Zon basses - is everything OK ?

I thought they were supposed to have your bass done back in June I think or maybe it was August 2024.
Any word on when your Modulus is going to be ready?

Joe (Perman) is making progress :) that should be done soon-ish…just waiting on word to send him this glorious pickup

Rarest of the pepes… a Lane Poor 3.5MMDW
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2548.jpeg
    IMG_2548.jpeg
    4 MB · Views: 9
  • IMG_2550.jpeg
    IMG_2550.jpeg
    3.4 MB · Views: 8
  • IMG_2551.jpeg
    IMG_2551.jpeg
    5.4 MB · Views: 9
Joe (Perman) is making progress :) that should be done soon-ish…just waiting on word to send him this glorious pickup

Rarest of the pepes… a Lane Poor 3.5MMDW
Actually the first question was towards your Zon & the 2nd question obviously about your Modulus, can't wait to see updates on the Modulus but would like updates on the Zon as well.
 
You told me a few months ago you had placed an order for a Modulus, is the pic a Modulus neck?
How back-logged is Modulus right now?

He’s pretty much on target with the timeline I was given…maybe even a bit ahead. when I gave the deposit end of August, he said it would be a few months to start…he’s already started though and now there’s a neck made, body next!
 
Last edited:
I'm about to retain a California attorney to pursue the matter of my withheld instrument.

At this point, I don't harbor any expectations to ever see my instrument (sent in for repair over 3.5 years ago) again, so I'm unconcerned with any prospect of retaliatory measures.

Beyond the issue of possesion of the instrument itself, however, is the regularity of their delay-and-deceive tactics, clearly and demonstrably grounded in bad faith. For myself and for multiple other parties in this thread, the issue is so far past the point of "we're having a problem with paint/hardware/etc." as to be indefensible by any reasonable good-faith argument.

Unfortunately, it seems that we're at/past the point where it's necessary to see what California law says about such deliberate and consistent delay tactics.

FWIW, I was patient. I waited. I publicly rooted for these guys to turn things around. I didn't say anything negative until *years* past their quoted 2-month turnaround time.

It's time.
 
Last edited:
I'm about to retain a California attorney to pursue the matter of my withheld instrument.

At this point, I don't harbor any expectations to ever see my instrument (sent in for repair over 3.5 years ago) again, so I'm unconcerned with any prospect of retaliatory measures.

Beyond the issue of possesion of the instrument itself, however, is the regularity of their delay-and-deceive tactics, clearly and demonstrably grounded in bad faith. For myself and for multiple other parties in this thread, the issue is so far past the point of "we're having a problem with paint/hardware/etc." as to be indefensible by any reasonable good-faith argument.

Unfortunately, it seems that we're at/past the point where it's necessary to see what California law says about such deliberate and consistent delay tactics.

FWIW, I was patient. I waited. I publicly rooted for these guys to turn things around. I didn't say anything negative until *years* past their quoted 2-month turnaround time.

It's time.
Wish you luck, whenever the idea of pursuing legal action is brought up here the idea is always shot down for various reasons by other posters but I don’t think anyone has actually started a claim so it’s mostly conjecture, it will be very interesting to see how it goes in the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ
Wish you luck, whenever the idea of pursuing legal action is brought up here the idea is always shot down for various reasons by other posters but I don’t think anyone has actually started a claim so it’s mostly conjecture, it will be very interesting to see how it goes in the real world.
I would 100% agree with the argument that it's not a practical approach for being made whole.
 
I'm about to retain a California attorney to pursue the matter of my withheld instrument.

At this point, I don't harbor any expectations to ever see my instrument (sent in for repair over 3.5 years ago) again, so I'm unconcerned with any prospect of retaliatory measures.

Beyond the issue of possesion of the instrument itself, however, is the regularity of their delay-and-deceive tactics, clearly and demonstrably grounded in bad faith. For myself and for multiple other parties in this thread, the issue is so far past the point of "we're having a problem with paint/hardware/etc." as to be indefensible by any reasonable good-faith argument.

Unfortunately, it seems that we're at/past the point where it's necessary to see what California law says about such deliberate and consistent delay tactics.

FWIW, I was patient. I waited. I publicly rooted for these guys to turn things around. I didn't say anything negative until *years* past their quoted 2-month turnaround time.

It's time.
Wow. 3.5 years and counting for a repair is insane. Good luck, @31HZ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ
Wish you luck, whenever the idea of pursuing legal action is brought up here the idea is always shot down for various reasons by other posters but I don’t think anyone has actually started a claim so it’s mostly conjecture, it will be very interesting to see how it goes in the real world.
I'm not an attorney but I could see a difference between a "long wait for a bass I bought" (with a contract that says that deposits are non-refundable) and a bass that is sent in for repair and not returned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ and ModuMan