Any reasons NOT to buy a 90's PRS CE?

[Benjy_26]

Hello all.

I've been trolling on Reverb and noticed that PRS CE's from the 90's (when I first became aware of PRS) are economically attainable at this time. Are there any glaring issues with these guitars? I'm aware that they're bolt on guitars, but they appeal to me.

Thoughts?

 

[Chris Pile]

I have 3. No problems.

 

[Benjy_26]

I have 3. No problems.

Do yours have the 5 way rotary?

 

[Mincer]

Every one I've tried was a solid guitar that I wouldn't mind owning.

 

[Chris Pile]

Only one. I find it unwieldy.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

I have a '97 that plays very well indeed. Seriously lively for a bolt-on, despite a maple neck instead of mahogany.
Replaced its Dragon One pickups with the 1985 reissue set. It is now the stand-in for my beloved '87, which I no longer travel with.

Has the 5-way rotary - 90s version, slightly different from the original 80s wiring:
Position 2 is outer coils in series (rather than both full hums out-of-phase).
Position 3 is inner coils in series (instead of both full hums).
They kept the wonderful Stratty inner-coils-parallel wiring in Position 4.
1 & 2 are the straight-up humbuckers of course.

Not a 10-top but this one has a fairly pretty maple cap nonetheless. Nice rosewood too.
I'm quite happy with it.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

I bought a ‘99 CE24 earlier this year. Absolutely love it.

I’m keeping the 5 way rotary. I agree that it’s a little unwieldy, but all 5 options are awesome, and I like how the theee knobs look.

 

[Benjy_26]

I bought a ‘99 CE24 earlier this year. Absolutely love it.

I’m keeping the 5 way rotary. I agree that it’s a little unwieldy, but all 5 options are awesome, and I like how the theee knobs look.

I've never played a PRS for an extended period, but I think that the 5 way rotary set up is an essential part of the PRS flavor. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Played a 1989 once – very nice guitar, lightly curled top, cherry burst. The pups were changed at some point to Brierley PAF style, though, so couldn't say how it would've sounded originally. Of course, being an oldie, it was nicely broken in. Another plus was the small heel, which later on (mid-90s?) they made pretty big.

Only peeve was the rotary switch, but if I owned it, I'd probably get used to it after a while.

Hm, maybe I should've snagged it, it was a bit over 2k AUD :33:.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

I've never played a PRS for an extended period, but I think that the 5 way rotary set up is an essential part of the PRS flavor. Maybe I'm wrong.

I had an S2 with a 3 way and push/pull. Loved it, too. However, I’m not willing to give up that split-series position for the convenience of an easier to use switch.

I wouldn’t say it’s quite essential, but it is f-ing awesome.

Regarding neck heels, mine has the wide-thin profile, and a normal blocky neck joint. I’m not looking at it right now, but I assume is has the bigger heel. Hasn’t bothered me a bit.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Not a 10-top but this one has a fairly pretty maple cap nonetheless. Nice rosewood too.
I'm quite happy with it.

That IS gorgeous!

I have a '97 that plays very well indeed. Seriously lively for a bolt-on, despite a maple neck instead of mahogany.

Strats are quite lively too despite their bolt-on, maple necks. Actually, I think maple is quite livelier than mahogany generally speaking.

 

[GuitarDoc]

I'm not a big fan of rotaries because they are a bit cumbersome to use. But I did have a Gibson 345 a long time ago and I must have gotten used to the rotary. I don't remember ever being bothered by it then.

 

[devastone]

Didn't the 90s ones have alder bodies instead of mahogany? Double check me, I could be wrong. That wouldn't be a detriment to me, just asking, I know some of the early ones were alder, just not sure which years.

 

[Mincer]

I have a '97 that plays very well indeed. Seriously lively for a bolt-on, despite a maple neck instead of mahogany.
Replaced its Dragon One pickups with the 1985 reissue set. It is now the stand-in for my beloved '87, which I no longer travel with.

Has the 5-way rotary - 90s version, slightly different from the original 80s wiring:
Position 2 is outer coils in series (rather than both full hums out-of-phase).
Position 3 is inner coils in series (instead of both full hums).
They kept the wonderful Stratty inner-coils-parallel wiring in Position 4.
1 & 2 are the straight-up humbuckers of course.

Not a 10-top but this one has a fairly pretty maple cap nonetheless. Nice rosewood too.
I'm quite happy with it.

That's my favorite PRS this year.

 

[alex1fly]

I'd be curious about the shape of the frets. Obviously fret wear depends on how much play the axe has received. But if you're looking at costs you might need to factor in the cost of a refret.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

I'm not a big fan of rotaries because they are a bit cumbersome to use. But I did have a Gibson 345 a long time ago and I must have gotten used to the rotary. I don't remember ever being bothered by it then.

I find the chickenhead VariTone a bit clumsy. But, like you with PRSs, I never spent enough time with one to get comfy with it.
I remember getting used to the PRS rotary quite quickly back in '87.
Of course, I loved that first PRS so much that I didn't play anything else for awhile.

One thing is, a pickup switch is something one uses pretty frequently.
I see Varitone rather differently - you leave it through a whole song, or you just drop it on once in a while.
But you aren't going back & forth on it as often.

One of my best friends just got a '68 ES-345; he'd wanted for years to snag one from the 60s.
He had a few troublesome frets taken care of and put new nylon saddles on its ABS-1.
I drove to Woodstock yesterday to play, and had a chance to check it out briefly.
The guitar plays really nicely despite action set lower than I prefer.
Beautiful warm sound, kinda surprising from T-tops.
And I have to say the VariTone is kind of a blast.
I think it'd be more useful in than I imagined.

The only time I ever owned a VariTone guitar was in the 70s, and back then I hardly ever used the VariTone on it.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

That IS gorgeous!


Srats are quite lively too despite their bolt-on, maple necks. Actually, I think maple is quite livelier than mahogany generally speaking.

Thanks; I've been happy with that one. And with all my PRSs, actually.
I've been told that even PRS bolt-ons use a long tenon.
Not quite sure how that works but I'm a believer in long tenons, not necessarily in terms of tone but for the feel.

I've found maple normally to be a bit stiffer feeling than mahog. Often takes slightly higher volume for it to come alive too.
That's speaking of set-necks and especially neck-throughs.
Haven't owned a mahogany bolt-on so I can't speak to that situation.

Absolutely agree that Strats can be quite lively. Not all of them are, though.
IME that has varied quite a bit from one to another; I think it's often due in large part to the maple in their necks.
My best Strat is more vibrant and alive than many of my Gibsons.
Also have a set-neck Showmaster and a set-neck Tele that are nearly as lively.
A couple of my other Fenders are bouncier than the rest, too.
Maple necks all.

Not all maple feels rigid, and not all is bright sounding either.
There are general tendencies, but the reality often can defy stereotypes.

Sometimes I've found the difference between individual pieces of the same kind of wood downright astonishing.

 

[Benjy_26]

Didn't the 90s ones have alder bodies instead of mahogany? Double check me, I could be wrong. That wouldn't be a detriment to me, just asking, I know some of the early ones were alder, just not sure which years.

I think they went to mahogany backs in the mid-late 90's. Personally, I don't really mind alder.

 

[GuitarDoc]

I find the chickenhead VariTone a bit clumsy. But, like you with PRSs, I never spent enough time with one to get comfy with it.
I remember getting used to the PRS rotary quite quickly back in '87.
Of course, I loved that first PRS so much that I didn't play anything else for awhile.

One thing is, a pickup switch is something one uses pretty frequently.
I see Varitone rather differently - you leave it through a whole song, or you just drop it on once in a while.
But you aren't going back & forth on it as often.

One of my best friends just got a '68 ES-345; he'd wanted for years to snag one from the 60s.
He had a few troublesome frets taken care of and put new nylon saddles on its ABS-1.
I drove to Woodstock yesterday to play, and had a chance to check it out briefly.
The guitar plays really nicely despite action set lower than I prefer.
Beautiful warm sound, kinda surprising from T-tops.
And I have to say the VariTone is kind of a blast.
I think it'd be more useful in than I imagined.

The only time I ever owned a VariTone guitar was in the 70s, and back then I hardly ever used the VariTone on it.

My 345 TDC was a '68 too, cherry red. Beautiful guitar. Man, I loved that guitar. Bought it new, but I can't for the life of me remember what happened to it. I must have sold it, but can't remember. Possibly because it was such a traumatic experience my mind has blocked it all out.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Thanks; I've been happy with that one. And with all my PRSs, actually.
I've been told that even PRS bolt-ons use a long tenon.
Not quite sure how that works but I'm a believer in long tenons, not necessarily in terms of tone but for the feel.

I've found maple normally to be a bit stiffer feeling than mahog. Often takes slightly higher volume for it to come alive too.
That's speaking of set-necks and especially neck-throughs.
Haven't owned a mahogany bolt-on so I can't speak to that situation.

Absolutely agree that Strats can be quite lively. Not all of them are, though.
IME that has varied quite a bit from one to another; I think it's often due in large part to the maple in their necks.
My best Strat is more vibrant and alive than many of my Gibsons.
Also have a set-neck Showmaster and a set-neck Tele that are nearly as lively.
A couple of my other Fenders are bouncier than the rest, too.
Maple necks all.

Not all maple feels rigid, and not all is bright sounding either.
There are general tendencies, but the reality often can defy stereotypes.

Sometimes I've found the difference between individual pieces of the same kind of wood downright astonishing.

Yes, my experience building guitars has taught me that you can't really depend upon the generalities associated with different woods. Some woods sound exactly the opposite of how they are generally known to sound/respond. Picking woods to use for guitars is really an educated crap shoot.