Parting out telecasters, is it an evil practice?

[sullivj1970]

Hi everyone. Long time lurker, first time poster.
I probably would have remained a lurker forever, but there’s been something on my mind of late and I’m curious as to the opinions of the members of this forum in relation to it.
As a point of reference, my primary guitar (I won’t make SRV roll over in his grave by referring to my primary guitar as “my #1” as it would be generous to call what I do with a guitar playing it) is a partscaster. I have an 80’s MIJ tele and a squire tele as well. I’m certainly not against creating partscasters as a practice as, for me anyway, it’s a fun hobby. I figured out a while ago that no matter what commercially available guitar I were to buy, I was going to change so much of it, I might as well just build it from the ground up instead and it costs me less that way. The elegant simplicity (yet openness to modifications) of the telecaster’s design lends itself to this practice.
What has come to eat at me lately however is the increasing practice of certain eBay sellers of “parting out” telecasters. These aren’t partcasters to begin with; these are contiguous Fender guitars that were obviously complete before the seller stripped them down to parts. Their motivation in doing so is that they make a slightly higher profit selling the parts piecemeal than they can selling the guitar whole.
And again, I really like tele parts, that’s why I’m constantly looking at them online. So I’m not against people trafficking in tele necks and bodies. Also you can argue that a guitar that comes off an assembly line isn’t a work of art, or even a labor of love.
But I can’t help but see permanently disassembling a whole guitar and scattering its parts to the wind as an unethical practice. If the neck were ruined, sure sell the body without it. But to sell the neck and body separately for the sake of turning a slightly higher profit is, to me, a pretty crummy practice that frankly shows a lack of respect for the instrument itself. It’s not a question of the possible potential collectors value of the guitar years in the future. It’s just that a given model of guitar was designed and built as a whole. It will have its strong points and its flaws, but all of that in total sums up its character.
Maybe I’m being naïve about the whole thing, but I’m getting to the point where I think a certain eBay seller’s picture should be on a wanted poster for wanton abuse of innocent instruments.
Just wondered what others thought.

Thanks,

[Tim Armstrong]

I just bought a Musicmaster Bass neck from a guy who's parting out the whole instrument. All I needed was the neck (it's for a project), so I guess I'm glad he was selling it, but I do feel kinda conflicted. Taking apart a perfectly good guitar seems wrong somehow...

Cheers, Tim

[darkstar]

I dont think its that big of a crime unless its a vintage instrument. But removing a vintage tele from the world to make a few more bucks is reprehensible.

[TexGoneNW]

My gut says yes.

That being said, the cat's out of the bag.

What I hate more is that these nice guitars that should be played are bought up and set in a display case, and the prices are off limits to most players.

[JoeAArthur]

What difference does it make? If you can get more from a guitar by selling its parts separately instead of all put together...

Well, isn't that really more a statement about the buyers than the sellers?

[mellecaster]

I agree with a lot of your concerns...but to quote you "Their motivation in doing so is that they make a slightly higher profit selling the parts piecemeal than they can selling the guitar whole. "....I gotta disagree with the word "slightly"....these dudes are making a Killing !...and as Joe A said..it's a lot about the buyers...

[Maestro]

I am totally against taking apart vintage instruments unless the body in more pieces than a ravenburger puzzle and the neck is more warped than the starship enterprise. I honestly believe well made instruments (wheter from a factory or home built) have a soul. They are like human beings more than the sum of there parts.

Therefore I dislike taking fine instruments apart just for the sake of money, but I won't convict ppl who do that. When an instrument is severly damaged in a certain area then I think it's fine to sell off a neck. but not when the body that it was once attached to is perfectly fine.

But as long as ppl buy the parts other ppl will sell them.

tata

[0le FUZZY]

Parting out telecasters, is it an evil practice?

No way!!

Leo started out with the idea in mind.

When it comes tew TELECASTERs I find nuttin rong with cellin parts offin it or ruinin a perfectly good won tew dew sew.

I my own seff haff takin many an old TELECASTER and traded the neck or P/Us or body with a nutter won here inna TELE-Shack jes cause I could and cause I liked the feet-churs of wons parts over the udder.

I my own seff think its great that folks issa cellin parts on eBay no matter where they came from.

JMHO and YMMV




Please visit my page

[Dave W]

I agree with Fuzzy.

The only thing that's reprehensible IMO is people sitting in judgment on what someone else decides to do with his own private property.

It's a commodity, folks. Not a sacred relic. Not a public trust. Just someone else's personal property. Not yours.

[Bob Rogers]

Originally Posted by 0le FUZZY

<li>No way!!
<li>Leo started out with the idea in mind.
<li>When it comes tew TELECASTERs I find nuttin rong with cellin parts offin it or ruinin a perfectly good won tew dew sew.
<li>I my own seff haff takin many an old TELECASTER and traded the neck or P/Us or body with a nutter won here inna TELE-Shack jes cause I could and cause I liked the feet-churs of wons parts over the udder.
<li>I my own seff think its great that folks issa cellin parts on eBay no matter where they came from.

+1, heck +10. IMHO one of the best things about bolt neck instruments in general and teles in particular is that we can take them apart, swap the parts around and put them back together any way we want. If people are making more by selling parts than by selling whole guitars there must be a lot of people who agee with me.

As far as the "evil" issue, I'll just note in passing that the second definition of "idolatry" is "blind or excessive devotion to something." Not saying I think it's right, but it's worth keeping in mind that out in the real world, you can probably find a lot of people who think our love of a mass produced consumer product is "evil."

[jwsamuel]

I look at it this way:

Say I have a Telecaster than I can sell for $500 as a guitar. And say that if I part it out, I can get a total of $750 for the parts.

So, if I part it out and sell the pieces to six different people who each need a specific part to complete their project or fix their Telecaster, then I have made more money and six other people are happy.

Where's the downside?

Jim

[sullivj1970]

Hi guys,
Thanks for the feedback.
I’ve never posted before, so I think I wrote my post as if I was talking to a large group of people at once rather than individually (meaning it might be too loud or simplistic). I didn’t mean it to seem judgmental or as if I was pontificating from a soapbox. It’s something I’m frankly conflicted about myself, which is why I asked. And I definitely wasn’t casting judgment on anyone for doing anything they want to with their guitars. I do it too.
I agree it’s the modularity of the design that makes it timeless. And if I look at a telecaster for sale I tend to catch myself thinking, “I could buy that and I’d love it and play it…and then I’d change the pickups and….” Well you get the point.
What made me question what some are doing is I was looking at the body of a beautiful MIJ 52 reissue and I was thinking, “I would buy that if the whole guitar was for sale.” Then I noticed the neck, then the pickups, then the bridge, etc all for sale separately and I do think there is a difference between people doing what they will with what they own and a commercial business based upon cannibalizing functioning mechanisms purely for profit. It’s sort like being a legal chop shop.
Of course if I’d have bought that MIJ 52 reissue as a whole guitar, I’d have loved it and played it… and then changed the pickups, etc.
So I can see how some might see that as a double standard in my thinking.
Anyway, again, I wasn’t casting aspersions. Just for me, I really don’t think I’d buy something from someone who doesn’t love guitars and commoditizes (if that’s a word) their parts purely based on profit (you can make a living selling actual replacement parts, lot’s do). But I’ve boycotted other businesses, retailers, etc for different reasons. And those businesses probably go right on their way and not notice, but it’s the only voice I have in relation to the principals they operate under. And normally I don’t say much about it, just in this case I wasn’t sure what my final thoughts about it were so I wanted some opinions from a body who’s knowledge and viewpoints I respect. I wasn’t trying to sway anyone’s thinking either way just curious how others saw it, so I’ll shut up now. Thanks again for responding.

[DlxNashvilleLuvr]

I see your point but at the same time it works to my benefit. What I'm getting interested in is buying cheap Tele copies, which you can get for like $150, and then adding Seymour Duncan pickups and, if neccessary, upgraded pots and switch. Then you have a perfectly attractive, good Tele with the good parts for around $300! I've just received a nice copy of a `62 Tele Custom which shall soon benefit from this operation. It will then look and sound much like the $1,200 ones for 1/4 the price.

[e-merlin]

My two cents and that's probably all it's worth:

I don't see anything wrong either. They are taking mass-produced pieces and tearing them down. It's not like they are depleting the supply. There are thousands more made every year. Plus, I can't buy exactly what I want from Fender without paying big Custom Shop bucks. So, I can get that MIM 69 Thinline neck and a 50's Tele body, throw a Chandler Super 60 bridge pickup into a generic three saddle bridge I have laying around, make a control plate with just a volume knob, and toss on an Esquire pickguard...For a lot less than I could get one from Fender.

So it's really doing a service to those of us who like to roll our own. I do think bidders get a bit enthusiastic, though. I wish prices were as high when I was doing it.

[radarman]

If there is a demand for product and someone is willing to supply it, more power to him/her. My friends, that is what we call opportunity in the free market. Anyone can do it. And personally I'd like to see more competition in this area so the prices will come down. If you ask me, Fender has missed the boat and the opportunity to service a huge market, and their argument is weak. Fender has done so many weird and questionable things. Like putting serial numbers on the headstock. The neck is THE #1 replaceable element of the guitar, obviously the serial number should be on the body, neck plate, etc.
Anyone actually read Fender's "procedure" to get a replacement neck now? What a crock. I like Fender products, but the management of the company makes me wonder. They are not easily reachable and alot of what they do is sporadic and intermittent. Sure, they are successful, but could be a far greater company and more "in-tune" with their #1 customer, little people like you and me, the ordinary Joe Tele player!
So..hats off to the (un-named, but I know their names) ebay sellers that are willing to provide the supply to the people wanting it. Is it "evil" ? Not a chance.

[Bill]

A couple of years ago, I posted a related question here. I'd just seen a 1952 Telecaster case selling for $1000 on ebay. The refin'ed, refretted, etc. '52 Tele I bought came with the original case and guitar strap. Now, that case isn't of much practical use, with openings at the seams, and the age and all. And no one in their right mind would use that nasty old leather guitar strap to hold up their guitar. So to me, both of those items have no practical use. But selling them would pay back most of the cost of my guitar.

However, when I asked folks here about it, most said I shouldn't do it. That the original strap and case should remain with the guitar.

Personally, if I got short of money, I'd sell the case and strap long before I'd sell the guitar. But for now, they're still together.

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by radarman

Anyone actually read Fender's "procedure" to get a replacement neck now? What a crock. I like Fender products, but the management of the company makes me wonder. They are not easily reachable and alot of what they do is sporadic and intermittent.

The current procedure to get a replacement neck has been in effect since before Leo sold to CBS. I wouldn't call that intermittent.

The American Vintage series necks (and bodies) were only available openly through the accesories department for a few years. What killed that was kit builders who abused Fender's trademarks. Blame them, not Fender.

[stevieboy]

I've thought about buying a Muddy Waters tele because I love the necks on those, then selling the rest--I may yet do it, but another purchase has put that one way off. Then maybe buy a '69 thinline and sell the neck...the possiblities are endless! I'd probably wind up with a fairly expensive hybrid after all was said and done, unless I could find used ones to start with, but I'd have the guitar I wanted.

[skiraly017]

I don't have an issue with parting out except when it's a vintage piece. That kills me. Parting out a '53 Esquire means two things -

1) One less '53 Esquire in the world.
2) The market price of a '53 Esquire just increased.

With the price of vintage pieces already being out of control, why make it worse?

[jwsamuel]

Originally Posted by skiraly017

1) One less '53 Esquire in the world.
2) The market price of a '53 Esquire just increased.

The other way to look at it is that if four buyers are able to restore their '53 Esquires with the parts, the net gain is 3.

I used to restore old cars and that's always the way we looked at parting out old cars.

Jim

[stevieboy]

This is a purely academic question for me as 1) I don't have a '53 Esquire or anything like one and 2)if I did I wouldn't be thinking about parting it out, but do you guys think that a parted out '53 Esquire or the like would bring more dough than an intact original? I would think the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts, but is that true?