Regarding the deleted: "Saddle Slots Not "Flat",....Now There's NO Excuse" thread...

Regarding the deleted: "Saddle Slots Not "Flat",....Now There's NO Excuse" thread...

I am posting here to clear up a few things that were said in my "Saddle Slots Not "Flat",....Now There's NO Excuse" thread, and was deleted by a moderator and i had a 3 day time out.

I was right in the middle of a response to some grossly misleading assumptions to clear the matter up, but could not post the response at that time due to the ban. Fortunately i saved the accusitory post that caused the thread to disappear, so that i can have a clear reminder of just how wrong some folks can be.

Somehow, because i had 4 ukuleles listed on my signature line, 3 of them MUST be the builders i was referring to! It was therefore stated that "there is an inherent implied slam at three luthiers who are well known to many of us".

I feel particularly bad that Chuck Moore, after those comments were made (among others), found it necessary to post in defense of his reputation.

I wish to state unequivocally that Chuck Moore's ukulele was definately NOT one of the ukuleles i had issues with! His work was listed in my signature simply because his was one of my very favorites, as were a few of the other's listed there.

I recently picked up a 2nd Moore Bettah soprano, and like the 1st one that was listed, (which i mentioned i bought 2 years ago and posted about it soon after signing on just 2 months ago!) ,...is fabulous in construction and tone.

I started the deleted thread stating i noticed some saddle slot uneveness over the last year,....and the Moore Bettah soprano then listed in my signature predated any of the problems by at least another year.

I admire and respect Chuck, for he is one of a few that seems to care more about his craft and legacy that just shear numbers produced. He has reason to be proud, his work is virtually 100% done by his own two hands. (save for the tuners & strings, and i read recently that he has made use of a resawer to cut his sets to gain the best yield by a specialest).

I would have gladly added my 2nd Moore Bettah purchase to my signature if i had the space!

Had anyone bothered to ask me, prior to posting such flamming accusations, i would have gladly told them that i own about 15 ukuleles currently. I wanted to list more of them, but the last time i tried to add one was informed i had reached the space limit. Using links to pictures used up a lot of my alloted space. And that is why i only had 4 listed.

When it becomes necessary to think of every possible scenario before submitting a thread, or preface a post with a disclaimer,...something is seriously wrong here.

What i thought was a benign & lighthearted thread to get builders to take a close look at the problem i was noticing, turned into i was somehow mailigning specific builders thru a bit of subterfuge.

One other charge made against me was that i seriously disrespected Ken Timms in a few posts when i got his name wrong. Considering i have only been here 2 months, and that Ken Timms is known as "timbuck" here,....is it such a stretch to believe i thought "Tim" was his name? A simple mistake, yet i caught flack from both Ken awhile back, and more recently in the deleted thread by Rick Turner. Geeze,....

One last point made was,.. quote: "And you make assertions about the saddle slots which we cannot see ourselves", which seems to infer i am making up the whole thing.

Unfortunately, i only took and saved pics of just one of the three uneven saddle slots i noticed before i corrected the problems. This only to contact the builder and let him know so that it might get looked at more closely in any future builds. I fixed it, made a new saddle and love the uke overall.

Without naming or identifying anyone (which i have committed to do), below are the pics of a saddle slot on a new uke that arrived direct from a builder.

Besides the uneven saddle slot bottom as shown, this saddle was too narrow and also too low. The uke also arrived with a white plastic shim underneath the saddle, which was a bit too wide to even make contact with the bottom and was tipped in the slot. Consequently the saddle tipped forward throwing off the intonation, and the tone and volumn were much reduced over what it became when i made a well fitted saddle and flattened the slot.

Showing the saddle raised up and tipping forward, with a space at the right side from a too thin saddle. You can see a hump in the center of the saddle slot also, clearer in the 2nd pic. The white plastic spacer can't be seen, but it's quite obvious the saddle is not making contact with the slot base.



A little clearer view of the obvious "hump" running down the center of the slot.



The other 2 ukes that i straightened up had similar humps down thru the middle. One of those also had a ledge of wood in one corner of the slot that prevented the saddle from even reaching the bottom.

These were real issues on ukuleles, not some fantasy that i was imagining. I find it rather sad that some builders are so arrogant to believe a lowly non-builder should even bring up such a thing let alone question it to be real or not.

One final thought,.....i find that i am a bit broken of spirit over this jumping to all sorts of assumptions without even a simple inquiry being made to me first.

This may be my last thread started for awhile, although i may lurk from time to time. I just don't have the desire to go thru the sometimes lengthy process of getting a coherant and well pictured post together, only to have it deleted because of some thoughtless comments, assumptions, and outright lies seemingly offered to sabotage the initial posts.

I sometimes spent several hours getting a thread together that could benefit everyone. ( this recent deleted post was an exception). Many more pictures are taken than ever show up, in order to better the odds of getting a clear shot of what i want to present. I have to edit all the pics to reduce their size, adjust the contrast and exposure,....just a lot of work. And as some of you have noted, my posts tend to become lengthy.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, ....i have removed all of the ukes listed in my signature. Never saw the ambush coming by having them there,...

Joe T

Joe it would be infinitely better for all if you were to take these issues back to the manufacturers, builders, luthiers BEFORE you posted all about them in this forum. Common courtesy of maybe uncommmon courtesy, might suggest you should do that. Then, if you can't resolve amicably with the builder, or maybe even to report an amicable resolution, you should post. With full details so no assumptions are made about who and what you are posting about.

My $0.02 worth, and it's worth every cent

brucemoffatt said:

Joe it would be infinitely better for all if you were to take these issues back to the manufacturers, builders, luthiers BEFORE you posted all about them in this forum. Common courtesy of maybe uncommmon courtesy, might suggest you should do that. Then, if you can't resolve amicably with the builder, or maybe even to report an amicable resolution, you should post. With full details so no assumptions are made about who and what you are posting about.

My $0.02 worth, and it's worth every cent

Click to expand...

Bruce,....part of the reason i posted the deleted thread on uneven saddle slots showing up (anonomously, although that was questioned), was so that the builders might take a closer look at this critical element.

When you get 3 ukes from 3 different builders showing up with a similar problem over a year, i thought it timely to bring it up in a light hearted fashion, since stewmac was now offering saddle slot leveling files on their site. (which i linked in the deleted post.)


I'm not about to pay shipping and wait for a repair that i am fully capable of making on my own, so other than the one builder i did contact i put the issue aside and just fixed it. Frankly,.....i have concluded that it's safer to say nothing and just fix any minor things than to bring it to anyone's attention.

BTW, how is it not common courtesy to discuss something anonomously without first contacting a builder about a problem?

If you can't talk openly (but anonomously) about a seemingly common problem showing up on a luthier/builder forum, then what's the point of having a sub-forum like that? It shouldn't take a end-user/buyer to notice something like this, but we're all human and something can slip by unnoticed. Bringing it up won't make the problem disappear, only the builders can do that,....and only "if" they know a problem is showing up.

Excuse my chiming in here, as the discussion does not concern me, but in light of recent heat I want to make sure things stay cool now.

Welcome back, Joe. Thanks for the additional information and illustrative pics. It's a shame the pics weren't posted first time around. I think they do shed some light.

I think we can lay to rest the point about the mix up re. Ken Timms' name. I think the explanation is entirely plausible, and consistent with what was said in the posts concerned.

The builders may or may not choose to respond. If they choose not to then, Joe, please just accept that you have raised your point and move on.

Everyone, just remember that you are all guests at UU. Please conduct yourselves accordingly.

Joe, you don't understand, obviously, that when you say the things you did, with scant information about the luthiers concerned, and say that there are three of them, and list four luthiers in your siig, that everyone reading the post is left guessing which of them have produced bad bridges. We don't know how many ukes you own or have owned. We read what you post, that's all we have to go on. There's nothing unreasnoable in the conclusions that your readers came to, nor the offence taken by the luthiers whose ukes you listed.

Frankly you'd be better off turning the page and moving on than ressurecting the thread here.

In the hope that you can do that, I second the 'welcome back' from Buddhuu.

It's always a good idea to think before you post. 'Libel' is a very dangerous country to travel and most issues that involve 'complaint' are best done privately to avoid the aforesaid...

On reflection, I don't think there's any need for anyone but the builders to respond in this particular thread, and once they've had a fair opportunity to reply it may well be closed.

Lectures from other members aren't going to help anything, so please don't be tempted.

brucemoffatt said:

Joe, you don't understand, obviously, that when you say the things you did, with scant information about the luthiers concerned, and say that there are three of them, and list four luthiers in your siig, that everyone reading the post is left guessing which of them have produced bad bridges. We don't know how many ukes you own or have owned. We read what you post, that's all we have to go on. There's nothing unreasnoable in the conclusions that your readers came to, nor the offence taken by the luthiers whose ukes you listed.

Frankly you'd be better off turning the page and moving on than ressurecting the thread here.

In the hope that you can do that, I second the 'welcome back' from Buddhuu.

Click to expand...

I understand completely,.....that what i "write" should be what's considered. What is "deduced", "assumed", or "imagined" should not become the basis of a slam against me and a proported derogitory thread against unnamed builders.

And i beg to differ with you. It WAS unreasonable to deduce that the few listed ukuleles listed in my signature must be the ones i was referring to.

Simply not fair to me or the builders listed there, without first asking me directly or in a post if they had any connection. I would hope ANY of you would not be held accountable for any unseen connection to a long forgetten signature listing and a current post,.....especially if they are not connected.

BTW, i don't feel i was resurecting the other thread. But when accusations were made and a well known and respected luthier feels the need to defend his name based on an outreagous assumption, i felt the need to clear that up especially. This thread was the earliest i could respond.

The "scant information" about the builders involved was to keep their names private precisely because of the heat any mention of a specific builder was sure to generate.

Never in my wildest dream did i believe someone would add it all up to a devious plot to "out" the specific builders in my signature, when in fact those listed there are some of my most favored ukes.

The pictures i never thought to include initially, but as even the very problem existing was called into question i hope they will clear that up.

BTW,...i did order and just recieved in a set of the new saddle slot files from stewmac. The 2 files are each double sided, and at $34.60 not cheap. But they do have both an upper and lower cutting edge, which was not mentioned in the description. I think they will be useful even on a slightly wider saddle slot with the application of a piece or two of making tape on just one side of the file when needed. Then you can flip the file to hit the wider area that was missed initially to blend it in.

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tools/S...e_Slot_Files.html?actn=100101&xst=3&xsr=97628

Pete Howlett said:

It's always a good idea to think before you post. 'Libel' is a very dangerous country to travel and most issues that involve 'complaint' are best done privately to avoid the aforesaid...

Click to expand...

I do believe you actually have to name someone in a libel case. It helps to have what was said be untrue also. I did neither, although what was said and assumed about me was untrue and libelous in the closed thread, imo. Your even bringing such a strong term into the mix quite surprising, especially with what you said in your opening sentence.

And for what it's worth,....i do offer my sincere appologies that the initial thread came off as a slam against un-intended builders. I would only ask that in the future to ask questions before jumping to such serious conclusions, in the interest of fairness.

joejeweler said:

It WAS unreasonable to deduce that the few listed ukuleles listed in my signature must be the ones i was referring to.

Click to expand...

When listing ukuleles in their signature, I think it is more common that people list all of their ukes, not just a few (but I may be wrong about that). Going with this train of thought and not knowing any differently, I can see why someone would think that you were referencing the ukes in your sig. Honest mistake but not an unreasonable mistake.

Nuprin said:

When listing ukuleles in their signature, I think it is more common that people list all of their ukes, not just a few (but I may be wrong about that). Going with this train of thought and not knowing any differently, I can see why someone would think that you were referencing the ukes in your sig. Honest mistake but not an unreasonable mistake.

Click to expand...

I would have much preferred the ability to list all of my ukes,....but the restricted space allotted only allowed for 4 listings when links were added for pics.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing,....as you're right 100% of the time. But i will admit some might have assumed i was talking about the ones i had listed. Just that to get as nasty as it evolved without asking directly if that was the case a bit unfair.

I think everyone deserves that at least....???

buddhuu said:

On reflection, I don't think there's any need for anyone but the builders to respond in this particular thread, and once they've had a fair opportunity to reply it may well be closed.

Lectures from other members aren't going to help anything, so please don't be tempted.

Click to expand...

Just as Rick said, I believe there is no more need for anyone but the builders to respond to this thread. If I see it continue on I will have no other choice but to close it.

I shouldn't post as moderators suggested. But, as a former manager of many, and being trained in that mindset. Most the time, it is not "intent" that does damage. It is "perception". For instance, if I told a female employee "you look good today", My intent may have been she looked good profesionaly in a meeting etc. HOWEVER, is she perceived it as a sexual advance, or a sexist statement, the damage was done, regardless of my intent. If said woman took me as a manager to court, she would win, because perception will always win over intent. That is a legal certaintly. On another note, you make an implied comment regardless of intent, it is the perception that may or may not hurt an unintended target. Using your suggestion "they should ask me what I intended.." Fair enough, however, one person may ask, 100 others may not, but otherwise simply form a preduice against an unintended target, due to "perception". Damage was done, before you even realized there was a problem. Just saying..

Now, builders, carry on, and mods, lock if this gets out of hand. Frankly, I'm tired of "gotta get the last word" thing..

I appologize mods. But, I had to add that as a reader of this stuff..

Reckon this has run its course.

Please, just let it fade away.