Jackson USA SL2H -- Warranty Claim Log

[Chad]

Yeah that issue happens far too often and is a real bummer. You are handling it correctly.

+1. This is why I never even consider buying a Jackson online without verifying via pics, description, or message that a given guitar doesn't have this issue.

[leftykingv2]

Thanks for the kind replies, everyone.

Leftykingv2, I'm not going to argue with you. I did not intend my timeline of what happened to be an absolving excuse. It is simply what happened. In some ways, I agree with you, and I should have taken care of it as soon as I noticed the defect. The simple fact is, I did not. I said it before -- my bad. So here I am today.

As far as working against me, I'm not sure that I understand that. The guitar carries a lifetime warranty for the original owner. I read the warranty card before moving forward with my claim and I did not see anything in the warranty verbiage that limited the time I had to make a claim against a manufacturing defect. I then contacted Consumer Relations at Jackson, who encouraged me to take the guitar into Guitar Center to be evaluated. The only thing Fender/Jackson might do differently is that had I made the claim immediately after receiving the guitar, they likely would have replaced it. Now, with their comment about "reworking the body," I'm wondering if they will just plug the stud holes and redrill them, then route the trem recess wider to accommodate the shift in the bridge position.

Not trying to argue with you either bro. I just can't understand waiting that long. I know some people have a lot on their plate but that would've driven me crazy until I had taken care of it. As I already said I hope it works out for you as the flaw is blatantly obvious and no fault of yours. When I said "working against you" I meant you probably would've got a brand new guitar had you reported it sooner and now they're talking about re-drilling the studs which in my opinion is unacceptable. You should receive a brand new guitar and I personally wouldn't accept anything less and neither should you.

[shreddermon]

At a 4 to 6 month wait, my guess is they are building him a new guitar. And it's probably safe to say the real wait will be longer than that.

Good luck.

[leftykingv2]

At a 4 to 6 month wait, my guess is they are building him a new guitar. And it's probably safe to say the real wait will be longer than that.

Good luck.

I hope so man. It's unacceptable to re-drill that in my opinion.

[Nightbat]

I hope so man. It's unacceptable to re-drill that in my opinion.

Why not, it's a 6-year old warranty case, and redrilling those mounts isn't as bad or invasive as say: crooked p'up routes or 23 frets

[Newc]

1. Regarding the time it took to file the claim: Lefty, not everyone is OCD about such things. "Tomorrow" turns into "6 years later" quite often for those of us with more things going on in our lives, despite the money that was spent or the item in question. It's difficult to explain, but it does happen. There's something around here I've been meaning to do, but for the life of me I can't remember it. There's also a ton of things I really need to do and know exactly what they are, but here I sit, arguing on the internet.

2. Regarding fill-and-redrill vs replacement: The manufacturer reserves the right to handle the claim in a manner which best suits them, relative to the issue of the claim. In this case, fill-and-redrill is cost-effective for them in terms of both labor and materials, as well as resulting in a fast turn-around so the customer is not without the product for an unreasonable amount of time. In either event, the end-result is the same in that the guitar will no longer have this issue (hopefully).

3. Regarding how it can pass QC: You have to have QC before you can have QC. In a high-volume manufacturing operation, it's doubtful that one person (the typical makeup of a QC department in a manufacturing operation of less than 100 people) has the time to 100% certify 100% of the product, especially if they have taken a day off or is out for pregnancy or some other long-term situation. Therefore, it generally falls to someone from the production area who may only have enough skill to read a spec sheet checklist and make a few specific-but-vague measurements before marking it Approved. That's in addition to their regular job which they also have to do. I'd actually be curious to know how many people who build guitars can actually play them well enough to spot this sort of "glaring" defect. At any manufacturer.
In that regard, you have people who have dealt with this exact issue for years on their own gear and have adapted their playing style to compensate for it. Thus, when they encounter it, to them it's something they can live with, and the misconception is "if I can live with it on mine, someone else can live with it on theirs".

Lastly, you have a small, close-knit work environment in the capitol of "make everybody feel good about themselves" (California) and the person at the end of the line who finds this defect doesn't want to risk butt-hurting their uber-sensitive-to-criticism co-worker by saying "dude, really? This is fucked up. Are you high?"

[leftykingv2]

That really is a good point Newc. You call me OCD all you want but that thing would've left skid marks on their doorstep it would have been returned so fast if I had bought it. As for one guy not wanting to hurt his coworkers feelings I'll bet that all changes when he gets reprimanded for signing off on the Q.C. papers of a guitar that was clearly not made properly.

[Chad]

^Not to mention, provided the dealer wasn't high, blind, etc., THEY should have caught it even if Jackson didn't. I own a business and checking vendor quality is a big part of managing inventory. It gets real old, real quick being the "QC department" for a vendor and not getting paid for it. But that's just the way it is in today's world of cost cutting, outsourcing, etc.

[leftykingv2]

^Not to mention, provided the dealer wasn't high, blind, etc., THEY should have caught it even if Jackson didn't. I own a business and checking vendor quality is a big part of managing inventory. It gets real old, real quick being the "QC department" for a vendor and not getting paid for it. But that's just the way it is in today's world of cost cutting, outsourcing, etc.

+1 I would think as a businessman any dealer with a brain would've caught such a gross oversight. It's almost like Jackson turned a blind eye then the dealer did it and then the O.P. did it for six years. WTH is going on there?

[Jack Napalm]

When I had my issue it wasn't caught initially either. I picked it up played some chords and made sure it made noise and put it down. I then left for a few days. It wasn't until I got back and after someone pointed it out in the pictures that I noticed it. I am sure that if I hadn't posted pictures I would have seen it once I had time to play it.

In my case I asked for a new guitar. It was a brand new instrument and I thought it should be right from the start. I was explained a way they could repair it and there would be little to no indication of such a repair. I asked for a new one.

[leftykingv2]

When I had my issue it wasn't caught initially either. I picked it up played some chords and made sure it made noise and put it down. I then left for a few days. It wasn't until I got back and after someone pointed it out in the pictures that I noticed it. I am sure that if I hadn't posted pictures I would have seen it once I had time to play it.

In my case I asked for a new guitar. It was a brand new instrument and I thought it should be right from the start. I was explained a way they could repair it and there would be little to no indication of such a repair. I asked for a new one.

+1 Even if they fill and re-drill the trem posts the route for the whole trem is going to be terrible and not even close to symmetrical and I don't think there's anyway to fix that.

[Chad]

It's very strange that Jackson can't get a grip on this. It indeed happens more than it should. Also, it almost always ends up leaning toward the treble side of the neck. Not sure I've ever seen it off toward the bass side. In other words, when they do make the error, it is consistent. What's up?

[leftykingv2]

It's very strange that Jackson can't get a grip on this. It indeed happens more than it should. Also, it almost always ends up leaning toward the treble side of the neck. Not sure I've ever seen it off toward the bass side. In other words, when they do make the error, it is consistent. What's up?

That's an excellent point Chad. I've seen four Jackson's like this in my life and every single one was the treble side as you've mentioned. That is extremely peculiar.

[MetalDaze]

It's very strange that Jackson can't get a grip on this. It indeed happens more than it should. Also, it almost always ends up leaning toward the treble side of the neck. Not sure I've ever seen it off toward the bass side. In other words, when they do make the error, it is consistent. What's up?

Probably the same guy over the years.

[Chad]

^I guess that's possible. But that seems to be one of those critical "measure 50 times, cut/drill once" parts of the build process. Screw that up on ONE guitar in your life and I'd think that'd be enough of a lesson to not want to do it ever again. Especially if Jackson/FMIC has to commission a rebuild.