STOP THE PRESSES! New Dano for 2009!

Post by **Hurb** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:13 am

DuoSonicBoy wrote:
Hurb wrote:If they are like the older solid bodies they brought out like the innuendo etc they will be laminate shite. I'E cheaps.
Why is that cheap? A 335 is built the same way - plywood over a solid wood frame. Also, I'm sure it will be a true solid body.

nah I am talking about chipboard like stuff. Its solid but just scrap wood glued together.

Post by **Hurb** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:17 am

PLYWOOD.

gaybear · Post by **gaybear** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:22 am

if only fender could make 400-600 dollar quality stuff with looks like these.

Sloan · Post by **Sloan** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:57 am

They look like they are TINY and would make me look MOAR FAT.

ultratwin · Post by **ultratwin** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:58 am

BacchusPaul wrote:Looks cool, but I fucking hate the feel of brushed metal.

Gives me the heebie-jeebies, like.

From a distance, that section in general looks like a speckled scrotum bulge. Cool reissue vibes nonetheless.

DanHeron · Post by **DanHeron** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 1:37 pm

WOAH! I would seriously condsider buying one of those, anyone know a release date? I guess after NAMM sometime?

benecol · Post by **benecol** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 2:46 pm

While it looks a bit little to my eyes (and manly frame), if the baritone version has a reverb handle, I may well get one.

william · Post by **william** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:02 pm

DuoSonicBoy wrote:I imagine they'll be in the $250-$300 range. Add a little cost for the vibrato, but cyt a bit b/c it's a solid body. So it'll probably even out. Fort Madison is pre-selling for $415, but they're always super high and have http from the mid-90s.

I always thought the "meat cleaver" headstock was the one Kay used that had that unique German bevel on the treble side. Oh well, could be wrong and probably am. I always heard the square one called the "refrigerator".

In any case, EXCITED!!!

also, I just noticed that it's William who pointed out my headstock faux pas. Are there 2 Dano fans named William on this board?

if your name is william, then yes.

meat cleaver.

i dont think they are small overall, but may be a bit narrow. like a cyclone.

i am so totally getting one.

but im changing out that horrible frosty hardware with chrome.

new project: im making it look like this one:

except with 2 pups.

WAIt A FUCKING TIC.

they fucked it up!

why does it have the dano "skrote" bottom but the coral pickguard/construction?!

WTF.

i just noticed this.

goddamnit, why? why cant they just copy something right? they never get it 100% right.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:54 pm

Probably because they wanted to make it look as retro as possible so they combined every quirk they could from each version. Also it sort of follows tradition of the cheap guitars from that era. Each version of a near identical guitar was slightly different from the next back then, so why not make a slight change here and there now?

Personally I would like it better without the extra butt. Also it's hard to tell from the tiny pictures but I wonder if these are going to actually have chrome hardware or if they're going to re-use the "brushed metal" look from the last danos. I'm way past my personal limit of guitars owned right now so can't say I have gas over these, but they do look well cool, and I'd play one for so.

Post by **Hurb** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:12 pm

Nick wrote:Probably because they wanted to make it look as retro as possible so they combined every quirk they could from each version. Also it sort of follows tradition of the cheap guitars from that era. Each version of a near identical guitar was slightly different from the next back then, so why not make a slight change here and there now?

Personally I would like it better without the extra butt. Also it's hard to tell from the tiny pictures but I wonder if these are going to actually have chrome hardware or if they're going to re-use the "brushed metal" look from the last danos. I'm way past my personal limit of guitars owned right now so can't say I have gas over these, but they do look well cool, and I'd play one for so.

I posted a huge pic on the other page. its that brushed metal which is a shame. but meh.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:13 pm

Hurb wrote:wow!

► Show Spoiler

Large picture

kim · Post by **kim** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:37 pm

hot

reissue dano is not

stupid

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:54 pm

Hmmm. I can see why they have a fanclub on here but that trem and the brushed metal, almost looks like a Woolworths guitar from 1968. I'd go with a Jackson SC4 anyday.

kim · Post by **kim** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:58 pm

i'd rather have 60's department store guitar than these fake wannabe cheapo/retro still overpriced things, i'd be interested if they would've actually bothered to make correct reproductions of those guitars but there's always gotta be something 'off' so it's just not that cool... you know.

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:09 pm

heavium wrote:i'd rather have 60's department store guitar than these fake wannabe cheapo/retro still overpriced things, i'd be interested if they would've actually bothered to make correct reproductions of those guitars but there's always gotta be something 'off' so it's just not that cool... you know.

I dare say these will be overpriced. Department store guitars look great but i've never found one that stays in tune, intonates correctly or plays nice. This Dano might, but it does'nt exactly look like a workhorse guitar. Would anyone gig one of these without a backup? (no need to post pics of Jimmy Page playing a Dano live)

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:09 pm

I don't know, I think a lot of it is that the cost of components normally found in more expensive guitars in the 60's has dwindled down to pennies on the dollar. Fact is it's easier to switch pickups from a 3 position toggle or 5 way blade on the fly than it is having on/off slider switches for each pickup, which was most likely more cost effective in its day. Yeah, in the 60's a metal plate with a wooden saddle on it would have been way cheaper to produce than a Strat tremolo or TOM, but now the sheer abundance of these parts means just about any guitar sold at kmart will be able to have a "hi-tech" bridge. Same goes for necks with truss rods, wooden bodies, pickups, etc.

However, all in all, old guitars made out of makeshift parts have a certain charm to them. Only having one squealing or muddy pickup or a non-intonatable bridge, or just about any obstacle on a guitar can make for more flexible and creative guitar playing, and a more unique tone.

Either way though, brushed metal hardware is crap, especially when most of these vintage chrome parts are still as reflective as they were new, it doesn't even look reliced.

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:23 pm

Nick wrote:I don't know, I think a lot of it is that the cost of components normally found in more expensive guitars in the 60's has dwindled down to pennies on the dollar. Fact is it's easier to switch pickups from a 3 position toggle or 5 way blade on the fly than it is having on/off slider switches for each pickup, which was most likely more cost effective in its day. Yeah, in the 60's a metal plate with a wooden saddle on it would have been way cheaper to produce than a Strat tremolo or TOM, but now the sheer abundance of these parts means just about any guitar sold at kmart will be able to have a "hi-tech" bridge. Same goes for necks with truss rods, wooden bodies, pickups, etc.

However, all in all, old guitars made out of makeshift parts have a certain charm to them. Only having one squealing or muddy pickup or a non-intonatable bridge, or just about any obstacle on a guitar can make for more flexible and creative guitar playing, and a more unique tone.

Either way though, brushed metal hardware is crap, especially when most of these vintage chrome parts are still as reflective as they were new, it doesn't even look reliced.

I understand what your saying, its like warts an' all. But i just cant get on with stuff that is unreliable, theres no excuse in this day and age of cheap proper parts.... like you said. You gotta hand it to Dano though, they know damn well what they are doing here, there is a market for it and they can maximise profits with what materials and components they will use. Its a no brainer.

william · Post by **william** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:58 pm

Fran wrote:
heavium wrote:i'd rather have 60's department store guitar than these fake wannabe cheapo/retro still overpriced things, i'd be interested if they would've actually bothered to make correct reproductions of those guitars but there's always gotta be something 'off' so it's just not that cool... you know.
I dare say these will be overpriced. Department store guitars look great but i've never found one that stays in tune, intonates correctly or plays nice. This Dano might, but it does'nt exactly look like a workhorse guitar. Would anyone gig one of these without a backup? (no need to post pics of Jimmy Page playing a Dano live)

my silvertone (exactly like the one i posted on the other page) is THE SHIT. does all of the above things and sounds so fucking good.

kim · Post by **kim** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:10 pm

or like jack white playing that airline and all of a sudden everyone wanted one so builders started making knock offs and selling them for way too much.

it's always like that, but the reproductions often are shit compared to the actual old ones that are still being used now (duh otherwise they'd be busted now). then when some famous musicians put some no name cheap guitar in the spotlight everyone wants it so guitar companies smell profit but the replicas can't be exactly the same so it's always a bit like ..i dunno... like you step into a trap. but then some replicas are actually pretty cool, after all i couldn't be more happy mustangs became more popular in the 90's (same thing) and fender japan started making them

william · Post by **william** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:15 pm

Nick wrote:I don't know, I think a lot of it is that the cost of components normally found in more expensive guitars in the 60's has dwindled down to pennies on the dollar. Fact is it's easier to switch pickups from a 3 position toggle or 5 way blade on the fly than it is having on/off slider switches for each pickup, which was most likely more cost effective in its day. Yeah, in the 60's a metal plate with a wooden saddle on it would have been way cheaper to produce than a Strat tremolo or TOM, but now the sheer abundance of these parts means just about any guitar sold at kmart will be able to have a "hi-tech" bridge. Same goes for necks with truss rods, wooden bodies, pickups, etc.

However, all in all, old guitars made out of makeshift parts have a certain charm to them. Only having one squealing or muddy pickup or a non-intonatable bridge, or just about any obstacle on a guitar can make for more flexible and creative guitar playing, and a more unique tone.

Either way though, brushed metal hardware is crap, especially when most of these vintage chrome parts are still as reflective as they were new, it doesn't even look reliced.

this goes against almost everything i believe. for instance, i cant stand the eastwood coral hornet with the strat trem. get a fucking strat if you want a fucking strat.

but yeah, the satin chrome is rediculous. GFS lipsticks are cheap and supposedly good (and chrome) though. if the guitar is worth swapping the pups, id still do it.

im still dissappointed in the two butts. i hate how they dont keep the integrity of the og, even if it wouldnt cost them more. WTF.

i say, if its worth reissuing, its worth reissuing right.