Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: King 2341


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Tony Tuba on January 22, 2002 at 03:10:39:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: King 2341 posted by dp on January 22, 2002 at 02:21:30:

Dale,

Thanks for your kind reply. I see I misinterpreted your comments. I will follow your advice and "lighten up".

Believe me, regarding everything you have said about UMI, I couldn't agree with you more, which is why I was hoping to draw some attention to Dan's post that you cited. This is indeed a classic example of a company settling for good enough. Apparently, they feel they have a good design, they have a good price, it will sell anyway, so why pay attention to the details. It's disapointing on several levels. First, they have something special within their grasp. What a thing to waste. Second, I feel it's disrespectful to their herritage. Third, it's disrespectful to their customers.

In one of your earlier posts, you indicate that the small additional investment in labor to do it right would easily be recovered in by the increase in market value. I can't speak for others, but I would gladly have paid more to get more quality, and I suspect others would as well. Shoot, look at the cost to have it done post production.

Dan's a busy man running a busy shop. I expect I'll have to wait in line, and possibly beg. But, I'm going to do it, because I think it really would be a Gem, and a lifelong companion.

Dan encouraged me to write a letter to UMI, even if they throw it in the trash. I think everyone who purchases a UMI horn and has to "suck it up" on finish quality, like me, should write them. And put up a post. We may not (will not?) get results, but it won't be because we didn't speak up.

Tony "not drubbed after all" Tuba


Follow Ups: