my '75 stang had a quite standard neck, like the usual C-shape strat, to say something. it was confortable weight.
then the '78 and '80 stangs were huge chunk baseball necks like a telecaster or so. not my thing. and they were über-heavy, unconfortable and quite lifeless sounding beasts. a real pity.
old pic, it's the 2 in the front. the '80 has the maple neck.
the '64-'69 models have always been the most confortable ones, as long as it's not A-size necks.
in the end i only kept my white '67.
it's my comfy guitar to come home to. plus it basically covers all my needs.
MOAR SHORTSCALERS NEED MAPLESTANGS.
I'm glad it's a good fit for you!
I was very sad that I didn't enjoy the neck on that one. Not only did that Mustang look badass, but it has a FANASTIC tone, probably the nicest I've ever heard from a Fender. I don't know if it's something about the pickups, or if the wood has a special mojo, but damn does it sound good!
I briefly toyed with the idea of putting a different neck on it, but I couldn't bear the thought of doing it. Some day I want to custom build a Mustang with a maple fingerboard to fill the void.
It's not like all 70s guitars are horrible, if anything there's just more variety. The highs are real highs and the lows are... firewood. This sort of thing tends to turn into a this is shit/great thread. The 70s Fenders are amongst the coolest guitars produced (in my opinion) the only negative is that the bad ones aren't just bad, they're fucking terrible. Like it nickleback and limp bazizkit had a baby and that baby was a guitar type of bad.
Last edited by Thomas on Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the guy i bought my amp from said he had a 79 or 80 mustang and mine was light by comparison. i can well believe the very late 70s ones are monstrous, my friend's strat does weigh as much as a 10 year old child.
Why is it that late 70's Fenders and Gibsons were so often so damn heavy? Were trees different in those days? Or were both companies at such a low point that they bought (presumably) cheaper grade wood? Or was this somehow a preference of the day, like Khaler tremolos?
Oddly enough, my 1976 ash-bodied P-Bass is exceptionally light, surprising when you consider how huge it is. It's about as light as my basswood Japanese mustang. It, too, suffers from a gigantic sewer pipe sized neck. It sounds incredible but it's gotten next to no love since I bought the Mustang bass.
astro wrote:Why is it that late 70's Fenders and Gibsons were so often so damn heavy? Were trees different in those days?
That might sound ridiculous, but it isn't really. I remember hearing somewhere that experts have looked at growth patterns in oak trees, and concluded that the oak trees that were mature in England two hundred years ago would have been stronger and more supple. They then posited that this was the principle reason for Britain's domination of the seas, as their boats were better built as a result. I wasn't sure what to make of this, but my brother in New Zealand told me last week that over there it only takes seventy years to grow an oak tree, but the wood is much lighter and more porous than we would expect.
astro wrote:Why is it that late 70's Fenders and Gibsons were so often so damn heavy? Were trees different in those days? Or were both companies at such a low point that they bought (presumably) cheaper grade wood? Or was this somehow a preference of the day, like Khaler tremolos?
Oddly enough, my 1976 ash-bodied P-Bass is exceptionally light, surprising when you consider how huge it is. It's about as light as my basswood Japanese mustang. It, too, suffers from a gigantic sewer pipe sized neck. It sounds incredible but it's gotten next to no love since I bought the Mustang bass.
everything was bigger and heavier during the 70's guitars, cars, sideburns....
isn't that what started fender off doing thinline teles? the ash they were getting was much heavier than previous stuff so they started chambering the bodies.
astro wrote:Why is it that late 70's Fenders and Gibsons were so often so damn heavy? Were trees different in those days?
That might sound ridiculous, but it isn't really. I remember hearing somewhere that experts have looked at growth patterns in oak trees, and concluded that the oak trees that were mature in England two hundred years ago would have been stronger and more supple. They then posited that this was the principle reason for Britain's domination of the seas, as their boats were better built as a result. I wasn't sure what to make of this, but my brother in New Zealand told me last week that over there it only takes seventy years to grow an oak tree, but the wood is much lighter and more porous than we would expect.
Interesting stuff, eh?
I didn't know that... I thought I was being a smartass!
Am I correct in assuming that this would be because of the general lack of pollution back then? Or perhaps because it was the pre-climate change era? I've read that plants these days grow faster because of the elevated levels of CO2, so maybe modern trees grow more densely as well?
I think it probably depends on a lot of things. I'd imagine more things than could be put down to one single cause like less pollution or what have you.
AFAIK In the late 60s- 70's the popularity of the electric guitar/guitar bands meant that they were burning through all their stocks of choice wood at a crazy rate. Decent figured wood (for sunburst finishes) started getting harder to source, hence the fauxburst era. As supplies got even shorter the actual wood used started to change resulting in heavier guitars.
The population of trees takes a long time to recover, and even when you've got your timber it needs time to dry properly otherwise it warps like a mofo. Even today when the companies are using kiln drying methods to speed up the process you can see the difference in the price. Kiln dried is way cheaper.
Think of it like the difference between buying freshly made £5.99 wine and a vintage that's matured properly.
jamc_89 wrote:ive been watching ebay for a few weeks looking for the best deal. this was just out of my price range sweet deal for 640 tho.
should have bid on a 04/05 65 reissue. mint condition $500. let it go... /sigh
You'll rarely see a vintage Mustang go for less than $640, unless it is seriously messed up in some way. The '65 reissues pop up fairly often for around $500, so with patience you'll get one in not too long.
IIRC, the '69 reissues go for about $400. They're fantastic guitars, I have one and I love it. It's my favourite.
You'll rarely see a vintage Mustang go for less than $640, unless it is seriously messed up in some way. The '65 reissues pop up fairly often for around $500, so with patience you'll get one in not too long.
IIRC, the '69 reissues go for about $400. They're fantastic guitars, I have one and I love it. It's my favourite.[/quote]
I saw a steal on a 66 mustang with a vintage tweed case yesterday. $603. god, if i only had the cash.
im partial to the 69 reissues too. and im trying to be patient but its though...
Last edited by jamc_89 on Mon May 04, 2009 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
sweet deal for 640 tho.
