Strats: Vintage Vs Reissue

[Bongolation]

> Bongolation, just a word for the wise. This board it FILLED with
> LPFers, a.k.a. anal vintage homos, and talking down about '50s
> LPs is deffinately one of the seven deadly sins. Just so you
> know...

Doesn't matter. I can take it. I've bought, sold, played, brokered and invested in them since around '67. I did it for a living for years. I don't think there's any nonsense I haven't already heard, so I won't be surprised.

Vintage Fenders are primarily fetishes and totems. Sometimes they're OK players, but usually they're just status objects. Even if they are decent players, they're too valuable to play anyway if they're originals. If they're not originals, they're just piles of parts.

[59 Strat]

You know, I've thought about this a lot. I have (as you can tell by my handle) a 1959 Stratocaster, Shoreline Gold. The thing sounds typically "Strat-ish"/ jangly when clean. But, unlike any other Strat I've ever had, when you crank on the gain, it gets fat and midrangy-- as "perfect" of a guitar as I've ever had. It is so far above any other guitar I've ever played, I don't know what I'd do without it. Seriously, this is such a bad MoFo, words can't describe it. I wish I could find pickups that would cover all this ground, but they just ain't out there, AFAIK. I don't know if it is the wood, the pickups, or just some Mojo, but there any reissues I've played/ owned fall way short. Here is a pic...

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/...4528&members=1

Structurally speaking, I think the Custom Shop reissues are very well made instruments.

[Bongolation]

I wrote a long, thoughful reply to your message, but this &%^# board software timed out my registration while I was writing and ate the entire thing when I tried to post it.:rr

I don't have the heart to go through this again tonight.

Maybe tomorrow...

[Jimi's Bolero]

a good thing to do with long posts is to type it in notepad on your pc, save it, then just open your browser & copy/paste the text into the reply window.

......the same thing happened to me once & p*ssed me off to no end, I know exactly how you feel!!

[qtipburst]

Originally posted by Bongolation
> Are you talking strictly vintage Fender gear?

Well, I was then.

> I think it would be a tough arguement to say that '50s LPs
> have been surpassed by RIs.

I dealt more in them than in Fenders and saw a lot of pretty junky '50s Les Pauls, but some OK stuff. I think the best ones I saw were really the Specials. The current quality of Gibson is so incredibly awful and overpriced that I can't believe it. I don't know that the old ones weren't as sloppily done, but they weren't so stunningly overpriced, either.

I went down to buy a LP Standard Plus, which was around $3700 MSRP. I went through every one in the store and didn't find one that didn't have gross QC problems, and I mean blatant, stupid, negligent flaws that never should have left the factory. I'd say that at least 95% of bound Les Pauls have the purfling put on wrong, just as one example. Of course, so did most of the vintage ones.


The thing about vintage Fenders that I notice is just that they were cheaply made to begin with, with poor plating, cheap hardware, cheap wood (which can be fatal in a neck after a couple of decades), etc. They were never intended to be instruments for the ages. They were inexpensive VolksGuitars.

The new MIA Fender instruments are really much better. Better hardware, better wood, better plating, more consistent, more durable, etc.

I have had many vintage Fenders and have never seen teh "wood that could be fatal in a neck after a couple of decades). My 1957 strat has the nonfatal
wood I guess. I think just the opposite that in that a well taken care of guitar should last well over two life times. I wouldn't say that American made Fenders are better made , first off the wood from the 1950's was teh old growth which is much rarer today and harder to find for mass production ,even in the 1950's good wood was not easy to get. As for Vintage Les Pauls,most I have played were great instruments. I really can't remember playing a horrable one IMHO and I have played bunches. Qtb

[GuitarG]

My '57 RI is either an '82 or '83 I can't remember. (I need to look up the serial #) so in about 5 more years I'll have both...
A 'vintage' '57 vintage reissue. ;)

[Guildx700~]

I don't agree with mr. bongs terminology, purfling is a patterened strip, either herringbone, zipper, that sort of thing, or an alternating black/white, used on acoustics.

Binding is one color, no pattern, to achieve a black/white it is stacked.

Purfling is never used in reference to electrics where I come from.

And I still don't see what he means about it being 95% of the time wrong.

[Bongolation]

> I have had many vintage Fenders and have never seen
> teh "wood that could be fatal in a neck after a couple of
> decades).

You haven't had enough of them then, because it's not at all uncommon, especially in one-piece maple necks.

The problem is a non-uniform stretch of figuring in the neck which ages/twists/shrinks differently than the rest. I have seen some really remarkable warps and twists right at these points in vintage Fenders.

I've seen some that were so bad they warped even with a separate rosewood fingerboard. The worst case was a pre-CBS Stratocaster with straight grain except for one spot of figuring about 2/3 of the way up the neck, where the neck bent back with sort of an "elbow" effect. It was remarkable to look down the fingerboard.

Remarkable, but really, really sad.

Give me nice, straight clean grain.

[Bongolation]

> I don't agree with mr. bongs terminology, purfling is a
> patterened strip, either herringbone, zipper, that sort of thing,
> or an alternating black/white, used on acoustics.

It's not my terminology. "Purfling" is any inlaid edging on a musical instrument (or furniture), by definition. Check it out.

Perhaps people who do it a lot make a lot of arbitrary subdistinctions for clarity, I dunno, but any inlaid binding is purfling. I have seen the term even applied to carved edging on violins.

> And I still don't see what he means about it being 95% of the
> time wrong.

On Gibsons, it's invariably poorly matched to the sides, with a big honking sharp lip left on the wood where it was routed too deep and not finished after setting the inlay. You can hang your fingernail on it, usually, it's that extreme.

I don't know of any other guitar manufacturer that has this problem. $200 Indonesian imports have this done perfectly. I can't see why Gibson can't get it right on a $3500 Les Paul. I went through SIXTEEN new Gibson Les Pauls recently and EVERY one of them had this problem. I did find another hollowbody electric that was done properly, though, so Gibson can do it right once in a while.

I've seen the identical problem on vintage Gibsons.

[Bongolation]

> a good thing to do with long posts is to type it in notepad on
> your pc, save it, then just open your browser & copy/paste the
> text into the reply window.

You're right of course, but it's been so long since this has happened to me that I've gotten lazy.

Serves me right, huh?

[burst_king]

Wait, what's wrong 95% of the time on Gibsons? I missed that.

[qtipburst]

Originally posted by Bongolation
> I have had many vintage Fenders and have never seen
> teh "wood that could be fatal in a neck after a couple of
> decades).

You haven't had enough of them then, because it's not at all uncommon, especially in one-piece maple necks.

The problem is a non-uniform stretch of figuring in the neck which ages/twists/shrinks differently than the rest. I have seen some really remarkable warps and twists right at these points in vintage Fenders.

I've seen some that were so bad they warped even with a separate rosewood fingerboard. The worst case was a pre-CBS Stratocaster with straight grain except for one spot of figuring about 2/3 of the way up the neck, where the neck bent back with sort of an "elbow" effect. It was remarkable to look down the fingerboard.

Remarkable, but really, really sad.

Give me nice, straight clean grain.

Good points . I almost forgot the 1952 Tele I had with a warped neck . the dealer I bought it from said it was an optical illusion . Yeah right another crooked dealer passing off BS. The headstock had a mean twist on the top half from the D,B,E string side to the scroll on the bottom half of the headstock. Not only twisting the headstock the thick E was falling off the neck in the higher register. I lived with it for a while untill it drove me insane and I traded it for anther Tele. I'm ok now. Qtb.

[Guildx700~]

mr. bong, you fail to realize that Gibson binding, YES BINDING, that's what Gibson calls it and check your guitar supply catalogs, they call it it binding too, there are 2 separate items in supply catalogs, binding and purfling......back to the subject.....Gibson binding is HAND scrapped, and has a very thin nitro finish over it, the "great" imports you refer to have a very, very thick poly finish which fills in the non scrapped binding, hence this "flaw" you claim.

I would think given your vast expirence you'd know that.

Sorry, but it's not a flaw.

FWIW, to purfle means to finish with an "ornamental" border, hence ornamental designs like the herringbone, zipper, reverse herringbone design..... all of which is then called purfling.

Unless you're in another country, which may use a different terminology, that I don't know..... but the USA term "binding" is 100% correct when speaking of the trim on a Les Paul and to call it purfling is basically incorrect.

[Burn Barrel]

Originally posted by Bongolation
> Bongolation, just a word for the wise. This board it FILLED with
> LPFers, a.k.a. anal vintage homos, and talking down about '50s
> LPs is deffinately one of the seven deadly sins. Just so you
> know...

Doesn't matter. I can take it. I've bought, sold, played, brokered and invested in them since around '67. I did it for a living for years. I don't think there's any nonsense I haven't already heard, so I won't be surprised.

Vintage Fenders are primarily fetishes and totems. Sometimes they're OK players, but usually they're just status objects. Even if they are decent players, they're too valuable to play anyway if they're originals. If they're not originals, they're just piles of parts.

I deal with guitars on a case by case basis. Vintage does not necessarily guarantee a superior instrument. However, I will take a killer one piece Ash body Maple neck Strat with a V neck over anything new. My main guitfiddle for years was a "57 with such specs. I had the board reradiused, wired the bridge PU to the second tone control and threw 6105's on it.

It totally rocked.

[Scott Lentz]

Cheap wood and cheap plating on the hardware what years are we talking about or just generally? The truss rod greatly influences the state of the neck as well as strings and where and how it is stored. Strats and Teles have there own sound and can not be compared to Les Pauls there apples and oranges. Purfling is a term lutheirs use for the wood trim they use around the guitar. When it is plastic that one uses its called binding.

[Ed Rafalko]

THe first tiem I ever heard the word 'purfling' was when it was used to refer to the raised pipe and cut furrow on the edge of most violins. There's no extra wood on violin purfling.

Here's what Frets.com has to say about Binding vs Purfling:


"Binding is the inlaid trim around the parts of an instrument. Specifically, it's the inlay at the very corner edges. Most of the time, the color or material of the binding is chosen to highlight the appearance of the instrument. Additionally, binding is usually a hard, tough wood, or plastic and serves to protect the edges of the instrument from nicks and bumps.

In the most strict definition, the binding is the inlay at the very corner, and the purfling is a separate inlay "inboard" from the edge."

Here's a link to a page wioth text and pictures:
http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Gene...g/binding.html


If you ask me, the guitarbuilders and users have taken a word - purfling- and bastardized it to their own purposes to further the validity of their work. Not that that's a BAD thing, mind.

[Ed Rafalko]

Oh, and weren't most Fender necks FLAT SAWN? And don't most flatsawn woods CUP from the edges or bow toward the center rather than take a left turn at the 5th fret?;)

[Guildx700~]

A quick check of the stew mac catalog will show exactly what binding and purfling is.

[Scott Lentz]

Ed I don't find flat sawn wood cupping like you described and I have build hundreds of necks. When you glue a dense wood like rosewwod to a softer wood like maple you are going to get some back bow because of the two different woods. Also if the wood is not real dry you will get the back bow from the moisture level. Just let it sit for awhile and it will usually be obsorbed by the dryer wood. I don't believe quarter sawn wood is a superior cut of wood!

[Burn Barrel]

Have you ever or are you capable(and interested) in building a 7 string trem Strat?

[Ed Rafalko]

Originally posted by Scott Lentz
Ed I don't find flat sawn wood cupping like you described and I have build hundreds of necks. When you glue a dense wood like rosewwod to a softer wood like maple you are going to get some back bow because of the two different woods. Also if the wood is not real dry you will get the back bow from the moisture level. Just let it sit for awhile and it will usually be obsorbed by the dryer wood. I don't believe quarter sawn wood is a superior cut of wood!

I've never seen cupping like I've described on a Fender neck either. But then I've never seen the 'elbow' this guy describes. I understand the propensities for wood to move, and I understand why it moves in certain directions. I was just pointing out that I'd never seen wood move in the way I'm seeing what this guy described, and that the skunk stripe on a one-poiece or the fingerboard on a two-piece would probably prevent it. He doesn't say what kind of guitar it was, just a 'pre CBS' , so it coudl be anything.

As to quarter vs flat, I think the theory went that it was easier for the strings to pull the flatsawn neck into bow than a quartersawn neck, since with the quartersawn neck you're trying to bend it against the grain and with a flatsawn you're moving it on a flat. To illustrate, it's easier to bend the headstock into the fingerboard than it is to bend the headstock to touch the side of the fingerboard, if you follow me.
But I think it's largely immaterial nowadays anyway, since truss rods have come into standard use and have strengthened, if not stiffened, any kinda neck. I know Gibson used to use wood that wasn't quartersawn on a lot of necks, including the Les Pauls. But i I think yuou'll agree that a good stiff neck is a large part of what determines the tone of a guitar.

[Bongolation]

> But then I've never seen the 'elbow' this guy describes. I
> understand the propensities for wood to move, and I
> understand why it moves in certain directions. I was just
> pointing out that I'd never seen wood move in the way I'm
> seeing what this guy described, and that the skunk stripe on a
> one-poiece or the fingerboard on a two-piece would probably
> prevent it.

I don't think a skunk stripe would make much difference, but the fingerboard normally would at least help. That was made this so remarkable. There was a warp at the point where this figuring - which was not far from being an outright knot - was that just bent right back, fingerboard and all. The guitar wouldn't fret right, and when I looked down the fingerboard, there it was, an abrupt, sharp backward bend right over the knot/figuring/flaw. The grain was straight except for this one spot that was about 1"- 2" across, and that's where "the spirit of the dead tree" as a friend calls it, reasserted itself. It was probably the most blatant warp I've ever seen on a vintage guitar, though I've seen a lot with more gradual twists and bends, almost always when the wood was part straight and part figured. It's not like this should have been any surprise to anyone working with wood.

There have been quite a few discussions of this at the FDP.

> He doesn't say what kind of guitar it was, just a 'pre CBS' , so
> it coudl be anything.

Yeah, I did. It was a Stratocaster.

[Bongolation]

> If you ask me, the guitarbuilders and users have taken a word -
> purfling- and bastardized it to their own purposes to further
> the validity of their work.

Purfling is simply any decorative edging, according to the dictionary. Traditional violin terminology even applies it to carved edging. It's not unusual for general terms to have their definitions arbitrarily narrowed to more specialized meanings for purposes of clarity among professional groups. That doesn't make the original meaning incorrect. I have seen the term purfling used by manufacturers to describe decorative inlays in the main body of the instrument, and I think that's probably incorrect.

> Not that that's a BAD thing, mind.

On the other hand, sometimes meanings get completely trashed beyond recognition, as with whammy bars being referred to as "tremolos," a total error.

[Ed Rafalko]

Didn't Leo himself tag it as a tremelo, and an amp with tremelo as a 'virbolo' or somesuch?

[Dillon]

It's a "synchronized tremolo." Hardtails are "non-tremolo" models. Terms change with the times, but both terms can still be found in the Fender catalogue.

[stratton]

Excuse me sirs, you all seem to know more than I do, but tremolo is amplitude modulation, where a true vibrato would be a pitch modulation.

About RI Strats, FWIW I had a '57, and a RI '57. Those two were comparable, as in "Vintage Shmintage". Both good, but was the '57 worth it? TImes got hard and I had to sell the '57.

Years later, I compared my RI to a friend's '57, and there was a huge difference between the two. That particular '57, and ones like it, are the stuff of legend. Hands down easier to play, better tone, more responsive, all that.

Also, I will studiously avoid using either "purfling" or "binding" in a sentence.

Ken

[Preztone]

Prior to this thread, I mighta decked a guy who complimented me on my purfling.

[Cogs]

I post a lot at the LPF but when it comes to the vintage stuff, I mostly shut up and listen because I’ve never owned a vintage LP Standard. As far as Vintage Strats go, I’ve owned as many of those as I’ve owned automobiles! As well as RI, CS, MIJ, MIM, maple, rosewood, you name it. I have also played many, many vintage & newer Strats belonging to others. Never, & I mean NEVER have I played a newer Strat of any kind that could hold a candle to a well set up original. Never. This is one case where they just “ain’t makin’ em like they use to”.

[60burst]

Originally posted by 71818
I post a lot at the LPF but when it comes to the vintage stuff, I mostly shut up and listen because I’ve never owned a vintage LP Standard. As far as Vintage Strats go, I’ve owned as many of those as I’ve owned automobiles! As well as RI, CS, MIJ, MIM, maple, rosewood, you name it. I have also played many, many vintage & newer Strats belonging to others. Never, & I mean NEVER have I played a newer Strat of any kind that could hold a candle to a well set up original. Never. This is one case where they just “ain’t makin’ em like they use to”.

I have owned many vintage guitars over the last three decades and this has been my experience, also. :60burst

[MK.II]

60burst ad 71818


Obviously you guys are talking about "good" vintage Strats, because I`ve seen many vintage Strats that I wouldn`t buy if I were looking to buy one. I`ve seen some dogs in my time. But I definitely agree that a "good" all original vintage Strat will sound sweeter than a new one. There are some Custom Shops that can sound pretty darn good considering that they`re new guitars. I think that the aging of vintage Strats is the ticket to their sweet sound. I have a friend that owns a completely original `57 Strat that sounds so good it`s not funny. It`s not an exceptional looking guitar or anything, but it has the TONE. It`s in such good condition that the nitro on the neck has barely yellowed. Definitely an "under the bed" guitar. It`s in better condition than a Closet Classic!! He very rarely plays it out at bars. Actually it has a rather small soft "V" neck compared to a lot that I`ve seen and it is straight grained (no figuring). It`s one of the most "mint" old Strats that I`ve seen and man it`s nice!!!

[Houndog]

Originally posted by 71818
I post a lot at the LPF but when it comes to the vintage stuff, I mostly shut up and listen because I’ve never owned a vintage LP Standard. As far as Vintage Strats go, I’ve owned as many of those as I’ve owned automobiles! As well as RI, CS, MIJ, MIM, maple, rosewood, you name it. I have also played many, many vintage & newer Strats belonging to others. Never, & I mean NEVER have I played a newer Strat of any kind that could hold a candle to a well set up original. Never. This is one case where they just “ain’t makin’ em like they use to”.

Are you saying you have never played a vintage Strat that sucked? I have..plenty..played plenty of new ones that blew away the ones that sucked...now the very special vintage ones I might agree with you but not a bold all encompassing statement that all vintage strats are superior to all new ones...

[Cogs]

I said just what I said. You can't make a broad generality from what I previously posted. I've played plenty of newer Strats (all kinds), & never in my life have I played one that sounded or felt like a PROPERLY SET UP vintage Strat. Am I saying I've never played a crappy vintage Strat? No, I've done that, too. Maybe it needed a new nut, or maybe the frets were worn pretty far. As with alot of vintage guitars, the sum is greater than the parts. There are certainly a few exceptions to the rule; some are dogs, and some might even be unplayable. I've also played some good CS & replica Strats, too. Before this degenerates into a "I've played more Strats than you" debate, let's just consider how long it's taken Fender to just get the headstock right on the reissues! The contours are a whole other can of worms. Pickups? Let's start another thread.

[Cogs]

Here, let me make it simple for you: take two Strats randomly from anywhere in the country. Say, a '59 to '62 slab & a Vintage RI. Make sure the electronics are in proper working order. Make sure the nut is cut properly. Same frets in good condition. Set the action up with the same strings, & make all the necessary adjustments to the pickups, the bridge, & truss rod. Which one is going to sound & play like a "vintage Strat"?
Duh

[Houndog]

Before you get all worked up let me say mostly I agree with you. And I do like things all nice and simple so I won't take that as an insult-but ya know sometimes what is posted doesn't necesarily read out like intended so if you would grant me the benefit of the doubt on that one I would be mighty appreciative.

[Cogs]

O.K.- I didn't mean to get huffy. I am just dissapointed with the quality of the reissue Fenders. The question is a little silly to me. The company doesn't seem to take the time to get all the details right, & they only come close with a Custom Shop guitar that is still a long ways away from being as good as an average vintage guitar that's been moderately taken care of. I know there are great guitars out there that have been manufactured recently, & I know that some vintage stuff is only expensive because of it's age & not the playability; but the title of the thread is vintage vs. reissue, not vintage vs. custom, hand-made reproductions of vintage guitars. Why does it take a Custom Shop luthier so much effort to build a guitar that was rolling off the production line in vast quantities in an era that we tower over technologically?

[Houndog]

Originally posted by 71818
O.K.- I didn't mean to get huffy. I am just dissapointed with the quality of the reissue Fenders. The question is a little silly to me. The company doesn't seem to take the time to get all the details right, & they only come close with a Custom Shop guitar that is still a long ways away from being as good as an average vintage guitar that's been moderately taken care of. I know there are great guitars out there that have been manufactured recently, & I know that some vintage stuff is only expensive because of it's age & not the playability; but the title of the thread is vintage vs. reissue, not vintage vs. custom, hand-made reproductions of vintage guitars. Why does it take a Custom Shop luthier so much effort to build a guitar that was rolling off the production line in vast quantities in an era that we tower over technologically?

Couldn't have said it better myself!