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?
Casio F105W and why I do wear it
While I described the W93H as a bit of a dud for me in my last article, the F105W is a total winner in my book.
For those not in the know, the F105W is like the F-91W, but with one rather important improvement. The nightlight is a million times better. This is why ILLUMINATOR is so prominent on the watch face.
I don't know exactly when this watch was introduced to market, but it definitely came shortly after Timex released watches with the the Indiglo nightlight technology in 1992. My guess is that at earliest, the F105W is probably a design from the mid-1990s.
Is the F105W exactly the same as the F-91W?
No, and there are several noticeable differences.
The F105W has a panel display that's actually slightly smaller than the F-91W. The digital characters on the F105W are also slightly smaller but thicker. Lastly, on the panel itself the weekday and date are spaced closer together on the F105W compared to the F-91W.
Functionally, the two watches are identical. No differences there.
Although I've not tested this, the F105W is supposedly 27g in weight while the F-91W is 20g. I don't feel the 7g difference if there is one, and I don't think anyone else would.
On my 6.75" wrist, the F105W lays more flat than the F-91W, which is something I very much appreciate so the watch stays put.
Does a nightlight really matter that much?
Yes.
People all over the world love the F-91W because it just works. The only complaint anyone ever has about the F-91W is that the nightlight is terrible. Solution? Buy an F105W. Problem solved.
The only problem with the F105W? Not an easy watch to find in stores for some odd reason.
In Walmart for example, you'll easily find the F-91W there as well as the F108 and the recently introduced W217 (very similar styling to the F-91W but larger with notably better nightlight). But both of those models have an amber nightlight that while it does work very well, it's not the cool blue one.
One model that Walmart carries that does have it is the A168. If you like a small digital with a steel bracelet, that's your watch. But if it's not, the resin version is the F105W...
...and neither Walmart nor Target carry it as far as I know. Personally, I had to buy mine online just to get one.
The real question is this: Is the nightlight of the F105W really that good?
In fact, yes it is.
Where nightlights are concerned, Casio really got it right with this one. It has that just-right luminance that makes it a joy to use. The aqua color and contrast of the nightlight is also perfect. You couldn't ask for better.
I'm very glad Casio still makes the F105W and hope they continue to do so for a long time.
Casio W93H and why I don't wear it
This is a good watch but has a few things about it that make it a no-go for me.
I made a video on the Casio W93H. This is a watch I originally bought in August 2016, so I've had it a while. In the video I did on my Casio watch collection before that, I showed the W93H. From that, I received a few requests to do a video solely based on just that model, so I did. From what I understand, before my video there really was nothing on the internet showing what the W93H could actually do.
The W93H is a good model. It's small but has a display that's well thought out. But I don't wear it because it doesn't agree with me.
This is why I don't care for it:
The strap, while certainly better than the F-91W strap, has these little curves near the case where it connects that grip my wrist in a way I don't care for.
The menu system is "nonstandard Casio". I own a bunch of Casio watches, and the majority of them all operate similarly. The W93H sorta/kinda follows this but has enough changes to the point where it irks me whenever I use it.
However...
Some people really like this watch because it's a good alternative for those that want function in a small size with an uncluttered interface. While certainly not a G-SHOCK, the main advantage of the W93H is that it's small enough to offer everything needed while staying out of the way.
Another thing that's true is that there's really nothing else Casio makes that packs so many features into such a small package for such a small price. There's nothing else I can recommend that compares to it, so I understand why owners of this watch value it so much.
The W93H isn't good for me, but that doesn't mean it's a bad timepiece. It is a good watch and totally works for what it is.