Good Strat, bad Tele and other guitars
Over the weekend I went to Guitar Center to try out some guitars. Here's my report on what I tried and what they were like.
Squier Vintage Modified '72 Tele Thinline
One of these was actually in stock, and it wasn't too bad.
The thing to know about this particular Telecaster is that the "Wide Range" humbuckers sound a whole lot different than the usual Tele single-coil pickups. The sound isn't bad. Just different.
Other than the different sound compared to a regular Tele, I noticed the neck has some chunk to it in a good way. The specs list the neck as a "C" shape, but to my hand it felt thicker than a Classic Vibe.
This is also one of those "looks way better in person than in photos" guitars. In photos, this guitar looks boring, but in person this is a nice looker.
Squier Vintage Modified Jaguar
This is not my first time trying a Squier Jag. Every time I try one however, I'm left with the same thought. "I wish this was a Jazzmaster". This is ultimately the reason I've not bought one and probably never will.
And yeah, I know I just talked about maybe getting a Jag. I guess I had to play one again to remind me why I don't own one.
I'm not saying the guitar is bad, because it isn't. In fact, the one I played was quite nice. But it's no Jazzmaster.
This is another one of those "looks awful in photos but beautiful in person" guitars.
The J Mascis Jazzmaster is not just some Vintage Modified JM with a different color scheme. This guitar is way different. Different pickups, different bridge, different tremolo system.
Better than a Vintage Modified? Yes. You can tell just by the feel of it. The sound takes a little getting used to, but it's otherwise a very nice Jazzmaster.
The worst part about this guitar is that nobody can seem to take a genuinely good photo of one. You really have to see it in person to appreciate the creamy white body color and gold pick guard.
Squier Classic Vibe '60s Stratocaster in Burgundy Mist
This Strat was a treat to play. I saw this in the store, grabbed it immediately to try it out, and wow. If I had the money I probably would have bought it.
I've played some CV Strats before. The last one I played was a model in Sherwood Green, and it was terrible. The gloss finish on the neck felt sticky and the guitar was too heavy.
This one however... perfect. Well, almost perfect. The action could have been lowered just a hair. But other than that, the weight was correct, the neck correct, the controls correct, the sound correct... everything was right on this guitar.
This purple Strat was absolutely one of the good ones, and I guarantee the only reason it hasn't sold is because of the color.
Squier Classic Vibe Telecaster '50s
This is the best Telecaster Squier makes. But wow, what a bad example of one this was.
The sound of this Tele was spot-on, but the rest of it was in bad shape. The pickup switch tip was missing (probably stolen), and the output jack was loose.
Oh, and one more thing. This was as heavy as a boat anchor. Probably at or over 9 pounds.
As crazy-good as the CV Strat was, this CV Tele was crazy-bad.
Fender Classic Player Jazzmaster Special
This was my second time trying one of these out, and this one was not-so good.
The first time I tried one of these, the guitar was darned near perfect. This time around, the guitar just didn't feel right.
There was nothing wrong with this guitar at all, but it just didn't really have the magic, so to speak.
Verdict
The purple Strat was the winner out of the bunch, no question about it. That guitar just had everything going for it... even with pickups of mismatched height (the neck pickup was almost flush to the pick guard). With just only minimal setup, it would have been a perfect Strat.
Second best was the J Mascis Jazzmaster. Very nice looker. Needed some setup, but still nice overall. I could see myself owning one of these.
The second best wristwatch in the world
This is what's on my wrist when I'm not wearing the F-91W or A158.
It can be argued that the Casio F-91W is the best wristwatch in the world. It can also be argued that the Casio AE1200 is the second best.
I've owned an AE1200 since 2013. When I need a watch with extra features that the F-91W or A158 doesn't have, I strap on the AE1200.
What does the AE1200 have that the F-91W doesn't? Quite a bit, actually. Five alarms instead of just one, countdown timer (very handy), 31 time zones with the ability to configure 4 different screens at a glance, full auto-calendar up to year 2099 (meaning the watch knows when it's a leap year), better "illuminator" amber backlight (vastly superior to the F-91W's micro light), the addition of showing the month on the main timekeeping screen, the ability to toggle on/off Daylight Savings Time, the ability to scroll forward or reverse when setting the time, alarm or timer, and the ability to silence beeps when going through menus.
The round pseudo-analog clock on the top left of the face, while fully functional, is pretty much useless because it's hard to read. Looks cool, but that's about it. Thankfully, the time below it is easy to read.
Several models exist for the AE1200. You can get one with resin strap, metal bracelet or nylon strap. Case colors available are silver, black and olive green. Bezel colors available are black or olive green, depending on model. The "safest" look for one, which is to say "the least dorky look", is the all-black model, the AE1200WH-1A.
The AE1200 is very mod-friendly. Taking off the back plate, popping out the module and modifying the plastic insert is really easy.
The best thing about the AE1200 is its reliability. This obviously isn't a G-SHOCK, but it is one of Casio's toughest low-cost watches. And in my experience it keeps very good time. Mine typically won't lose more than 1 to 2 seconds per week at most. Yes, per week. Not per day. You could get away with only resetting the time twice a year for Daylight Savings changes and the watch would only be 30 seconds to 1 minute off at most.
Why is the AE1200 second best?
The AE1200 is second best to the F-91W for two reasons.
First, the AE1200 is slightly more difficult to read. While the F-91W is smaller, it is easier to make out the digits on it.
Second, the AE1200 is more complicated. Part of what makes the F-91W so great is that it's really easy to operate, whereas with the AE1200 you do have to take some time to learn how to adjust its settings.
In the end, I'd just recommend doing what I did. Buy both. They're both cheap, both built well, both very reliable and both provide years of service.
Guitar of the week #73 - Ibanez DT420 Destroyer
This is a cool Explorer-style guitar you can actually afford.
A little while back I talked about the Schecter E-1 Custom Special Edition, which is an Explorer-style guitar. Very cool axe, but for some a bit too much to spend.
The Ibanez DT420 Destroyer however is lower in price by several hundred dollars, and I strongly suggest that if you want one of these and one is available, buy it now because Ibanez usually keeps this guitar in short supply.
The DT420 features both a bound body and bound neck. Pickups are listed as "Classic Elite Humbuckers". The chrome hardware included is all good stuff from the bridge to the tailpiece to the tuners. There's no cheap crap on this guitar. I'm not saying everything on the Destroyer is top-drawer stuff, but I am saying it's not bargain-bin stuff either.
The best compliment I can give the Destroyer is that it needs no upgrades and is totally a plug-in-and-go type of axe.
Where price point is concerned, it's actually $100 cheaper than a Mexico-made Fender Standard Stratocaster, so it's like I said, if there's one available on the link above, grab it. You won't be disappointed.
Possible future guitar buys
Some possible guitar purchases for 2017 (or possibly this year depending on the generosity of others).
It's been a while since I've entertained the idea of buying a new guitar simply for the reason my second Jazzmaster has been working so well.
Before talking about other guitars, some thoughts on what I have now.
What I've learned by playing a Jazzmaster
The first thing I've learned is that I greatly prefer 2-pickup instead of 3-pickup guitars.
I've owned an Epiphone Les Paul Special I P90, a Schecter C-1 Classic, a Squier Telecaster Thinline, a Squier Affinity Tele and of course the Jazzmaster, all of which are 2-pickup guitars. In other words, I am no stranger to the 2-pickup electric guitar design.
Whenever I pick up a Strat now, as in the traditional 3-single configuration kind, it just doesn't suit me anymore. This isn't to say I don't like Strats because I still do, but they just don't have the magic they used to.
The second thing I've learned is that I really like 2-pickup single-coil electrics. If the guitar has 2 humbuckers, I'm just not interested in it - even if it were a ritzy Gretsch Duo Jet.
The third thing I've learned is that the offset-waist design is just the best thing ever. I really take well to it.
Two models
There are two guitars I'm interested in getting. The Squier Vintage Modified Jaguar and Squier Vintage Modified Mustang. I have played a Squier Jag in person. I have played a Fender Mustang (Japan model) in person but not the Squier version.
I would prefer to get the Mustang for three reasons. It's cheaper, it comes in a color I like that the Jag does not (Vintage White), and I agree with the Mustang controls over the Jag's.
My single biggest complaint about the Jag are the trio of toggle switches on the bottom horn. I'm fully familiar with how to use them but they're just frustrating in operation.
The Mustang has two "phase slider" switches above the pickups that allow for 4 different tones. While true you really can't do on-the-fly pickup switching while playing the Mustang, they are decidedly easier to operate compared to the Jag.
Why am I looking at Jags and Stangs?
Both are short scale electrics. Instead of the 25.5-inch of a Strat or Tele or the 24.75-inch of a Les Paul/SG/Explorer/etc., it's a shorter 24.0-inch.
Playing a short scale is different because the string tension is notably looser, resulting in things sounding different in an interesting way.
I've done the standard scale length thing and I obviously don't want a repeat of something I already own, so the short scale is the next thing to get.
Watches that attract women
I came across not one but three videos specifically on the subject of which watches attract women. All three videos got it wrong.
You can find these videos on YouTube easily just by searching for them; they're not hard to find. But like I said, the advice given is just plain bad.
I'm not claiming to be a master when it comes to what women prefer where men's style choices are concerned, but I know a few things to be true in the "don't" department:
Don't be fat. If you're fat, it doesn't matter whether you're wearing a $10 Casio or a $10,000 Rolex. The first thing a woman will see is the fat. No, your personality won't save you. Lose the weight.
Don't have dirty fingernails. Women notice this a lot. If your nails are grubby, discolored and/or not filed properly, that makes a woman go "Eww!" in a heartbeat. If you have a bunch of dead skin around your nails, yeah, they notice that too. No watch will excuse ugly nails.
Don't dress like a kid. There are a lot of men that dress like they're 20 when they're 35 or older. Don't do that. Dress your age.
Don't dress like a slob. Self-explanatory.
Don't wear ill-fitting clothes. If you wear clothes that are too loose, too tight, too short or too long, you'll look like a clown. Wear clothes that fit.
Basically put, just look presentable. Get in shape, get those damned nails clipped, learn how to use a nail file, wear age-appropriate clean clothes that aren't falling apart and make sure they fit right.
What do women notice when it comes to a watch?
Take the Casio A158WEA. As cheap as that watch is, it does look better compared to what most other men wear for these simple reasons:
- It's shiny but not ridiculously shiny.
- It shows a little bit of gold in the face.
- It's smaller.
- It's not round.
Reason #4 is actually why the watch gets noticed. Wearing something decidedly angular gets noticed more than something round would, because after all, nothing on the human body is completely squared off.
Presuming you're not doing anything in the "don't" list above, all you really need to get attention is a rectangle-shaped analog watch.
The Casio A158WEA I wear is obviously digital and inexpensive. Looks nice enough, but the analog timepieces - even for the ones just as inexpensive as the Casio - look far more expensive.
Here are 6 examples of analog watches with rectangle-shaped cases. They start at under $30 and end at just under $125 at the time I write this.
Starting with the cheapest first, anyone can afford this watch. When you want something that looks rectangular and ritzy but can be had for cheap, this totally works.
With this Casio we've got some two-tone goodness going on with the stainless steel and gold. Very minimalist look.
This one is guaranteed to attract attention for the right reasons. Very square, thick hands and blocky indices - but it carries it well.
Peugeot Vintage Rectangular 14K Gold Plated
The be-all/end-all king of fashion watches when it comes to the rectangle shape is the Cartier Tank. This watch copies that look, and for a lot less than what the Tank sells for.
This dual-time watch just looks cool. Two dials, two crowns. Very simple to understand, but what a cool look it has. And it does it without being pretentious.
Last but certainly not least is this little Citizen model. Don't let its size fool you as it has received many positive reviews. Simple design and well-appointed.
Why do women notice rectangle-shaped watches more?
It's for simple reasons that most men miss.
You'll notice that for every watch model above, each design concentrates on form over function. More attention is given to style, and you'll notice a bit of art deco hints here and there (as in styling cues from the '20s, '30s and '40s).
When you wear a rectangle on your wrist that has a bit of art deco flair to it, yes this does get noticed.
Does the movement matter? No. Does the time accuracy matter? No. What matters is how the timepiece looks, and if the look creates an emotional connection or not.
I'll put it this way. If you're wearing a casual button-down shirt in a muted color (like gray or brown), Dockers pants (again, gray or brown), black shoes, black belt and put a little shiny rectangular thing on your wrist with some art deco niceties to it, then OH YES, the ladies will notice.
You don't need to dress up in a 3-piece suit every time you go out. But if you coordinate your appearance to look like "The Casual Man About Town" and complement that with one of the watches above, yes it totally works and women will notice in a good way.
Am I saying to throw out the watch you wear now?
No, of course not. (It's not like I'm going to stop wearing my Casio because I love that little thing.)
What I am saying is that if you want something specifically to attract the females, put more emphasis on style instead of function and/or brand. If you already have the shirt, pants, belt, socks and shoes in check, put a shiny rectangle on your wrist as the finishing touch.
Which would I pick?
The Peugeot because it looks like a Tank watch, and I do intend to get a Tank-like timepiece in my collection someday. Not the actual Cartier Tank because that's way too expensive, but there are plenty of Tank-like options out there such as the Peugeot above, Seiko SUP880 and several others.