Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

cynic

Supporter
  • Content count

    5,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

cynic last won the day on June 17

cynic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,268 Excellent

1 Follower

About cynic

  • Rank
    Veteran HFCer
  • Birthday 07/06/1966

Previous Fields

  • guitars
    Standard 0227, 1984 Blitz, 2008 Talladega
  • amps
    Swart AST, Atomic CLR
  • fx
    Axe-FX II

Recent Profile Visitors

6,462 profile views
  1. I couldn't agree more. Had the acoustic voice been other than described or my neck measurements by off a few hundredths I could see it, but it's just not for me? I'm afraid the worst of the stories surrounding recent Reverb sales is yet to come. I've always used the reverb return policy, but only in this latest round of sales did I foolishly address returns/refunds in the text of my listing. Two of seven buyers sent requests for refunds. The first to arrive had significant damage it didn't ship with that could not have happened in transit. It was obviously done by the buyer, but he chose to never mention it and cited other reasons for wanting to return. Of course I provided before and after photos for the resolution team, but it's all circumstantial. I'll find out this week how Reverb handles a "he said/she said". For the record, the return mentioned in the OP also arrived with a few new scratches from resting on a 1/4" bit of pickup spring floating loose in the case which I'm certain wasn't there when I shipped it out. I half-jokingly told my wife "fuck dealing with this nonsense, I'm keeping the rest". People suck.
  2. I recently sold a guitar on Reverb. Within two hours of delivery, the buyer requested a refund, saying "it's a very nice guitar, it's just not for me". My "shop" return policy at the time was the default Reverb recommended return policy, which left me with no other choice than to accept. The policy states "buyer receives full refund in their original payment method less any shipping charges". Simple enough, right? The buyer agreed so I figured we were all good. Long story short, although clearly stated in their policy, if the refund is anything less than the total price paid (purchase price + shipping), Reverb will charge their 3.5% selling fee on the refunded amount. In this case, the total price paid was $1345, with $45 of that being shipping. The refunded amount was $1300, on which Reverb charged me their customary 3.5% selling fee. Had I not deducted the shipping fee, there would have been no charge. As it happened, I deducted $45 only to be assessed a selling fee of $45.50. After forty-five minutes with customer service, they agreed to refund the fee "due to the misunderstanding". The easy out is that items listed "as-is" are excluded from the return policy, so buyers have no recourse beyond justifying a "not as described" claim. I think my approach will be to continue to accept returns, but in addition to not refunding shipping cost, I'll charge a restocking fee sufficient enough to leave me whole when all is said and done.
  3. no reason given in the posting I saw here
  4. Awesome. Now you just have to wait for the recipient to get their import certificate and you'll be good to go 🃏
  5. Exactly. You can’t just “responsible” the toothpaste back into the tube.
  6. cynic

    RIP Fender MIM

    Conclusively "We offer lower specification, lower price guitars that are still very much true to the Fender brand from $500 retail to $1,000 crafted in Ensenada [Mexico]. We have increased production in both factories over the last three years and are working at capacity to keep pace with global demand."
  7. Agreed. It wasn’t, so there is.
  8. Not the first time a member here has shown their disdain for gov't employees, but it always surprises me. In many if not most cases, that information simply doesn't exist for guitars built prior to 1992. Beyond that, there are a shit ton of guitars made after 1992 that also lack provenance. On the flip side, you've got "experts" who are "confirming" Brazilian rosewood in cases it most likely isn't. I can't remember who, but there was a member here who felt fairly certain most every 70s/early 80s Hamer guitar had BR and claimed to have some shop in Europe "authenticating" them for him. It''s a mess so big even IT can't help.
  9. cynic

    RIP Fender MIM

    For the player that hates strings getting in the way of his truss rod wrench
  10. Awesome! The three I have are soon-to-be collectors items!
  11. Would you rather pay for the training required to bring all customs officials up to speed on identifying all brands of guitars years of manufacturer by serial number or some other easily reliable means? Keeping in mind that STILL won't be good enough to identify when the wood was harvested.
  12. cynic

    I'm Not Worthy!!!!

    No affiliation other than being a happy customer, but if I had anything I wanted art on I'd talk to Jeff at RCA Guitars. He has more examples of things he's done on Facebook.
  13. cynic

    Hamer Dimarzio Pups

    I picked up a strat a while back with a set of these that tackle the problem in a different way. Six coils arranged as three humbucking pairs. I'm far from being a strat purist, but I really like them.
  14. The earliest Special's didn't have the checkerboard. The 1980 Special I stupidly sold was such an incredible guitar for 70's rock I won't even allow myself to consider a model with the checkerboard logo. Silly, but true.
×