Muddy Waters Tele specs ?

[holio cornolio]

You seem to assume they still make great products.
.....

The Custom shop instruments are what you should be getting from the standard ones, and since they aren't doing all that much "custom" they shouldn't be charging extra.
...

I'm not about to jump in to defend the mighty 'F', and I agree with much of what you say, except that I do believe that they are still capable of making, and do still make some great instruments. Fortunately for me (or my bank account) I have never played a pre CBS Jazz bass, so I have nothing to benchmark my CS 64 reissue against, but I can say, that I've never heard anyone playing a sexier sounding bass. Sometimes maybe they just get lucky and put 2 good bits of wood together, but it does happen, and this one plays pretty good too.

FWIW I thought I'd heard that Muddy's tele was a late fifties body with a 60s neck on it. I'd therefore assume that the pickups were late fifties types - but I've been wrong before.... and yes I know that CAR wasn't available until '63 or something, but that old axe was pretty bastardized in most ways.

[overdrive]

People think Fender and Gibson make great instruments. They used to. Now they are run of the mill.

Speaking of which...since when did the 70s era 3-bolt neck Fenders become vintage? Judging by some of the asking prices (e.g. over $2.5K) somebody (either the seller, potential buyer or both) must be deluding themselves that these instruments truly qualify as vintage/collectible examples of Fender craftsmanship.

Kind of like paying homage the the 70s era AMC/Voit Harley-Davidsons, Ford Pintos & Pacer/Gremlins.

At one time (pre-CBS) a standard $250-300 Fender Tele/Strat was a professional grade instrument with Mustangs & Duo-Sonics covering the lower end. Today, an overpriced $3K+ CS offering barely meets that criteria & a US standard model is merely a Stratocaster 'in looks only'.

That says a lot about the folks running the company...just change a little hardware every five or six years & jack the price up a couple of hundred dollars to boot. People (primarily the babyboomers) will buy them anyway because they continually want to parrot EC, EJ, David Gilmour, SRV et al along with re-capturing what they perceive as lost moments in time & illusion/delusion.

[David Schwab]

Speaking of which...since when did the 70s era 3-bolt neck Fenders become vintage?

When? About 30 years later. Just think, someday there will be vintage Squires on the market for big bucks!

The big issue is not what the guitars are worth, but people being greedy and wanting to make some money.

I saw some knobs for a Gibson Les Paul Triumph bass on eBay going for $100 each. it's a shame too when you see people take an old instrument and sell it off as parts because they can make more money off of it.

Blame the guitar collectors and dealers. They probably don't play either.

[overdrive]

I'm not about to jump in to defend the mighty 'F', and I agree with much of what you say, except that I do believe that they are still capable of making, and do still make some great instruments.

Capable & actual are abstractions based on the ROI mentalities of key management personnel.

The American Standard series is capable of being a decent guitar but it takes a bit of 'outside' work on the part of the new owner...even if it means violating the warranty sanctions/terms, most of which don't cover anything real or practical anyway.

What I had to do to make mine more tolerable was (1) sand that thick, crappy 'bowling ball' poly finish off the body & re-finish with thin nitro; (2) have those medium-jumbo frets dressed properly; (3) replace that plastic nut with bone; & (4) replace the stock pickups with something a tad more articulate. Now it's a good, utilitarian & functional 'beater'...beater not from the standpoint of being purposely abused but rather an instrument that can simply be played on a regular basis without any paranoid caution or anal-retentive babying. While my outlay was around $500, I imagine the actual cost to the manufacturer for these 'basic' features would be far less based on their access to wholesale parts/services + the volume of their overall output.

Instead the MBA braintrust at Fender prefers to look at these features as custom add-ons & they still can't even come-up with 'custom' pickups that rival or match the offerings of private boutique pickup builders/winders. Go figure.

[David Schwab]

What I had to do to make mine more tolerable was (1) sand that thick, crappy 'bowling ball' poly finish off the body & re-finish with thin nitro; (2) have those medium-jumbo frets dressed properly; (3) replace that plastic nut with bone; & (4) replace the stock pickups with something a tad more articulate. Now it's a good, utilitarian & functional 'beater'...beater not from the standpoint of being purposely abused but rather an instrument that can simply be played on a regular basis without any paranoid caution or anal-retentive babying. While my outlay was around $500, I imagine the actual cost to the manufacturer for these 'basic' features would be far less based on their access to wholesale parts/services + the volume of their overall output.

I don't see an issue with the poly finish, as it doesn't effect the tone (look at the vintage Fenders covered in Fullerplast and Duco acrylic lacquer, they sound fine), it's more aesthetics, but I agree the fret leveling is non existent from the factory, the molded nut is cheesy, even a well cut corian nut is an improvement, and the pickups and electronics are utilitarian, and certainly can stand improvements.

I do give them credit for making good cheap guitars though. You couldn't buy a decent guitar for $200 when I started playing.

[overdrive]

I don't see an issue with the poly finish, as it doesn't effect the tone (look at the vintage Fenders covered in Fullerplast and Duco acrylic lacquer, they sound fine), it's more aesthetics, but I agree the fret leveling is non existent from the factory, the molded nut is cheesy, even a well cut corian nut is an improvement, and the pickups and electronics are utilitarian, and certainly can stand improvements.

I do give them credit for making good cheap guitars though. You couldn't buy a decent guitar for $200 when I started playing.

David, while I concur that the Fullerplast sealant was/is not exactly the ideal manner of sealing guitar body wood, Duco acrylic laquer (applied properly & most importantly, thinly) poses no tone-robbing issues...the same can be said of poly. Taylor uses thin poly coats & it works/sounds fine. The key here is keeping the finish 'thin'. Environmental constraints might be the case at Corona/Fender...applying nitrocellulose lacquer (whether on a guitar or on a car body) often conflicts with environmental protection laws in various states (in CA, it can no longer be used even for antique furniture re-finishing & you gotta go out-of-state to have your '57 T-Bird re-painted). Besides, poly paint would look kind of hokey as well as non-period specific on certain cars...at least to an afficionado of vintage automobiles.

Leo Fender certainly wasn't picky when it came to selecting guitar finishes...GM used nitro while Ford/Chrysler used acrylic & Leo often opted for both. The autobody paint schemes of the 50s have a lot to do with these 'classic' Fender finishes.

The current poly sealant they use before covering various upper-tier 'advertised' nitro-finished Fender models is kind of misleading...a straightfoward, thin nitro finish has an organic character all its own though it's probably more psychological than tonal. It just feels better...less plasticy & fake. It took me 8 hours of machine sanding to get that poly stuff off & looking back, I don't think I want to undertake that process again.

As for the $200 guitar (circa mid 60s) there wasn't much around...maybe a Gibson Melody Maker or a Fender Mustang, borderline guitars at best. Then again, there were probably a bunch of 54-60 Strats & Teles lying about used that nobody wanted at the time...they probably could have been had for $150-175. Add a good used Les Paul Jr. to the fold as well.

[holio cornolio]

Capable & actual are abstractions based on the ROI mentalities of key management personnel.

The American Standard series is capable of being a decent guitar but it takes a bit of 'outside' work on the part of the new owner...even if it means violating the warranty sanctions/terms, most of which don't cover anything real or practical anyway.

What I had to do to make mine more tolerable was (1) sand that thick, crappy 'bowling ball' poly finish off the body & re-finish with thin nitro; (2) have those medium-jumbo frets dressed properly; (3) replace that plastic nut with bone; & (4) replace the stock pickups with something a tad more articulate. Now it's a good, utilitarian & functional 'beater'...beater not from the standpoint of being purposely abused but rather an instrument that can simply be played on a regular basis without any paranoid caution or anal-retentive babying. While my outlay was around $500, I imagine the actual cost to the manufacturer for these 'basic' features would be far less based on their access to wholesale parts/services + the volume of their overall output.

Instead the MBA braintrust at Fender prefers to look at these features as custom add-ons & they still can't even come-up with 'custom' pickups that rival or match the offerings of private boutique pickup builders/winders. Go figure.

Hey look, I'm not going to argue with any of that, and to be honest I can't really raise the enthusiasm to research this point, but I'd be happy to bet that in real terms, a standard Strat costs a lot less by today than it did 50 years ago. OK there was a lot more hand work involved in making the things 50 years ago, but those cost saving have to come from somewhere, and the biggest single cost involved in the manufacture of an american standard strat is going to be the labour. The myth that every guitar that came off Fenders production line pre '65 was an artisan built work of art is just that, a myth. And come on guys, when you buy a guitar the store doesn't set it up for you??? Don't tell me you're buying blind off the internet, in which case you deserve to get a bad guitar ;-)

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Hey look, I'm not going to argue with any of that, and to be honest I can't really raise the enthusiasm to research this point, but I'd be happy to bet that in real terms, a standard Strat costs a lot less by today than it did 50 years ago. OK there was a lot more hand work involved in making the things 50 years ago, but those cost saving have to come from somewhere, and the biggest single cost involved in the manufacture of an american standard strat is going to be the labour. The myth that every guitar that came off Fenders production line pre '65 was an artisan built work of art is just that, a myth. And come on guys, when you buy a guitar the store doesn't set it up for you??? Don't tell me you're buying blind off the internet, in which case you deserve to get a bad guitar ;-)

You hit the nail on the head. Labor is very expensive. The set up and fret work needs man hours. There are some automated ways to do these things, but they're stupid expensive and still require about as much labor despite having a machine. You also need to have a skilled labor force - setups aren't hard, but you can't have any ol' minimum wage guy do it, you need a real guitar tech. And, I won't go into the whole political aspect, but anyone who has looked at payroll costs for a medium/large company knows it is much more than just paying a salary. The taxes, liability insurance, health insurance, etc. are pretty big.

A guitar built in southern CA is going to shift and change by the time it has been strung up for 6 months here in New England. It frankly would negate a good fret leveling, I've had this happen a few times as I've moved around the country. 4th fret is high in one state, level it down, move to another state, now the fret is low... I do my own work, but if I was paying for that work I would still prefer Fender didn't do it and didn't charge me for it. Do I want to pay an extra $80-$100 for the new product to have that work done which will degrade by the time it gets into my hand, or would I want to pay someone local who can work on an instrument acclimated to my surroundings, and can tailor it to my own needs?

I still roll my eyes at the Custom Shop... yeah, people who think that original 50s and 60s instruments were careful artisan creations are thinking romantically, but that is the impression they give with the CS. They have full color fold outs of the luthiers who on a daily basis probably don't do much more than the sort of stuff I do here at my home. I do think they are doing okay for their price points on most production models though... not all, but most. They are always working on things, improving things, there were problems I saw in the 90s that went away in the early 2000s, and the problems I saw on those have now disappeared.

There are of course things I'd like to see changed - I think they're overly obsessed with the 2-point tremolo, they should get the neck pockets tighter and tighter, not go so crazy with the neck sanding, don't open up the fret slots so wide.... but that'll never go away. I'm pretty picky. As for the rock hard finish, I'm not a big fan but it serves a purpose... many of those mexican strats and teles have gone into the hands of kids/young adults/kids at heart who don't play all that much and put quite a beating on their instruments. They hold up amazingly well, Fender has a reputation of being the Timex of electric guitars to live up to. Fender had problems in the 80s when people were returning guitars to the factory because of light checking in the finish. They had to put these big stupid veneers on the tops to keep that from happening. Things have changed and people are more aware of how this changes sound and more tolerant of aesthetic imperfections, so those veneers went away circa 2000. Maybe the thin skin finish will become so popular the polyester will finally be layered on less than 1/8". Time will tell.

Does anyone have original price sheets from the 50s? My curiosity is piqued.

[overdrive]

And come on guys, when you buy a guitar the store doesn't set it up for you??? Don't tell me you're buying blind off the internet, in which case you deserve to get a bad guitar ;-)

Guitar store 'set-ups' generally consists of some sales clerk simply adjusting the truss rod, raising/lowering the saddles & maybe checking intonation...your basic screwdriver-oriented stuff. Fret/nut-related corrections/adjustments are generally avoided/dissuaded as unnecessary or available for an additional cost (usually $100+). As for buying off the internet, I assume you are referring to purchasing from the big warehouses...I agree. On the other hand, buying 'used' off Craigslist from someone who 'gave-up' on their musical endeavors & is selling a slightly used instrument for 60% of 'street price' is a decent deal in my book...just makes all of the add-on improvement expenditures more tolerable/affordable.

[overdrive]

...setups aren't hard, but you can't have any ol' minimum wage guy do it, you need a real guitar tech.

...I do my own work, but if I was paying for that work I would still prefer Fender didn't do it and didn't charge me for it. Do I want to pay an extra $80-$100 for the new product to have that work done which will degrade by the time it gets into my hand, or would I want to pay someone local who can work on an instrument acclimated to my surroundings, and can tailor it to my own needs?

I still roll my eyes at the Custom Shop... yeah, people who think that original 50s and 60s instruments were careful artisan creations are thinking romantically, but that is the impression they give with the CS.

...There are of course things I'd like to see changed - they should get the neck pockets tighter and tighter...Things have changed and people are more aware of how this changes sound...Maybe the thin skin finish will become so popular the polyester will finally be layered on less than 1/8". Time will tell.

Does anyone have original price sheets from the 50s? My curiosity is piqued.

Roger on those points.

As for price sheets, in 1964 the minimum wage was roughly $1.25 an hour.
A new Stratocaster cost $281.00 + about 3-4% sales tax (depending where you lived) + $50.00 for the black tolex case. A Telecaster ran about $235.00 + the aforementioned add-on expenditures.

Not going to do the math but today the minimum wage is what, $7.50 per hour? And for sake of reference/example, buying a standard new USA-made Fender from one of the big online warehouses is about $1200.00 or so.

Guess it comes out to roughly the same in terms of retail cost & man-hours required to buy the darn thing. On the other hand, while it is a delusion to concur or establish that the pre-CBS Fenders were 'careful artisan creations', why does everyone seem to want or emulate them?

The loosely referred to 'everyone' probably amounts to a babyboomer preoccupation as a majority of their offspring could probably care less about finish thicknesses, neck pockets, pickups et al. It's clearly reflected in their music as well (with a few exceptions)...i.e the minimal technique, minimal use of melody, harshness of tonalities etc. Chances are a can of Rustoleum for guitar refinish work & a nasty-sounding SS amp does the job.

Which leads us to the harsh reality of it all...in time, the inflated/perceived dollar-sign values of anything 'vintage' in nature or quality will probably depreciate big-time as the newer & younger generations assume a larger role in society.

[David Schwab]

It took me 8 hours of machine sanding to get that poly stuff off & looking back, I don't think I want to undertake that process again.

I bet the guitar was lighter afterwards too! That's often the reason people hear a tonal change after removing poly finishes.

The thing that cracks me up is when people write me after reading posts I've made on finishes and say it's not true and nitro let's the wood breathe. Then they go on to say nitro lets the moisture escape from the wood, so it sounds better. I have to point out that wood doesn't breathe, and that any finish that allows moisture to escape will also let the wood absorb moisture. And the wood is going to do that regardless, until it gets to its moisture equilibrium point.

But as you said, nito is a very nice finish. I love it. It's easy to rub out and feels nice. I used to use catalyzed nitro that I liked a lot. My buddy has used two-part urethanes, and they look very nice, not plasticky at all.

As for the $200 guitar (circa mid 60s) there wasn't much around...maybe a Gibson Melody Maker or a Fender Mustang, borderline guitars at best. Then again, there were probably a bunch of 54-60 Strats & Teles lying about used that nobody wanted at the time...they probably could have been had for $150-175. Add a good used Les Paul Jr. to the fold as well.

Actually I realize that $200 was too high for that era. My first Rick bass was only about $275 new back in 1974.

But the equivalent cheap guitars these days are pretty nice. I did a setup on a new Agile guitar from Rondo for a long time customer. It was similar to a Les Paul. It's was nicely made and didn't even sound that bad with the stock pickups. We both agreed that the fretwork wasn't the greatest, and it had those supper low "fretless wonder" frets.

I have another customer who needed a Tele, so he got an SX from Rondo and had me change some of the hardware and the pickups. He's gone on to win a bunch of blues competitions with that cheap guitar and got a record real from the exposure. He does help that he's a very good guitarist, but it's funny since he was a metal shredder guy and not into the blues really.

[overdrive]

I bet the guitar was lighter afterwards too! That's often the reason people hear a tonal change after removing poly finishes.
The thing that cracks me up is when people write me after reading posts I've made on finishes and say it's not true and nitro let's the wood breathe.

Significantly lighter in feel. I didn't do the 'before & after' weight scale comparisons but the guitar seems to tug less at the old collarbone area than before.

Now what cracks me up are those home DIY folks who expound the adverse tone-robbing character of thick poly finishes & following its removal, apply about 12-15 coats of nitrocellulose lacquer, leaving 90% of it on the guitar after sanding!

[holio cornolio]

Roger on those points.

As for price sheets, in 1964 the minimum wage was roughly $1.25 an hour.
A new Stratocaster cost $281.00 + about 3-4% sales tax (depending where you lived) + $50.00 for the black tolex case. A Telecaster ran about $235.00 + the aforementioned add-on expenditures.

Not going to do the math but today the minimum wage is what, $7.50 per hour? And for sake of reference/example, buying a standard new USA-made Fender from one of the big online warehouses is about $1200.00 or so.

Guess it comes out to roughly the same in terms of retail cost & man-hours required to buy the darn thing. On the other hand, while it is a delusion to concur or establish that the pre-CBS Fenders were 'careful artisan creations', why does everyone seem to want or emulate them?

The loosely referred to 'everyone' probably amounts to a babyboomer preoccupation as a majority of their offspring could probably care less about finish thicknesses, neck pockets, pickups et al. It's clearly reflected in their music as well (with a few exceptions)...i.e the minimal technique, minimal use of melody, harshness of tonalities etc. Chances are a can of Rustoleum for guitar refinish work & a nasty-sounding SS amp does the job.

Which leads us to the harsh reality of it all...in time, the inflated/perceived dollar-sign values of anything 'vintage' in nature or quality will probably depreciate big-time as the newer & younger generations assume a larger role in society.

Hey are you my accountant?? I make that 160 man hours to buy a strat today as opposed to 265 hours in '64!!
As far as finish goes, it's refreshing to hear some sense being expounded on the issue. I fail to see how any paint chemistry can ever be 'tonally superior' to any other, especially on a 1.75" thick plank of wood. That said, I just took apart my Baja tele (you guessed it, to upgrade the mediocre stock hardware), and wow is that some thick paint. It's got to be close to a 1 mm thick! Bowling ball finish is right!

[overdrive]

Hey are you my accountant?? I make that 160 man hours to buy a strat today as opposed to 265 hours in '64!!
As far as finish goes, it's refreshing to hear some sense being expounded on the issue. I fail to see how any paint chemistry can ever be 'tonally superior' to any other, especially on a 1.75" thick plank of wood. That said, I just took apart my Baja tele (you guessed it, to upgrade the mediocre stock hardware), and wow is that some thick paint. It's got to be close to a 1 mm thick! Bowling ball finish is right!

Hey Holio, I'm no accountant but 160 man hours [yesterday] is roughly equivalent to 265 man hours [today] considering the current American work ethic & its various perks! *LOL* If you've ever scrutinized civil service employees or supervised some goofballs of your own, you know what I mean. *still laughing*

Get yourself a palm sander & strip that 1mm poly...if you apply two coats of sand & seal, two coats of BIN primer + 3-4 coats of nitrocellulose lacquer, carefully sanding the surface level & free of any orange peel between each layer, you will have a true 'thin coat' finish at the end...roughly 4-1/2 coats net.

Nitrocellulose lacquer is a peculiar beast...easy to apply/re-apply/touch-up but tricky to get 'just right'. The key is to allow adequate time for each coat to harden prior to sanding. Over time, it actually shrinks a bit, forming a thinner covering...providing you don't overdo it initially. Contrary to popular opinion/belief, nitro never really 'cures'...it just hardens & continues to shrink over time. Thus, the occasional surface 'checking' that some folks experience when exposing the finish to variances in temperature.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Regarding vintage craze..... old instruments do sound better, especially if they've been played. I realize this is a controversial statement, but it is true. I've played old strats from the 70s where absolutely NOTHING was done right on them. Horrible everything, enough to give any tech nightmares. But, they'll sound absolutely amazing. They are more resonant, have more highs and lows, and favor even order harmonics. When you have those age factors coming into play with an instrument that was built well to begin with, then you have something really special. That's why I think there is a bit of tail chasing... people who can't get a reissue to sound like an old one they played at Gruhns or whatever... the answer is the age. It isn't the alloy of steel in the tremolo block or the mineral deposits in the maple or bakelite that is flaking off (though all of those deserve attention in their own right... except maybe the bakelite), it is just the age.

Also, added emphasis on having been played. Putting hours on a guitar is the best thing you can do for the tone. Simply putting it in a time capsule might do something, but it won't do much. This is a point of debate among electric players, but taken as fact among classical players, especially those who favor spruce tops. Until I get my time machine working again I won't be able to prove it, but if you have had similar experience as I have playing horrible guitars that sound amazing, you know what I mean.