Question about new Ascari and Fiorano models

Someone on another forum has taken an interest in these guitars, particularly the Ascari, and has done some research and has a few questions. First of all, Wikipedia says that Cort makes the G&L Tribute series. I'm guessing that is true, but wondered if anyone could confirm that?

And if that is the case, there is a eerie similarity between the Cort M-600 and the Ascari in particular. The M-600 seems to have slightly thinner waist, and I'm sure the pickups and bridge are different, since they are said to be designed by Gagon. But it made me think about how different these models are from the original design by Leo that is said to be the inspiration for these models. Is the similarity between the Cort M-600 and these models purely coincidental?

I realize there could be a multitude of reasons for the different shape in the end. Could be this more traditional shape was felt to be more marketable. But I'm also wondering if it kept manufacturing costs down by going with a more traditional shape?

Does anyone know, or have any thoughts?

Someone on another forum has taken an interest in these guitars, particularly the Ascari, and has done some research and has a few questions. First of all, Wikipedia says that Cort makes the G&L Tribute series. I'm guessing that is true, but wondered if anyone could confirm that?

And if that is the case, there is a eerie similarity between the Cort M-600 and the Ascari in particular. The M-600 seems to have slightly thinner waist, and I'm sure the pickups and bridge are different, since they are said to be designed by Gagon. But it made me think about how different these models are from the original design by Leo that is said to be the inspiration for these models. Is the similarity between the Cort M-600 and these models purely coincidental?

I realize there could be a multitude of reasons for the different shape in the end. Could be this more traditional shape was felt to be more marketable. But I'm also wondering if it kept manufacturing costs down by going with a more traditional shape?

Does anyone know, or have any thoughts?

Which forum might that be?

Yes, they and most of the other Tribute models are built in the same factory as Cort, in Indonesia.

You should read the history behind both the Ascari™ GTS and the Fiorano™ GTS to get the full story.

Hope this helps.

A quick review of the specs looks like they could be litter mates. And so what if Cort gets their own labed version? They need to push volume to actualize the savings of scale in manufacturing. The only diff I see is the pups. You may see some of the color variety start to show up on the Tribby side should it take off. I almost chose this guitar over the Tribby ASAT Deluxe Carvetop.

Cort M600



G&L Tribute Ascari



Check out this quick list of features and if this isn't enough check out the specs below.
•Finish Color: BBB (Bright Blue Burst)
•Neck Radius: 12" Radius
•Fretboard Type: Rosewood
•Fretboard Inlay: Rectangular White Pearl w/ Abalone
•Pickups: EMG-HZ OPEN SA1(F) & TB1(R) (H-H)
•Bridge / Tremolo: TonePros Lic. Locking C-TPFP bridge & CT1 tailpiece

Cort M600 BBB Electric Guitar Product Specifications:

CONSTRUCTION: Set-in

BODY: Mahogany w/ flamed maple top

NECK: Mahogany, Modern "C" Shape

NECK WIDTH: 1F : 43mm / 22F : 56mm

NECK THICKNESS: 1F : 20mm / 12F : 22mm

FINGERBOARD: Rosewood, 12" Radius(305mm)



FRET: 22 / Large (2.7mm)


INLAY: Rectangular White Pearl w/ Abalone



TUNER: Die cast



SCALE: 24 3/4" (629mm)



NUT: Graphite Ivory



BRIDGE: TonePros Lic. Locking C-TPFP bridge & CT1 tailpiece


PICKUP: EMG-HZ OPEN SA1(F) & TB1(R) (H-H)


CONTROL: 1vol, 1tone (w/ push pull), 3way toggle


PICKUP SWITCHING

Coil Tap Push Down
Position1 : Neck
Position2 : Neck & Bridge
Position3 : Bridge
Coil Tap Pull Up
Position1 : Front Coil of Neck
Position2 : Front Coil of Neck & Front Coil of Bridge
Position3 : Front Coil of Bridge


HARDWARE: CR (Chrome)

UNIQUE FEATURE: Arched Top w/ Ivory Binding

STRING: D'addario EXL110(046-010)

COLOR: BBB (Bright Blue Burst)

LEFTY: Available

CASE: Optional

Here are practical photos of each:

New G&L:



An '05 M600



New Cort M600

Craig, it's the Christian Musician Forum. Yeah, I read the story when the guitars were introduced here a few months ago, and so did the guy who's interested in the Ascari. But after seeing this Cort and reading on Wikipedia that Cort makes the Tributes, he was questioning the veracity of the story. He's not questioning the guitars quality, since the Cort's are pretty well reviewed, but just wondering if there is any "spin" in the story, which would leave a bad taste in his mouth.

Personally, I don't doubt the veracity of the story...my thoughts are that G&L latched onto the 3-on-a-side tuners and 24 3/4" scale (at least for the Ascari) and let Gagon and Jackson take it from there. As already stated, the body shape is NOT what Leo had drawn, but I realize there could be several different reasons for that...and hitting a price point could easily be one of those reasons.

Personally, I don't doubt the veracity of the story...my thoughts are that G&L latched onto the 3-on-a-side tuners and 24 3/4" scale (at least for the Ascari) and let Gagon and Jackson take it from there. As already stated, the body shape is NOT what Leo had drawn, but I realize there could be several different reasons for that...and hitting a price point could easily be one of those reasons.

It is likely a combination of genuine discovery and convergent evolution. The guitar production version of "Your chocolate got into my peanutbutter." A product meeting with an unrealized vision by the company's founders and marshalling the assests the company currently has access to- the M600 is a proven design, well reviewed. The Gagon pups give the Ascari it's own voice. I'll also wager that the tone woods and materials are likely a cut above the Cort. Tonepros bridge is a quality piece, no need to change suppliers there. If Cort used Wilkinson like most of their other stuff, then they would have likely made a change.

I would hope a USA Ascari paid closer attention to the original G100 design and less attention to how affordably they can bring the new model to market.

All of this is pure speculation, of course.

Last edited by JagInTheBag on Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I see the similarity. However, type "Les Paul" in eBay, etc and you will find hundreds, if not more guitars with a similar design. My only experience w/ Cort is w/ the Parker PM20. After I replaced the tuners w/ locking Rotomatics(all hardware is Grover and good q), it has become an instrument I cannot put down. Really.




Cheers,

Will

I would hope a USA Ascari paid closer attention to the original G100 design and less attention to how affordably they can bring the new model to market.

All of this is pure speculation, of course.

Funny, I've been thinking the same thing! However, I'm not sure I'd buy one, so my thoughts on the matter shouldn't carry that much weight!!

I would hope a USA Ascari paid closer attention to the original G100 design and less attention to how affordably they can bring the new model to market.

All of this is pure speculation, of course.

Funny, I've been thinking the same thing! However, I'm not sure I'd buy one, so my thoughts on the matter shouldn't carry that much weight!!

They could use the SC-2 body shape (which the G100 seems to resemble anyway) with a set neck design. The Fiorano seems to look like a set neck hard tail carve top Invader. Do they have the production capability to so carve top here in the U.S.?

.

I think the Cort version looks better than the G&L. The G&L needs some tweaking to eliminate the mismatch of parts. The Cort has a headstock that is similar to PRS. I don't care about that similarity, to get that out of the way. I think the proportions, curves, shapes, forms, etc. create a balanced guitar in the Cort. All of those things are slightly off in the G&L. The G&L comes off plain looking while the Cort looks like everything is in its proper place working together to create a tight design. I do not think the headstock choice in the G&L will ever look right on a horned S-type derivative. The body needs some form of slanted asymmetry to be carried into the headstock. The current Gibson-like symmetrical headstock of these G&Ls would fit better on guitars with more symmetrical body shapes.

.

I think the Cort version looks better than the G&L. The G&L needs some tweaking to eliminate the mismatch of parts. The Cort has a headstock that is similar to PRS. I don't care about that similarity, to get that out of the way. I think the proportions, curves, shapes, forms, etc. create a balanced guitar in the Cort. All of those things are slightly off in the G&L. The G&L comes off plain looking while the Cort looks like everything is in its proper place working together to create a tight design. I do not think the headstock choice in the G&L will ever look right on a horned S-type derivative. The body needs some form of slanted asymmetry to be carried into the headstock. The current Gibson-like symmetrical headstock of these G&Ls would fit better on guitars with more symmetrical body shapes.

To me this points to the M600 as the primary design and the Ascari as the derivative one.

why would they not use chrome pup rings on the g&l? everything else is chrome, and using black pup rings?

why would they not use chrome pup rings on the g&l? everything else is chrome, and using black pup rings?

to tie in the headstock and back color? To make them "dissapear"? Dunno.

The body needs some form of slanted asymmetry to be carried into the headstock

That's true. I too think the Cort looks much better.

The M600 has a top which seems to be more carved than that of the G&L, or is it just because of the pictures?

So what's the deal with these? G&L's ad copy claims it to be a Leo idea, George drawing, developed for production by G&L and Grover Jackson, yet the resulting guitar seems to be an extant Cort model w/ a new headstock, inlays and some tele knobs? Something doesn't add up here...

The M600 has a top which seems to be more carved than that of the G&L, or is it just because of the pictures?

It appears the that the M600 is finished in a higher gloss clear than the G&L.

So what's the deal with these? G&L's ad copy claims it to be a Leo idea, George drawing, developed for production by G&L and Grover Jackson, yet the resulting guitar seems to be an extant Cort model w/ a new headstock, inlays and some tele knobs? Something doesn't add up here...

(but don't forget the G&L specific pups)...

In response to the following two posts, the timeline could shed some light on questions and is unknown to me but there are several possible scenarios. It is possible that more than one person or groups of people looked out at the world of guitars and concluded there was a void to fill in the market or in their product line. These entities might have arrived at this point, worked independently and unbeknownst of the other(s). Rather than the Cort being the primary design I wonder whether it was just that the people responsible for the Cort came up with a superior design while looking at the same palette for ideas. It is like a class being given an assignment. Someone comes up with an A+ result while other people are in various stages between F to B+. The Cort earns an A while the Ascari displays many areas needing more refinement and the headstock is simply wrong for such a guitar body style IMO.

.

I think the Cort version looks better than the G&L. The G&L needs some tweaking to eliminate the mismatch of parts. The Cort has a headstock that is similar to PRS. I don't care about that similarity, to get that out of the way. I think the proportions, curves, shapes, forms, etc. create a balanced guitar in the Cort. All of those things are slightly off in the G&L. The G&L comes off plain looking while the Cort looks like everything is in its proper place working together to create a tight design. I do not think the headstock choice in the G&L will ever look right on a horned S-type derivative. The body needs some form of slanted asymmetry to be carried into the headstock. The current Gibson-like symmetrical headstock of these G&Ls would fit better on guitars with more symmetrical body shapes.

To me this points to the M600 as the primary design and the Ascari as the derivative one.

So what's the deal with these? G&L's ad copy claims it to be a Leo idea, George drawing, developed for production by G&L and Grover Jackson, yet the resulting guitar seems to be an extant Cort model w/ a new headstock, inlays and some tele knobs? Something doesn't add up here...

In response to the following two posts, the timeline could shed some light on questions and is unknown to me but there are several possible scenarios. It is possible that more than one person or groups of people looked out at the world of guitars and concluded there was a void to fill in the market or in their product line. These entities might have arrived at this point, worked independently and unbeknownst of the other(s). Rather than the Cort being the primary design I wonder whether it was just that the people responsible for the Cort came up with a superior design while looking at the same palette for ideas. It is like a class being given an assignment. Someone comes up with an A+ result while other people are in various stages between F to B+. The Cort earns an A while the Ascari displays many areas needing more refinement and the headstock is simply wrong for such a guitar body style IMO.

Cort makes both the M600 and the Tribute line in the same facility. The M600 has been out since AT LEAST 2005 (as per the one photographed earlier in the thread). So one can conclude that G&L approached Cort to adapt one or two of their lines to G&L specs. G&L gets to save HUGE on tooling expenses, Cort gets to reach a market that normally would not give it a second look. The M600 sells for about $150 less than the Ascari. The problem is as you have concluded, the Ascari appears to be a derivative design, awkward and incomplete compared to the donor. If they could pull of the intended vision of George and Leo WHILE leveraging the cost savings, they'd have a winner- reaching a customer not yet attune to G&L while endearing the faithful to a new set neck idea.

Monetary considerations aside, for Ascari they should have adapted the original G-200 body shape to the proportions proper to the 3 per side headstock:




For Fiorano, perhaps put an earlier G&L (ala 1980's 6 on a side similar to the current iteration but more pronounced curves in the headstock shape) design on the set neck to further differentiate the two. The overall shape like this one:
But hey, no one asked me.

P.S. It is possible to do on the U.S. side, both body shapes are in current production between the f-100 and SC-2 or I dunno, the actual G200 bolt neck that was produced in the early 80's just make set neck versions to same specs has these Tribute Cort-jesters.

Cort makes both the M600 and the Tribute line in the same facility. The M600 has been out since AT LEAST 2005 (as per the one photographed earlier in the thread). So one can conclude that G&L approached Cort to adapt one or two of their lines to G&L specs. G&L gets to save HUGE on tooling expenses, Cort gets to reach a market that normally would not give it a second look. The M600 sells for about $150 less than the Ascari. The problem is as you have concluded, the Ascari appears to be a derivative design, awkward and incomplete compared to the donor. If they could pull of the intended vision of George and Leo WHILE leveraging the cost savings, they'd have a winner- reaching a customer not yet attune to G&L while endearing the faithful to a new set neck idea.

For the record, I have not drawn any conclusions except those that pertain to aesthetics. I think the Ascari needs refinement and either a different headstock or a significant adjustment to the headstock design. There are both direct and indirect consequences stemming from the areas needing refinement. Something over here casts a shadow on things over there which effect more things and so on.

The Cort factory is used to build guitars to spec for many brands including the Ibanez, Squier and G&L Tribute series. Most of these guitars do come out looking alike......the Squire and Tributes look something like Leo Fender guitars. Most guitars look like Fender, Gibson or Ibanez designs. If Cort appears to have beaten G&L to production on a style of guitar by months or years (aesthetically I would even say beaten the pants off of... ) it does not necessarily follow that G&L is copying or leaning on their designs. We do not know the complete timeline. Leo's prototype drawing was discovered in Leo’s laboratory "two years ago" 2009? (G&L will have to continually update that or they should reword the story). The drawing was dated "January 18th, 1980." Leo could have doodled out a lot of ideas many years before anyone thought of a product resembling these designs, let alone put something in production. He could have dabbled with an idea intermittently setting the project aside for months or years. He died before this project was readied for production. In the meantime the guitar world marched on. There have been many opportunities for G&L's projects to be passed by other brand's designers. The Cort has many similarities to PRS not just the headstock. It is possible that other people came up with similar ideas concurrently. Ideas do seem to be inspired by, both, the environment and the aether ready to be grabbed up by anyone with the gumption. Some aspects of the Ascari and Fiorano are original while other aspects are a reaction to changes taking place during the developmental stage. Generally speaking, if you are working on a project and see that conditions are changing you are wise to make adjustments so your project is not obsolete before it is released. The set neck was not in Leo's plan. It is possible that some aesthetic decisions were based on guitars that did not exist when they started rolling on this project. It would be a wrench in the gears if your 10-year project looked like something another mad scientist released last year. You would either make some changes or risk being called a copycat.

I believe it is generally agreed that these two G&L's are entries into an existing category in the market. When these were announced on this forum I recall comments made regarding how saturated this category is and how these guitars may not have enough to be distinguished from the pack. The playability and build quality have not been contested. Aesthetically, IMO, nothing sets them apart and it probably sets them back to some at least, myself included.

As for the headstock, I think G&L should have used a 6 on the side headstock with Leo's original idea of a saddle lock bridge for these guitars. If they had, we would not be comparing the Ascari or Fiorano to other brands, perhaps only to other G&L models........maybe.

Michael-GnL-Michael I think it is more than coincidence. Compare the cotrol locations, the rear control route, the shape of the neck join, the overal body shape, the neck specs- it is clear these two are platform siblings. Add to that M600 is a wll established model. It is sorta like if Caddillac came out with a new model, touting it as all new heritage inspired design only to reskin a 5 year old Chevy model. Not cool.

Cort can kick out a solid product. All they need are exact design specs. They are engineers, not luthiers, per say... Take Parker/USM: QC glitches aside, they created a product exactly to their demands. So much so that it took a big bite out of their US line. Hence the discontinuation of the P-Series...


Cheers,

Will

Michael-GnL-Michael I think it is more than coincidence. Compare the cotrol locations, the rear control route, the shape of the neck join, the overal body shape, the neck specs- it is clear these two are platform siblings. Add to that M600 is a wll established model. It is sorta like if Caddillac came out with a new model, touting it as all new heritage inspired design only to reskin a 5 year old Chevy model. Not cool.

Beyond the general appearance of the body shape are these details closer than every other similarly designed guitar in this category? To determine this I would think you would need both guitars in possession and the ability to dismantle and compare them. The M500 as an established model can be explained, IOW, a sequence of events can explain how that could be irrelevant. Granted, G&L seems to have been slower and less effective when developing these guitars.

I wish G&L had just teamed with Cort to produce an M500 with saddle lock bridge and G&L pickups, provided everything was at least Tribute-level.

Cort can kick out a solid product. All they need are exact design specs. They are engineers, not luthiers, per say... Take Parker/USM: QC glitches aside, they created a product exactly to their demands. So much so that it took a big bite out of their US line. Hence the discontinuation of the P-Series...


Cheers,

Will

Of course they do. That is why I own two Tributes. They make a good manufacturing partner. If they do spec out the same in a detailed comparison, it would dissapoint me that G&L would also borrow Cort designs. Very GM thing to do.

Last edited by JagInTheBag on Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the disturbing thing here is the website copy (I'm sure the guitar is a decent player for the price), in particular, this piece: "It was designed jointly by G&L’s longtime VP of engineering, Paul Gagon, and his close friend and former collaborator, Grover Jackson, founder of Jackson Guitars."

The whole Fullerton's drawing, Leo's vision thing, is something you kind of have to take at face value; you're dealing with people no longer alive. OTOH, the claim that Gagon and Jackson designed a guitar rings untrue if the resulting instrument already existed as a Cort model. Reading through the full story, the only thing they directly claim Gagon and Jackson designed is the headstock and inlays, which is probably accurate.

You know, we probably wouldn't be having this debate if G&L had gone w/the "brand" -- "sister brand" model for its offshore production a la Gibson--Epiphone, Fender--Squire, Guild--DeArmond. Maybe BBE could have given the Barcus Berry name to the Tribute line?

I am sorry,
I am not impressed with the new G&L guitars.
I am impressed with some of the products Cort manufacturers.
IMO G&L should have tried to go into more of a different market than shrederville.
There is a lot of that style of guitar and you can pick them up a "Dime a dozen ".
Maybe G&L should have gone completely out of left field and developed a hollow body i.e. Gretsch,Ibanez,Epiphone.
The market is there and except for some people complaing about the pickups no one can say a Gretsch G5120 isn't a good guitar. Very affordable too.

G&L could loosely base the style on the Coronado and the original Starcaster
There is not that many players in that market and there is a demand.

If I want a Ascari or Fiorano style guitar I will go down and buy a used Ibanez...It was probably built at the same plant. A lower price too.

To be honest here, G&L has always had one foot in "shredderville"...they were making the Interceptor and some SuperStrats, including the Invader, by 1984.

Introducing a set-neck design is probably as much as a leap of going to a hollow body. In fact, some might say it's a necessary step involved in going to a jazz-box style hollow body, so maybe they'll pursue that if these models take off!

That's probably something I'd have interest in, too. Since that is more of a peripheral interest of mine, I'd be most interested in a import price point, so I'd definitely take note of a Tribute if they'd develop one!

Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have ASAT MFDs in a full depth archtop. Something tells me the result would sound outstanding!

Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have ASAT MFDs in a full depth archtop. Something tells me the result would sound outstanding!

Colin, I'd say the same for the SC-2. It has a more balanced shape than the original that the original G-100 and certainly more distinct than the Cort M600 or Ascari. Can you imagine your SC-3 as a carved top? Regular 25 1/2 scale bolt on with DFS, and a 24 3/4 set neck hardtail. I'd be sweet!

I could also see the G-100 shape and size brought back as hollow body jazzbox.

Paul Gagon, are you reading this?!

Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have ASAT MFDs in a full depth archtop. Something tells me the result would sound outstanding!

Colin, I'd say the same for the SC-2. It has a more balanced shape than the original that the original G-100 and certainly more distinct than the Cort M600 or Ascari. Can you imagine your SC-3 as a carved top? Regular 25 1/2 scale bolt on with DFS, and a 24 3/4 set neck hardtail. I'd be sweet!

I could also see the G-100 shape and size brought back as hollow body jazzbox.

Paul Gagon, are you reading this?!

Oh man, how cool would it be to see a carved top mustang-outline SC, fully hollow, with like a 3"+ deep body. I bet you'd get a really barking, snappy, jumpy tone with a deep, but super narrow body like that. I'd take one!

Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have ASAT MFDs in a full depth archtop. Something tells me the result would sound outstanding!

Colin, I'd say the same for the SC-2. It has a more balanced shape than the original that the original G-100 and certainly more distinct than the Cort M600 or Ascari. Can you imagine your SC-3 as a carved top? Regular 25 1/2 scale bolt on with DFS, and a 24 3/4 set neck hardtail. I'd be sweet!

I could also see the G-100 shape and size brought back as hollow body jazzbox.

Paul Gagon, are you reading this?!

Oh man, how cool would it be to see a carved top mustang-outline SC, fully hollow, with like a 3"+ deep body. I bet you'd get a really barking, snappy, jumpy tone with a deep, but super narrow body like that. I'd take one!

Now those are some G&Ls that I'd like to see ( and a Z-12 for BoogieBill of course)

To me it seems G&L is reacting with the market. Instead of taking a. Pro active approach.
Any new guitar is not going to do G&L any good with out marketing.
Nowadays it seems there are less dealers than even 2 years ago.
No NAMM that's not cool.
You have to spend money to make money.
I would hate to see G&L fall to the wayside like Fernandes/ Hi-Watt has or get eaten up by Fender or Gibson
I sure hope BBE reads some of the post.

To me it seems G&L is reacting with the market. Instead of taking a. Pro active approach.
Any new guitar is not going to do G&L any good with out marketing.
Nowadays it seems there are less dealers than even 2 years ago.
No NAMM that's not cool.
You have to spend money to make money.
I would hate to see G&L fall to the wayside like Fernandes/ Hi-Watt has or get eaten up by Fender or Gibson
I sure hope BBE reads some of the post.

Missing the trade show isn't necessarily bad, if you have a plan to drive sales with the dollars you don't spend there. As far as dealers, I'd hope that they would redirect money into empowering dealers to better sell the brand- giving potential buyers GAS and the means to fulfill it. Dealer reps often sell for multiple lines and a essentially order takers- not educators or proselytizers for the brand. Stores need to adhere to standards (just like new car stores) for how many models are in their showroom and how well represented the brand is online as well as on premisis.

I see G&L lagging in theses areas. If they had a mind to it, they could do quite a lot to bolster these areas with a relatively small investment.

"proselytizers"! I dig it! Hopefully, they'll be seleducated too... Advertising is costly in all it's forms.


Will

G&L does not have to adopt a business plan that requires them to come up with new guitars or to expand into areas they have never been. They have a solid product. They have not saturated the market for what they have. People will always want the kind of guitars G&L is currently producing. It takes more money and effort and there is far more at risk delving into areas you have no expertise in.

And what of Leo Fender's legacy? He is not around to be involved in any new guitars. At best it would be a patchwork product like those two singles (Free As a Bird and Real Love) released by The Beatles after John Lennon died. They had crude demo recordings of John singing then the rest of the band added something to make them complete. The result was a couple of crude songs dressed up as new singles. It is not surprising when the four had grown worlds apart and not worked closely for years. All involved were not on the same page. The Ascari lacks a unified design and what is G&L doing by entering the metal shredder market? G&L needs to stick with what it has done. They are not looking for their first successful product. They could offer the same products indefinitely if they made an effort to properly remind the ever changing public that they exist.

G&L does not have to adopt a business plan that requires them to come up with new guitars or to expand into areas they have never been. They have a solid product. They have not saturated the market for what they have. People will always want the kind of guitars G&L is currently producing. It takes more money and effort and there is far more at risk delving into areas you have no expertise in.

And what of Leo Fender's legacy? He is not around to be involved in any new guitars. At best it would be a patchwork product like those two singles (Free As a Bird and Real Love) released by The Beatles after John Lennon died. They had crude demo recordings of John singing then the rest of the band added something to make them complete. The result was a couple of crude songs dressed up as new singles. It is not surprising when the four had grown worlds apart and not worked closely for years. All involved were not on the same page. The Ascari lacks a unified design and what is G&L doing by entering the metal shredder market? G&L needs to stick with what it has done. They are not looking for their first successful product. They could offer the same products indefinitely if they made an effort to properly remind the ever changing public that they exist.

Michael, I agree. The only thing I'd like to see is the ASAT Deluxe Carved Top in a USA model. I'd ditch the Tribute for one built in Fullerton in a red hot minute...

I'm struck by a few things in this long thread:

Inconsistency: You guys are complaining that the guitar looks too much like a Cort AND complaining that it doesn't have six-on-a-side like a Cort.

Cynicism: You seem to doubt G&L's account of the guitar's creation. Do you think they'd claim that Gagon and Jackson were instrumental if they weren't? If G&L just told Cort to tweak a few things? Is that the G&L you guys know?

Inattentiveness: The website copy specifically says Gagon and Jackson hunkered down and sweated over the body design to a great degree.

Missing the point: How can you pan a guitar without playing it? Tone Pros hardware; specially spec'ed pickups, G&L's known quality. At least watch the video reviews, which are stellar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjXVXSV-kzg

I'm struck by a few things in this long thread:

Inconsistency: You guys are complaining that the guitar looks too much like a Cort AND complaining that it doesn't have six-on-a-side like a Cort.

Um, the G&L's are three-on-a-side, so does the Cort is side. The comments I read state that the Cort's design pulls off three-on-a-side better.

Cynicism: You seem to doubt G&L's account of the guitar's creation. Do you think they'd claim that Gagon and Jackson were instrumental if they weren't? If G&L just told Cort to tweak a few things? Is that the G&L you guys know?

Cynicism, no. I am skeptical given all the commonalities between the design and manufacture of both models. Tweaking a down market brand and marketing a derivative design is not the G&L brand I know and love.

Inattentiveness: The website copy specifically says Gagon and Jackson hunkered down and sweated over the body design to a great degree.

I don't refute Gagon and Jackson's involvement, just how the sausage was made. I am vocal about this because I don't want George and Leo's genius to be bandied about like a marketing football. The back story together with the observations in this string, smack more of marketing spin than they do the facts of our these two G&L models were born. Frankly, I hope I am wrong.

Missing the point: How can you pan a guitar without playing it? Tone Pros hardware; specially spec'ed pickups, G&L's known quality. At least watch the video reviews, which are stellar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjXVXSV-kzg

That is not the point of this discussion. I am certain the Ascari and Fiorno are great players. The M600 has been a high quality, well reviewed guitar in its own right. That is likely what made it an attractive donor platform for Ascari. P.S. The Cort M600 runs Tone Pros hardware as well. The Cort's manufacturing quality is not at issue, since they produce most all the Tributes out of the same facility.

I'm struck by a few things in this long thread:

Inconsistency: You guys are complaining that the guitar looks too much like a Cort AND complaining that it doesn't have six-on-a-side like a Cort.

I only mentioned that the guitar would have looked better had G&L stuck with their typical six-on-a-side design rather than what they ended up using. This is not complaining about the guitar not have a six-on-a-side. A six-on-a-side would have looked better and would have avoided some of the problems created with the guitar's design being too much like so many other competitor's models. As it is, the headstock is mismatched. There is a visual rhythm in form that has not been carried through to the headstock. It is like a flag waving in the wind with one end being rigid. It would be corrected with a six-on-a-side or by carrying over the asymmetrical slant of the body. A six-on-a-side also has the benefit of retaining something more likely to be associated with G&L and not getting lost in crowd for lack of distinguishing qualities.

Cynicism: You seem to doubt G&L's account of the guitar's creation. Do you think they'd claim that Gagon and Jackson were instrumental if they weren't? If G&L just told Cort to tweak a few things? Is that the G&L you guys know?

I have made it clear that I have not drawn such a conclusion, or any conclusion on this point.

Inattentiveness: The website copy specifically says Gagon and Jackson hunkered down and sweated over the body design to a great degree.

That does not really say as much as you think. Work in and of itself is not a guarantee of a good result. Hunkering down and sweating is no guarantee against oversight and poor decisions. You can toil away for decades and produce garbage while you can also work only weeks or months and produce something stellar. Sure they worked on the guitar design. The end result is most important. After any amount of work nothing matters if the result is flawed.

Missing the point: How can you pan a guitar without playing it? Tone Pros hardware; specially spec'ed pickups, G&L's known quality. At least watch the video reviews, which are stellar.

There is more to a guitar than the way it plays. This thread has touched on many of them. Most of what has been discussed here has been addressing the problems created by its visual design. In this context it could be the best player have the best tone out of any guitar being built in the world and these problems would still be factors in its success and failure. Everyone here has been interested in these guitars. I have and I am pretty certain most people here have read and watched reviews of the guitars. Again, we have not been discussing its playability which is somewhat irrelevant.

I'm struck by a few things in this long thread:

Inconsistency: You guys are complaining that the guitar looks too much like a Cort AND complaining that it doesn't have six-on-a-side like a Cort.

Cynicism: You seem to doubt G&L's account of the guitar's creation. Do you think they'd claim that Gagon and Jackson were instrumental if they weren't? If G&L just told Cort to tweak a few things? Is that the G&L you guys know?

Inattentiveness: The website copy specifically says Gagon and Jackson hunkered down and sweated over the body design to a great degree.

Missing the point: How can you pan a guitar without playing it? Tone Pros hardware; specially spec'ed pickups, G&L's known quality. At least watch the video reviews, which are stellar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjXVXSV-kzg

hunkered down and sweated over could be as simple as a hot day with the air broken and they spent 5 minutes before approving the cort design. remember , the marketing team gets a hold of this stuff and what is actually true very fleeting. this is skepticism and given the similarities, it is well placed. we don't know for sure, but assuming the website says everything exactly and accurately, without any intentional or unintentional misrepresentation, would be a very naive position.

I'm struck by a few things in this long thread:

Inconsistency: You guys are complaining that the guitar looks too much like a Cort AND complaining that it doesn't have six-on-a-side like a Cort.

Cynicism: You seem to doubt G&L's account of the guitar's creation. Do you think they'd claim that Gagon and Jackson were instrumental if they weren't? If G&L just told Cort to tweak a few things? Is that the G&L you guys know?

Inattentiveness: The website copy specifically says Gagon and Jackson hunkered down and sweated over the body design to a great degree.

Missing the point: How can you pan a guitar without playing it? Tone Pros hardware; specially spec'ed pickups, G&L's known quality. At least watch the video reviews, which are stellar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjXVXSV-kzg

I agree with ASATNoah's assessment.

I find this thread and this other thread: Just Announced: the new Ascari GTS and Fiorano GTS ... very interesting in how each were responded to.

Right after G&L announced these guitars, I was down at the Huntington Beach office meeting with Dave and Paul.
I've know Paul (and Dave) for almost fifteen years and he is a great guy, very humble and knows his stuff. He is a straight
shooter and tells you the truth, no BS. So when he told me that he and Grover spend a lot of time working on these guitars,
I know it's true. He said they worked the body shapes to insure that these guitars would balance correctly when they are
strapped on. He also said many manufacturers don't do this.

Looking at the pictures posted of the Cort guitars, I do see differences in the bodies between them and the G&L Tributes.
You really need to see both in person and check the actual measurements to get an accurate comparision. IMO, using just
pictures and one's which are not the same scale, is very difficult to get a good accurate comparison.

Another thing I'd like to point out is what Dave posted when the G&L Tributes first came out in 2003:

Quoted from this post, with emphasis: What is the new Tribute series which G&L announced in 2003?

How the line may evolve:

There won't be custom options, so let's get that right out in the open. This is not a G&L substitute for half the price (though Tribute MSRPs are about half of G&L MSRPS), and besides, any factory in their right mind wouldn't run themselves like Fender Avenue. We're just a little warped here, and have the flexibility of hand-made production to allow such variation.

Tribute may do other G&L models, though probably nothing semi-hollow. It may be tapped to do things outside our normal scope, but within the Korean factory's current capabilites. They've shown me some interesting options, and when I go to Korea again in a few weeks, I'll take some time to explore this more.

For now, however, we have to focus on getting the quality we need, every day. I think we've successfully pushed these people to be better than they've ever been, and we need to keep them at the top of their game. Looking toward the other designs we could do is fun, but we need to keep the focus on quality at all times.

I know there will be some grumbling, and I totally understand that. We grappled with it too, but we believe it was a necessary step to become a stronger guitar company in the market. But most importantly, when you guys try these Tributes, I know many of you will wind up with some alongside your G&Ls.

And quoting from the Introducing the Ascari and Fiorano page:

G&L’s vice president of engineering, Paul Gagon – who logged time at Fender Musical Instruments and Jackson Guitars early in his career – brought in his longtime friend Grover Jackson, founder of Jackson Guitars, to collaborate on design. Together they channeled the heavy-rock vibe of the ’80s, when Leo and George stretched their imaginations on aggressive models like the Interceptor, Superhawk and Rampage, and when Jackson created his own iconic guitars – axes that would inspire Gagon’s designs for the G&L Climax and second-generation Invader in the ‘90s.

G&L, after all, is in the business of building guitars and basses for all musicians. Now it's okay if you are not interested in
their modern takes on the 80's and 90's instruments. But remember that participants are expected to treat others with
respect, kindness, and consideration, including G&L and other manufacturers. And, in my opinion, some posters
on this thread have come close to overstepping this bound.

This is my opinion, from my perspective.

I agree with ASATNoah's assessment.

Craig,

Most of what you included in your post made a strong case for your position on certain issues. It would have made more sense without stating that you agree with Noah's assessment. Aside from addressing each of Noah's points clarifying anything that may have referenced my comments, at its foundation Noah's assessment overlooks the fact that more than one person with varying points of view has participated in the thread. Reading through a long forum thread you have to follow what each person says in order to comprehend the flow of the discussion. You have to remember what a specific person said previous to any of their own posts made later. You have to consider posts based on what has already been said by everyone as some comments are introductions of ideas, some are extensions, some are responses while some stand on their own. If you ignore this not only do you isolate words and sentences from their context and authors but you misunderstand, misinterpret.......miss the point. I do not have confidence in anyone's ability to judge my words when they exhibit poor reading comprehension. I do not have confidence in their ability to keep track of what I have said. They are likely to attribute things to people who had nothing to do with any number of things misunderstood.

...nuthin' but love.


Cheers,

Will

...nuthin' but love.


Cheers,

Will

and sincere respect. ~Patrick

I've been playing G&L guitars since 1981 and I currently own 5 USA G/L guitars. I have been a big fan and have preached the virtues of G/L on my blog, in multiple articles, for several years. I have encouraged all my friends to check out G&L and a few have followed my advice and are happy owners of Legacies, et al.

Then these two Tributes came out and, I gotta be honest, the company crossed some (perhaps irrational) line buried deep in my soul and I've lost some of the feeling.

From one angle of vision it appears that all guitar companies are doing the same thing: making and selling guitars but, from another angle, there really is a difference between, on the one hand, making guitars and selling them and, on the other, guitar-oriented marketing and sales.

http://gtroblq.blogspot.com/2011/08/dif ... s-and.html

In my mind, and maybe I'm off base, G&L seems to have shifted somewhat toward the latter position.

Perhaps the market pitch for this new thing has rubbed some people the wrong way: we dug into Leo's archive and, shazam, out comes this. I guess it all depends on what people take "inspired" to mean. Few seem to believe that this is what Leo would have done or that anything like this could be extracted from his archive. Perhaps some see this as a devaluation of the concept of Leo's "archive" where the current owners can turn to for inspiration.

I love my G&Ls but my last guitar purchase was an American-made instrument by another company. I suspect that had G&L pursued another course with respect to Leo's short scale concept I would currently be the owner of 6 G&L guitars, not 5.

I hope I have not crossed some line. Just my two cents.