Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:02 pm
by grygrx
I think you could probably make an argument that cutting out holes in the fingerboard to put in blocks is more likely to create structural integrity problems and dead spots. If it looks the same AND it's easier to accomplish a better sounding and longer lasting instrument for less money, fender (and everyone else) shouldn't give a damn if a few elitists find it unsavory!
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:03 pm
by Mike
grygrx wrote:I think you could probably make an argument that cutting out holes in the fingerboard to put in blocks is more likely to create structural integrity problems and dead spots
Dude.
*facepalm*
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:06 pm
by grygrx
Mike wrote:grygrx wrote:I think you could probably make an argument that cutting out holes in the fingerboard to put in blocks is more likely to create structural integrity problems and dead spots
Dude.
*facepalm*
Learn me different... I'm not committed.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:09 pm
by Mike
You want me to prove that having inlays in a neck does not compromise it's sound or structural integrity?
What after that? The World is Flat?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:13 pm
by stewart
grygrx wrote:I think you could probably make an argument that cutting out holes in the fingerboard to put in blocks is more likely to create structural integrity problems and dead spots. If it looks the same AND it's easier to accomplish a better sounding and longer lasting instrument for less money, fender (and everyone else) shouldn't give a damn if a few elitists find it unsavory!
how come they still do it on their more expensive models then? if blocking created those problems, and painting them on had the advantages you mention why doesn't everyone do it?
i've got a 42 year old block inlaid fender, so i reckon i have some insight to make comparisons with.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:06 pm
by benecol
I've always wondered the same thing, hactually; it's not going to make the neck any stronger, now, is it? And I've played cheaper guitars where you can feel a slight snag on the edge of the inlay when you bend a string.
Plus I think grygrx may be one of the best logins ever.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:31 pm
by stewart
it depends if you buy the sort of guitar that has a predisposition for the headstock to come flying off if you so much as sneeze in its direction.
do not want painted blocks, did not buy guitar.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 pm
by grygrx
I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done well, it just adds to the price/time/skill factor needed to produce an instrument. It's doesn't really add anything except piece of mind that it's inlay-ed rather than painted, people like the fancy (I'm not different). I guess I don't know what you guys expect from a 300$ instrument.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 pm
by grygrx
stewart wrote:
do not want painted blocks, did not buy guitar.
fair enough!
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:01 pm
by Reece
grygrx wrote:I guess I don't know what you guys expect from a 300$ instrument.
We expect what we see.
If I see blocks then I want blocks, not painted rectangles. If blocks are too costly then make them dots, don't paint them on.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:04 pm
by benecol
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:37 pm
by grygrx
Reece wrote:grygrx wrote:I guess I don't know what you guys expect from a 300$ instrument.
We expect what we see.
If I see blocks then I want blocks, not painted rectangles. If blocks are too costly then make them dots, don't paint them on.
Blah! Not willing to pay for craftsmanship, but want the craftsmanship. Despite the fact it has no impact on the ability of the tool to do it's job. Got IT!
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:45 pm
by Reece
What? I am willing to pay for the craftsmanship. I said if the cost is too high for it to be practical then make them dots.
If we're arguing about guitars as tools then this discussion is moot, the dots on the side of the neck work perfectly well enough for you to know where you are. Get rid of dots altogether.
Get rid of that silly headstock while you're at it, what a waste of wood.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:57 pm
by grygrx
We were arguing?
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:20 pm
by Reece
Yes, yes we were.
Please lavish me with more sarcastic exclamation marks and emoticons.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:27 pm
by Reece
Reece wrote:Yes, yes we were.
Please lavish me with more sarcastic exclamation marks and emoticons.
Uhh yeah, that was just lazy.
Apologies, I'm over tired.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:31 pm
by benecol
Leave orf - he's alright.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:42 pm
by benecol
There now. We've all had a drink etc.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:43 pm
by grygrx
Reece wrote:Reece wrote:Yes, yes we were.
Please lavish me with more sarcastic exclamation marks and emoticons.
Uhh yeah, that was just lazy.
Apologies, I'm over tired.
No worries, I wasn't really trying to prove a point (though it may have come off otherwise).
I was hoping to grasp why some people are so visceral about the inlay vs block thing, when in many cases it's not possible to tell the difference unless you saw the neck in half.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:09 pm
by stewart
depends on the inlay, painting pearloid's going to get a bit tricky.
i don't think anyone's that bothered, it's just preference.