MMPicker wrote:I think that this whole neck break angle/ need for shims thing is one of the points they addressed in the Classic Player series.
Certainly my CP has no gap there.
Huge upgrade in quality, but I have to deal with the issues of a 47 year old design. Luckily the advantages out weigh the disadvantages.
I agree about the cited deficiencies (ie "issues of a 47 year old design"), which all point the other way to me, but in what way do you regard it is a "huge upgrade in quality"? what do you perceive to be "hugely" better about it? Changing tuners is a lot cheaper than changing bridges. If you like a bigger radius and smaller frets fine, that's preference, pickups are preference, CP trem is much better for me...
Do you like parts from California assembled by Mexicans in California "hugely" more than parts from california assembled by Mexicans in Mexico? There are some different design features- most deliberately intended as improvements, BTW- but for the most part"better" or "worse" is a matter of preference for those features, isn't it?
Last edited by MMPicker on Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Justin J wrote:jeez give the guy a break. the cp i played sounded and felt like a strat to me. the avri sounds and feels like a jaguar.
Change the pickups, you'll still be way ahead. I have Novaks on mine, sounds great. Some might prefer the originals though.
Mine doesn't feel like any strat , I don't know what you played. do you have a 24" scale strat, with Medium Jumbo frets?
Even if it were true, does sounding and feeling like a strat mean the same thing as "hugely inferior"? . I don't think it does. It means you personally prefer a different sound and feel. If it does mean inferior quality, then all the guys's other guitars are inferior too, none of them sound and feel exactly like AVRI jaguars. I used to have a Les Paul, I guess that was inferior.
Personally, I'd have the difference in the radius as a major fault of the MIM ones, but that's about as much a preference issue as it's possible to be.
It really annoys me, because I might be tempted to start thinking about a CP Jaguar if it wasn't for the radius. It's not that I particularly dislike flat fingerboards, either. It's just that that's not what I'd want in a Fender (I suppose there are as many people, if not more, who thought for ages about buying a MIJ or AVRI Jaguar and were put off by the radius, and were over the moon when the CP came out, with it's flatter fingerboard).
Justin J wrote:jeez give the guy a break. the cp i played sounded and felt like a strat to me. the avri sounds and feels like a jaguar.
I own both a Classic Player and an original 1966 Jaguar which is completely all original. The Classic Player feels like a Jaguar to me.
Strat my arse. The pickups sound like Jag pickups but hotter, and the bridge and trem setup create all the classic Jaguar sounds.
And Paul - play one. 9.5" is not flat, it is only 1.75" different to the original 7.25" radius. Gavin bitched and whined about the radius making it not a jag until he played mine and guess what? He liked it.
well, it's more like they're trying to make a jaguar more strat-like. "correct" its idiosyncrasies.
trem response and big, goofy sounding pickups led me to form my opinion.
I think they were trying to do the mods many people did to their own Jags to make them more useable for modern styles; bridge stability, moved trem = built in buzzstop etc.
For what it's worth, here is my opinion. I own both guitars.
They both have distinct feels, and have their pros and cons, but they are both unequivocally Jaguars to me. They sound like Jags on all pickup settings, and you get that telltale harmonic sound from behind the bridge etc.
The Classic Player excels when you pile on the gain, it handles it beautiful and is a much easier guitar to play lead guitar on, I did some recording recently and used the CP for all my leads. It is easier and faster to play, it has a more defined attack and sustain with heavier sound through pedals or into an amp.
The '66 is more of an old school all rounder, of course you can play leads on it and pile on the gain, but it's going to get messy, you'll have more "behind the bridge" noise getting amplified, the curvier neck is trickier to do fast stuff with bends on, and the pickups are less defined (and much lower gain), so it can be harder to attain a good lead sound. However it is a great clean and rhythm guitar and sounds glorious when crunched up. It is also a far more subtle beast.
Mike wrote:Because Strat pickups are big and goofy sounding?
not all of them are. but there is a crowd of whitemanblues guitarists that love overwound strat pickups.
Mike wrote:I think they were trying to do the mods many people did to their own Jags to make them more useable for modern styles; bridge stability, moved trem = built in buzzstop etc.
which is why i think the hh works so much better. but doing all those things dramatically changes the jaguar, making it considerably less jag-like.
Mike wrote:And Paul - play one. 9.5" is not flat, it is only 1.75" different to the original 7.25" radius. Gavin bitched and whined about the radius making it not a jag until he played mine and guess what? He liked it.
I thought they were 12"?
Either way, I can tell the difference any day between 7.25" and 9.5" and I'd far prefer 7.25" on a Jaguar, for what I'd want to play with it.
Again, it's nothing against flat necks, some of my favourite guitars are very flat, it's just that the shape of the neck makes me play differently, and I'd rather have a Jaguar with 7.25".
MMPicker wrote:I think that this whole neck break angle/ need for shims thing is one of the points they addressed in the Classic Player series.
Certainly my CP has no gap there.
Huge upgrade in quality, but I have to deal with the issues of a 47 year old design. Luckily the advantages out weigh the disadvantages.
I agree about the cited deficiencies (ie "issues of a 47 year old design"), which all point the other way to me, but in what way do you regard it is a "huge upgrade in quality"? what do you perceive to be "hugely" better about it? Changing tuners is a lot cheaper than changing bridges. If you like a bigger radius and smaller frets fine, that's preference, pickups are preference, CP trem is much better for me...
Do you like parts from California assembled by Mexicans in California "hugely" more than parts from california assembled by Mexicans in Mexico? There are some different design features- most deliberately intended as improvements, BTW- but for the most part"better" or "worse" is a matter of preference for those features, isn't it?
What is the difference in a $900 guitar and a $1900 guitar? Craftsmanship and Materials mostly. (and people willing to pay more for vintage specs) Fender is going to use their more choice wood and higher quality parts for American made guitars. The neck quality is definitely where these two Jaguars differ. Best Fender neck I have every played and I have played most of them. Closest neck I have found was my Squier Vista Jagmaster neck, but way better. The neck and body have Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish as opposed to the polyester finish. The switches appear to be better quality on the AVRI. I have played several CP Jags where the switches were flimsy. Lots of small detail items that add up. Also the AVRI comes with a case. It's not as much where its being assembled, but the quality of the parts they are assembling.
I love the CP jaguars and want one eventually, but their is a quality difference. Mexican Fender guitar quality is definitely on the rise lately and while I often think the American stuff is overpriced, there is a difference. I like how the CP Jaguars fix the bridge and the neck angle. Moving the trem plate does change the sound, but that's a matter of preference. Some Vintage nuts will see all these changes as heresy, while modern players will see them as long overdue fixes. I feel its good that the Jaguar has different configurations so that it will work for more players.
taylornutt wrote:What is the difference in a $900 guitar and a $1900 guitar? Craftsmanship and Materials mostly. (and people willing to pay more for vintage specs) Fender is going to use their more choice wood and higher quality parts for American made guitars. The neck quality is definitely where these two Jaguars differ. Best Fender neck I have every played and I have played most of them. Closest neck I have found was my Squier Vista Jagmaster neck, but way better. The neck and body have Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish as opposed to the polyester finish. The switches appear to be better quality on the AVRI. I have played several CP Jags where the switches were flimsy. Lots of small detail items that add up. Also the AVRI comes with a case. It's not as much where its being assembled, but the quality of the parts they are assembling.
I love the CP jaguars and want one eventually, but their is a quality difference. Mexican Fender guitar quality is definitely on the rise lately and while I often think the American stuff is overpriced, there is a difference. I like how the CP Jaguars fix the bridge and the neck angle. Moving the trem plate does change the sound, but that's a matter of preference. Some Vintage nuts will see all these changes as heresy, while modern players will see them as long overdue fixes. I feel its good that the Jaguar has different configurations so that it will work for more players.
I think you ought to be careful about some of these things. I don't believe for a second that the wood in an American instrument is any better than the wood in a Mexican or Japanese or Chinese or Indonesian instrument, or that the workers at the American factory are any better qualified than workers at other factories. "Neck quality" means absolutely nothing. The finish is a bit silly too. Do you think that makes a difference?
BTW, they are the same damned switches. Of the hardware, the CP tuners are, IMO worse (though many people get on fine with them), the CP trem unit is better (screw-in arm is more stable & doesn't flop around loose), the pickups are different and one may variously prefer one or the other. The rest of the hardware is all the same. New tuners, cost me $30 + shipping, a good bit less than a Mastery bridge I daresay. If you like the AVRI neck great, I prefer 9.5" radius + MJ frets myself.
Diff. in price? Labor costs, mostly. The finishes: one may be costly to apply, due to US environmental standards, but after scraping vintage nostalgia aside I don't see any gross superiority there. I'd rather it didn't look like crap 10 years from now. But some people will pay even more now to have it look worse immediately, so on this people may differ. Evidently.
'66 vs. AVRI: i don't think these two are identical either,e.g. no "well worn"/ nostalgia/ caretaker mojo on new AVRI, AVRI trem arms flop.
Last edited by MMPicker on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
taylornutt wrote:What is the difference in a $900 guitar and a $1900 guitar? Craftsmanship and Materials mostly. (and people willing to pay more for vintage specs) Fender is going to use their more choice wood and higher quality parts for American made guitars. The neck quality is definitely where these two Jaguars differ. Best Fender neck I have every played and I have played most of them. Closest neck I have found was my Squier Vista Jagmaster neck, but way better. The neck and body have Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish as opposed to the polyester finish. The switches appear to be better quality on the AVRI. I have played several CP Jags where the switches were flimsy. Lots of small detail items that add up. Also the AVRI comes with a case. It's not as much where its being assembled, but the quality of the parts they are assembling.
I love the CP jaguars and want one eventually, but their is a quality difference. Mexican Fender guitar quality is definitely on the rise lately and while I often think the American stuff is overpriced, there is a difference. I like how the CP Jaguars fix the bridge and the neck angle. Moving the trem plate does change the sound, but that's a matter of preference. Some Vintage nuts will see all these changes as heresy, while modern players will see them as long overdue fixes. I feel its good that the Jaguar has different configurations so that it will work for more players.
I think you ought to be careful about some of these things. I don't believe for a second that the wood in an American instrument is any better than the wood in a Mexican or Japanese or Chinese or Indonesian instrument, or that the workers at the American factory are any better qualified than workers at other factories. "Neck quality" means absolutely nothing. The finish is a bit silly too. Do you think that makes a difference?
Wood comes in many different grades, which is why some woods are cheaper than others. I am not an Alder wood expert, so I dont' know about the varying quality of that particular wood, but maple definitely can vary in quality and composition. I agreed with you about the worker qualifications when I said
"It's not as much where its being assembled, but the quality of the parts they are assembling." Give someone in China good parts and they will make good guitars. Squier parts tend to be lower quality compared to Mexican or American parts.
Let me define what I mean by "neck quality". Its a combination of the wood , finish, hardware and how it is finished and assembled. If you have a neck made from cheap maple with a bad finish, bad fret wire sticking out and cheap tuners, I would consider that "low quality". I would consider my Squier Jagmaster and Squier Duo sonic necks lower quality than my AVRI Jag. The Jagmaster neck finish is rougher and the stock tuners stunk. The Duo Sonic is very smooth and but is almost too glossy and has no tint. Some of what makes up neck quality is subjective based on the player, but a lot of it has to deal with the quality of the materials and workmanship. I hope that clears up some of what I meant.
