Mismatched top, would this bother you? Cort space 4

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

Well have you left your reviews on trustpilot and /or the other sites mentioned?? If not , why not ? Do not bother with them on the phone !

Get a full refund ! With that attitude guitar guitar may be gone gone ,and then obliviously wonder why .

[Chienmortbb]

Late to this party but, the two halves imply book-matching almost perfect mirroring of the figuring/grain on both halves. You would not have accepting it if you went to a shop.

[Hellzero]

Again, nobody has been reading carefully, and certainly not my post.

 

Cort has never mentioned that it was a bookmatched top, never ever.

 

You should all stop with this inadmissible argument.

 

The other flaws are the only reason you'll get a full refund, so stop mentioning the top and you'll win the (legal) battle.

[Crusoe]

On 16/12/2025 at 17:15, Mudpup said:

Looking at a Google image search of that bass now. They all look book matched to me. I think yours has been matched from 2 different books! Send it back.....looks a bit pants and it will always annoy you. 

Yeah, Pride and Prejudice and a Mills and Boon 😄

[BigRedX]

14 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Again, nobody has been reading carefully, and certainly not my post.

 

Cort has never mentioned that it was a bookmatched top, never ever.

 

You should all stop with this inadmissible argument.

 

The other flaws are the only reason you'll get a full refund, so stop mentioning the top and you'll win the (legal) battle.

 

But if you look at the images on line being used to sell this bass, some are most definitely book matched and, even when they are not, none are close to being as mis-matched as the example in the OP.

 

If I had bought the bass in the OP on the basis of the photos being published on-line, I'd be sending it back expecting a full refund including my postage costs too.

[41Hz]

17 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Again, nobody has been reading carefully, and certainly not my post.

 

Cort has never mentioned that it was a bookmatched top, never ever.

 

You should all stop with this inadmissible argument.

 

The other flaws are the only reason you'll get a full refund, so stop mentioning the top and you'll win the (legal) battle.

But all of their marketing videos and pictures show matching tops, so it’s implied they at least be some sort of matching.

 

if you bought a blue car and each panel was a different shade of blue, it wouldn’t be an argument to say, we gave you a blue car and never stated the panels had to be the same shade.

[Hellzero]

Okay, I give up.

[mattpbass]

17 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Okay, I give up.

If it helps I agree with you. Does it look a bit crap to me, yes, would I like to own it, no, but is it faulty? No it isn’t, so no retailer would have any come back with the manufacturer, so it’s up to the purchaser whether they want to buy it or not, but the retailer has done nothing wrong. 

Edited 4 hours ago by mattpbass

[Steve Browning]

The distance selling rules give you the right to return (for no reason) within 14 days, under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

 

It may be different in Belgium, but getting shouty when you're wrong isn't a good look.

 

Right to cancel

29.—(1) The consumer may cancel a distance or off-premises contract at any time in the cancellation period without giving any reason, and without incurring any liability except under these provisions—

(a)regulation 34(3) (where enhanced delivery chosen by consumer);

(b)regulation 34(9) (where value of goods diminished by consumer handling);

(c)regulation 35(5) (where goods returned by consumer);

(d)regulation 36(4) (where consumer requests early supply of service).

(2) The cancellation period begins when the contract is entered into and ends in accordance with regulation 30 or 31.

(3) Paragraph (1) does not affect the consumer's right to withdraw an offer made by the consumer to enter into a distance or off-premises contract, at any time before the contract is entered into, without giving any reason and without incurring any liability.

Normal cancellation period

30.—(1) The cancellation period ends as follows, unless regulation 31 applies.

(2) If the contract is—

(a)a service contract, or

(b)a contract for the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium,

the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the contract is entered into.

(3) If the contract is a sales contract and none of paragraphs (4) to (6) applies, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(4) If the contract is a sales contract under which multiple goods are ordered by the consumer in one order but some are delivered on different days, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the last of the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(5) If the contract is a sales contract under which goods consisting of multiple lots or pieces of something are delivered on different days, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the last of the lots or pieces come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(6) If the contract is a sales contract for regular delivery of goods during a defined period of more than one day, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the first of the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

Cancellation period extended for breach of information requirement

31.—(1) This regulation applies if the trader does not provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

(2) If the trader provides the consumer with that information in the period of 12 months beginning with the first day of the 14 days mentioned in regulation 30(2) to (6), but otherwise in accordance with Part 2, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the consumer receives the information.

(3) Otherwise the cancellation period ends at the end of 12 months after the day on which it would have ended under regulation 30.

Exercise of 

Edited 4 hours ago by Steve Browning

[mattpbass]

2 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

The distance selling rules give you the right to return (for no reason) within 14 days, under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

 

It may be different in Belgium, but getting shouty when you're wrong isn't a good look.

At your own cost though. They’ve not refused a return unless I’ve misread?

[41Hz]

7 minutes ago, mattpbass said:

At your own cost though. They’ve not refused a return unless I’ve misread?

 They’ve not refused a return but they are stating there is nothing wrong with it so I’m liable for return costs.

 

You’re never going to get a 100% perfect bass and if you look hard enough at any instrument you’ll likely find an imperfection and it’s more difficult to assess on a figured top like this, but there should be some basic standards.

 

The reason I made this post with a picture was to sanity check I wasn’t being unreasonable in thinking this is unsuitable for sale. 9 out of 10 people who expressed an opinion wouldn’t be happy with it, so that tells me it’s not fit for purpose and they should take it back and cover the shipment cost.

 

If it had been the other way round and 90% of people would have been happy with it, I’d have sucked it up and happily paid the return costs.

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

On 17/12/2025 at 13:35, 41Hz said:

Have sent the pics to guitarguitar and they are saying there is nothing wrong with it so won’t pay the return shipment cost, disappointing but a lesson learnt.

Surely the thing that IS wrong with it is that it doesn’t look anything like the one pictured on their web site when you bought it?

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

The one shown on their web site looks fine. But it would, wouldn’t it?

 

https://www.guitarguitar.co.uk/product/250312438273008--cort-space-4-star-dust-black

[ezbass]

This is from GG’s T&Cs:

5.4 - Product images are for illustrative purposes only, GUITARGUITAR LTD cannot be held responsible for differences in the manufacturer's imagery and the actual product.

 

I’m not saying that it is great practise, just what the website says. This is where retailers who provide pictures of the actual product being provided (even if that means multiple listings for individual products of the same type) are a safer bet, when buying mail order.

[41Hz]

9 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

The one shown on their web site looks fine. But it would, wouldn’t it?

 

https://www.guitarguitar.co.uk/product/250312438273008--cort-space-4-star-dust-black

Maybe I should offer to pay the return if they agree to swap their image to the pic of mine🤣 don’t think they’d sell many though 

[mattpbass]

7 minutes ago, 41Hz said:

 They’ve not refused a return but they are stating there is nothing wrong with it so I’m liable for return costs.

 

You’re never going to get a 100% perfect bass and if you look hard enough at any instrument you’ll likely find an imperfection and it’s more difficult to assess on a figured top like this, but there should be some basic standards.

 

The reason I made this post with a picture was to sanity check I wasn’t being unreasonable in thinking this is unsuitable for sale. 9 out of 10 people who expressed an opinion wouldn’t be happy with it, so that tells me it’s not fit for purpose and they should take it back and cover the shipment cost.

 

If it had been the other way round and 90% of people would have been happy with it, I’d have sucked it up and happily paid the return costs.

I worked in instrument retail for years, so I have a bit more sympathy for the retailer, in the same way I have total sympathy for you. From the manufacturer’s POV there is nothing wrong with the bass. The retailer buys the bass and has no recourse on it, it is not faulty (per the manufacturer). It is very common on cheaper basses with visible grain finishes to have badly matched wood. I agree it looks crap, it would annoy me as a retailer, and as a potential buyer, but fundamentally no one has behaved badly in this situation, the call from others to slag them off all over the internet seems a bit off to me. 
 

Personally if I was buying anything with visible grain I’d want to see it before buying to avoid this exact situation. 

[41Hz]

6 minutes ago, mattpbass said:

I worked in instrument retail for years, so I have a bit more sympathy for the retailer, in the same way I have total sympathy for you. From the manufacturer’s POV there is nothing wrong with the bass. The retailer buys the bass and has no recourse on it, it is not faulty (per the manufacturer). It is very common on cheaper basses with visible grain finishes to have badly matched wood. I agree it looks crap, it would annoy me as a retailer, and as a potential buyer, but fundamentally no one has behaved badly in this situation, the call from others to slag them off all over the internet seems a bit off to me. 
 

Personally if I was buying anything with visible grain I’d want to see it before buying to avoid this exact situation. 

I’ve tried to be sympathetic too. 
 

They did say they’d check the bass before sending which they obviously didn’t so they only have themselves to blame.

 

According to Google, guitarguitar has turnover of £45M/year and must spend a good couple of million with Cort, that has itself revenues of £6.6billion/yr

 

These sort of faults/issues are the cost of doing business that they should easily be able to aborb into their costs based on their revenue not stitch up unlucky customers. 
 

I’m sure guitarguitar has enough clout based on its spend with Cort to push back on crappy quality control like this and get refunded on sub standard instruments.

 

If customers don’t push back and retailers don’t push back on manufacturers then they’ll keep on pumping out crappy quality which isn’t good for anyone. 

[Musicman20]

I've had issues with GG in Newcastle many years ago. I've used them online since, and I would have hoped their Newcastle store would have improved (after all, the North East lot are bloody lovely humans). They seem to only really 'turn' on you when it is a return. 

 

Disappointed in this response.

[Musicman20]

5 minutes ago, 41Hz said:

I’m sure guitarguitar has enough clout based on its spend with Cort to push back on crappy quality control like this and get refunded on sub standard instruments.

 

If customers don’t push back and retailers don’t push back on manufacturers then they’ll keep on pumping out crappy quality which isn’t good for anyone. 

Very fair. If they can't get the instrument to look at least a bit close to stock images, then take photos of all and check them. Even at 600 quid. 

 

I find Cort are a very mixed bag. Their PRS SE instruments are mostly very very well constructed, but then other brands don't hit as well.

[mattpbass]

14 minutes ago, 41Hz said:

I’ve tried to be sympathetic too. 
 

They did say they’d check the bass before sending which they obviously didn’t so they only have themselves to blame.

 

According to Google, guitarguitar has turnover of £45M/year and must spend a good couple of million with Cort, that has itself revenues of £6.6billion/yr

 

These sort of faults/issues are the cost of doing business that they should easily be able to aborb into their costs based on their revenue not stitch up unlucky customers. 
 

I’m sure guitarguitar has enough clout based on its spend with Cort to push back on crappy quality control like this and get refunded on sub standard instruments.

 

If customers don’t push back and retailers don’t push back on manufacturers then they’ll keep on pumping out crappy quality which isn’t good for anyone. 

Fair enough, if they said they’d check it cause they knew you were bothered about it then that’s a bit crap. But again, it’s not a fault, it’s within tolerances that the manufacturer considers acceptable. You don’t, and neither do I, but I’m just saying it’s not unusual for a delivered guitar to arrive looking nothing like the example

picture, it’s no more reliable with Ibanez or Squire for example, could easily end up with one that looks like it’s come from two completely different trees! 

[Hellzero]

1 hour ago, Steve Browning said:

The distance selling rules give you the right to return (for no reason) within 14 days, under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

 

It may be different in Belgium, but getting shouty when you're wrong isn't a good look.

 

Right to cancel

29.—(1) The consumer may cancel a distance or off-premises contract at any time in the cancellation period without giving any reason, and without incurring any liability except under these provisions—

(a)regulation 34(3) (where enhanced delivery chosen by consumer);

(b)regulation 34(9) (where value of goods diminished by consumer handling);

(c)regulation 35(5) (where goods returned by consumer);

(d)regulation 36(4) (where consumer requests early supply of service).

(2) The cancellation period begins when the contract is entered into and ends in accordance with regulation 30 or 31.

(3) Paragraph (1) does not affect the consumer's right to withdraw an offer made by the consumer to enter into a distance or off-premises contract, at any time before the contract is entered into, without giving any reason and without incurring any liability.

Normal cancellation period

30.—(1) The cancellation period ends as follows, unless regulation 31 applies.

(2) If the contract is—

(a)a service contract, or

(b)a contract for the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium,

the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the contract is entered into.

(3) If the contract is a sales contract and none of paragraphs (4) to (6) applies, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(4) If the contract is a sales contract under which multiple goods are ordered by the consumer in one order but some are delivered on different days, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the last of the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(5) If the contract is a sales contract under which goods consisting of multiple lots or pieces of something are delivered on different days, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the last of the lots or pieces come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

(6) If the contract is a sales contract for regular delivery of goods during a defined period of more than one day, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the day on which the first of the goods come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person, other than the carrier, identified by the consumer to take possession of them.

Cancellation period extended for breach of information requirement

31.—(1) This regulation applies if the trader does not provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, in accordance with Part 2.

(2) If the trader provides the consumer with that information in the period of 12 months beginning with the first day of the 14 days mentioned in regulation 30(2) to (6), but otherwise in accordance with Part 2, the cancellation period ends at the end of 14 days after the consumer receives the information.

(3) Otherwise the cancellation period ends at the end of 12 months after the day on which it would have ended under regulation 30.

Exercise of 

Did I contest this? Absolutely not!

 

My point of view is concerning the argument pointed out, which is a non bookmatched top, which is totally irrelevant here as this feature has never been stated anywhere by the manufacturer, aka Cort, nor the seller, aka GuitarGuitar.

 

For any distant sale, as you pointed it out, you can return any item within the legal period, which is 14 days (or more if the seller has clearly stated it), at your own cost even if there is nothing wrong with.

 

Should you find any real fault, then the seller MUST pay the return fee and refund (and here, a voucher is absolutely not a legal solution, only a full refund is valid) or replace the faulty item, and that's it.

 

So why arguing over and over?

 

I hate the top as it looks, even when it's (almost) bookmatched, but I would never ever use this argument to refuse the sale as it's legally totally irresponsible.

 

Do you, now, understand what I've been writing since the beginning?

[Steve Browning]

1 minute ago, Hellzero said:

Did I contest this? Absolutely not!

 

My point of view is concerning the argument pointed out, which is a non bookmatched top, which is totally irrelevant here as this feature has never been stated anywhere by the manufacturer, aka Cort, nor the seller, aka GuitarGuitar.

 

For any distant sale, as you pointed it out, you can return any item within the legal period, which is 14 days (or more if the seller has clearly stated it), at your own cost even if there is nothing wrong with.

 

Should you find any real fault, then the seller MUST pay the return fee and refund (and here, a voucher is absolutely not a legal solution, only a full refund is valid) or replace the faulty item, and that's it.

 

So why arguing over and over?

 

I hate the top as it looks, even when it's (almost) bookmatched, but I would never ever use this argument to refuse the sale as it's legally totally irresponsible.

 

Do you, now, understand what I've been writing since the beginning?

You used the word 'inadmissible' regarding the complaint. In the first 14 days nothing is 'inadmissible'.  the quoted Law states.

[Hellzero]

Just now, Steve Browning said:

You used the word 'inadmissible' regarding the complaint. In the first 14 days nothing is 'inadmissible'.  the quoted Law states.

And I was CLEARLY talking about that bloody bookmatched top, nothing else and THAT is inadmissible as there is no mention of this bookmatched top anywhere, nothing else!

[Steve Browning]

Your ire is such that you missed the point that no reason is necessary, therefore nothing is inadmissible. I'll spare your blood pressure and leave it there.

[Hellzero]

9 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Your ire is such that you missed the point that no reason is necessary, therefore nothing is inadmissible. I'll spare your blood pressure and leave it there.

I truly think you didn't read the entire thread, and certainly not my crystal clear posts, or maybe you didn't understand what I was talking about regarding the OP's rant.

 

So here it is even more clearly exposed:

 

1. OP buys a bass.

2. OP doesn't like it.

3. OP sends it back and asks for replacement.

4. OP gets it and find it's badly bookmatched.

5. OP asks for another replacement arguing that the top is badly mismatched, not correctly bookmatched.

6. Seller says OP has to pay the return fee, because there's no fault.

7. OP starts a rant here.

8. Everybody, but me starts ranting.

9. I explained why this is inadmissible to get a free return in this case.

10. Nobody reads the thread and the arguments, but push the rant further away.

11. My blood pressure is fine, but I really can't stand bad faith.