Re: Ibanez wood fraud
I don’t see why we can’t continue to talk about what we think is ethical behavior for a guitar company and what are reasonable expectations for a consumer. Of course, we also welcome any insights into how the guitar industry and wood trade actually work.
Talk about whatever, all you want. I didn't say not to. I said the conversation isn't going to go anywhere except in circles.
People keep saying that Ibanez stated one wood, and used another. We don't know that to be true. We will never know, because the OP won't carve up his bass and pay for lab tests.
There isn't much discussion or argument to be had over whether a company should give you what it says it's giving you. You will be hard pressed to find someone who
doesn't believe that. The question is whether that's what happened here. So far, I've seen nothing definitive showing that it is. A blurry picture of wood that could probably reasonably be called mahogany, following wood industry naming conventions, is not something to make definitive statements over, as several people are doing here.
Again, when guitar makers say "mahogany," they are being vague on purpose. It gives them wiggle room to source a variety of species of lumber for the same products. It helps them keep costs down. I don't see a problem with that, as long as what they're giving you is something that is routinely called "mahogany" in the lumber trade...which is a LOT of stuff.
Should they be more specific? Well, of course, as hobbyists, we would
like them to be. But I don't know about "should." I myself am perfectly content to let a low end line of instruments be made out of some general category of wood, if it helps keeps the prices low by allowing them to be less specific in the lumber that they purchase. Should they lie? No. But I don't think they did that here, and even if they did, we can't prove it based on what we
know.
