How Are We Not Talking About This?

ehdwuld said:
My Epiphone Florentine has the slim 60s C that is real close to the Wizard II but without the flat spot on back and with a 12 inch radius on the board

All my custom built guitars have a version of the slim 60s C / Wizard II. I hate they changed to the Wizard III now
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's interesting. In my mind, a Wizard II "without the flat spot on the back" essentially IS a Wizard III...

They're both the same thickness and fretboard radius, just a bit different in the contouring, with the III being a bit rounder and the II having a touch more of that classic Ibanez flatness, as you mentioned. Basically, a "D" shape for the II and more of a "C" for the III.

Personally, I like them both, but the early '00s "Wizard II" is definitely the sweet spot in Ibanez necks for me.

Also, my favorite Les Paul ever was an early-run Epiphone with the Slim-60s profile...felt so nice!
 
Last edited:
Masta' C said:
Hmm, that's interesting. In my mind, a Wizard II "without the flat spot on the back" essentially IS a Wizard III...

They're both the same thickness and fretboard radius, just a bit different in the contouring, with the III being a bit rounder and the II having a touch more of that classic Ibanez flatness, as you mentioned. Basically, a "D" shape for the II and more of a "C" for the III.

Personally, I like them both, but the early '00s "Wizard II" is definitely the sweet spot in Ibanez necks for me.

Also, my favorite Les Paul ever was an early-run Epiphone with the Slim-60s profile...felt so nice!
Click to expand...

I think we agree

My Wizard II necks are both mid 00s
and the Epiphone says in literature
Slim 60s C

And they are awesome

I noticed the difference in the Wizard III
But it felt wider as well
May have been the lack of shoulder
I don't know it was just enough difference to throw me
 
I did my best to watch the whole PRS Herman video and give it a chance. Just the parts where he talked. I skipped the playing its not my sound. Only interested in the crazy design features and manufacturing. I'm too old to not be cynical about signature models after 1000 retreads of 20th century guitars. Why should anyone still think being a super user means they're a great product designer?

I'll give Mr. Li credit it's definitely had more thought put into it than 99% of signature models. From the construction side oh man.

What a massive waste of figured maple getting carved away into the dustbin even more than a normal carved top. With that hardware and electronic setup might as well just contour the mahogany then glue a veneer to it if you want to see maple. But oh then the switch and jack botox injections wouldn't look right.

Well I guess not being over the top, ostentatious, or wasteful isn't what PRS is known for. Some of the contours both front and back look downright bizarre like my eyes can't process them. I'd have to hold one to really say.

For all the talk of the neck joint it appeared to just be a conventional PRS dead simple slab joint with pickup tenon, but with even less glue areas than usual because of the heel contours. Boutique set neck builders have been doing this since the 90's. Interesting how they'll carve the body like Mount Rushmore, yet no attempt to do a dovetail or some other interlocking neck joint on a guitar expected to be used as a kickboxing stand.

The jack, I can see his complaint that the top mount cord would interfere with grabbing the Floyd arm. But that deep cavity looks totally unserviceable in the field. Probably needs a specialty tool just to install it. Just put a strat jack on the back no need to reinvent the wheel for the sake of it.

To be honest, when I see PRS issuing a guitar with tons of non-PRS made parts it seems desperate like the Silver Sky and other Fender-ish forays did. I feel this is more a business decision about PRS trying to diversify to other types of players because there's only so many Custom / McCarty variants they can sell and there's too many out there already
 
Last edited:
I get what you are saying, and I always appreciate signature models that aren't just a regular model in a different color, with different pickups and a custom truss rod plate. I think PRS knew people would have passionate opinions about it and would be talking about it- that is part of the point. I also think they knew these things aren't going to fly off the shelves at that price, as they didn't come out with a bunch of them at different price points all at once.
 
Mincer said:
I get what you are saying, and I always appreciate signature models that aren't just a regular model in a different color, with different pickups and a custom truss rod plate. I think PRS knew people would have passionate opinions about it and would be talking about it- that is part of the point. I also think they knew these things aren't going to fly off the shelves at that price, as they didn't come out with a bunch of them at different price points all at once.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head its any publicity is good publicity. As odd as I find it, i respect it's quite a feat of engineering and I have no doubt its extremely well made - all in a concept car sort of way.
 
switchman said:
You hit the nail on the head its any publicity is good publicity. As odd as I find it, i respect it's quite a feat of engineering and I have no doubt its extremely well made - all in a concept car sort of way.
Click to expand...

A few other companies have done the same thing. Parker had their Adrian Belew model, which cost over $10k. They didn't have the marketing that PRS has, but it was a revolutionary guitar.
 
orpheo said:
I work with literally hundreds of Fishman-loaded guitars a year. I promise you, if the USB port battery or a 9V runs out while unplugged, there is a problem inside.
Click to expand...

I recall being in contact with someone about this a few years ago, but I couldn't find the conversation in my email. So I followed up with Fishman about the battery issue over the weekend. I explained the behavior - that a fully charged instrument would no longer be fully charged if I let it sit while playing other instruments for a couple weeks, and as a result I wouldn't have the amount of playing time I expected.

They confirmed to me that what I described sounds normal, that rechargeables will run down a bit if left to sit, and that if I'm planning to use one of their battery packs in the future, I should make sure to recharge it again just before using it.

Hope that clears things up.
 
Mincer said:
A few other companies have done the same thing. Parker had their Adrian Belew model, which cost over $10k. They didn't have the marketing that PRS has, but it was a revolutionary guitar.
Click to expand...

I had an early Fly that experienced a paint adhesion issue and Parker refinished it in the Adrian Belew tangerine color free of charge...gorgeous! Wish I still had it :)
 
Masta' C said:
I had an early Fly that experienced a paint adhesion issue and Parker refinished it in the Adrian Belew tangerine color free of charge...gorgeous! Wish I still had it :)
Click to expand...

Sidebar, it totally amazes me that no one has come along with a Fly clone.. I get the idea that it was too expensive for Parker at the time but I'm betting it would be a lot cheaper with today's technology.
 
The original Fly was an engineering masterpiece, especially for its time. Could it be made today, easier and for less money than in the '90s/early-'00s? Absolutely. Would be interesting to see a company like Aristides take this on, as they regularly deal with composite molding.

I will say, re-gluing the frets on those old phenolic fretboards is a crazy process that's not for the faint of heart, so that aspect could probably benefit from a newer construction method, but Parker really brought SS frets into the mainstream, IMO, followed by Carvin.

Funny enough, PRS still hasn't figured out how to do SS frets. I'm utterly blown away that PRS didn't even pursue that option on this new Chleo model. I'm sure Herman Li would've gone with SS if given the choice.
 
Masta' C said:
The original Fly was an engineering masterpiece, especially for its time. Could it be made today, easier and for less money than in the '90s/early-'00s? Absolutely. Would be interesting to see a company like Aristides take this on, as they regularly deal with composite molding.

I will say, re-gluing the frets on those old phenolic fretboards is a crazy process that's not for the faint of heart, so that aspect could probably benefit from a newer construction method, but Parker really brought SS frets into the mainstream, IMO, followed by Carvin.

Funny enough, PRS still hasn't figured out how to do SS frets. I'm utterly blown away that PRS didn't even pursue that option on this new Chleo model. I'm sure Herman Li would've gone with SS if given the choice.
Click to expand...

I wish a company would purchase Steinberger from Gibson and have a go at modern composite instruments which could be made faster and cheaper today. I wonder why Parker glued on the frets rather than inlay them?
 
I don't think there was much in the way of commercially available stainless steel frets back when Parker released the Fly in 1993. I think he actually had a patent on the tang-less design, as well.

In concept, gluing them in place on a composite fingerboard should work fine, but as we know, sweat, humidity, UV, cleaning chemicals, etc. can do unpredictable things to adhesives and not every player babies their gear.

I don't see frets coming unglued as a failure of the design, really. It's still rather uncommon, despite most of those guitars being 20-30 years old now, and many are the result of physical damage rather than straight adhesive failure, at least from what I've come across.
 
One of my friends used to work with Ken building the Flys, so I will ask him how many fret issues he has seen over the years. I should have bought a Fly when I had a chance...now the prices are really up there, especially for the original ones.
 
I never understood how they glued the frets in precisely the right place all perfectly parallel with no slot or tang to align them. I'm sure there were industrial fixtures involved for alignment but it still sounds like it would be prone to errors in the build process.
 
switchman said:
I never understood how they glued the frets in precisely the right place all perfectly parallel with no slot or tang to align them. I'm sure there were industrial fixtures involved for alignment but it still sounds like it would be prone to errors in the build process.
Click to expand...

Lasers? I don't know...I will have to ask my friend. I did wonder about that.
 
.
Mincer said:
Lasers? I don't know...I will have to ask my friend. I did wonder about that.
Click to expand...

iu
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top