Jay I'm not sure why it is happening, exactly, but that I have seen it. I would guess imperfections in prep work are becoming apparent when the finish shrinks, as lacquer is wont to do.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

I have this fender strat 1990/1991 with black finish.. I can see lines in the middle of the body, its seems like it made of 2 piece..i'm really curious what is my guitar body is, is it alder or poplar..could u guys help me, i attach the pic of my guitar and the neck pocket also..

_________________
Jingle Maker / Music Composer http://www.adryans.multiply.com

Cloud like I said on the last page, your guitar falls directly in the time period they used poplar instead of alder.

Cheers

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

The 3 thinskin Strats that I have are not 1 piece,they look to be 3 pieces.
The lacquer finish will sink into the grain over time in places...or show checking if you expose them to temp. changes or naturally with age.
I don't remember seeing the body joints in my '65,but I wasn't looking for those things then,but the old thing was relic'ing nicely.
I always noticed the seams on my '77 Les Paul which also has the nitro finish.

Ha - so happens just a few minutes ago I posted those finish weight stats again on the Burnt Strat thread - page 87 (87 - !!!!!!! ).

Just for the record: I can see the join lines through the solid black very thick polyester finish on an old Squier body of mine. And held up to the light I can just make out the center join in my 2005 Am Strat with its urethane finish. And the join lines are definitely detectable through the rather thin blue nitro I sprayed on my "trash body" Strat. And the multi-layer acrylic finish I've just put on the Burnt Strat shows the five piece construction through the lacquer on the back. The sycamore cap prevents that on the front.

I could go on and on - but I won't list all my guitars for you here...

In fact, the only guitar of mine where you can't see joins through the lacquer is my Fiesta Red CIJ '57RI. I think that's a polyester finish, but it might be urethane...

The answer: lacquer sinks into join lines, regardless whether it's thick or thin, nitro, polyester, polyurethane or acrylic. Oh, and just to sound totally swanky, my dad has a 200+ year old violin and the sink-line in its varnish on the maple back is visible too...

***

And while bets are being issued (first page of this thread): I have Strats made from ash, basswood, mahogany and now a very unusual poplar/ash/sycamore mix. I challenge anyone to come and hear them demo'd blind and tell me by ear which one has which wood. If you can, why then I'll stand you an expensive dinner.

Nobody has succeeded at that test, so far...

- C

Ha - ouch! - OK!

Well, my point was intended as light-hearted rhetorical one, since I rather doubt many here are likely to be turning up on my doorstep to take the challenge (a little matter of the Atlantic Ocean proving a stumbling block for some...).

However, by all means let's do the test more scientifically. As you know, I have the opportunity of several necks all made from the self-same plank of wood:


(Sneak preview on that pic: don't tell anyone... )

Easy-peasy to fit out them and three different timbered bodies with the same hardware and electronics. Then we'll run the test through the same signal chain.

We may or may not be able to hear a difference. My challenge is for anyone to tell which body wood is which - to identify in a blind trial which guitar is ash, mahogany, etc. Just detecting a tiny difference is not enough.

By way of comparison: I absolutely can tell an Alsatian pinot blanc from an Australian chardonnay. I absolutely cannot tell which chardonnay is which, even though I might be able to taste that they are not the same - so it doesn't matter which you serve me in a restaurant.

And that's before we mix them with sparkling water for a spritzer (that stands for the signal chain in this tortuous metaphor).

If someone can tell, then I guess it matters for them. But let 'em prove it...

Cheers - C

PS Just to subvert this whole post: Alsatian pinot blanc is my favorite wine in the world and I absolutely can tell it from others. We'll be drinking that over lunch when you finally haul yourself round to my place...

PPS - oh, another point:



If Fender's choice on body wood makes such a crucial difference why is it we get so, so many threads here with folks asking what timber their guitar is made from? Surely they can tell just by listening to it...?

Cheers - C

This tells one a lot about different woods and how they respond on a electric guitar: http://www.jemsite.com/jem/wood.htm

_________________
Xhefri's Guitars
www.xhefriguitars.com

Good day to you all.

Just thought I would add my (usually controversial) opinion to this discussion. It makes no tonal difference in a solid bodied electric guitar as to what wood they make it out of. Visual differences, how finishes adhere, long term durability, weight, and fantasy tonal discussions are the only factors related to "which wood" the bodies are made from. Now if we were talking about acoustic guitars we would have something to discuss.

I always see discussions about how incredible the "tone" is on vintage 1950's Strats compared to today's Strats and I find that ridiculous as well. With respect to Ceri's challenge....We have the "Vegas Vintage Guitar" challenge. You bring your incredibly tone full vintage Strat to the challenge...you pick 2 new Strats of your choice off the wall. All three are run through the same amp at the same settings. You are blindfolded and placed 20 ft from the amp. A killer shredder plays the same monster riffs on all three guitars. If you can pick out your "vintage" Strat, you win 10K...if you pick wrong...they keep your guitar.

No one ever enters this contest...even though they "know" that their vintage guitar sounds "so much better". We can make this into a slew of cliches, all of which IMO are true. It's not the knife - it's the surgeon. It's not the bow - it's the Indian, and so on. Give the most expensive vintage piece to a crappy player and it will sound crappy....give a crappy guitar to a killer player and it will sound killer.

Thanks

Oo gosh - not the very slightest notion that you sounded harsh, or any upset caused whatsoever. Only so many smilie, laughing emoticons we can splash around to make that clear - be sure it's all in the friendliest possible tone as far as I'm concerned...


I did hope I might have firmed up the "scientific-ness" of my test to your satisfaction - no?


We've tossed this around enough times that you know well what you wrote there is what I think. Without the shadow of a doubt the material a thing is made from MUST affect how vibrations (sound) transmit through it. Just... not very much, far as electric guitars are concerned, and the very similar timbers from which they are made.

Is my humble view.

I don't get down to Mike Eldred's forum as often as I should. How does that verbose gentleman express himself on the subject? I must have missed it.

And to jromanov: that is a most interesting challenge and it's outcome that you describe very instructive and revealing! I sure as heck would NOT risk one of my own guitars in that test!

In the happiest, friendliest possible spirit, cheers - C

While my ear is not good enough to tell the difference really in woods, I played a Gibson SG Zoot (ugly multiple ply body) and compared it to a SG Studio. Wow, that Zoot is a dead guitar! Little sustain even with the ABR-1 bridge and tailpiece.

_________________
"Epitaph on a blues musician’s tombstone: “I didn’t wake up this morning”" Davy Knowles


facebook.com/313DBC

Big Jay

I don't think that you sounded argumentative in any way, and there is nothing wrong with adding a little spice to a somewhat boring discussion about "tone woods". Please...I hope that you were not offended in any way...that was not my intention at all.

Fender actually charges more for their burst and translucent finishes. Not because the wood "sounds" any better, not because they are harder to paint (they are actually easier to paint) but because they have to hand pick woods that are visually appealing. Gibson also charges more for their bursts and trannies for the same reason. A Gibson in Natural finish (no paint at all) is the most expensive in any of their lines. Considerably more expensive. This is all based on aesthetics.

If guitars were judged blindly...based only on feel. playability, comfort, weight, sound and so on...we would be amazed at what ended up in our collections.

Thanks