Mustang Reissues? '69 v. '65? Why?

Sidney Vicious · Post by **Sidney Vicious** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:20 am

Which Mustang Reissue do you prefer and why?

DICHOTOMY · Post by **DICHOTOMY** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:27 am

mmmmmmmm 65.....

Sidney Vicious · Post by **Sidney Vicious** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:41 am

DICHOTOMY wrote:mmmmmmmm 65.....

That's a beaut, DICHOTOMY - but why a '65 - is that color not offered in the '69? Or is it something else?

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:51 am

i'd prefer '65 pickups in a '69. <3 contours.

Yarko · Post by **Yarko** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:52 am

yea, i like the '65 too. the only reason i picked the 65 was because it was the only one available at the time.

please excuse my cell's res:

Sidney Vicious · Post by **Sidney Vicious** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:11 am

Yarko wrote:yea, i like the '65 too. the only reason i picked the 65 was because it was the only one available at the time.please excuse my cell's res:

Hey - that's a reason!

Stan Kwervo · Post by **Stan Kwervo** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:13 am

I like my '69. Though I bought it not knowing '69 reissues existed; thought all mustangs were '65s. But I love the contours and lower output pickups. I do envy the '65 reissue's tuners though.

Yarko · Post by **Yarko** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:29 am

Stan Kwervo wrote:I do envy the '65 reissue's tuners though.

yeah, they're great, and white!

Sidney Vicious · Post by **Sidney Vicious** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:45 am

So I'm reading that '65's have hotter pickups and white tuners v. '69's have a contoured body?

Anything else distinguishes one from the other?

Aeon · Post by **Aeon** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:48 am

65's have poplar bodies, 69's have basswood.

65's have plastic tuning heads, 69s have metal.

65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.

65s in general are better and more period correct. There's nothing too bad about 69's, but given the choice I would take a 65.

and for the record, I used to own a 69
[youtube][/youtube]

Yarko · Post by **Yarko** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:52 am

Aeon wrote: 65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.

confirmed, no gaps.

Sidney Vicious · Post by **Sidney Vicious** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:53 am

Aeon wrote:65's have poplar bodies, 69's have basswood.

65's have plastic tuning heads, 69s have metal.

65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.

65s in general are better and more period correct. There's nothing too bad about 69's, but given the choice I would take a 65.

and for the record, I used to own a 69
[youtube][/youtube]

Thanks for the info and the demonstration - great tone and feel.

Post by **Mike** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:51 am

I owned a '65. It was fucking great. It felt miles apart from a '69 RI in build quality, solidness, tuning stability and the pickups were WIN. I still am sad I had to sell it.

- Better pickups
- Better aesthetics - fuck some Tort - the Daphne Blue + aged Pearloid + white pegs look is lush
- Great neck, glossy as hell
- Better bridge
- Hot Hot Hot in all three colour combinations, which blow the '69's wank Sonic/Tort or Custard/Tort out of the water.

Apologies for the tuning issues:

[youtube][/youtube]

Also: I was FAT.

kypdurron · Post by **kypdurron** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:28 am

I love my '65, too. It is really period correct, and of high quality. Wikipedia stats that Dyna Gakki made Fender guitars are exported, while Tokai made ones are not. So one might come to the conclusion that these come from different factories, which might explain why the '65 is told to have better pickups and to be of higher quality. Besides, I really prefer the slap body for optical reasons.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:23 pm

I really want to like Mustangs, but since I played one, I can't get on with how thin the body is. I expected it to be as thick as my Jagstang, and the the fact that it wasn't completely threw me off.

It's probably me being a bit silly, like, when you see some food that you think you'll like, you eat it, and it tastes completely different to the way you expected it to, and you hate it, even though it might be quite nice in its own right but you've been scared off by the unexpected shock.

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:32 pm

i feel (kind of) the same in reverse about jag-stangs. even if i suddenly found myself liking their shape (unlikely) i wouldn't be able to get over how stupidly thick and unfinished-feeling the body is.

► Show Spoiler

kim · Post by **kim** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:57 pm

'69

because they make it lefty

fuck you '65 leftycists !!!

also '69 sounds more sexy and sonic blue wins from daphne blue, countours win over no countours, nice looking REVERB HANDLE compared to the awkward looking one, neck is smoother, i've only played one 65 upside down, i guess the pickups are a bit more fancy but haven't changed mine in my 69, if i had the budget i would get some bareknuckles in there, but it's not a total disaster with the stock pu's

Thom · Post by **Thom** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:02 pm

I liked my '69 Mustang when I had it, but like Paul I never really got on with the thin body. Jag-Stang is much preferred by me, something that thin doesn't need contours. I do wish they made the '65s lefty though, would like to try one of them.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:19 pm

I just like big, hefty, wud.

Pens · Post by **Pens** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:24 pm

Every time I see a '65 RI in Sonic Blue I get so sad. I so wish Amy hadn't sold that damn guitar. It was so amazing and felt so solid, even though it was right handed.