PRS Bolt On also Cores?

11top

Cousin Eddie's cousin
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
10,220
Location
18 miles from Markie and Nana.
Screenshot_20220116-100742_Chrome13f21b354bb3dbc2.jpg

“Private Stock: The pinnacle……”.





Wait! :confused: Until the Collections and Paul’s 28 and Violins and……….

:rolleyes:
:D
 
Last edited:

ooglybong

New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
87
Location
New York
Interesting thread here, but now I’m wondering. Where would the bolt-on Brent Mason model fit in? The Johnny Hiland? And I have a Studio SAS, bolt-on with maple ‘board, set up with Studio HSS electronics (ok, so they’re Narrowfield ‘single-coils’). Now, I would consider both those as Core, along with my deeply-carved ‘91 CE-24. All are bolt-ons and 100% USA built.

It all starts getting so hard once we start in with the seemingly overlapping categorizations. They’re all just great guitars to me.
 
Last edited:

RC Mike

New Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
261
Interesting thread here, but now I’m wondering. Where would the bolt-on Brent Mason model fit in? And I have a Studio SAS, bolt-on with maple ‘board, set up with Studio HSS electronics (ok, so they’re Narrowfield ‘single-coils’). Now, I would consider both those as Core, along with my deeply-carved ‘91 CE-24. All are bolt-ons and 100% USA built.

It all starts getting so hard once we start in with the seemingly overlapping categorizations. They’re all just great guitars to me.

I’d not spend time trying to categorize yesterday’s models into today’s product lines.

If a person really needed to do that, neck construction would seem to be the determining factor between Bolt-Ons and Cores.
 

ooglybong

New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
87
Location
New York
If a person really needed to do that, neck construction would seem to be the determining factor between Bolt-Ons and Cores.

Exactly. It’s gotta be more than that. I mean, can’t a Core model have a bolt-on neck within its particular design specs? Or would having a bolt-on, for instance, somehow ‘degrade’ a Private Stock? Nope. Sooo… I don’t see why an official Core model cannot also include bolt-on construction by design.

So, if this therefore negates bolt-on construction as *always* somehow meaning “lesser than Core”, then the current, official PRS “Bolt-On” categorization must also therefore be including *other* qualities besides. Such as having a *Korean* trem system. But then… that spec CAN also be included by choice; Bryan Ewald mentioned that he felt the “lesser” (not his actual words) imported, non-Core trem on the CE24 he was demo’ing actually helped to impart its more “twangy” nature—and my own CE24 Semi does it in spades (-vs- the more robust trems on my several Cores). Which he seemed to really enjoy. And I’m also pretty sure he mentioned that Mayer had spec’ed a similar “lesser” trem for the SS. Hmm.

So… a radical suggestion: Maybe PRS should now be using the terms Core Set-neck and Core Bolt-on for its USA lines, even whether they might spec a “lesser” twangy trem or not. (See the Reverend site for a similar division.) Then, use the simpler categorization of “Bolt-On Series” whenever they use a simpler carve and/or use offshore parts, etc. but are still assembled in the USA factory… but yet they’re still somehow considered a level above an S2 (which, AFAIK, uses even more imported parts). And S2s are also great guitars (I own two).

And finally, just for the record, I’m no “PRS Lawyer” etc., bantering about lotsa terms and such. Nah, I’m actually just a retired high school Art teacher! LOL.

Semantics. So much fun, eh? Anyway, just my $.02 worth. :cool:
 
Last edited:

RC Mike

New Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
261
Exactly. It’s gotta be more than that. I mean, can’t a Core model have a bolt-on neck within its particular design specs? Or would having a bolt-on, for instance, somehow ‘degrade’ a Private Stock? Nope. Sooo… I don’t see why an official Core model cannot also include bolt-on construction by design.

So, if this therefore negates bolt-on construction as *always* somehow meaning “lesser than Core”, then the current, official PRS “Bolt-On” categorization must also therefore be including *other* qualities besides. Such as having a *Korean* trem system. But then… that spec CAN also be included by choice; Bryan Ewald mentioned that he felt the “lesser” (not his actual words) imported, non-Core trem on the CE24 he was demo’ing helped to impart its more “twangy” nature—and my own CE24 Semi does in spades (-vs- the more robust terms on my several Cores). Which he seemed to really enjoy. And I’m also pretty sure he mentioned that Mayer had spec’ed a similar “lesser” trem for the SS. Hmm.

So… a radical suggestion: Maybe PRS should now be using the terms Core Set-neck and Core Bolt-on for its USA lines, even whether they might spec a “lesser” twangy trem or not. (See the Reverend site for a similar division.) Then, use the simpler categorization of “Bolt-On Series” whenever they use a simpler carve and/or use offshore parts, etc. but are still assembled in the USA factory… but yet they’re still somehow considered a level above an S2 (which, AFAIK, uses even more imported parts). And S2s are also great guitars (I own two).

And finally, just for the record, I’m no “PRS Lawyer” etc., bantering about lotsa terms and such. Nah, I’m actually just a retired high school Art teacher! LOL.

Semantics. So much fun, eh? Anyway, just my $.02 worth. :cool:

By neck construction, I meant how the neck is made. Not how it is attached. Core and above have one-piece necks (well, other than those little tips). S2 and Bolt-Ons all have three piece necks, with a glued on heel and headstock.
 

Mozzi

https://imgur.com/user/BAMozzy/posts
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
3,280
I don't think 'Quality' has anything to do with the categorisation of the PRS range - especially in the US ranges. A Bolt-on isn't lower quality, its lower cost either due to different manufacturing processes and/or lower 'cost' parts. PRS wouldn't use those 'parts' if they were not happy they were up to the task.

The 'bolt-on' range uses a 3 piece scarf neck construction which increases the amount of necks they can make from the same quantity of wood (thus cutting down cost of materials) and can make more necks per week because this method also reduces the amount of time and work needed. A one piece neck takes over two weeks to make.

Moulded steel bridges are also 'quicker' to make than milling them from a 'steel' block but that doesn't mean that its 'bad' and certainly not as bad as a LOT of cheap bridges found on very cheap guitars. I doubt PRS would put something 'bad' on a guitar costing as much as their Bolt-ons do. It may save them some money which helps them hit their price point - but doesn't mean its a 'lesser' bridge. Its still the 'same' bridge but a different construction method -sounds similar to the 'neck'...

Whether you see the 'Bolt-on' range as lesser or not is immaterial - they still 'costs' less to make. PRS brought back the 'CE' in 2016 and redesigned the carve to offer a US made high quality instrument with their own US pups at 'less' than 'Core' prices and to position it between the S2 and Core models. The Silver Sky, by virtue of having the 'same' neck construction, is part of that range - as is the Dusty Waring and Fiore too.

If you can buy a PS with Bolt-on neck, chances are you'll get the option to have a 1 piece flamed maple neck for example, milled PRS bridge, Violin Carve (you can't order a PS SS anyway) but you can't buy a 'core' Bolt-on today and certainly since they reintroduced 'bolt-ons', they have done so to target a price point between S2 and Core.

A great guitar is a great guitar regardless and the Silver Sky is a great guitar. I don't really know what the problem is with people if they think that being part of the 'bolt-on' range somehow 'lessens' the instrument. It is a 'Bolt-on' guitar and has the same neck construction as the S2 and Bolt-on range. Its amongst some fantastic Signature models and the CE24's which, if anyone has played, are superb instruments that are 'unique' in the PRS line-up. They are professional grade instruments regardless....
 

shinksma

What? I get a title?
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
4,852
Just taking a bit of the pi$$ with this:

If we say "bolt-on" is not, and never has been, considered "core": Are we are then saying that the Fender Strat, Tele, etc would all never be "core" models if built by PRS? But all US Built Gibsons would be, because of the glued in one piece neck? (Well, one piece until they fall off a stand...)

Sorry, I just thought I'd have a laugh, not trying to offend anyone...
 

SinSir

Mad Scientist
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,945
If you to ask if it's core there's your answer. I know this started with the SS, and I kinda get that but my SAS I've never even thought twice, Core is core.
 

SinSir

Mad Scientist
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,945
Should add if it's not core it's still a great instrument. My 30th SE Floyd blew my mind the first weekend I brought it home. I since chased to make it the best dang guitar I can. It's now had everything swapped with core or equivalent. It's not core but man it is a GREAT guitar! My Vela, blew my mind for the first month, sure some things were not quite core but it sure did and does bring a smile to my face every time I play! Bottom line is no matter the classification, PRS makes damn fine instruments, play and enjoy them as there is no wrong answer.
 

dogrocketp

I drank the PRS kool aid, and it was tasty!
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
4,166
Location
Washington, DC
Interesting thread here, but now I’m wondering. Where would the bolt-on Brent Mason model fit in? And I have a Studio SAS, bolt-on with maple ‘board, set up with Studio HSS electronics (ok, so they’re Narrowfield ‘single-coils’). Now, I would consider both those as Core, along with my deeply-carved ‘91 CE-24. All are bolt-ons and 100% USA built.

It all starts getting so hard once we start in with the seemingly overlapping categorizations. They’re all just great guitars to me.
Don’t split hairs or sniff corks, play guitar. Ooglybong has it right.
 
Top