Wiardgroup

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "xartdigital" <xartdigital@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > However, legal liability can arise from innocent seeming actions. 
> Take the matter of 
> > replacing older faceplates with newer ones. This seems a very 
> innocent request, but can 
> > create a legal liability problem for myself and/or Wiard.
> 
> Grant - Start putting serial numbers or Date of Manufacture on them.
> This is how every other business get around this issue.
>

The issue of Grant's demurring from factory rework seems to keep
resurfacing. My day job is in the field of high value vehicle hardware
and so i'll add my two-cents.  Referencing what i'm sure was
xartdigital's well-meaning comment. i'd like to rejoin that  through
my business' experience i have seen firsthand that  serial numbering
(mfr lot etc.) systems , even when implemented at the component level
do not mitigate the risk of accessory to fraud (civil) prosecution .
It's true that lawyers can  (and do) sue anybody for anything, but the
real issue is whether they do so successfully . 
We deal with some ultra-fancy car dealers in the UK and we observed
that we were selling them Rolls Royce fasteners. We did so because 
Rolls Royce hires these dealers to install Rolls Royce parts on Rolls
Royce cars. The dealers order the parts from -us -(in the USA- we
import them from Rolls Royce in Goodwood)  We then export them back to
the UK! Needless to say a lot of middlemen make money on this. The
reason for this absurd choreography is that Rolls Royce has been
successfully sued on multiple occasions for doing what they considered
a service for their customers;  the by-product of which was that the
vehicle's perceived value increased  and the buyer claimed that he was
defrauded when he discovered that (ie) what he believed was a 2005
phantom was a 2004 phantom with 2005 door panels. Further R.R. marked
all reworked parts with an engraved dash number and appended  a
description of the rework to the vehicles online factory  `pedigree' .
They were sued successfully anyway. Yes, it's absurd but it happens
and rest assured every last component of those machines are numbered
with lot and serials. It gets better… if the original owner has the
work done (even with all genuine R.R. parts) by a third party. Then
there is no tort. The byzantine reasoning behind this is that a
factory `upgrade' imparts the perception of genuine provenance where
the third-party upgrade does not. 
It sounds like a Samuel Becket play! But it's worked in court. We
ourselves questioned their sanity when they wanted us to re-export
parts back to the UK but they assured us it was more than worth our
(pretty steep) markup to do it this way. And R.R. is only one instance
among other cases we've seen in automotive and  aviation markets …and
anything else wherein a finished product garners a collectible status.
My observation is that this is especially true when rework involves
parts that are easily visible.
Now i realize that there's a hell of difference in scale between R.R.
Phantoms and Wiard 300's (so far) but even the necessity of a legal
consultation fee could damage the cash flow of a one-man show like 
Wiard. It's regrettable that the litigious mindset has imposed these
risks but the risks are real, i've seen them firsthand and serial
numbers are not an effective defense when  a legally aggressive buyer
can show the original manufacturer to be `complicit' in rework

I remember when I acquired a second hand Serge Series 76, all the boards were rev. 79 
boards and I thought the faceplates should be silver like the series 79.

So I called Serge and asked him about this, and he replied with a very profound answer.

"Why can't you let it be what it is?"

It had never occurred that he would view changing it as vandalizing an archeological 
artifact.

He went on to give me a rather drastic crash course in psychology where he tried to 
proved to me that the instrument had no problems, but my head did.

He closed by saying "Buddha tells us unhappiness begins the moment we desire to change 
things from what they are now."

At the time I thought it was a bunch of psycho-babble crap and just an excuse to not help 
me. But over time I have come to really sympathize with his perspective and consider his 
words a great gift.

These instruments develop a history, and that history gives them a kind of soul, and 
simply erasing that history disrespects everything that instrument went though to be 
where it is today. Every scratch or fuzzy letter or dent is something that instrument went 
through to survive long enough to reach your possibly unworthy hands. You should be 
proud of it, it has earned the right to be exactly what it is.

This applies only to cosmetic issues, the instruments are all designed for long term 
functional maintenance. I don't care what used instruments LOOK like, but I do expect 
them to function well and be in calibration. If there is a functional issue, then by all means 
let's fix it. But I have too much work making brand new modules to fool around with 
cosmetic issues on older ones.

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Grant Richter" <grichter@...> wrote:

> 
> He went on to give me a rather drastic crash course in psychology
where he tried to 
> proved to me that the instrument had no problems, but my head did.
> 

Agreed! ...umm...no offense! :)

I see it like this; The need to have complete cosmetic uniformity
and/or perfection is being anal. Maybe it's just a little anal.
Probably not something to see a psychiatrist about. I know a lot of
people like this and I don't think they are crazy. The thing that is
bothersome is that these people often force their hangups on me! I
find myself wasting time agonizing over whether the next batch of
panels are the same shade as a previous shipment. Or a different
layout may be optimal but it doesn't conform to a specific format's
standard layout. 
  
  I have to eat and pay rent so I find myself obsessing over these
cosmetic details which have little to no importance to the actual
workings and playability of the module. Perfection is allusive so even
all the extra effort usually goes unappreciated. No win situation.



> 
> These instruments develop a history, and that history gives them a
kind of soul, and 
> simply erasing that history disrespects everything that instrument
went though to be 
> where it is today. Every scratch or fuzzy letter or dent is
something that instrument went 
> through to survive long enough to reach your possibly unworthy
hands. You should be 
> proud of it, it has earned the right to be exactly what it is.
> 

Well put, Grant. I find my modular's battle scars to be endearing. it
means I've been making patches and sounds and not just electronic
furniture.



> This applies only to cosmetic issues, the instruments are all
designed for long term 
> functional maintenance. I don't care what used instruments LOOK
like, but I do expect 
> them to function well and be in calibration. 


This is a point that should be well considered by the slightly anal
crowd (least offense intended). Just because something looks perfect
doesn't mean it is. The workmanship in design and assembly is what is
important. Everything else is just cosmetic.


p