PSA: Willcutt's Sell One Month Old Used Murphy Lab Defect as New

VictorB

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Super Mod
V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
57,225
Reaction score
241,811
However they do it, they are making cracks in the finish, same result.
I think it’s the finish itself… the nitro they are using. MANY others use the cold to hot checking technique and never suffer this type of thing.
 

LtDave32

Let Desert Star be your next guitar!
Super Mod
Silver Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
58,185
Reaction score
206,993
I read what Murphy Labs had to offer in the way of a reason why this all happened. According to them, the aniline dyes remained their powdered form as a stain-rub and pore filler. This powdering led to movement under the lacquer and the subsequent cracking and flaking off. It didn't adhere to the guitar surface.

Personally, I use Trans-tint.

From Trans-Tint:

"TransTints are formulated from light stable metallized acid dyes. They are more lightfast when compared to conventional aniline powdered type dye stains. "

Trans tints have never let me down, and their "red mahogany" color matches Gibson's cherry red perfectly.

Maybe a change in method and product is in order.
 
Last edited:

Adinol

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
519
Reaction score
485
I returned this guitar do to finish loss. It was just received back today by the dealer. And after I owned it for a month and with the finish defect Willcutt's just relisted it as new.

Pretty sad that they would do this and Gibson has not yet recalled these defective guitars.


Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?
 

lawrev

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
753
Reaction score
755
Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?

Excellent context!
 

mudface

Shaw Bucker
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
13,720
Reaction score
42,636
Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?

"showing signs of the finish is flaking off" is one thing........but to have it fall off in your hands is another.

It's kind of the same with these custom rat-rods,...... a '55 chevy is painted to look rusted and weathered....but it's paint...not real rust.

Having a faked aged guitar would be the same,....I would think.....having it look aged with some realism but not actually fall apart in your hands........or maybe you do?.....I couldn't say.

But.......to each their own.
 

JLMAREUIL

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
131
Reaction score
276
Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?
Good thinking...
Not unfounded :)
 

Maggot_Brain

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2021
Messages
519
Reaction score
625
That is not quite right. The dark cherry pore filler must have had something in it that reacts with the nitro because when the finish flakes off there is a thin film of grey-pink substance. It could also be from moisture getting under the finish as well. So it is not really the aging but a chmical reaction that was not expected.

There should be a recall by Gibson for all the guitars with the dark cherry backs because all the finish will fall off. It just might take a little longer on some than others.

I am getting a full refund for all 6 of mine that have the defect so I don't have a dog in this fight anymore. Just was disgusted by Willcutt's selling it as new.

That's not how recalls work. They're 99.9% safety related and this isn't that. Recall on material/visual issue? It'll never happen.

Shady for sure.

Actually, I've always felt the whole idea of purchasing a new guitar from any music store with a physical showroom is kinda f@cked up.
How many people tried that guitar before you bought it? How long did it sit on a stand or a wall hanger getting bumped around.
At many stores, there are guitars that sit for months or even years before they sell as "new".
At a store near me they have a gold sparkle Tele that has been up on the wall for at least two years. Is that a new guitar? The price label says it is, but by now it's been played hundreds of times.

I hope that Gibson will make things right for everyone, including their dealers, but I am not holding my breath. Right now there is no acknowledgement from Gibson that there is a problem to resolve, so the dealers are potentially holding a lot of expensive hot potatoes.

When you go buy a car from a car dealer, 59 people before you could've driven the car you bought yet its still new even though it has 296 miles on it. Same thing applies here. It's never been sold. It's still considered 'new' whether people 'test drove' it or not.
 
Last edited:

THAWK819

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
365
Reaction score
588
Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?

It isn't "naturally occurring;" it was a part of the manufacturing process that didn't work as intended, making it a manufacturer's defect. Is everyone in this thread just skipping over the posts where Gibson and the ML folks are quoted saying they identified and fixed the issue? The finish isn't holding up as either the buyers or the manufacturers expected. Gibson isn't saying, "You bought a relic finish, sit back and watch how effectively we engineered your guitar to age before your eyes."

Gibson is saying, "There was a problem in the manufacturing process of these guitars where this particular pore filler was used; we identified and fixed it going forward." Why would they offer refinishes if this failing finish was "naturally occurring?" Has anyone ever known Gibson to be extra generous in their stance on warranty covered repairs for something they didn't agree was a manufacturer's defect?

We are all consumers of guitars here; I don't understand how anyone is praising rationalizing like this that only ultimately hurts consumers. I've purchased from Willcutt before and had a great experience; I'm disappointed that they re-sold that guitar without very specifically pointing out its known flaws. If they have to call it "new," at least call it "B stock" and clearly show the problems. I really hope some unsuspecting person didn't just buy that thinking they got an incredible gift for the guitar lover in their life.

At least the return that Sweetwater is selling has very detailed, close-up pics, so a buyer won't be unpleasantly surprised when they open the case.
 

Big Monk

"Beneath the bebop moon, I'm howlin' like a loon."
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
2,306
I repeat: Finish flaking off en masse is not part of the relicing process. It’s a defect.

Does anyone think critically anymore or have we passed the point of rational discussion in this thread?
 

Big Monk

"Beneath the bebop moon, I'm howlin' like a loon."
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
2,306
Well, let's think about this...

When you buy a Murphy's Lab guitar you are buying a fake relic, because the guitar is actually brand new, but made to look old and used. When you return a Murphy's Lab guitar it is no longer new, it is used, therefore it is actually one step closer to being a genuine relic, especially if the reason for returning is naturally occurring damage of the finish.

So, since those who buy Murphy's Lab stuff do so because they actually want real relics, but can't afford them... Wouldn't a used guitar with naturally occurring finish issues actually be a more desirable guitar to own?

Also, if relic is what you want, why return a guitar that shows signs of finish flaking off? Isn't that the exact premium feature that you paid top dollar for?

There are many, many guitars out there, including vintage examples, with natural and artificial checking that dont lose whole chunks of finish due to flaking.

Again, We (The Royal We) shouldn’t try and conflate the process of providing differing levels of artificial checking to finish flaking off.
 

Crotch

Cocaine Bear
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
33,189
Reaction score
93,889
Does anyone think critically anymore
The answer is of course, no. And it has nothing to do with this thread. It's any relic thread where all the cool guys get to come out and tell you how big their cocks are compared to yours for buying a "fake" aged guitar. All the kids are doing it these days and damn you for liking what you like instead of what they like.
 

kelsodeez

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
661
Reaction score
1,832
The answer is of course, no. And it has nothing to do with this thread. It's any relic thread where all the cool guys get to come out and tell you how big their cocks are compared to yours for buying a "fake" aged guitar. All the kids are doing it these days and damn you for liking what you like instead of what they like.
The problem with social media is that it gave everyone this idea that other people care about their opinion
 

Pageburst

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
351
Reaction score
1,138
Calieng was considerate enough to point out a return being sold as new. I applaud him for that. He also has every right to return his MLs because of the premature aging of the finish. It is my understanding that he received a refund for the guitars he purchased so I don’t understand the slight torch and pitchfork attitude toward Gibson or their dealers.

It seems with the rise of social media some people indulge in their “righteous” impulses and feel they have a right or duty to pass judgement whereby they boycott, cancel or shame those they deem “heretics” into submission or compliance.

Regardless of whether I agree with Calieng or not, I find the above trend a troubling development. I hope it recedes like the self anointed Yelp critics but I’m not holding my breath.
 

FadedLP

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
317
Reaction score
94
Yea I think people maybe are reading into the relic argument a little too much by trying to give a psychological diagnosis and maybe calieng is getting a little extra heat because he bought a whole lot of them
 

Brek

Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
4,381
Reaction score
5,979
I see a lot of people piling in mocking people for buying them on this forum and others. Its leaving a poor impression in my mind about people. We are free to spend out money how we want. I don't mock people who have less than me, although i see some people do enjoy that. I dunno what to think of such behaviour.

As a supposed collective of like minded people I am left questioning who i want to engage with and what i should post in future. I share what i do/buy not out of ego or wanting to be bigger than the next guy but to share the knowledge or whatever. I have an abundance of enthusiam for any topic that engages me.

this is thread isn't as bad as the gear page one though in terms of responses. I don't agree with the idea of boycotting Gibson, or dissing a company they just refunded without quibble a guitar. But thats my opinion and no one is obliged to agree or disagree with it.
 
Last edited:

Big Monk

"Beneath the bebop moon, I'm howlin' like a loon."
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
2,306
I think, as usual, the argument is multifaceted.

On one hand, you have the issue with the finishes. Things happen and it seems like the root cause analysis has been performed and the solution at hand.

Refunds are awesome, refinishes don’t seem bad either.

The real issue here is dealers reselling these guitars. But what is prompting that? Do they not want to go through the hassle of going through Gibson? Is this laziness and greed on the dealers part or do they have a reason to believe going through Gibson is less than advantageous?

This is not as simple an issue as internet forumites would make it. We have, in any isolated case, 3 stakeholders: The owner/former owner, the dealers, and the OEM.
 

Latest Threads



Top