Identifying a ~8 year old Bob Ackerman piece

[coolnote]

I received a "mint" Lawton 8*BB stainless steel piece in trade this week that turned out to be a completely reworked mouthpiece.

The step baffle was gone, replaced by a gentle baffle that is smaller but extends longer than my Lawton 7*B. There appears to be some chamber enlargement as well. The work is overall nicely done, fine and symmetric.

The "other guy" is refusing to return my trade piece, so it looks like I'm stuck with it.

It plays quite well, a little brighter and more spread than the 7*, facing seems to still be just slightly bigger, so probably right around 8*, but it really isn't a "Lawton" anymore.

The mouthpiece came from Bob Ackerman's shop a little over 8 years ago. My recollection is that Jon Van Wie was doing Bob's mouthpiece work at that time, or was Ted Klum handling it?

There are no obvious identifying marks and I don't know these two gentlemen's work well enough to tell from looking at the piece, so I could definitely use some help from the forum to identify who did this work. I'll post some pictures later tonight.

[coolnote]

Here are a few pictures of the chamber work on this piece...not even in the same universe of chamber as a BB...

[Dr G]

I received a "mint" Lawton 8*BB stainless steel piece in trade this week that turned out to be a completely reworked mouthpiece.

The "other guy" is refusing to return my trade piece, so it looks like I'm stuck with it.

Who is the Other Guy? There is too much of this Stuff going on lately. You protect him and he just does it to someone else. Not healthy for SotW.

[coolnote]

Fully agree, Dr G, "other guy" will be clearly outed if he doesn't find his way to doing the right thing very soon.

[Dr G]

Cool - I love guessing games.

Search function = "Lawton stainless"

Bingo!

http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=123449

Do I win???

Gotta love this part:


This is a n older pece in mint condition. Trades must be original condition.

[mfry]

FWIW, the tip work looks more like Van Wie's work than Klum's to me, but not quite like his either. Probably not the only two guys who did work for Ackerman.

[coolnote]

Thanks Morgan, I figured you guys had an eye for each other's work.

Dr G wins the prize. I'm not going to crucify a guy for making a mistake, but hamilton now has a pretty public opportunity to show he's a stand up guy in taking responsibility for his mistakes, however unintentional.

[hamilton]

Well I love the post by Dr. G after hearing only one side of the story. Was the user name Gladys Kravitz taken when you joined Dr. ?

The piece will be returned, sorry for any stress it caused you Andrew.

[HonkBopSax]

Hamilton,

This makes no sense. You will either keep the mouthpiece or sell it instead of sending it back? You may have had NO idea that the Lawton you traded was refaced and radically changed...but somebody who did know (coolnote) has informed you otherwise. He's expressed interest in getting the piece back because he feels that the piece was misrepresented and he can't possibly get the value for it if he advertised it accurately (as you, without the knowledge, did not).

At some point karma catches up with us. Don't spout off about donating money in his name. If you sold or traded a piece that was not original as advertised, you have an opportunity to make it right. Why wouldn't you just reverse the trade and sell the Lawton and make the donation? Something seems off here...if I traded a mint, original condition piece for a piece that I thought was the same, only to realize it wasn't, I would want my piece back...it's not a matter of money, it is a matter of principle. You can call it buyer's remorse all you like, but you misrepresented a piece--even if you didn't know it--for a mint and original piece of lesser value.

Hopefully it is worth it to you to do the right thing and send the guy his piece, and you can sell your Lawton. It sucks tha you may have lost out on the piece, but there is no reason that should be passed on to an innocent buyer.

[drakesaxprof]

All were original except for a Berg that was done by Doc Tenny & I listed it as such.
And except for this one, as it turns out.

I listed it as "mint" condition because it is, no damage, no bite marks, plays great & to my knowledge at the time it was in original condition.
You now know full well that it is not mint, as mint is a term reserved for items in absolutely unadulterated original condition.

I feel I was honest, I never said it was something it was not, I sent pictures, answered all his questions. If i look at the time line I am to assume he played the piece and it just is not what he wants. Also if i had known about the work I would have listed it as such, just like I did with my Berg. Some reasearch shows that he is selling a Lawton now that has had work done to it. The argument that he would not have made the deal because of the work is up for debate then as far as I'm concerned. However neither one of us had all the info at the time.
Honesty is not a feeling. In fact, you did say it was something it is not--original.

So after all this DRAMA why dont I just return the piece ? Well I just can't get past the feeling that he just has buyers remorse. I'm sure if he dug the sound he would keep it regardless of the work. If it is the value well then I offered to pay him in cash to make up for that. He refused.So I will let SOTW decide. A.) I will keep the piece. B.) I will sell the piece and donate the money to Pancreatic Cancer Research. My mother just passed from this awful disease.I will send proof of the donation (in Coolnotes real name) to him and he will get the benifit of the Tax write off, I will be out both pieces, he still has mine and the RPC will be sold. Jim

C.) Send the pieces back to each other. Case closed. The damage to your reputation isn't worth whatever you gain in acquiring any individual mouthpiece. I now only do trades with both parties having an approval period and option to return. A trade is no deal if one party feels wronged in any way. Your option B presumes that the RPC is yours to sell, and I would suggest that it really isn't.

[coolnote]

Forget it.

[coolnote]

Wow...things happen quickly here.

Return the pieces works for me.

[coolnote]

Without putting up the whole painful email train here, let's get some things straight here.

I am (having trouble) selling a Lawton that was reworked by Eric Drake; in my opinion, probably improved, and it was a very moderate modification. Anyone buying that piece will know that it is not a stock Lawton 7*, rather a more open, reduced baffle piece.

In terms of motives, hamilton told me on the phone and via email that he keeps missing out on RPCs for sale here, so he's keeping it. So much for all the ethical arguments.

In terms of my motives, I was trading a HR bright piece for a metal bright piece. I've stated in several posts on SOTW I'm going back to metal for the tenor. HonkBopSax can also confirm the RPC was not for sale, since he offered to buy it immediately after I got it and I replied to him why I was keeping it.

And yes, it's a great playing piece. I could replace my main piece with it and not break a sweat. But it wasn't what I was looking for, nor what was promised in the deal.

I felt sort of stuck, not sure whether to trust the guy, so I tried to play cool and cut my losses. But within minutes, yes, I decided to stop being a doormat - why should I take the loss for your mistake, hamilton?

I don't know where you get off twisting all this around to justify your refusal to step up and rectify your unintentional mistake in the simplest possible manner. If I thought you were lying initially, I'd be demanding repayment for the shipping costs as well, but I'm not.

This isn't rocket science or the cutting edge of law, simply return the piece.

[hamilton]

Correction : I said I wanted to make a trade because I keep missing the sales. I never said that was why I was keeping it. However that does not matter. I will return your piece. I was wrong and I'm sorry for the stress any of this has caused you. You will get a email as soon as I get a tracking number for you. JIM

[coolnote]

Being able to stop and do the right thing when the "community" is calling you out does take character, so let's just consider this settled.

Thanks gents, including the innocently defamed Dr. G.