specialk Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Oh, man! I don't think the corner convenience store keeps that much cash on hand, or I would buy it.
BCR Greg Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 With all the upcharges, the omission of body binding kills it for me.
cynic Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 It's ugly?Whether he was joking or not, I'm with Fenyman. The lack of body-binding coupled with the crowns leaves it looking a little off balance to me. Not a big fan of quilt either.Aside from how it plays/sounds, at that price it needs to bring the aesthetics too.
atquinn Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 With all the upcharges, the omission of body binding kills it for me.BCR Greg says this best.-Austin
specialk Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 the omission of body binding That's one of the things about this guitar that appeals to me.
crunchee Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I know this has been mentioned before, but when was the last date for crowns, custom order or not? Not counting the recent reversal of custom order policy, of course.Edited to add: I don't see anything about a certificate--shouldn't it have one?
polara Posted May 23, 2010 Author Posted May 23, 2010 Well, it's not MY thing but if you dig quiltiness that's a fine price.
gwayne Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 With all the upcharges, the omission of body binding kills it for me.BCR Greg says this best.-AustinYep. Bound body with unbound neck is fine, but fully bound neck and headstock with an unbound body looks unfinished.
Citrus Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I'll agree - its ugly the quilted front and lack, and crowns, with no binding, reminds me more of a Carvin than a Hamer
ArnieZ Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 A lot of extra money went into that guitar, but cosmetically the end result is fail! No curb appeal for me.ArnieZ
bubs_42 Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 I don't dig it but still a heck of a price so far. Back's of Guitars are wear surfaces and pretty wood don't belong there IMHO.
elduave Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Kinda cool. My next Hamer will be completely unbound!
eightyfour Posted May 23, 2010 Posted May 23, 2010 Back's of Guitars are wear surfaces and pretty wood don't belong there IMHO.Yup!
Disturber Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 I would not say it's ugly. Just less nice than a Tally with body binding. It reminds me of those Gary Moore Les Pauls without body binding, but those are ugly for real, this one still has appeal (to me). I'll take it if no one wants it. Who wants to help me fund it (pm me for my paypal address)
edgar_allan_poe Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Ugly, but huge bang for the buck considering all of the options. That being said, there is an awful lot of maple in that guitar. I don't care what anyone says, every guitar I have ever tried with that much maple has *not* sounded good.
LittleC Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Not my style astheticaly and sonically.I went for the TalPro. Love mine!!!However, not a bad price . . .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.