dots wrote:as for quality in american vs. japanese or other fenders. . . i think it's more complicated than just the name or the origin. it really depends on the model.
This rule still applies. Even the information in the lists isn't right/is out of date from model to model, for example all J guitars have alder bodies now. Every J Jaguar I've ever owned have been from different years and they all felt completely different. From ones I've totally despised to the 93(ish) one that I wouldn't trade for any other guitar in the world. That old guitar is the closest feel-wise to my vintage one. It also has the brass plates in it too, and that's another difference between older J guitars and the newer ones.
Do the AVRI have brass plates in them? (I've never owned one).
dots wrote: clearly, if setting up a jag with stock hardware was impossible, there wouldn't even be a discussion. okay, it's harder. quit acting like it's impossible or torturous. there's just work involved, and die-hards are gonna say the work arounds are unnecessary and indicative of laziness and/or inexperience. since they've owned the guitar longer and have setup their guitars properly without all the do-dads, they're entitled.
The point is, if a large % of owners wind up making these aftermarket purchases to solve these problems, and in fact cannot figure out how to set it up otherwise, then you've got a functionally defective product. A failure rate even a fraction of what the the bridge replacement rate on these AVRIs have would result in a massive recall on an automobile. If some people can figure it out, but a large percentage can't, I personally would categorize that as functionallly defective. YMMV and all that. If you ask people here, or on the other boards to "raise hands" as to how many have these aftermarket purchases, a very significant percentage will be raising their hands. Albeit sheepishly, since they don't want to incur the wrath of the self-proclaimed "superior setter-uppers" who they must be inferior to. Evidently. But if it's that hard to do, such that a huge % of owners won't ever figure out how to do it, that very difficulty makes it functionally defective, IMO. Assuming they really all can actually do it, which based on what I've read I frankly have significant doubts.
BTW A Fender-authorized repair-person, working in consultation with Fender, could not keep my AVRI trem arm from flopping,. I guess you're saying that I, with no training, should be able to do just go and do it better than he can, make it not flop even though he couldn't. Sure I should.
just how large is that percentage of owners who have to buy aftermarket products? what numbers are you using to quantify this claim? as somebody who has replaced pickups, switches, pots, bridges, and other hardware on guitars since the day he picked up one to play, the existence of aftermarket mods in no way indicates defective or faulty craftsmanship or design. that's a false correlation.
Reece wrote:Show me the well documented problem and all of these people that apparently think the bridge "sucks".
You've got to be kidding me, the boards are replete with this, half the people on this very forum probably have Mustang bridges. Including people who are castigating me, for taking exception to the stated assertion by others that their version is"superior" in quality, while they are ignoring the obvious defects on their own instruments. The laugher is some of these people have Mustang bridges installed themselves. That is completely different than just deciding to change pickups, they are changing to remediate a buzzing defect, not mere preference. Nobody prefers buzzing . In the same sense that I changed tuners, because they were inadequate. Defective=not judged as adequate for the intended purpose by the people buying them, if it is too hard for them to set up, to the point where they are changing them out, it is functionally defective. that's why they are getting rid of them. If you think this is some news I'm telling you, then you are in some serious denial.
Reece wrote: b]that doesn't have production defects[/b] (like may be the case with your AVRI arm)
MMPicker wrote:Defective=not judged as adequate for the intended purpose by the people buying them, if it is too hard for them to set up, to the point where they are changing them out, it is functionally defective. that's why they are getting rid of them.
that's not really what defective means, or even how it's popularly used. all defective means is:
defective |diˈfektiv|
adjective
imperfect or faulty : complaints over defective goods.
so that's a pretty broad definition that could be taken a lot of ways. it could be seen as imperfect or faulty by a range of different people's perspective. it could be as you say, from the consumer's perspective, in which case perhaps it may be defective or it could be in the designer's perspective, in which case it functions exactly as designed and is therefore not defective. usually in manufactured products the word is used in the latter way, from the designer's perspective. if the consumer doesn't find the product to function adequately it is just considered an unpopular design not necessarily defective. otherwise you can just say anything that the consumer doesn't like (or 'does not judge adequate for the intended purpose') is defective. 8-tracks, defective. atari jaguar, defective. etc. etc.
the jaguar trem and bridge is unpopular, yes, but defective? no.
The jag trem is the best vintage style trem there is in my opinion, I like how the arm 'flaps about', and the push-in socket was one of the first of it's kind. Something Floyd Rose and Ibanez used many years later.
The bridge was designed with the intention of using heavy gauge strings which it works well with, if you intend to use light gauge strings and drop tune you MAY face problems but this doesn't mean it is a defective design. It's an idiosyncratic design at worst.
So based upon this, the literature is out there, let's presume prospective Jaguar buyers do their homework- aVRI means American VINTAGE REISSUE. It's not a modernized design, buy a CP or HH if that's what you want.
That aside, I've used the stock jag bridge for years with light gauge strings and I also play down tuned a whole step, have I had problems? No. I took the time to set the bridge up, like I would on any guitar. If we want to idiosyncrasies try setting a Floyd Rose up from scratch. I dare say the vast majority of people fit a mustang bridge either because they have been misled to do so or do not have patience or know how to set up a stock jag bridge.
Saying it is defective is a cop out.
Fran wrote:The jag trem is the best vintage style trem there is in my opinion, I like how the arm 'flaps about', and the push-in socket was one of the first of it's kind. Something Floyd Rose and Ibanez used many years later.
The bridge was designed with the intention of using heavy gauge strings which it works well with, if you intend to use light gauge strings and drop tune you MAY face problems but this doesn't mean it is a defective design. It's an idiosyncratic design at worst.
So based upon this, the literature is out there, let's presume prospective Jaguar buyers do their homework- aVRI means American VINTAGE REISSUE. It's not a modernized design, buy a CP or HH if that's what you want.
That aside, I've used the stock jag bridge for years with light gauge strings and I also play down tuned a whole step, have I had problems? No. I took the time to set the bridge up, like I would on any guitar. If we want to idiosyncrasies try setting a Floyd Rose up from scratch. I dare say the vast majority of people fit a mustang bridge either because they have been misled to do so or do not have patience or know how to set up a stock jag bridge.
Saying it is defective is a cop out.
great post. i think the problem you're running into, mmpicker, is you're trying to pass off your perspective as the perspective. why would fender reissue jaguars with several period correct attributes (like the bridge) if it were indeed "defective"? and before you think about going there, producing instruments with alternative components stock doesn't make your point either, else fender would've been saying the single coil is dead in 1972 when they released the tele deluxe. have you noticed every post you've taken issue with in this thread has been prefaced with statements like "in my opinion" or "from my perspective" etc? because this all comes down choice and taste. you're getting all this blowback because you're telling a forum of shortscale fender lovers that a 50-year-old design that continues to be remade to this day shouldn't have come out of the factory in the first place. no humility, no concession to other points of view and literally for days on end. get over yourself, we're already there.
I love the stock Jag bridge, i have 4 Jaguars and 3 Jazzmasters, every single one has the stock bridge except for one.
And thats because it was on there when i bought it second hand. I dont have any buzzing or 'jumping strings' in the saddles and i dont use those rediculous buzzstops either. 5 minutes of your time and a small allen key is all it takes to set up one of my favorite Fender bridges, the STOCK Jaguar bridge.
Leo Fender wasn't a guitarist himself... so the guitars were lumps of wood with strings attached, almost as basic as can be.
The stings popped out of my jag and stang bridge, a simple mod like cutting the groove deeper and shimming it from underneath solves that issue. Guitarists of yesteryear wouldn't have been so heavy handed and they would have used very heavy gauge strings... in which case the bridge design wouldn't need touching at all.
I liked the comparison with the floyd rose... that is a headache in itself, much more defective than a jag bridge if you look at it in that way.
Part of the reason shortscales are loved is because they are odd ball designs and unique in themselves... they don't look, feel or sounds like a PRS or a Gibson.
I'll tell thee what, i've filled deeper slots in many a TOM saddle and raised many a tail piece to help tension.
Repairing guitars for a shop really does reveal a lot of truths, and the truth is a lot of guitarists dont care for or maintain their instruments. Also, no design is flawless.
Because of lack of moving parts on guitars like LPs and Teles you can usually get away without care, but any guitar with a tremolo whether it be bigsby, strat, jag, floyd, kahler... all need maintaining and cleaning regularly to perform smoothly. Its mechanical albeit primitive, you'd lubricate your car engine so why ignore your trem? Sweaty greasy hands does'nt quite cut it.
Lazy guitarists need to man up and stop whinging, or maybe not, they can keep paying me for their ignorance.
