pippy

Hi and welcome to the nuthatch. Tricky. IMO it rather depends on whether you are going to keep the p'g on and how much you are affected by small blemishes on your guitars. Like Black Dog I'm also a p'g on guy so, although I can see why you are irritated, I personally wouldn't let it rankle too much. I'd also sort-of be a bit relieved to get over the fear of 'The First Ding of Many' but for it to come from Gibson like that is, I agree, a bit ridiculous in this day and age. I thought I had read that Gibson were now supplying the 'guard loose in the case but perhaps that only applies to certain models in the line-up. Obviously it's up to you. If the guitar sounds and plays superbly then (IMO) it's a no-brainer to keep it. After all; it will pick up more dents, nicks, scratches and blemishes as time goes by and if you are a p'g off person the top will be even more likely to become scratched / dented / damaged in any case. But I'm not all that precious about my kit getting a little bit beat-up. I know it will happen so don't let it bother me in the slightest. YMMV. Just my tuppence-worth. Pip.

I agree 100%. I wanted a guitar like Paul Kossoff's and so my first guitar, just like Ian mentions above, was a Les Paul copy. I used to dream about one day being able to buy a 'real one and eventually I did. Pip.

I don't even have an answer to that question myself let alone my not being able to conjure-up a half-way credible one to give to my wife! Pip.

By which time Grasshopper is no longer considered to be a 'Casual Player' but rather a Novice Disciple who has embarked on their Holy Tone-Quest... Pip.

This is a large part of the 'problem' which the manufacturers of musical instruments face. Once the basic form and function of most musical instruments have been addressed there comes a point after which it becomes very difficult to discover great improvements. The product will have reached a level of technological maturity which becomes, in effect, a plateau on which some people can explore by going off in different directions but the basic design will remain inherently the same. The 'orchestral' (if you like) violin, for example, is a classic case in point. Here is an instrument which was created around about the middle of the 16th century and, some relatively minor constructional details apart, has remained practically unchanged for 500 years! Sure; it's possible to buy electronic violins and some of these are skeletal and barely resemble the acoustic version but essentially the instrument is as it was in the days of Amati and the rest of the boys. Classical guitar is the same. Grand piano is the same. And so it goes with woodwind, brass, percussion and so on. And it's not just musical instruments. Think about a bicycle frame. The basic form of the ubiquitous diamond frame 'Safety Bicycle' was established just a few decades after the very first experimental 'Velocipede' was crafted. Some weird and wonderful bikes have been created by imaginitive engineers in the ensuing 140 years but to this day the diamond frame design has never truly been bettered. I know lots of folks swear by the virtues of a recumbent but until such time as I see a rider on a recumbent winning the Tour de France... You have to feel a bit sorry for the likes of Gibson and Fender. To this day their largest selling instruments were all designed, as 'Scales noted, between 50 and 60 years ago. Indeed both companies, due to demand from people such as ourselves, have spent a very large part of the last two decades - or more - sending their finest luthiers on a quest to try to replicate these Iconic guitars down to the tiniest detail. The fact that these instruments, once crafted, can last a lifetime if properly cared for doesn't help matters either. How many of us here have owned the same guitar for decades? If the casual player buys a guitar when they are in, say, their late teens / early twenties why would they ever need to buy another guitar in their lifetime?... Pip.

You are absolutely spot-on, m-e. It will allow the player to make the notes wobble well off-pitch both in an upwards and downwards direction. Pip.

Interesting, Sparky... That seemed just plain wrong to me - they might be the same general shape but there the similarity ends - so I had a look to see how a ukulele was defined in my old copy of Chambers' dictionary and it used the phrase '..like a small guitar, usually featuring four strings..." and was further described as being "...of Portuguese origin, popularised in Hawaii in the late 19th century...." which, I guessed, was slightly more accurate than the definition you found on-line. BUT...then I had a bit of a think about what, exactly, is a guitar? Sounds a simple question but is it? What defines a guitar? The shape? The size / scale-length? The number of strings? The method of construction? Guitars come in all shapes. They come in a wide variety of sizes. They can have either 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 strings that I know about and possibly other numbers as well. They can be hollow; semi-hollow; solid. They can be acoustic, acoustic-electric or electric. So I put Chambers away and dragged-down The Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Music and here's how that august tome defines a guitar; "A string instrument of great antiquity. It's back is flat, its belly has a waist as though to allow for the playing with a bow but the strings are plucked with the fingers or a plectrum....The finger-board is fretted. The modern classical guitar has six strings." For good measure here is their definition of a ukelele (and note the spelling! Not uku- but uke-); "A small Hawaiian guitar introduced to the Sandwich Islands by the Portuguese in 1877 and more recently into Europe as a popular instrument. It has four gut strings and can be played from a notation resembling lute tablature." So there we (sort-of) are; a ukelele - by both of these definitions - is classified as a guitar. Surprised me a bit! Anyhow; 19 or 20 still seems a fine number to have lying around the house! Pics of the new one when it arrives, of course! Pip.

No. Pip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyAWaf0IngU Pip.

....................................oh my word!...and For Goodness' Sakes, Boy!... I hope my original meaning, read in context, would have made it clear that "...dishonesty and lack of personal integrity..." are NOT values which I rate quite highly; quite the reverse being the case. "Must Do Better, Connor!" was the general refrain - then as now.... Who will be 'The Custodian of the Brazier' once you renounce your claim to the title?... Pip.

Oh, I fully understand that he was just doing his jobs for both Norm's and Gibson, pauloqs. At the same time, however, it must, surely, have occurred to him that he had spent some of his quite recent past taking a stance which was the opposite of that which he was now being asked to adopt? In which case would it not have made sense to make The Powers That Be at Gibson fully aware of the situation and the very negative and very public possible consequences which might be the end result were he to go ahead with the part he was now being asked to play? The whole thing reeks of dishonesty and a lack of personal integrity - both of these being values which I happen to rate quite highly. Not that my opinion matters a rat's fart, of course. And I completely agree that the modern Gibson guitars which I have played have, in general, been of a high quality. Pip.

I'd love to get the chance to hang out with m-e - and a great deal of the others here, too. And you never know; perhaps my childlike simplicity and uncritical acceptance of All Things Being As They Are would rub off on m-e instead of it being the other way around? We could get plastered together and head home, singing raucously, to our respective homes; all the time marvelling in sheer wonderment at how tall the roses are growing! Pip.

I can't say that I have one favourite season. I like them all pretty much in equal measure. Here in the south-east corner of our small island the weather never gets too hot nor too cold. Never too wet nor too dry. There's always something nice about whichever time of year we are in at any particular moment. Perhaps I'm just too easily satisfied? Pip.

I plead 'Guilty as charged' solely for the 'Iconic' logo mash-up. Others can take full credit for the rest of the design which really is on offer to the general public. Lucky us!... You touch on quite a few interesting aspects of the situation here, johnnybgood. It would be very interesting to discover the full circumstances under which the video was executed - from initial idea through to published film. I greatly doubt the initial concept would have come from Mr. Anesi and to that end he (probably) cannot be blamed for the content. Any blame directed towards him - in my eyes - would be centred on his participation in the project and his hypocrisy in condemning manufacturers for whom, up until several months ago, he had a great deal of affection and enthusiasm. A 'Turncoat', by their very nature, is always a despicable character. As far as Slash playing the Derrig? Yes, well it was mentioned a while back (page #2) in this thread and I doubt whether the irony of the situation will be lost on any of us reading through this thread. As to how much Gibson owes directly to sales of the Les Paul being increased by its profile being raised by Slash only Gibson can guess with any accuracy but I, like you, suspect that his influence would have been considerable. Whether or not "The full credit for Gibson staying afloat..." is down to Slash and Derrig is debatable and I would suspect that Gibson themselves would say that whilst Slash helped sales his influence wouldn't have been the only factor. As Gibson does not make a detailed financial breakdown from sales of guitars available to the public we will never know with certainty what their financial situation was like before and after AFD. In a more general theme; I can fully appreciate why Gibson would wish to protect their 'Iconic' guitar designs (and they really are iconic designs regardless of all the tongue-in-cheek fun we've had with the overuse of the word) but the Gibson designs - going right back to the days of Orville Gibson - have usually borrowed heavily from designs of existing instruments. How much does a design need to vary - or have been changed - from an existing design to be deemed 'not a copy' is a very grey area. Personally I don't know a practical solution to the situation. Should the likes of Tokai (for instance) be forbidden from making their 'Love Rock' Les Pauls; their 'Springy Sound' Strats; their 'BreezySound' Tele's? I'm sure Gibson and Fender would say 'Yes!' and there is, clearly, something not right when one company can so blatantly duplicate the intellectual property of another in such a complete fashion. Why should Tokai (for instance) be allowed to profit from all the development, hard work and hard-won reputation of the likes of Gibson and Fender? We will just have to wait and see how things develop. Pip. EDIT : I see someone disagrees with your post sufficiently strongly to have given you a minus. Personally I would far rather that the person concerned had written an answer outlining their thoughts so we could all read about their own viewpoint.

Pip.

Here's one I found which seems to be using the 'Ironic Ionic Italic' typeface; Pip.

And here was I sitting here under the illusion that it was C.F. Martin who made it Iconic. Silly Me!.................. Pip.

I think it's even more fundamentally basic than that. Working on the old Pied Piper of Hamelin principle of "He who pays the piper calls the tune" Mr. Anesi's loyalties (I use the word advisedly) have simply shifted in alignment from one employer to the next. Not very principled, perhaps, but unarguably pragmatic. Pip.

I'll look forward to hearing the clips. I was asking about the 00- / OM- because I'd like to hear if there was much difference in playing comfort / ease of chording / fingerpicking / A.N.Other between the two different scales. I have two Dreadnoughts; one with the 00 scale and the other with the OM scale but whilst one is here in the UK the other is in France so I can't do a back-to-back comparison myself. I'm no great acoustic player and there is only 0.6" (I believe) difference in scale but, still, I'm just a bit curious. Of course I should probably go to the acoustic sub-forum and ask but I don't really know anyone over there. I'm sure they would be helpful and quite a lot of them know an enormous amount of stuff. Pip.

Weird..... Paul Bigsby made quite a few similar instruments to order. There is / was a great snap of four similar-but-different guitars lying around on a carpet but I'm buggered if I can find it on-line now. I do believe that, when I was originally looking / researching the Bigsby guitars several years ago "they" mentioned that, from time to time, small production runs were executed and that it was possible to pre-order / buy a replica of some of the early Paul Bigsby instruments but I've had bugger-all success in tracing all that info as well. Perhaps it was all just a dream?....... Pip.

Am I just really slow out of the starting blocks and the last person to have read about Fender buying-out Bigsby? http://www.bigsby.com/vibe/2019/01/13/fender-musical-instruments-corporation-announces-acquisition-of-bigsby/ Mentions, in their resume, of Gretch and even Ted McCarty but, oddly enough, no mention of Gibson? "Well, knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor" as one sadly-missed genius once wrote. Pip.

Famously Paul Bigsby made this in 1948 for Merle Travis. He could probably sue both Gibson AND Fender for stealing his ICONIC designs! Pip.

As a matter of interest, Dub, have you ever compared your 00-18 - or any other 00-18 - with an OM-18 / 21 scale'd Martin? Pip.

After your OP I had a look on the official Fender UK website and, here in UK, the Vintera model range seems to be as follows; The Strat, whether '50s or '60s, can be had in normal vintage spec or modified spec. The Standard (i.e. not DeLuxe etc.) Tele, OTOH, can only be had as a Vintage for the '50s version and only as a Modified for the '60s version. Perhaps the other versions will be rolled-out later in the year?... EDIT : OK, weird. Having checked with an actual guitar shop in the UK there are options of both Vintage AND Modified in both ranges AND with finish-options not shown of the official Fender site! Have a look at a shop website rather than the Fender site, LeadFlatpick. You might find what you want is, in reality, on offer. Pip.

That's a Very Nice Looking Tele! Pip.