Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Instruments' started by Black Plaid, May 22, 2019.
If I had a choice, I would never choose one with a solid color back, wondering how others feel.
Same here. Love seeing wood grain, no matter what.
I do love a good black wash with good grain, but I would prefer solid black to be a Standard.
It depends on the color. Grays and blacks just look better with black backs. Just about every other color though, I'd rather see the wood. Stained wood at the very least. There's just something about an emerald or purple top with a natural back and rosewood neck that looks oh so good.
I love natural back for the most part and I find a black top PRS with natural binding and natural back very sexy
Wow, I can recall that when I bought my HB (which has a solid black back) that a lot, if not most of PRSi I ran across back then had solid color backs. Not that they weren't out there, but I think the trend of nice woodgrain backs and flamed necks has increased and progressed over the years since that time. With all the PS builds going on and our weekly lust for Private Stock Friday additions to that thread, **not to mention all the mfgs that have followed the the PRS footprints (translation=copycats)**, guitars are fancier and more beautiful than any other time in history.
I think all the guitar companies need to pay homage to PRSh for bringing it to the forefront of guitar making in modern times.
I know I don’t like a hairy back. Oh well! Nae luck for me hey?
Now that I see this and I’m not 1/2 asleep...I prefer natural backs, but I don’t mind the solid color back that I have as it really fits the guitar it’s on.
Give me the grain, baby!
I used to own a black PRS Studio in black all around. Stunning guitar, wish I still had it.
On 95% of PRS' I prefer natural or stained backs. On red and grey-black I prefer a black back. Oh, even though this isn't mentioned, I HATE the 'wrap around' stain on the top. You gotta have the faux binding on a PRS or it ain't right!!!
Bonni Pink without the Pepto back is only half as badass. White backs are an incredible look, black backs are classic PRS... Hell, solid opaque guitars are Bangin’!
All my guitars have a Natural back - apart from the HBii of course which has the same Fire Red Burst on the back as it does on the top. I am sure I said in another thread that the 'Black Gold' top always seems to come in a wrap (no natural Binding) and always with a solid black back - which I can understand as the colour could clash. That being said, I would prefer a more translucent black so that the 'grain' can still be seen rather than an opaque Black and want the 'faux' binding too - a 'gold' and black binding would look awesome and would match the top better than just the natural Maple - but I still prefer a Natural maple to a 'wrap'.
I wouldn't buy a PRS if it has a wrap style finish and an opaque back. I don't care how 'great' it is as an instrument, I would rather buy a PRS that matched my requirements aesthetically. The great thing about PRS is that they are so consistent, so well made that you don't have to settle for something that's not as 'pleasing' to your eye. The same model in your preferred aesthetic will play and sound in the same 'ball park' (allowing for slight tonal variation due to the difference in natural woods). Its not like some brands where you like the Cherry Sunburst and one in particular has a great top but sounds 'dull' and has minor fit/finish issues, don't like the Blueberry burst at all but sounds the best and has far less noticeable fit/finish issues and various other colours range from 'meh' to OK, range from well built to QC? what QC???
I know that may come across as 'superficial' - not buying a guitar at all for some aesthetic only reasons - even to the point where I won't even consider buying a guitar on its tonal quality, its playability etc if its not in the right colour or some other aesthetic reason. If PRS for example opted to make the Cu24 in various shades of just Blue and yellow, I would never own a Cu24. The way I see it though is that I have countless other models, other brands etc that may get 'close' enough to a Cu24 that aesthetically appeal and make me want to pick up the guitar and play.
And then on the other side of the fence, I prefer the wraparound color. I think it highlights the top more, and I don’t like anything that detracts from the top. But then I also like variety in the grain, and am honestly not that concerned with the back.
This should be obvious but Casi1 likes wood.
Therefore she likes to see wood.
She prefers no paint covering the wood that she sees.
Les was amused when she referred to herself in the third person.
I plumped for :
It depends (explain below)
I don't really care.
I know “wood” has a connotation in US! However I’m being straight up when I say I love wood. Heck that sounds even worse!
According to my inner aesthete (whose name, coincidentally, is Mr. Les), squabbling over such details as finishes, scraped bindings, birds, neck binding preference or other nonessentials is strictly for parvenus.
“One quietly demonstrates one’s good taste,” he says, “in one’s own possessions, and refrains from expressing criticism of other individuals’ aesthetic choices.”
“Perhaps a raised eyebrow,” he allowed.
I'm still hoping to own a blacktop guitar, where the top is solid opaque black and the back and sides are natural.