Re: AVRI comparison with Vintage?

bubbles_horwitz · Post by **bubbles_horwitz** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:10 pm

i agree. avri guitars are only more consistent because they are made by machine.
leo was a businessman, but he was also very pragmatic. he would've recognized the negative effects of selling poorly-made guitars.

Post by **zhivago** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:14 pm

back then people took pride in their work...that's what I love from that era.

Post by **mynameisjonas** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:28 pm

Jay wrote: I really think that the finishes won't age the way a full on nitro finish would. Not that that really matters much to be honest but I can see it protecting the wood on the neck better especially so you won't see those really played in necks as much on AVRI's in 20 years.

but aren't the AVRI necks finished with only nitro?

scottme · Post by **scottme** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:56 pm

samblers wrote:
zhivago wrote: unfortunately, IMO, there's a little "something" missing...call it mojo, or whatever, that extra little bit is what makes a good vintage offset a keeper for life.
Damn, I was hoping you weren't going to say that I'm currently lusting after this in my local guitar shop (AUD6000), and trying to convince myself that i dont need it in my life (given that it means i'll have to get divorced if i get it! )

If this Jag was hanging up in Jacksons in Sydney, It would be $10k... I don't knoww how they survive, especially when the USD takes a dive.

I agree with all things said about vintage v AVRI

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:32 pm

They were handmade instruments

Can we dispell this myth once and for all that Fender guitars were handmade? They were making tens of thousands of the each year using pin routers and whatever machinery was necessary to do the job as quickly as possible.

There was a certain degree of hand finishing and certain processes were done by hand which often produced inconsistency in product.

blacktiger · Post by **blacktiger** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:39 pm

Marc wrote:
They were handmade instruments
Can we dispell this myth once and for all that Fender guitars were handmade? They were making tens of thousands of the each year using pin routers and whatever machinery was necessary to do the job as quickly as possible.

There was a certain degree of hand finishing and certain processes were done by hand which often produced inconsistency in product.

Yes, they used machines, but there was much more handwork put into them than there is these days. Pick-ups were handwound, no denying that. Yes, there were inconsistencies, but take a look at the fit and finish that several people have complained about on the thin skin JMs and tell me that the higher level of mechanization used to turn out AVRIs makes them superior for their consistency. There is plenty of variation among AVRIs as well, as far as tone, resonance, weight, fit and finish goes. Does that not count as inconsistency? I'm not claiming that vintage guitars are better than new ones, just pointing out that there is more of a difference between the two than just age.

RumorsOFsurF · Post by **RumorsOFsurF** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:46 pm

blacktiger wrote: How many people have played a bad pre-CBS guitar?

How many pre-CBS guitars have you played? I've played a handful, but I've played tons and tons of new Fenders. Even if you've played 20 pre-CBS guitars, you probably wouldn't see a lemon. Besides, the only probs we're really seeing with the new stuff is minor fit and finish stuff. You would never know on a 40+ year old guitar if there were minor flaws in the finish and such. You can't compare the two.

Leo produced fine guitars, no doubt about it.

Here's the bottom line:

There is no objective way to compare AVRI guitars to vintage. Too many variables. Perhaps if you somehow were able to play a room full of untouched pre-CBS Fenders vs. the same number of AVRIs, then you could truly compare the two.

Vintage doesn't mean better, just more valuable. If you prefer to play and own vintage instruments, then they are better to you, but that doesn't mean they are better quality.

I love vintage instruments, and I'd love to own some. I'm not willing to spend $4000+ on a nice Pre-CBS Jazzmaster at this point in my life, it's not financially intelligent for me. It all comes down to personal preference. Something you can't quantify or argue with.....

*Steps off soapbox*

blacktiger · Post by **blacktiger** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:12 pm

RumorsOFsurF wrote: There is no objective way to compare AVRI guitars to vintage. Too many variables. Perhaps if you somehow were able to play a room full of untouched pre-CBS Fenders vs. the same number of AVRIs, then you could truly compare the two.

Vintage doesn't mean better, just more valuable. If you prefer to play and own vintage instruments, then they are better to you, but that doesn't mean they are better quality.

blacktiger wrote:I'm not claiming that vintage guitars are better than new ones, just pointing out that there is more of a difference between the two than just age.

How many times do I have to say that before people stop assuming that I'm claiming that vintage guitars are better? Yes, I prefer them, but I never said that they were better, only different. People have claimed that an AVRI is essentially the same as a new offset from 45 years ago, and all I am saying is that I don't think that's really true. I only pointed out the problems with the Thin Skins because several people have implied, if not outright stated that AVRIs are more "consistent" than vintage guitars. Does this mean that the Thin Skins are bad guitars? Absolutely not. What I do think, based on everything that I've read about Fender under Leo's watch, is that maybe QC was a little more stringent back then. Personally, none of the listed flaws in the Thin Skins would have particularly bothered me, but I do think that if you are paying a premium for a guitar, as people did with these, you should be able to expect a guitar without these flaws, minor as they may be. There are pros and cons for both AVRI and vintage guitars, but the main con for vintage from my point of view is the ridiculous prices, not their "inconsistencies". If pre-CBS Jazzmasters had been thousands or dollars when I discovered them, then I never would have owned one. Hell, if AVRIs had existed when I first started playing Jazzmasters, I probably never would have gotten sucked into the vintage world in the first place. The bottom line is that having the choice of MIJ/CIJ, AVRI or vintage offsets is a great thing, regardless of which you choose.

bubbles_horwitz · Post by **bubbles_horwitz** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:14 pm

RumorsOFsurF wrote: but that doesn't mean they are better quality.

actually, i would argue that, if anything, a pre-cbs jaguar would be of a better quality than an avri. they were professional-grade instruments back in the day. much more care was afforded for them than any reissue. i mean better parts, better wood.
as to which is actually better, that all comes down to personal preference. but in terms of pure quality, the vintage (mainly pre-cbs) guitars are better.

RumorsOFsurF · Post by **RumorsOFsurF** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:38 pm

AVRIs still are professional grade instruments! They are the top of the line. If not the AVRI, then what? Only Gibson or Gretsch makes professional grade guitars? :-\

Do you know how many guitars left the factory with no clearcoat, or undercoat "under Leo's watch?" If they were in a hurry to boost production, they cut corners. It's a proven fact. It makes for some interesting variations, though.

As far as the wood being better...Come on, that's ridiculous. Okay, Brazilian Rosewood is very nice, but the maple and alder is pretty much the same as it was back then.

Like I said, Pre-CBS Fenders are great, but they are not the perfect instruments that many vintage nuts make them out to be. Legend and lore have made Leo era Fenders out to be much more than they are.

I'm a die hard Leo fan, but his products had their flaws and inconsistencies. That's part of the mystique, IMO.

There is no way for anyone to win the "Which one is better" argument. It's a stalemate. Let's leave it at that.

bubbles_horwitz · Post by **bubbles_horwitz** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:25 am

bubbles_horwitz wrote:as to which is actually better, that all comes down to personal preference. but in terms of pure quality, the vintage (mainly pre-cbs) guitars are better.

Post by **Jay** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:51 am

Germaphobe.

Let's pose this question to the AVRI crew... if the prices were equal between the two which would you take? If the AVRI was only $250 less? $500 less?

Post by **mezcalhead** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:26 am

RumorsOFsurF wrote: AVRIs still are professional grade instruments! They are the top of the line. If not the AVRI, then what?

I think vintage to current Custom Shop instruments is a fairer comparison, both in the production methods and the prices: IIRC adjusted for inflation a CS teambuilt costs about what a new Strat did back in the early 60s.

From what I've heard from guys who were around at the time, they were "professional" instruments in the sense that you didn't really own one unless you expected to make money with it*. There wasn't the large group of hobbyists who could buy high-end guitars like we have these days. Amps were even worse .. an entire band would save for months to buy a single Vox AC30 .. then they would all plug in to it at once and hope it didn't blow up.

(*Yes, Rumors, I know that your Fenders earn their keep!)

RumorsOFsurF · Post by **RumorsOFsurF** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:54 pm

Good points, Mez. I didn't think about the CS and their manufacturing processes. I didn't really think too much about the price with inflation, either.

Although there are more hobbyists like ourselves, most tend toward the MIM/MIK range. Aside from this place, I haven't seen too many players with AVRI's that weren't at least semi-serious. 1400 bucks is a lot to lay down on a new guitar for an occasional hobbyist. Of course, we offsetters tend toward the obsessive, don't we?

I'm not saying I'd rather have an AVRI than a vintage guitar, I'm just trying to make arguments for the other side. There's so much vintage fever around here, that many aren't really arguing, they are just saying "of course vintage is better." That really doesn't answer the question, nor is it a valid point.

I'm trying to keep this as objective as possible.

Give me a 58/59 gold guard, or a 66 IBM with blocks and binding! I'd take either of those over any AVRI. Trust me.

StevenO · Post by **StevenO** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:44 pm

I played a '64 jazzmaster today and over-all it felt a lot more solid than any AVRI or CIJ or MIJ that I have ever played. That's my only gripe with AVRI/CIJ/MIJ guitars, especially jazzmasters. They rarely feel like a solid piece of wood and often have an unnatural feel to them, which is too bad. I've found this with jazzmasters a lot more than say strats or teles, possibly since jazzmasters aren't as possible, they have the tendency to just throw them together, but who knows...

I played a 66 (or so) musicmaster today and it just felt and played in a really awesome way. I was really impressed. The jazzmaster had a good feel but it wasn't set up well.