That's a beaut, DICHOTOMY - but why a '65 - is that color not offered in the '69? Or is it something else?
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:51 am
by hotrodperlmutter
i'd prefer '65 pickups in a '69. <3 contours.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:52 am
by Yarko
yea, i like the '65 too. the only reason i picked the 65 was because it was the only one available at the time.
please excuse my cell's res:
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:11 am
by Sidney Vicious
Yarko wrote:yea, i like the '65 too. the only reason i picked the 65 was because it was the only one available at the time.please excuse my cell's res:
Hey - that's a reason!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:13 am
by Stan Kwervo
I like my '69. Though I bought it not knowing '69 reissues existed; thought all mustangs were '65s. But I love the contours and lower output pickups. I do envy the '65 reissue's tuners though.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:29 am
by Yarko
Stan Kwervo wrote:I do envy the '65 reissue's tuners though.
yeah, they're great, and white!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:45 am
by Sidney Vicious
So I'm reading that '65's have hotter pickups and white tuners v. '69's have a contoured body?
Anything else distinguishes one from the other?
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:48 am
by Aeon
65's have poplar bodies, 69's have basswood.
65's have plastic tuning heads, 69s have metal.
65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.
65s in general are better and more period correct. There's nothing too bad about 69's, but given the choice I would take a 65.
and for the record, I used to own a 69
[youtube][/youtube]
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:52 am
by Yarko
Aeon wrote:
65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.
confirmed, no gaps.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:53 am
by Sidney Vicious
Aeon wrote:65's have poplar bodies, 69's have basswood.
65's have plastic tuning heads, 69s have metal.
65s (I believe) have a better bridge without gaps in between the saddles.
65s in general are better and more period correct. There's nothing too bad about 69's, but given the choice I would take a 65.
and for the record, I used to own a 69
[youtube][/youtube]
Thanks for the info and the demonstration - great tone and feel.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:51 am
by Mike
I owned a '65. It was fucking great. It felt miles apart from a '69 RI in build quality, solidness, tuning stability and the pickups were WIN. I still am sad I had to sell it.
- Better pickups
- Better aesthetics - fuck some Tort - the Daphne Blue + aged Pearloid + white pegs look is lush
- Great neck, glossy as hell
- Better bridge
- Hot Hot Hot in all three colour combinations, which blow the '69's wank Sonic/Tort or Custard/Tort out of the water.
Apologies for the tuning issues:
[youtube][/youtube]
Also: I was FAT.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:28 am
by kypdurron
I love my '65, too. It is really period correct, and of high quality. Wikipedia stats that Dyna Gakki made Fender guitars are exported, while Tokai made ones are not. So one might come to the conclusion that these come from different factories, which might explain why the '65 is told to have better pickups and to be of higher quality. Besides, I really prefer the slap body for optical reasons.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:23 pm
by Bacchus
I really want to like Mustangs, but since I played one, I can't get on with how thin the body is. I expected it to be as thick as my Jagstang, and the the fact that it wasn't completely threw me off.
It's probably me being a bit silly, like, when you see some food that you think you'll like, you eat it, and it tastes completely different to the way you expected it to, and you hate it, even though it might be quite nice in its own right but you've been scared off by the unexpected shock.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:32 pm
by stewart
i feel (kind of) the same in reverse about jag-stangs. even if i suddenly found myself liking their shape (unlikely) i wouldn't be able to get over how stupidly thick and unfinished-feeling the body is.
► Show Spoiler
(and if someone interjects here and says "oh it's because they all died before it was ready for production" be warned; i'll hunt you down, and i'll hurt you).
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:57 pm
by kim
'69
because they make it lefty
fuck you '65 leftycists !!!
also '69 sounds more sexy and sonic blue wins from daphne blue, countours win over no countours, nice looking REVERB HANDLE compared to the awkward looking one, neck is smoother, i've only played one 65 upside down, i guess the pickups are a bit more fancy but haven't changed mine in my 69, if i had the budget i would get some bareknuckles in there, but it's not a total disaster with the stock pu's
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:02 pm
by Thom
I liked my '69 Mustang when I had it, but like Paul I never really got on with the thin body. Jag-Stang is much preferred by me, something that thin doesn't need contours. I do wish they made the '65s lefty though, would like to try one of them.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:19 pm
by Bacchus
I just like big, hefty, wud.
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:24 pm
by Pens
Every time I see a '65 RI in Sonic Blue I get so sad. I so wish Amy hadn't sold that damn guitar. It was so amazing and felt so solid, even though it was right handed.