Fender Sucks Bigtime
Sorcerer
There's a lot good to be said about Strats and Teles, but a lot bad to be
said about what I'm seeing in the stores. The price for "endorsed" models
is way over what these guitars are really worth. Unless Eric Clapton,
Bonnie Raitt and so on are making one whale of a royalty on each guitar, I'm
seeing basically a Tex Mex which has been fancied up only a bit and then is
being sold for one hell of a lot more money.
Faddism has taken over what used to be a decent guitar, one with a unique
sound and look, at what used to be a fair price. Kind of like Gibson, it
seems the marketing loons are really screwing things up.
--
remove "ca." in replyto field to send mail.
If everything is a matter of nurture rather than nature,
and men continue to be just fucking jerks, as feminists
claim, then why do they keep raising us that way?
Joe Befumo
I agree, but don't know that i would single out Fender. Everyone charges
what the market will bear, regardless of real value, and those who "vote"
with their purchase dollars tend to reinforce these marketing decisions.
Consider the fact that Gibson charges less for the ES355 (Lucile) than the
"reissue) 335, when the 355 is clearly a higher-end instrument. I just got
a look at the '57 reissue slab Les Paul Special -- nice instrument, but
worth $3800? Not to me. More expensive to build than an arch top acoustic,
or even a standard Les Paul Standard? Doubtful. A better investment than
(or even as satisfying to own as) a real vintage instrument that can often
be obtained for not much more money? Not for my money. The fact remains,
however, as long as there are people ready to be taken in by meaningless
lables (like "reissue") or mass-produced signatures of their favorite
musician/gods, then this situation will exist. All we can do is not be
taken in.
Ron Thompson
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> There's a lot good to be said about Strats and Teles, but a lot bad to be
> said about what I'm seeing in the stores. The price for "endorsed" models
> is way over what these guitars are really worth. Unless Eric Clapton,
> Bonnie Raitt and so on are making one whale of a royalty on each guitar, I'm
> seeing basically a Tex Mex which has been fancied up only a bit and then is
> being sold for one hell of a lot more money.
>
> Faddism has taken over what used to be a decent guitar, one with a unique
> sound and look, at what used to be a fair price. Kind of like Gibson, it
> seems the marketing loons are really screwing things up.
Eric and Bonnie and Jeff and Jimi and on and on ad nauseum make nothing
on these. They just get one or two, and as endorsers, they allegedly
get better service than the rest of us. I say allegedly, someone put
up here the real deal on endorsements.
When I was a kid, I wanted nothing more than a black strat, like
Eric. I had a bunch of em, but never quite got around to a black one.
Then as an older dude, out comes this EC strat. I tried it, hated it,
of course, and laughed at the price. Eric likes HIS strat, not me.
I wouldn't expect him to like MY strat.
This is all the result of the exaggeration of the "science" of playing
this thing. Somewhere along the way, the marketing dudes figured out
that if the TOLD someone that this was a good thing, they would, and
frequently do, believe it. When I go in the store I am saddened by
all of these "signature" guitars and amps. Whatever happened to playing
a tele or a strat or a paul? Who actually buys these things? I would
suppose that there is a small portion of the market that does, but
probably not because of the "signature", but because they happen to like
the same stuff that is on these things.
Ever play an SRV? Man, what a dog. I wouldn't give you 800 for ALL of
them, much less one. But he sure liked it, and made a whale of a noise
on it too! He would hate all of mine.
When Fender, in its' infinite corporate wisdom, backed out of (probably)
near bankruptcy back there in mid 80s by closing up CA and going down
to Mexico, they must have been thinking purely in terms of survival.
They went down there, made the SAME strat they always did, just put
it together somewhere else. Yeah Yeah Yeah I know about 3-5 pieces vs
3 pieces and poplar vs alder and all of that other stuff. Fact is,
they couldn't afford to do it the same as they used to. How to get
around that?
Easy. Make the same old junky strats, and I say junky because we never
treated them like gold back then and they kept on ticking taking that
licking. Junky in the sense that they were good old reliable working
axes. Make them down in Mexico so that you can keep costs down so that
guys like me will still give you 300 bucks give or take for one. After
all, is there a strat worth more? Probably not.
So now the mind is set for the next generation. Fender begins the top
end scam. We'll make AMERICAN, ULTRA, ELITE, UTRA ELITE PLUS, etc.
Anything that sounds like a feminine napkin will sound just as good on
a guitar.
With me? They are hooked. Our consumer psycho society simply MUST
have the best. There is no best strat. A strat is a strat. Folks been
buying them, hacking them up, playing them, and this may come as a
surprise to some, actually SELLING THEM AT A LOSS, for a long time.
Imagine, selling yer guitar at a loss. Doesn't seem possible today now
does it?
So, as this rant comes to a close, I have put forth the Top End Scam
theory. I have heard so much crap about how junky the Mexicans are,
get an American standard, get a Plus, etc. For my 2 cents, that Mexican
is actually the most direct descendant of the strats I grew up with.
The rest are worth what they are worth to the consumer that consumed
them only.
I know a lot of you guys won't or don't agree, and that is fine with
me. I am not slagging anyone for playing any guitar that they play.
You got to love that thing for doing what it does, and I am glad for
each and every one of you that does love the one you use. Mine is
different from yours, yours is different from the next guy. So ease up
on the kerosene, I intend no one any harm.
Except of course those hatefulbeautifulgorgeousbloatedprice PRS thingys.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
Donald Put
In article <66raaj$6...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
Joe Befumo <jbe...@clarity-dev.com> wrote:
>however, as long as there are people ready to be taken in by meaningless
>lables (like "reissue") or mass-produced signatures of their favorite
>musician/gods, then this situation will exist. All we can do is not be
>taken in.
Although I agree with most of what you posted, I have to take exception
to this. I own an SRV strat. Why? Well, it wasn't because I was or am
a big fan of SRV--I like his playing, but that nothing to do with my
decision to buy the guitar--it's because the guitar had the sound and the
feel I was after. At that time, it was the only strat offered with that
style of neck with a 12" radius. The first thing I did after I bought the
guitar was to remove the cheesy pickguard and install a tortoise shell
model. I also changed the wiring so I can get all seven pickup
combinations, installed locking tuners, replaced the crappy saddles
with graphite ones, blocked the tremolo, and set the guitar up for
heavier strings. It's an amazing sounding guitar, but the name on
the headstock reflects my playing/setup tastes more than it does
SRV's. I guess the next step is to remove his signature and put
mine on it <g>.
Cheers,
don
da...@pe.net
Idyllwild Brewing Company
PS--I don't give a shit about retaining any possible collector value. I
buy guitars to play, and I keep them for a long time. (Read: I've never
sold a guitar yet and I have a few.) As far as I'm concerned, the whole
*vintage* collectable thing reflects P.T. Barnum's ideology perfectly.
--
don
da...@pe.net
Idyllwild Brewing Company
jdm
Ron Thompson <thom...@admin.tc.faa.gov> wrote in article
<34914B...@admin.tc.faa.gov>...
> Sorcerer wrote:
> >
> snip <
> When Fender, in its' infinite corporate wisdom, backed out of (probably)
> near bankruptcy back there in mid 80s by closing up CA and going down
> to Mexico, they must have been thinking purely in terms of survival.
And what happens when the Mexicans and Chinese and Koreans etc.
get tired of working as virtual slaves so we can have our 300$ Strats?
Not to mention our 20 dollar blue jeans blah blah blah.
It's like the late PT Burnem ( oops, Barnum ) once said.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
people"
jdm
Greg Brouelette
Joe Befumo (jbe...@clarity-dev.com) wrote:
: I agree, but don't know that i would single out Fender.
Quite true
: a look at the '57 reissue slab Les Paul Special -- nice instrument, but
: worth $3800? Not to me. More expensive to build than an arch top acoustic,
In fact, at $3800 that puts it in the range of a hand made custom guitar.
For nearly $4K I'd go to a luthier and say "Make this for me".
Greg B
IceHouse
jdm wrote:
> And what happens when the Mexicans and Chinese and Koreans etc.
> get tired of working as virtual slaves so we can have our 300$ Strats?
> Not to mention our 20 dollar blue jeans blah blah blah.
They can quit and work in one of Cathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops provided they
are under the age of 10.
IceHouse
Joe Befumo
Somewhat off subject, but . . .
With respect to hand made instruments -- one must certainly bear in mind
that resale is not what it would be for, say, a Super 400, or maybe a Johnny
Smith (I'm nost sure you could find the former in the price range, but the
latter is probably a good bet). This is not to say that collectability is
necessarily of interest to all, and most of us don';t buy a player with the
intention of selling it.
Point in fact -- In 1977, my wife bought me a LoPrinzi steel string
(LR15, I think -- to lazy to get up and look). At the time, the price was
about $100 more than a Martin D28. At the time I immediately tried to swap
it for a Martin, but the place she bought it from didn't carry them, so I
was SOL.
At this point, as the guitar enters its 21st year, I wouldn't part with
it for any other instrument (well, within reason). It's probably worth
about $2k less than a D28 of that year in comprable condition.
However, over the years, during various lean times, I must have tried
selling that thing a half dozen time -- each time, despite my immediate
needs, not being able to bring myself to part with it for the pittance I was
being offered. I have no doubt that the price I could have gotten for a
Martin would have tempted me more, and my birthday present would be long
gone by now.
Strat1994
Before you go off on saying that a Strat Plus is a crappy guitar maybe you
should play one. Yeah I might agree that a 58 LP Jr. is a nicer guitar but I'd
take a 1954 Strat over that LP Jr. any day of the week. I also would take a
new Strat Plus($700-$1000) over a new LP Jr. that cost ten times more but isn't
nearly as versitle. Plus if you go with a good quality guitar at a less
expensive price you can customize it to meet your needs. In that aspect I
totally agree with the guy who got the SRV Strat and made it a custom one. So
Paul most players buy guitars to play them not to collect them. Next time
think before you type, jackass.
JohnG
> The first thing I did after I bought the
> guitar was to remove the cheesy pickguard and install a tortoise shell
> model.
Every SRV Strat I've ever seen already has a tortoise shell pickguard.
They sell them without, too?
Charles Winters
Sorry to say, but a Les Paul IS a signature instrument. Ever heard of that guy named
LES PAUL???
> Ever play an SRV? Man, what a dog. I wouldn't give you 800 for ALL of
> them, much less one. But he sure liked it, and made a whale of a noise
> on it too! He would hate all of mine.
>
SRV didn't play one of these. He did like once as a promotional deal on the Tonight
Show, but that's about it. He played several vintage strats namely a 1959 sunbust.
So he actually just played a plain old, non-signature strat.
zitn...@ibm.net
I agree 100%. For anyone to pay over $1000.00 for a Fender Strat or Tele
guitar has to be naive.Fender is laughing all the way to the bank. Come
on guys and gals there is nothing that makes a $2000.00+ Fender Strat or
Tele better than one which retails for between $750.00-$1000.00. The
additional value you think is there, is really just in your head.
Fenders are great sounding and great playing but the dollar differences
from one Strat or Tele to another is so huge compared to the actual
value of the difference
Lotsatone
>I agree 100%. For anyone to pay over $1000.00 for a Fender Strat or Tele
guitar has to be naive.Fender is laughing all the way to the bank.
Here's my personal take on this matter.
1. Guitars will go to a certain point where "those that suck" (Hondo,
Crestline, Harmony) will start to become "those that are alright for most
people". (Fernandez, Yamaha, etc..).
2. Once you get to a little bit better than those brands, you'll notice that
there really isn't that big of a difference in the overall quality. What is the
big difference between a Mexi Strat vs. an American Strat? The pickups? The
tuners? Big fucking deal. That's a $100.00 investment to level the playing
field. What else? Nothing. But you're going to see about a $400.00 difference
in their respected retail prices.
3. Then for each minute increment increase in quality, it will be met with an
exponential increase in price.
Having been around guitars for a long time now, I personally can appreciate
the subtle differences between say an American Standard Strat vs. a strat made
by Tom Anderson. That being said, do I really think that an Anderson is worth
4X as much money? Probably not. That's a HUGE chunk of change for essentially
the same animal (but with more "refined appointments").
I know that I'm quite possibly comparing a BMW vs. a Ford. But both cars
will go forward and backward. Both will get you to work. If driving an
expensive car or playing an expensive guitar is what floats your boat...then
fine. No problem here. But for most driving or performance situations, the Ford
or Fender will do just fine.
My .02 cents worth.
Kevin Smith
Palmer College of Chiropractic
Drug
aren't you paying the extra $'s for the fancy finish, colors, & workmanship?
zitn...@ibm.net wrote:
> I agree 100%. For anyone to pay over $1000.00 for a Fender Strat or Tele
Ron Thompson
Charles Winters wrote:
> Sorry to say, but a Les Paul IS a signature instrument. Ever heard of that guy named
> LES PAUL???
Yeah, I have. Yeah, I know a paul is a signature instrument.
> SRV didn't play one of these. He did like once as a promotional deal on the Tonight
> Show, but that's about it. He played several vintage strats namely a 1959 sunbust.
> So he actually just played a plain old, non-signature strat.
Exactly. I think we agree.
Rich Briere
Momma said there'd be days like this..................:-)
Rich Briere
>
>Sorcerer wrote:
>>
>> There's a lot good to be said about Strats and Teles, but a lot bad to be
>> said about what I'm seeing in the stores. The price for "endorsed" models
>> is way over what these guitars are really worth. Unless Eric Clapton,
>> Bonnie Raitt and so on are making one whale of a royalty on each guitar, I'm
>> seeing basically a Tex Mex which has been fancied up only a bit and then is
>> being sold for one hell of a lot more money.
>>
>> Faddism has taken over what used to be a decent guitar, one with a unique
>> sound and look, at what used to be a fair price. Kind of like Gibson, it
>> seems the marketing loons are really screwing things up.
>
>Eric and Bonnie and Jeff and Jimi and on and on ad nauseum make nothing
>on these. They just get one or two, and as endorsers, they allegedly
>get better service than the rest of us. I say allegedly, someone put
>up here the real deal on endorsements.
>
>When I was a kid, I wanted nothing more than a black strat, like
>Eric. I had a bunch of em, but never quite got around to a black one.
>Then as an older dude, out comes this EC strat. I tried it, hated it,
>of course, and laughed at the price. Eric likes HIS strat, not me.
>I wouldn't expect him to like MY strat.
>
>This is all the result of the exaggeration of the "science" of playing
>this thing. Somewhere along the way, the marketing dudes figured out
>that if the TOLD someone that this was a good thing, they would, and
>frequently do, believe it. When I go in the store I am saddened by
>all of these "signature" guitars and amps. Whatever happened to playing
>suppose that there is a small portion of the market that does, but
>probably not because of the "signature", but because they happen to like
>the same stuff that is on these things.
>
>them, much less one. But he sure liked it, and made a whale of a noise
>on it too! He would hate all of mine.
>
>near bankruptcy back there in mid 80s by closing up CA and going down
>to Mexico, they must have been thinking purely in terms of survival.
Ron Thompson
PaulN...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 97 03:43:41 GMT, in alt.guitar,
> rfbr...@spectra.net (Rich Briere) wrote:
>
> > >For my 2 cents, that Mexican
> > >is actually the most direct descendant of the strats I grew up with.
>
> hand-made (way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took
> over), and as such, cost around $300 in 1965.
>
I wrote that, so I'll repeat it. For MY 2 cents. Not yours, not some
Adam Smith Red Tie Wearing Wall Street Schlock, nor anyone elses.
Mine.
> Let me repeat that - $300 in 1965.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I'll repeat. MY 2 cents.
> If you adjust "1965 dollars" to "1997 dollars", the equivalent
> quality new Strat costs over $2,000 and says "Custom Shop" on the
> headstock. It's actually a great deal in comparison to cars:
I don't adjust any dollars to any dollars. I play the damn thing.
>
> In 1965, a new Ford Mustang cost less than $3,000; A 1963
> Corvette Stingray cost $5,800 (My Dad bought one new). Do you
> honestly expect a 1997 Mustang, or a 1997 Corvette, to cost the
> same price as in 1965? No? Well then, why hold the same price
> in guitars for the same quality?
Alt.guitar. Not alt.my.dads.mustang. Not alt.my.neighbors.vette.
>
> If you expect a $300 1997 Strat to be anywhere in the same league
> as a $300 1965 Strat, prepare to be disappointed. If you can't
> tell instantly by picking up the two guitars, then at least take
> an economics course so you'll understand inflation, and what that
> means in the real world of manufacturing and commerce.
Didn't say I expected them to be in the same league. I'll say it again:
FOR MY 2 CENTS. I have been playing guitars, Fenders, Gibsons, Hamers,
Kramers, Washburns, Ibanez, and a few other kinds that I can't even
remember having anymore, for over 26 years. I certainly know the
difference between one of the old ones and the new ones.
I grew up on the old ones. I have enough education to understand
what it means in the real world of manufacturing and commerce.
Unfortunately, I was talking about the other real world of smokin bars
and playin the blues.
> Please consider that in 1965, there were no serviceable guitars
> available for only $40 - which is what a NAFTA Strat would have
> cost back then in comparison to the "genuine" $300 Fullerton
> Strats. So, be glad you can buy a "good-enough" NAFTA guitar
> today for only two to three day's wages -in the sixties, it was
> two to three WEEKS wages for the real thing.
I remember.
>
> Gotta go - my Grandfather wants to tell me a story about "walking
> 20 miles to school every day". This guitar story is the updated
> "Gen-X" version of that same old tale! Happy Holidays -
No, it isn't. FOR MY 2 CENTS. I also didn't tell anyone what type,
kind,
Custom, Elite, Standard, et al, etc. ad nauseum, to buy or use.
Just my 2 cents. Devalued of course and scaled to todays market ecomony
and
world village beat, and just a dash of optimistic investment in the
global
market portofolio of life on the worlds fastest network.
Jeff Mead
In article <34973f4...@news.2cowherd.net>, PaulN...@NOSPAM.com
writes
>No, they're not. "Vintage" 1952-1965 Strats were largely
>hand-made (way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took
>over), and as such, cost around $300 in 1965.
No they weren't, they were assembled on a factory production line, using
machine made parts. They certainly weren't put together by skilled
luthiers.
They were about as "hand-made" as Ford cars.
That was one of the major talents of Leo Fender - he not only designed
some of the most popular guitars of all time, he also found a way of
mass-producing them to a high standard.
--
Jeff Mead
EMail: je...@bayou.demon.co.uk
Jomack
>>>Your description fits "CBS" post-1965 Fender Guitars, not
"Pre-CBS". Collectors are not paying 200%-300% more for 1965 &
older guitars for no reason.<<<
Using price as a benchmark of quality is a weak argument as the dreaded 3 bolt
Strats head towards the $2K price point. What is the "quality reason" for these
dogs rise in price?
>>>Pre-CBS Stats show virtually the
same degree of hand-fitting & finishing as today's Custom Shop
Strat. "CBS" 1966 & newer Strats show dramatically lower
quality.<<<
I haven't found this to be "absolutely" true. I've been at this a while and
played doggy 50's Strats and great late 60's Strats. I've never fallen in love
with a 3 bolt Strat, but hate to make absolute judgements on any production
instrument. All those "crummy" Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck records with big
headstock Strats- dumb luck, or a function of quality musicianship being a LOT
more important than the instrument?
To my way of thinking, the difference between using a dozen different jigs,
fixtures and tools and the use of a CNC machines to carve a body or neck for a
solid body guitar is a much more consistent and accurate final product with the
CNC machine.
If you think there is that dramatic a difference between a '65 Strat and a '66
Strat, I would suggest that you haven't played many of either.
>>>The necks of Pre-1965 Vintage Strats did not have frets roughly
installed by machine, as on cheap Strats today,<<<
From what I know, early Strats have frets pressed in "sideways" via machine,
not hand set "Vertically".
>>>nor was the
finish sprayed on by an assembly line spray machine - it was done
by hand.<<<
With all the variation that one finds in hand work- again, plenty of dogs
within the great ones. I think a better argument can be mounted for the
difference in the paint, rather than the differences in application.
>>>The necks were also hand-fitted to each body, not like
today's generic interchangeable neck,<<<
If you'll check your history, you'll find that CLF designed the detachable neck
to be replaceable by the owner, should a re-fret be needed or a warp occur that
the truss rod couldn't correct. I agree with you that the neck pockets are
usually tighter on the old guitars, but the notion of hand fitting being
anything other than a few swipes of sandpaper is not correct.
>>or the most embarrassing
"micro-tilt" adjustable neck - what a piece of crap!<<<
The concept of an onboard neck angle adjustment is well over 100 years old (you
can find it on NY Martins) and is predated in the electric guitar world by
Danelectro - thats what that "extra" hole is for on Silvertones and Danos. This
isn't a point I'd argue with you- I'm not a fan of the Micro-Tilt as found on
Fender guitars, though a case could be made that shimming with fishpaper is an
even less "elegant" a solution.
>>>Get a book on Fender history to see what I'm talking about, and
talk to some serious collectors - Strats were MUCH BETTER made
back then, despite high output and any production line methods
employed. After 1965, the quality became mediocre as production
methods were "updated".<<<
Do you really feel the inflated price for a production line solid body guitar
has much to do with quality? I think there is a lot more mojo and cool factor
involved than quality difference. Were quality the only reason for a pre-CBS
Fender to increase in value, then the guitars that sparked the pre-CBS boom,
ie, the 3 bolt Strats, would not be priced at the dopey prices that I see.
There are much stronger forces at work in the collectible world than simple
quality.
Bottom line for me - I'd much rather have a '57 Strat than a 97 Strat, but I
could pretty much cut the gig with either. (I'd feel a lot cooler with my '57,
but I'd be out a lot more if someone snatched it off the bandstand)
>>>Of course, if you just want to deny this quality gap, then fine;
if it makes you feel better, ignore it. But, don't try to
convince people who know the difference between Pre-CBS & CBS, or
NAFTA & Custom Shop, and are willing to "waste" their money for
better quality and collectability. If you have a 1962 Strat, and
don't feel it is any better than a 1997 model, I'll be glad to
pay you $800 for it. ;-)
There have been numerous arguments posted showing the relative value of Fender
products of now and then. When I started playing (1964)the entry level
affordable guitars were relative junk compared to todays Mexican Strats. I
really feel that this is the golden age of guitar building, with tremendous
value being offered in affordable instruments.
All that being said, nobody has yet come along that sounds better to me than
Hound Dog Taylor playing a Zim-Gar through a POS amp. At some point you gotta
stop chasing your equipment tail and start playing. (Unless one is a
non-playing collector, than one can chase that tail forever !)
Joe
Oklawind
boy people sure get long-winded about this stuff. listen, if you prefer a '57
strat, go buy one. if you prefer a '97 mexican strat, go buy one. there's
really no sense in arguing about it. do your thing, man! and let the other guy
(or gal) do thier thing. i know i'm wasting my time writing this because this
argument will always be around. just like the fender/gibson thing. if you don't
think the quality is the same now as it was then, don't buy a new one.
great.....mom started talking to me and now i've forgotten what else i was
going to type. oh well. happy playing everybody!
jad
Andrew McWhirter
PaulN...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 97 03:43:41 GMT, in alt.guitar,
> rfbr...@spectra.net (Rich Briere) wrote:
>
> > >For my 2 cents, that Mexican
> > >is actually the most direct descendant of the strats I grew up with.
>
That's not quite right, AFAIK. Sure, there was a lot of hand work done to
produce them way back then, but they were still largely done be machine. What
made it possible to reduce the price even further was that introduction of new
machines (like CNC routers) meant that component parts could be produced
*cheaper*. For example, strat bodies were always routed (as were neck
blanks). The body sontours were sawn with the body held at an angle on a
bandsaw. According to Duchosoir's "The Fender Stratocaster", when schedules
became tight, the operators didn't even bother to mark the saw line on the
blank...they would just saw by eye. So when we talk about quality, I would
think that repeatability/consistency would come into the equation. Apart from
producing some of the most functional, durable and affordable(?) instruments
for working musos, there wasn't much consistent about Fender.
As far as 'hand made' goes, that's laughable. The difference was that in the
early days, some guy would screw a template to the wood, push it around on a
pin router for a while, then....do it all again. Necks were always hand
shaped though, which explains why no two are exactly the same. Now let me
ask: is a hand carved neck *really better* than a machine carved one (provided
that the machine carved neck is a profile that suits you)?
Pickups were hand wound originally (also why no two are the same), by an
operator guiding wire over the bobbin which was attached to a machine to
rotate it. But Fender had already updated this process to use automatic
guiding/turns counters by the time CBS took over.
Just about everything else (machine heads, controls, plates and bridges) was
contracted out. My guess is that so long as the contractor provided goods
that met Fender's requirements, that's all that mattered. I can't believe
that Kluson were hand making tuning machines....
> ...(way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took
> over),
As I understand it, CNC machinery was available, just VERY expensive. The
massive amounts of cash that CBS provided enabled Fender to invest in CNC
machinery shortly (within a couple of years anyway) after the takeover. Leo
Fender was *always* looking for a shortcut! Example: Leo didn't see the need
for a truss rod in the earliest Broadcasters, so he didn't fit one. Marketing
considerations forced him to recant on that one, it is presumed. Example: the
whole strat tremolo bridge was designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture,
and still function adequately. Example: the screw-in neck was designed to be
easy to replace, and not require laborious hand-fitting in the factory. How
much more of a shortcut can you get?!? Example: rather than hammering frets
in, Fender devised a system whereby the frets were slipped in from the side of
the neck. They finally abandoned this system because it required a skilled
operator. The advantage was it was *VERY* fast.
There was no plywood though, AFAIK....
> and as such, cost around $300 in 1965.
>
> Let me repeat that - $300 in 1965.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> If you adjust "1965 dollars" to "1997 dollars", the equivalent
> quality new Strat costs over $2,000 and says "Custom Shop" on the
> headstock.
My impression is that there is a whole lot more hand work done in a custom
shop instrument than was ever done in the Fender factory of the 50's/early
60's. So the $2k for a custom shop strat is *still* a good deal.
<snip of car metaphor>
> If you expect a $300 1997 Strat to be anywhere in the same league
> as a $300 1965 Strat, prepare to be disappointed. If you can't
> tell instantly by picking up the two guitars, then at least take
> an economics course so you'll understand inflation, and what that
> means in the real world of manufacturing and commerce.
But inflation isn't the only factor at play here. Economies of scale (thank
CBS for that), increased automation leading to reduced manufacture costs (in
addition to increased capacity) combined with increased competition would have
tended to make prices go down even if they were producing from the same raw
materials. It's moot point anyway, since even under Leo Fenders leadership,
the instruments were constantly evolving.
> Please understand that I am not saying that you should not own, play and
> enjoy today's economy instruments - they are certainly a great value for
> themoney. Most people are familiar with the old "your last dollar buys the > least value" principle: no one thinks a Custom Shop Strat is seven times > > better quality than a Nafta Strat, just because it costs seven times more. > But, if you want *THREE TIMES BETTER*, SEVEN TIMES more cash is what you'll > have to pay.
I'd say it's more like a variation on the 80/20 rule: you get 80% of the
functionality for 20% of the $, the remaining 20% functionality will cost the
other 80%. In essence I think we agree here.
To the original poster: Get back under the bridge and wait for the billy
goats.
Cheers
Andrew
TVogel5415
The earlier comment on signature instruments is a total joke. Care to guess
the biggest selling "signature" instrument of them all? Of course, the LES
PAUL (it is named after an actual player, right?). Not too many people
complaining about the two humbucker, carved-top, glued-in neck setup he helped
invent.
I have also been playing guitar now for over(gulp) twenty years. In that time
I have owned numerous vintage instruments such as '50s Les Pauls and old
Martins. I have also (obviously) played literally hundreds of other vintage
instruments from the '50s and '60s (and earlier). Where I'm going with this is
THERE WAS PLENTY OF JUNK MADE IN THE '50s AND '60s BY BOTH GIBSON AND FENDER
(gasp). I have playedsome pre-CBS Fender strats that were virtually
unplayable, they were so bad.
Where older guitars benefit from is the fact that they have 1) been broken in,
2) have been around long enough to (hopefully) have been in a skilled
repairman's hands for a professional setup. I have found quality was horibbly
spotty in those older instruments. Price does not equate with playability with
older instruments since they have now taken on historical significance.
New guitars aren't any different: There are good ones and bad ones. However,
where new Fender (and Gibson) guitars have the old ones beat is the fact that
you CAN go out and get a fantastic playing custom shop instrument for an amount
that rivals the inflation-adjusted price of the old instruments. You can also
get good lower-priced models that have the stuff (I played a brand new Lone
Star strat today that just killed--I've played others that were absolute
garbage).
BISKEY BOB
In article <19971216203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com
(Jomack) writes:
>All that being said, nobody has yet come along that sounds better to me
>than Hound Dog Taylor playing a Zim-Gar through a POS amp.
Alright, I know this is off-topic, but I just gotta ask: what the heck is a
Zim-Gar? Where were they made?
My first guitar was a short-scale acoustic that used to have a Melodia sticker
on the headstock. I got it used (very used) around 1970--I think my parents
paid $5.00 for it. After a year or so, the Melodia sticker peeled off and there
was a Zim-Gar nameplate (or sticker) under it. I always wondered where the heck
that thing came from. I've never heard the name mentioned anywhere else.
It's a lousy excuse for a guitar as best I can tell, but it was a real prize
when I was an 11 year old with nothing else to play. I guess perspective is
everything.
Thanks for any info,
--Bobby Neal
Jeff Mead
In article <3497cb3...@news.2cowherd.net>, PaulN...@NOSPAM.com
writes
>On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:27:50 +0000, in alt.guitar, Jeff Mead
><Je...@bayou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <34973f4...@news.2cowherd.net>, PaulN...@NOSPAM.com
>> writes
>> >over), and as such, cost around $300 in 1965.
>>
>> No they weren't, they were assembled on a factory production line, using
>> machine made parts. They certainly weren't put together by skilled
>> luthiers. They were about as "hand-made" as Ford cars.
>> That was one of the major talents of Leo Fender - he not only designed
>> some of the most popular guitars of all time, he also found a way of
>> mass-producing them to a high standard.
>
>"Pre-CBS". Collectors are not paying 200%-300% more for 1965 &
>older guitars for no reason.
Both "pre-" and "post-" CBS guitars were made on a production line.
Fender changed a lot of their machinery and production methods after
being bought by CBS, their quality control also went downhill so, yes,
there is a lot of difference between the two eras.
Collectors and players are buying pre-CBS guitars for all sorts of
reasons but not because they think that they were "hand-made".
>The necks were also hand-fitted to each body, not like
>today's generic interchangeable neck
The necks were designed to be user-replaceable from the very start.
Check out Fender's early advertising. One of the "features" was that,
when the frets wore out, the owner could just buy and fit a new neck.
>Strats were MUCH BETTER made
>back then, despite high output and any production line methods
>employed. After 1965, the quality became mediocre as production
>methods were "updated".Of course, if you just want to deny this quality gap, then fine;
>if it makes you feel better, ignore it. But, don't try to
>convince people who know the difference between Pre-CBS & CBS, or
>NAFTA & Custom Shop, and are willing to "waste" their money for
>better quality and collectability. If you have a 1962 Strat, and
>don't feel it is any better than a 1997 model, I'll be glad to
>pay you $800 for it. ;-)
I'm not arguing with you about whether or not pre-CBS ones are better or
worth the money - I play a 1956 Esquire, so I guess that shows exactly
where I stand on that one.
I was simply disputing your claim that they were "hand-made".
They weren't!
Jomack
>>>After a year or so, the Melodia sticker peeled off and there
was a Zim-Gar nameplate (or sticker) under it. I always wondered where the heck
that thing came from. I've never heard the name mentioned anywhere else.<<<
Hey Bob,
If I remember correctly, the funky Japanese guitars I saw growing up on Lawn
Guyland in the '60's were called Zim-Gar on the east coast, and Teisco Del Ray
on the west coast. As they were jobber quality guitars, I would expect to find
deveral different brand names, depending on which wholesaler was importing them
at the time. VG magazine probably has a six-part series (or is soon planning
one <g>)
I remember hitting the west coast in 1974 and thinking "Wow, these Teisco's
look just like Zim-Gars!" (I was easily impressed)
One of the shops I call on has an ancient Teisco with guitar mis-spelled
"Teisco Guiter".
I'm off to have lunch with Art Thompson, GP editor and "Pawn Shop Prizes"
columnist (look for my bitchin Airline next issue) and will ask him for the
skinny....till then...
"Gimme back my wig
Mamma let your head go bald.
Really didn't have no business
honey, buyin you no wig at all"
...................................................................and who
among us, hasn't said the same thing?
Joe Mack
Alex Tobias
> At some point you gotta stop chasing your equipment tail and start playing.
That's about the best advice I've heard in a long time.
Rich Briere
In article <34973f4...@news.2cowherd.net>, PaulN...@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>From: PaulN...@NOSPAM.com
>Newsgroups: alt.guitar
>Subject: Re: Fender Sucks Bigtime(Long old guy rant)
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:18:43 GMT
>Message-ID: <34973f4...@news.2cowherd.net>
>References: <66qcn8$qrq$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>
> <34914B...@admin.tc.faa.gov> <674tdd$3f0...@supernews.spectra.net>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>X-No-Archive: yes
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-01-08-03.2cowherd.net
>Lines: 50
>Path:
> Supernews70!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.co
>m!PRIORI!news.2cowherd.net!dialup-01-08-03.2cowherd.net
>Xref: Supernews70 alt.guitar:203536
>Status: N
I don't know how my name got tied to this message, but, it's not mine.....RB
>
>> >For my 2 cents, that Mexican
>> >is actually the most direct descendant of the strats I grew up with.
>
>No, they're not. "Vintage" 1952-1965 Strats were largely
>hand-made (way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took
>over), and as such, cost around $300 in 1965.
>
>Let me repeat that - $300 in 1965.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>If you adjust "1965 dollars" to "1997 dollars", the equivalent
>quality new Strat costs over $2,000 and says "Custom Shop" on the
>headstock. It's actually a great deal in comparison to cars:
>
>In 1965, a new Ford Mustang cost less than $3,000; A 1963
>Corvette Stingray cost $5,800 (My Dad bought one new). Do you
>honestly expect a 1997 Mustang, or a 1997 Corvette, to cost the
>same price as in 1965? No? Well then, why hold the same price
>in guitars for the same quality?
>
>If you expect a $300 1997 Strat to be anywhere in the same league
>as a $300 1965 Strat, prepare to be disappointed. If you can't
>tell instantly by picking up the two guitars, then at least take
>an economics course so you'll understand inflation, and what that
>means in the real world of manufacturing and commerce.
>
>Please understand that I am not saying that you should not own,
>play and enjoy today's economy instruments - they are certainly a
>great value for the money. Most people are familiar with the old
>"your last dollar buys the least value" principle: no one thinks
>a Custom Shop Strat is seven times better quality than a Nafta
>Strat, just because it costs seven times more. But, if you want
>*THREE TIMES BETTER*, SEVEN TIMES more cash is what you'll have
>to pay.
>
>Please consider that in 1965, there were no serviceable guitars
>available for only $40 - which is what a NAFTA Strat would have
>cost back then in comparison to the "genuine" $300 Fullerton
>Strats. So, be glad you can buy a "good-enough" NAFTA guitar
>today for only two to three day's wages -in the sixties, it was
>two to three WEEKS wages for the real thing.
>
>Gotta go - my Grandfather wants to tell me a story about "walking
>20 miles to school every day". This guitar story is the updated
>"Gen-X" version of that same old tale! Happy Holidays -
>
>Paul
Tom Scioscia
P> No, they're not. "Vintage" 1952-1965 Strats were largely hand-made
P> (way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took over), and as
P> such, cost around $300 in 1965.
That first line is the first thing that completely invalidates your
knowledge of Fender Stratocasters. First off, the Stratocaster concept wasn't
even thought of until 1952. Prototypes were made in '53 and the first
finished (read: production standard) Stratocaster in '54. The first four or
so didn't have serial numbers, and then from then on serial numbers are NOT
consecutive for the first few years.
Of course Mexican Strats aren't going to be of exactly the same
quality as a '54 Strat. However, they are DAMN good guitars! My Number One is
a Black '94 Mexican Standard. Replaced the PUs, put stringsaver saddles on
it, and put a pearloid guard (cosmetic) and it's better feeling and sounding
than most stock American Fenders (even after being set up the way I like
them).
There are major differences between old Strats and the Mexicans, but a
lot is the same. Neck construction hasn't changed. The tuners on the
Standards are superior (sealed Schaller type vs. Kluson type). But the body is
different (SOLID poplar, not plywood, instead of ash and then later alder).
And the pickups suck out loud (the Mexican pickups are ceramic bar magnet
based, as opposed to Alnico V polepieces).
Also, you have to realize that any pre-CBS Strat that you play now is
heavilly aged. The wood has dried out considerably. The magnets have a
slightly softer magnetic field. Most likely the saddles have been changed a
few times as well as the nut, if it's a player guitar. Age ads a lot of tone,
if you hear them, now.
I'd also like to repeat the stats on my own #1. It's a 1994 Mexican
Standard Stratocaster, black body, maple board one piece neck, skunk stripe
and everything. Electronics are completely redone. Fender Lace Sensor Golds
in the neck and middle and a Seymour Duncan Alnico II Pro in the bridge. The
neck tone control has been replaced with a Torres Engineering Super Midrange
Kit (<5 cuts midrange, >5 boosts) and the neck and middle are wired to the
middle tone. The saddles have been replaced with Graphtech Stringsaver
Saddles. The guard is now pearloid. What you consider to be the important
parts of the construction (body and neck) are completely stock and have the
original finish. Again, it's a poplar body, which is tonally like alder, but
has a tiny bit less emphasis on the treble. In total, I've paid around $450
for this baby. Sweet as possible. Great blues/rock/Pink Floyd sound.
And while I may be considered a younger Gen-Xer (I just turned 18),
I'm no slacker and I investigated my purchase of this guitar and prefer
it over any AmStd, Plus, Plus Deluxe, etc, except for one Custom Shop Relic
'50s. I'll even go as far as giving the Ensenada factory my stamp of approval
and will buy Tacocasters again. I have, too. I just recently acquired a Tex
Mex Tele Special. Blew away every other Tele I've played, even this Custom
Shop one with pearl binding. It's sweet, but still twangy like a Tele should
be, unlike the brittle sound I've gotten out of almost every other Tele I've
played ('cept for a '50s reissue Jap Tele in blonde, but Japanese guitars are
a whole other story).
Well, I hope you take this seriously and I didn't just set myself up
as flamebait. Consider this article when buying your next guitar. Actually
play the Mexican line instead of blowing it off because it's too cheap. You
may find your favorite guitar ever there. I know I did. :)
Any comments/questions can be directed to my e-mail address above or
to gilmourd.as...@bellatlantic.net. Just remove the
".asdfnospamasdf" part.
...This copy of ProBoard has been unregistered for 868 days!
--
|Fidonet: Tom Scioscia 1:2630/219
|Internet: t...@magsystems.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly their own.
XxStratxxx
ammmmmmm this kid is raving about his mexican and the thing is totaly
redone,,,,,my mexican sucks and the quality and standards of prodution suck I
had to fix many things on it and hey if you dont mind fixing and
re-soldering go and get a mexi
jdm
Tom Scioscia <t...@magsystems.com> wrote in article
<c79_971...@magsystems.com>...
> P> No, they're not. "Vintage" 1952-1965 Strats were largely hand-made
> P> (way before CNC machinery, shortcuts and plywood took over), and as
> P> such, cost around $300 in 1965.
> That first line is the first thing that completely invalidates
your
> knowledge of Fender Stratocasters. First off, the Stratocaster concept
wasn't
< snip >
> And while I may be considered a younger Gen-Xer (I just turned 18),
> I'm no slacker and I investigated my purchase of this guitar and prefer
> it over any AmStd, Plus, Plus Deluxe, etc, except for one Custom Shop
Relic
> '50s. I'll even go as far as giving the Ensenada factory my stamp of
approval
> and will buy Tacocasters again. I have, too. I just recently acquired a
Tex
It's great to see that not all Gen-Xers are barely literate drooling
glue-sniffers.
I commend you on your spelling and grammar.
Korean-Made strats are good, too, even if they are plywood.
jdm
p...@headwaters.com
In <3E0563C8E709BC49.
46CCAFC602A0CE56.D734255F2F3337DF
@library-proxy.airnews.net>, "jdm"
<jdm1intxDIE...@airmail.net> writes:
>Korean-Made strats are good, too, even if they are plywood.
>
>jdm
>
What about the Korean-made squiers that are made of
alder? They apparently come in the 'fat strat' models
as well with hb. Does one come with a rosewood
fretboard? I am still waiting for someone who has
played them and/or has an opinion on them to comment
on those guitars. ;) The ones that have the silver heading
of 'Squier' on the headstock.
Lotsatone
The biggest difference(s) between an American vs. a Mexi strat are the
hardware (tuners and bridge) and the pickups. Given that the American standard
doesn't have the *best* pickups etc.. on the market, I still think that a hot
rod Mexi is still a pretty decent way to go.
Besides, since Mexi strats don't hold their resale value, the best bet is
to buy a used one for around $200.00. Then splurge for a set of Grovers or
Schallers...and three Seymour Duncan pickups. Viola, a cool sounding, highly
playable strat that stays in tune very nicely.
TQ Hot
Maybe thats why Jimi slept with his.
TQ Hot
Sorcerer
>To the original poster: Get back under the bridge and wait for the billy
>goats.
>
>Cheers
>Andrew
You're doing more trolling here than I have ever done on this newsgroup.
In essence, I think it makes zero sense to "hand make" a guitar which was
always intended to be a production line guitar. You are arguing that all
the extra hand-finishing results in a better guitar. You're probably right
about that. But who cares if you have the world's best finished, cheap
guitar?
The whole POINT of the Tele, Strat and Broadcaster were ALL to produce
NON-HAND-DONE, NO=CRAFTMANSHIP, low-cost instruments. They turned out to be
fantastic axes for rock, even as they are horrible for clean playing with
classical or jazz styles.
My point?
A $2000 Strat strikes me as a ripoff. It is a violation of the basic
concept of a low-cost, nodeposit,noreturn design. If you're spending $2k,
you can buy a completely custom ax. Hamer and others will be more than
happy to build things to your spec for less than that money, and this is
through a dealer.
I won't tell you that Strats are bad guitars; that ain't why I bought mine.
But when I walk into the store and see a basic American Standard that is
billed as someone's signature model for twice the price, after discounts,
I'm starting to think that I'm being had. This is not "guitar craftsmen" at
work -- it's overzealous marketing pukes trying to fatten their bonuses and
the bottom line. You say anything else to people who have had those
double-priced guitars in their hands, and who know how to play, and you
won't be able to pass that gas as gospel no matter how hard you try.
If a hand-finished "perfect" production-line guitar that was NEVER perfect
in the old days, when they got their name and earned their fame as rock
axes, is what trips your trigger, fine by me. But don't pretend that you're
not being obsessive about it.
What's more, there are a LOT of players perfectly happy with their Mexican
Strats once they do a little tweaking to this and that for a LOT less cash
dollars than $2k -- a quarter that, in fact.
These guys are the REAL practitioners of the Strat religion in my book.
Strats aren't, and never were, the "Ultimate" guitar. They were designed to
be easy to make, cheap to sell relative to the handwork guitars like Gibson
and Gretsch et al. They were designed to be used by people who could take
the basic ax and do something with it.
They're really player's instruments, intended to be made and sold
inexpensively.
All this "Ultimate Strat" stuff sounds like typical American obsessiveness
to me, combined with a major dose of marketing confusication.
The point is -- there is a valid difference of opinion to yours.
If I want custom, I'll get custom. If I want a strat, I'll play a bunch of
Mex's down at the store and get the one that feels best to me, upgrade this
and that so it's as I like it, and take it from there. If you feel the need
to spend 4x the money, go for it. But I don't think you'll really end up
with a better guitar.
Good luck, dude.
Sorcerer
>The earlier comment on signature instruments is a total joke. Care to
guess
>the biggest selling "signature" instrument of them all? Of course, the LES
>PAUL (it is named after an actual player, right?). Not too many people
>complaining about the two humbucker, carved-top, glued-in neck setup he
helped
>invent.
BTW, dude, I think Pauls are a vastly overpriced joke too. They sustain
well, which is what they were designed for. But one can buy a better guitar
for much less money if you don't have to have the signature name on it.
Hamer will sell you all the ax you can play with an Archtop Custom, set it
up at the factory with whatever finish and frets you want, and, out here,
even with sales tax, you're barely out $1500 and the dealer has a fat profit
to count. And it's first quality woods, workmanship, and some of the
best-looking flamed and quilted maple tops I've ever seen. When Gibson
comes out with a top that looks half as good as my Hamer and other brand
stuff, the price leaps to $8k.
What it comes down to is what you're buying the guitar for.
If you just have to have someone say "Oh, you got an X? WOW!" then you need
a custom shop Fender, or a signature Fender, or some special Les Paul.
I think it's all a ripoff, including the much-hallowed PRS.
Basically, learn to play on a cheap ax, and get your chops together, and
know what you want when you go shopping for something to live with
thereafter. If you're just a collector, then, obviously, it has to be a
"big name." Otherwise, find someone who does quality work, but isn't a hot
name, and you can have an ax that plays just as well for maybe a fourth or
fifth the money of the brand name spread.
Obviously, I think chasing the Big Name guitars is pretty dumb. Past the
Tex Mex, one is chasing the name, not the quality. And, yes, I'd buy a
Peavey or a Carvin before I'd buy a Paul, or a custom shop Fender Strat or
Tele.
That's me and my bucks. You and yours have to do what you think best.
R. McPherson
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Sorcerer wrote:
:>the biggest selling "signature" instrument of them all? Of course, the LES
:>PAUL (it is named after an actual player, right?). Not too many people
:>complaining about the two humbucker, carved-top, glued-in neck setup he
:helped invent.
:
:
:BTW, dude, I think Pauls are a vastly overpriced joke too.
[snip]
:Hamer will sell you all the ax you can play with an Archtop Custom, set it
:
:I think it's all a ripoff, including the much-hallowed PRS.
:
:Basically, learn to play on a cheap ax, and get your chops together, and
I want to jump into the discussion to make the point that many of us were around
playing guitar in the 1960s when there were two decent guitar manufacturers
(Fender and Gibson) and a bunch of unprofessional junk (e.g. Sears). I for one
do recognize that today there are many guitar makers competing and thus the
average guitar is much better than the junk guitars of the 1960s. Nevertheless,
I still only own two Fenders and two Gibsons. Old habit to some degree I
suppose.
Chief Wiggum
Sorcerer wrote:
>
> >To the original poster: Get back under the bridge and wait for the billy
> >goats.
> >
> >Cheers
> >Andrew
>
>
> In essence, I think it makes zero sense to "hand make" a guitar which was
> always intended to be a production line guitar. You are arguing that all
> the extra hand-finishing results in a better guitar. You're probably right
> about that. But who cares if you have the world's best finished, cheap
> guitar?
>
> The whole POINT of the Tele, Strat and Broadcaster were ALL to produce
> NON-HAND-DONE, NO=CRAFTMANSHIP, low-cost instruments. They turned out to be
> fantastic axes for rock, even as they are horrible for clean playing with
> classical or jazz styles.
>
> My point?
>
> A $2000 Strat strikes me as a ripoff. It is a violation of the basic
> concept of a low-cost, nodeposit,noreturn design. If you're spending $2k,
> you can buy a completely custom ax. Hamer and others will be more than
> happy to build things to your spec for less than that money, and this is
> through a dealer.
[snip sensible information]
You got that right. The only way I could see buying a signature or custom guitar is if
there was a VAST difference that would validate that monsterously large price tag.
(Since were talking fenders) Such as the Blackmore/Yngwie scalloped sig. guitars.
Oh yeah. Does anyone know how I could contact the Hamer company about a custom guitar?
Thanks
Chief
Sorcerer
>You got that right. The only way I could see buying a signature or custom
guitar is if
>there was a VAST difference that would validate that monsterously large
price tag.
>(Since were talking fenders) Such as the Blackmore/Yngwie scalloped sig.
guitars.
>
>Oh yeah. Does anyone know how I could contact the Hamer company about a
custom guitar?
>
>Thanks
>Chief
You need to find a Hamer dealer. Hamer doesn't build full-custom
instruments for a reasonable price since so much time is involved. What
they will do is pick woods for you on a shape that they already produce
(such as the Archtop which is a shrunken Les Paul formula guitar), provide
custom paint, frets of your choice from existing fretwire and suchlike.
I have an absolutely gorgeous Sunburst Archtop that I only gave $1350 for
before taxes and whatnot, and got out the door for $1500. You need a good
dealer to get it, and will have to wait 6 months. But you CAN specify
quilted maple versus flame maple and so on. I got it set up my way, with
6110 frets, the flame maple top and the stain I wanted. It hums good, plays
well. The electronics are, IMHO, mediocre, but the woodwork is really posh.
Pickups are Seymour Duncan, and very sweet. For looks, tone or playability,
I'll put it up against any Les Paul I've ever seen.
The body is kind of dinky, but that strikes me as good. It's not as overly
heavy as most Les Paul formula guitars are.
You will need a good dealer, though, who can work with the shop to get you
what you really want. It's really easy, since Hamer punches out about 600
guitars a month, for things to get screwed up.
If you're willing to pay more, Hamer will do more for you.
Hamer, BTW, is owned by Kaman, the same folks who do Ovation. Quality got
kind of flakey in the Chicago operation so they moved it back to their main
headquarters back East, in New York, I think. The main thing in any custom
order deal, with Hamer or any other guitar maker, is to be sure the dealer
knows he is working for you, and not the factory. I've known a few
unfortunate souls whose dealers got confused on the point, would get an
unsuitable instrument, and try to blow the customer off about it, even to
the point of a refund.
Good luck, and watch your posterior if you go this route.
Sorcerer
>I want to jump into the discussion to make the point that many of us were
around
>playing guitar in the 1960s when there were two decent guitar manufacturers
>(Fender and Gibson) and a bunch of unprofessional junk (e.g. Sears). I for
one
>do recognize that today there are many guitar makers competing and thus the
>average guitar is much better than the junk guitars of the 1960s.
Nevertheless,
>I still only own two Fenders and two Gibsons. Old habit to some degree I
>suppose.
Indeed. If you got those level of goods, go for it. The argument by me is
not that Fenders aren't good, or that Gibsons aren't good. They very
obviously are. I just think some of the prices are overinflated on both
brands these days, and that much better deals are available elsewhere in the
most custom line of instruments. Gibson and Fender have only many so many
experienced craftsmen who can build really first class stuff, and that,
because of demand, is commanding nearly ridiculous prices (primarily, I
believe, because of people who buy them to collect instead of play; there
just aren't as many stunning players being made per year as there are primo
Fenders and Gibsons being sold).
There were other decent to great guitar companies in the 60s. Martin, for
instance, and Gretsch. There was nothing wrong with Epiphone either, for
that matter. Gibson and Fender were just the biggest at the time -- Gibon
and Fender because they were the electric pioneers.
These two firms pioneered the solid body electric, and that's not in
question.
As for suggesting that Martin was not and is not a good company, hmm.....Let
me think about that and get back to you.
Cheers,
John Kuzemka
In article <19971221185...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lots...@aol.com (Lotsatone) wrote:
I had a Mexi strat for several years prior to trading it on a new Schecter
PTX. The mexi strats are great guitars! For under $300 brand new, it's a
very high quality guitar compared to Am Std strats. I changed the pickups
to FLS Golds (the stock pickups are pretty anemic) and replaced the nut
with a graphite nut. This guitar played and sounded very nice! I've been
playing strats since 1972 and my Mexi strat was definitely one of the best
guitars I have ever owned. I recommend them to anyone who is looking to
purchase a strat without a major commitment of capital. I traded it
because it was expendable. I needed the trade value to defray the cost of
another guitar and face it, because of the price of these new, you can
pick up used ones anytime for about $200. So, I'll get another Mexi strat
in a couple months, fix it up, and once again, have a low cost very
playable strat in my collection.
johnnyk
--
remove the ! to reply
R. McPherson
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Sorcerer wrote:
[mcpherson said:]
:>I want to jump into the discussion to make the point that many of us were
:around
:>playing guitar in the 1960s when there were two decent guitar manufacturers
:>(Fender and Gibson) and a bunch of unprofessional junk (e.g. Sears). I for
[snip]
:
:There were other decent to great guitar companies in the 60s. Martin, for
:instance, and Gretsch.
[snip]
:As for suggesting that Martin was not and is not a good company, hmm.....Let
:me think about that and get back to you.
:Cheers,
Certainly. I have one Martin and one Guild acoustic also and they are
wonderful. I thought the discussion was implicitly about electric solid-bodies.
In support of your point that prices are inflated.... MARTIN PRICES ARE
OUTRAGEOUS! Nevertheless a Martin HD-45 with all the inlay sure would be nice.
Guild is the best deal in acoustics in some sense since they last forever, sound
great, are US-built high-quality, and never seemed to catch that
name-brand-inflation disease you are describing.
But remember that in the 1960s and 70s there were some really lousy no-name,
K-mart brand guitars that were better used as kindling than to play music.
There were lots and lots of these. Today, by comparison, even the Mexico-made
Strats are solid wood and play decent, and the Epiphones are better now than
they were, and there isn't a sea of no-name pressboard, plastic parts junk
anymore. Competition has made even the low end guitar a better guitar.
rjmc...@uci.edu Ron McPherson
Sorcerer
R. McPherson wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Sorcerer wrote:
>
>[snip]
>:As for suggesting that Martin was not and is not a good company,
hmm.....Let
>:me think about that and get back to you.
>:Cheers,
>
>Certainly. I have one Martin and one Guild acoustic also and they are
>wonderful. I thought the discussion was implicitly about electric
solid-bodies.
>In support of your point that prices are inflated.... MARTIN PRICES ARE
>OUTRAGEOUS! Nevertheless a Martin HD-45 with all the inlay sure would be
nice.
>Guild is the best deal in acoustics in some sense since they last forever,
sound
>great, are US-built high-quality, and never seemed to catch that
>name-brand-inflation disease you are describing.
I would concur with that. I remember, in 1980, getting a Martin D-35 for
$800 plus tax. It was pretty much their first offer, and it sounded decent
to me. A first class Les Paul was not terribly pricey at the time either as
I recall. Prices were better still in the 1950s before guitars became a
"hot" item. What is being asked for Martin now seems all out of proportion
to what one can get from Guild, Takamine and so on. Two years earlier than
this, a friend had picked up a Guild D-45 with the florentine cutaway
acoustic for $350.
>But remember that in the 1960s and 70s there were some really lousy
no-name,
>K-mart brand guitars that were better used as kindling than to play music.
Oh, yes, indeed, there were. The unwary really got soaked bigtime in the
1960s and 70s. And, really, it's not that much better today. Peavey
Predator, anyone? US made, sure, but there's a LOT to be done to that ax to
get something good out of it.
>There were lots and lots of these. Today, by comparison, even the
Mexico-made
>Strats are solid wood and play decent, and the Epiphones are better now
than
>they were, and there isn't a sea of no-name pressboard, plastic parts junk
>anymore. Competition has made even the low end guitar a better guitar.
Agreed. But my rant, and it was admittedly a rant, is that the marketing
types, not the guys who build them, have made guitars that were real
bargains into a lot less of a bargain with some really inflated prices on
them. If you want "signature" (from Les Paul on down to the Fender Eric
Clapton model), you're going to pay a real premium for, well, I'm not sure
what.
>rjmc...@uci.edu Ron McPherson
>
>
RAY SEXAUER
I bought a Martin HD45 with a Sicus Spruce top in 1990. At that time
it cost 1700.00. I can't imagine they've gotten any cheaper over
the years, but I wouldn't think of using another guitar. Overpriced
or not.
ray
PS:MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL MY FELLOW GUITAR PLAYERS!!!!
Donnie
it should by now be apparent you're writing
to the "but mom...its only $400" guitar group
Jomack
>>>In support of your point that prices are inflated.... MARTIN PRICES ARE
OUTRAGEOUS! Nevertheless a Martin HD-45 with all the inlay sure would be
nice.<<<
Martin guitar prices start at $849 w/ hard case, the all solid mahogany D15. As
of this writing, this is the least expensive all-solid wood acoustic guitar
made in the United States. It has gotten pretty good reviews both in print and
on the NG's.
There are currently twenty-three different Martin models with a list price of
$1500 or less (including acoustic basses, 12-strings, standard and amplified
cutaway acoustics, in seven different body sizes - 00, 000, 0000, J, D, bass
and classical) with ten of those different instruments under $1200 w/c, retail.
Given the level of discounting I see in retail, there appears to be a wealth of
affordable guitars made by the Martin Guitar Company, at price points that
allow almost any guitarist to consider owning a guitar built by the premier
guitar maker of the United States. Still family owned after 164 years, still
built in Nazareth, PA and still with a lifetime warrenty to the original
purchaser, I would suggest you take a look at what we are building and see if
the value offered isn't among the highest of any guitar maker.
BTW, there is *no* HD-45. D45, yes.
Joe McNamara
C.F.Martin & Co., Inc.
Rich Briere
In article <19971226191...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jom...@aol.com (Jomack) wrote:
>Path:
> Supernews70!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!p
>ortc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>From: jom...@aol.com (Jomack)
>Newsgroups: alt.guitar
>Subject: Re: Fender Sucks Bigtime(Long old guy rant)
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <19971226191...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>References: <67udf3$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>Xref: Supernews70 alt.guitar:205898
>Status: N
>
Greetings Joe,...........and welcome to the NG's.............For best
results, keep a loaded Pepto-bismol by the computer screen. :-)
Rich Briere
Fender
Jared G. Donze
I owned a '94 Mexi Standard. Solid guitars, though I found the pu's a
bit shrill. I bought an American Standard last year, and since I
couldn't justify owning 2 Strats, I sold the Mexi earlier this year.
I do feel that overall the American Standards is a better put-together
axe than the Mexi, although quality does vary wildly in both lines. I
much prefer the Amer Standard bridge, and the neck. Pickups are
immediate candidates for replacement in both guitars.
JARED
Dsplamkr
>Hound Dog Taylor playing a Zim-Gar through a POS amp
When I saw Hound Dog, he was playing through a tape recorder: 7" reel-to-reel,
probably with tube electronics. Maybe a Webcor or Airline.