Hollowbody SE vs CORE
- Thread starter wesnjazz
- Start date
I agree with most of this. Probably the most bang for the buck in changing tone is strings; after that, the pickups are profoundly important. (As the guy featured in the video last week proved by demonstrating that strings stretched between two tabletops - no guitar in sight - and amplified via a pickup stuck up under them sounded pretty much the same as a guitar with that pickup in it, at exactly the same distance from the strings. That guy's the most most dangerous guitar blogger out there.)
But as a matter of professional pride, I'll maintain that the bridge can make a pretty substantial difference as well, particularly when different materials are used to tune the tonal profile and response of the guitar. I have dozens to hundreds of unsolicited testimonials from customers attesting to that. (And I assume the primacy of the bridge in the suspension system of the guitar is the reason Paul has paid so much attention to details of bridge design.)
... and in the context of this discussion of relative value, it occurs to me that a good part of what we pay for in the price of a Core or the upper tier models is some combination of a desire to participate in and be associated with a quest for perfectibility, as well as the willingness to be something like patrons of the artists who are pursuing that goal.
For years I had trouble with my own (probably erroneous, or at least only partly accurate) assessment that a large part of PRS mystique was bound up with conspicuous competitive consumerism, with the guitars as totems of status - that part of the price of those instruments buys that prestige. That, in fact, if the guitars were exactly the same as they are - but less expensive - they would be less desirable for that reason.
And I do think some of that is mixed in with PRS mania - along with the purely subjective aesthetic pleasure in the quest for the ultimate appearance (whatever each of us judge that to be). And if that's all PRS was about - the most spectacular, the eye-poppin'est, the most expensive - I would have learned to respect the brand less. (I'll refrain from naming brands I think are way more show than go.)
But the point is that under the glitz is a remarkable 30-some year legacy of improving the breed. Steadily, patiently, thoughtfully, iteratively evaluating every element of the instrument and always asking how it can be improved, how it can be perfected - not just visually (though in the case of PRS that's the outward and visible sign of the inward state of grace), but deep down in the bones of the thing, in every build process, in every part that goes in or on. At this point there's virtually nothing about the instruments which is just good enough, which hasn't been throught through, obsessed over, tweaked, loved into being a seamless part of the whole.
And yeah - taking what's been learned in that ongoing quest and figuring out how to apply it to guitars built to a cost, seriously asking and then methodically answering the question just how GOOD can we build an 800.00 guitar - is what makes the SE line as good as it is, about as near to theoretical perfection for each given build as I've yet seen on the market. That's a helluvan accomplishment in its own right. But it stands on the shoulders of the years of development in the Core.
And no doubt - when you handle a Core, play it, really have time to explore its musical nuances, to grow into a relationship with its feel and its extraordinary range of response and expressive capability, to come to trust its stability and reliability, to go days, in and out of the case and never have to touch a tuner - you appreciate the substantive and meaningful difference you buy when you spend up to those models. You feel what Cadillac proved in the 19-teens and 20s when it became The Standard of the World not by building showy luxury barges, but by supplying touring cars for the cross-desert Baghdad-to-Beirut run: the greatest luxury is reliability. That's the engineering on which it's all built, the chassis.
Of course you also get the bodywork on top of that - the stunning coachwork, from factory-design to pure custom - that adorned Duesenbergs (NOT THE GUITARS, YUCK PTUI), Rolls Royces, Bugattis, and Delahayes in the classic era. (Only translated into the domain of guitars, see. Ya gotta follow the stretching metaphor here.)
In a sense, we're supporting the craftsmen and artists who are pursuing perfection, as well as owning, using, and taking satisfaction from their artifacts. I think that's especially meaningful to people who have themselves pursued perfection in their own personal and professional endeavors - who know that it doesn't take all that long to bang out the bones of a thing, whether it's engineering and building something physical, creating something in any of the arts, or building an organization. It's sometimes good enough to get something good enough - but to perfect it takes far more time. As you iterate, redo, test, revise, rebuild, rewrite, or rethink, you absolutely get into the realm of diminishing returns, where you're expending 80-90-hundreds percent more time and effort on seemingly small improvements. The time and effort is expensive; it's just the nature of the thing.
But up there is where the artists, and then the angels live - above the tree line where the air is thin and few can follow, staggering and crawling doggedly with determination for a perhaps-unattainable peak. Them what's tried knows how hard all that is to do, and I think it gives us an appreciation for those who are able by virtue of constitution, hard work, talent, and persistence to do it. It's why we buy art of any kind, and pay a premium for the most refined engineering. It's because those things ennoble mankind. That pursuit is one of the highest ways to invest our time on the planet, and we enjoy the way the fruits of such endeavors - even on the part of others - enhance our lives (and in the case of guitars, enable and enrich our own pursuits). And beyond that, we have the satisfaction of participating in those artists' ongoing pursuit of perfection by patronizing and rewarding it.
(Or at least that's another way to rationalize spending used car money on a guitar.)
For years I had trouble with my own (probably erroneous, or at least only partly accurate) assessment that a large part of PRS mystique was bound up with conspicuous competitive consumerism, with the guitars as totems of status - that part of the price of those instruments buys that prestige. That, in fact, if the guitars were exactly the same as they are - but less expensive - they would be less desirable for that reason.
And I do think some of that is mixed in with PRS mania - along with the purely subjective aesthetic pleasure in the quest for the ultimate appearance (whatever each of us judge that to be). And if that's all PRS was about - the most spectacular, the eye-poppin'est, the most expensive - I would have learned to respect the brand less. (I'll refrain from naming brands I think are way more show than go.)
But the point is that under the glitz is a remarkable 30-some year legacy of improving the breed. Steadily, patiently, thoughtfully, iteratively evaluating every element of the instrument and always asking how it can be improved, how it can be perfected - not just visually (though in the case of PRS that's the outward and visible sign of the inward state of grace), but deep down in the bones of the thing, in every build process, in every part that goes in or on. At this point there's virtually nothing about the instruments which is just good enough, which hasn't been throught through, obsessed over, tweaked, loved into being a seamless part of the whole.
And yeah - taking what's been learned in that ongoing quest and figuring out how to apply it to guitars built to a cost, seriously asking and then methodically answering the question just how GOOD can we build an 800.00 guitar - is what makes the SE line as good as it is, about as near to theoretical perfection for each given build as I've yet seen on the market. That's a helluvan accomplishment in its own right. But it stands on the shoulders of the years of development in the Core.
And no doubt - when you handle a Core, play it, really have time to explore its musical nuances, to grow into a relationship with its feel and its extraordinary range of response and expressive capability, to come to trust its stability and reliability, to go days, in and out of the case and never have to touch a tuner - you appreciate the substantive and meaningful difference you buy when you spend up to those models. You feel what Cadillac proved in the 19-teens and 20s when it became The Standard of the World not by building showy luxury barges, but by supplying touring cars for the cross-desert Baghdad-to-Beirut run: the greatest luxury is reliability. That's the engineering on which it's all built, the chassis.
Of course you also get the bodywork on top of that - the stunning coachwork, from factory-design to pure custom - that adorned Duesenbergs (NOT THE GUITARS, YUCK PTUI), Rolls Royces, Bugattis, and Delahayes in the classic era. (Only translated into the domain of guitars, see. Ya gotta follow the stretching metaphor here.)
In a sense, we're supporting the craftsmen and artists who are pursuing perfection, as well as owning, using, and taking satisfaction from their artifacts. I think that's especially meaningful to people who have themselves pursued perfection in their own personal and professional endeavors - who know that it doesn't take all that long to bang out the bones of a thing, whether it's engineering and building something physical, creating something in any of the arts, or building an organization. It's sometimes good enough to get something good enough - but to perfect it takes far more time. As you iterate, redo, test, revise, rebuild, rewrite, or rethink, you absolutely get into the realm of diminishing returns, where you're expending 80-90-hundreds percent more time and effort on seemingly small improvements. The time and effort is expensive; it's just the nature of the thing.
But up there is where the artists, and then the angels live - above the tree line where the air is thin and few can follow, staggering and crawling doggedly with determination for a perhaps-unattainable peak. Them what's tried knows how hard all that is to do, and I think it gives us an appreciation for those who are able by virtue of constitution, hard work, talent, and persistence to do it. It's why we buy art of any kind, and pay a premium for the most refined engineering. It's because those things ennoble mankind. That pursuit is one of the highest ways to invest our time on the planet, and we enjoy the way the fruits of such endeavors - even on the part of others - enhance our lives (and in the case of guitars, enable and enrich our own pursuits). And beyond that, we have the satisfaction of participating in those artists' ongoing pursuit of perfection by patronizing and rewarding it.
(Or at least that's another way to rationalize spending used car money on a guitar.)
Last edited:
Then I think again of Paul Smith himself as the founder and patriarch of the company bearing his name, especially in the context of others in the 70s and 80s who were also getting started in the business. There were the custom builders like Alembic who made a name (and for a time a living) building for the stars without mass-marketing. There were the brave-new-idea guys like Travis Bean and Gary Kramer and company with the aluminum necks. (Later came Ned Steinberger, and Ken Parker - all making waves, all changing the guitar as we knew it.) 30-40 years later, where have they gone?
Maybe more similar, there was Hamer and Dean, rushing like Paul into the perceived void Gibson and Fender had created by letting quality slip and losing touch with the market (or so the story goes). Grover Jackson. So many independents who were going to stick it to the man. Yes, some of the brand names survive (most in the hands of FMIC or Gibson). But those companies and the products they carried into the fray don't exist in anything like their original form.
Why? In the evolution of the guitar market since the mid-80s, why does PRS alone thrive as an independent who did the impossible, not only surviving, but now standing shoulder to shoulder with the titans of the the classic era? For that matter, in all the history of at least the electric guitar, why has only PRS remained under the same leadership from its beginning, with Paul's tenure outlasting that of Orville Gibson (in the pre-electric days), Leo Fender...or anyone else we can name? Further, he's the only real guitarist who has led a company (whether bearing his name or otherwise) for so long, so successfully. How did that happen?
Surely lots of reasons, with many behind the scenes in the business structure of the company, unknown to me. But surely part of it - maybe the primary mover - has been Paul's patient and persistent attention to the details of the product itself, to the instrument. To improving the thing, moving it closer to perfection. It seems to me he's never gotten tired of the trouble, never given up. And he's been remarkably true to his own vision, his own original concepts - even while adapting to the market. (And no doubt, embracing the truth that every piece of wood is different, and an endless color palette could endlessly extend those differences - and become critical components in the build - has been a key part of the window dressing that attracts.) But it's how freakin' good the guitars are aside from that which supports the whole edifice. I think they're better than we knew guitars could even be.
PRS came along not too many years after Peavey; for all the differences between the companies and their market profiles, both were headed by young men who saw opportunities amidst the MI status quo of the times. They skillfully exploited and brilliantly executed along completely different trajectories, but both shook up the business as it was. Hartley looked around and saw what we now think of as legacy gear - ie, the amps coming from Fender and the other biggies of the day - and thought it was too expensive and not reliable enough. There hadn't been meaningful innovation for years that really hit the market where it was. He thought the stuff wasn't good enough for its cost - poor value, in a good-ol'-southern-boy rural way.
And he made stuff that was good enough, and that we could afford. That was better than we were getting from the big names. In the early 80s, around the time Paul was getting spun up, Hartley did the same thing with guitars he'd done with amps. When mediocre new Les Pauls were 800.00, and similarly uninspiring Strats and Teles were 600.00, he offered his 400.00 CNC-made ash planks. They were utterly consistent one to the next, dead reliable, and unquestionably a good value. They were good enough.
Mr Smith, on the other hand, didn't think good enough was good enough. I was working in a music store in 1985, and attended the New Orleans NAMM show where PRS displayed its wares in a main-floor booth for the first time. (Stop me if I've told this one here before!) The effect was immediate and transformative: no one had ever seen guitars finished to that level of detail and perfection, with that kind of figuring, in those popsicle colors. Given the noise and fury of a NAMM show floor, how the guitars sounded was practically secondary to their sheer physical impact (appreciation of the inner engineering would come later).
Hartley's company lives on, manufacturing all over the world (as PRS does). I believe Hartley is still at the helm, and while Peavey has faded somewhat as a market leader, it's still a juggernaut, making a wide range of products across the MI span. So far as I know, it's all good enough - and some of it much better than that. (My 1990s Classic 30s remain my favorite amps, having vanquished much more expensive pieces.) And good enough remains ... well, not a bad thing. It is something you can rely on.
But PRS persists in that other domain, patiently and persistently pursuing its own course - surely not oblivious to the market's direction, but with remarkable fidelity to their original designs, and continually committed to their ongoing improvment. Because good enough is never good enough, the company presses on toward possibly unattainable perfection. It shows in the product.
I like that.
_____
Sorry for the rambles. I'll shut up now.
Maybe more similar, there was Hamer and Dean, rushing like Paul into the perceived void Gibson and Fender had created by letting quality slip and losing touch with the market (or so the story goes). Grover Jackson. So many independents who were going to stick it to the man. Yes, some of the brand names survive (most in the hands of FMIC or Gibson). But those companies and the products they carried into the fray don't exist in anything like their original form.
Why? In the evolution of the guitar market since the mid-80s, why does PRS alone thrive as an independent who did the impossible, not only surviving, but now standing shoulder to shoulder with the titans of the the classic era? For that matter, in all the history of at least the electric guitar, why has only PRS remained under the same leadership from its beginning, with Paul's tenure outlasting that of Orville Gibson (in the pre-electric days), Leo Fender...or anyone else we can name? Further, he's the only real guitarist who has led a company (whether bearing his name or otherwise) for so long, so successfully. How did that happen?
Surely lots of reasons, with many behind the scenes in the business structure of the company, unknown to me. But surely part of it - maybe the primary mover - has been Paul's patient and persistent attention to the details of the product itself, to the instrument. To improving the thing, moving it closer to perfection. It seems to me he's never gotten tired of the trouble, never given up. And he's been remarkably true to his own vision, his own original concepts - even while adapting to the market. (And no doubt, embracing the truth that every piece of wood is different, and an endless color palette could endlessly extend those differences - and become critical components in the build - has been a key part of the window dressing that attracts.) But it's how freakin' good the guitars are aside from that which supports the whole edifice. I think they're better than we knew guitars could even be.
PRS came along not too many years after Peavey; for all the differences between the companies and their market profiles, both were headed by young men who saw opportunities amidst the MI status quo of the times. They skillfully exploited and brilliantly executed along completely different trajectories, but both shook up the business as it was. Hartley looked around and saw what we now think of as legacy gear - ie, the amps coming from Fender and the other biggies of the day - and thought it was too expensive and not reliable enough. There hadn't been meaningful innovation for years that really hit the market where it was. He thought the stuff wasn't good enough for its cost - poor value, in a good-ol'-southern-boy rural way.
And he made stuff that was good enough, and that we could afford. That was better than we were getting from the big names. In the early 80s, around the time Paul was getting spun up, Hartley did the same thing with guitars he'd done with amps. When mediocre new Les Pauls were 800.00, and similarly uninspiring Strats and Teles were 600.00, he offered his 400.00 CNC-made ash planks. They were utterly consistent one to the next, dead reliable, and unquestionably a good value. They were good enough.
Mr Smith, on the other hand, didn't think good enough was good enough. I was working in a music store in 1985, and attended the New Orleans NAMM show where PRS displayed its wares in a main-floor booth for the first time. (Stop me if I've told this one here before!) The effect was immediate and transformative: no one had ever seen guitars finished to that level of detail and perfection, with that kind of figuring, in those popsicle colors. Given the noise and fury of a NAMM show floor, how the guitars sounded was practically secondary to their sheer physical impact (appreciation of the inner engineering would come later).
Hartley's company lives on, manufacturing all over the world (as PRS does). I believe Hartley is still at the helm, and while Peavey has faded somewhat as a market leader, it's still a juggernaut, making a wide range of products across the MI span. So far as I know, it's all good enough - and some of it much better than that. (My 1990s Classic 30s remain my favorite amps, having vanquished much more expensive pieces.) And good enough remains ... well, not a bad thing. It is something you can rely on.
But PRS persists in that other domain, patiently and persistently pursuing its own course - surely not oblivious to the market's direction, but with remarkable fidelity to their original designs, and continually committed to their ongoing improvment. Because good enough is never good enough, the company presses on toward possibly unattainable perfection. It shows in the product.
I like that.
_____
Sorry for the rambles. I'll shut up now.
Last edited:
(Well, I thought so.)
I should probably acknowledge that PRS is not the only guitar company which iteratively improves its products; every year everyone has some innovation, some way in which their familiar guitars have been improved, sometimes downright revolutionized.
But in very few (well, no) cases that I can think of has one idea-man so consistently guided that process in accordance with his own vision and sensibilities, seeing that the core elements and principles are not diluted - or downright violated, as can happen in design-by-committee marketing departments. It's like Apple under Steve Jobs...vs Apple in the wandering years when Jobs was out - or the Apple of today, still pretty faithfully adhering to Jobs' directions, but without the same ferocious attention to detail (and what will happen when Jobs' last great ideas finally play out?).
At least from my limited perspective, it appears that Paul's consistent guidance has provided a star for the company to steer by, kept the innovation and the evolution of the product steady and on-point.
I should probably acknowledge that PRS is not the only guitar company which iteratively improves its products; every year everyone has some innovation, some way in which their familiar guitars have been improved, sometimes downright revolutionized.
But in very few (well, no) cases that I can think of has one idea-man so consistently guided that process in accordance with his own vision and sensibilities, seeing that the core elements and principles are not diluted - or downright violated, as can happen in design-by-committee marketing departments. It's like Apple under Steve Jobs...vs Apple in the wandering years when Jobs was out - or the Apple of today, still pretty faithfully adhering to Jobs' directions, but without the same ferocious attention to detail (and what will happen when Jobs' last great ideas finally play out?).
At least from my limited perspective, it appears that Paul's consistent guidance has provided a star for the company to steer by, kept the innovation and the evolution of the product steady and on-point.
aphantomvaper
Bend it to the Owl!
Well written, its like fair_child came back from the future and recounted his learnings!
It's a compliment
It's a compliment
Birdsofprey
All Birds that Fly.
As you have stated Proteus and not putting words in your blog, PRS has helped drive the whole market up in quality and design to stay competitive at a particular price point all across the spectrum. Hartley's a great example also. I wrote him a letter probably twenty years ago asking why we could not have a US built electric guitar for one hundred dollars as an entry level instrument. He kindly wrote back giving details of why at that point it wasn't plausible however it was on his mind. A gentleman. I further say PRS is a leader in bringing the market up whether by competitiveness or embarrassment of the other products that are on the market. There are other good manufactures out there but I would say across the product line PRS is the leader and for all the right reasons. Good post btw.
Aahzz
Bluebeard Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,442
I haven't owned a Core HB, I did own an SE HBII for a bit. It was a fantastic guitar, though if I'd kept it I probably would have changed the pickups - but that's just a personal preference thing. Sold it because I was still in my long-term serial flipper mode. That, and, well, it funded my first Vela, and we all know how I feel about those .
.I am sorry to say that you still do not own a PRS guitar. You own a manufactured by Cort under contract guitar. I have said it many times. An SE is a PINO (PRS In Name Only) guitar. It is guitar built to a price point that lacks the heart and soul of a guitar made in Maryland. The Cort factory uses different tooling than Stevensville. Almost all of the processes are different. The reality is that while being a good value for the money, the SEs are not built to the same standard as Stevensville guitars. If you have never been inside of the Stevensville facility, tours of Stevensville and the Cort factory that builds SEs are on YouTube. Cort uses a very different build process. A neck takes a long time to make at the Stevensville facility because they remove a little wood from the blank and then let it rest. They repeat this process until the name is shaped. That is a big part of the reason why the necks on Maryland-made PRS guitars are so stable.
Alan Jurgens
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2020
- Messages
- 271
aphantomvaper
Bend it to the Owl!
Sniff
You can disagree as much as you want, but it will not change the reality. The fact that SEs carry the PRS name was a big mistake on PRS' part. Fender and Gibson used completely different brand names for its contract manufactured guitars. PRS muddied the waters. I internally chuckle when a guitarist says he has a PRS and pulls out an SE. I do not want to hurt his/her feelings, but it is not a PRS guitar. SEs are not built by PRS employees; therefore, they are technically PRS in name only. That is why buyers who understand the difference, but are on a budget opt for S2s. S2s are real PRS guitars. There is a difference.
I'm so familiar with all the opinions around place of manufacture and branding, having dealt with and thought about them myself since the 80s, that there's just nothing left for me to take offense over.
Em7 says some factually true things and mixes them with both inaccuracies and subjective mystical opinion.
Given that the SEs are built, not just under license but under the directions and supervision of - and collaboration with - Paul's company, I'm pretty sure Paul considers them to be PRS guitars.
It matters less to me where the guitars are built than how they're built - and how well. Those things are publicly acknowledged and documented (as is not the case with, oh, say, Duesenberg). The exhaustively accurate pedigree on the backs of SE headstocks makes the source clear. It can be taken as a disclaimer or mark of dishonor (for those inclined to see it that way). I like that it's there, because I have as much respect and gratitude for the people who build the guitars in Korea, China, and Indonesia as those who build the S2s, CEs, and Cores in Maryland. If anything, it's more impressive that they're building so much guitar, so well, at the SE price points than that the Marylanders build the others at their price point.
______
And happy us, it's all good.
Em7 says some factually true things and mixes them with both inaccuracies and subjective mystical opinion.
Did my post say I have only SEs? In fact, I have both Core and S2. (And forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of your sorrow.)
I've been familiar with Cort-manufactured guitars since the 80s. I don't like the name (which strikes my ear as unpleasant) nor their brand logo, so try to avoid them (I'm fastidious about some tiny irrelevant things). But I've never played a bad Cort, and proudly own a Cort Sunset baritone. The fact that some SEs are built by Cort is a good thing in my book.
I'm sure you have! I get that SEs are built to a price point. (Guitars don't have hearts or souls. People do.)
True!
Half-true. I submit that SEs are built to the same standard. They're just built differently, in a different place, to sell for a different price. At least in my experience, the build quality, fit and finish, consistency, and QC are as extraordinary as Stevensville's.
Yep, all good. The necks on Cores are extremely stable; I would agree that they're more stable than those on the SEs.
But we're not discussing "reality". We're discussing its interpretation and our attitudes toward it.
Hundreds of thousands of guitars made outside the US wear the Fender - not Squier - logo. And who will argue that Gibson's home-grown product is built to a better standard, with more consistency and more thorough QC, than their Epiphone brethren?
... but you invest the time and effort to "hurt someone's feelings" online? (Not to worry, mine aren't hurt.)
Do Core and S2 guitars contain any components not made by PRS employees? Do those components dilute the pure blood of guitars built by people drawing a Stevensville paycheck?
I understand the difference! I know what I'm getting in every case, taking each on its own terms, and I've opted for all three. What's wrong with me?
Given that the SEs are built, not just under license but under the directions and supervision of - and collaboration with - Paul's company, I'm pretty sure Paul considers them to be PRS guitars.
It matters less to me where the guitars are built than how they're built - and how well. Those things are publicly acknowledged and documented (as is not the case with, oh, say, Duesenberg). The exhaustively accurate pedigree on the backs of SE headstocks makes the source clear. It can be taken as a disclaimer or mark of dishonor (for those inclined to see it that way). I like that it's there, because I have as much respect and gratitude for the people who build the guitars in Korea, China, and Indonesia as those who build the S2s, CEs, and Cores in Maryland. If anything, it's more impressive that they're building so much guitar, so well, at the SE price points than that the Marylanders build the others at their price point.
______
And happy us, it's all good.
Last edited:
Exactly, and Em7's mentality is exactly why people view some brands as "elite". Same crap happens with Gibson.
What Proteus said is correct. Cort is licensed to make PRS SE guitars and PRS supervises the production (quality coming out of factory) of those same guitars. PRS SE guitars are "PRS guitars" just made in a different factory in a different country.
Are Gretsch's not Gretsch's because most are made overseas?
Moondog Wily
Howlin' At The Moon!
A lot of good points here from many! Thank you Proteus for taking the time to detail what you know/perceive about the situation!! I think one point that Paul himself made (I believe it was in one of the Long Distance Call videos) sums up why this company is what it is. He said that if he could only do one thing for the rest of his life, it would be to update/fix every guitar he has ever made to ensure that it is the best it can be, utilizing all that he has learned in the years since it was produced. That kind of commitment to your craft is, I think, what makes PRS what it is. Paul's undying commitment to always make the best product possible (in various price points). I think this shows through on the SE line (although I have never played one) based on what I have read/learned. Had he not launched the SE line, I can not imagine PRS being in the position it is in at this time. It always amazes me when I am window shopping online, that a site will have 30 F or G guitars, and 100 PRS! SE gave him that penetration IMO!!!
Long live Paul and PRS Guitars!!!!!
Long live Paul and PRS Guitars!!!!!
McMahon67
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 250
Dude…..
I’ve never heard of Boscoe until just now when you posted this.
Checked him out…. And I am amazed. Thank you!!!
You may resume your previously scheduled thread.
Similar threads
