My experience using smartphone GPS while driving
This is almost a usable solution. Almost.
I was gifted a Samsung Galaxy S5 from a friend. I'm unsure of when the unit was made, but it was first introduced in 2014 so it's probably true it was manufactured in that year.
Am I still using Tracfone? Yes. I did that BYOP (meaning "Bring Your Own Phone") thing they offer where all I had to do was buy a SIM card to get service working. I am currently testing the unit to see if I'll stay with it for the long haul.
The latest model of Galaxy right now is the S9. I mention this just to point something out. The S5 has a 5.1" display and 1080p resolution. The S9 has a 5.8" (or 6.2" with the huge S9+ model) and 1440p resolution. Would this make a difference for smartphone GPS use while driving? No, it would not. And I'll explain why right now.
The mount
When you use a phone mount for a car, it's a suction type which can either be applied to windshield glass or adhesive disc (the disc is better).
Do I own a mount like this? No. I'm entertaining the idea of getting one because it's so cheap. But what I hate about it is how huge it is.
No good compact smartphone mounting solution exists, with emphasis on the word good. Yes, the car pad mat exists and it works, but with one major tradeoff. You can't adjust tilt orientation on-the-fly, which is an absolute requirement. With the suction mount thing, if you get on a stretch of road where the sun is washing out the screen like crazy, you just grab-and-tilt any way you want. Up, down, left or right. Can't do that with the car pad mat. You get left and right, but not up and down.
The best mounting solution is the suction type, and wow does it take up a lot of space. Not exactly convenient.
The screen
The Galaxy S9 screen is no brighter than the Galaxy S5. Better resolution, yes. Brighter screen, no. And this is what ultimately makes it junk as a GPS for driving use.
My old Garmin nuvi 40LM has a screen that is vastly superior for driving use compared to the Galaxy S5, or any smartphone for that matter.
It's totally true that the resolution is low and the touch response isn't that great. But it is very easy to read in direct sunlight, and that's what makes this thing superior for use when driving.
Yes, I am saying the 4.3" display of the Garmin easily outperforms the 5.1" display of the Galaxy S5 and would also trounce the display of the 6.2" Galaxy S9+ as well.
The most important thing (other than accurate navigation) is to be able to read the screen properly. The nuvi has that covered. The smartphone absolutely does not.
It is the combination of matte + extra bright backlight that makes the nuvi superior to modern smartphone AMOLED screens for driving use.
Oh, and there's another thing. The suction mount for the nuvi is nice and small, yet holds the unit firmly. It is literally less than half the size of a comparable car phone suction mount.
Software used didn't matter because the smartphone screen is just too dim
On the S5 I used the HERE WeGo app since it's the same map data set the Garmin nuvi uses, and the fact it can be used GPS-only with no data (which is rather important when using prepaid wireless). All I had to do was make sure the GPS was on via "Location," download the map via Wi-Fi for Florida (there's map data for the whole world but FL was all I needed) and that was it, I was ready to go.
HERE WeGo can be easily configured to be extra-readable just by choosing 2D map view. The default color scheme it uses is also very legible with plenty of contrast, but even so, there was just no getting around the fact the screen wasn't bright enough for driving use.
I want to make clear it was not the app's fault for the lack of brightness. Not at all. I could have been using Waze or Google Maps or whatever, but the end result would have always been the same. Dim screen = bad for use while driving.
I should also note that the S5 I have, while used, is in great shape. The backlight is basically as good as it was when new.
Usable, but only if my nuvis ever failed
Yes, I said nuvis. I keep 2 in the car. One on the dash, the other in the glove box if the first one fails.
Overkill? Not for me it isn't. If I had to switch over to the phone for navigation use, yeah it would work, but having to read that dim screen while driving would just be bad. Huge downgrade compared to the better and brighter nuvi screen.
I know at some point in the future the nuvis will stop working and I'll be forced to go smartphone for navigation use.
My hope is by the time the nuvis fail, smartphone screen tech will have advanced far enough to where the brightness at least matches that of a Garmin nuvi made in 2011.
Gold watches are tacky, and that's okay
It's time to talk about gold watches.
I own one gold watch, a Casio A500WGA. There are two versions of it. One with dark border and yellow-ish LCD panel, and one with gold border and light gray LCD panel. I own the latter.
Yes, I do wear this watch. It's a fairly unknown Casio timepiece in America because it's a model ordinarily only seen in Asian markets. The known Casio gold model that is sold here is the A168WG-9 - which I actually have seen someone wearing in real life around these parts (I live in Tampa Bay Florida). Ultimately however, Joe or Jane Average wouldn't know the difference between the A500WGA and the A168WG. True, the A500 is far more advanced, but all anyone sees is the gold. And that's the entire point to owning it.
Why are gold watches tacky?
Nobody, including myself, wears a gold watch appropriately.
The appropriate time to wear a gold watch is with a dress outfit, such as with a suit. But people will wear a gold watch with anything. I wear mine with t-shirt and jeans, which is pretty much as tacky as it gets. Do I care? No. I'll still wear the gold anyway.
How to make an "everyday gold watch" not tacky?
The simple solution to making gold slightly less tacky is to wear a smaller timepiece.
The wrong way
Big gold is the tackiest of the tacky, like this Invicta monstrosity:
You've got to have a big set of balls to wear the above Invicta as an everyday watch. It's a freakin' huge 48mm timepiece. Yes, it actually can dive as it has 300m water resistance, but it totally looks like you're wearing a doorknob when on the wrist. Only men with a wrist measuring 7.5 inches around or larger could wear this thing. But even if this watch was on a proper size wrist, you have to be really comfortable wearing something in gold this large.
The right way
Smaller gold timepieces work much, much better.
Here are a few better options, starting with Invicta...
Invicta Men's 17054 Pro Diver Automatic
This timepiece from Invicta is way better than the 15343. It's a 40mm diver, automatic movement, has 200m water resistance, obviously a Rolex Submariner clone (Mercedes hour hand, cyclops date window and all), and it works for what it is. It may have more gold compared to the 15343 but it carries itself a lot better.
The case size is 42mm but the advantage here is a super slim 8mm and a wide 22mm bracelet width. The lug bars might be a turnoff to some, but it's a good design overall that's sure to fit comfortably on the wrist. And yes, this is a men's timepiece.
This is the one I would buy personally if I were in the market for another gold watch, because you can't go wrong with a Seiko 5 automatic. Rock solid reliability, elegant look, 37mm case size, crown at the 4 position, day-date complication, near-silent tick. This is a great watch.
This one is like the Seiko but in a larger 40mm case size and only has a date complication instead of day-date. Simple watch, elegant in appearance and has thicker hands compared to the Seiko. For a lot of gents, this would be the go-to gold dress watch to get, especially with that Eco-Drive system which is way more accurate than Seiko automatic movement.
This is the simplest timepiece on this list, as it's just a quartz movement with 3 hands and no complications. The size is 38mm but it definitely wears large because it's "all dial" due to the very thin bezel. A watch like works very well for larger-wristed gents who want a smaller timepiece that wears large. Because of the thin bezel, this Tissot definitely wears larger than its 38mm measurement, no doubt about that. It also has the slimmest case at just 7mm, meaning it will slide under the cuff even when wearing tight-fitting long sleeve shirts.
What about gold digital?
Casio is the only one that does gold digital right.
Aside from the A500WGA and A168WG-9, there's also this:
Of all gold digital watches available, the A168WG-9, A500WGA and DBC611G are your three best choices. Casio is currently the only company that brings any sort of elegance to a digital in a gold tone color.
Other Casio timepieces in gold to consider are the A178WGA and DB380G (which is almost extinct at the time I write this).
Which should you get if going with digital gold? The A168WG-9 is the safe option because it has the largest case size at 36mm. The A500WGA is a 34mm, the DBC611G a 33mm, the A178WGA a 32.5mm and the DB380G a 33mm.
Bear in mind that with square and rectangle shape cases, you can get away with smaller sizes more easily. And with gold you can go even smaller because to the eye, smaller gold looks better than big gold.
But again, if you like digital and gold, the safest of the bunch is the A168WG-9. If you've ever worn a regular A168, the A168WG-9 is literally the exact same thing in a gold tone color.
Fender Stratocaster Thinline is a bad idea
This is the kind of guitar that says "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
Take the Fender Eric Johnson Signature Stratocaster Thinline. For those not in the know, a guitar made by Fender or Squier with "Thinline" in the model name means it has semi-hollow body construction. I myself own a Squier Vintage Modified '72 Telecaster Thinline.
While the EJ Strat Thinline is a feat of engineering as it is (as far as I know) the first Stratocaster ever to be Thinline and keep all the traditional Stratocaster contour curves, I'm not all that impressed with it.
The really sad thing is that the EJ Strat Thinline is the first EJ model ever I consider a do-not-buy. Why sad? Because up to this point, buying an EJ Strat was pretty much guaranteed you were getting a great guitar. The EJ solid-body model in Lucerne Aqua Firemist, for example, is an amazing Strat guitar. Truly, it is. That's a guitar good enough to where I could say buy it without trying it first...
...but I can't say that about the EJ Strat Thinline, as I'm 100% certain that would lead straight to disappointment.
A quick history of why the semi-hollow exists
Some think the semi-hollow body electric guitar exists for the reason of weight reduction. While true a semi-hollow does weigh less than a solid-body, that's not the reason they were created.
The real reason behind the semi-hollow body was to combat feedback problems. When a traditional hollow body guitar is amplified, squealing/groaning noises, a.k.a. feedback, happens easily. When the feedback starts, the hollow body starts vibrating in the exact way you don't want to happen, and everything turns into a nasty sonic mess.
Semi-hollow construction greatly helped reduce feedback by introducing a solid center block of wood in the body. The top and bottom were still hollow, but with the middle block there, the guitar could be amplified without the worry of that nasty feedback. Most of the time, the center block is made from maple species wood.
Usually, when one thinks of semi-hollow, the Gibson ES-335 comes to mind, although these days you can get a 335 shape way cheaper with Epiphone.
Fender electrics and semi-hollow
The Fender Telecaster Thinline was introduced in 1968, but the famous one is the 1972 model year because that's the one that was released with the "Wide Range" humbucker pickups instead of the single-coil.
Stratocaster Thinline models are rare mainly because of the lack of wood in the design of the guitar. If you examine the Stratocaster and Telecaster side-by-side, the Strat has significantly less wood area on the bottom horn, a large front top cutaway, contour cut in the rear and another contour cut on top for the forearm area. A traditional Telecaster on the other hand is basically just a big plank with a generous upper top area and no contour cuts at all.
Those who have built Stratocaster Thinline guitars in the past purposely do not shape a forearm cut on top, and sometimes keep the edges more squared off to allow for more hollowing in the body.
The big deal with the EJ Strat above however is that it is, as said above, the first to keep all the contour cuts of the traditional Stratocaster shape and have semi-hollow construction at the same time...
...but was this a good idea to begin with?
No.
In fact, no Stratocaster guitar should ever be constructed as semi-hollow because it just doesn't work.
The problems with semi-hollow Strat guitars
The main issue with a Strat semi-hollow is the voicing. Strats with the semi-hollow treatment, simply put, don't sound like proper Stratocaster guitars. What you get is a sound that's best described as "slightly off" when a trio of single-coil pickups are installed.
I own both a solid-body and a Thinline Telecaster. The Thinline has nowhere near the treble response that the solid-body does, but I knew that before purchasing it. What I got, and totally expected, was a pickup set with greater output and more midrange but less treble on top. And it works well for what it is.
It is true that Eric and Fender worked hard to voice the semi-hollow EJ Strat to sound good. Several prototype guitars were made with various degrees of wood cut out, and several pickup sets were made to get the guitar sounding right...
...for Eric's playing. That's the key thing to remember. Eric uses a lot of effects, which includes chorus, delay and of course fuzz for the lead tones.
When I watched video demos of the guitar not in Eric's hands however, that's when the the EJ semi-hollow showed its true colors. And it's just not a good Strat sound.
The deal with semi-hollow is that it's not supposed to be bright and spanky. This is why the '72 Telecaster with the humbuckers works so well and why it's so sought after. The particular combo of the semi-hollow with a pair of properly voiced dual coil pickups really works. But that's not what you get in the EJ semi-hollow. You get three "specially voiced" singles instead that sound like they're fighting against the instrument rather than working with it.
In the end, the EJ solid-body Strat is great, but the semi-hollow isn't, nor do I ever recommend even going near a semi-hollow Strat.
If you want semi-hollow, get one in Tele or ES-335 shape. Those are two that are readily available, affordable and have stood the test of time as semi-hollow electric guitars with a good, usable sound.
For the Strat, keep it as a solid-body. That's the body that makes a Strat sound best.
Jackson really needs to make a low-cost Dominion guitar
Ever heard of the Jackson Dominion guitar? It wouldn't surprise me if you haven't.
Jackson has, if you can believe it, 13 different body shapes available for guitars. Soloist, Dinky, Rhoads, King V, Juggernaut, Monarkh, Baritone, Warrior, Demmelition, San Dimas, Star, Warrior, and the one you probably never heard about until reading this, Dominion.
The reason you've never heard of the Dominion is because a) Jackson only has 3 models of it available, b) the price for one starts at around $750, c) Jackson is absolutely not known for curvy guitar body shapes so guitarists don't go looking for it, and d) I've never seen one in a guitar store. Not in Guitar Center nor Sam Ash nor any other.
Where did the Dominion come from?
This guitar has been around since 2007(!) as far as I can tell. It's Mark Morton's signature model. No idea who Mark Morton is? I didn't either. He's the guitar player for the metal band Lamb of God.
What are the specs of a Dominion?
It has a 24.75" scale (like a Les Paul), 12-to-16 inch compound radius fingerboard, medium jumbo fret wire, and a 1.6875" wide nut width. Pickups are described are DiMarzio "Mark Morton Signature", whatever that means.
Jackson really needs to release a sub-$500 version of the Dominion
I look at the Dominion and am annoyed by it. Jackson has this cool curvy shape that's "locked in" to being a signature-only guitar. That lock should be broken immediately and work begun on a low-cost run of these.
How low-cost am I talking about? Ideally, similar to the JS22 Dinky model. Something introductory that's priced low with basic no-frills hardware.
The Dominion shape is too good to be where it is right now. I see this guitar, I like it, I'm 100% sure other guitar players would like it too, but presently it can't be bought by most people because the price is too high.
Jackson, please, get a low-cost version of this guitar released and get it in Guitar Center.
Squier Lunchbox Bundle
A cool little thing Fender is doing right now is bundling a lunchbox with a few extra accessories with some Squier Stratocaster guitars.
Can you get just the lunchbox on its own without the guitar? Yes, you can.
I like it when guitar companies do things like this, because you get something special out of it. Yes, it's just a lunchbox, but definitely one of the coolest you could ever have. And it's cheap, so why not?