Regular production McCarty 594?

[rugerpc]

With the two guitars side by side, I'm pretty sure I'd be picking the PRS over the Gibson. I'm not married to just one tone and given that pup changes are so easy, I'll take a core PRS over even an upscale Gibson of similar characteristics on build quality alone.

I'm not a great player, but that doesn't mean I do don't know the differences in materials and workmanship.

People have preferences. That's fine. If you are expecting a flame war because you prefer something else, I think you're going to be disappointed.

As for the success/failure of any given PRS build/marketing decision, I suggest hindsight will be more informative than dire foresight.

 

[tonaholic]

It appears the 24.594 scale is not exact golden era Gibson. I did some checking, here's a graphic from StewMac.

The fraction form of .594 is 297/500 or essentially 3/5. According to this image from stew mac, 9/16 would be the goal scale. Interestingly, 9/16 measurement found on a 1959 Gibson is 3/80inch shorter than the 594 which puts this guitar a very small fraction of an inch above the 1959 yet 1/10inch shorter than today's production 24.75 length guitars.

 

[László]

Let the flaming begin.

Your post isn't flame-worthy, but...

As with the new CE you complained about before trying one, you haven't tried a 594.

To your credit, you stated you were wrong about the CE. You should reserve judgment here, too.

If you've followed PRS, not only are classic tones part of what they're doing, but also recent innovative models like the 408, the 20th Anniversary Private Stock, the Paul's Guitar, the Schon models, and many others, including a new jazz box that is built absolutely unlike anything else on the market. In fact, the acoustics were only introduced a few years ago, and their technology is unique.

So I think you've got a set of blinders on, and a very selective memory, to be criticizing PRS for not innovating any more, when in fact, they're innovating all the time!

 

[László]

It appears the 24.594 scale is not exact golden era Gibson. I did some checking, here's a graphic from StewMac.

Who cares whether it's exact golden era Gibson spec? Paul measured his '58 or '59 and that's what it was.

This kind of stuff is so much phoofery.

If the guitar sounds great, what's the problem?

 

[shinksma]

Ugh.. its disappointing. You can't out Les Paul a Les Paul. I would choose a new Les Paul standard over a core 594 in a heartbeat, especially now that the LPs have the axcess heel on them. Thats because I'd want the authentic sound, not something pretending to be that. In case you don't know. 24.594" is the golden age Gibson scale.

I love PRS, But, its disheartening to see Paul have all this Gibson envy. Paul should stick to his thing. 25" scale double cuts. Suhr and other builders are doing the same thing with strats. So, its not just Paul. People think they can outdo the originals but they really can't. No one wants to innovate anymore. Paul was THE innovator in 1985. Now its retro this and retro that. We can't even get out of 1959 with pickup designs. I love my 85/15 pickups in my CE but they are a 1959 PAF design with maybe a few extra winds. I think Paul released the Floyd CU24 and said thats the modern guitar just to wash his hands of it. Everything else is going back in time. I don't like that Paul has alienated the modern players in favor of the near retirement crowd with bucks to spare. At least Suhr, while doing retro stuff, still has a large focus on the modern crowd and Music Man pretty much has gone totally that route. Kiesel too. I would just hate to see PRS plummet one day because they are focusing on a market where the money will eventually dry up.

Let the flaming begin.

Um, OK. Go buy a LP. I really don't care.

What a bizarre post.

 

[shinksma]

"But hon, all the other guys are getting one."

"If all the other guys jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, too?"

"Of course!"

http://xkcd.com/1170/

 

[rugerpc]

http://xkcd.com/1170/

crap. This website is going to eat up some of my time....

 

[shinksma]

crap. This website is going to eat up some of my time....

hah! I love xkcd. Randall is quite on target so many times... Oh, and:

https://xkcd.com/609/

 

[Tosca]

It's what I imagine a Les Paul wearing a dress would look like.

Would a sparkle paint job, a jewel encrusted "S", and a fancy Luis Vuitton case make it manly enough for you?

I'm an unapologetic owner of multiple Les Pauls and PRS short scale single cut models...but from what I've seen and heard, there's definitely room for a 594 in my future. Hopefully I'll still be allowed to go to the men's room after I get it (unless I'm in NC of course).

 

[bodia]

I can't add much, but I'll chime in anyway. I bought an SE Bernie because it was the best sounding guitar I played that day, including every LP and EPI in the store. I don't hate on Gibbys because I respect what they've brought to the table, and I've owned several in the past. But, i don't think their quality can hold a candle to PRS. I'd rather own a PRS trying to be a LP than a LP. The quality, consistency and willingness to satisfy the customer from PRS is heads and shoulders above G, in my option. That means a lot to this consumer.

 

[justmund]

It appears the 24.594 scale is not exact golden era Gibson. I did some checking, here's a graphic from StewMac.

The fraction form of .594 is 297/500 or essentially 3/5. According to this image from stew mac, 9/16 would be the goal scale. Interestingly, 9/16 measurement found on a 1959 Gibson is 3/80inch shorter than the 594 which puts this guitar a very small fraction of an inch above the 1959 yet 1/10inch shorter than today's production 24.75 length guitars.

I think they measured it to be 594 thou, and this is their way of saying "it wasn't 9/16 or 3/5, it was 0.594!"

 

[Zack Matzanias]

PLEASE!

 

[justmund]

It appears the 24.594 scale is not exact golden era Gibson. I did some checking, here's a graphic from StewMac.

The fraction form of .594 is 297/500 or essentially 3/5. According to this image from stew mac, 9/16 would be the goal scale. Interestingly, 9/16 measurement found on a 1959 Gibson is 3/80inch shorter than the 594 which puts this guitar a very small fraction of an inch above the 1959 yet 1/10inch shorter than today's production 24.75 length guitars.

I think they measured it to be 594 thou, and this is their way of saying "it wasn't 9/16 or 3/5, it was 0.594!"

OK it's actually 19/32" (0.59375) which PRSh just says is a vintage scale. There's a vid on the PS 594 page where he and Bryan Ewald talk about it.

 

[ViperDoc]

I went outside the box and investigated through a definitive source. All I can say is, the Core 594 is a green light. If not, you can slap my face and call me Suzie.

 

[shinksma]

I went outside the box and investigated through a definitive source. All I can say is, the Core 594 is a green light. If not, you can slap my face and call me Suzie.

I only do that to my special "friends".

Um, I mean...uh...

 

[Basauri]

If 594 is the golden era scale and PRS does it perfect, if double cut is more comfortable and PRS does it perfect, is craftsmanship and materials are the key to a better musical instrument and PRS do they perfect, why keep comparing them to a Gibson? I own a R9 and is a superb guitar with its distinctive character and response, but every time I pick my McCarty up, I instantly feel that is a better musical instrument. Do I prefer the PRS? Yes because all the statements above. Is it better or worst than my R9? Is a better musical INSTRUMENT, is a different GUITAR.
I have the intention to replace my R9 with a PRS SC because is a better instrument and is more in the ballpark of the gibson than my McCarty, but I know I won't sound the same or better, it will sound different, more PRS, and I like it.

 

[ViperDoc]

I only do that to my special "friends".

Um, I mean...uh...

It's OK, shinksma, it's OK. If you're interested in therapy, it's called 594.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Would a sparkle paint job, a jewel encrusted "S", and a fancy Luis Vuitton case make it manly enough for you?

No, but it might make it girly enough for me to stop trolling Target bathrooms.

 

[jay]

crap. This website is going to eat up some of my time....

Damn! I haven't been reading this for years ...

 

[Drew]

Your post isn't flame-worthy, but...

As with the new CE you complained about before trying one, you haven't tried a 594.

To your credit, you stated you were wrong about the CE. You should reserve judgment here, too.

If you've followed PRS, not only are classic tones part of what they're doing, but also recent innovative models like the 408, the 20th Anniversary Private Stock, the Paul's Guitar, the Schon models, and many others, including a new jazz box that is built absolutely unlike anything else on the market. In fact, the acoustics were only introduced a few years ago, and their technology is unique.

So I think you've got a set of blinders on, and a very selective memory, to be criticizing PRS for not innovating any more, when in fact, they're innovating all the time!

Regarding the CE, I said I was mostly wrong. My tremolo doesn't hold tune, which was part of my fears. But, that is a whole other subject.

I don't need to try a 594. My post was simply a critique on direction, not on the guitar. I'm sure the guitar will play and sound like a million bucks. Our definitions of innovation are apparently different. Innovation looks to the future, not the past. Since 08, Paul has been largely stuck in the past. In 10 or 20 years, there is going to be a huge shift in the industry. These boutique fad 50's pickups and the vintage spec guitar craze is going to go away, as older players stop playing and/or buying. Guys like me, who grew up as children of the 80's and 90s, are going to be the ones with the wallets and expendable income. We won't be looking for guitars that sound like 59 Les Pauls. Up until 07 and 08, PRS was shipping out custom 24's with high powered pickups. There were guitars like the SC250 that had same. The alder and mahog CEs. PRS was definitely a modern guitar company and then like a whirlwind, they grab onto this vintage craze and run with it. I think it will be at the expense of their future.