When new is cheaper than used for a project guitar
If you want the lowest possible price for a project guitar, this is it.
Sixty bucks for a guitar kit. And I'm sure that price won't last, so be sure to it check out. You'll see Strat shapes, Tele shapes, Flying V, Les Paul, Explorer, and there's even a Jazzmaster-Tele thing (same as the Squier Paranormal Offset Telecaster, more or less).
The crazy thing these days is that it's literally not possible to find cheap used guitars for what the new cheap guitar kits sell for - even when you account for tax and shipping. If you want the absolute no-question-about-it lowest price for a project guitar, you have to get a kit.
Are these guitars any good? That actually depends on you.
Putting a guitar together from a kit does require basic woodworking skills, possibly some tools if you don't have any (yes, there are low priced kits for that too), and maybe some basic finishing skills. And by finishing I mean painting - although you could just wing it...
...and for something this cheap, yeah, I'd argue you should wing it and just give it a go, because why not.
Art guitars are cool, but again I wanted to put something there for those that truly want a clean slate for experimentation.
What's the best part about a kit like this (other than price) compared to a used guitar? Easy answer. You don't have to sand off the old finish first, which can be very tedious, especially near the neck pocket. This means you can get to your art experimentation much quicker.
It is crazy you can build a complete new working electric guitar for just 60 bucks. But even if you spend a little more for one of the other kits, it's still the best deal going.
Ana-digi G-SHOCK watches would be great if you could read them
Illegibility is the main reason I don't own a G-SHOCK ana-digi.
Quick definition first: Ana-digi means a watch dial that has both analog and digital display, meaning you'll see the hour and minute hands along with some LCD digital panels.
Before I get into the G-SHOCK ana-digi stuff, Casio does in fact know how to do an ana-digi correctly when it's not a G-SHOCK, such as the Waveceptor WVA M630D-9AJF. That is the way to do it right. It's part of the Casio WVA Waveceptor series (all of which look great, and yes they have atomic timekeeping).
When Casio wants to, they sure know how to build an ana-digi correctly.
Heck, even the cheap HDC-700 model has a proper legible ana-digi design.
But G-SHOCK ana-digi? Awful.
Take the G-SHOCK GM-S2100CH-1A. You might look at that and think hey, that's an interesting blend of silver, red and gold... what's the problem?
The problem is the tiny negative display panels on the dial. Those are absolutely and totally unreadable. Sure, you can read the analog hands, but those tiny panels? Forget about it.
It is NOT EASY finding a G-SHOCK ana-digi where everything is properly legible for both hands and LCD panels...
...but I found one (yes, just one), the GA-700MG model, and I can't wear it.
Why? Too big. 57.5mm lug-to-lug, 53.4mm diameter and a whopping 18.4mm thick. There's no way I could wear that thing and have it look proper on my wrist.
However, yes, it does go to prove a legible ana-digi G-SHOCK does exist.
But obviously, I'd take the Waveceptor instead.
Or, I'd pass on the digital altogether and get the Casio Edifice EFS-S570YDB-2AJF, because that thing is gorgeous - with sapphire crystal and solar power. Good stuff.
Fender Acoustasonic Player Telecaster for $500
Well... that devalued quickly.
The Fender Acoustasonic Player Telecaster usually hovers around $1,000.
However, this one is $499 with free shipping (edit: it was sold). Used and in mint condition, so the seller says.
I just find it amazing how fast these things devalued. There's nothing wrong with the guitars at all, but it appears some are really desperate to get rid of them.
If the one above gets sold, believe me, there will be others, but probably not for all that long. Now is the time to grab one of these.
My giant pile of Garmins
I think I may have a problem...
...or do I?
I've not counted, but I think I have close to 40 Garmin navigators. I know the count is somewhere in the 30s.
My pile of these is only one of two things I have a hoard of. The other is Casio watches, but that pile is significantly smaller and can easily fit in a small box. My Garmin hoard takes up 4 shoeboxes. Two boxes for just the devices, and two for all the cords and mounts.
Physically speaking, 4 shoeboxes doesn't sound that bad. And I suppose it isn't. But I'm not afraid to admit that yes, this is a hoard. For as anti-hoard as I am, something has to be really significant for me to have this pile of specific electronics. I'll get to that in a minute.
Most people who have ever bought a Garmin for the car usually have at least two. One for daily use, and one backup. Sure, a navigation app on your phone could act as your backup, but it's obviously not the same as the Garmin. Having a backup that's a match of your primary matters when it comes to this stuff...
...but having over 30 of these things is ridiculous.
Why do I have them?
Reason 1: It was a quest to see if Garmin had ever made the perfect car navigator. I'll describe the end of the quest in a bit. The answer is no, they didn't.
Reason 2: I wanted to try some of the highfalutin models of the past since they all dived in price, mostly.
I'll talk about price first.
The pricing of used Garmins is a weird animal. If it's a 3.5", 4.3" or a 5" screen, almost every model is cheap to buy even in fantastic condition. But if it's a 6" or 7", people think those are worth crazy money. They're not. All you get is a slight increase in screen size with literally no extra features. And believe me, I know.
I've only owned four 6" models, a DriveSmart 60LMT, nuvi 2689LMT and a pair of DriveSmart 66's. I use the 66's currently, still have the 2689 and parted with the 60LMT. But the 66 is without question the most usable 6" model compared to the older ones.
I obviously didn't buy all my Garmins all at once. The pile I have goes back several years. I bought whatever interested me for as cheap as I could, and purposely sought out different models that had different features...
...and that was The Quest For The Perfect Navigator. I figured that out of all the models Garmin ever released, one of them would be so darned good that I wouldn't want to use anything else.
Out of all that I have, there are 5 that are top tier, but for different reasons.
From oldest to newest: nuvi 1390LMT (4.3"), nuvi 1490LMT (5"), nuvi 40LM (4.3"), nuvi 50LM (5"), DriveSmart 66 (6").
The 1390LMT/1490LMT are the oldest. The run like absolute crap with modern Garmin-issued maps, but operate very well with OpenStreetMap map replacements. It is almost a certainty that any one you pick up will need to have its screen replaced (which I've done several times across several models), and the addition of a 32GB microSD card is required to fit the map data. It's also necessary to punch in favorites using GPS coordinates when using OSM maps. But once set up, oh yeah, this is good. Very legible, great map views for both 2D and 3D. Just great all around.
The 40LM/50LM is the best simple navigator Garmin ever made, no question. Bright screen and ridiculously easy to use. Needs a 32GB microSD like the 1390/1490 to fit map data. Can run modern Garmin-issued maps with ease, even if POI lookups are a bit on the slower side. It can handle hot weather, cold weather, whatever. These models can take a beating. The 2D views suck, but the 3D view is what most people would use anyway. For an A-to-B navigator, amazing.
DriveSmart 66 is a modern offering at the time I write this. Nowhere near as easy as the 40LM/50LM, but that's acceptable since it is an advanced model. It's also the generation where Garmin finally got the voice control working right. The 6" is a good size, route calculation is really fast and recalculation when you miss a turn is also speedy.
The reason I even mention the 1390LMT/1490LMT is because to my eye, the color palette used for icons/maps and voices are better than the 40LM/50LM. Better by a lot? For colors, a little. For voices, a lot. The 1390/1490 uses text-to-speech version 1 while the 40/50 uses TTS v2. I greatly prefer v1 - even though I did have to do a little bit of modification to make it stop saying "recalculating" any time a turn is missed. It was worth it.
As far as The Quest For The Perfect Navigator goes, that ended recently. This doesn't mean I stopped using Garmins. But I determined that the only way I could get one perfect is if I made it a combination of UI elements and features of several models that I have. No one model has it all. But I will say the DriveSmart 66 was the closest it ever got.
As crazy as this sounds, I might actually need these old things in the future
I'm not a fan of smartphone navigation and really don't like the direction it's headed, which is "PUT IT ALL ONLINE!"
That direction is an absolutely horrific idea for car navigation. To have the entirety of your navigation assistance 100% dependent on an always-on data connection is just sheer stupidity. There absolutely has to be a local map data source. And no, a cached source isn't good enough. It has to be a data source that is ALWAYS there and doesn't artificially expire. Without that data source, you might as well go back to a compass and paper maps...
...or use an old Garmin.
All my Garmins have a local map data source. True, the map data will never be as up-to-date as online maps, but I accept that tradeoff because reliability is vastly more important than having the absolute latest map data all the time.
And yeah, this means I have to update the map data manually. Periodically, I have to take the unit out of the car, bring it in the house, plug it in to a computer and update the data - and it's not quick. This is another tradeoff I accept.
Is going through all that crap worth the bother? Yes, because I get a reliable navigator out of it. I don't have to worry about the moody nature of always-on data connectivity, nor do I have to worry about whether the nav app's servers are serving properly that day. My Garmin itself is the one serving the map data locally.
The only time it's not worth it is when updating 30+ units - which I absolutely don't do. In the near future I'll just be keeping only the ones I use updated, which will be a very small number.
Black coffee is the best low calorie drink there is
If you can find a brew that works for you, this is good stuff.
I'll say first that yes, black coffee is the best low calorie drink that exists, because it actually does have calories in it. The best zero calorie drink is, of course, plain water.
How many calories are in black coffee? One 8 ounce cup (240ml) is 2 Calories. Hot or cold, doesn't matter. It's just 2 Calories.
I learned recently that yes, I can drink black coffee, but only if I brew it.
If I get coffee made for me by somebody else, such as at a coffee shop, I will always dump in a bunch of cream and sugar. Why? Because every coffee place always serves coffee way too strong and I have to sweeten and lighten it up. It doesn't matter whether I get cheap coffee at a gas station, mid tier at a donut shop or highfalutin stuff at a proper coffee shop. It is always too strong, so cream and sugar is absolutely required.
Yes, I could simply water down the coffee I'm served, but then that cools it too much and I have to buy an extra bottle of water. Not worth it.
Have I tried asking for my coffee served weak? Yes, I have tried that. It doesn't work and it's still too strong.
The way I make coffee at home is that I grind my own beans using breakfast blend whole bean a.k.a. "light" blend. That is literally the only kind of coffee I can drink black where I don't convulse after taking a sip. I just use a cheap drip coffee maker, put a few teaspoons of the ground coffee into the filter, brew 10 minutes, pour and drink.
When I drink the breakfast blend black in the way I make it, no ill effects happen. I can sip and enjoy out of my mug which holds 11oz (probably around 3 Calories).
Why my sudden interest in black coffee?
I had never tried my breakfast/light blend black. This is stuff I've been drinking for a while and thought, "Wait a second... this is a breakfast blend and not that over-strong stuff. I should try this black just to see if I get along with it."
So I tried it, and it's good.
Is it as good as the light/sweet coffee I normally have? Of course not, because light/sweet coffee is great - but - now I have a totally sugar-free and creamer-free coffee I can have whenever I want that's ultra-low in Calories.
It's also good that if I run out of sugar and/or creamer, whatever, drink it black.
I suggest to anybody that if you drink coffee, and if the only reason you don't drink it black is because of the brew strength, seek out a breakfast/light blend to brew at home and try it.
On a final note, some of you may be thinking, "Why don't you just use less coffee when brewing so you can still have the stronger stuff in a weaker brew?" Doesn't work. When I tried that, it just tasted like coffee-flavored water instead of proper coffee. Getting the weaker blend is what worked for me.