It's Official! I asked Zager for a Refund

[guitarist21]

Holy crap. This is an entertaining read to come back to HCAG to.

 

Ellen

[totamus]

[valentsgrif]

Totomus, we notice ya bro.

[OldGuitarPlayer]

Here is what Zager sells for $495

http://www.zagerguitar.com/imageviewer/small/dm1/index.html

 

Here are it's actual specs taken from the Sigma website:

 

The Sigma DM-1 Mahogany features:

A Dreadnought Body

Laminated Spruce Top

Laminated Mahogany Back and Sides

Black/White/Black Rosette

Scalloped X-Bracing

Solid Rosewood Fingerboard

Solid Rosewood Bridge

Position Dot Fingerboard Inlays

Polished Transparent Gloss Body and Top

Chrome Enclosed Tuning Machines with Chrome Buttons

Black Bridge Pins

Black Pickguard

Total Length: 40 3/4"

Body Length: 19 15/16"

Body Width: 15 3/4"

Body Depth: 4 3/4"

Scale Length: 25.4"

Frets: 14/20 (Clear/Total)

Fingerboard Width: 1 15/16 (at nut)

 

Now...go here and buy the exact same guitar for $199. http://market.treasureshidden.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2608

 

There...I just saved you $296.

 

Of course once you realize it's not even worth $200 you won't be able to send it back like you can with a Z@ger "modified" one. So why go through the hassle? If you really want to spend your money on an asian made guitar do yourself a favor save your money and buy one of these all solid wood guitars for $450 http://www.epiphone.com/default.asp?ProductID=221&CollectionID=15 Then bring your nice new all solid wood guitar to a real luthier and spend the $50-$75 to have it setup to your liking. Trust me...the real luthier you bring your guitar to can do all the same string science voodoo like Denny except he wont sign the back of your guitar and give you a polaroid picture of him doing it either. If you really want that then I suggest you buy the Z@ger all laminated (heavy gloss tone sucking) guitar for $495

 

By the way Sigma has been out of business for almost a year and Martin now has nothing to do with this brand. I guess Denny has a garage full of old Sigma DM-1s...

 

Don't get me wrong...Sigma guitars are nice beaters and campfire guitars but would I pay $495 for one? No way...not even if Freeman Keller or Kevin Ryan set it up...

[totamus]

OGP - re-do your math for the amount saved...

[OldGuitarPlayer]

OGP - re-do your math for the amount saved...

 

 

Thanks man...even more savings!!!!

 

Ummm..did I spell "polaroid" right?....

[valentsgrif]

Folks, I'm speaking Zager solid tops here, not the laminates. Thats what I have and Bubbalou has. The Martin Sigma laminate is an anomoly that keeps getting cited here for the convenience of the haters.

 

Accurate information taken from the website:

 

"Why do you sell both Martins and Zagers

[totamus]

Denny modeled the Zager ZAD-50 (Zager Advanced Design) closely after Martin's most expensive guitars. Martins have always been known for their incredible tone, but in Denny's opinion their playability was always an issue. In designing the ZAD-50 Denny used all of the key ingredients that make Martins sound so good (solid wood construction, solid spruce top, rosewood bridge and neck, hand scalloped bracing) then added his String Science System to make it considerably easier to play. Since Zagers are designed to Denny's own specifications they incorporate a special neck design that make them easier to hold with smaller frets that don't bite into your fingers. From early magazine reviews and customer feedback players are saying the Zager ZAD-50 matches the best from the top 3 guitar makers, yet costs a fraction of the price. Where else are you going to find a custom guitar hand modified by a Master luthier for under $600? Our #1 selling guitar.

 

The result is a guitar that is 50% easier to play with a sound that compares to guitars costing 5 times the price.

 

Denny is now recognized around the world as the musicians' choice for guitar modification and enhancement. He's spent the last 37 years refining his science to a level that professional musicians and guitar builders alike consider absolutely astounding. I have yet to find a serious guitarist do anything except laugh at Zager.

 

Denny is also in talks with several major guitar manufacturers to incorporate the process on a few of their newer model lines. Funny that no manufacturer is mentioned

 

One manufacturer (one of the largest and oldest guitar makers in the World) recently reviewed one of these guitars and proclaimed it to be "one of the easiest playing guitars they had ever tested." Easy to make false anonymous quotes

 

The highlighted lies are enough to keep anyone from believing any Zager claim. His marketing is beyond hype, these statements are misleading.

[Broadus]

Didn't a Zager owner post photos of the inside of his guitar some months back and provide measurements, etc.? I remember Freeman's being involved in that discussion. Seems like there was a concern that the Zagers could not handle heavier than extra light strings (or was it lights?).

 

Bill

[valentsgrif]

 

Didn't a Zager owner post photos of the inside of his guitar some months back and provide measurements, etc.? I remember Freeman's being involved in that discussion. Seems like there was a concern that the Zagers could not handle heavier than extra light strings (or was it lights?). Bill

 

 

You don't buy a Zager in order to play heavy strings. 10's and 11's are what the guitar is set up to play.

[valentsgrif]

 

The highlighted lies are enough to keep anyone from believing any Zager claim. His marketing is beyond hype, these statements are misleading.

 

 

 

 

If any of this^ recitation is false, then perhaps you can direct me to where Zager has been sanctioned, cited, banned, sued, fined arrested, whatever for fraud or deceit or false advertising?

I thought so.

 

How about this. Why don't you consumer crusaders do what Zager has done, but do it "honestly", and undercut his easy play set up by $200 or so. You can modify some Yamahas or Epiphones and then internet undersell him right out of business!

 

It would be a far better use of your seemigly endless amount of free time spent obsessing on here.

[totamus]

 

If any of this^ recitation is false, then perhaps you can direct me to where Zager has been sanctioned, cited, banned, sued, fined arrested, whatever for fraud or deceit or false advertising? I thought so. How about this. Why don't you consumer crusaders do what Zager has done, but do it "honestly", and undercut his easy play set up by $200 or so. You can modify some Yamahas or Epiphones and then internet undersell him right out of business! It would be a far better use of your seemigly endless amount of free time spent obsessing on here.

 

 

Valents, I gotta say, I just don't get you. There are many obvious shills that promote Zager in what appears to be a "Post for Pay" operation. They are easy to spot. But you have a legitimate background with many posts in other areas. You certainly do not look like a shill.

 

The falsehoods in the preceding post are obvious. The Zager is not "solid wood construction" as is claimed on the web site, it is a solid top only. Claiming it to be a custom guitar is also false. It may be modified, but it is not a custom. Saying it compares to guitars that cost 5x as much is misleading. The statement leads the consumer to believe that a Zager is equivilent to a $2500 guitar. This is an obvious and gross exaggeration.

 

Making unverifiable claims ("Denny is also in talks with several major guitar manufacturers to incorporate the process on a few of their newer model lines." and "One manufacturer (one of the largest and oldest guitar makers in the World) recently reviewed one of these guitars and proclaimed it to be "one of the easiest playing guitars they had ever tested.") is so much hot air. What manufacturer? Martin has absolutely disclaimed any association with Denny. Who then? If he won't say who, it is false.

 

Denny has had to modify his claims under threat of civil or legal action. He no longer claims that "String Science" is patented, and he no longer claims that Sigmas are Martins (he used to not mention that his reference to a Martin Guitar meant a Sigma and he didn't show headstock pictures).

 

So the picture I get here is someone who will make false claims and only back down when forced to.

 

This is what drives me nuts. It is the worst type of marketing possible and is created in large part to make it sound as though a Zager guitar is something that it is not. I am frankly surprised at your defense of the indefensible.

 

Your suggestion is what, that I do the same thing as he does, only undercut him? This accomplishes what? Makes me the same as Denny except that I compete with on cost? This proves nothing. The issue is the false claims, the deceptive tactics. "He isn't in jail" is not much of a defense.

 

The Enron guys partied hard for a long time before they were caught - and they were stealing Billions. Petty larceny isn't as likely to be prosecuted, and most Zager buyers don't know enough about guitars to even realize that they were taken advantage of.

 

Consumer education is a far better way to make sure you are not ripped off.

 

I wish you would admit that the advertising is deceptive, that the guitars are overpriced, and that they are only worthwhile if you are willing to spend $200 - $300 for a set-up. I believe you made exactly such a decision and are happy with the results. Most people don't even know they are spending that kind of money for a set-up. Instead they believe that the Zager guitar is well respected and delivers sound quality that is equal to a $2,500 guitar.

[Bitt81]

 

You don't buy a Zager in order to play heavy strings. 10's and 11's are what the guitar is set up to play.

 

 

It is my understanding that playing heavier strings actually voids the warranty? I'd be concerned with my purchase of the guitar just based on that caveat.

[valentsgrif]

 

The falsehoods in the preceding post are obvious. The Zager is not "solid wood construction" as is claimed on the web site, it is a solid top only. Claiming it to be a custom guitar is also false. It may be modified, but it is not a custom. Saying it compares to guitars that cost 5x as much is misleading. The statement leads the consumer to believe that a Zager is equivilent to a $2500 guitar. This is an obvious and gross exaggeration. Making unverifiable claims ("Denny is also in talks with several major guitar manufacturers to incorporate the process on a few of their newer model lines." and "One manufacturer (one of the largest and oldest guitar makers in the World) recently reviewed one of these guitars and proclaimed it to be "one of the easiest playing guitars they had ever tested.") is so much hot air. What manufacturer? Martin has absolutely disclaimed any association with Denny. Who then? If he won't say who, it is false. Denny has had to modify his claims under threat of civil or legal action. He no longer claims that "String Science" is patented, and he no longer claims that Sigmas are Martins (he used to not mention that his reference to a Martin Guitar meant a Sigma and he didn't show headstock pictures). Your suggestion is what, that I do the same thing as he does, only undercut him? This accomplishes what? Makes me the same as Denny except that I compete with on cost? This proves nothing. The issue is the false claims, the deceptive tactics. "He isn't in jail" is not much of a defense.

 

From todays Zager website: "He only applies his patented String Science to these select guitars. "

So your facts are wrong here, he still says patented.

 

He does in fact still use Martin when describing the guitars on the website and always has in my three years of viewing, displayed the headstock showing Sigma. Sigma by Martin is right there(just like Epiphone by Gibson is out there in guitarland, with even the words Les Paul on the truss rod cover. Anyone think they are getting $3,000 Gibson Goldtop when they buy an Epi LP electric?)

 

Zager doesn't say on the site or in your quote that the Zager guitar is all solid wood. He is factually correct when he says he "uses solid wood" since the top is solid (as is the fretboard). Not misleading.

 

Zager gets them custom made to his specs, therefore, they are custom. But then again so are any guitars made to spec. If a purchaser was confused and thinking he was getting a $5,000 custom Olsen, I'd like to meet him.

 

And of course Zager isn't going to drop the name of someone from another manufacturer he met at a NAMM show or gig who commented favorable on his guitars. You think he doesn't have friends at any other guitar companies he'd like to keep?

 

A lot of factual fail my brother, especially trying to equate selling a $500 internet guitar to Enron's corporate criminality.

[Broadus]

valentsgrif,

 

Is Denny's "string science" indeed patented? It seems that no record of any such patent could be found.

 

Concerning the headstock, it's only been in the past few months that he's shown a photo of the "Sigma by Martin" or whatever. I remember checking over a period of several months to find a photo of the headstock and even emailed Dennis Zager about it. It was finally put up a few months ago.

 

Bill

[valentsgrif]

 

valentsgrif, Is Denny's "string science" indeed patented? It seems that no record of any such patent could be found. Concerning the headstock, it's only been in the past few months that he's shown a photo of the "Sigma by Martin" or whatever. I remember checking over a period of several months to find a photo of the headstock and even emailed Dennis Zager about it. It was finally put up a few months ago. Bill

 

 

I recall the thread, and I posted in it several months ago. I believe someone found that the patent was filed. What became of it I don't know.

 

The headstock photos were there at the time. Some people had trouble getting the pic to enlarge. Also, the sticker inside the guitar was shown showing Sigma by Martin. But like I said earlier, this is all an attack on one small part of Zager's guitar line, the Martin Sigma laminate, of which he sells only a few and carries because some people demand a known name on the headstock. The focus I believe should remain on his solid tops.

[totamus]

I could not find reference to the patent claim on the web site (still can't). I also did a patent search at the US patent office website. No Patent. This has been covered in other forums and groups, and the patented claims stopped suddenly. If he is claiming a patent, what is the patent or application number?

 

I believe this is an out and out falsehood.

 

For some time, Sigma was not mentioned in the Zager ads at all, only Martin. The write up spoke only of Martin guitars and did not show a front view of the headstock. I have seen this. Per another forum, Martin requested that Zager stop misrepresenting, and at that time he started calling the guitars Martin Sigmas.

 

A custom is just that. If Zager has a run made of production guitars to his specs, they are not customs at all. It is a run of production guitars. A one-off guitar is a custom. You can call them custom all day long, but they all came off the production line, one just like the other. Why is it, BTW, that these made to exacting specification guitars are modified post production?

 

My opinion is that it is because they are not made to specification at all and are a house design that Samick offers to anyone who wants to apply their own label. But that is conjecture.

 

Saying that guitar is solid wood means just that. It doesn't mean that some portion of the guitar is solid, it is a claim laid to the entire guitar. I would bet that If I told you a guitar was mad of solid wood, and you bought it from me, you would be quite angered if just some portion of the instrument was solid.

 

And finally if you are going to claim accolades, you better be able to back it up, after all, you never know when someone is going to call you on your BS and ask for proof. Praise attributed to anonymous sources is not worth reading.

 

There is no factual void here. It is all from his web site.

 

Tell you what. Get me the patent number and I will publicly apologize for doubting the Master Luthier. Shouldn't be hard to get, for a patent to be enforced the product must carry a patent notification. In fact, after the apology, I will never post another Zager remark.

 

If you can't get it (since you just told me that web site does claim a patented process) why don't you publicly admit that Denny Zager markets via falsehoods?

[HankGator]

Okay, this is really getting ridiculous. I understand some non-shills may own Zagers and like them, but defending the marketing tactics and claims made on that website is beyond the pale.

 

http://www.zagerguitar.com/index.php?event=public.guitars.models&model=zad50&id=1

 

 

Let's review what you'll find (or won't find) in the above link and connected ones:

 

"Denny modeled the Zager ZAD-50 (Zager Advanced Design) closely after Martin's most expensive guitars."

 

Are you trying to tell me that it is not deceptive to say that the ZAD-50 is "modeled closely after Martin's most expensive guitars"? Are Martin's most expensive guitars made with laminate sides and backs? This is clearly intended to make somebody new to guitars think they are getting an instrument approximating the quality of an expensive Martin.

 

 

"In designing the ZAD-50 Denny used all of the key ingredients that make Martins sound so good (solid wood construction, solid spruce top, rosewood bridge and neck, hand scalloped bracing) then added his String Science System to make it considerably easier to play."

 

Solid wood construction? Really? NOWHERE in the descriptions that I saw does it point out that these are laminated backs and sides. Sure, you and I know that when it says solid top but doesn't say solid back and sides it will surely mean only the top is solid, but not the newbie looking to buy his first guitar, or first real guitar. If he says "solid spruce top," why is he also saying "solid wood construction"? Because people will unconsciously think it's a solid wood guitar. There's no reason to say solid wood construction in addition to saying solid spruce top, except to create a false impression.

 

"From early magazine reviews and customer feedback players are saying the Zager ZAD-50 matches the best from the top 3 guitar makers, yet costs a fraction of the price. "

 

There is a link to click for "early magazine reviews." It takes you to a page headlined by some review by "Redtail Wolf of Macon, Georgia" somewhere else on the Zager site. It makes it look like a magazine review they've reprinted, but THERE IS NO LINK TO ANY MAGAZINE. You know why? Because THERE IS NO MAGAZINE. This was just a review on the Zager site, not in any magazine. Yes, you can find the review online on some other page. A site that was obviously created to warehouse this review. Guess how many other guitar reviews this guy has done? Zero. Zilch. The only other thing he's ever apparently reviewed was a guitar strap. Strangely, a number of similar reviews for that guitar strap can be found on the internet from obscure sites. In fact, you can find them all in the site map if you look hard enough. All the reviews for that same guitar strap, dressed up to look like they come from different sources.

 

It's advertising, folks, not a real review. That's virtually fraud. That's why when you find that kind of endorsement in magazines, you'll see "paid advertisement" in fine print along the bottom or side of the page.

 

And if you look over to the side of this particular Zager page where the reviews are, you'll see logos from various sources implying some kind of positive review or endorsement. Acoustic Guitar Magazine is included. What could be more credible than a review from them? Scroll down from that Redtail Wolf review and you'll eventually find the entry from Acoustic Guitar Magazine. Here's the entire text from esteemed Acoustic Guitar mag:

 

"With big box stores and catalog shopping ever on the rise, the knowledge, personal attention and long term value offered by a small independent shop all offset the onetime benefit of a rock-bottom price.

 

The guitar's "setup" is the most important thing.

 

Beginners need positive reinforcement from their efforts instead of spending hours trying to get the notes of a chord to sound clear and not succeeding.

 

They need LOW action.

 

Selling guitars without doing a setup first is a rip-off to the customer"

 

NOTHING about Zager guitars AT ALL. NOTHING. Acoustic Guitar Magazine's logo appears under the caption "See What Others Are Saying About Our Guitars," and THAT's what you get if you take the time to scroll way down to find what actually was written. NOTHING.

 

Oh, but scroll past that and the umpteen Harmony Central and Guitarist.net user reviews they cite, which, of course, are all legitimate, and "Gritz Guitar Magazine" gives another glowing review. Well, guess what? There is no "Gritz Guitar Magazine." There's a Gritz Music site that has little to do with instruments, but the only guitar ever reviewed by Gritz that I can find on the internet is the Zager ZAD 50. And it's not even a review on their website. Guess who did the review? Some guy named Redtail Wolf, that's who.

 

Oh, but there is also a review from "Kmareka Online Magazine." Never heard of it? Join the club. That's because it's some obscure blog that has nothing to do with guitars. The blogger apparently bought a Zager and liked it. You won't find it on that actual site, though, since it's been long archived. Still alive and kicking on Zager's site, though. Not that they're desperate for any kind of endorsement or anything.

 

But, no worry, you can chat about it live online! Look! DZ is there to chat right now! It says so in the upper right hand corner! Except, when you click to do that, it will ask you for your email address while it initializes the chat. Then, oh, so sorry, the live chat is full. Just write in your question in the block that pops up and they'll get back to you.

 

As if there's any friggin' live chat. It's ALWAYS full. No matter what time of the day or night you try. I tried a while back, just to see. People are chatting up a storm at, for example, 4 a.m., no doubt yucking it up over what suckers there are out there who pay so much more for their Martins.

 

I could go on and on, barely having scratched the surface, but I've already pointed out enough to establish that we're dealing with a marketing scam. Yes, there's a real guitar. Yes, they're not the worst guitars ever made. But the way they are being marketed is a complete and total sham.

 

If you try to defend that, you're ethically challenged beyond repair.

[valentsgrif]

The use of the term patent is in the FAQ section of his site, as is the use of the term Martin. Better call the cops.

 

I don't have any experience with patent searches and stuff but your offer is intriguing.

 

No guitar is "solid wood" they are all an assemblage of pieces. Just what "solid wood" means to you is open to subjective interpretation. Plus, many a guitar seller: Musician's friend etc., describes acoustics as "solid spruce top/mahagony back and sides" without stating that the back and sides are laminates anywhere in the add.

l

[riffmeister]

There are two patent applications. Look here for previous discussion on the matter:

 

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1914661&highlight=patent

 

Anyone can apply for a patent. Whether or not it is granted by the US PTO is another matter entirely.

[HankGator]

And until a patent is granted, it isn't "patented." That why there's the term, "patent pending."

[Bitt81]

Okay, this is really getting ridiculous. I understand some non-shills may own Zagers and like them, but defending the marketing tactics and claims made on that website is beyond the pale. http://www.zagerguitar.com/index.php?event=public.guitars.models&model=zad50&id=1 Let's review what you'll find (or won't find) in the above link and connected ones: " Denny modeled the Zager ZAD-50 (Zager Advanced Design) closely after Martin's most expensive guitars ." Are you trying to tell me that it is not deceptive to say that the ZAD-50 is "modeled closely after Martin's most expensive guitars"? Are Martin's most expensive guitars made with laminate sides and backs? This is clearly intended to make somebody new to guitars think they are getting an instrument approximating the quality of an expensive Martin. " In designing the ZAD-50 Denny used all of the key ingredients that make Martins sound so good (solid wood construction, solid spruce top, rosewood bridge and neck, hand scalloped bracing) then added his String Science System to make it considerably easier to play ." Solid wood construction? Really? NOWHERE in the descriptions that I saw does it point out that these are laminated backs and sides. Sure, you and I know that when it says solid top but doesn't say solid back and sides it will surely mean only the top is solid, but not the newbie looking to buy his first guitar, or first real guitar. If he says "solid spruce top," why is he also saying "solid wood construction"? Because people will unconsciously think it's a solid wood guitar. There's no reason to say solid wood construction in addition to saying solid spruce top, except to create a false impression. " From early magazine reviews and customer feedback players are saying the Zager ZAD-50 matches the best from the top 3 guitar makers, yet costs a fraction of the price . " There is a link to click for "early magazine reviews." It takes you to a page headlined by some review by "Redtail Wolf of Macon, Georgia" somewhere else on the Zager site. It makes it look like a magazine review they've reprinted, but THERE IS NO LINK TO ANY MAGAZINE. You know why? Because THERE IS NO MAGAZINE. This was just a review on the Zager site, not in any magazine. Yes, you can find the review online on some other page. A site that was obviously created to warehouse this review. Guess how many other guitar reviews this guy has done? Zero. Zilch. The only other thing he's ever apparently reviewed was a guitar strap. Strangely, a number of similar reviews for that guitar strap can be found on the internet from obscure sites. In fact, you can find them all in the site map if you look hard enough. All the reviews for that same guitar strap, dressed up to look like they come from different sources. It's advertising, folks, not a real review. That's virtually fraud. That's why when you find that kind of endorsement in magazines, you'll see "paid advertisement" in fine print along the bottom or side of the page. And if you look over to the side of this particular Zager page where the reviews are, you'll see logos from various sources implying some kind of positive review or endorsement. Acoustic Guitar Magazine is included. What could be more credible than a review from them? Scroll down from that Redtail Wolf review and you'll eventually find the entry from Acoustic Guitar Magazine. Here's the entire text from esteemed Acoustic Guitar mag: " With big box stores and catalog shopping ever on the rise, the knowledge, personal attention and long term value offered by a small independent shop all offset the onetime benefit of a rock-bottom price. The guitar's "setup" is the most important thing. Beginners need positive reinforcement from their efforts instead of spending hours trying to get the notes of a chord to sound clear and not succeeding. They need LOW action. Selling guitars without doing a setup first is a rip-off to the customer " NOTHING about Zager guitars AT ALL. NOTHING. Acoustic Guitar Magazine's logo appears under the caption "See What Others Are Saying About Our Guitars," and THAT's what you get if you take the time to scroll way down to find what actually was written. NOTHING. Oh, but scroll past that and the umpteen Harmony Central and Guitarist.net user reviews they cite, which, of course, are all legitimate, and "Gritz Guitar Magazine" gives another glowing review. Well, guess what? There is no "Gritz Guitar Magazine." There's a Gritz Music site that has little to do with instruments, but the only guitar ever reviewed by Gritz that I can find on the internet is the Zager ZAD 50. And it's not even a review on their website. Guess who did the review? Some guy named Redtail Wolf, that's who. Oh, but there is also a review from "Kmareka Online Magazine." Never heard of it? Join the club. That's because it's some obscure blog that has nothing to do with guitars. The blogger apparently bought a Zager and liked it. You won't find it on that actual site, though, since it's been long archived. Still alive and kicking on Zager's site, though. Not that they're desperate for any kind of endorsement or anything. But, no worry, you can chat about it live online! Look! DZ is there to chat right now! It says so in the upper right hand corner! Except, when you click to do that, it will ask you for your email address while it initializes the chat. Then, oh, so sorry, the live chat is full. Just write in your question in the block that pops up and they'll get back to you. As if there's any friggin' live chat. It's ALWAYS full. No matter what time of the day or night you try. I tried a while back, just to see. People are chatting up a storm at, for example, 4 a.m., no doubt yucking it up over what suckers there are out there who pay so much more for their Martins. I could go on and on, barely having scratched the surface, but I've already pointed out enough to establish that we're dealing with a marketing scam. Yes, there's a real guitar. Yes, they're not the worst guitars ever made. But the way they are being marketed is a complete and total sham. If you try to defend that, you're ethically challenged beyond repair.

 

 

This is a very thoroughly researched post. Once again, it shows that the underlying concern is with the marketing tactics used to sell the guitars, not the guitars themselves.

[valentsgrif]

Hank buddy, surely you recall the leeway granted marketers under the law, called "puffery"?

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/slogans2.html

 

Thats all this is, harmless puffery and you know it.

[HankGator]

It's not "puffery" to pass off an advertisement as some independent review. And it's not "puffery" to imply a guitar is made of solid wood when it's not. Saying "Zager Guitars are America's Favorite Acoustics!" is puffery.

 

To quote my colleague Mr. Hoffman, "he line between statements of fact which, if false or misleading can be actionable, and mere puffery is vague and uncertain and have to be determined on a case by case basis."

 

There's a reason Zager offers a money-back guarantee, and it ain't just because they're convinced everyone will love their product.

[totamus]

Well, after a little detective work, I have found the answers. Not only that I now have the recipe for Denny's String Science. Yes, Mr. Zager applied for 2 patents. He tried to patent what appears to be a standard design shubb capo, which we needn't bother with and a Patent application for his world famous Guitar String Science which yields an EZ-Play guitar (you'll find them over by the EZ-Bake Ovens).

 

His patent application titled "Guitar Assembly and Method of Making the Same" was submitted on Jun 4 2004. It details several breakthroughs in guitar technology. Specifically, it describes a Nut, A saddle, a Neck angle, and a truss rod.

 

Stunning! The application even list measurements for these in very general terms (like "no less than" and "about").

 

It seems that Denny actually tried to patent a standard set up. Problem with patent applications is that anyone can try to patent anything. I could make a patent application for sliced bread, but it would ultimately be rejected. Which, coincidentally is what happened to Denny's little patent fiasco. It was rejected on 02/05/08.

 

ANy claims on Dennys web site (or elsewhere) for a patented process are out and out lies. The process was temporarily under the status of "Patent applied for" but was never patented. It was never in any danger of being patented either, as the patent office realized, since all Denny Zager does is a set up just like every other setup in the world. Of course he takes his action lower (beyond what is recommended for good practice BTW).

 

My proof? Glad you asked. Here is the Patent app: Patent App and here is the rejection :