Anyone with experience of the Michael Kelly 1950s Series Guitars?

[AdamBrad]

.... and in particular the 1954?

I'm a metalhead and I've had twice as many Ibanezes as other brands combined. All because my guitar teacher swore by the S series for decades.

Problem is my hands are pretty small, especially the length of my fingers. While my Ibanezes are nice and great for shred, they can cause serious cramp if a song is mostly chords.

Then, when I was in China for a year I bought the cheapest non-Chinese brand the music shop had, which was a Squier California Tele (apparently only sold in Asian markets, bottom-end stuff). Much to my surprise I found it pretty comfortable to play.

Since then I've been dabbling with getting a tele and modding it with rails, or trying to get a HH tele etc., eventually even building one. I would really enjoy the building as well, but obviously it would cost.

Finally, reaching the point of this rambling anecdote:

I stumbled (online) across the Michael Kelly 1954. It looks gorgeous. In an ideal world I'd prefer a standard hardtail and two humbuckers, but the compound radius fretboard is something I can't get without going via Carvin/Warmoth (which is really expensive in the UK). It's induced some serious GAS. Even more than building my own custom. Even though I've never bought a guitar new because I think second-hand is much better value.

https://www.michaelkellyguitars.com/uk/products/view/1954

I know the Michael Kelly Patriots are well thought of, but can anyone enlighten me on the 1950s stuff? Or for that matter compound radius fretboards?

Cheers.

 

[voggin]

Re: Anyone with experience of the Michael Kelly 1950s Series Guitars?

Actually, that's a pretty cool PU config. I like it.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Anyone with experience of the Michael Kelly 1950s Series Guitars?

I only own a patriot which is an amazing guitar irrespective of price but it has a pretty chunky neck, typical of a LP copy, significantly thicker than an Ibanez, even a Saber one

 

[dystrust]

Re: Anyone with experience of the Michael Kelly 1950s Series Guitars?

I've never played a Michael Kelly guitar (the one bass I tried was decent) but I own 3 MIJ Charvels and I've played several Warmoths all with compound radius fingerboards. The Charvels are 12-16" while Warmoths are typically 10-16" and I honestly can't say I notice a huge amount of difference between compound and straight radius. It's a bit easier to play chords on a 10" radius than something really flat, and it's definitely easier to bend on a 16" radius, at least if you like low action. I prefer my action medium to slightly high which is probably why it makes so little difference.

I'd really like to try the 7.25-9.5" compound that USACG offers since chording is nice on the 7.25, but I can't stand playing lead on it.

 

[vinta9e]

Re: Anyone with experience of the Michael Kelly 1950s Series Guitars?

Cramps were why I've sworn off Ibanez's paper thin shredstick contraptions for good. Wasn't easy at first but was the right decision. No more cramps and I'm way more elastic getting around necks in all the other shapes. To be fully honest, I've been through my share of Jacksons and those with likewise thin necks had to leave, too.

Compound radius, isn't that Grover Jackson's invention? 12"-16" makes a nice selling point but not THAT big of a difference in practice IMHO. On tighter radii it's a different story, I guess.