Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums


All Access
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PurdyDot

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. maybe a 211 since it has a humbucker in the bridge position?
  2. PurdyDot

    Floyd Rose

    Heyhey 🙂 What sort of tweaking did you do? On my vintage, when I tried to lower the floyd down to the deck, the action was waaaay too low, so I ended up taking it back up quite a ways (still far lower than it was from the factory. mine was all screwy from the factory). If you weren't going to be pulling the trem sharp, then I think the trem-stop was a really good choice. I have an old kramer focus 2000 and the body under the tremolo has depressed indentation in it that's the shape of the shim plate on the bottom of the floyd. It actually compressed the wood down, at a slight angle, by somewhere around 1/32 to 1/64 of an inch. Of course it's not something anyone would see without looking for it, but it's there, and of course since it's not quite flat and slightly off center, it's probably not the best platform for resting the floyd on anyway. So yeah, I think you guess right about the likelihood that it would end up damaging the finish that way. Anyway, I was just curious how you got good action with it all the way down to the deck? is there a removable neck shim or something? (I haven't taken mine apart yet)
  3. PurdyDot


    (Sorry, this got pretty long. Recalling my old Striker sent me on a nostalgia trip ;P) I had one back in the early 90s. Bought it from a newspaper ad while I was spending a month in the hospital as a paid guinea pig. They paid a group of us $1000 to stay 30 days in the hospital while they switched us back and forth between 2 different anti-depressants while they took our blood up to 8 times a day. The ad came up in the newspaper while I was in there, and I convinced them to advance me some of the money to pay for it. lol Anyway, I didn't know enough about kramers at the time to realize that the strikers were plywood, and there was no internet for me to look up the model or anything, so i was just automatically expecting it to be a banana headstocked, floyd rosed, maple-fretboarded, one-volume-knobbed, single humbuckered eddie van halen special or something. Like, as if that's all kramer made, right? lol But when it showed up, it actually had 2 humbuckers, a beak headstock, rosewood fingerboard, at least two knobs and a switch, and had an odd trem style I'd never seen that used to little blades riding in a long (it was the same width as the tremolo) metal piece with a groove cut into it. <--that actually worked quite well, and even had a nice little brass block instead of the pot metal blocks on other cheaper model guitars I'd come across at that point, but it had no fine tuners, and no locking nut. So, i admit I was a little disappointed that it wasn't my dream guitar showing up for $150 from the wichita "mini-market" ads... But only a little, because the guitar was *beautiful* as the guy slid it out of the gig bag to show it to me. It was a deep flawless candy apple red, and other than a couple of wear spots on the bridge, it looked practically brand new. And *it felt good in my hands*. Very comfortable and natural feeling, as if it was a guitar I'd owned my whole life or something or one that was made just to fit me. The only thing that spoiled that illusion at all, was that the neck (it had a skunk stripe! hehe :D) felt a little narrow. That, again, wasn't really *bad* persay, it was just something I was vaguely aware of -just enough to remind me that this really *was* a new/different instrument than the ones I already knew. But I tell ya, even though it wasn't quite what I was hoping for, I loved it *for what it was*. I loved the slim body style (not as tall when sitting on it's side as a strat or most strat-style guitars), I even loved the tremolo (as much as possible for a non floyd) and the way I could do this really nice sort of sound effect by resting the heal of my hand on the rear of it and slightly/lightly rocking my hand against it to sort of "warble" the notes as I plucked them. Sounded beautiful and a bit dark, almost hauntingly melancholy as I did that while plucking through what (at the time) i called "reversed barre chords" <<-- hey, we had no internet, and I had to train myself to play! lol I learned by ear, so I didn't know the names of notes or chords, except for the ones used while tuning, which I remembered with the phrase "Eat A Dam Good Breakfast Everyday) hehe:D Eventually it started becoming common to have guitar tableture "tab" in magazines and books, and I was able to work with that, but for the first few years I was learning to play I was kinda screwed, because couldn't read the piano-style musical notation that was in all the books at our local small-town music store. They were labeled "for piano and guitar" and the biggest joke I ever played on myself, was to skrimp and save up my pennies and quarters to finally pay $19.95 (plus tax. That was more than 4 packs of strings! and I could barely afford those lol) for a Van Halen book that was, *ahem...* "Van Halen (van halen 1)- For Piano and Guitar", lol! Omg, what an prank that was to play on a 15 year old kid trying to learn to play guitar without any sort of family support, musical training, or the internet or anything to help out. Basically... every song had, like, 2 or 3 guitar chords expressed in vertical notation (6 vertical lines representing strings, a few horizontal "fret" markers, and a couple of dots to show finger positions -I'm pretty sure it had no numbers to show *which* fingers on which dots though), and then *everything else* was expressed using what I call "Piano Notation". Which, I'm sure would have been a great help if I'd been trying to learn to play "Eruption" on a piano... As it was, I was *not* lol So that sort of musical notation was worse than useless for me. It didn't even have the *CORRECT* versions/fingerings of the chords as they were originally played. Instead it was what I called "mel bays chords" which -and I mean this as no offense to mr bay- sound more like roy orbison than metallica. and those mel bays chords thrown in there... That was like an additional insult-to-injury for me, because I'd already, previously, spent all the money I'd saved on a "Learn to play guitar" book that was a mel bay book, and I swear, learning chords from mr bay, is like, the quickest way to make "Enter Sandman" sound like "Chantilly Lace". 😞 <<--big frowns. 😞 😞 😞 BIIIIIiiiig big frowns from my early "learn guitar" book experiences. lol Anyway, I never have been able to really learn the names of chords, so I don't know what all chords fell into my "reversed barre chords" but I can sort of notate out the ones I ended up using in a song I wrote on that guitar right after I got it... 075x0x, 0540xx, 0420xx, then 0540xx before returning to the beginning with 075x0x. Anyway, that doesn't represent the order all the notes were plucked/played in, just the finger shapes/chord shapes for the progression... But it should give an idea of the tone I was talking about. Those notes plucked at a sort of medium-slow pace in that progression, while slightly warbling the tremolo bridge with the palm of my hand (the one thing missing from the guitar, was it's tremolo arm. so I couldn't do dives. but since it was set up with the bridge floating, I could use the heal of my palm on the rear of the trem to bend notes sharp, or do that warble. Something I miss with the floyd, because the fine tuners and arm are in the way of where my palm would naturally rest. Always thought of redesigning one with the arm and tuners out of the way, but that's a different matter/story ;P) sounded *very* good on that guitar. very moody; very soulful. And that tone and the sound of it inspired me enough that I ended up writing a new song on it almost immediately. Anyway, I thought it was a great guitar, although it still didn't really fill that void of the "van halen special" I was really hoping to get. Eventually I ended up passing that guitar on to my daughter, and my ex wife (her mother) sort of squirreled it away somewhere "for safe keeping". She loved that guitar too. lol The first song I wrote on it was for her, and we got married not long after I got out of the hospital. So she didn't keep me, but DID keep the guitar lol In theory, my daughter could get it back... Buuuut not likely 😜 Anyway, it was a great little guitar. I've *heard* that strikers were short scale... But I don't think mine was. It's "in safe keeping" so I can't measure it, but I think it was a 25.5 inch scale like my other guitars. The trem was a bit of a problem, since I had no bar for it, so I ended up grinding down a strat style trem, leaving the outer edges as the "blades" and then eventually drilled the base-plate on the strat-style bridge use a floyd-rose style tremolo arm (i hated screw-in arms), and that all worked fine, though I never had fine tuners or a locking nut on that guitar. I do remember it being pretty heavy, but livable. I doubt it was *nearly* as heavy as the maple body of the baretta vintage i got a few weeks ago. I did a bit of a silly thing with it, which I'd also done with my main guitar (a somewhat remodeled Cort Effector I'd been given by my sister for my 16th birthday), and that was taking a saw and cutting out the wood from where the tremolo was, on back, in a sort of V shape. Sort of like how how it is on the Ibanez Voyager guitars. <<--i'd seen some of those on the cover of a magazine and liked the style, so I went a bit crazy and got out the saw. It actually looke pretty cool! at least to me. lol That maaaaay have something to do with my ex-wife running off with the guitar for safe-keeping. Like, afraid I'd come back to it with the saw again or something. I wouldn't have, I swear! But yeah, much as I liked it modified, that little incident led me to finding out that apparently it was *her* guitar, and I was just being allowed to play it. or something like that. The plywood thing always bothered me a bit, because of the stigma attached to it. I'd only ever owned "cheap" guitars. Korean, indonesean, japanese, and all were plywood. Solid wood was supposed to have a better tone and sustain, and I *wanted that*. Plus the rosewood fretboard bugged me. Everything had rosewood fretboards, and I really didn't like the look OR the feel of them. I wanted a maple neck bad, and even preferred the feel of the "Ebonal" fretboard on my cort to rosewood. So some little things like that kept it from ever really being my main guitar. Nowadays, I'd be able to get a cheap-but-decent floyd style trem for it, and mess with pickups and things to get a little more out of it. It's not that it wasn't a good guitar, it really was. But I've always been in search of my *perfect* guitar, and it wasn't quite that. For what it's worth, I later got a Kramer Focus 2000, which had a floyd, and more of a banana-ish headstock. I *think* my striker was a 200st btw. So my striker 200 was a 2 humbucker model, and the focus 2000 was also a 2 humbucker model. So I ended up with what was a lot like a solid wood +floyd version of my earlier striker. It's bridge pickup always sounded too thin for some reason, and may have been damaged by a previous owner. I'd actually seen it sitting in the workshop at a music store (for repairs) before later finding it for sale in a pawn shop, so that may be why. Anyway, it was also a pretty good guitar, but still wasn't really the "van halen special" I was hoping for. Too many pickups, too many knobs, no maple fretboard 😛 I didn't have both guitars at the same time, so I can't really *directly* compare them. But I never really have been able to fully bond with the 2000, and ended up taking it apart to borrow the tremolo and pickups for another project guitar. I've recently been working on rebuilding the focus though. I got the crazy idea of picking up an old Dean neck that had a *white* fretboard, which I thought might be really cool on my black focus guitar. And I was able to get a good deal on a used seymour duncan custom-custom because the owner cut the cable too short. So I'll be revisiting the old focus again sometime this summer, to try to bond with it again. I dunno, there's just something about guitars... They can be *really good*, but still not be something you can completely *bond* with, ya know? Like, it really feels like it's *your guitar*; a sort of extension of yourself. It's your *instrument* for creativity, and a conduit for your soul. When things aren't quite right, for whatever reason, it's like there's something between you, and being able to fully express yourself. At least that's how it seems to me. lol The new Baretta Vintage I got... It was damaged from the factory when it arrived. doh! and salmon pink?!? who the heck called this color "ruby red"?!?!? it's like the color some little girl might choose for lipstick on her barbie. lol But I reeeeeeeally like playing it. The maple is uncomfortably heavy, but the neck feels solid as heck. the trem works great now that I've fixed most of the mistakes that had been done at the factory:( But, yeah, I really love playing it. I, uh... NEED to paint it. lol but it's a very nice guitar. I was going to get a special and add a floyd, but nobody had any red ones in stock, so I finally caved. The neck is nice, I wish the hardware were chrome or satin chrome rather than black, the pickup is pretty fun 🙂 The neck feels a bit wider than the older kramer necks I've tried, which I like, but also a bit thicker/deeper, which isn't my preference, but since it's unfinished, I could easily just get some sandpaper and shave it down a bit shallower if i get the urge. But for now I'm enjoying it stock. Anyway, as far as playability goes, I think the old striker I had *played* as good as any of the other kramers I got later on (within the limits of not having a locking tremolo). The tuners worked great, the tremolo actually seemed to be pretty decent quality parts, steel and brass, compared to the pot metal parts on my other cheap ($200 or less) guitars, but couldn't really compare to a floyd since it had no locking nut or fine tuners. The pickups sounded fine, as far as I can remember. Not necessarily better or worse than other pickups I was using at the time, so they didn't stand out in any ways that I remember, but also didn't annoy me or anything. Quality on mine was actually really good on mine; fit and finish was better than some of the more expensive guitars I tried later on, and I can't really say whether the plywood was an *actual* detriment or not, because I owned it back before I knew as much about guitars, and I don't have it now to do any testing. I probably wouldn't buy one again though. Not because they aren't good guitars, but I pretty much swore off buying plywood guitars. I just don't like the thought of having anything in my mind saying "I really like this guitar... It's too bad that it's plywood...". I don't see any reason to have that feeling about any instrument I own. And even though the 100st (single humbucker) strikers keep looking tempting because they *look* mostly like the sort of kramer I always wanted... I don't want to have that feeling. The only exception that I think I'd make... Is for a Kramer Starfighter. It's also plywood, but... It's a STARFIGHTER man! Everybody's got barettas and pacers and strikers, but how many people can say "naw man... it's a STARFIGHTER!" And maybe it's just the angles of the pictures I've seen, but i swear it looks like they are even a bit slimmer than the strikers, which I like the shape of. So I would probably go for a starfighter if I ever see one come up again when I have the money for it, and I occasionally buy Cort Effectors because that was my first full-sized guitar, but other than that, I doubt I'd ever buy another plywood guitar. Anyway, there I've talked about my old Striker, you should say something about yours! 🙂 Of course, if you don't already know, you will probably find that when it comes to how "valuable" they are, they fall into an unfortunate category of instruments that aren't particularly collectable -at least not yet. So it's value is in it's playability, not it's collectability. Which is good news if you want something of that style and can't afford a more expensive instrument, but could be bad news if you are trying to sell your instrument, since they are still available around the price I bought mine for back in the 90s, and with so many modern, reasonably priced, and well made instruments available today, there's not much reason to expect their collectability to go up any time soon. Doesn't mean they can't be a great playing guitar though, and what's MOST important is how well you can channel your creativity through it 😄
  4. Cool beans, make it scream! 😉 And hey, let us know how it comes out 😄
  5. I *was* planning to get one of those in red, with the idea that I would then immediately replace the stock tremolo with a floyd and do some other little upgrades. But they were always out of stock on the color I wanted, so I finally got so frustrated with waiting that I ordered a baretta special "vintage" model in red instead. It already had the sorts of upgrades I would probably have done anyway, buuuuut it would have been a lot cheaper if I'd done it myself. lol I think the "special" model is supposed to have a lighter body, and boy I would be glad of that, because this all-maple monster weighs a ton compared to the other guitars I've been playing recently. Anyway, you said you weren't planning to go the counter sunk floyd rose path, but you didn't give any hints about what sort of tremolo user you are or what you are needing from a tremolo overall, so that could be helpful. Like, me for example, I require a tremolo that you can dive *and* pull sharp. So I would have been doing the routed/countersunk version, and added a stabilizer as well. So I always want a full range of motion on any of my trem guitars (which in my world, should be pretty much every guitar:P ) so that *if* I want to get crazy with it, the option is always available, and *if* I want to get crazy with it, I want to be able to get *REALLY* crazy with it. lol So I don't like things that are set up too conservative. But if you like the overall floyd design, but are a player that will *only* be doing trem "dives", then you might be able to still install a floyd and either have it rest on the body, or set it up with a block (to keep it a 1 way tremolo, but without having the floyd's baseplate smacking down against the finish on the body. Whatever way it is installed though (as in, whether you do it so that it will be "floating" or non-floating), you will still always want to mount it and set it up in such a way that base plate to end up *level* (as in parallel with the body) when it returns to it's neutral/at-rest position. That keeps all the angles and everything as-originally-intended. And, something that may be relevant... I don't know how the stock neck angle will be on the Special model... But on the vintage, they set things up so that the floyd floats, but is *NOT* recessed. In other words, they just set it up so that the floyd rides higher off the body. That allows for the trem to still float, and still pull back to some extent. So if you like a floating trem, but don't plan to use a d-tuna (btw, using a floater with a d-tuna requires a stabilizer and some extra work/patience AND usually extra clearance as well. D-tunas weren't designed with floating trems in mind, though it *can* be done) then you could probably set things up basically how they are on the Vintage, and might have enough room without any need for a rout. That might require a neck shim though, it depends on your neck angle. Basically, if you want your bridge higher off the body, but still want to maintain low string action over the neck, then the neck angle needs to be increased slightly. Stewmac (and maybe other places as well?) sells some nice looking full cavity (so that the heal of the neck will maintain full contact with the inside floor of the neck pocket/cavity) shims that are angled, or you can make your own if you are good at working with your hands. One thing I've been curious about, but haven't done any research on whatsoever, is the ibanez zero tremolos, which essentially have something along the lines of a built in tremolo stabilizer. Anyway, that's all that comes to mind based on what info you provided, but if you add in details like whether you are interested in trying a completely different type of tremolo, or whether you only plan to dive with it, etc, then maybe some others can provide some more feedback. Anywho, take care, and good luck with your project! 😄
  6. PurdyDot

    String gauge

    So thaaaat's why they felt a bit stiff lol I'm used to 9s 😜 I dug out the micrometer and mine appear to be 10 to 46.
  7. PurdyDot

    Kramer ID Help

    $600 to $700 sounds pretty optimistic for a Striker. In the end, what a guitar is *really* worth, is whatever someone will pay for it. So it's quite possible that somebody might buy a striker for that much (the case probably helps with value), but the problem -at least in my book- is that Strikers are plywood guitar. You can upgrade the pickups, electronics, knobs, tuners, and tremolo, and still have a "Kramer Guitar", but you can *never change a plywood body into a solid-wood body*. It just wouldn't really be a "Kramer Guitar" any more if you tried to change out the body. And if it's no longer a "Kramer Guitar" than it loses whatever mystique that particular name was lending to the value of the instrument in the first place. Which would beg the question: "If you aren't really worried about it actually being a Kramer, and only want something that *looks* like a Kramer, why not buy something cheaper?" That leaves strikers in an awkward position, because there are still *plenty* of good examples of solid wood bodied vintage Kramers on the market in this price range, which begs the question: "Why buy a plywood Kramer, if you could buy a solid wood Kramer for the same price or possibly cheaper?" And the very fact that there are still so many solid wood Kramers available for less than this, means that the prices for other Strikers in great condition have gone down in prices to dirt cheap. Which begs a third question: "Why buy a nice, but expensive, Kramer Striker, when there are tons of nice, but cheap, Kramer Strikers readily available?" I have no reason to disrespect, or devalue, anyone's instrument. I'm just attempting to point out the problem of trying to fetch a price like with a Striker. There's just a really awkward situation with those particular guitars. Since the buyer would have to be someone who wants an Old Kramer Guitar enough to pay that much for one, *but not know enough about Old Kramer Guitars* to realize that they could probably get one as nice as this for probably half the price, or to realize that they could probably get a higher end solid wood model for around this price, although maybe not quite as pretty. Essentially, (if it's sold online) it would probably have to be to a buyer that knows virtually nothing about Kramer Guitars, but is still willing to plunk down $600-$700 for one, just for it's looks and it's name. In a store, in person, it could be sold for looks +name +plus sound/playability, which could potentially convince a potential buyer that it sounded and played well enough to be worth that price, despite being plywood. But online buyers cant hear/touch the instrument. Possibly a link to a video of that instrument being played might help convince potential buyers of it's value? ZX series Kramers, and probably all of the other plywood Kramers have to face the same sort of probem in the used market. And of course, with new "Kramers" being sold these days, one has to balance buying a new Kramer, which are looked down apon by a lot of the old-kramer crowd, with buying an old plywood kramer, which the old-kramer crowd often refer to as "firewood". Which is a shame, because I don't think they are *bad* instruments. but because of the place where they fit in the market, they are practically valueless unless a buyer just happens to fall in love with one and makes a purchase based on emotion without doing any research. In this context, I say "essentially valueless", because in so many cases they are worth more if they are broken down and sold as parts, and because their potential price point is already pretty well stocked with higher-end/technically-more-valuable kramers. Still, people buy instruments based on looks, names, and emotion every single day, so, like I said, it's *possible* that one could sell for that much, but those kinds of "value" estimates should be taken with a grain of salt -considering this market. If it was a focus, then the price would be more in line with the market, or if it were a baretta it could probably be priced up a ways, a pacer even more. btw, not claiming to be an expert. I'm just a fan of old kramers myself, so I just happen to have been watching prices and seeing the trends, that's all. Anyway, best wishes to all those wanting/needing to sell these. I feel for ya 😕
  8. PurdyDot

    Floyd Rose

    For reference, the bridge plate on a Floyd Rose, whether floating or not, is meant to be level/parallel with the body That keeps the trem blades alligned properly with the studgrooves as intended, leaves enough room for the string retainer screws under your fine tuners to travel freely, Keeps your trem bar at the intended angle compared to the guitar, etc. So if you want a floyd to *only dive*, then you should find a way to "block your tremolo". The idea being that you set the tremolo up so that your action and everything is how you want it, while in tune, and with the trem's base plate level dead level with the body, and then use something to literally *block* the travel in one direction. There are a lot of commercial products available, like the "Trem Stopper", or "Tremolo-No", but also a lot of Do-It-Yourself options. One easy DIY way, is to get your trem level, then flip the guitar over (making sure NOT to put any pressure on the tremolo -since you want it to stay level) and use some double-sided tape to stick a small piece of wood (or similar shim material) into the gap between the tremolo block and the guitar's body on the spring side (so the block can't tilt in that direction). Putting a search into google for: block floyd rose with wood Should bring up a bunch of various tutorials and/or videos showing how to do it. using the tape/wood method isn't the most permanent/reliable solution, but it has the positive side that it can be done very cheap, and since it requires no physical modification to the guitar, it's completely reversible. So it can be tried out without committing to any sort of permanent mod. As a side suggestion, since you'd likely need to slacken the strings and/or remove a spring while doing any sort of blocking, use some painters tape to secure something in between the rear of the floyd, under the fine tuners, so that when the tension changes it won't bring the string locking screws digging into the body. that blue painter's tape won't leave sticky stuff on the body and is easy to remove, so there's no messy/annoying cleanup involved. Anyway, take care and good luck to all potential DIYers! 😄 -Chris
  9. Sorry if I wasn't clear, and I also apologize for the length of this message, but I didn't know what all info you wanted, so I pretty much wrote out everything I could think of) Well, primarily what I was looking for, were whatever the "factory/default specs" are for the main/primary/basic adjustments like: Neck relief at 7th fret String height at 12th fret String height at nut (the 3 main parameters involved in setting up a guitar's "action") Pickup distance from strings I used the term "Setup", because if a music store offers to do a setup on your guitar, mostly what they would do, is adjust those settings. They would also probably adjust the intonation, but that is something that I would set using a tuner, rather than something like a feeler guage. As for the other part of your question: "how does the current condition of the guitar present special needs?" I'm sorry, but don't understand what you mean. If you are asking what I meant when I said the guitar arrived "damaged and all out of whack", well, I'm afraid that will make this message quite long... But assuming that's what you mean, I'll elaborate. Mainly what I meant was when the guitar arrived, I hate to say it, but it was a bit of a mess. It *appeared* to have just been carelessly/hastily assembled and boxed up. And although it had an inspection sticker on it, apparently whoever inspected it must not have been looking very closely or in the right places. It had a pair of chunks/chips about 1/4 inch each taken out of the paint (down to the wood), and some various nicks and scratches in the main paintwork. Those *might* have been caused by the tremolo arm banging around in the box during shipping, because the arm was just sitting in the box *loose*; not put in a bag, or wrapped up, or taped to anything, just sitting in there like somebody had simply tossed it in at the last moment before closing the box. Then on to the mechanical/adjustment side of things... The screws holding the allen keys must have been tightened by Hulk Hogan or something. They are supposed to be "finger tightened" thumb-screws, but I about ripped the pads off of my fingers trying to get them to turn. There was a slot for a screwdriver, so I got one of those, but even using a tool I had to turn so hard that it felt like I was going to snap or strip the screw before it finally broke free with a loud *CRACK*. Luckily the screw itself didn't break, but it was so tight it was like somebody had glued it in. Ironically, the nut, which SHOULD have been tightly screwed down to the neck, was loose. I noticed it because when I used the tremolo, there was a loud *creaking* sound from the top of the neck around the headstock, and on closer inspection, I saw that the whole locking nut assembly was moving back and forth as I used the tremolo. Thankfully the neck itself seems okay and quite straight, although I do want to verify the relief compared to the original/recommended spec. However, the trem (floyd rose tremolo bridge) wasn't set up right at all. The trem was set up to fully "float" above the body, to allow the trem to both pull sharp, or dive, and for correct operation this sort of floating trem is suppost to balance with the base-plate level when the guitar is fully tuned. Achieving the proper balance requires adjusting the large tremolo springs in the back of the guitar, until they create enough tension against the pull of the strings that the basplate of the trem remains parallel to the body. On *my* guitar, the trem was set up far too high, somewhere around a 1/2 an inch or so (about 13mm), when it should have probably been closer to 1/4 inch (about 6.5mm). Of course, since the overall trem/bridge height is determined by the guitar's action (string height), the height of the strings was also way off, making the guitar horrible to try and play. That was not the only problem though. Someone (I'm assuming it was not a machine that did this) had screwed down *just one* of the fine tuners all the way down. Floyd trems have a spring plate with 6 "fingers" that protrude under the 6 string locking screws that stick out the back side of the tremolo. Then those 2 problems combined with a 3rd problem, which ended up leading to further damage (probably just cosmetic damage) 1st part of the problem: The floating trem/bridge was set way too high, this allowed the tremolo to tilt back far more than it would normally be able to. 2nd part of the problem: One of the fine tuners was adjusted way too low, which caused that string's locking screw to force one of the spring-plate's "fingers" down far lower than it would normally be. 3rd part of the problem: Guitar strings were loosened before shipping, BUT the large trem springs in the back were NOT loosened (or not loosened enough) to compensate for the reduced spring tension. The result: when the strings were loosened, the spring-finger that was under the fine tuner that'd been turned down too much, chewed through the paint into the body of the guitar. It was not very deep or noticeable since the tremolo hides the damage when you are looking at the guitar from the front, but it was yet another bit of damage on a brand new $699 instrument that was caused by lack of care and/or improper handling/setup during the guitar's production/assembly. Oh and funnily enough, even though the strings were set *way too high*, the guitar's pickup was set *way too low* giving it a thin and weak sound of a really cheap and low quality guitar. That's something "a simple adjustment" could theoretically fix, but I don't know what the original specs for how *any* of those adjustments were supposed to be set up from the factory, because *none* of them were correct (not a single one) and if those "setup specs" are posted anywhere, I haven't been able to find them. Anyway, I don't know if my circumstances qualify as presenting special needs, because I don't know quite what you mean by that, but it darn sure qualifies as "disappointing to a customer" lol. The company I bought the guitar from is giving me a partial refund of $100 due to the damage, but I still want to set my guitar up to all the correct specs that it was *supposed* to have originally been set up to. Obviously the way mine was NOT set up correctly at the factory, because nobody in their right mind who knew anything about guitars would have intentionally set this guitar up like it was when I received it. Currently the guitar is *playable*, because I spent a couple of hours working on it, trying to work out all the kinks, and I have to admit, *I LOVE THE GUITAR*. There's just something about it that inspires me, and makes me want to play it, and then play it some more. But that makes it all the more frustrating that I've never actually gotten to play it set up the way it was *originally supposed to be*, and I can't seem to get it quite right trying to set it up by guesswork alone. Basically, I think I am missing something when I'm trying to set it up, because I've set up *all* of my own instruments, and this is the only one that leaves me scratching my head. So I just want to start over setting it up from scratch, and want to know what the specs were supposed to be, so I know for sure where I'm supposed to be starting from. Sorry if I gave more info than necessary, but I didn't know exactly what you wanted to know, so I wrote out everything I could think of lol 😄 Anyway, does that answer all of your questions?
  10. Hi 😄 I just got one of the new Kramer Baretta Vintage guitars, and it arrived damaged and all out of whack. (presumably that way from the factory, since the box didn't appear to have been been damaged at all, and didn't appear to have ever been re-opened for any sort of inspection or anything) I'd like to set it up to whatever the original/official specs were *supposed* to be, but they aren't included with the guitar, and I haven't been able to find out what they are 😞 I live in a small town with no local music store, and got the instrument from an online distributor who I'd rather not talk to anymore, so I don't really know who to ask. I tried searching these forums to try to find the answer myself, but after my initial search (which didn't show anything promising results) I tried a second search to narrow things down, but received an error message saying I'd need to wait 149 seconds before I could do another search. (btw, the forum's countdown timer, apparently doesn't count down. It just sits there. lol) Which made it impossible for me to do any *quick* searching of the forums myself, so I thought I would ask this lovely community if maybe they might no the information which I seek, or if they could maybe point me in the right direction so I'd know where to search and/or what to search for? Thanks! 😄 -Chris
  • Create New...