Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: Bob Gnarly on May 24, 2012, 10:33:06 AM
-
Wow, £6000 for one of these. Anyone seen one in the flesh? They do amps too. Apparently Slash has one in his lounge. Think it would probably look OK without the badge between the pickups.
What BKP's for carbon fibre guitar ;)
(http://www.astonmartinguitars.com/images/guitars/astonmartin-guitar-lg2.jpg)
website (http://www.astonmartinguitars.com/)
-
Hasn't got enough switches!
How do you control the machine guns, rockets, flame thrower, ejector seat, etc, etc?
-
At that price you'd want a switch to do it's own fret dress and set-up.
A switch that would rotate to different pickups like the rotating number plates on Bond's car
-
A switch that would rotate to different pickups like the rotating number plates on Bond's car
Yes!!
I was trying to think of something for the number-plate bit, and I couldn't. But that's it, that's all it needs - forget the guns and ejector seat, give us a pickup rotator and we'll be happy...
Shouldn't add more than a couple of quid to the price! :lol:
EDIT: Aw, go on, let's have a rocket launcher as well...
-
It's not the most exciting looking thing I've ever seen, I must say.
A bit of PRS, a bit of Eggle and quite a lot of this Yamaha, I'd say:
(http://www.gakki.com/catalog61/yamaha_rgx_a2.jpg)
-
The badge puts me of a bit. I guess I'll be waiting for the release of a Fender Ferrari. Would be my first sports-Fender. :-)
-
There already has been a Ferrari Strat, which Nick Mason had built (can't find a better picture):
(http://thehenryford.org/exhibits/rockstars/guitars/images/nickmason_guitar.jpg)
And remember the Jaguar Strat?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JmJMlCeh8_w/TW1Dh9mIWSI/AAAAAAAACdw/UqYcl-FOQiA/s1600/git+Fender+Stratocaster+Jaguar-edition+14999%C2%A3.jpg)
-
MUCH against my better judgement... I actually like the look of that Jaguar strat!! :lol:
Even the headstock!!! :o Perhaps the headstock matching the pickguard is ok for me, as opposed to matching the body colour?... (don't like the Ferrari one at all). I've never seen one doing the headstock/pickguard thing before, that's interesting...
When I look at details, eg the knobs and other gold parts, I think "meh"... but the overall effect is very appealing...
The white Yamaha thing - nope, "Good Design"? Sorry, they can keep it as far as I'm concerned.
So, in summary (if anyone's looking for Christmas ideas for their fine friend AndyR :lol:), a Jaguar Strat would be very nice, failing that, an Aston Martin PRS-type (this would end up more as a novelty guitar in my collection, though)(unless you got the rocket-launcher upgrade, obviously - I might be tempted to use it more than my other guitars then)
-
Even the headstock!!! :o Perhaps the headstock matching the pickguard is ok for me, as opposed to matching the body colour?... (don't like the Ferrari one at all). I've never seen one doing the headstock/pickguard thing before, that's interesting...
Well really it's the headstock matching the fretboard, which also matches the scratchplate... so it's almost like a Strat with a one-piece maple neck and a maple scratchplate (which would probably look pretty bad!)
The reason I generally like the matching-headstock thing is that when you look at a normal rosewood-board Strat in blue, red, black or whatever, the only maple-coloured thing is that headstock perched at the far end of the neck... and it never looks right to me (except on sunbursts, where it seems to fit because of the "earthy" colour scheme, and on some white Strats because the body colour's not too different from the headstock)
Maple-boards, completely different. I wouldn't want a matching headstock then, because the whole neck is maple-coloured and the visual balance is totally different.
-
when you look at a normal rosewood-board Strat in blue, red, black or whatever, the only maple-coloured thing is that headstock perched at the far end of the neck...
Exactly, it's that "icing on the cake" effect... YUM!! :lol:
For me, I've realised that there's also a lot of "that's the way they look..." that I've bought into. Suddenly seeing a headstock matching the red of the body, for example, then comes as a bit of "that's not quite right" shock.
It's weird with that Jaguar though - now you've pointed it out, I can see exactly what you mean about it trying to match the fretboard, but I didn't notice that at all!!
Interestingly, one of the things that kept me from maple boards so long was that I don't really like the headstock to match the board. Not a show-stopper at all, but I much prefer a hard visual line between the board and the headstock - I think this applies to all guitars, but I'm not sure though. And on Fenders I kinda want them both to be wood, not paint. (btw - painting a headstock on a maple-boarded strat seems no crazier to me than painting the headstock on a rosewood boarded one... can't tell you why though)
The fretboard on a guitar obviously seems to have some sort of weird "otherness" to me - I suppose it is "the playing surface" in my mind. On this Jaguar strat I must have seen the rosewood at either end and mentally blocked out the fretboard in the middle.
Not saying any of these preferences/prejudices are right, though, or even sane! It just seems to be how it all affects me.
-
To you it's "icing on the cake", to me it's the exact opposite, it looks like they skipped the final step! :lol:
It's not just Fenders, either. On some PRS guitars they leave the back of the guitar natural despite having a coloured top - which is fine, in fact I like it - but they leave the face of the headstock natural too (e.g. the "Blue Matteo" colour scheme below). I wish they'd colour-match the headstock, or even just paint it black like a Gibson!
Funny, isn't it, how people can perceive things in completely different ways! :lol:
(http://www.mattsmusic.com/SC245JULY26.jpg)
-
I'll let you into a secret... (which might help explain things, or it might not)
I agree with you on that PRS :lol:
It does look kind of unfinished up there. I'd definitely prefer black to matching the body colour, though. But I wouldn't object to either.
So it looks like I've got a "blind-spot" or some sort of unalterable "don't change it" for this sort of thing on Fenders...
-
I'll let you into a secret... (which might help explain things, or it might not)
I agree with you on that PRS :lol:
Crikey! :o
:lol:
OK then..... maybe it's something to do with the fact that Fenders have bolt-on necks?
So, consciously or subconsciously, you're looking at the neck and body of the Fender as "separate entities"....?
Which obviously doesn't apply to the PRS.
-
(As an aside, I should mention that I am currently GAS-ing for a particular PRS..... which does suffer from a natural-finished headstock! It's annoying, but I think I can overcome it....)
-
You can do it!
-
We shall see..... :lol:
-
I'll let you into a secret... (which might help explain things, or it might not)
I agree with you on that PRS :lol:
Crikey! :o
:lol:
OK then..... maybe it's something to do with the fact that Fenders have bolt-on necks?
So, consciously or subconsciously, you're looking at the neck and body of the Fender as "separate entities"....?
Which obviously doesn't apply to the PRS.
Nope, I think my aversion to painted headstocks on strats (and teles) is a LOT simpler than that:
All of my personal strat-playing heroes are associated with "vintage" strats with maple headstocks... I clocked on to that look in 1979 or so, and ever since then I've wanted that look if I'm buying/playing a strat... that's it :lol:
Doesn't really apply to any other guitar for me. I have several other types of guitar that do indeed have painted headstocks and cause me no pain or misgiving.
The fingerboard-perception thing is a bit more complex and possibly not entirely relevant to the above...
I only just realised that I look at guitars this way and that others possibly don't. It applies to all guitars, possibly even all stringed instruments. I realised that I've always viewed the fingerboard as a distinct, almost "separate" part of a guitar. It's the "playing field" on which I doodle, I can almost say that I regard it as the instrument itself, the rest is "extras", all important and mostly essential extras, but in my mind the "instrument" is its fingerboard and the frets (if it has any)...
The fact I've been playing bolt-on electrics for years might have reinforced this, but I've had it ever since the first acoustics I owned.
-
as far as car themed guitars go - i kind of prefer this one:
(http://www.guitarmaker.de/Images/Vferrari.jpg)
-
Jon, you b'stard... I was just going to post a picture of that Rudolf V!
Guess I'll have to post the Mercedes one..
(http://canadiantexan.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_httpcanadiantex_bjeub-scaled500.jpg?w=500&h=333)
-
I have to say I'm not a fan of those Vs, at all.
If I had the choice of one of these guitars, I guess it'd be the Jaguar Strat.
-
as far as car themed guitars go - i kind of prefer this one:
(http://www.guitarmaker.de/Images/Vferrari.jpg)
Never should have mentioned the F-word.
-
I have to say I'm not a fan of those Vs, at all.
If I had the choice of one of these guitars, I guess it'd be the Jaguar Strat.
I'm glad it's not just me :D
I don't have a V yet, and I possibly never will - but they do intrigue me and I like the shape.
But start putting car references on Vs and they seem to get just a little bit too "industrial" for my tastes (the other shapes do as well, but not so much in my eyes). They seem to lose the "attractiveness" of both the guitar and the cars they're referencing. The Ferrari V maybe not so much, because my image of Ferraris (or the road models anyway) is somewhat angular anyway.
However, you can probably all disregard my opinions entirely on this subject. Cars, and motor-vehicles in general, really do not ring my bell and never have done. Some are more attractive than others, but really they're just tools to get me from A to B. For all the "sexyness" and "oh wow" factors they seem to raise in other folks, they excite about as much interest for me as a super-market trolley would if I thought about it! :lol: (this will possibly sound terribly shocking for those of you who love your cars etc... please forgive me!)
-
However, you can probably all disregard my opinions entirely on this subject. Cars, and motor-vehicles in general, really do not ring my bell and never have done. Some are more attractive than others, but really they're just tools to get me from A to B. For all the "sexyness" and "oh wow" factors they seem to raise in other folks, they excite about as much interest for me as a super-market trolley would if I thought about it! :lol: (this will possibly sound terribly shocking for those of you who love your cars etc... please forgive me!)
I'm with you on that, Andy! I don't even drive, so my opinion's pretty much irrelevant, but cars don't really do anything for me.
.....which isn't entirely true, because when I watch old British films from the '40s to '60s there is something fascinating about old Humbers and things like that, I know not why....! :lol: And up until the '70s/'80s I was pretty good at recognising different makes and models.
But now all the vehicles on the road seem to be sleek, aerodynamic things, nearly all of them are either silver or black.... and I genuinely can't tell them apart. If I witnessed a hit-and-run or something, apart from the colour and maybe the number of doors, I'd have no chance of identifying the vehicles involved.
(Flying Vs are a different matter.... although I've decided they, like Explorers, Firebirds and 335s, are basically too big for me, I do still love the basic design. If I ever buy another, it'll definitely be of the '58 variety.)
-
To me the whole project is upsidedown.You're buying an overhyped brandname.Rich bling.
I like brandnames like Fender because they developed a product that was great which then made the brand famous.
When a company just bolts on a brandname to anyold bit of designer junk,i think as a buyer you've been had.This doesn't matter if you have money to waste.
Modern marketing at its worst.
-
I'm surprised Yngwie doesn't play that Ferrari V
-
To me the whole project is upsidedown.You're buying an overhyped brandname.Rich bling.
I like brandnames like Fender because they developed a product that was great which then made the brand famous.
When a company just bolts on a brandname to anyold bit of designer junk,i think as a buyer you've been had.This doesn't matter if you have money to waste.
Modern marketing at its worst.
I couldn't agree more. The guitar looks cool enough, but philly pointed out earlier it's more or less a "rip off" of known guitars (I know it's hard not to).
-
surprised no ones posted the Gibson Corvette:
(http://www.jedistar.com/images/guitar/gibson_corvette.jpg)
I happen to think it looks alright!
-
this Gibson Corvette looks pretty awful though:
(http://www.vintageandrareguitars.com/media/products/main_12378.jpg)
-
^
I think both those Gibsons look cool, in their own ways! :D
But more as ornaments than guitars. I'd hang them on the wall, but I think they'd be a bit embarrassing to actually play.
PRS did a Corvette model too, a modified Standard 22:
(http://guitarshopblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/082706_1.jpg)
(http://www.corvetteblogger.com/images/content/020507_1.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VnfEtMEHRec/TexqMIjZxrI/AAAAAAAAAOg/iyUl_DMT93g/s1600/fellows1.jpg)
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/shooterkc2010/2005%20PRS%20Corvette/vemp_0708_03_zPRS_corvette_standard_22_guitarassembly_line_advertisement.jpg)
-
If I was at a gig and met someone actually using one of these, I would be very surprised. At the very least I would expect it to be some kind of post-modern ironical statement. Personally I'm a sucker for winged symbology - but I'd maybe go for something pharaonic 8)
-
this Gibson Corvette looks pretty awful though:
(http://www.vintageandrareguitars.com/media/products/main_12378.jpg)
You know what, I really like it. I'm not a Corvette man but to me that looks like a work of art, it would go well in a 40's/early 50's themed environment complete with Wurlitzer. Might be good for playing Cuban music too :lol: