GuitarGuitar challenge - which is the real vintage guitar?

richardhomer

ICBM;155005" said:

There is a reason I have a quote from Homer in my signature .

That is a very generous acknowledgement IC.

Thank you.

ddlooping

ESchap said:

First one sounds much more lively, bigger if you like.  Would be the one I'd take home based on "tone" ... hope it's the real one.

Why?

Skipped

"I can't decide between a Gibson Historic Firebird and a player grade vintage Firebird (refret, changed tuners etc). But I am tempted by the re-issue"

Why are you tempted by the re-issue?

"Because it's a 2013 model."

What is the attraction of a 2013 model?

"Oh....It is more accurate than ever! They are getting really close to the real thing now!"

Er.........

Bellycaster

Don't know, but Guitar 1 sounds a lot richer and fuller in tone to me.

Zodiac51

Are they putting bent tuners on CS strats now?

ICBM

Zodiac51 said:

Are they putting bent tuners on CS strats now?

No, the bent one is on the original.

This is one of the problems with an old guitar though - if you try to straighten a bent tuner and the shaft snaps - which it can - you then have to replace the tuner (or at least the key shaft, if you open up the riveting and keep the original casing), which makes the guitar "less valuable" out of all proportion to the value of one machinehead, if the set was original at that point.

mart

ICBM said:

Zodiac51 said:

Are they putting bent tuners on CS strats now?

No, the bent one is on the original.

....

So is that the "dead giveaway" you experts referred to, or is there something even more obvious that I'm missing?

ICBM

mart said:

So is that the "dead giveaway" you experts referred to, or is there something even more obvious that I'm missing?

The colour of the fingerboard dots - and that the new ones look very flat, even at that sort of video resolution. The old ones always shrink and warp a bit - they're not actually "clay" as they're usually referred to, they're fibreboard - basically highly compressed resin-impregnated cardboard. The new ones are made (I think) from plastic.

impmann

A new guitar straight off the line will improve with playing - and I firmly believe that some of the stuff coming out of Fender USA CS is *BETTER* made than the 50s/60s stuff in general. That means that in years to come - and not necessarily 40+ years - these guitars, with proper playing, potentially will sound better than these fabled pre-CBS guitars. 

Yes there will always be exceptions - in both directions - but bear in mind that not *all* 60s Strats were corkers. And not all of them have turned into corkers - I know of a few that I've worked on (even owned one) that were nice but didn't blow my skirt up. I haven't played a *bad* or *meh* CS Strat yet... and I've played a few. A couple were verging on 'OK' but most were gorgeous...

Therefore all this nonsense (and a lot of it *is* nonsense) about old Fenders blows over my head - £8K for a played-in, play-worn Strat? Silly. I'd rather buy something that has the potential to be as good, if not better, that I can use. I'll leave that £8K guitar for the collectors... who won't buy it, because its not in collectors condition. Like I say, Silly.

mart

ICBM said:

The colour of the fingerboard dots.

Ah, yes, I see that now. Thanks!

ICBM

impmann said:

A new guitar straight off the line will improve with playing - and I firmly believe that some of the stuff coming out of Fender USA CS is *BETTER* made than the 50s/60s stuff in general. That means that in years to come - and not necessarily 40+ years - these guitars, with proper playing, potentially will sound better than these fabled pre-CBS guitars. 

Yes there will always be exceptions - in both directions - but bear in mind that not *all* 60s Strats were corkers. And not all of them have turned into corkers - I know of a few that I've worked on (even owned one) that were nice but didn't blow my skirt up. I haven't played a *bad* or *meh* CS Strat yet... and I've played a few. A couple were verging on 'OK' but most were gorgeous...

Therefore all this nonsense (and a lot of it *is* nonsense) about old Fenders blows over my head - £8K for a played-in, play-worn Strat? Silly. I'd rather buy something that has the potential to be as good, if not better, that I can use. I'll leave that £8K guitar for the collectors... who won't buy it, because its not in collectors condition. Like I say, Silly.

Precisely .

impmann

Listening to it again - the first guitar has some fret buzz, noticeable on the bridge pickup setting...

Babones

It's a trick question. It's the camera that's vintage.

Bogwhoppit

I prefer the third one.

carlos

impmann said:

A new guitar straight off the line will improve with playing

Why? What changes?

guitargeek62

I was really hoping the first one was the reissue, it sounds far nicer to me - much closer to the sound I try and get from a strat at least. The CS sounded dull & flat in comparison, although still nice - it was just too clean for me to GAS for. 

I wonder if there's much difference between the two in terms of pickup heights and outputs? That extra grit that the first one has makes it very difficult to evenly compare the two.

Zodiac51

ICBM said:

Zodiac51 said:

Are they putting bent tuners on CS strats now?

No, the bent one is on the original.

/facepalm

crunchman

The first one definitely sounded better.  As others have said, it would be interesting to know if the pickup heights etc are identical.

The one 62 I've got close to in the flesh was definitely one of the 3 best sounding Strats I've come across.

ToneControl

I'm starting to like the sound of the second one now

ICBM

crunchman said:

The first one definitely sounded better.  As others have said, it would be interesting to know if the pickup heights etc are identical.

Or even if they have the same gauge, brand and age of strings on, let alone similar action etc. It's not impossible that just those things could make as much difference as you can hear there. (In my opinion I doubt it, actually - but the point is that you can't tell.)