Other Guitars

Easter eggs and other emanations of spring: the thread.

1

You know, pastels in pinks and greens and blues and other colors seen on Easter eggs, spring flowers, sundresses and the like. I'll start all humble-like with the...

Fender Musicmaster, 1978, which I got for my daughter when she was 6 and took a momentary interest in playing (probably, in retrospect, more to get my attention than because she loved it). It was used and abused and I don't recall the original color; I had a body shop refin it in a lightly metallic pink. Val soldiered bravely through the group guitar classes I taught at the music store, but it didn't take. Several years later she took up bass momentarily, with better (but not permanent) results. I took this apart to clean it 15 years ago and apparently now prefer it as a no-string guitar.

2

Fender Mustang, 1965,

a guitar that's in ridiculously minty condition. You'd take it for a year-old guitar. Plays like the proverbial butter (if butter was sonic blue), with maybe the most delicious vibrato ever designed. I've had flatwounds on it for a decade, and they're perfect. This guitar walked in to the music store in about 1984, in its original gray case. Guy wouldn't take more than 20.00 for it. I didn't understand then, and I don't understand now.

I'd done some gigs with him, old rock & roll and country in the most isolated, ghost mining town rural bars you can imagine. I couldn't believe the towns were still there. He introduced me to "Boney Maroni," "Splish Splash," and "Rub It In." It was an education.

3

(This being an attempt to get the GDP to accept a visibly-sized photo from me.)

4

Combing my memory, I would say that this is probably the only pastel finished guitar I've ever owned, my '62 premium partscaseter.

I enjoyed pretty much everything about the process of hunting down the best and most accurate parts and components I could find, and putting it together, wiring, setting up, etc. The only part I found nerve-racking was applying the logo decal, which is ironic, since I've been doing that since the age of about eight.

5

Dano Longhorn Baritone, 90s? Big. Twang.

6

SO WTF AM I DOING WRONG???

Afire's vertical pics are visible. Mine may as well not bothered to come to the party. CUTE little vignettes, aren't they?

I'm done here.

7

Combing my memory, I would say that this is probably the only pastel finished guitar I've ever owned...

Should have combed a little longer. I once had a 6187, which I think would count as pastel.

8

SO WTF AM I DOING WRONG???

Afire's vertical pics are visible. Mine may as well not bothered to come to the party. CUTE little vignettes, aren't they?

I'm done here.

– Proteus

Are you putting an empty line before and after your pictures?

9

Afire, it looks like you are posting pictures from a host site. Prot, you are likely posting them with the camera icon.

I love the pastel pix. More!

11

Here is a future tele project, a Mojo cabinet for a Union Jack amp sitting on my Orange cabinet and a pedal board that will be all surfy looking colors when I get my new surf green Mystery Brain this week, soon to be a shrine to summer colors.

12

Proteus, your pics are perfectly visible and a good size on my 'puter (recent macbook) if that can help...

13

Prote - I can see yer pix just fine

Edit: Win 8.1 on a cheap Asus lappie

16

A 2000 CIJ Pink Paisley Telecaster

17

A 2002 MIM Surf Green '69 Thinline Telecaster

20

Proteus, your pics are perfectly visible and a good size on my 'puter (recent macbook) if that can help...

So you all say. I'm on a 17" MacBook, OS 10.12.6. Safari at the moment, but same behavior in Chrome.

Yes, I'm using the camera to upload pics, rather than linking from my own hosting. Of course I linked from my own hosting when that was the only way to do it, and I had semi-automated processes to make the links. I posted hundreds - THOUSANDS - of pictures that way. Gretsch events, etc.

Then the GDP-hosted photo era began and we were invited/encouraged/STRONGly urged to upload that way. One pic per post (so at 25 posts a page, we didn't bury the server and folks' browsers with multiple pics per posts, I get it). OK, I lived with it. Never been happy with it, but shucks, this ain't my place.

Now the server's full and all those high-res pics we were encouraged to upload have to be deleted. OK.

Meantime, folks who linked pics in from ... was it PhotoBucket that suddenly went fee-based? - see nothing but placeholders where they linked from. And my own hosting - that I've always paid for and maintained via FTP/whatever - well, every pic I've ever put there is still there, at paths I maintain specifically because, hey, they might be linked somewhere.

And SOMEwhere, in the scrambled database, are hundreds-thousands of posts with all those images STILL LINKED.

Yes, I could go back to linking in from my hosting, at twice the time and effort.

But others seem to put up photos (via the camera, I don't know) that look generously sized to me. AND I CAN'T MANAGE TO UPLOAD A PICTURE TO THE GDP which reflects a fraction of the effort it took to put it there. I've resized them to no more than 2000 px wide, per the guidelines. I've experimented with various aspect ratios, lest too great an extension in one direction trigger some sizing algorithm that keeps the rest of it unnaturally small. I've put blank lines before and after.

Example. In this thread, on THIS computer, at THIS moment, without ever resizing the browser window, my second pic of the Mustang measures, on my screen, with a physical-reality ruler, a little over 3 inches wide by a little over 4" tall. Afire's Strat, directly following it, is a little over 4 by 5.5 or so. Aspect ratios are similar. Why is mine handled differently? Where's the trigger?

It's not like I'm entirely innocent of the ways of screwing with photos for publication either in print or online - but I can't figure this out.

And I'm unaccountably frustrated and literally PISSED. It's like there's a special Proteus-Intake routine whereby any images submitted under my username are given a special dinkification treatment.

It kinda takes the fun out of it.

21

(Never heard of the Vista Venus. Pretty guitar.)

22

And I'm unaccountably frustrated and literally PISSED.

This might not improve my standing here but I‘m actually pi$$ed by your recent rants.

23

Isn't this the only one? Or rather, the only issue that's set me off?

24

MEANwhile, so as not to entirely derail my own thread, more of the little guitars I hope someday to have full-size versions of.

Reverend Slingshot Dlx, 2004
With the original USA phenolic-top/perimeter frame/resonating-tube construction. Sounds and plays amazing. Best Strat I've ever played.

25

Reverend Rick Vito, 2013
I don't play it much, but the control matrix with a continual blend between the pups and the bass contour is just stellar. Every time I get it out to sell it, I play it...and then I keep it.


Register Sign in to join the conversation