Jump to content
Heritage Owners Club


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


deytookerjaabs last won the day on June 21

deytookerjaabs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About deytookerjaabs

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

763 profile views
  1. Wise move, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
  2. I don't know what the cost would be but my buddy in a group I play with is an administrator by day for a network of local clinics and he x-ray'd my foot for free when my toe was busted! I even have insurance, I just thought I'd take him up on the offer. I think it's very little overhead or cost for them to snap a pic but the waters get muddy/expensive when medical billing is involved. It might be a request so out of left field that if you talk to the right person they'll laugh and say "c'mon in." The worst they can do is give you the old bureaucratic "sorry sir we cannot accommodate such a request."
  3. You could call around a couple local clinics and ask a tech if they'll let ya X-Ray it for a small fee, that'll give you the answer.
  4. No secrets on the internet! I played this guitar unplugged, it was awesome! It sat on display in the center of the hollow body area. Anyone out here hesitating, make them an offer. I'm already good in the ES department or I'd have taken the plunge. They're still doing the nashville bridge for whatever reason...old habits die hard. I'm not even anti-nashville bridge, I'm just conditioned to expect it once the $$ gets real. I agree, you can keep a guitar with nickel hardware in it's case for 5 years and that's how it will look when you open the case. Too many nice guitars.
  5. Update, I saw one of these in person at Chicago Music Exchange yesterday and though I'm not a fan of aging per se it looked as good if not better than the best Gibson aged stuff. It was an H-150, the top was really purdy, the rosewood was a fine looking deep chocolate, the salesman strummed it a couple times and the sound seemed pretty big. Apparently it was one of those 'NAMM guitars. I thought I was going to get to try it but when I asked a few minutes later he said "Oh no, the fella near me was here to buy it!" Gone it went though I think I did alright in the end.
  6. Pudgey? That's glue sunken into the wood beside the inlay, when you place it in then wipe the glue some parts of the wood are more spongey so to speak and the glue sinks in. It's an old guitar, I just did a refret on a '65 firebird of mine and two dots fell out! The gap is the wood swelling/shrinking a hair, completely normal with age. Anyways, congrats, both guitars look top shelf!
  7. Some, IMO, are pretty cool like a few Nacho Banos examples, maybe some early Fender Custom Shop ones just because the attention to detail is so high they look insanely convincing. For the most part I think Gibson and modern Fender pre-aged guitars look like crap. I think my VOS Gibsons look tacky as hell too...you can see all the swirl marks from the steel wool in the finish then couple that dullness with aged parts, doesn't look anything like my vintage guitars, the first thing I want to do to a VOS is buff/polish the heck out of it. And, yeah, my '54 reissue strat and SJ-100 are already covered in checking lines & wear/tear from use, not quite the same as the old guitars though. Instead of VOS they should do a run of guitars shot with this stuff: Straight up filler plus color & clear, keep it super thin. The guitars will be checking/yellowing like vintage guitars within a few months/years of ownership. I'm not sure why more small builders don't use old school lacquer formulas as a feature as there are people who make a living re-finishing guitars with 50's formula junk lacquer so there's definitely a market for it. Not all your guitars as some folks would complain but offer it as a custom or special run option.
  8. They both got sent back, actually the first one came with the ding the first time....then the replacement had the unseated Frets and that ordeal was the biggest PITA you could imagine but it all got resolved in the end. Eh, getting a turd is like paying to see the Stones in '71 and standing stageside in the front right where ya can't hear Mick Jagger and Keith is a bit out of tune.....does that make them some lame band who doesn't care about their fans and is worthless to see for all time...or was it just a bad day?
  9. Thanks, so maybe the "Golden Era" put out 25k-35k guitars total? That's about Gibson's monthly output.
  10. I agree, Heritage today still isn't anywhere where Fender is in this department but they sure ass **** have changed from where Eastman is today and Heritage of yesteryear. Here's a thought on the topic, "Golden Era" Heritage shipped about on average 7-12 guitars a day, 5 days a week around 45 weeks a year for 3+ decades? Is that a couple thou a year for 30 years? That's a lot of guitars if my math is right. 40-60k guitars? Or am I way off? On Reverb right now from '85 to 2010 there's 84 "used" Heritage guitars for sale....of all 140 used models total and 15-20 of those are 2017 and up. That's a super thin used market if the numbers are close to correct, or my numbers are wrong cause that doesn't sound right. Am I way off here???
  11. Ahem, cough cough... Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Two guitars I bought/ordered brand new. Forget the ding under the finish or the Orange Peel back or the "fretwork"...they couldn't even SEAT the damn frets properly. Both companies with reputations for great quality. One uber modern/lean, one old school. I think the mature choice for me would be to join their forums and then spend years decrying their poor quality in post after post because of two guitars I received, right??? Maybe someone selling refrets/pleks could join me? Or, I just move on and realize my examples aren't possibly indicative as the brands as a whole, but that would be too reasonable a thing to do, right? Meanwhile...6 "Golden Era" Heritages, all used, with no indication of work/refrets all just needing minor adjustment with smokin' low action...never even leveled one of'em, which is rare for me. Yet some say they're all trash and can't move on...oh well.
  12. I'm curious if some of you believe "Eastman Guitars" should be derided for their techniques as well? Their philosophy is that guitars aren't microprocessors so they basically build instruments about 50-100 years behind where Heritage was in 1985 so no "lean manufacturing" ethos etc... Yet, they seem to be really loved and not castigated on the 'net to near the extent I see the "old" Heritage being criticized?
  13. Hey guys, let's revolutionize our facilities and procedures to adapt to post modern 6 sigma standards for superior attention to detail and absolute perfection. And when we're done with that let's beat the piss out of the guitars!! ...makes sense.
  14. I know...... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09311-w
  15. I don't think there's much merit for this argument and here's why: Anyone who follows how manufacturers build guitars knows the evolution of the past 20-40 years in processes as you do to. It's dramatic, the change, complete electronic/digital moisture control from start to finish with completely climate controlled building facilities, far more precise station-specific tools/machines which make perfect outcomes easy peasy, 180 on many assembly procedures like allowing the instrument acclimate fully built as white wood before slotting/fretting thanks to research on neck outcomes, far better access needed educational resources as such in wood study, lutherie, etc, unprecedented access to international lumber markets, and I could go on. Basically, the majority of the process is way more advanced that it was. Which means...ALL old guitars are therefore of low quality because the ALL the manufacturers used dated procedures which are proven to lead to poor outcomes circa 2019. Even Heritage sill has a few zingers IIRC. This is the conclusion you have to derive if "quality" is the term you choose because "quality" is the finality of the outcome of the processes. For instance, I've only refret a few old Gibsons & Fenders but not a single one (on 1st ever refret) didn't have a varying amount of neck rise at the joint and many at the first fret too. Just like a Heritage probably has at the joint and the 1st fret too though I've never refret one. Why is this? They fret the fingeboards before gluing and Fender slotted/finished the neck first. So, they don't adjust to the joint before the slots are cut, the assembled/fretted hunk of wood adjusts afterwords. Therefore, ALL old Gibsons/Fenders are of low quality. Some new too, as you hide the inevitable neck/hump rise with leveling/plek-ing tall frets. You 100% have to conclude old guitars are of low quality because it is based in fact that their processes of old are outdated...their moisture control at the factory, their methods of leveling frets, their crappy loosy goosy low tolerance router assemblies, etc. But, when old instruments were made they didn't know about any of this stuff...just like Heritage was stuck in the Dinosaur ages circa 2000, they always thought they were building things of high quality. I get it, you don't want stuff to look crappy or high frets etc. But, at the end of the day I know of a number of manufacturers who build really nice, perfect, archtops that sound like they're strung with freaking rubber bands when you pluck them. Yet I know of local garage maker with no access to any finer tools or facilities who builds stuff that plays/sounds amazing. Which one exudes quality? IMO, once folks use the term "quality" they have to be honest and consistent. That's how logic works, it must be applied with a rigor of equivalence. I don't believe in that term just like I don't believe modern "craftsmanship" is superior to what amazing things guys could build in the freaking 1900's because I look at the Forest versus the trees... the way things were built in 1900 was way more impressive than a damn H-150 with nicely plek'd frets, lol.
  • Create New...