Experience PRS 2010 Recording Amp

telemaster03

New Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
32
A friend of mine who has a studio has one of these for sale, he bought it from the estate of a PRS enthusiast who apparently purchased it at an experience event. It's a 212 combo covered in paisley...there's a Wildwood video where Doug Sewell says there were 25 of these made.

What does he have here and what would be a fair price for such an amp? Thanks!
 
The 25 sounds right. I remember liking it’s sound, but it’s too far in the past for me to detail it. There were some other small amp runs in that time frame and I do remember the recording amp being much less raw than the Blisterone and the MDT. I bought an MDT for its edginess.

My recall is that the recording amp was dialed more to what Paul wanted in his studio, so would expect it to have a good clean sound.

I would expect the price to be comparable to other amps from that era: Custom, Dallas variants, MDT, Blistertone. Who the buyer would be depends on where their tastes are.
 
Thanks for the reply. I passed on the amp, not quite what I was looking for at this time. Actually, I wasn't really looking but just thought the limited nature of the amp might make it a cool thing to own. Best to keep an eye out for something I really want.
 
Thanks for the reply. I passed on the amp, not quite what I was looking for at this time. Actually, I wasn't really looking but just thought the limited nature of the amp might make it a cool thing to own. Best to keep an eye out for something I really want.
Always buy what you want. All this limited edition stuff is meaningless when it comes to music, it's only meaningful if you're a collector (which I will confess is a thing I do not understand).
 
That’s ok. While Les uses his gear to make monies, he is more of a collector than he lets on to be.
I wanna say he copped to it in the not-so-distant past.

Les? What say you?
"Mr. Mason, would you like to cross examine the witness?"

"Yes, your honor. Now, Mr. Schefman, it's true that you own several limited runs of private stock and core guitars, isn't it?"

"Yes."

"And it's also true that you bought them, in part, because from time to time, you've been a sucker for limited runs?"

"No, I buy them because I use them professionally."

"Mr. Schefman, I show you a post you published on the PRS Forum where you admitted that you are a sucker for limited runs. That's your post, isn't it?"

"Yes it is, but..."

"Will the court instruct the witness to answer the question?"

[The Judge] "Answer the question yes or no."

"OK, yes, it's my post."

"And you made that post because it was true, isn't that correct?"

"I suppose so."

"Now Mr. Schefman, do you suppose that it's also true that the idea of the potential exclusivity of these guitars appealed to what I will call 'pride of ownership'? That's why you called yourself a sucker, isn't it?"

"Yes."

"Does 'pride of ownership' based on exclusivity have anything to do with tone or playability?"

"No, but it's a very small part of why..."

"But you wouldn't call yourself a sucker for buying a great sounding, playable guitar, true?"

"Yes."

"Fact is, that's the kind of thing collectors do. Isn't that true?"

[sobbing] "All right, all right. I admit it. There's a little bit of collector in me, I must have been infected with it by hobnobbing on the PRS Forum."

"Being a little bit of a collector is like being a little bit pregnant, wouldn't you say? [looks at opposing counsel] "Your witness."
 
The evidence
Before the court is
Incontrovertible
There's no need for the jury to retire

In all my years of judging
I have never seen before
Someone so deserving of the penalties
Of collectors

The way you bait and suffer
Your exquisite wife and mother
Fills me with the urge to defecate

Since, my friend
You have revealed your deepest fears
I sentence you to be exposed
Before you peers

TEAR DOWN THE WALL!!!
 
"Mr. Mason, would you like to cross examine the witness?"

"Yes, your honor. Now, Mr. Schefman, it's true that you own several limited runs of private stock and core guitars, isn't it?"

"Yes."

"And it's also true that you bought them, in part, because from time to time, you've been a sucker for limited runs?"

"No, I buy them because I use them professionally."

"Mr. Schefman, I show you a post you published on the PRS Forum where you admitted that you are a sucker for limited runs. That's your post, isn't it?"

"Yes it is, but..."

"Will the court instruct the witness to answer the question?"

[The Judge] "Answer the question yes or no."

"OK, yes, it's my post."

"And you made that post because it was true, isn't that correct?"

"I suppose so."

"Now Mr. Schefman, do you suppose that it's also true that the idea of the potential exclusivity of these guitars appealed to what I will call 'pride of ownership'? That's why you called yourself a sucker, isn't it?"

"Yes."

"Does 'pride of ownership' based on exclusivity have anything to do with tone or playability?"

"No, but it's a very small part of why..."

"But you wouldn't call yourself a sucker for buying a great sounding, playable guitar, true?"

"Yes."

"Fact is, that's the kind of thing collectors do. Isn't that true?"

[sobbing] "All right, all right. I admit it. There's a little bit of collector in me, I must have been infected with it by hobnobbing on the PRS Forum."

"Being a little bit of a collector is like being a little bit pregnant, wouldn't you say? [looks at opposing counsel] "Your witness."
Paul Drake must of thoroughly researched your background to come up with the PRS forum conversation.
 
Paul Drake must of thoroughly researched your background to come up with the PRS forum conversation.
All effective literary cross-examinations have a similar basis.

Get the witness to agree on certain facts - i.e., take them into familiar territory, the so-called garden path - then confront him or her with the deviation from those facts in their own words to support your theory of the case.

I was once a trial lawyer. It did not take genius to be a trial lawyer. Just homework.
 
All effective literary cross-examinations have a similar basis.

Get the witness to agree on certain facts - i.e., take them into familiar territory, the so-called garden path - then confront him or her with the deviation from those facts in their own words to support your theory of the case.

I was once a trial lawyer. It did not take genius to be a trial lawyer. Just homework.
Tell that to Hamilton Burger.
 
Back
Top