Saving the Casio F-28W
This is something I had on the backburner for a long while and finally got around to doing it.
The F-28W is a watch that Casio does not make anymore, although sometimes in rare instances they can be found.
I originally bought mine a little over four-and-a-half years ago in April 2011. Yes, I've had the watch that long. The reason mine still looks good is because I've barely worn it.
There were four reasons I bought the F-28W. First, it just screamed "Retro '80s Casio Watch". Second, it was cheap. Third, it is one of the few Casio digital models that shows weekday, month and day all on the face all at once. Fourth, I love how unbelievably basic the watch is.
The F-28W only has two recessed buttons on the left side of the case. The first is to switch between 12-hour and 24-hour time. The second is to adjust the time. This watch has no backlight, no alarms, no stopwatch, no timer, and no other screen modes. All the F-28W does is tell time and date. That's it.
Also, the F-28W is a featherweight. More on that in a moment.
The one problem with the F-28W...
...is the strap. This watch originally came with the absolute cheapest possible strap Casio ever manufactured, which is the one made out of what they call "resin".
What is Casio's resin made out of? I've no idea. All I do know is that it's a synthetic compound of some kind.
The problem with the resin strap is that it will crumble apart. Yes, will and not might. One day the watch will just fall right off your wrist.
My F-28W's strap didn't fall off my wrist, but one day I picked it up to put it on and the strap just crumbled right apart, almost like a really stale cupcake.
This is not to say that all resin straps by Casio are bad, but we're talking about the cheapest of the cheap watches here that sold new for under 15 dollars USD. Quality of strap was not exactly a major concern with the manufacturing of these things.
Replacing the strap...
...is annoying, because the watch does not use traditional spring bars that can be popped out using a spring bar tool. Nope. These spring bars have to be physically slid out of the case. And there's no civilized way to do it.
You can maybe remove the bars 3 or 4 times before the case cracks or the spring bars bend out of shape, at which point you have to throw the watch in the trash.
When my original resin strap crumbled, I knew this, so I opted to instead buy an 18mm fabric NATO strap.
Problems and solutions with replacing the strap
A common problem with installing a NATO style strap on a small Casio watch is that there is almost no room under the spring bars for adjustment, and the F-28W is no different.
The solution to this is to remove the bars first, then install the strap, then put back the bars over the strap.
When I took out the bars on mine, did they bend a little? Yep. But I knew they would do that. I tried removing the bars the "civilized" way using a proper spring bar tool, but nope, that casing did not want to let the bars slide through. I then had to resort to using a small vise-grip pliers. That worked. I got one bar out, then the other.
Could I have replaced the bars with new ones? Sure. But the cost of getting them just isn't worth it on a watch this cheap.
The strap was installed, and since I've no intention of ever removing it, the watch is pretty much all set until the battery dies (which will probably happen in about 3 years).
Is there any room to slide the strap under the bars? Yes, but just barely.
Too light to wear?
So the strap has been replaced with one that will never crumble. But I can't wear it for the reason the watch is too small and too light to wear.
For all intents and purposes, the F-28W is kid's size/women's size watch. It measures 31.5mm long x 32.5mm wide x 8mm thick. That's frickin' small.
Also, the watch is so light that it doesn't even feel like it's there. Ordinarily, most watch-wearers would consider that a good thing. I don't since I started wearing proper men's size timepieces. I like knowing my watch is there just by feel, and I don't get that feeling with the F-28W.
The weight of the F-28W with its original strap is just 14 grams. That's insanely light.
The weight with the NATO strap is 22g.
In comparison, this is the weight of a Timex Weekender 38mm size watch with NATO strap is 49g.
Bear in mind the Weekender is considered a lightweight watch, and it's more than double the weight of the F-28W with a NATO on it.
Was it worth it to save this watch?
Yes. At the time I write this, Casio no longer makes a super-basic digital like the F-28W. This is sad because there's a nice charm to basic technology that just works.
I like my analog watches, but I also like my totally retro, totally basic F-28W. While it's doubtful I'll wear it with any regularity, I was happy to re-strap it so it can now be used again.
Like 1980's Casio style? You have alternatives
The F-28W is a cool watch, but since it's not made anymore, they're tough to come by.
Fortunately, there are others that are still made, totally have that 1980's vibe to them and are very easy to come by.
Here are a few you would be interested in.
The three I own personally aside from the F-28W:
I bought the AE1200 originally because I wanted something with a countdown timer that had a nylon strap option. I bought the B640WD because it's basically like a F-28W that's been upgraded and has a great look to it. I bought the A500WA because it is the best dress digital watch that exists (and that's no joke), and also has a feature set identical to the AE1200.
Others that have decidedly '80s styling to them:
- Casio F91W (yes, they incredibly still make this)
- Casio A158 (metal case/strap version of the F91W)
- Casio A168 (like the A158 but slightly larger with better backlight)
- Casio W215H (retro styling but with larger case that's really easy to read)
- Casio F108 (like the W215H but with thicker case)
- Casio F201WA (the auto-repeat timer function is the best feature of this one)
- Casio W201
- Casio W59 (just like the F91W except it has true 50M water resist)
- Casio F105W (just like the F91W except it has superior EL backlight)
Last but not least...
Casio CA53W - This is the calculator watch. The same one seen in Back to the Future that Marty wears. If there is any cheap '80s-styled Casio watch you should buy right freakin' now, it's this one.
Why buy it? Casio doesn't list it in its catalog anymore on their web site, meaning it's threatening to go extinct, just like the F-28W. If you like it, get it before it disappears.
Epiphone "Union Jack" Sheraton Outfit Review
Note up front: Some sellers may mistakenly list this as an Epiphone Casino, so examine those too and you might find they're actually selling a Sheraton.
(This is a reader requested review. If you would like me to review a specific guitar, piece of gear or talk about a certain topic, email me.)
I am a fan of "true" Epiphone guitars, but am not a fan of something so garish in appearance.
With that said, let's talk about the Epiphone "Union Jack" Sheraton Outfit.
It's not that I don't like the Union Jack, a.k.a. "flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I like the flag just fine and it has a very nice appearance to it. However, slapping that on a guitar is the same as slapping the stars and stripes, a.k.a. "flag of the United States", on a guitar. This look is just kitsch, as in tacky.
Aside from the appearance, this is one of those guitars from Epiphone that while a "true" Epiphone model, is hit-or-miss concerning whether you get a good one or not.
On paper, this guitar sounds awesome. It has 5-layer laminated maple body and top, mahogany neck, fast-and-easy 24.75-inch scale "SlimTaper" neck with set-neck joint, 12" fingerboard radius, pearloid/abalone inlays, 22 medium jumbo frets and a pair of Gibson USA mini-humbuckers. The tuners are also Grover Rotomatic 18:1 style (very smooth), HOWEVER...
...it's like I said, getting a good one is luck of the draw.
My suggestion to anyone intending to buy this guitar is to make sure and buy it from somewhere that has a good return policy (like Amazon) in case it arrives with defects. This is a specialty semi-hollow body guitar, therefore it's more expensive, therefore you should be mighty careful where you purchase this from. This guitar is not like a Strat or a Tele where it can be banged around during shipment and handle it fairly easily.
If all goes well and you do get a good one of these, then yes, you will love this guitar and I have no doubt of that. Some guys and gals really like the "British Invasion" look of a loud-and-proud Union Jack on the body, and when you get a good one of these models with all the fancy hardware bits, oh yes, this is a killer of a guitar.
Cheap guitar of the week #42 - Yamaha APX500
Ordinarily I would never recommend a thin-body acoustic, but this is a rare exception.
The Yamaha APX500 acoustic-electric is one of the very few thin-bodied acoustics that I would actually recommend buying.
A thin-body acoustic is not like a parlor guitar. This guitar actually has the same dimensions as a full-size acoustic, save for that the body is thinner.
It's usually the case that full-size acoustics with a thin body have an awful acoustic sound to them, best described as very "boxy" with barely any projection. The APX500 however actually as a full-bodied sound. I don't know how Yamaha is able to do it, but they somehow manage to get a full sound out of a thin body.
Is the sound as big as a full-size with the same projection? No. But it's pretty darned close.
The APX500 is actually a nice guitar to have because it serves well both in studio and on stage. It has the electric bits to handle mixers and so on, and also has a full-size look to it, which to some is important. Yamaha also knows how to build an acoustic guitar correctly that can take a knock or two.
It's a good guitar overall. Easy to play, easy to plug in, predictable, and won't break the bank.
Will there ever be another rock music scene?
Tampa Florida has no rock music scene. But then again, neither does the rest of America.
Someone emailed me recently about an article I wrote back in 2012 about how the rock music scene in Tampa Bay Florida completely sucks (and still does). The guy basically agreed with me and said that while he was living in Florida (he's since moved away to some other US state), there was a small but vibrant rock scene here. But then it just seemed to up and vanish like a fart in the wind.
I replied to his email and said the same thing to him that I've said to others. In order for a guitar player to make any money these days, you have to play country music because that genre needs guitars in order to sound like it should. Electric guitars, bass guitars, steel guitars, acoustic guitars, resonator guitars and so on...
...but that doesn't answer the question of whether there will ever be another rock music scene not just in Tampa but pretty much anywhere.
Will there ever be another rock scene?
Yes, I think so. But the approach has to be modernized.
Things can't go back to the pre-internet ways of the '80s, nor should anyone want them to.
Things also can't be 100% online-only like it is now, because that doesn't work either.
What I believe is going to be the next big thing for smaller rock bands actually depends on a clever use of local and mobile technology:
Streaming every single live show.
It is possible, and easy, to use 4G LTE connectivity from a smartphone or tablet to broadcast a gig from YouTube or other live stream service. The only problem is getting the audio to sound correct, because everything has to be fed to a mixer, then to the mobile device, then out to the internet. The hardware to do all this already exists.
In other words, every band needs a "tech roadie", as in the guy or girl whose job is getting that stream looking and sounding proper.
Now when I say stream every single live show, I don't care if the gig is in someone's basement or backyard with an audience of less than 10 people. Every single show gets streamed, and then afterward published as a regular video once the show is complete for people to view that missed the stream.
Why aren't bands streaming live more?
Mobile technology limitations in the US. Limitations that will soon be gone, mind you.
The situation is either:
- Can't afford 4G LTE data plan
- Coverage sucks
- Price of phone powerful enough to stream too expensive
- All of the above
Smartphones are continuing to dive in price, as are the data plans. What once cost $100/month just a year ago is now $60/month for unlimited full-speed 4G LTE on some carriers in the US. And I'm certain that when the unlimited data plan prices drop to $50 and then $40/month or lower, oh yes, rock bands will do well with their live streaming...
...IF THEY DON'T SUCK.
Yeah, there's that thing called talent. That's still required. While the band doesn't have to be insanely good, they can't suck, either.
What is the point of streaming every live show?
Reason #1: It's live
People like watching live video on the internet because it gives one a sense of participating in something special. There's no rewind nor fast-forward because it's all live. And that's cool.
Reason #2: Really easy way to get a following
With each new live show broadcasted and then published afterward, word will spread (again, presuming the band doesn't suck) and the audience will grow because the band is tackling both the local and internet audiences at the same time.
Reason #3: What other course of action is there?
It's like I said a moment ago. You can't go back to the '80s way of doing things, and you can't do everything solely online, so the proper smart thing to do is combine local + online by streaming every gig.
If you can't afford it or the connectivity isn't there, you're not alone
A lot of small rock bands exist that would love to stream all the gigs they play, but can't due to cost and/or connectivity concerns.
If you happen to be in one of those bands and really like the stream-it-all idea, my suggestion to you is to start doing research. Find out about every mobile carrier that's available in your area. Find out what phones they have. Find out how much the unlimited data plans cost. Find out what software/apps you can use to stream with. Find out what audio hardware you can connect to the phone/tablet for feeding out to the stream.
The moment you find a way to afford the tech and get the right hardware to stream, go for it.
Whoever gets the jump on this early is sure to do well, and possibly create a new rock scene...
...if, again, the band doesn't suck.
Smaller proper acoustic guitars for small hands
This is a reader requested article.
Adrian writes:
There are a lot of shorter guys like me and women who have a difficult time playing the bulky-bodied dreadnoughts and jumbos, especially when playing fingerstyle, and of course, I'd like to know which would be the most versatile body sizes and brands.
(Want to make a request for an article like Adrian did? Email me.)
The full-size dreadnought shape acoustic is, whether a cutaway version or not, just too big for some people. The guitar is lightweight, to be sure, but thick, and that's where the problem lies.
What some players want is a smaller acoustic that is not a classical acoustic guitar. While that guitar is smaller and thinner, it uses nylon strings. There's nothing wrong with nylon strings, but that string type is not meant to be used with a pick, nor can you use a slide on it, nor will an add-in pickup work with it (no vibrating steel = pickup won't work).
Players who want smaller acoustic guitars are specifically looking for the steel stringed variety.
The easiest choice for a smaller steel string acoustic is the parlor acoustic guitar, such as the Fender CP-100. That guitar is cheap, good and has a nice look to it.
Things to know about parlor acoustic guitars
Before I list off some other parlor acoustic guitar models to check out, there are a few things you need to know about them.
Quiet projection
The standard dreadnought acoustic has a loud sound when strummed while the parlor body is significantly quieter. Why? Smaller body. There's less wood vibrating, and no matter how hard you strum the strings, it will never project as loudly as a full-size dreadnought will.
No front-side strap button (on most)
The traditional way a parlor acoustic guitar is worn with strap in use is from a strap button at the back and looped around the neck near the nut at the front. It pretty much has to be done this way, else you will encounter neck dive.
Featherweight
A parlor acoustic is by its very nature very lightweight. Most are light enough to where you can even play one standing without a strap, similar to a ukulele.
Best recorded with a microphone
If you plan on recording your parlor acoustic guitar, the best way to do it is with a microphone on a stand. Adding in a pickup really doesn't work that well.
Some parlor acoustic guitars to choose from
Again, I will mention the Fender CP-100 before continuing, because if you want a parlor acoustic with the "just right" voicing to it, the Fender is the go-to instrument.
Very cool that Gretsch offers this. Has a nice old-school look to it. Best used for fingerpicking. Works for strumming with a pick, but sounds best with fingers.
This is one of the better parlor acoustics, as it does not have the typical "boxy" sound most parlor acoustic guitars do. The projection of sound is still on the light side, but the fullness is more pronounced. As such, it has a mid-tier price tag on it.
This is priced less than the Alavarez, but may for some may be the parlor acoustic they're looking for. If you've said to yourself, "I want a Martin, but I don't want to pay the Martin price tag", you want this Washburn as it pretty much has equal character.
For those with deep pockets...
...a few more models to check out:
...but in all honesty, I strongly suggest checking out the Fender CP-100 first, and if after that you want to spend more on something more ritzy and voiced with more fullness, try the Alvarez or Washburn above.
Or, if you want just a nice, simple beat-around parlor acoustic, the Gretsch really delivers.