Relic of 2000s styling, the "tribal graphic"
Some styles of the past come back into fashion. This one didn't.
A clarification up front: I'm not talking about tribal art. When you look up tribal art, you'll see many interesting art pieces, much of which is ceremonial and/or religious...
...but that's not what a tribal graphic is.
In the mid-to-late 2000s, tattoos were the Thing of The Moment. There were even a few television shows made just about tattooing, such as Miami Ink. Every tattoo show was all sorts of terrible. Trash TV at its finest.
Tattoo culture birthed what's known as the tribal graphic. And with that I have to make another clarification...
...this graphic style isn't tribal tattooing, such as for Polynesian styles. A tribal graphic is just your generic swoopy thing that looks like a mixture of wave, fire and blade. It's totally unoriginal, overdone many times over, generic, bland. Put another way, a tribal graphic is the clipart of the tattoo world.
I don't have any tattoos myself, but back in the day you could not avoid the tribal graphic tattoo. It was EVERYWHERE, because tattoos were the in thing, and tribal was "cool". If you were anywhere between the ages of 18 and 30 back in the mid-2000s, someone you knew had the stupid tribal graphic tattoo be it friend or acquaintance.
The two most popular placement areas for the tribal graphic tattoo was on the arm for men, and above the butt for women (yes, I'm talking about the infamous "tramp stamp").
For a brief period of time, the tribal graphic appeared on guitars. Namely, the B.C. Rich Warlock. Several variations of the tribal graphic appeared on this guitar.
I do have to admit however that the Warlock guitar shape does in fact take to the tribal graphic very well. That guitar body shape is very angular, and the tribal design with its fire/wave/blade-like appearance actually does work with it.
Are you a dork if you own this guitar?
No.
The B.C. Rich Warlock with tribal graphic is one of those 2000s things that still holds up now if for no other reason that it's unique. It's a heavy metal guitar, and there's no question about that. Any guitar player that plays metal would look right at home with one of these.
As for those dopey broads that got tramp stamps 20 years ago, um, yeah, that tattoo looks awful now. But the guitar still looks cool.
Jackson Kelly JS32T, the cheapest Explorer shape
If you gotta have that Explorer-like shape for new and cheap, this is your only option.
I should note up front there is a distinct difference between the Jackson Kelly JS32 and the Jackson Kelly JS32T. If it's a JS32, there will be a Floyd-Rose Licensed Jackson tremolo system present. If it's a JS32T, that's a string-thru body with no FR system, i.e. hardtail.
Let's talk about Explorers first before getting into the Jackson.
The Gibson Explorer has never been cheap. It doesn't matter which model it is. If you want one of those, you will pay a pretty penny for it.
Epiphone Explorers aren't exactly cheap either. You'll part with at least $500 to get one. My favorite of the bunch is the '58 Korina Explorer. I'd actually prefer that over a Gibson, and no, I'm not joking.
Then there's the Jackson Kelly JS32T, a "sharper Explorer", if you will.
If it's a look that agrees with you, this axe has some good stuff going on. It's technically an offset waist body. And while the neck is bolt-on, there is graphite reinforcement present in the construction. Yes, you get that on a sub-$400 guitar. Frets are X-Jumbo on compound radius 12"-14" fretboard, which means you can set the action ridiculously low, play fast and not fret out.
Here's something that shocks most players: The Kelly is actually easier to live with compared to the Explorer.
The Kelly body is easier for both seated play and when playing while standing. It is much easier to access the higher frets on a Kelly compared to an Explorer because of the way Jackson does the cutout in the back. The controls are easier because it's just master volume, master tone, pickup selector and that's it.
Kelly offers a lot for a little.
Would I own one personally? Said honestly, I would always take the Jackson Rhoads JS32T first, which is a V shape with the short fin on the bottom. Always loved that style and it's my favorite V guitar of all time. You can go "full fin" with the King V, but I always liked the short fin better...
...even though I know you really can't play that guitar seated, which is why it's nice a Kelly shape option exists. You get the Explorer-like shape and can actually play it seated easily.
Bear in mind JS series is the entry level. Jackson makes several different levels of the Kelly guitar, with one of the highest tiers being the USA Select Kelly KE2. That one has the best of everything. Floyd-Rose Original tremolo system, Seymour Duncan pickups, compound radius fingerboard made of super-dark ebony, and so on. Every single thing is top tier, and the price reflects that.
One tier down from the USA select is the X Series Kelly. Much more agreeable price, neck-thru construction and many more cool color options.
If you try a Kelly and really like it, yes you can upgrade to better models. I'm glad Jackson offers the JS Series Kelly, where it's easy to get in the door with this shape at a low price.
I love '70s Stratocasters (but I'd never own one)
Love the way they look, but that's it.
I make it no secret that I have a thing for the big, goofy headstocks from CBS-era Fender Stratocasters, specifically from years 1968 to 1979. My favorites in particular are '68, '69, '73, '74, '75, some of '76, '78 and some of '79...
...and I would never actually own any of these guitars. Bear in mind I have been in the presence of, held and strummed an actual '69.
If I wanted truly wanted one of these, Fender makes one new right now that fits the bill very nicely, the American Vintage II '73. It's better than the original not just because it's new with warranty but because it has a 5-way switch instead of the 3-way. There is absolutely no question I would get one of these if I wanted it badly enough.
Instead, I own the "cheap '69", the current Squier Affinity Strat. Good colors, has the big goofy headstock, correct font, SSS, HH or HSS available, and yeah, good. True, it's a slim profile body with modern 2-point bridge, but it all works. I play mine regularly.
What I don't like about '70s Stratocasters
I'm talking actual real-deal ones and not the new one Fender makes.
Simply put, the majority of them are boat-anchor heavy, almost everything before '77 is a 3-way and not a 5-way, it has a thick neck (which I like) with really tiny frets (which I don't like), 7.25" fretboard radius, chunky body with less-defined contours, 3-screw bolt plate with an arguably useless micro-tilt, and a vibrato system in which there were several years where it was almost too easy to snap the arm right off with normal play.
The funniest thing I've ever heard from actual owners of these is the claim that the boat-anchor weight makes it a "man's guitar". That's nothing more than a rather pitiful excuse for owning a guitar where the wood used for construction was just too damned heavy. A Strat at absolute heaviest should be no more than 8.5 pounds, and you're saying your 9.5 to 10 pound Strat is more "manly". Yeah, sure pal. Last time I checked, shoulder pain wasn't considered manly at all. Enjoy your boat anchor and having to pop two ibuprofen after playing it for 15 minutes, sir. You sure showed me!
As for the sound, insert any descriptor here for "not full" and it applies. Tinny, thin, brittle, weak, quiet, whatever. The tone is just not good...
...but I do not buy into the belief that the 3-screw plate is the sole reason why most '70s Strats sound bad. My belief is it's the electronics more than anything else.
Were it true the 3-screw plate was so awful, the new American Vintage II '73 would sound terrible. Guess what? It doesn't, and there's a 3-screw plate on that guitar.
Then there's the whole Worst Finish Ever thing going on with some '70s Strats. I don't know the exact year range this applies to, but when painted Strats of this era start doing that poly peel thing, it's sharp enough to draw blood. I'm not kidding.
Ordinarily, most people see refinishing a vintage Fender as a really bad idea. If a '70s Strat does the poly peel thing, TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE to refin that because otherwise you're literally risking legitimate injury just playing the thing.
I'll try to put this in perspective for you. Have you ever dealt with a guitar that had fret sprout where a few frets stick out and it's SHARP? Yeah, that. Imagine feeling that on the body right where your arm rests. That would be bad, because it is bad.
It's no wonder to me why the "natural" finish Strats stayed as-is whereas a whole ton of the painted ones got a refin.
If you have your heart set on acquiring a 1971-1977 Stratocaster and are absolutely intent on keeping it 100% original, get one that has a factory natural or Mocha finish.
I know some owners of these that have a painted model will say, "I have one with factory paint and the finish never peeled or flaked!" If that's you, you got lucky. A lot of others had a much worse fate.
But that headstock...
...is what makes me love certain CBS-era Strats. Specifically, darker ones that have a bit of wear and some wood grain lines can be seen. It's like a combination of very old-timey 1800s and vintage American Western style going on. Very unique. It's functional art. Love it...
...but I know the rest of the guitar is nothing I would ever get along with, hence why if I were absolutely intent on getting one, I'd just get the new Am Vin II '73.
Nothing I say here will stop anybody from going after a real '70s Strat if they're set on getting one. And if you do, again, go for a natural or Mocha finish. Thank me later.
Epiphone Wildkat Studio, "the other Wildkat"
This is the Wildkat most don't talk about but should.
When you do a search for Epiphone Wildkat guitars, you'll see special models like the Royale and maybe the Koa, but the two you will see the most are the original that had a nice long run from 1999-2019, and the second...
...the Wildkat Studio. This one had a much shorter run from 2016-2019.
The main difference between the original and the Studio model is the Studio has no vibrato system on it.
"So?", you may say.
Consider the fact the Wildkat Studio is, in essence, a semi-hollow P90 Les Paul. Then you understand why players should be considering getting one of these, especially for Les Paul guitar type fans.
The P90s in the Studio aren't just your run-of-the-mill type. They're the "dog ear" kind such as what's seen on the Gibson Les Paul Junior. In fact, it's actually better than the Gibson because you get two of them with the metal covers.
What you get with the Wildkat Studio is a very "spanky" tone, semi-hollow lightness, and some fairly decent P90 pickups...
..for cheap. And it's a darn good looker too.
Not a bad deal if you asked me. It's the best way to get a P90 Les Paul style semi-hollow guitar that needs no upgrades. This one is good to go. If you understand P90 tone, you know the Wildkat delivers.
If you can't find one of these, a very nice alternative is the Epiphone Casino.
Mid-2000s guitar weirdness: Fender Toronado GT HH
"Okay, so Fender had a guitar that looked like the Ford Gran Torino from the '70s show Starsky & Hutch?"
Yes. Yes, they did. The Fender Toronado GT HH is a guitar that was available in red with white stripes that looked just like the striped tomato Torino.
The interesting part is when this guitar was released, which was 2005 and 2006, meaning this guitar isn't even 20 years old yet.
In listings for this guitar, you'll see it alongside other Toronado guitars that look a lot more normal. The GT HH has that "loud and fast" look to it. It has no pick guard and keeps things very basic with a 3-way toggle switch, 4 control knobs (two volume, two tone) and a Gibson-esque bridge and tail piece.
To add to the loud/fast look, the headstock is also color matched to red just like the body with a white Fender logo.
Interestingly, the headstock does not state "TORONADO". Just "Fender", and that's it.
Is this guitar the same as the Squier Paranormal Toronado? No. The Squier has a big honkin' pick guard on it, totally different bridge and pickups with chrome covers on them - and no color matched headstock...
...but I could understand it if you preferred the Squier over the Fender, if for no other reason than it's much less in price and absolutely looks more normal compared to the striped Fender.
However, that big competition stripe is the entire reason to get the Fender Toronado GT HH in the first place. It's not often you see a guitar that "looks fast", but the Fender pulls it off quite nicely.
Does this guitar have any connection to the 2004 movie? I'm honestly not sure. The guitar is from 2005-2006 and the movie was just one year prior, so... maybe? I've never seen it, so I can't say for certain.
But even if the guitar isn't connected to the movie, it's still cool because you almost never see Fenders that have a "loud" appearance like the Toronado GT HH.
One last note: There are also "bumblebee" yellow body/black stripe and "gold bee" gold body/black stripe versions of this guitar that you'll see from the listings - but the red/white is the best of the lot by far.