|
Pedoviejo -> RE: Barbero & Fernández (Jun. 11 2012 21:19:30)
|
quote:
I have heard this from sources I consider reliable, but I have no real evidence. Can anyone confirm whether or not this "outsourcing" is the case, and would a Conde so-made be considered a "factory-made" instrument?
Like TANuñez says, this is “old news” and has been kicked around quite a bit. What a factory guitar is depends upon how far you extend the term “factory.” Are Ramirez’s factory made? At various times in the Ramirez shop you might have one guy producing necks, another producing sides, etc., so that might or might not qualify. I don’t know where Conde’s are outsourced now or where they were outsourced in the past (I heard they used a Valencia “factory” shop, which in the old days was everyone’s main source for cheap guitars), but they have to be by simple logic: One builder can only produce so many guitars a year. Arcángel’s max was about 24, and that was when he was working continuously throughout the year. I think averages are between 15 and 25 for individual luthiers working more or less full time. And that’s why if a luthier produces anything less than professional grade guitars, I very sincerely doubt that he’s producing them himself – it just wouldn’t be worth his time.
Anyway, at least Ramirez always gave notice to the purchaser: As you know, for top models the master builder’s initials were on the heel, lower models were designated by a different label, and guitars from outside the shop were likewise clearly designated as “built for” the Ramirez shop. In the old days even Arcángel would have Valencia guitars in the front of the shop with a round label stating that they were made in Valencia “para casa Arcángel Fernández”. (These and similar guitars from other famous shops you can find popping up on Ebay from time to time with a seller asking some ridiculous price simply because it has the famous builder’s name in it.) My gripe about Conde has always been their lack of notice. They always did have “seconds” clearly marked as such, but then there were those top models with their main label – and signature – inside that were made who knows where. My opinion is that you cross the line when you sign your own label and stick it in a guitar made by someone else without giving notice that it was made by someone else – EVEN IF it is a very fine, mostly hand-made instrument, because, for better or for worse, and with or without any rational basis, names can have great value, the impetus for their protection under trademark and copyright laws. How else can the modern Conde shop put a $20K retail price sticker on a “special edition” guitar when, I would submit, you can order/purchase an instrument that is just as good, and may well be superior, from any of the luthiers here on the Foro for a fraction of that price? (And I definitely support purchasing guitars from worthy luthiers as opposed to buying a name tag – even though that may not be sound advice for someone who is solely a collector-investor.)
Even under Roman law, for “caveat emptor” to apply, there had to first be disclosure. Here’s the definition of “fraud” in the Louisiana Civil Code, which is very similar to the French and Spanish codes since it was derived from them: “Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other. Fraud may also result from silence or inaction.” You judge.
|
|
|
|
