Muddy Waters Tele specs ?

[David Schwab]

I agree, the more you play them, the better they sound. I've heard that in my own instruments, since I got to hear them the first time they were strung up.

[Possum]

....

What I really hate about Fender strats is the necks on their supposedly 50's reissues. I've NEVER seen such a thin neck as these things have on a real 50's strat. Why is that such a hard thing for Fender to grasp? But yeah you're right, David, its no longer a musical instrument company, its a corporate conglomerate, and the bottom line is the dollar. I think even the 70's strats were a bit better than whats being made now. Though one thing is that I've never had to fret dress a new strat, they always seem ready to play right out of the box, compare that to any Epiphone guitar which are usually unplayable the frets are so bad...

[overdrive]

Regarding vintage craze..... old instruments do sound better, especially if they've been played.

And then there are those that will never sound any/much better regardless of age, famous make & playing time. It's probably advisable to start off with an instrument than sounds good to begin with as an exceptional one definitely improves with age while a mediocre one is a crap-shoot at best...we've all known those kinds.

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.

Definitely noticeable in a good acoustic guitar where the individual wood densities, bracing patterns, even glue come into play. As far as solid-body electric guitars are concerned, the gradual degaussing of the magnets have a lot to do with what many folks perceive as a 'vintage tone'. Chances are, in 1958 (or even 1962), the overall tone of a recently made 1954-57 Stratocaster was hardly considered a vintage one & they probably sounded noticeably different than what we are hearing now as they became older instruments. The whole 'vintage tone' thing is predicated on what babyboomers 'seemingly' perceived on LPs during their adolescence period 40-45 years ago...pre-war scalloped Martin sounds for the CSNY crowd &
50s/60s Strat/Tele/Les Paul tones for the rockers. Most of those recording/performance instruments were not that old at the time.

This is a point of debate among electric players, but taken as fact among classical players, especially those who favor spruce tops.

Also among folk-bluegrass guitarists...Andirondak, Sitka, German, Engelmann spruce all vary in tone & aging characteristic/color changes due to their inherent densities...probably less critical in a contemporary solid body electric guitar covered with a thick coat of poly.

What I really hate about Fender strats is the necks on their supposedly 50's reissues. I've NEVER seen such a thin neck as these things have on a real 50's strat. Why is that such a hard thing for Fender to grasp?

Less wood equals more necks produced because...

...its no longer a musical instrument company, its a corporate conglomerate, and the bottom line is the dollar.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

I'm not really following what Possum is saying about the necks. Are you saying they were thinner then or now? I've played some old strats that are nice and chunky and some that are stupid thin. In fact, the only '54 I've ever played (maybe it was a '55?) had a neck like a toothpick. It was amazing they fit six strings onto that thing.

In general, I think all contemporary manufacturers make necks too thin. My 335 is a lovely guitar, but I really wish they didn't do their "60s taper" on the neck. I have big hands and love the feel of a big neck, plus the tone difference would be worth it even if I didn't like the feel. I think this is the other secret of vintage instruments. All those old Harmonies and Kays that sound great have stupidly big necks, too. If a manufacturer figured this out they could stand out among the crowd with that option, but no one has jumped on it yet. Everyone is still stuck in 1992 when the Wizard II neck was king and all other makers were jealous.

I don't think thinner necks means more mileage out of the wood - it still has to be cut to size for the heel and the headstock, how thin the neck is just affects how much sawdust you leave on the floor. It would actually be cheaper to leave them thick.

[David Schwab]

Less wood equals more necks produced because...

If that were true, then Gibson would be using a scarf joint fpr their headstocks instead of band-sawing them. I've been to Ken Smith's shop and he bandsaws the neck/head out of a neck through! That left a pile of wasted wood, which he called "pretty fire wood".

And Rickenbacker wouldn't take a solid maple guitar body and rout it out to be a hollow body.

But they do. So waste doesn't not really figure into much in the world of guitar making.

Fender is going to use the same 1" thick neck stock regardless what the final profile is. After all the headstocks and heels don't change, just the stuff in the middle. So it's all about the current favorite neck profile than to save wood.

[overdrive]

"
I don't think thinner necks means more mileage out of the wood - it still has to be cut to size for the heel and the headstock, how thin the neck is just affects how much sawdust you leave on the floor. It would actually be cheaper to leave them thick.

Just being facetious...you know how those non-guitar playing, corporate types look at things. If they could recycle sawdust into something salable they probably would.

[David Schwab]

If they could recycle sawdust into something salable they probably would.

Gibson Sonex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[overdrive]

Gibson Sonex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it's anything like some cheap shelves I had to assemble once, a masonite/presto-log guitar body must weigh a ton & chip easily.

Of course one way to avert any chipping would be to finish the body with several coats of polyurethane...at least 1-1.5mm.

15+ pounds later...& I used to think a Les Paul Standard was heavy.

[David Schwab]

If it's anything like some cheap shelves I had to assemble once, a masonite/presto-log guitar body must weigh a ton & chip easily.

Of course one way to avert any chipping would be to finish the body with several coats of polyurethane...at least 1-1.5mm.

15+ pounds later...& I used to think a Les Paul Standard was heavy.

Yeah, that's pretty much what it was. An MDF guitar!

[Possum]

....

Your toothpick neck strat may have been altered. Back in the 70's it was considered "cool" to "shave" the necks of guitars, alot of vintage guitars were wrecked by this method. All the vintage strats and teles I've handled had nice chunky necks on them, they feel like putting on a great pair of soft leather gloves to me...

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Your toothpick neck strat may have been altered. Back in the 70's it was considered "cool" to "shave" the necks of guitars, alot of vintage guitars were wrecked by this method. All the vintage strats and teles I've handled had nice chunky necks on them, they feel like putting on a great pair of soft leather gloves to me...

You might be right, the same instrument had a suspicious finish on it, I would have sworn it was a refin - the sunburst looked kinda drunk. The folks at the store denied it, but it just didn't look right. However a '57 that I played that I know wasn't shaved was close to my reissue, except a bit deeper and rounder.

I have especially noticed what you're saying on the basses. The best j-bass necks I've ever played have been from the 60s.

Ditto on the comfort, I find small necks give me arm cramps. It is more noticeable in practical playing, I don't notice at home practicing but when I'm actually running through songs I'll get tired real fast. I lose a bit of speed with a chunkier neck but I can also play a lot longer.

I'm just waiting for the innuendo to start...