Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Discussion of vintage Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Bass VIs, Electric XIIs and any other offset-waist instruments.
User avatar
Groovy Tunes
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Groovy Tunes » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:44 pm

Axolotl wrote: I'm fairly certain most of them are on the lighter side.
That's good to know. What is the difference in tone between your JM and your Mustang?

User avatar
Axolotl
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1265
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:06 am

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Axolotl » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:11 am

Well, compared to a jazzmaster. The short scale and mustang pups contribute to the plinkier and thinner sound characteristic of the mustang. However, the neck pickup and a good dialed amp can give you a pretty heavy, punchy bottom. Mustangs can kick!

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 10363
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Embenny » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:08 am

Axolotl wrote:Well, compared to a jazzmaster. The short scale and mustang pups contribute to the plinkier and thinner sound characteristic of the mustang. However, the neck pickup and a good dialed amp can give you a pretty heavy, punchy bottom. Mustangs can kick!
I agree with this.

I have two mid-60's Mustangs. Their pickups are essentially Strat pickups with flush polepieces instead of staggered polepieces. The short scale and the design of the vibrato give it a pluckier sound than a Strat. However, the position of the angled neck pickup plus the short scale gives it an extra warmth to the neck pickup that is distinct from a Strat, plus you can get the "neck+bridge" combo a stock Strat lacks.

My Mustangs are thinner-sounding than my Jags and JMs, but I just adjust the settings of my amp for it and I get just as good an overall tone. Mustangs with high gain have a unique character - they can get plenty of warmth but with this really high-definition quality to the string attack that prevents rhythm work from getting mushy even with fuzzes/super high gain distortion. Throw on the neck pickup or neck+bridge combo with some really heavy dirt and you're in Shoegaze heaven IMO.

Mustangs are as well-made as Jags and JMs of similar vintages. They had fewer bells and whistles and have a vibrato that is somewhat less graceful of a design, but the actual work put into the pickups, body, neck, etc, as well as the quality of the pots/electronics are all the same. They're less rare and considered less desirable so they're more affordable, but I don't find mine to be inferior to my '66 Jag in build quality. Both of mine are super light, which is also a bonus.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

User avatar
Groovy Tunes
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Groovy Tunes » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:41 am

BoringPostcards wrote:It's mostly that one old guy going on and on about how Mustangs are CBS garbage and are strictly student guitars.
I find it funny how 95% of posters on gearslutz hate on the mustang and 95% of posters here love it. It's pretty obvious which one actually owns them and which one just repeats the hate posts they have read elsewhere...

User avatar
Groovy Tunes
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Groovy Tunes » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:43 am

mbene085 wrote:I agree with this.

I have two mid-60's Mustangs. Their pickups are essentially Strat pickups with flush polepieces instead of staggered polepieces. The short scale and the design of the vibrato give it a pluckier sound than a Strat. However, the position of the angled neck pickup plus the short scale gives it an extra warmth to the neck pickup that is distinct from a Strat, plus you can get the "neck+bridge" combo a stock Strat lacks.

My Mustangs are thinner-sounding than my Jags and JMs, but I just adjust the settings of my amp for it and I get just as good an overall tone. Mustangs with high gain have a unique character - they can get plenty of warmth but with this really high-definition quality to the string attack that prevents rhythm work from getting mushy even with fuzzes/super high gain distortion. Throw on the neck pickup or neck+bridge combo with some really heavy dirt and you're in Shoegaze heaven IMO.

Mustangs are as well-made as Jags and JMs of similar vintages. They had fewer bells and whistles and have a vibrato that is somewhat less graceful of a design, but the actual work put into the pickups, body, neck, etc, as well as the quality of the pots/electronics are all the same. They're less rare and considered less desirable so they're more affordable, but I don't find mine to be inferior to my '66 Jag in build quality. Both of mine are super light, which is also a bonus.
Thank you! Could not have responded any better!

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 10363
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Embenny » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:54 am

Groovy Tunes wrote:
BoringPostcards wrote:It's mostly that one old guy going on and on about how Mustangs are CBS garbage and are strictly student guitars.
I find it funny how 95% of posters on gearslutz hate on the mustang and 95% of posters here love it. It's pretty obvious which one actually owns them and which one just repeats the hate posts they have read elsewhere...
It's just a combination of their original status as "student guitars", a lack of understanding of how to properly set them up (the vibrato/bridge combo takes a bit of knowledge to set up properly, as is the case for the Jag or JM), and the supply/demand ratio making them less expensive and "mystical". Much of the vintage market is also currently driven by baby boomers with lots of expendable income lusting after the guitars of their heroes that they couldn't afford as teenagers. Those same boomers probably had a Mustang or had a friend in their high school garage band who had a Mustang, so it doesn't have the mystique of the Strat they saw Jimi playing or the Tele that Keef was rocking.

To put it in a modern perspective, the reality of the build quality would be analogous to modern-day Fender putting out a nitro-finished, American-made AV65 Mustang, but calling it a "student model" simply because it was a couple hundred bucks cheaper than an AV65 Jazzmaster. The boomers, on the other hand, remember it more as though the Mustang was the equivalent of a modern Squier - something that you'd be happy to play, but wasn't an object of unobtainable lust for a teenager, because it was marketed that way at the time (since there was no stratified American vs Mexican vs Asian vs Squier structure to the lineup back then - everything was made in the same factory in California).

The modern Fender catalogue puts progressively cheaper components into the guitars as you move down the line...this wasn't the case back then. You still got Klusons, pickups wound the same way as their strats and teles, identical necks to Jaguars, etc - the biggest cost-saver was probably the lack of body contours on the original Mustangs (Jags, JMs, and Strats all had to have those contours shaped and sanded by hand - a big labour cost). Nowadays, CNC would neutralize that cost benefit and an American Mustang would probably cost them about 90% as much to produce as a Jazzmaster.

I was shocked when I played my first vintage Mustang, just last year. Bought it on the spot. It had all the soul, all the feel, all the playability, and all the tone that make vintage Fenders legendary. I couldn't believe that they go for so much cheaper than their more popular cousins. It's not like I'd kick a vintage strat out of bed, but the guitar-to-price ratio for Mustangs is dramatically more favourable. Those of us who are fortunate to enjoy the looks and tone of Mustangs get to enjoy one of the last vestiges of affordable vintage Fenders, though they have been taking off in price lately. There are still "real world" deals far better than the $2k Mustangs you see on Reverb.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 19662
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by Larry Mal » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:44 am

Like I pointed out in the Gearslutz thread, the Mustang does have less bottom end (or "thinner" quality) to the sound, but this is only a disadvantage as far as your imagination goes. If you are playing with other instruments that are dedicated to handling the bass, then having a guitar that is clear out of that frequency range can actually be a good thing as far as fitting into a mix.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
SansRegret
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:16 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by SansRegret » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:26 pm

My buddies got a '78 Ash mustang. It's a great guitar, he got it ridiculoudly cheap at 400 (with a kahler, different pickups and a side mount jack hole added. But it did come with original bridge/trem with no arm). I wound vintage style pickups for it and it plays great, super light and real comfortable to play. And with the pickups and a new guard the total was under 500, and we were able to get about $200 for selling the Kahler.

I can't personally speak of original mustang pickups but the its a really nice playing guitar. Used it for a lot of recording this Winter.
Thom

"Who poured that pint, Ray Charles?"

User avatar
northern_dirt
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:03 am
Location: Scarborough

Re: Vintage Mustang Cost Justification

Post by northern_dirt » Fri May 14, 2021 7:12 am

I paid $350 CDN for a 1965 mustang with OG case..

Thats about as much as they are worth.. ok maybe $600 with inflation, it was in 1992

Post Reply