Menu
--- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "-=Dan Ware=-" <reverbtank@h...> wrote:
>I mean, you're playing surf music
> for god's sakes, not building a ship in a bottle out of toothpicks!
>
> -Dano
>
LOL...I like that.
Yeah, now that I have the JM guitar in my hot little hands--I have to
say that the bridge design is the suckiest piece of engineering I
have ever seen. Just simply retarded. I like the idea of the barrels
that can be adjusted in two directions like the saddles in a trem
unit--but those threaded grooves...what were they thinking? I am an
aggressive picker--and I know I am going to knock the string right
off the barrel. I was just mincing around delicately, afraid to give
it the juice, because the strings were so hard to mount. That split
post without compression--what the hell? Why not just drill a hole in
the post--or throw some Sperzels on there for christs sake!
What I am contemplating is going to a machine shop and having them
order me a titanium rod that is the same diameter as the barrels.
Then cut the rod into barrels, thread them for set screws, and notch
a nice groove--or better yet--drill a hole to hold a graphite offset
that can hold the string. Man--this is not new technology--that is
what bugs me about the whole thing. Although--I gotta try the mustang
bridge thing--and see if I like it.
Since I'm on the subject--here's the rest of my impressions of my new
JM. Last time I played one was 1966--I drooled then, cause all I
could afford at the time was a cheap Jap strat clone, after saving my
lunch money for months and months. But now--I'm familiar with Suhr,
Sadowsky, Zion, and even factory models by Parker and PRS. The polite
word for the JM is, classic. Meaning, primitive. Old fashioned
everything. The only flaw in the guitar I received is the rosewood
veneer along the high e string looks scalloped along the edge from a
poor cutting of the rosewood. Instead of discarding it, they sanded
it and bonded it. The scallop doesn't affect the surface of the
fretboard, or the noting of the frets, but it is a clearly visible
flaw--and yet they shipped the thing. I will keep it--because it
isn't a flaw likely to lead to structural failure--but cutting a
straight line in a factory environment should not be a difficult
task. As I mentioned before, I also hate the tuners and the bridge.
Well, I also prefer a compound radius, and the neck adjustment at the
heel totally sucks, but other than that, the guitar plays pretty
decent. I threw some TI 11-47 swing strings on it--lighter than I
usually play, but I wanted the neck to adjust gradually. The action
is now like 3/8" off the fretboard, yet it still plays pretty good. I
obviously have some serious setting up to do. The strings it shipped
with are a total joke--what pisses me off is that they threw in a set
of Fender 11-50 flatwounds--why didn't they string them on the guitar
and set it up properly? I don't know what to think about these
things. I have yet to ever see a John Suhr guitar with a SINGLE flaw.
What is Fender playing at? Don't they execute their incompetant
workers? Well they should. Just take em out an shoot em. No judge. No
jury. Just a bullet in the brain. Isn't that how they do it in China?
And what's up with the trem bar? They can't engineer a way to keep
the bar in the unit when the player tips his body forward 10 degrees?
But--what do I LIKE about the JM? The TONE, man. It has the classic
tone. No argument. It has it. Beautiful resonant bass, snappy treble,
the hollow woody sound that reminds me of just shooting the curl, a
ring of moving water curving over your head. I'm gassed! Its great! I
luv it! The color would not be my first choice--Dakota Red. But it
isn't too bad. I can see the joint in the alder when I glance the
reflection off the body, but the body is in very good shape. I
actually like the 3-ply pickguard. I was thinking I wouldn't and was
planning on getting a custom chrome pickguard or something--but I
like it. The body is lightweight and comfortable to play. The neck is
playable--but I may have to break down and get a custom neck with
more modern features--I'll give it a while. Let me see how easy it is
to set it up properly. Anyway--I think I'll keep it--I got a good
deal on it. I've been trying to create the sound of the JM with other
guitars over the years, and have gone through a rash of them in the
process--but this really is the TONE I have been seeking--there is no
denying it. I am glad I finally broke down and bought this classic,
primitive, but beautiful sounding guitar.
--- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "ohsyrus" <ohsyrus@y...> wrote:
>
> Yeah, now that I have the JM guitar in my hot little hands--I have
to
> say that the bridge design is the suckiest piece of engineering I
> have ever seen. Just simply retarded.
...
> I was just mincing around delicately, afraid to give
> it the juice, because the strings were so hard to mount. That split
> post without compression--what the hell? Why not just drill a hole
in
> the post--or throw some Sperzels on there for christs sake!
Well, the idea behind the American Vintage series of guitars is to
reproduce, as closely as possible, the guitar from 1962. So yes, it
is primitive, and has the old fashioned tuner posts, the wacky
bridge, the trem arm, etc. Thats what they were like in 1962.
It would be beyond cool if Fender issued a modern line of Jags and
JMs. With the truss rod adjustment at the headstock, safety tuner
posts, a threaded arm. But I think Fender doesn't think there is a
market for them. We are lucky to get the high quality AV line.
>
> What I am contemplating is going to a machine shop and having them
> order me a titanium rod that is the same diameter as the barrels.
> Then cut the rod into barrels, thread them for set screws, and
notch
> a nice groove--or better yet--drill a hole to hold a graphite
offset
> that can hold the string. Man--this is not new technology--that is
> what bugs me about the whole thing. Although--I gotta try the
mustang
> bridge thing--and see if I like it.
What you have described doing is basically a Mustang bridge.
Actually, you only need the Mustang saddles, not the whole bridge.
> The strings it shipped
> with are a total joke--what pisses me off is that they threw in a
set
> of Fender 11-50 flatwounds--why didn't they string them on the
guitar
> and set it up properly?
Because your average Joe guitar player would flip out if he found
flatwounds on a guitar. It would probably put him off from buying it
in the first place. At least Fender threw in a set of flats for those
of us in the know. :)
> And what's up with the trem bar? They can't engineer a way to keep
> the bar in the unit when the player tips his body forward 10
degrees?
>
Ahh yes, the trem bar. My nemesis. They are supposed to click into
place if you push it in all the way. You may have to adjust the
collet or wrap some teflon tape around the bar to keep it in.
Have fun with your guitar. Sounds cool
BN
