/dealers/etc. Keep in mind you are hearing ONE SIDE of the story.

[DBW]

I've never had any problems with any of my guitars. Most of the time when I have pushed the strings off the fretboard it has been because of pushing the strings too hard/bad technique- not the nut's fault- my fault.

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

The OP contacted the dealer directly and avoided paying Reverb fees. This is strictly against their (Reverb's) rules (as it should be).

I hope you are joking. So if I happen to see a guitar on reverb, I am now barred from talking to the store about a guitar? No way and nonsense. Just because reverb is a corporate entity does not mean they can control your communications. They assume that "risk" (if you even can call it that) in its business model. Maybe...maybe not use their messaging system to go offline, but *gotcha* since you saw the guitar on reverb first? Absurd.

[Bob from Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

I hope you are joking. So if I happen to see a guitar on reverb, I am now barred from talking to the store about a guitar? No way and nonsense. Just because reverb is a corporate entity does not mean they can control your communications. They assume that "risk" (if you even can call it that) in its business model. Maybe...maybe not use their messaging system to go offline, but *gotcha* since you saw the guitar on reverb first? Absurd.

I you buy a guitar from Chicago Music Exchange thru Reverb you deal with Reverb if there are any issues.

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by FingahPickah

It makes me wonder what the experiences were like (and why) for the country folks of 60+ years ago who ordered Martins and Gibsons (i.e., via Sears catalogue?). I could be wrong but my guess is there were fewer disappointments.

Imagine the - little kid on Christmas morning, heart-sinking feeling - of getting a long awaited "dream guitar" that's unplayable.

60 Years ago? More like 85 to 90 years ago and certainly not from Sears which owned Harmony from 1916 to 1939 with the guitars being sold under the Supertone name. 60 years back what you were buying from the mail order houses or with Green Stamps were re-badged Harmonys and Kays. I know because I was one of those kids buying them.

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Bob

I you buy a guitar from Chicago Music Exchange thru Reverb you deal with Reverb if there are any issues.

Of course you do. But if you buy directly from CME, even if you saw it on Reverb, you deal with...CME. I still don't see the person's point who seemed to indicate that talking to dealers is somehow verboten.

[ALBD]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

I hope you are joking. So if I happen to see a guitar on reverb, I am now barred from talking to the store about a guitar? No way and nonsense. Just because reverb is a corporate entity does not mean they can control your communications. They assume that "risk" (if you even can call it that) in its business model. Maybe...maybe not use their messaging system to go offline, but *gotcha* since you saw the guitar on reverb first? Absurd.

Gotta agree with that. The buyer has not entered into any agreement with reverb by using their site. It’s public. Now if the seller knows the buyer found it on Reverb, that’s a diff discussion.

[Playguitar]

About 12 posts back I described how bad the set-up was on a new 000-18 that I saw at GC. I went to another GC and tried another 000-18 and the set-up was decent. The guitar played well, but it did not overwhelm me.

[ALBD]

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

There have been a lot of very questionable posts over the years regarding problems with any number of guitars/dealers/etc. Keep in mind you are hearing ONE SIDE of the story.

Martin never seems to respond so that’s the only side available. So I gotta go with that.

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

I hope you are joking. So if I happen to see a guitar on reverb, I am now barred from talking to the store about a guitar? No way and nonsense. Just because reverb is a corporate entity does not mean they can control your communications. They assume that "risk" (if you even can call it that) in its business model. Maybe...maybe not use their messaging system to go offline, but *gotcha* since you saw the guitar on reverb first? Absurd.

I am NOT joking. You should read the entire thread.

First post, OP states that he bought the guitar THROUGH Reverb. The guitar had problems. This first post was followed by numerous folks telling the OP that Reverb would act on his behalf to resolve this (Part of why you pay Reverb is for issues like this).

Then, in post #20, the OP admitted he did NOT buy the guitar through Reverb, he FOUND the guitar on Reverb and then contacted the shop directly for a "better price".

So, he's been jerked around supposedly by the selling dealer about the return and since it was done outside of Reverb, he is on his own.

And finally, this entire thread has some questionable things going on from the OP. Two guitars from Martin, both with multiple issues according to the OP (they used the wrong size bridge on the guitar...)

PS. Not surprisingly, the OP has FOUR posts, all in this thread. He joined AGF in September 2021, posts this thread in September 2021, and disappeared. This would not be the first time a Martin trolling thread has been started here.

[TJNies]

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

I am NOT joking. You should read the entire thread.

First post, OP states that he bought the guitar THROUGH Reverb. The guitar had problems. This first post was followed by numerous folks telling the OP that Reverb would act on his behalf to resolve this (Part of why you pay Reverb is for issues like this).

Then, in post #20, the OP admitted he did NOT buy the guitar through Reverb, he FOUND the guitar on Reverb and then contacted the shop directly for a "better price".

So, he's been jerked around supposedly by the selling dealer about the return and since it was done outside of Reverb, he is on his own.

And finally, this entire thread has some questionable things going on from the OP. Two guitars from Martin, both with multiple issues according to the OP (the used the wrong size bridge on the guitar...)

PS. Not surprisingly, the OP has FOUR posts, all in this thread. He joined AGF in September 2021, posts this thread in September 2021, and disappeared. This would not be the first time a Martin trolling thread has been started here.

Agree, it sounds very questionable. What's surprising to me is the OP's comment that Martin "sent him label to return it". I've never heard of them doing this; they'd direct the buyer back to the dealer and have them resolve it.
But I'd love to hear specifically which dealer he dealt with, and the resolution.

EDIT: I asked UMGF about Martin sending a label for a return, and was told it can happen (although not common). Martin certainly doesn't want to alienate a customer if the dealer isn't working things out.
I was re-reading this thread, and think the first 000-28 could likely have just needed a good setup and perhaps new nut to make it perfect. But the OP was convinced otherwise.
Some don't understand how a good repair shop can fix issues.

But I'm going to cut a tiny bit of slack to the OP, as he sent the guitar back only a couple weeks ago to Martin for a refinish, new tuners, etc. It's going to be a while before he gets it back. Again, hoping when it does arrive it is excellent.

[gmel555]

Was just going to leave this "lay" (maybe I should) but it's popped up again so against my better judgement I'll post a few thoughts. As TJNies states above, & IMHO I also take -with a proverbial "grain of salt"- first time posts initiated only to complain without seeking any advice or suggestions. Second, some very direct statements above say: if you buy on Reverb and have an issue, you deal directly through Reverb. Not exactly true. If you have an issue, the buyer and seller are to try settling things directly between them first. Systems for refunds, partial refunds, returns, etc. are built into Reverb without needing any involvement from Reverb staff. Only if the buyer and seller can't come to a resolution does/should Reverb get directly involved. I know this first hand as both a buyer and seller. Thirdly, Martin takes their fair share of hits. I'm a Martin fan, but don't think they're perfect. I have a 000 (EC variant)since 2005, zero issues; also an all-hog 000 since 2012, no issues. Acquired a 1937 000-28 AA in October, delivered in perfect condition with great playability. Just wanted to record my satisfaction with their quality, even though I don't believe every guitar (is it 70,000 guitars a year now?) that leaves Nazareth should have passed QC. I also believe the binding issue is real and that Martin has been too silent on it. However, I'm a very happy buyer of 3 Martins.