As promised, here are some photos of the back of my new S6. Hopefully you can see that the left side is noticeably "redder" than the right side. The patterning and striations are nice and seem matched, but the color surely does not. Is this normal? Or did something go wrong in the manufacturing process? I have sent an email and the photos to Godin to see what they say. I know it's only a $400 guitar but I would just like to get some feedback about it.
Nope - I checked the SN. No "FS" or "SF". It was sold to me as new stock. Keeping in mind that depending on how I angle the guitar, the contrast you see in the photos can change slightly. But even so, the photos are representative of the coloration difference, and it doesn't seem correct to me. I have a lot of guitars- many Martins, etc. and I know what looks right. For this price of guitar I ordinarily wouldn't bother with such an issue. But this brand/model is such a keeper that I want make sure that I am getting what I have paid for.
Yep ... the back and sides on my S-6 are gorgeous and perfectly matched, as have been every S-6 I've seen in stores. Somehow, bluesygirl just got a clunker ...
I am sure it's just an error on the production line. It should have been marked by the production crew as being a second and somehow it was passed and shipped to the dealer. The dealer probably did not open the box to inspect the guitar and shipped it immediately to Bluesy Girl. Human error.
It's happened to me when I bought some expensive tube amps for my stereo. The manufacturer accidently placed the wrong tubes in the box and shipped it to the dealer. The dealer did not open the boxes and called me up. When I opened the box and started installing the tubes, I noticed that the markings on the tubes did not correspond to what I had read as being the tubes for the amps. The dealer was not aware of the problem as he had not inspected the amps. He assumed since they were unopened, they would be fine. They have a production inspection unit and they missed the wrong tubes being shipped since the tubes look the same. You just had to look at the tube model which is in small writing. Human error. Luckily I noticed it and knew the tubes that were supposed to go in there. Some might not have noticed. Luckily, the tubes that were provided would not have damaged the amps, the amps would have simply not have worked properly.
I am sure the dealer and manufacturer will come to the table. They can easily see the improper finish and verify the serial number to the guitar they shipped you.
Heck, I saw a Martin at GC a few months ago that looked like absolute crap ... the top (not the back!) actually looked like bluseygirls guitar. Bookmatched sitka spruce where one side was a completely different shade than the other. And Martin prides themselves in NEVER selling B stock, so this was obviously a guitar that got past Martin's rigorous standard and onto the showroom floor. It was UGLY!!!
I am surprised that the dealer would even have it on the wall and not return it. It's one thing to not open the shipping box and give it to the customer, but to open it up and have it on display. Pretty incredible.
Guys - it would be very helpful if some of you could post up some good shots of your S6 backs, as a point of comparison for me. I think the images I have over emphasize the contrast somewhat, and other photos I have seen of Seagull backs that folks have posted over on the Telecaster forum look quite similar to mine. Thanks. :)
@ bluesygirl ... here's the back of my S-6 shown on the left beside the Artist Mosaic mahogany. As you can see, none of the variation you're dealing with.
Here's a couple of pix of mine. The bookmatching's good, colour's nice and even.
Blackback ... Yours definitely has a nice clean, tight grain. Very pretty. What year is it?
Judging by the serial number, an '02. Sounds real good too, after a decade of being played - and someone played this one a lot, judging by the wear marks on the top. Betcha bucks to buttons it's worked for a living...