Modern Gretsch Guitars

Jet with Dynasonic type pickups, Players Edition or Vintage Select?

1

Hi there, I've been reading this forum for a long time. First post here. I've narrowed down my next guitar to a Jet with Dynasonic pickups. I'm interested in opinions on these: G6128T DS Players Edition G6128T '53 Vintage Select

What about the difference in the B3 versus B7?
What about "Dynasonic" in the PE versus T-Armond in the '53? What about body depth/chambering and neck angle?

Does the '53 NOT have treble bleed circuit on volume and no-load tone pot in order to stay vintage correct?

Any other differences that would make you choose one over the other?

2

Disclosure: I have not played the Player's Edition with Dynas, though I'm very interested to.

I do, however, have experience with chambered/solidbody guitars with a low(ish) neck set and tension-bar Bigsby.

And I have two Dynsonic Jets, one a recent '57 Vintage Select, the other a 15-year-old "plainol" 6128 with the former less chambered body. I also have a previous-gen 6129 Silver Jet with Filter'Trons.

My combination of experience, observation, and intuition is that most of the difference in tone and response between the PE and the VS will result from the interaction of the stud-mounted bridge and tension-bar Bigsby on the PE versus "floating" bridge and standard Bigsby on the VS.

There may be a difference in the chambering. I haven't studied that spec (and in any case caution is aways advised when the hypeword "chambering" comes up, because the control cavity in a standard Les Paul is technically a chamber). You'd have to see just how much chambering an instrument has, and where it's located in the body, to know what it means in any particular comparsion. More chambering generally means a "woodier", more resonant, acoustic(ish) tone; less chambering means...well, solid. Think Strat, SG, Tele. Clang clang bang.

BUT, any difference in chambering between the two Jets will have less impact on the tone than the bridge and Bigsby. Likewise the treble bleed and no-load...which I wouldn't take into consideration until I'd come to a conclusion about the build, because those features can easily be added or swapped out. They're just pots and parts. You can't reasonably change the geometry, internal structure, or Bigsby and bridge type (stud-mounted or floating on base).

You can't change them (even if, say, you wanted to pull the mount for the bridge studs on the VS in place of a floater) because the neck is set at a different height over the body in the two builds.

"Player's Edition" is now more or less Gretsch marketing-speak for a guitar which has been kinda rationalized, optimized, and "modernized" for more mainstream, harder, gainier rock of, let's say, the 70s blues-rock and classic rock through straightforward middle-of-the-road contemporary rock (if there is such a thing) - but kinda skipping over some alternative and roots rock (and ignoring any hyphenated strain of metal).

In short, it's built with a lot of the features and conventions you'd find in Gibsons and most other solidbody guitars: the neck fairly low to the body, stud-mounted fixed bridge (usually with adjustable saddles), and a Bigsby with the tension bar which is needed for adequate break angle over the bridge and enough down-pressure on it to maximize sustain.

Sonically, the result is a guitar with strong emphasis on fundamental tones and consonant overtones, and relatively less on overtones which add color and complexity but might detract from the fundamental especially when played with gain. So, the PE will seem to have more focus, maybe more punch, and more mechanical sustain. (That is, sustain created by keeping the string itself ringing longer.) Nother words, it's more like any other solidbody plank or even semi-hollow guitar...

... at least by comparison to a guitar with a floating bridge on a wood base and a Bigsby with a milder (but still steep enough) break angle, and relatively longer string length between bridge and tailpiece (and the higher neck set it takes to create that bridge-tailpiece relationship). The wood base serves to distribute string energy in a more diffuse way across the top of the guitar, with more paths for any given frequency to follow, and more opportunities for them to interact with other frequencies on the way to the top...in more complex ways, which richen the tone with a greater variety of enharmonic overtones.

As string energy is dispersed over a wider footprint on the top, the top responds more, contributing its complex overtones - whereas on the fixed bridge, the energy is concentrated down into the body.

The "harp" - that length of string behind the bridge, on its way to the tailpiece, is much more active with the floating bridge/standard Bigsby of the VS. That is, the strings retain more vibration from the "live" side of the bridge than in the tension bar design, and in a lower pitch range. If you strum the harp on the two guitars, you'll hear the difference: on the PE design, it will be very high-pitched, and very short in duration. On the VS, the tones are higher than the live side of the string (of course), but lower than on the PE - and they'll ring much longer.

When playing the guitars, the harp responds; its actual tones are much below the live side of the strings in volume, but they still contribute by creating more complex harmonics (some dissonant), which affect the tone of the guitar even if they're not heard directly. (They can also diminish sustain by canceling even overtones on the live side of the strings.) Some guys don't like those "ghost" (or sometimes "wolf") tones, and will lodge something under or between the strings in the harp area to deaden them.

The overall effect of these factors is to give a floating bridge/standard Bigsby guitar something of an acoustic vibe, with lots of chimey resonance and overtones which sometimes bloom under heavier amplification - and can feed back nicely on various notes - but have less hard rock/Spinal Tap kind of screamin' lead sustain. They "ring."

To me, the VS design sounds more interesting, with more harmonic complexity, and brings a richness especially to chords, that keeps me fascinated. But single notes benefit too from the cloud of overtones which they excite and which hover around them. Clean tones are especially colorful, but dirt is generally more interesting - more textural and toothsome, with more to engage the ear. Fabulous percussive attack, even explosive - but not as dense and concentrated as with the PE design. Dirty chords are likely to break apart sooner, and more chaotically.

After decades of playing, I find I like all the characteristics of the traditional VS design. What some call idiosyncrasies or quirks I consider positive features. That little bit of acoustic jazz guitar heritage remaining in the Jet VS design is what it makes it so magical to me, and makes it distinctly different from Everything Else.

Which isn't to say I don't see the point of the PE, with its better-behaved coupling of strings, pickup, and body into a single resonating unit. There are times when the complex harmonic contributions of the harp and the kindacoustic ring of the top make a mess of things. When I really want straightforward pile-driver punch and even-order harmonic singing sustain that goes and goes...well, it's hard to beat a stud-mounted bridge and a steep break angle.

(As an exercise, watch king-of-classic-rock singing lead David Gilmour play the "Comfortably Numb" solo on his black Strat, vs his black Gretsch Jet. You'll hear that the Gretsch doesn't sustain as long, and that he comes off notes sooner. At the same time, he has said in an interview that the Gretsch has more high end, and a clear "hi-fi" sound he doesn't get with other guitars. [And that's with Filter'Trons rather than Dynasonics...which would likely skeer him half to death.] I think what he's hearing is all that mysterious harmonic mess the floating bridge and long harp with shallower bridge angle make.)

I'm especially interested to play Dynasonics on the PE platform, as there are times when a chambered Gretsch Tele with a Bigsby could really hit the spot. Wouldn't be surprised if I get one. Will it replace the VS design as my favorite? I don't see that happening.


Anyway - and either way - I thoroughly approve of your going for a Dynasonic Jet. Nothing else sounds like Dynas, and I think the VS-design Jet is the perfect platform for them.

You ask about other factors that might contribute to a decision: besides considerations of tone and response, there's a significant difference in the feel of the two guitars. I don't mean to suggest that the PE (and Electromatic Jets) are just Gretsch versions of the Les Paul, because they still have build and especially pickups to differentiate them. But the guitars are definitely Gretsch's bid to compete in the more mainstream guitar market, with products whose quirks and idiosyncrasies need no explanation or education. They're a veer toward the middle of the road.

As a result, the PE guitars feel very natural to players used to Gibson-like designs (which accounts for a huge proportion of solidbodies in the market which aren't Fenders or Fender-like). You pick one up, everything fits against the body and falls to hand very naturally; there's not much to adjust to. "Oh, it's an electric guitar."

By contrast, the VS design feels different. It definitely has quirks to adapt to. You know it's not standard issue, and that you've got hold of something that requires some adjustment on your part. It's not a hard transition, and the tone and response will either pull you in and help you through - or it won't. But in short order (if you're meant for a floating-bridge Jet), you'll make friends with it. And then it's no problem moving to and from other guitars.


I should also say that I made some generalizations above about what kind or genre of music is most appropriately played on each guitar. That's utter poppycock, used only to illustrate certain characteristics of the guitars. You can play any kind of music you want on either guitar.

3

Well stated Tim. I am firmly in the VS camp and, for me, VS are the kind of Gretsch I prefer, am comfortable with, and have what I hear in my head as That Great Gretsch Sound. I am a single coil guy and love Dynasonics (and HiLoTrons too).

i get the new Gretsch direction in their design and marketing, but I hope we will always have the Vintage Select as buying options.

4

I’m another happy VS customer. It’s more Gretsch. If I wanted a Les Paul, I’d get a PRS.

5

My '53 VS is hands down the nicest Gretsch I have owned.

6

I only recently bought a '53 Vintage Select and I'm fully in love with it so couldn't recommend it more.

7

Wow! That's way more info than I expected. Thank you!

You make me want the VS, talking about how the bridge design affects the tones. I have a PRS, a Jaguar, a Vox single cuttaway with aluminum MaxConnect bridge, so I have the solid body tones covered. I also have a G5420T with the floating but pinned wooden bridge base and I put TV Jones Classics in it. Also have a 17" Peerless Wizard with all wood bridge, so I know what you're talking about with how bridges affect the sound. Bottom line: I am looking for something in between my hollow body Gretsch and my solid body guitars.

I play almost exclusively clean tones and enjoy the sound of the guitar, pickups, and amp together. Really learning to enjoy a vibrato bar, to the point that I miss it when playing a guitar that doesn't have one. So some complaints about the B7 on the PE Jet have made me cautious. And complaints about T-Armonds pole magnets sucking strings out of tune makes me wonder. I'm probably agonizing a lot over this because it will be the most expensive guitar I own.

8

Well stated Tim. I am firmly in the VS camp and, for me, VS are the kind of Gretsch I prefer, am comfortable with, and have what I hear in my head as That Great Gretsch Sound. I am a single coil guy and love Dynasonics (and HiLoTrons too).

i get the new Gretsch direction in their design and marketing, but I hope we will always have the Vintage Select as buying options.

– Hoot Owl

I must be a single coil guy too. Love the sound of strats but very much dislike the look, and love Gibson designs but don't get along with humbucker tones. So to me a Gretsch is just right.

9

"BUT, any difference in chambering between the two Jets will have less impact on the tone than the bridge and Bigsby. Likewise the treble bleed and no-load...which I wouldn't take into consideration until I'd come to a conclusion about the build, because those features can easily be added or swapped out. They're just pots and parts. You can't reasonably change the geometry, internal structure, or Bigsby and bridge type (stud-mounted or floating on base)."

Sorry I haven't figured out how to do partial quotes yet. Proteus, what you wrote here seems like very solid advice. My Vox guitar has a higher string through bridge (no tail piece) so the neck is slanted back from being straight with the body like an LP style guitar. Not too worried about that affecting the playing feel. I'm more concerned with the sound and tones.

And (something that has nothing to do with feel and sound) I wish the '53 had more colors than just black, but I'm assuming that was the only color available in 1953.

10

I chose to get my Gretsch Dynasonics from my 2011 Duo Jet rewound to get them balanced correctly. They always sounded great but the bridge was too thin and the neck was too fat. It turns out that they were wound identical. I don't know if Gretsch has started winding their Dynasonics differently to address this but I do know that TV Jones T'Armonds have addressed this and are perfectly balanced. TV Jones pickups are at the pinnacle of amazing pickups so I wouldn't be too concerned with any guitar with TV Jones pickups in it.

As far as the anchored bridge as opposed to the floating bridge I must admit when I first got into Gretsch I really wished the bridges were anchored. If the PE guitars had been around in 2012 I may have bought one instead. Now that I've had experience playing and fiddling with the floating bridge I see the advantages of that too, especially with a Tru-Arc Serpentune as the bridge.

11

I heard (read) that original 50's Dynasonics were wound exactly the same for neck and bridge. And I see why that could be annoying.

Your post (to me) is another vote for the VS Jet. T-Armonds and no tension bar issues, and floating wood-base bridge a plus.

12

Great post, Tim. VERY informative.

13

And (something that has nothing to do with feel and sound) I wish the '53 had more colors than just black, but I'm assuming that was the only color available in 1953.

That is correct. Other than a one-off, possibly special order pre-production Silver Jet and what appears to have been a Roundup prototype, the only '53 style script logo Jets were black.

If color is an issue, then there's also the '57 Cadillac green Jet that has pretty similar construction, though some cosmetic differences and a Sychro-Sonic bridge, which some people dislike (easily changeable, though).

14

complaints about T-Armonds pole magnets sucking strings out of tune makes me wonder.

Ehh. Those people need better drug-testing. If the magnets do pull the strings enough to take them out of tune (and they certainly don't affect the fundamental or any higher overtones which establish pitch), it's in a way that contributes to the uniquely unique uniqueness of the Dyna Jet. All the details - body chambering, neck set, bridge configuration, Bigsby, and pickups - add up to a "synergy" (a word I've come to despise) more than the sum of their parts, and the sum of the parts is already pretty impressive.

Whatever Dynasonics do to strings is what should be done, by gawd.


If color is an issue, then there's also the '57 Cadillac green Jet that has pretty similar construction, though some cosmetic differences and a Sychro-Sonic bridge,

I don't mind the black on the '53, and I've come to terms with the script headstock. But I don't like the block fret markers. Also, I already had a Cad green 6128 from some years ago, my favert guitar - and was curious whether the VS, with its 1/8" thicker body, supposedly more extensive chambering, and T-Armonds would sound significantly different from my "old" one, and/or be a "better guitar."

It doesn't, and it really isn't. There's a little difference in tone, with the '53 sounding marginally "woodier" - but you only pick it up in obsessive back-to-back play, with new strings. Oddly, the "more chambered" VS57 also weighs several ounces MORE than the 2005 6128. (So the additional 1/8" body thickness apparently adds back more mass than the chambering takes away.)

I despise the banjo armrest, especially the one used on the VS: it's not truly bent to the radius of the body, so it takes six-foot-long screws to hold it down and pull it to the curve of the body. The doofi use round-headed screws which protrude from the screwholes (which have no beveling for countersinking), AND the slot is invariably slightly chewed up from the 8,000 turns of some big-handled screwdriver it took to screw the thing down. The result is that the armrest, presumably intended to be increase comfort (though I don't know how), has sharp edges which dig into your forearm.

No matter, I hate the looks anyway, so I took mine off. Two holes remain in the rim of the guitar. (And, y'know...if they'd used an armrest bent to the radius of the guitar body - as the custom shop does - it wouldn't have taken industrial screws to hold it down, and it could have been attached with doublestick tape for easy removal.)


All beside the point if you're going for the '53. But I did much prefer green, and the humpblock inlays. I hadn't thought about the '53 having matching winds in the pickups (resulting in non-matching performance in the guitar), which might bother me. The '57 has T-Armonds appropriately differently wound. (I'm pretty sure.) So, possibly another benefit.

But I have no idea if the chambering differs enough to matter.

And, of course, I replaced the bridge - as I would on the '53, being no fan of the Bigsby Compensated.

15

complaints about T-Armonds pole magnets sucking strings out of tune makes me wonder.

Ehh. Those people need better drug-testing. If the magnets do pull the strings enough to take them out of tune (and they certainly don't affect the fundamental or any higher overtones which establish pitch), it's in a way that contributes to the uniquely unique uniqueness of the Dyna Jet. All the details - body chambering, neck set, bridge configuration, Bigsby, and pickups - add up to a "synergy" (a word I've come to despise) more than the sum of their parts, and the sum of the parts is already pretty impressive.

Whatever Dynasonics do to strings is what should be done, by gawd.


If color is an issue, then there's also the '57 Cadillac green Jet that has pretty similar construction, though some cosmetic differences and a Sychro-Sonic bridge,

I don't mind the black on the '53, and I've come to terms with the script headstock. But I don't like the block fret markers. Also, I already had a Cad green 6128 from some years ago, my favert guitar - and was curious whether the VS, with its 1/8" thicker body, supposedly more extensive chambering, and T-Armonds would sound significantly different from my "old" one, and/or be a "better guitar."

It doesn't, and it really isn't. There's a little difference in tone, with the '53 sounding marginally "woodier" - but you only pick it up in obsessive back-to-back play, with new strings. Oddly, the "more chambered" VS57 also weighs several ounces MORE than the 2005 6128. (So the additional 1/8" body thickness apparently adds back more mass than the chambering takes away.)

I despise the banjo armrest, especially the one used on the VS: it's not truly bent to the radius of the body, so it takes six-foot-long screws to hold it down and pull it to the curve of the body. The doofi use round-headed screws which protrude from the screwholes (which have no beveling for countersinking), AND the slot is invariably slightly chewed up from the 8,000 turns of some big-handled screwdriver it took to screw the thing down. The result is that the armrest, presumably intended to be increase comfort (though I don't know how), has sharp edges which dig into your forearm.

No matter, I hate the looks anyway, so I took mine off. Two holes remain in the rim of the guitar. (And, y'know...if they'd used an armrest bent to the radius of the guitar body - as the custom shop does - it wouldn't have taken industrial screws to hold it down, and it could have been attached with doublestick tape for easy removal.)


All beside the point if you're going for the '53. But I did much prefer green, and the humpblock inlays. I hadn't thought about the '53 having matching winds in the pickups (resulting in non-matching performance in the guitar), which might bother me. The '57 has T-Armonds appropriately differently wound. (I'm pretty sure.) So, possibly another benefit.

But I have no idea if the chambering differs enough to matter.

And, of course, I replaced the bridge - as I would on the '53, being no fan of the Bigsby Compensated.

– Proteus

I don't care about the logo (script vs T-roof) or fretboard inlays, but I'm with you on the armrest! No interest in that whatsoever. I don't like green, just personal preference. Black is more classy to me, I just really like the dark cherry metallic of the Player DS model.

But what the instrument gives when played is more important than the color. Anybody claiming color affects tone needs better drug testing too, to use your phrase.

Also, the '53 does not have a Syncho-sonic bridge. Looks like a solid bridge on a wood base. But it has T-Armonds like the '57. The PEs have Gretsch Dynasonic, and I still haven't found a good comparison of the two pickups. T-Armonds are supposed to be a lot higher output. I usually prefer underwound P90 and humbucker pickups.

I thought I wanted the PE but most of what I'm reading is pushing me toward the VS '53. It's a lot of money, but when I start counting up the cost of mods to get an Electromatic close to what I want, we're getting into used Proline territory. I could find a used Guild Bluesbird, install a Bigsby and Dynasonics. I don't think the result would be what I'm after.

16

I just took a closer look at the '53 and I see why you don't like the inlays. Something not quite right about them. Not a deal breaker, but I see what you meant.

17

I don’t think there’s really something not right about them...they’re terribly historically correct. But Gretsch thought they had come up with something cool and distinctive with the thumbnails, to new-and-improve their guitars in the ebullient 50s market...and for my taste, they were right. They’re way more Gretsch-specific than the blocks, which everyone uses. I know it’s cosmetic, I just like the thumbnails. If there had been no choice in a Jet with Dynas, I’d have been ok with the blocks - I have them on many guitars - but there was a choice, and I chose.

Also, the '53 does not have a Syncho-sonic bridge. Looks like a solid bridge on a wood base.

Right, it has the Bigsby Compensated Aluminum bridge.

...it has T-Armonds like the '57. The PEs have Gretsch Dynasonic, and I still haven't found a good comparison of the two pickups. T-Armonds are supposed to be a lot higher output.

There was, in the past, a vast amount of detailed info here on those subjects, all lost several years ago in a technical meltdown. We had dozens of output readings from vintage Dynas, modern Tokiwa-made Gretsch Dynas, and Seymour Duncan’s modern repros. (At the time, T-Armonds were under development but not yet available.)

The trend was that vintage winds varied, I think from the high 9s up to the 11s, modern Gretsch Dynas hung around a narrower range in the 7s and 8s (if I recall aright), and Seymours were consistently in the 11s, maybe low 12s. T-Armonds are about the same.

While these output ratings guitarists often trot out aren’t the sole determinant of how pickups sound and perform, in the case of Dynas, they’re a pretty good index: lower outputs equate to a thinner, spikier, drier tone and higher outputs to richer, fatter, juicier. (While both are unmistakable in their singular Dyna character.)

My first Jet had the stock Tokiwas, and while I was fascinated by the tone and physical response of the guitar from the gitgo, there was something just not quite there about it; I always seemed to overplay it, wanting more out of it. When I put Seymours on it, it was transformed from “interesting but quirky” to cold dead hands.

At the time, I did before and after sound clips to demonstrate the dramatic difference, which precipitated a very long thread in which lots of guys weighed in with their sonic impressions, descriptions, and preferences. One guy ran the clips through a spectrum analyzer to graphically illustrate the differences in response and output.

Oh the splendor that was Rome! But all is not lost. I still have the sound files, which are hosted on the Amazon S3 site for my woeful Tru-Arc webpage. I should be able to relink to them here. I also have most or all of the text from two very long and epic threads on Dynas, their history and variations. (I think the spectral graphs are gone.) I’ve intended to reformat and re-post all that info sometime. I should do that. That’s just what I should do.

I have one Jet now with the Seymours, and one with T-Armonds (and spent a lot of time with the Jet and its original Gretsch pickups). I also have T-Armonds in a one-off Country Gent with Terada’s “waffle” bracing, and the stock Gretsch/Tokis in a couple-three full hollowbody Gretschs.

My own sense is that the deeper and hollower the guitar, the better the stock pickups work. I haven’t been tempted to swap them out from my hollowbodies. I guess the extra resonance of the bodies gets the pickups moving more, and there’s more of a virtuous feedback (not usually literally) relationship between guitar and pickups. They feel lively and responsive.

The thinner and solider the guitar, the more it benefits from upgrade to hotter Dynas. The stockers just feel kinda inert and clinical in those guitars - whereas they come shockingly and gleefully alive with the upgrades.

(My experience and rule of thumb only; others may have their own perfectly valid - but, of course, obviously erroneous! - opinions.)

I would expect to be especially underwhelmed by the stock Tokis on the PE, with its stud bridge and tensed-up Bigsby. (Unless, perchance, Tokiwa is winding them hotter for the application.) So while I suspect there’s a Dyna Jet PE in my future (which will absolutely be in the gorgeous dark cherry metallic, a color that has to be seen live to be truly appreciated), I bet I swap the pickups out pretty quickly.


when I start counting up the cost of mods to get an Electromatic close to what I want, we're getting into used Proline territory.

To be clear about this, you could never (reasonably) mod an Electromatic into a convincing 53 or 57 VS: the Electros’ neck set, stud-mount bridge, and tension-bar Bigs preclude the transformation. But since all those features are how the PE are built, you could get fairly close to it, starting from an Electro. (And yes, expensively.)

I could find a used Guild Bluesbird, install a Bigsby and Dynasonics. I don't think the result would be what I'm after.

Nah! When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way.

18

were you to go the Guild route, an M-75 Aristocrat would (i think) be much closer to a Jet than a Bluebird since Bluesbirds (in the instances i've seen ranging from early 70s originals to current Newark Street models) are built for a stud-mounted tunomatic-style bridge, while Aristocrats feature a floating bridge and (i think) a steeper neck angle accordingly. i feel sad about the idea of doing that to an Aristocrat, though, because they're so perfect just as they are.

19

Great post, Tim. VERY informative.

– ruger9

Awesome. I read it as an expansion to your thread that has me wanting the pre Fender red sparkle Jet with the floating bridge and ceramic Filters.

Proteus, Which one of your Jets you mentioned in your 1st response in this thread would be closest to the red sparkle ceramic-pup equipped red sparkle Jet mentioned in Ruger's Jet?

I'm officially obsessed on getting that guitar!

20

Which one of your Jets you mentioned in your 1st response in this thread would be closest to the red sparkle ceramic-pup equipped red sparkle Jet mentioned in Ruger's Jet?

Off the top o'me head, no idea! Ceramic Filter'Trons...on the face of it, a long way from Dynasonics. I'll have to check out the thread and listen to the guitar more carefully - with headphones.

I have permanent hots for a red sparkle (or pearl!) Jet, too...but gotta be Dynas.

21

Which one of your Jets you mentioned in your 1st response in this thread would be closest to the red sparkle ceramic-pup equipped red sparkle Jet mentioned in Ruger's Jet?

Off the top o'me head, no idea! Ceramic Filter'Trons...on the face of it, a long way from Dynasonics. I'll have to check out the thread and listen to the guitar more carefully - with headphones.

I have permanent hots for a red sparkle (or pearl!) Jet, too...but gotta be Dynas.

– Proteus

Ha....now I'm confused!!! I came back to this thread after looking at all of the following.....Peerless Monarch, Journeyman, New Yorker, Imperial, Eastman P90 centerblocks, Gretsch Broadkaster Jr., Gretsch PE Broadkaster Jr., Penguin, Rat Rod, and Gibsons...335, CS-336, 339 and some LPs....and more.

So now I have a Frankenstein guitar in my head full of 1000 different parts.

Here's the thread....Red '98 (or he bought it in '98) red Sparkle Jet from here: http://gretschpages.com/for...

I also want something with Dynas also.....or T-Armonds I want everything!!!!!

22

I would expect to be especially underwhelmed by the stock Tokis on the PE, with its stud bridge and tensed-up Bigsby. (Unless, perchance, Tokiwa is winding them hotter for the application.)

Last night I spent a while bouncing back and forth between YouTube demos of the PE and VS Dynasonic Jet models. The PE G6128T DS did sound a little harsher, sharper, thinner, less musical than the VS '53 to my ears.

23

were you to go the Guild route, an M-75 Aristocrat would (i think) be much closer to a Jet than a Bluebird since Bluesbirds (in the instances i've seen ranging from early 70s originals to current Newark Street models) are built for a stud-mounted tunomatic-style bridge, while Aristocrats feature a floating bridge and (i think) a steeper neck angle accordingly. i feel sad about the idea of doing that to an Aristocrat, though, because they're so perfect just as they are.

– macphisto

I totally agree with you, and I've been drooling over the Aristocrat for a few years. The Newark Bluesbird feels more tight and compact, even though it does have a chambered body. It's a beautiful guitar. The Aristocrat feels and sounds more open and bigger than it's lower bout would suggest. I'd buy both if I could, and I enjoyed playing both of them in stores. But I have money and space limitations, and a Dyna Jet seems closer to my dream guitar.

24

The DJet is definitely the place to start. But the Aristocrat is waaaay up there on my list of indispensables. It has a distinctly different voice from the Jet, woodier and more hollow, but completely charming.

Alas, the same thing goes for the Eastwood Airline Tuxedo, related in build and tone to the other two (in that they're small-bodied, single-coil guitars which look like solidbodies but aren't). It has a different voice than either of the others, but...well, again, utterly beguiling. (Though it didn't get there for me until I put a glass bridge on it.)

Anyway, those three are a trifecta of single-coil glory for me. But if they fly in a phalanx, the Jet is always out front.

25

The Guild models are sweet but the samples played by RJ Ronquillo has a great deal to do with my desire for one. The Dynas in the models mentioned above are really Dearmond 2000 pickups, which isn't a bad thing considering they are in my '08 5126 and really versatile.


Register Sign in to join the conversation