Not all gold is good
Sometimes gold is tacky and good, while other times it's just plain tacky.
I said before that gold works with a watch. True? Yes. It's tacky but catches the eye when done right.
This is the quick story of gold done wrong.
There was another gold watch I very briefly owned, the Casio A159WGEA-9. It's basically a slightly-larger A158.
I returned the watch originally because I found scuff marks on the bracelet right out of the box. This was actually a blessing, because the particular style seen here just doesn't work for me.
The checkerboard pattern on the dial is unique and different, but what I was hoping for is that the darker squares would be more of a brown than an orange in person. That didn't happen. The darker squares are decidedly orange. Also, this is one of those models where Casio purposely used a yellowed LCD panel instead of light gray, which I don't like.
The gold was standard Casio fare for a digital, but that dial and yellowed LCD panel just wrecked the look of this one.
Why did I originally want the A159 in gold?
Model A159 is not a North American release watch but rather only seen in Japan and Europe. To see anyone wearing an A159 model is rare in the USA, but to see anyone wearing a gold tone A159 basically never happens.
When you don an A159, you have exclusivity through obscurity. You can't just to go Walmart and pick one of these up. Getting that kind of exclusivity in a very reliable timepiece is just plain cool.
Unfortunately, this one didn't cut the mustard because of a few scuffs. But again, that was a blessing in disguise because even though this is gold with exclusivity to it, it steps over the line from tacky good to tacky bad.
However, if you don't mind the look of this one, grab it. Instant exclusivity for cheap. It didn't work for me, but might work for you.
GPS Test Plus Navigation is totally worth the money
This is a phone app I actually consider worth its $3.99 price.
I've said before that GPS is one of the best things ever as a driving assistant. For driving, I'm still of the opinion that the dedicated GPS is the best thing to use because it's built for cars. This is why I use a Garmin DriveSmart 66 regularly and keep a Garmin Drive 52 in the glove box as a backup.
On the phone, I have a secondary backup GPS, the HERE WeGo app. It's free, but I'd only use it if both my Garmin GPSes failed.
There is however another GPS app that I liked so much that I bought it. The free version is GPS Test. The paid version is GPS Test Plus Navigation.
The name "GPS Test Plus Navigation" doesn't mean the app has maps, because it doesn't. But it will navigate "as the crow flies." No map loading whatever is needed with this. It's instant.
What this app does is basically turn your phone into a trail GPS, because sometimes all you need is a simple, fast loading pointer. That's what this little app does very well.
Where this works best is marking things that do not have an address, such as marking where your car is in a large parking lot, or marking a camp site, or beach site, etc. This is so good for marking stuff like that. Yeah, there's Google Maps and the aforementioned HERE WeGo, but those are best used for addressable locations you drive to. GPS Test Plus Navigation is for the stuff that doesn't have an address where you need to be pointed in the right direction and get there by foot.
Is the app as good as a true trail unit like a Garmin eTrex or Garmin GPSMAP? No, not even close. A 4-dollar app is nowhere near as good as an actual rugged trail handheld GPS...
...but for what it is, you get a lot for 4 bucks with the app. I can honestly say it's money well spent.
Ibanez AX120 - best cheap SG alternative?
This guitar is an absolute steal. You get a lot of guitar here for a very little price.
The Ibanez AX120 is shockingly dirt cheap but it totally has the goods where it counts. It's just a basic-but-good electric with two humbuckers, 3-way toggle, two volume controls, two tone controls. There is no coil split nor coil tapping here, but that's just fine. Pickups are of the ceramic magnet variety.
Body is poplar, fretboard is - and this is interesting - treated New Zealand pine.
Scale length is 628mm (24.7 inch), and fretboard radius 305mm (12 inch).
I really dig the look of this guitar. The body is weighted proper with the front strap button AT THE HORN so there is no neck dive. The body edging looks great. The bound neck looks great. The block fretboard inlays look cool.
The only flaw I can find is that the headstock design is a little on the boring side, and that's it. And for my personal tone tastes, I'd probably switch out the pickups and pots for something brighter, similar to my Squier Thinline.
But heck, even as-is... wow. You get so much for so little here. Good job, Ibanez.
The only watch I've ever been complimented on
It really is all about the gold.
I originally bought my A500WGA-9 as my "I live in Florida, I'm over 40 and don't care" watch. When it came in the mail and I got a first look, I almost returned it because this as gold as gold gets for a digital timepiece. The only other digital Casio with this much gold on it is the A168WG-9. I could have bought that one, but didn't because a) it is the most common gold digital watch, and b) the A500 has a much more advanced feature set.
Is the A500WGA-9 tacky? Yes. And that's part of the reason why I bought it. To even dare wear this thing means you have questionable fashion sense.
I obviously didn't return the watch, but I was afraid to wear it in public initially because wow, does it look tacky. But I braved it and wore it anyway.
A few months after wearing it around, it happened. I was at a Dunkin' Donuts getting a coffee, and the girl working the counter actually pointed to my wrist and said, "I like your watch."
That was the first and only time I've ever been complimented on the timepiece I was wearing. And it came from a girl. A nice looking girl.
I wasn't even trying to show off. I just thought to myself, "I bought this thing and decided to keep it, so screw this, I'm wearing it." And at the time I received the compliment, I had grown accustomed to wearing the gold Casio and wasn't even thinking about it.
Things I learned from the compliment:
- My tacky gold watch wasn't as tacky as I thought it was.
- It's when you're not trying to show off that you get truly noticed.
- Gold works.
Fender Wide Range Humbucker info
Some confusion exists about this pickup, so here is some general information to clear the air.
There is a particular dual coil pickup available in certain guitar models from Fender and Squier called the Fender Wide Range Humbucker (WRHB for short), of which there are bridge and neck versions for their respective positions when installed in the guitar.
Six guitar models have this pickup, all Telecasters (as it is a Telecaster-only thing):
- Fender Classic Series '72 Telecaster Custom
- Fender Classic Series '72 Telecaster Deluxe
- Fender Classic Series '72 Telecaster Thinline
- Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Custom
- Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Deluxe
- Squier Vintage Modified '72 Telecaster Thinline
For these guitars, "custom" is solid-body with single + humbucker pickup configuration, "deluxe" is solid-body with two humbuckers, and "thinline" is a semi-hollow body construction with the "F" hole and two humbuckers.
I personally own the Squier VM '72 Thinline.
Quick history on the WRHB and where it stands now
The original WRHB pickup used CuNiFe (copper, nickel, iron) magnet pieces, and the end result was a dual coil pickup that basically sounded like a single-coil. Fender even used 1M potentiometers just like in the Jazzmaster and Jaguar to make them even brighter. As such, original WRHBs are sometimes referred to as having a "big single-coil" sound for this reason.
WRHB was not used much in Fender's lineup. It was a pickup that disappeared almost as fast as it was introduced.
Only one company in the world, Telenator, made reissues of the original WRHB using the CuNiFe magnet pieces, but they shut down. Why? Sourcing issues. Getting those CuNiFe magnet pieces is difficult and very costly. The pickup was also made for a very niche market, meaning you really had to know what a WRHB was all about and be willing to spend the big cash on it since it was such a boutique pickup.
The modern Fender-made WRHB is absolutely not the same as the original. Night and day difference. Different magnets are used with different pots, resulting in a totally different tone.
Those who are familiarized with the original '72 WRHB will not like the modern version because it won't sound like what they're used to. That doesn't make the modern pickup bad. It's just different.
What is the WRHB like these days?
To my ear, the modern WRHB sounds like a "vintage voiced" AlNiCo II humbucker - which is just fine, because high-output humbuckers are muddy garbage with very weak treble response.
Do I know for a fact that the modern WRHB uses AlNiCo II magnets? No, I don't. Nobody seems to know. There's a lot of talk about this pickup but no solid answers. This is why I say "to my ear", because regular high-output humbuckers are muddy messes while the WRHB is definitely not - which is to its benefit. It has a lower output, greater treble response and a nice midrange to it.
What did the multimeter say?
I measured the output of each pickup myself. The bridge side DCR (DC Resistance) measured 8.1K, and the neck side 7.8K.
What does this mean? It means the modern WRHB has a DCR consistent with most humbuckers that are "vintage voiced".
The WRHBs are very close in DCR to the Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates bridge and neck pickups. That doesn't mean they're any better nor worse. It just means the DCR is very similar.
What are the main differences between the Fender and Squier Telecasters with the WRHBs in them?
The Fenders all have the '70s-specific 3-bolt neck joint with micro adjustment at the rear plate pointed tip, along with "bullet" truss rod cover, and '70s-specific "F" slotted tuners. Solid-body is made from alder, semi-hollow is made from ash.
The Squiers have a more traditional 4-bolt neck joint with no micro adjustment, normal truss rod adjustment, and oval slotted tuners. Solid-body is made from basswood, semi-hollow is made from ash.
On both Fender and Squier, Custom and Deluxe models use 4-knob controls with skirted amp knobs and an upper bout toggle switch, and Thinline uses a 2-knob control layout with blade selector.
On both Fender and Squier, Custom and Thinline use the traditional slab Telecaster body shape, while Deluxe has a contour cut in the rear like a Stratocaster.
What's the best version?
That I can't say because it depends on personal preference. But I'll tell you why I personally bought the Squier VM Thinline Tele.
The Squier Thinline ticks a lot of boxes for me. It has the oval slotted tuners (which are just as good as Fender versions,) the semi-hollow construction is lighter in weight which I like, and I prefer the simpler 2-knob + blade over the 4-knob + toggle of the other models.
In addition, there's no difference with neck finish from Squier to Fender for these particular models. All of them have necks finished in gloss urethane - which is period-correct for '72. Usually with Fender all-maple necks you get gloss on the front and satin urethane finishing on the back, but for these it's all gloss all around.
However, I will totally admit that visually, the Fender looks better. And it's all because of that bullet truss rod cover. That just looks cool - particularly on the Fender Deluxe model shown at top. That's the kind of thing that brings a smile to your face when you see it. No, it doesn't enhance playability whatsoever. It's just cool.
In the end, whether you get a Fender or Squier in solid or semi-hollow form with the WRHB pickups, what you're getting is a guitar with familiar Fender feel along with vintage voicing. If you have a guitar now with humbuckers where the tone is too hot and muddy to be usable, getting one of the Telecasters listed above will make you a happy dude.