ShortScale.org

Whilst I recognise that some folks won't like an even smaller stang body I have to say on an aesthetic point of view I've always thought offsets without large or two piece trems looked too bare at the back - like too much blank body. With the strat bridge that shortening looks great to me and I like the extra offset.

Dave wrote:I like small butts and I cannot lie

Pfft - not I.

Mike wrote:

Dave wrote:I like small butts and I cannot lie

Pfft - not I.

This other brother can deny.

pfft! Booty hos!

BUT IN COMPETITION ORANGE PLEASE

Dave wrote:



BUT IN COMPETITION ORANGE PLEASE

Hmm go all the way and stick a Kahler on it

Personally just a hardtail version of the normal stang bridge - plate and cigar but locked into thimbles with maybe a TOM or 9.5 variant of the mustang bridge

Toro bridge works best with the short arse IMHO. Normal stang bridge is too cramped

taylornutt wrote:

DanHeron wrote:Ok, this looks wrong but I lined all the parts up. It can't be this small surely..

These photos don't look like they matchup. I know the points match up, but the scale seems all wrong. We need both of the production photos to do a proper comparison.

I know it looks wrong but as people have said, the scale is the same and all the important parts match up. The angle of the photos could be slightly different so it might look slightly narrower/shorter or whatever. But it does say it has a "modified offset mustang body", modified being the key word. They chopped the thing up.

DanHeron wrote:But it does say it has a "modified offset mustang body", modified being the key word. They chopped the thing up.

Which I think works with the bridge BUT THEY DIDN'T MAKE A PICKGUARD TO FIT AS WELL. aaaarrrrrrgghh Fendernoobs

The contours on the Pawn-stang also contribute to it looking a little smaller. There is definitely a difference in the shape , my point is it's hard to get two images that are not the same size and dimensions to be completely accurate. It's a good approximation for now. Once Fender puts it on their website with their official glossy we can be 100% on the money.

The problem is Fender won't release Mustangs the way we like them without devaluing the vintage and Reissue Mustangs that already exist. If they make cheap MIM Mustangs just like the MIJ RI Stangs, no one will buy the MIJ models. Same thing with Blacktop and Squiers. So they release these "modern" versions to stand alone and not affecting the RI or vintage models. It stinks for us, but I think that is a big factor why they modify the models to keep them from competing with themselves essentially.

taylornutt wrote:The contours on the Pawn-stang also contribute to it looking a little smaller. There is definitely a difference in the shape , my point is it's hard to get two images that are not the same size and dimensions to be completely accurate. It's a good approximation for now. Once Fender puts it on their website with their official glossy we can be 100% on the money.

The problem is Fender won't release Mustangs the way we like them without devaluing the vintage and Reissue Mustangs that already exist. If they make cheap MIM Mustangs just like the MIJ RI Stangs, no one will buy the MIJ models. Same thing with Blacktop and Squiers. So they release these "modern" versions to stand alone and not affecting the RI or vintage models. It stinks for us, but I think that is a big factor why they modify the models to keep them from competing with themselves essentially.

^^ this

people didn't stop buying MIJ jags and jazzmasters when the classic players came out. if fender were worried about that why did they launch the blacktop series? or the squier ones? that argument holds no water.

personally i think giving the mustang a tiny body like that will just reinforce the old "child's guitar" idea. if they'd reissued a vaguely faithful duo-sonic II i think it'd appeal to a lot more people than that abortion. it just looks half-arsed, like 98% of fender's new products these days.

SGJarrod wrote:

taylornutt wrote:The contours on the Pawn-stang also contribute to it looking a little smaller. There is definitely a difference in the shape , my point is it's hard to get two images that are not the same size and dimensions to be completely accurate. It's a good approximation for now. Once Fender puts it on their website with their official glossy we can be 100% on the money.

The problem is Fender won't release Mustangs the way we like them without devaluing the vintage and Reissue Mustangs that already exist. If they make cheap MIM Mustangs just like the MIJ RI Stangs, no one will buy the MIJ models. Same thing with Blacktop and Squiers. So they release these "modern" versions to stand alone and not affecting the RI or vintage models. It stinks for us, but I think that is a big factor why they modify the models to keep them from competing with themselves essentially.

^^ this

Would make more sense if they didn't compete with themselves for Teles and Strats like crazy sons of bitches. I know there are lots of Strats and Teles... but that's kinda the point I'm making. They cover every price point with virtually the same specs... why not cool instruments too?

Regarding the size comparisons, unless there's a drastic difference between what they've published and what they produce, the difference in scale will be measured in millimeters... i.e. what we see now is pretty much dead on for all intents and purposes. There likely won't be a significant difference between reality and those photoshop overlays. The images used are REALLY close to the same scale, not so far off that it makes a real difference.

Ankhanu wrote:

SGJarrod wrote:

taylornutt wrote:The contours on the Pawn-stang also contribute to it looking a little smaller. There is definitely a difference in the shape , my point is it's hard to get two images that are not the same size and dimensions to be completely accurate. It's a good approximation for now. Once Fender puts it on their website with their official glossy we can be 100% on the money.

The problem is Fender won't release Mustangs the way we like them without devaluing the vintage and Reissue Mustangs that already exist. If they make cheap MIM Mustangs just like the MIJ RI Stangs, no one will buy the MIJ models. Same thing with Blacktop and Squiers. So they release these "modern" versions to stand alone and not affecting the RI or vintage models. It stinks for us, but I think that is a big factor why they modify the models to keep them from competing with themselves essentially.

^^ this

Would make more sense if they didn't compete with themselves for Teles and Strats like crazy sons of bitches. I know there are lots of Strats and Teles... but that's kinda the point I'm making. They cover every price point with virtually the same specs... why not cool instruments too?

that is a good point as well, I think u and Taylor both have good arguments... I was not even thinking in terms of strats and teles.....

this is just an agrument that only the people at Fender actually know the answer too...we are just speculating.... I believe they compete with themselves more on the Strats and Teles just because they are more of a money maker for them and the "cool" guitars we love are more of a niche' market.... cuz in all honesty they prolly sell 10 strats to one jm/jag/stang....if not more

I see both sides.... but none of us really know which is the right one..... and with big business the way it is Fender may not even know why they do what they do

and on the size comparision, it is close enough in my book, but as Taylor stated we will not know 100% until its on their site or in our hands

stewart wrote:people didn't stop buying MIJ jags and jazzmasters when the classic players came out. if fender were worried about that why did they launch the blacktop series? or the squier ones? that argument holds no water.

personally i think giving the mustang a tiny body like that will just reinforce the old "child's guitar" idea. if they'd reissued a vaguely faithful duo-sonic II i think it'd appeal to a lot more people than that abortion. it just looks half-arsed, like 98% of fender's new products these days.

Classic players have significant changes compared to Reissue guitars. Different pups, moved tremolo plate, different fretboard radius, etc. Same for the Blacktop series and Squier ones. They may look similar, but Fender makes enough changes between them so there is an obvious difference between them and they don't cause one to kill another. At the same time, Fender is trying to make a guitar fit into certain price ranges and demographics, which accounts for what changes they end up making.

To use your example, the reason people didn't stop buying MIJ Jags and Jazzmasters when the Classic players came out was because there are plenty of differences between those guitars and people saw them as two completely different instruments. CP Jaguars sound and feel noticeably different from AVRI or MIJ Jaguars even though they look similar. People aren't going to rush out and buy CP Jaguars or Jazzmasters thinking it's a cheaper copy of a MIJ or AVRI one with the same specs.

The point I was making was simply that Fender isn't going to release a Squier version of the Mustang that is too close to Vintage/RI Specs because they don't want to dilute the market for Vintage/RI Mustangs. They are also trying to appeal to modern player preferences and make the guitar have a wider appeal.

It's kinda what happened with lots of the Japanese Fenders/Vista Series guitars back in the late 90s that were a equally good/better instruments than the American guitars and it dilluted the value of the American Market. So Fender had to shut it down. Fender wants us to pay the most for each kinda of guitar so they are very careful to differentiate between them so a cheaper model doesn't kill a more expensive one.

SGJarrod wrote:

Ankhanu wrote:

SGJarrod wrote: ^^ this

Would make more sense if they didn't compete with themselves for Teles and Strats like crazy sons of bitches. I know there are lots of Strats and Teles... but that's kinda the point I'm making. They cover every price point with virtually the same specs... why not cool instruments too?

that is a good point as well, I think u and Taylor both have good arguments... I was not even thinking in terms of strats and teles.....

this is just an agrument that only the people at Fender actually know the answer too...we are just speculating.... I believe they compete with themselves more on the Strats and Teles just because they are more of a money maker for them and the "cool" guitars we love are more of a niche' market.... cuz in all honesty they prolly sell 10 strats to one jm/jag/stang....if not more

I see both sides.... but none of us really know which is the right one..... and with big business the way it is Fender may not even know why they do what they do

and on the size comparision, it is close enough in my book, but as Taylor stated we will not know 100% until its on their site or in our hands

I think you pretty much summed it up, especially the differences between the Tele/Strats vs. niche Fenders.

SGJarrod wrote:... cuz in all honesty they prolly sell 10 strats to one jm/jag/stang....if not more

Yeah, it's likely a MUCH higher ratio

Of course, some of that is also due to price for some. Despite the cool factor of our favorite niche instruments, they're also pretty pricey compared to similar quality instruments of the more common models... If you're not specifically looking for the model, but looking for good bang for your buck, they just don't tend to hold up, unfortunately. We're obviously biased in our interest in our shorties and odd-ball models, so we're willing to put that extra cash in just for the model name... your less invested buyer will just spend less on an equally good Tele or Strat. That dynamic could change if there were a rnage of prices on our niche instruments... but they'd also become less "niche"

Ankhanu wrote:

SGJarrod wrote:... cuz in all honesty they prolly sell 10 strats to one jm/jag/stang....if not more

Yeah, it's likely a MUCH higher ratio

Of course, some of that is also due to price for some. Despite the cool factor of our favorite niche instruments, they're also pretty pricey compared to similar quality instruments of the more common models... If you're not specifically looking for the model, but looking for good bang for your buck, they just don't tend to hold up, unfortunately. We're obviously biased in our interest in our shorties and odd-ball models, so we're willing to put that extra cash in just for the model name... your less invested buyer will just spend less on an equally good Tele or Strat. That dynamic could change if there were a rnage of prices on our niche instruments... but they'd also become less "niche"

exactly.... and for all we know these odd ball versions of our beloved axes may be Fenders "feelers" to see if they could make good money on cheaper ninche axes...... the VM Jag/Jazz and BT Jag/JM may be just that..... which would be a double edged sword for us, axes we like on the cheaps but then again it would no longer be "cool" or niche....

as far as we know a Fender marketing/ product designer is reading this thread now to see the "Peoples" thoughts and feelings on all of this

and whether we like to beleive it or not we are a minority that likes vintage spec instruments, the majority of peeps who buy $300-$600 instruments can care less about Vintage this or that...

Dave wrote:Whilst I recognise that some folks won't like an even smaller stang body I have to say on an aesthetic point of view I've always thought offsets without large or two piece trems looked too bare at the back - like too much blank body. With the strat bridge that shortening looks great to me and I like the extra offset.

I have freakishly long forearms; I love that blank space behind the bridge.

Dave wrote:
BUT IN COMPETITION ORANGE PLEASE

This.

rps-10 wrote:Hmm go all the way and stick a Kahler on it

lol