Cheap guitar of the week #35 - Ibanez Paul Stanley PS40 Signature
This guitar is worth buying - but not because Paul Stanley's name is on it.
One of the absolute coolest guitars that Ibanez has ever released has been the Iceman model. The modern Iceman is the the IC520.
Why bother with a PS40 when you could get the IC520 instead?
Two reasons.
First, the PS40 is $400 cheaper than the IC520.
Second, the PS40 is the absolute cheapest way to get an Iceman shape that's an actual Ibanez guitar.
Is the PS40 a "true" Iceman? No. You'll notice the electronics are different along with a few other things. The point is that you do get that Iceman shape on an actual Ibanez guitar for the cheapest possible price.
Hate "signature" guitars but love the Iceman shape?
No problem. The PS40 is fairly easy to "de-Stanley", as the only two things on it with the dopey signature stuff are the pick guard and truss rod cover plate, both of which can be modified easily or just removed.
Without the dopey Paul Stanley crapola, the PS40 is actually a cool guitar. And like I said, it is the cheapest way to get a legitimate Iceman shape by Ibanez.
Is the guitar any good? I've no idea. But even if the guitar is crap, it's worth it just to get an actual Iceman shape. Remember, the IC520 is $400 more, so even if you have to spend a little to fix up the PS40 after buying it, you're still saving huge.
Should you start collecting guitars?
I think you know my answer to this one, but in case you're new here, I'll tell you.
A real-deal 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard is well into 6 figures.
I mention this guitar for a specific reason. I don't think anyone should collect guitars. But I do agree that you should buy "that one good guitar", whether vintage or new.
Bear in mind the "good guitar" doesn't have to be expensive. For some, just owning a Mexico-made Fender Standard Stratocaster is that good guitar. And that's fine.
If you have the cash to buy that '60 Paul and have it be the last guitar you ever buy in your entire life, go ahead and buy it, with my blessing. Yes, really.
Where I get real rude real quick on people is when it comes to guitar collecting.
A collection is literally defined as set of items. You can't have a collection of just one thing.
Now it's true that I own a few guitars. But they all serve a purpose. Every one of them. And the number of guitars I own is small.
True guitar collectors dedicate space in their house to waste on instruments that will never be played. These instruments won't be put in glass cases for friends and family to enjoy, mind you. What will happen is that most if not all of the guitars will be put into regular guitar cases, then stacked on a shelf somewhere or shoved in a closet. Nobody will ever see them except on very rare occasion, and only for a few minutes so as not to "damage the investment".
There's also another type of guitar collector. The hoarder who thinks he's collecting but in reality has a pile of junk guitars that are worthless. Oh, it's a "collection", all right. A bad one that's nothing but crap.
No, you should not collect guitars.
If you want to buy "that one good guitar", go ahead. It's just one guitar. But please, and I really mean this, PLAY THE THING.
If you have a bunch of guitars right now that never get played and hold no sentimental value to you, SELL THEM ALL. Keep the guitar you actually play, sell all the rest.
Remember, guitars are machines that can go into a state of disrepair easily just by sitting there doing nothing. Machines are meant to be used. Use them. If you don't, the guitar will literally destroy itself (usually from the neck twisting up from non-use and becoming unplayable).
You don't need 5 Strats and 5 Les Pauls. I could see owning one of each and switching back and forth between the two guitars routinely so they both get played and provide years of enjoyment. But if you've got guitars just sitting there going unplayed for months if not years, they've got to go.
Finally, if you've been thinking of collecting guitars, don't start. Guitars take up too much space and require way too much maintenance just to keep them playable. And again, if you want to buy that one good guitar, I don't have a problem with that. But if the guitars start piling up and don't get played, that is a problem.
Vintage guitar of the week #18 - 1979 Martin EM-18
An affordable vintage electric that's actually quite nice from a name you wouldn't expect.
Martin is obviously not the first brand name you think of when it comes to electrics, but yes, they did build them at one point, and the EM-18 from 1979 is one such example.
Being it's a Martin, concentration is placed on the woods. There is a solid layer of birdseye maple on both wings, plain maple center and what looks like walnut stripes. You can tell this is proper woodwork as those stripes do go all the way through the body, so there's definitely not any cheapo style crapola going on. The neck is (or should be) a one-piece Honduran mahogany with German-made Sperzel tuning keys at the headstock. Another staple of '70s design is on this Martin as well, a brass nut.
I believe the way the electronics work is really simple. Think of a Les Paul with two small toggle switches to split the humbuckers into single-coil mode, similar to how push/pull knobs work now.
Very nice looker overall and one of the better builds of the '70s.
As far as I'm aware, only 1,375 of the EM-18 model was ever made. However, it's important to note the serials start with the number 1000.
Is there a a modern equivalent to the EM-18?
Generally speaking, the closest you'll get to the EM-18 is a PRS SE CE 24. That guitar is obviously not an exact copy, but it's not too far off, either.
Casio A500WGA-1DF watch review
I actually received this watch by mistake.
A few posts ago I mentioned that I had a A500WA-1 model on order. I received a watch, but not the one I ordered. Instead, I received a A500WGA, with "G" for "Gold". Gold models typically sell for 33% higher to almost double the price of the chrome versions. The reason? Scarcity. Gold versions of their watches are far fewer in number compared to other models.
And no, there isn't any real gold on this. The band is stainless steel with adjustable clasp, and the case plating is... well, I don't know what it is, actually. Could be plastic, could be metal. I'm not exactly sure.
There are several variants of the A500WGA. There's the A500WGA-1, A500WGA-1D and A500WGA-1DF. In the way Casio makes watches, certain models are made for certain markets. Mine, according to its tag that came with it, is a 1DF model.
What makes a 1DF different from a 1 or 1D? I've no idea.
Too complicated for most people, but I genuinely find it useful
Being I already own an AE1200WHB-1BV, I already knew the A500WGA as the feature sets between the two are identical in every way. You get 5 alarms, countdown timer, chronograph, a bunch of time zone options, forward/reverse digit direction, ability to mute button press beeps if you want, etc. The watch is loaded with goodies.
I know my way around the A500W because of the AE1200W. But for most other people, yeah it can be difficult at first just because its packed with so much stuff.
I'll put it another way. Casio digital watches generally act mostly the same, with minor variations from model to model. If you know Casio G-SHOCK or have ever owned a Casio watch with an alarm or countdown timer feature, you can figure this one out.
At this point I've every feature on the watch memorized and know where everything is. If I want to jump between alarms, turn DST on or off, switch from 12-hour to 24-hour or do whatever, I can, and do it all from memory.
Borderline tacky, but gloriously retro
Now although I received a watch significantly more expensive than the chrome version, I did entertain the idea of sending it back. Why? Because in gold, it looks borderline tacky.
After mulling it over, I've decided to keep the watch. It is the first gold watch I've ever owned, and I figure that I must have been destined to own this timepiece since I received it by mistake.
I came to the realization that I'm just not used to wearing gold on my wrist. With metal/chrome, oh yes, I can wear that easily. But I am just not used to the gold. It's not a bad look. It's just different.
"I've seen this watch before..."
If you're a Casio digital watch fan, yes, you have seen this before. The original model from the 1980s is the A300U. The A500W is a reimagining of the old A300U, no question about it.
I personally would not seek out the older A300U. It commands way too high of a price on eBay, but even if money were no object, I wouldn't buy it anyway because of practical reasons. The time zones have changed since the A300U was made, and the recessed upper left button is annoying to use, whereas all the A500W's buttons protrude (that's a good thing).
Do I plan on wearing my gold Casio watch regularly?
Yes. And that does mean it will get nicked and scratched up. I know this and am willing to accept that.
I know I just horrified any Casio watch collector that read the above. To those collectors, let me put your mind at ease right now. In less than just one day of wearing this watch, and wearing the watch safely protected under a cotton long-sleeve shirt cuff, the bottom of the casing somehow got a hairline scratch. It's barely visible and can only be seen if the case is tilted at a specific angle.
Again, that's just from owning it one day. The casing on this particular Casio watch is a total scratch magnet. Scratches will happen and there's nothing I can do about it.
This doesn't mean I'm going to rough up the watch. I will do my best to keep it looking nice. But I don't think there is any way to wear this thing and keep it 100% scratch-free.
For collectors out there, what I'd say is that if this watch appeals to you and you want to collect it, buy this timepiece but never wear it.
Another Casio watch I own, which I may write a review on at some point, is the B640WD-1A. This is the one I'd wear and be less conscious about damaging it, given the case is frost-painted resin and has true water resist. The A500W does have water resist, but I think it's better described as splash resist. I wouldn't shower with the A500W. Not a chance. With the B640WD, I could shower with that and not care. And with my AE1200, oh yes, that one can absolutely be showered with.
Verdict: Capable, but scratch-prone
The A500WGA is, as said above, loaded with goodies. And I do use those goodies.
Looks-wise, either you like the gold or you don't. At this point, I'll say the gold is growing on me. I'm not totally in love with it, but yeah, it's classy, I admit. But I meant what I said in that it's borderline tacky. Not absolutely tacky, but just nipping at the heels of being that way. The only thing keeping it not tacky is a clean, uncluttered look.
My only complaint is that the casing is really scratch-prone. That's the one fatal flaw of this timepiece. It's a-okay otherwise.
And oh yeah, tons of '80s retro flavor.
On a final note, part of my reason for getting this originally was the low profile so I could specifically wear it with long-sleeve shirts where the cuff would slide over the watch easily. A Casio F-91W, which is as thin as a Casio watch can possibly get as far as I'm aware, has an 8mm thickness. The metal-bracelet version of that watch, the A158W-1, also has an 8mm thickness.
The A500W has a thickness of 10mm. Believe me, it's plenty thin enough to slide under the shirt cuff without a problem. If you want super-low-profile with the metal band, get the A158 (or A159 for a gold,) but I think the A500W looks better. That, and it has many more features.
Cheap guitar of the week #34 - Ibanez RG421
This is a traditional, no-nonsense electric.
I've seen a lot of Ibanez RG series guitars over the years. The RG421 is one I recommend.
The reason I've seen so many RGs is because there are so many variants of the RG model line. The RG655 for example sells for over a grand. The RG6005 is a mid-priced model. And if you do a generic search for Ibanez RG, you'll see prices all over the place. Ibanez does things weird. But then again, so does Fender with their million-different-Strats crapola as well, so... I suppose much studying of the model line is required.
RG421 is the lower priced model. Simple, easy, classic design, stays in tune because of the straight line from nut-to-tuning-post and because no vibrato system is present. It has a 24-fret neck, which I don't like, but many other players do like.
What's it sound like?
The RG421 is one of those "just works" guitars with a tone that's predictable. And by that I mean the guitar will work with just about any pedal and/or any amp you plug it into.
What you will get is something that's arguably the guitar's biggest selling point, reliability. From my experience, most Ibanez RG guitars don't have "off days". You can trust that the guitar will play and sound the same, day in and day out, practice after practice, gig after gig. It's like I said, this is a "just works" guitar. Plug in, tune up, go and don't worry about it.
If you go searching for sound demos of the RG421, you'll notice many owners of this guitar perform pickup "upgrades". And I suppose the fact this RG takes pickup replacement so easily is its second biggest selling point. Not only can the guitar be bought for cheap, but also have its electronics changed around for cheap as well.
Who is this guitar best for?
This guitar is best for players who like a guitar with a thin, 24-fret neck that's easy to mod and has an understated look to it.
The neck on this RG is the "Wizard III", so yes, it does have the Wizard neck even at the low price it sells for. It could even arguably be said that the neck is the guitar's second best selling point.
Don't expect this RG421 to be a tone monster if you buy one (you may need to swap out pickups with something that has more "flavor" to it). But do expect it to be a great player guitar, because it should be.