|
|
Guitar Discussions -> Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars
There are 22 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 10.
|
Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Jeff - 21:56 08-11-05
|
|
Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my first
few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars. Clearly
there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which I
think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it sound
good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable. Second
guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name and
we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to purchase,
just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the past
for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have read)
but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like myself.
I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to begin
with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding new
pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for the
guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add a
Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
J
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Farmer - 22:51 08-11-05
|
|
Jeff wrote:
> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my first
> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars. Clearly
> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which I
> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it sound
> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable. Second
> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name and
> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>
> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to purchase,
> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the past
> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have read)
> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like myself.
> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>
> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to begin
> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding new
> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>
> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for the
> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add a
> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
>
> J
>
>
I paid $69 for an SX LP copy from Rondo Music. After a setup, it plays
just fine for this beginner. The guy that did the setup laughed when I
told him the price, couldn't believe the heft of the thing (8lbs of
mahogany), and thought it played near like an LP as well (he restored a
'67 LP for a guy). Overall excellent value for $ and quite playable he
thought.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Big Bill - 02:46 09-11-05
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -0600, Farmer <address@server.net> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my first
>> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars. Clearly
>> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
>> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
>> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
>> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which I
>> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
>> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
>> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
>> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
>> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it sound
>> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable. Second
>> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
>> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
>> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name and
>> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
>> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>>
>> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to purchase,
>> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
>> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
>> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
>> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the past
>> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
>> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
>> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have read)
>> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like myself.
>> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>>
>> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to begin
>> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
>> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding new
>> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>>
>> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for the
>> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
>> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add a
>> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>I paid $69 for an SX LP copy from Rondo Music. After a setup, it plays
>just fine for this beginner. The guy that did the setup laughed when I
>told him the price, couldn't believe the heft of the thing (8lbs of
>mahogany), and thought it played near like an LP as well (he restored a
>'67 LP for a guy). Overall excellent value for $ and quite playable he
>thought.
And I absolutely want one. Only ever a handful in the UK though and I
haven't quite managed to get one yet from the States.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Yard Dog - 07:30 09-11-05
|
|
"Jeff" <catfisherman62@123yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ezdcf.79092$Bf7.44316@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my
> first
> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars.
> Clearly
> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which
> I
> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it
> sound
> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable.
> Second
> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name
> and
> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>
> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to
> purchase,
> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the
> past
> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have
> read)
> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like
> myself.
> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>
> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to
> begin
> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding
> new
> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>
> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for
> the
> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add
> a
> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
I own 7 guitars now (Had 9) thanks to the affordability of modern guitars.
My very favorite guitar cost me initially $75 to rescue it from the music
store it was rotting in. After tweaking the neck and intonating it I had a
great guitar. Since then I've replaced the nut, put new grovers on it, the
bridge pup (Lil killer 15k! $33.00) and blocked the trem and this is hands
down my favorite guitar! The sustain is unreal coming from a guitar with a
plywood body and maple neck. The stock middle and neck pups are still there
and have a wonderful "strat" sound and feel to them. I own several guitars I
bought from Rondo and most only needed new pups in the bridge position and
voila I still saved a ton of money! I don't own a First Act because I don't
believe they make a lefty model (maybe they do?) but the SX and Agile
guitars I have suit me fine and I am a working musician that gets
compliments on my sound all the time. I chuckle to myself sometimes because
on any given night my rig cost me at most $500.00 including my amp, guitar
and FX box.
Long live the affordable geetar!
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - exotic-scales - 09:02 09-11-05
|
|
No doubt about it, CNC (Computer Numeric Control) machine techniques has
made it virtually impossible to build a really bad guitar. The mid-price
imports ($500-$750) are also some really impressive instruments--both in
terms of workmanship and materials (the latter of which is where they cut
corners in some of the lowest-price models). My Peavey HP Signature HP
(which I believe is made by Samick), sports a Mahagony body & neck, maple
cap (not veneer), ebony fretboard, set neck, nice heavy hardware, and some
really great sounding pickups.
That said, back in the 1970s, many of us never even considered having a
guitar professionally set up. I suspect that many of the old Kents and Zim
Gars might be a lot more playable if there were properly adjusted.
joe
http://www.exotic-scales.com
"Jeff" <catfisherman62@123yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ezdcf.79092$Bf7.44316@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my
> first
> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars.
> Clearly
> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which
> I
> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it
> sound
> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable.
> Second
> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name
> and
> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>
> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to
> purchase,
> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the
> past
> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have
> read)
> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like
> myself.
> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>
> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to
> begin
> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding
> new
> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>
> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for
> the
> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add
> a
> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
>
> J
>
>
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Keith Adams - 12:21 09-11-05
|
|
For the price a Squire is a damned good guitar.It should give you years
of enjoyment.With a good setup and some tweaks it'll play as well as
any guitar made. The cheap guitars of today and those from the past are
worlds apart in quality.The old ones were little more than cheese
graters that resembled guitars. Some that are made today are serious
instruments that could get the job done on any stage in the world if
the need arose. Some people think a big price tag will somehow make
then a better player. Shit goes in...shit comes out. Being able to buy
a good guitar for cheap makes it tough on the guys building handmade
guitars. If you were to add up the time and trouble it took to make
one you'd be looking at $5000. They may be prettier but most dont play
any better than a $200 Squire. Though I dig the Metal Front Zemaitis
guitars that often go for $20,000 these days...from what I've heard
many of them are barely playable.. It varied from guitar to guitar.
"Jeff" <catfisherman62@123yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ezdcf.79092$Bf7.44316@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my
first
few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars.
Clearly
there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take
the
first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?)
which I
think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything
was
cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off
the
frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it,
more
or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it
sound
good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable.
Second
guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name
and
we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain
on
the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to
purchase,
just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles,
B.C.
Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly
outclass
any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the
past
for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have
read)
but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like
myself.
I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to
begin
with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average
players?
What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding
new
pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for
the
guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But
I
have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to
add a
Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
J
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - Jim Anable - 15:40 09-11-05
|
|
Jeff wrote:
> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my first
> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars. Clearly
> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which I
> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it sound
> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable. Second
> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name and
> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>
> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to purchase,
> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's.
I agree, and I laugh at the 70's entry level stuff being sold as "vintage."
> I see these guitars,
> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the past
> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have read)
> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like myself.
> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>
> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to begin
> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
It's better than what I started with... Check the stuff at
http://www.rondomusic.net
> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding new
> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>
> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for the
> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add a
> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
I am not a pro player. I have a very valuable vintage strat that I have
owned since '72.
When I started playing again, I wanted a Les Paul. I shopped around. I
played some Gibsons that were better than the Epiphone that I bought,
but I could NOT justify the additional expense. I modified the Epiphone
and I love it.
Then I wanted a Tele, and I bought a MIM instead of US. With the active
EMG setup and active VMC tone, I wouldn't swap it for a US model.
Then I wanted an SG, and I bought an Epiphone Korina that I prefer to
all Gibsons other than the '61 reissue model. ...especially now that I
added an EMG 81/85 setup with two active tones.
Then I wanted an archtop, and I bought a Johnson that is beautiful, and
plays just fine.
Then I wanted a 335, and I settled for an Oscar Schmidt that plays fine,
AFTER some fret work.
Then I wanted a solid top acoustic/electric, and I chose the Ibanez Artwood.
My answer to you is that you can often purchase 90% of the guitar for a
FRACTION of the cost. If you *need* "the best," open the wallet.
However, some of my "second level" guitars rival the "real" ones, and I
prefer mine, after my modifications.
"Second level" guitars are an even better deal for a guy that doesn't
like the stock pickups on the "real" model, or who wants to do other
modifications.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - kitekrazy - 17:49 09-11-05
|
|
Keith Adams wrote:
> For the price a Squire is a damned good guitar.<
I played a Squire 51 at GC last week. It's not a bad guitar for $149.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - jtees4 - 18:25 09-11-05
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:30:21 GMT, "Yard Dog" <someone@somewhere.com>
wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <catfisherman62@123yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Ezdcf.79092$Bf7.44316@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my
>> first
>> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars.
>> Clearly
>> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
>> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
>> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
>> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which
>> I
>> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
>> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
>> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
>> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
>> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it
>> sound
>> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable.
>> Second
>> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
>> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
>> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name
>> and
>> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
>> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>>
>> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to
>> purchase,
>> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
>> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
>> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's. I see these guitars,
>> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the
>> past
>> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
>> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
>> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have
>> read)
>> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like
>> myself.
>> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>>
>> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to
>> begin
>> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
>> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding
>> new
>> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>>
>> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for
>> the
>> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
>> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add
>> a
>> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
>
>I own 7 guitars now (Had 9) thanks to the affordability of modern guitars.
>My very favorite guitar cost me initially $75 to rescue it from the music
>store it was rotting in. After tweaking the neck and intonating it I had a
>great guitar. Since then I've replaced the nut, put new grovers on it, the
>bridge pup (Lil killer 15k! $33.00) and blocked the trem and this is hands
>down my favorite guitar! The sustain is unreal coming from a guitar with a
>plywood body and maple neck. The stock middle and neck pups are still there
>and have a wonderful "strat" sound and feel to them. I own several guitars I
>bought from Rondo and most only needed new pups in the bridge position and
>voila I still saved a ton of money! I don't own a First Act because I don't
>believe they make a lefty model (maybe they do?) but the SX and Agile
>guitars I have suit me fine and I am a working musician that gets
>compliments on my sound all the time. I chuckle to myself sometimes because
>on any given night my rig cost me at most $500.00 including my amp, guitar
>and FX box.
>
>Long live the affordable geetar!
>
Oh I agree completey (I've been playing 35+ years and have had
everything). I've recently been using guitars that cost me under $200
used and they are great (after a proper set up). I particularly like
Yamahas for bang for the buck. I also recently bought a USA Hamer
Special Flame top...beautiful and underr $600. This is my "expensive"
guitar now...the one that stays in the case and gets taken out
occassionally.
|
|
|
|
Re: Quality of Modern (Current) Cheap Guitars - jtees4 - 18:29 09-11-05
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:40:27 -0800, Jim Anable
<jim@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> Reading the post about the First Act Guitars got me thinking about my first
>> few, four or five guitars as compared to modern 100 dollar guitars. Clearly
>> there is no comparison whatsoever. I feel (And this is IMHO) that the
>> increase in quality vs increase in cost has fared far better than other
>> product quality increase vs inflation. For a few examples I would take the
>> first three guitars I can remember owning. First one was a Kay (K?) which I
>> think was an LP Copy. IIRC we bought it at Sears for $79. Everything was
>> cheaply made, I recall there was constant shorting in the electronics
>> causing the thing to play in and out, the strings sat about 1 inch off the
>> frets. I remember it being very uncomfortable to play and I hated it, more
>> or less. My father who was and is an excellent guitarist could make it sound
>> good, but good guitarists can make about any guitar sound acceptable. Second
>> guitar was a used Archtop which I think was a National (I think). Many
>> issues, hard to play, it was just a piece opf shit. Third guitar was
>> something along the lines of something like a First Act, it had no name and
>> we purchased it at a store called "Two Guys" which I think was a chain on
>> the East Coast back then in the 70's. Piece of shit, period.
>>
>> OTOH, some of the guitars I have been looking at recently (Not to purchase,
>> just looking at them), like low end Epi's, Squire Strats and Teles, B.C.
>> Rich, Ibanez and others in the 100-300 dollar price range clearly outclass
>> any low end guitar I played with in the 70's.
>
>I agree, and I laugh at the 70's entry level stuff being sold as "vintage."
>
>> I see these guitars,
>> aesthetically pleasing, actions and electronics far better than in the past
>> for equal value guitars, wood not the best but in all of them it was
>> good..for what it was. They play well (Decently) Cheap (Or inexpensive)
>> Guitars do not please a lot of people on this group (From what I have read)
>> but I find many of them to be well up to standards of a player like myself.
>> I think I personally would be happy with a Squire Tele II.
>>
>> Would buying a guitar, say the one mentioned above (Squire Tele II) to begin
>> with or just as an additional instrument suffice for most average players?
>
>It's better than what I started with... Check the stuff at
>http://www.rondomusic.net
>
>> What about someone who want a Tele, buys a Squire and takes time adding new
>> pickups etc in order to get it to the level he/she might want?
>>
>> I know these low end guitars are not going to please those who live for the
>> guitar, make a living with a guitar..or at least for the most part. But I
>> have to say, I like some of these cheap guitars and see it as a way to add a
>> Strat, Tele, or Archtop to the collection (Inexpensively)
>
>I am not a pro player. I have a very valuable vintage strat that I have
>owned since '72.
>
>When I started playing again, I wanted a Les Paul. I shopped around. I
>played some Gibsons that were better than the Epiphone that I bought,
>but I could NOT justify the additional expense. I modified the Epiphone
>and I love it.
>
>Then I wanted a Tele, and I bought a MIM instead of US. With the active
>EMG setup and active VMC tone, I wouldn't swap it for a US model.
>
>Then I wanted an SG, and I bought an Epiphone Korina that I prefer to
>all Gibsons other than the '61 reissue model. ...especially now that I
>added an EMG 81/85 setup with two active tones.
>
>Then I wanted an archtop, and I bought a Johnson that is beautiful, and
>plays just fine.
>
>Then I wanted a 335, and I settled for an Oscar Schmidt that plays fine,
>AFTER some fret work.
>
>Then I wanted a solid top acoustic/electric, and I chose the Ibanez Artwood.
>
>My answer to you is that you can often purchase 90% of the guitar for a
>FRACTION of the cost. If you *need* "the best," open the wallet.
>However, some of my "second level" guitars rival the "real" ones, and I
>prefer mine, after my modifications.
>
>"Second level" guitars are an even better deal for a guy that doesn't
>like the stock pickups on the "real" model, or who wants to do other
>modifications.
Agreed. I also realized that many people don't have a clue about set
up. I bought some guitars very cheap off ebay...below market
value...and the guitars were just set up terrible. the people who
owned them must have thought they were junk and they were ripping me
off. These guitars were fantastic after a proper set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
