2 Bursts in Germany!?

[F-Hole]

...ad nausea...

Don't go there.

...ceteris paribus.

....or there.

 

[madformac]

Don't go there.



....or there.

Latin was never my strongest subject. In fact The Life Of Brian is as far as I go. Biggus Diccus and all that.. :rofl

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

Latin was never my strongest subject. In fact The Life Of Brian is as far as I go. Biggus Diccus and all that.. :rofl

If it's not a personal question....

:laugh2::laugh2:

 

[J.D.]

I'm not sure what your after here, John.

There doesn't seem to be much more recourse for the buyer than to trash the seller's reputation publicly, which I believe has been accomplished.

 

[CDaughtry]

The amp, pretty clearly, was a fake or at the very least a lash up. Does he get a pass for that? He sure as hell shouldn’t. However, one nagging question still remains for me (and maybe it’s been answered and I just missed it).
Did RD ever give Detlef a chance to give him his money back prior to hitting the internet with his complaint (and then selling it)?

If not, while it doesn’t excuse Detlef from missing the fact that it was a fake, shouldn’t he have been given a chance to rectify his mistake?

 

[F-Hole]

I'm not sure what your after here, John.

I'd like to see the long grass, wherever it may be, mown.

 

[F-Hole]

Did RD ever give Detlef a chance to give him his money back prior to hitting the internet with his complaint (and then selling it, properly described as what is actually is)?

Fixed, gratis.

If not, while it doesn’t excuse Detlef from missing the fact that it was a fake, shouldn’t he have been given a chance to rectify his mistake?

Yes.

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

The amp, pretty clearly, was a fake or at the very least a lash up. Does he get a pass for that? He sure as hell shouldn’t. However, one nagging question still remains for me (and maybe it’s been answered and I just missed it).
Did RD ever give Detlef a chance to give him his money back prior to hitting the internet with his complaint (and then selling it)?

If not, while it doesn’t excuse Detlef from missing the fact that it was a fake, shouldn’t he have been given a chance to rectify his mistake?

Post #53 TOP, as an indicator of how the ground lay with the narrative on the guitar, the amp? who knows? A huge leap of imagination to ponder a similar narrative?

 

[mipstoo]

The amp, pretty clearly, was a fake or at the very least a lash up. Does he get a pass for that? He sure as hell shouldn’t. However, one nagging question still remains for me (and maybe it’s been answered and I just missed it).
Did RD ever give Detlef a chance to give him his money back prior to hitting the internet with his complaint (and then selling it)?

If not, while it doesn’t excuse Detlef from missing the fact that it was a fake, shouldn’t he have been given a chance to rectify his mistake?

While I completely understand this point of view. What would happen next? Guitarpoint would take the loss? Or would it be re-listed as the original amp as it was sold as?

I read both threads completely and am surprised by a lot of things. Buyers buying for a lot of money without getting second or even third opinions at the moment of purchase. Sellers operating in a very gray area, still after all that has happened over the years. People supporting other people blindly (I still would like to know Tom's opinion after the released documents) and the proof that an online reputation is built over years and destroyed in a week.

If I understand correctly, Charles, you are lawyer for some newspapers and I understand your point of view. I'm an internet specialist and how much I understand that a newspaper and reporter has to have his back covered with every accusation he makes in the articles they post, this is not the case for an individual that writes a review or posts on a forum to share his views on a company he dealt with. If I read correctly, the matter is already out in the open between the different parties for over some months and it seems to me that Guitarpoint has missed out on an opportunity to save their online reputation. If here are hidden agendas we will probably never know, but all this should not be taken lightly by those affected. Will their business be destroyed? Probably not, look at the Denmark Street history. Will it leave a mark and make them lose customers? Probably, yes.

I'm currently interested in buying a high end vintage Gibson and I now am thinking twice before getting over to Germany. Which is a shame, because in Europe there just aren't that many options. I already have a vintage Gibson that passed through the hands of Guitarpoint before I purchased it and while I already had some doubts, they now are only more present.

While I don't think that Gregory handled it the best way, I think that Guitarpoint handled its business even worse.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

I love a good old fashioned lynching when appropriate and commend those for trying to bring the truth of the matter to light.

But, as I see it, this is the common sense process for step by step restitution:

1. Talk to dealer, attempt return.
2. File a complaint with the consumer protection bureau regarding fraud being committed by a licensed business (which is part of the benefit from dealing with a business in the first place, accountability)
3. Take it Public, forums, social media, even e-mail a couple writers at the local news organizations.
4. File in Small Claims.
5. Uhg, give up or lawyer up. ONLY, at or after step 5, would I consider moving the "contraband."



It appears step 1 is vague, but there was some nasty communication??
For Step 2 I've seen nothing but "**** the system bro." As if the transaction took place in Cameroon and not a 1st rate EU Nation.
Step 3 was taken, AFTER dumping the items off???????? Seriously?? And, it was ADVISED by the ELDER in the situation??
Thus, we never got to step 4.

This is what's shady about the whole damn thing, the initial fraud, but then the pump and dump while the new owner is more than happy to participate in the lynching rather than making sure the 24 year old victim exhausted the proper means to the fullest extent first and foremost.

Which begs the question....How important was restitution to begin with? I think we've covered the initial fraud quite well. I find it hard that some of you don't feel the response to the fraud committed has been lacking in judgement.

 

[J.D.]

What I interpreted from earlier posts is that legal action in these situations is ultimately an expensive waste of time.

 

[renderit]

Post #53 TOP, as an indicator of how the ground lay with the narrative on the guitar, the amp? who knows? A huge leap of imagination to ponder a similar narrative?

He got very aggressive? WHEN did the conversation take place? THAT makes a difference. AFTER THE ITEM WAS SOLD? We don't know, do we? If somebody asked me for recompense when I knew they traded or sold the item it takes on a little different shading, no? You can't really look at each individual claim here as a separate item. The timeline makes a difference. I still am not on either side here.

While I do not think the purchaser is lying the lack of the timeline becomes the question. There is such a thing as "the truth" and then there is "the whole truth". Some here seem to forget that. I think it makes a difference. But I AM an idiot.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

What I interpreted from earlier posts is that legal action in these situations is ultimately an expensive waste of time.

Steps 1-4 that I listed don't cost anything, except perhaps a small fee at step 4.


Whereas...if you bought the gear on craigslist you'd have to pretty much go straight to step 4 or 5, these transactions were done with a licensed and known business.

 

[F-Hole]

......these transactions were done with a licensed and known business.

.....which might mean something, or might not, depending on the corporate structure employed.

At the end of the day, judgement and enforcement are two entirely different things. By way of a hypothetical example, buiness A acts as a sales point for the assets of business B under an arms-length agreement. At some point, business A does a shady deal and gets sued. A judge awards against business A. Customer then attempts to collect (enforce) against business A, only to find it has no assets as it's a sales and distribution shell.....the assets are owned by buiness B, which wasn't a party to either the shady deal nor the lawsuit.

I happens every day in different cicrumstances.

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

There is such a thing as "the truth" and then there is "the whole truth". Some here seem to forget that. I think it makes a difference. But I AM an idiot.

And neither are going to be arrived at in any manner until the other party relate their narrative.

As to being an idiot. I doubt that, very much indeed.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

.....which might mean something, or might not, depending on the corporate structure employed.

At the end of the day, judgement and enforcement are two entirely different things. By way of a hypothetical example, buiness A acts as a sales point for the assets of business B under an arms-length agreement. At some point, business A does a shady deal and gets sued. A judge awards against business A. Customer then attempts to collect (enforce) against business A, only to find it has no assets as it's a sales and distribution shell.....the assets are owned by buiness B, which wasn't a party to either the shady deal nor the lawsuit.

I happens every day in different cicrumstances.

Understood, but I still believe if anyone is a victim of fraud from a known business it's part of due diligence to file a report regardless of any existing cynicism. Fortunately, in most 1st rate nations, consumer protection bureau's exist for exactly this reason so that the business can be held accountable without needing litigation. Worst case scenario the report goes into a file that eventually becomes a stack of reports! From reading through yours and other's posts here, that could be a possibility (not sure to laugh, or sigh).

 

[F-Hole]

....I still would like to know Tom's [Wittrock's] opinion after the released documents....

It's important to point out, in case your post is misinterpreted, that Tom doesn't have to justify anything in this thread. Tom isn't involved in the deal(s).

Tom Wittrock has an impeccible reputation, and I have no doubt as to his honesty and integrity. As said earlier, I don't believe he has a dishonest bone in his body. We argue often (usually my fault), and often hold opposing views, but I would never suggest that Tom's anything other than an absolutely straight shooter.

I've noticed that Tom hasn't posted for the last couple of days, which is sad. He's diligently defended his friend, which, as others have noted, is a noble act.

That Detlef hasn't done the decent thing and rewarded Tom's unwaverinig loyalty by publicly rebutting RD's claims on the forum is very disappointing.

 

[hoss]

Aggressiveness has been experienced in the past.

 

[mipstoo]

It's important to point out, in case your post is misinterpreted, that Tom doesn't have to justify anything in this thread. Tom isn't involved in the deal(s).

Tom Wittrock has an impeccible reputation, and I have no doubt as to his honesty and integrity. As said earlier, I don't believe he has a dishonest bone in his body. We argue often (usually my fault), and often hold opposing views, but I would never suggest that Tom's anything other than an absolutely straight shooter.

I've noticed that Tom hasn't posted for the last couple of days, which is sad. He's diligently defended his friend, which, as others have noted, is a noble act.

That Detlef hasn't done the decent thing and rewarded Tom's unwaverinig loyalty by publicly rebutting RD's claims on the forum is very disappointing.

I'm completely aware that Tom isn't involved whatsoever in this deal. And I found it integer of him that he defended his friend. As did JB and many others. But now some requested documents were shared. I find it bizar that since some of the requested "proof" was shared, there hasn't been a word out from these people.
Now I understand that some don't spend all their time online or on this forum, but I'm curious on their stand now. And we could keep wandering off and saying things like: it still doesn't proof this was a goldtop, but for me, a reputable dealer got caught in a gray zone and I would like to know how the early defenders think about it now? The amp on a GP invoice? A checklist with wrong information?

Still, the proof should have been shared much earlier and like said before, the timeline is important as well. BUT... the only reason to go to a vintage dealer and pay premium is to be assured that things that clearly happened here, would not happen at all. And it shouldn't matter if it is a 4, 5 or 6 figure guitar or amp. A vintage dealer should know his stuff before putting it up for sale.

It's funny, because I normally don't get into these discussions online, but I was planning to spend some large amount on a dream guitar and I would really like to know how the "establishment" stand on this matter.

 

[jbyrd1]

Understood, but I still believe if anyone is a victim of fraud from a known business it's part of due diligence to file a report regardless of any existing cynicism. Fortunately, in most 1st rate nations, consumer protection bureau's exist for exactly this reason so that the business can be held accountable without needing litigation. Worst case scenario the report goes into a file that eventually becomes a stack of reports! From reading through yours and other's posts here, that could be a possibility (not sure to laugh, or sigh).

It would probably be difficult to prove fraud. I'm sure they would plead ignorance. That doesn't make it any better for the OP. After a months long process, you MIGHT get your money back at best.....maybe. Also, how much would the OP have to have spent to possibly get any type of compensation. The juice may not be worth the squeeze. Take your lumps and make everyone aware.