PRS reintroduce the McCarty with a thicker back

Philly_Q

SidNewton said:

guitargeek62 said:

In short, changes to the last "normal" McCarty model are just the pickups, tuners, and neck binding.

Yep. Doesn't look like moon inlays are an option either, just birds. Still want one though.

Yeah, it doesn't look like the back is any thicker than the slightly thicker back the McCarty always had.

I'm not sure about the birds, binding and modern tuners - I always thought the whole point of the McCarty was that it was a less blingy model.

Anyway, mine's going nowhere!

 

Adam_MD

I'd rather have a DGT for the trem and extra volume control or like @guitargeek62 a DC245 TED. Santana headstock for the win.

richardhomer

guitargeek62;657106" said:

In short, changes to the last "normal" McCarty model are just the pickups, tuners, and neck binding.

Though there is no mention of it, the headstock will be thicker to accommodate the Phase III tuners - they used to be thinner and have greater back-angle than those on the CU22.

My guess is that the neck blank will now be identical on both guitars.

As others have said, McCarty bodies were always thicker than Customs. This appears to be the same as they always were - just like the DGT, Paul's Guitar, etc

Grumpyrocker

I'd love one of these. But not likely to ever be able to afford one, and it's probably too heavy for my knackered shoulder. Already trying to sell one of my Les Pauls.

richardhomer

Grumpyrocker;657745" said:

it's probably too heavy for my knackered shoulder. Already trying to sell one of my Les Pauls.

I doubt it would. Mine is lighter than my sub-8lb Strat.

I can play mine for hours without any issues.

Grumpyrocker

Fair enough, it's just the three grand I don't have that's the obstacle now.

Philly_Q

richardhomer said:

Grumpyrocker;657745" said:

it's probably too heavy for my knackered shoulder. Already trying to sell one of my Les Pauls.

I doubt it would. Mine is lighter than my sub-8lb Strat.

I can play mine for hours without any issues.

Yep, mine's only a little over 7lbs.

I could play it for hours without any issues... except for a complete absence of musical talent.

Whitecat

crunchman;656910" said:

Is the thicker back making a thicker guitar or have they reduced the thickness of the maple top?  I'm hoping it's the latter.  There doesn't appear to be any faux binding on the one in the picture.



I love PRS but they just don't sound as good as my Gibsons.  I think it's because the maple tops are too thick.  I'd love to try one with a thinner top.

Black Gold Wrap never has scraped binding (that's the colour they show). I doubt they'll change the top thickness.

jeztone2

Philly_Q said:

SidNewton said:

guitargeek62 said:

In short, changes to the last "normal" McCarty model are just the pickups, tuners, and neck binding.

Yep. Doesn't look like moon inlays are an option either, just birds. Still want one though.

Yeah, it doesn't look like the back is any thicker than the slightly thicker back the McCarty always had.

I'm not sure about the birds, binding and modern tuners - I always thought the whole point of the McCarty was that it was a less blingy model.

Anyway, mine's going nowhere!

 

Damn I was hoping for a more serious redesign. Never mind.

guitargeek62

Don't fix what isn't broken; McCarty's are a solid platform and I can't really fault them.

My only change would be something akin to a stoptail DGT as the new-gen McCarty though, with an extra volume control.

@RichardHomer good catch on the thickness, though that won't affect the neck blank. I thought the neck angle is the same as a CU22 Stoptail? I think the headstock angle (~17 deg) was steeper on the McC though, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

richardhomer

guitargeek62;658532" said:

@RichardHomer good catch on the thickness, though that won't affect the neck blank. I thought the neck angle is the same as a CU22 Stoptail? I think the headstock angle (~17 deg) was steeper on the McC though, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to the pitch of the headstock - not the neck.

I'm not doing very well at staying off the Forum, am I?

guitargeek62

Yep, I misread it on my mobile - not sure why that happens more in that format?!

DrJazzTap

I am pleased to see this return. Out of my league for the moment, but I'll certainly check one out.

thomasross20

I think the neck heel on their 22 fretters is a bit big though

richardhomer

thomasross20;658742" said:

I think the neck heel on their 22 fretters is a bit big though

The bigger heel adds stiffness to the neck, which fattens up the low end. It gives a more 'singlecut'-like tone from a 'double cut' design, than the longer, thinner and 'whippier' necks on the 24 fret guitars.

Compared to a 'normal' bolt-on Fender joint, it really does not get in the way at all. And it's clearly leagues ahead of a Les Paul in terms of access to the 'dusty end'.

Adam_MD

richardhomer;658754" said:

[quote="thomasross20;658742"]I think the neck heel on their 22 fretters is a bit big though

The bigger heel adds stiffness to the neck, which fattens up the low end. It gives a more 'singlecut'-like tone from a 'double cut' design, than the longer, thinner and 'whippier' necks on the 24 fret guitars.

Compared to a 'normal' bolt-on Fender joint, it really does not get in the way at all. And it's clearly leagues ahead of a Les Paul in terms of access to the 'dusty end'.[/quote]

I agree with all of this. I went from playing Les Pauls to 22 fret double cut prsi and loved the upper fret access I now had and generally how much easier to play they were. I never really liked the thinner necks of the 24 fret guitars or the tone from the neck pickup.

crunchman

If you read the PRS book the bigger heel was deliberate added to stiffen up the neck.  I think that I remember reading that the stiffness is related to the cube of the unsupported length.  A shorter neck with a bigger heel apparently makes a big difference.

Basher

The McCarty is my favourite PRS by a mile and I prefer the plainer finishes and moon inlays. Love the super articulate and more playable LP vibe. The big heel was absolutely not an issue for me (miles easier than a regular LP) and I loved the wide-fat neck profile.

I actually prefer the single volume control. I love the both-humbuckers on tone and the ability to easily bring that up and down was much more useful to me than being able to balance the mix of the two.

Great coil-split sound too. About the only guitar I've played where I used it quite a bit.

guitargeek62

Rather than mixing the middle position, I often use it for a clean/dirty switch just from the p'ups.

crunchman

Basher said:

The McCarty is my favourite PRS by a mile and I prefer the plainer finishes and moon inlays. Love the super articulate and more playable LP vibe. The big heel was absolutely not an issue for me (miles easier than a regular LP) and I loved the wide-fat neck profile.

I actually prefer the single volume control. I love the both-humbuckers on tone and the ability to easily bring that up and down was much more useful to me than being able to balance the mix of the two.

Great coil-split sound too. About the only guitar I've played where I used it quite a bit.

I prefer the separate volume controls.  For me that's one of the best things about the DGT.  Didn't stop me selling it though.  The humbucker sounds weren't as good as SG/LP, and the coil splits weren't as good as Tele/Strat.  I'd normally want a spare guitar playing out so having the do it all guitar wasn't a big issue.

The one PRS I sort of regret selling was a 98 rosewood necked McCarty.  That was lovely.  It was a bit of an indulgence though as I didn't really use it live.