Venting about Transparent Finishes

[Nathan Shane]

Greetings everyone. I wasn’t sure if general discussion was the right place to post this but here we are. I’ve searched other postings on this forum and this issue has been discussed somewhat already…but I need to vent about transparent finishes. I’ve been playing guitar for 40+ years and have owned many instruments. As I think over the guitars I’ve bought and played, they all had painted finishes. Wood grain patterns were a non-issue. But during the past decade, I started playing Stratocasters, some painted, some stained. Wood grain patterns were still somewhat of a non-issue because the pickguard covered much of the guitars surface. Then in the last five years, I moved on to PRS guitars, the affordable SE versions. That’s when I started to really take notice of transparent finishes…and the wood grain patterns have become a huge issue for me. Yes, it’s a personal aesthetics issue, but I know I’m not alone in my thinking. When the SE Swamp Ash guitars came out, I was initially excited, but the transparent finishes which allowed the wood grain and individual pieces of wood show through were not visually appealing at all. To me, the guitars look like they took boards from an old fence and just slapped them together. And as others have noted, one half of the guitar can have “horizontal” wood grain and the other half has “vertical” wood grain. And, one side appears more stained than the other side.

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the thinking behind producing guitars of this aesthetic nature. I sometimes think that guitar manufacturers are knowingly pushing a “new narrative” upon guitarists as to what makes for a guitar’s aesthetic appeal. I’ve also considered that perhaps it’s simply a money issue. If you want low prices on “name brand” guitars, we can do that. You’ll just have to accept transparent finishes which allow you to see every piece of wood glued together and mismatched wood grain patterns. In all seriousness, I would never perform publicly with an instrument which looks like an aesthetic nightmare. Which also creates another issue…seeing the exact guitar you’re purchasing (thank you Sweetwater and others) versus retailers who ship guitars from a warehouse and you never get to see the actual guitar your purchasing until you unwrap it. For example, when I ordered a PRS SE Swamp Ash (retailer name omitted), I was literally saying to myself, “please let me get one that I think is aesthetically pleasing, please, please, please. When I unboxed the guitar which arrived, it looked like stained assembled fence boards. And I didn’t want to keep swapping out guitars until I got one which I considered good looking. Another example, I recently purchased a PRS SE Paul’s Guitar (Black Gold Burst) from the same unnamed retailer and as is their business model, you don’t get to see the actual guitar you’re buying. So again, I was saying to myself, please, please, please let me get a guitar which looks extremely good, where the right and left sides grain patterns complemented each other and the stain looked similar. When I unboxed that guitar, it was more than I expected…it was beautiful and a keeper.

Okay, I think I’ve vented enough. Could some of you share your thoughts about the state of transparent finishes and if seeing mismatched wood grain and significant stain differences matters to you. I’m all ears.

 

[archtop]

I tend to be on the side of the more 'flaws' wood has the more character the guitar has. That said, if the top is 2, or more, pieces I like them to be somewhat consistent... but some of those 70's Les Pauls with radically mismatched tops (1/2 cool grain + 1/2 plain grain) are kinda cool because nothing says "1970's Gibson" more than a top that says "who the f*** cares about quality or appearance" (I had a couple high school friends who had 70's Gibsons with the bridge/tailpiece holes plugged and re-drilled at the factory - the original holes were up to 1" off).

If it's really important to you see it in person or buy from a dealer who posts pics or will send you pics.

 

[Simon Says]

 

[toothace]

Greetings everyone. I wasn’t sure if general discussion was the right place to post this but here we are. I’ve searched other postings on this forum and this issue has been discussed somewhat already…but I need to vent about transparent finishes. I’ve been playing guitar for 40+ years and have owned many instruments. As I think over the guitars I’ve bought and played, they all had painted finishes. Wood grain patterns were a non-issue. But during the past decade, I started playing Stratocasters, some painted, some stained. Wood grain patterns were still somewhat of a non-issue because the pickguard covered much of the guitars surface. Then in the last five years, I moved on to PRS guitars, the affordable SE versions. That’s when I started to really take notice of transparent finishes…and the wood grain patterns have become a huge issue for me. Yes, it’s a personal aesthetics issue, but I know I’m not alone in my thinking. When the SE Swamp Ash guitars came out, I was initially excited, but the transparent finishes which allowed the wood grain and individual pieces of wood show through were not visually appealing at all. To me, the guitars look like they took boards from an old fence and just slapped them together. And as others have noted, one half of the guitar can have “horizontal” wood grain and the other half has “vertical” wood grain. And, one side appears more stained than the other side.

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the thinking behind producing guitars of this aesthetic nature. I sometimes think that guitar manufacturers are knowingly pushing a “new narrative” upon guitarists as to what makes for a guitar’s aesthetic appeal. I’ve also considered that perhaps it’s simply a money issue. If you want low prices on “name brand” guitars, we can do that. You’ll just have to accept transparent finishes which allow you to see every piece of wood glued together and mismatched wood grain patterns. In all seriousness, I would never perform publicly with an instrument which looks like an aesthetic nightmare. Which also creates another issue…seeing the exact guitar you’re purchasing (thank you Sweetwater and others) versus retailers who ship guitars from a warehouse and you never get to see the actual guitar your purchasing until you unwrap it. For example, when I ordered a PRS SE Swamp Ash (retailer name omitted), I was literally saying to myself, “please let me get one that I think is aesthetically pleasing, please, please, please. When I unboxed the guitar which arrived, it looked like stained assembled fence boards. And I didn’t want to keep swapping out guitars until I got one which I considered good looking. Another example, I recently purchased a PRS SE Paul’s Guitar (Black Gold Burst) from the same unnamed retailer and as is their business model, you don’t get to see the actual guitar you’re buying. So again, I was saying to myself, please, please, please let me get a guitar which looks extremely good, where the right and left sides grain patterns complemented each other and the stain looked similar. When I unboxed that guitar, it was more than I expected…it was beautiful and a keeper.

Okay, I think I’ve vented enough. Could some of you share your thoughts about the state of transparent finishes and if seeing mismatched wood grain and significant stain differences matters to you. I’m all ears.

You should stick to buying opaque finish guitars...

I like to see the wood grain, and I'm not offended by the issue of unmatched wood grain. At any price point I know what I'm getting and what I'm paying for, and am ok with that. YMMV, the previous opinion is not necessarily that of the PRS Forum. It is unlawful to rebroadcast this presentation without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball.

 

[Rider1260]

I think your first and biggest issue is your dealer of choice !!!!
There are plenty of dealers that post high quality photos of the guitar you are purchasing you should not have to worry about what guitar is coming to you.
Second beauty is in the eye of the beholder that's why there are so many colors and finishes , relic finishes , Dog Hair finishes , shiny blingie finishes , satin finishs , everyone has something they LOVE or Dislike .

 

[SinSir]

I like to see the grain in general and prefer it. I would agree some of the se would benefit from being covered with multiple pieces and poor matching, but at a certain price point it is what it is these days.

 

[veinbuster]

I like wood grain.
Even though it’s more work, I stain my deck rather than paint it.
And I’d beat the crap out of anyone who painted my wood furniture.

Just buy what you like.

 

[Moondog Wily]

I LOVE one piece tops or guitars that the body is all one piece and no cap. But when a bookmatch is "right", it blows my socks off! When it is not right, I hate it. I would never buy a guitar that I could not even see a picture of (unless of course I was buying one that I used to own or knew for some other reason). Plenty of dealers willing to show the goods, so ditch that unnamed POS ;~))

 

[László]

When the SE Swamp Ash guitars came out, I was initially excited, but the transparent finishes which allowed the wood grain and individual pieces of wood show through were not visually appealing at all. To me, the guitars look like they took boards from an old fence and just slapped them together.

You're probably aware that Swamp Ash is getting hard to obtain; the real stuff actually comes from trees that were in a swamp, and because of the ash borer beetle, as well as the global warming situation and overuse of land drying up wetlands, it's hard to find good boards.

That's why at one point recently, Fender stopped using the wood on their production models (I don't know if that's still the case, and I think they were using it on their Custom Shop stuff). It's also getting more expensive.

Fender to Discontinue Using Ash Bodies for Production-Line Guitars

"What little ash we are able to source will continue to be made available in select, historically appropriate vintage models, as supplies are available," Fender said

www.guitarplayer.com

On a so-called 'bargain' overseas guitar that's made under license - SEs are not made by PRS but by a third party vendor - you're getting odds and ends instead of the best boards. Sometimes the odds and ends look great together, sometimes they don't.

Some boards are strongly cross-grained, others aren't.

That said, lots of SEs look great because their tops are veneers, not solid wood like the Core and S2 models. Veneers are cut very thin and glued to the top, so one especially nice looking board yields a lot of veneer. On the other side of the equation, one nice board = far fewer solid wood tops.

There's nothing wrong with veneers, by the way; using them is an art going back to the Middle Ages.

As to stains, every piece of wood "grabs" stain differently. To maintain transparency, stains have to be organic. Organic stains have a number of practical issues, like light sensitivity that causes fading, and because organic stains are absorbed more into the wood - i.e., not sitting on top of the wood like paint or an opaque inorganic stain - the nooks and crannies of the wood often take the stain in unique ways.

You actually see more inconsistency on the more expensive Core models than on the SEs, because when the solid violin top is carved, some of the top comes from deeper parts of the board than others. The different levels of the wood will grab certain stains differently. Whereas with a veneer, it's all from the same level of the wood.

I get that for lots of folks the SEs are plenty expensive compared to other brands! But they're still not as expensive as the Maryland stuff.

I'll digress for a moment:

I once read an interview with Ted McCarty, for whom the PRS McCarty is named. He said that when they were making Les Pauls and other solid body guitars back in the day, only the players buying the carved-top jazz boxes that were expensive cared about the wood grain, but they were picky.

The rockers weren't into that. As a result, there were much plainer tops on Les Pauls. But even back then, the jazz boxes cost several times what a Les Paul cost.

However, the bottom line when it comes to beauty (besides that it's entirely subjective) is that if you want the really great looking stuff, made with superb quality that's not skin-deep, you've got to pony up.

 

[Herr Squid]

I say this not to offend, but to offer perspective: I don't think I've seen such strong feelings about wood's appearance in general in my 23-odd years of being a Pretty Guitar Forum rat.

Certainly some have griped about the specimen they got not living up to their expectations. Wood being wood, and manufacturing being manufacturing, and light being light, there's almost always angles where the pieces on either side of a seam aren't going to look alike. Maybe that's true from all the angles. I have a few 10-tops where they look amazing from certain directions and kinda meh from others. I still love 'em.

 

[Nathan Shane]

You're probably aware that Swamp Ash is getting hard to obtain; the real stuff actually comes from trees that were in a swamp, and because of the ash borer beetle, as well as the global warming situation and overuse of land drying up wetlands, it's hard to find good boards.

That's why at one point recently, Fender stopped using the wood on their production models (I don't know if that's still the case, and I think they were using it on their Custom Shop stuff). It's also getting more expensive.

Fender to Discontinue Using Ash Bodies for Production-Line Guitars

"What little ash we are able to source will continue to be made available in select, historically appropriate vintage models, as supplies are available," Fender said

www.guitarplayer.com

On a so-called 'bargain' overseas guitar that's made under license - SEs are not made by PRS but by a third party vendor - you're getting odds and ends instead of the best boards. Sometimes the odds and ends look great together, sometimes they don't.

Some boards are strongly cross-grained, others aren't.

That said, lots of SEs look great because their tops are veneers, not solid wood like the Core and S2 models. Veneers are cut very thin and glued to the top, so one especially nice looking board yields a lot of veneer. On the other side of the equation, one nice board = far fewer solid wood tops.

There's nothing wrong with veneers, by the way; using them is an art going back to the Middle Ages.

As to stains, every piece of wood "grabs" stain differently. To maintain transparency, stains have to be organic. Organic stains have a number of practical issues, like light sensitivity that causes fading, and because organic stains are absorbed more into the wood - i.e., not sitting on top of the wood like paint or an opaque inorganic stain - the nooks and crannies of the wood often take the stain in unique ways.

You actually see more inconsistency on the more expensive Core models than on the SEs, because when the solid violin top is carved, some of the top comes from deeper parts of the board than others. The different levels of the wood will grab certain stains differently. Whereas with a veneer, it's all from the same level of the wood.

I get that for lots of folks the SEs are plenty expensive compared to other brands! But they're still not as expensive as the Maryland stuff.

I'll digress for a moment:

I once read an interview with Ted McCarty, for whom the PRS McCarty is named. He said that when they were making Les Pauls and other solid body guitars back in the day, only the players buying the carved-top jazz boxes that were expensive cared about the wood grain, but they were picky.

The rockers weren't into that. As a result, there were much plainer tops on Les Pauls. But even back then, the jazz boxes cost several times what a Les Paul cost.

However, the bottom line when it comes to beauty (besides that it's entirely subjective) is that if you want the really great looking stuff, made with superb quality that's not skin-deep, you've got to pony up.

Thanks, great reply, very informative. You brought up some things I hadn’t fully considered. In regards to SE guitars, the level of build quality is quite remarkable for the price, despite subjective aesthetic differences. Your observations regarding the Core models is not something I’m very familiar with because those models cost too much for my budget. Therefore, I tend to not pick up and play Core models because their build quality and appearance is beyond exceptional and I don’t need to plant a seed of desire and longing for an instrument I can’t afford. And you’re absolutely right that guitar preferences are all subjective. At the end of the day, if someone finds translucent finishes which allow you to see wood grain and stains which I may dislike, it’s still all good, we each buy what we personally connect with. And let’s not forget, we could have a never ending conversation when it comes to a guitar’s body shape. When I moved to only playing PRS guitars, many of my guitarist friends have criticized me for not playing a Les Paul, Stratocaster or Telecaster. To them, playing a PRS is taboo and breaking from guitar playing tradition. To each their own…

 

[Stephen J.]

I don’t need to plant a seed of desire and longing for an instrument I can’t afford.

Ha ha ha ha…
Too late!

 

[show_a_little_faith]

I say this not to offend, but to offer perspective: I don't think I've seen such strong feelings about wood's appearance in general in my 23-odd years of being a Pretty Guitar Forum rat.

 

[László]

Thanks, great reply, very informative. You brought up some things I hadn’t fully considered. In regards to SE guitars, the level of build quality is quite remarkable for the price, despite subjective aesthetic differences.

SEs are fantastic for their price point. I got started with PRS when they only made two models, both Core. So that became my reality and I got spoiled for anything else.

When I moved to only playing PRS guitars, many of my guitarist friends have criticized me for not playing a Les Paul, Stratocaster or Telecaster. To them, playing a PRS is taboo and breaking from guitar playing tradition. To each their own…

It's crazy as hell to me when people feel the need to tell other people what kind of instruments to play. It's uncreative, yet it happens in the most exalted settings in the business.

Why would anyone want to sound exactly like ten zillion other players, and not branch out into their own sonic space? Not to mention the aspect of finding an instrument that feels right to the player.

In the orchestral world, people buy instruments from a variety of countries, made centuries apart. It's not unusual to spend years looking for 'the one' and then pay high prices - to the point of taking out a mortgage to get a singular piece that suits them perfectly.

Yet they don't sit around and tell other players they need to restrict their instrument buying to two or three things.

I should add, however, that plenty of famous, admired professionals with huge resumes play PRS, and make no excuses. I used to go into long winded justifications of why I play PRS when folks gave me that nonsense, and now I just say, "This is what I play." It's not their call to make.

Geez. I make a living at music. It's not like I haven't heard of, owned and played those other brands in my 33 years in the business fergodsakes!

 

[Simon Says]

Greetings everyone. I wasn’t sure if general discussion was the right place to post this but here we are. I’ve searched other postings on this forum and this issue has been discussed somewhat already…but I need to vent about transparent finishes. I’ve been playing guitar for 40+ years and have owned many instruments. As I think over the guitars I’ve bought and played, they all had painted finishes. Wood grain patterns were a non-issue. But during the past decade, I started playing Stratocasters, some painted, some stained. Wood grain patterns were still somewhat of a non-issue because the pickguard covered much of the guitars surface. Then in the last five years, I moved on to PRS guitars, the affordable SE versions. That’s when I started to really take notice of transparent finishes…and the wood grain patterns have become a huge issue for me. Yes, it’s a personal aesthetics issue, but I know I’m not alone in my thinking. When the SE Swamp Ash guitars came out, I was initially excited, but the transparent finishes which allowed the wood grain and individual pieces of wood show through were not visually appealing at all. To me, the guitars look like they took boards from an old fence and just slapped them together. And as others have noted, one half of the guitar can have “horizontal” wood grain and the other half has “vertical” wood grain. And, one side appears more stained than the other side.

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the thinking behind producing guitars of this aesthetic nature. I sometimes think that guitar manufacturers are knowingly pushing a “new narrative” upon guitarists as to what makes for a guitar’s aesthetic appeal. I’ve also considered that perhaps it’s simply a money issue. If you want low prices on “name brand” guitars, we can do that. You’ll just have to accept transparent finishes which allow you to see every piece of wood glued together and mismatched wood grain patterns. In all seriousness, I would never perform publicly with an instrument which looks like an aesthetic nightmare. Which also creates another issue…seeing the exact guitar you’re purchasing (thank you Sweetwater and others) versus retailers who ship guitars from a warehouse and you never get to see the actual guitar your purchasing until you unwrap it. For example, when I ordered a PRS SE Swamp Ash (retailer name omitted), I was literally saying to myself, “please let me get one that I think is aesthetically pleasing, please, please, please. When I unboxed the guitar which arrived, it looked like stained assembled fence boards. And I didn’t want to keep swapping out guitars until I got one which I considered good looking. Another example, I recently purchased a PRS SE Paul’s Guitar (Black Gold Burst) from the same unnamed retailer and as is their business model, you don’t get to see the actual guitar you’re buying. So again, I was saying to myself, please, please, please let me get a guitar which looks extremely good, where the right and left sides grain patterns complemented each other and the stain looked similar. When I unboxed that guitar, it was more than I expected…it was beautiful and a keeper.

Okay, I think I’ve vented enough. Could some of you share your thoughts about the state of transparent finishes and if seeing mismatched wood grain and significant stain differences matters to you. I’m all ears.

After I reread it, I'm convinced it is my wife who typed it.

I tho, I told you to stay in the truck!

 

[DarkskyZ]

What I get out of this thead (and many others before) is that naming the lower, made overseas, tier of PRS guitars just by adding "SE" to the main tier name still is misleading after all these years.

Other brands used completely different names in the same situation (Fender/Squier, Gibson/Epiphone...). It wouldn't be a problem if people buying PRS SE guitars would not chime in stating they buy a PRS guitar. They do but actually they kinda don't. And that leads to expectations that are at Core or Private stock level on PRS SE guitars.
I am not saying SE guitars are not good, most are and probably more bang for the buck than Core or PS. But then no one would expect a Squier guitar to have better specs, better wood choices or overall look better than a Fender guitar several times the price. (I am just talking specs, not tone, feeling or non measurable things, don't take me there).
Why would it be different with PRS SE and PRSi ? That I don't get and I am sure this is mostly a naming thing. Still, PRS is pushing the limits of bang/buck with the SE line but the whole PRS brands stil gets kicked with unhappy SE customers. Very unfortunate and unfair.

I would advocate for making separate topics for SE guitars on the forums as well. Reading the threads can sometimes be so misleading when you read, 10 posts down the line, that we are talking about an SE guitar and not an american made one. Discussions would probably go different directions if things would have been obvious in the first place and in the title first and foremost. I am mostly not interested in reading people talking about SE guitars. I am interested in PRS guitars though. Does that make me a bad person ?

Sorry for the digression but I thought it may be interesting to talk about this. It seems quite fitting with this thread too.

Edit : sorry for the rant and probable unreadable gibberrish, I am not a native English speaker. Just trying to convey some ideas.

 

[László]

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about the whole thing. On the one hand, if PRS licenses the name to a third party to slap on the guitars, that's pretty much their exclusive right. On the other hand, people sometimes think PRS itself is making these guitars at a factory they own overseas, and that's simply not the case.

What I get out of this thead (and many others before) is that naming the lower, made overseas, tier of PRS guitars just by adding "SE" to the main tier name still is misleading after all these years.

Oddly enough, the first SEs had "Santana SE" instead of PRS on the headstock. They rightly said it was made by World Instruments (as opposed to PRS) on the back of the headstock, the first company to credit their overseas vendor. That's still the case, if memory serves.

As Santana states on the ad for the original guitar in this link, it was intended to be the "first wings" for a new guitar player. I believe that at the time, SE stood for Student Edition. That was short-lived and there's even controversy about whether it was that in the first place.

New 'From the Archives' Episode - The First SE Guitar!

Maryland-based Manufacturer of Electric Guitars, Acoustic Guitars, and Accessories.

prsguitars.com

I don't think there was intent on PRS' part to mislead. The trouble is, the guitars became known for their high quality for the price point, and gradually they became "PRS" SEs, and they were made fancier because that's what people wanted. Somehow it's become the normal expectation to slap a name on an overseas product.

Other brands used completely different names in the same situation (Fender/Squier, Gibson/Epiphone...). It wouldn't be a problem if people buying PRS SE guitars would not chime in stating they buy a PRS guitar. They do but actually they kinda don't.

What happened with Gibson originally was that they competed strongly with Epiphone, an American company with an established brand.

As manufacturers sometimes are wont to do, they simply solved the competition problem by acquiring them.

They produced Epiphones and Gibsons in the same factory, slapping a different name on each, until they got the idea to turn Epiphone into the bargain brand, and eventually, into the overseas-made brand.

However, Epiphone was and is a wholly owned American subsidiary, since Gibson owns the brand. It was never made by an overseas manufacturer named 'Epiphone' and still isn't.

Gibson outsources the Epis to separate companies, neither Epiphone nor Gibson-owned.

To say naming overseas guitars Epiphones is different from PRS is splitting hairs, in a way. But I agree that it helps avoid confusion to signal that they aren't Gibsons.

Fender is currently making guitars labeled 'Fender' in China. I can't say for sure who owns the company building them. I believe that Chinese law requires that products made there have a certain amount of Chinese ownership, if not 100%.

There have also been Fender-branded guitars made in Osaka, Japan and in Mexico for many years. So again, not much different from PRS, though I think Fender owns those factories.

Nonetheless, what has become the norm in the musical instrument business baffles me. To start with, I don't endorse the idea of making any guitars at all at a factory in China. If they cost more to buy, then so be it. People might have to save up for a while instead of rushing around and buying a whole bunch of less expensive guitars, when they might be better served by buying a smaller number of great guitars.

I also don't understand the idea of watering down a revered brand, but goodness knows it sure helps PRS' bottom line or they wouldn't be engaged in the licensing and importing of their designs.

On the other hand, I want to see PRS thrive and continue their success, so if overseas products are necessary for that, I will reluctantly support it.

I realize I'm nearly alone in this feeling. Maybe I'm a snob?

"You really have to say 'maybe' you're a snob, Laz? Read your posts!"

"OK, but I'm not intentionally snobby. I simply have opinions."

"Fine, you're a negligent snob, if that's how you want to roll. No one cares about your opinions, keep them to yourself and stick to the facts, K?"

"Did I ask you?"

"You left it kind of an open question."

And that leads to expectations that are at Core or Private stock level on PRS SE guitars.
I am not saying SE guitars are not good, most are and probably more bang for the buck than Core or PS. But then no one would expect a Squier guitar to have better specs, better wood choices or overall look better than a Fender guitar several times the price. (I am just talking specs, not tone, feeling or non measurable things, don't take me there).
Why would it be different with PRS SE and PRSi ? That I don't get and I am sure this is mostly a naming thing. Still, PRS is pushing the limits of bang/buck with the SE line but the whole PRS brands stil gets kicked with unhappy SE customers. Very unfortunate and unfair.

Honestly, I think the same thing happens with other brands, but yes, it is very unfortunate.

I would advocate for making separate topics for SE guitars on the forums as well. Reading the threads can sometimes be so misleading when you read, 10 posts down the line, that we are talking about an SE guitar and not an american made one. Discussions would probably go different directions if things would have been obvious in the first place and in the title first and foremost. I am not mostly not interested in reading people talking about SE guitars. I am interested in PRS guitars though. Does that make me a bad person ?

If it makes you a bad person, then call me one, too.

"You've always been a bad person, Laz."

"I resemble that remark."

I don't look down my nose at SEs, but as a Core and higher customer, I'm interested in those models instead. I wouldn't mind seeing SEs have their own sub-forums, but I'm not sure I think it's necessary.

However, does PRS want customers to think of SEs and US models in the same context? Clearly so, since if you go to the PRS website, they've got plenty on their SE models. It's possible very few people even care about where they're made, as long as they're inexpensive, sound good in the store or in online demos, and people buy them.

Other big name amp manufacturers are also making their amps in China. So again, that's become the norm in the industry.

"I liked the character Norm on 'Cheers'."

"I don't understand what his purpose was; I don't recall any story lines about Norm. He was just there, kind of like wallpaper with quips."

"Lots of people appreciate a good wallpaper. But I digress."

 

[DarkskyZ]

Nice one @László - as usual. You made my gibberrish clearer than I could have.

i knew comparing with Fender and Gibson was a bit apples and oranges, even more so with Squier and Epiphone histories but you got my point.

Anyway, PRS has obviously and thoroughly put a lot of thoughts in the respective positionning of their lines from each other.
If we are not the ones deciding, I guess we can still have an opinion, can't we ?

Back to usual business, skimming through the PRS SE everything to find the stuff I really want to read about.

 

[RC Mike]

The closest analog to PRS in many ways is EBMM. I think the name Sterling is silly for their imports. I’ve got no real idea what their OLP brand name is for, other than basically a junk tier. PRS was wise to put the name on their imports, from a business perspective. It creates brand loyalty.

When companies use a different name for their low-tier products, there’s only one reason to do so: To distance the brand perception from the low-end, because they don’t want their low-end quality problems to reflect on the upper-tier products.

For the OP, the SE line in general might be the right one for you, if you’ve got an aversion to “not so good” wood grain. Why? They use veneers on a lot of the SEs. Veneers will generally look better than non-premium “real” tops.

 

[dogrocketp]

I've never seen a tree that was perfectly uniform. I also think that things that are too perfect with solid colors look too uniform and mass produced. That's simply not my aesthetic. I love the variety of grain in real wood. My partner and I buy kitchen utensils made out of olive wood because of the fantastic variation in the grain pattern. I love the new black limba CE24 because I know the grain patterns will be random. I have a KL1812, and am imagining the incredible vibration the CE24 may have. Something is going to get sold so I can get one, unless somebody on the forum wants to buy a kidney.......