Interesting discussion

I don't know if it is against the rules to link to a thread in another forum but you might find this interesting:

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/other-t-type ... ender.html

One thing I found interesting was the difficulty in finding G&Ls. Many people reported never seeing one in person or never seeing one in a store.

Very interesting and I am not surprised by the marketing and distribution comments. I am fortunate to have a great dealer nearby.-- Thanks for posting-- Darwin

Yeah, it's been that way a long time. People on the fringe of the guitar world know just the basics. Hell, at shows curious as to a guitarists axe, people will ask me, "what kind of guitar is that?". I'll say PRS for instance, and the usual response is, "is that like a Gibson?". Just goes to show. God forbid they're playing an Anderson or Suhr.

Maybe I'm a snob, but I consider a few guitars REAL Leo guitars. The pre '64 Fenders and his gen of G&L's being the main stays. I'm not so familiar with the Music Man days. I'm lucky to own them in my opinion because they play and sound great for me.

Larry

quality control issues in early '90s ?????


edit :

to be honest I hope G&L won't become too popular... either the price will increase or they'll become mass-production machine...

I don't know where you are in BC, Eddie, but there's just one dealer around me. I found that out looking at the dealer list on the G&L web site. So I drove to the music store and it has all these decals on its windows of the lines they carry, Larrivee, Martin, etc... but no G&L. I go in and ask. Yes, they are a dealer and they have a sign in the window. I go out and check again, nope! Well, I'll be darned, says the owner...

Well, despite their lack of advertisement, I ordered my ASAT from them and it's my #1 now. Moral of the story is that G&L sells a fraction of what Fender does, so you do have to track them down, or order online, but it's worth it.

Actually I'm not that surprised at the limited exposure to G&L for most players.
I'm pretty lucky that I have four dealers within a 40 mile radius and another half dozen between here and Seattle.

In spite of this, in my seven years living here, I've only seen three other players with G&Ls, and not that many more who have even heard of them.

One thing that does always amaze me is the hate for the headstock, and how many are willing to totally dismiss the whole line just because of it.

I really like the G&L headstock.
But it wasn't always so.
I was a happy accepter of marketing / fashion and first thought the G&L head was wrong for not being Fender.
But the guitars still got to me, luckily. So much so that I have two more on order right now; expensive here in England, but well worth their price just the same. About the same money as a team-built CS Fender, but much more what I like.

And once I got over myself, I appreciated that the head is actually quite a nice bit of design.

Let's hope G&L keep going without losing their attributes that we are currently so lucky to be able to have.
Real top players' stuff, they're lovely!

when i put my hands on a guitar the last thing I pay attention to is the headstock... common' ... the first time I played a g&l I was blew away by the feel, the sound, nevermind the headstock... (that could be a nice album name XD)

After reading through the entire linked thread I am surprised at the amount of ignorance regarding G&L. With the entire sum knowledge of the history of mankind available in 2 seconds from a smart phone, you think people might do at least a tiny bit of research about the brand. Oh well, guitar players will always suffer from tunnel vision.

After reading through the entire linked thread I am surprised at the amount of ignorance regarding G&L. With the entire sum knowledge of the history of mankind available in 2 seconds from a smart phone, you think people might do at least a tiny bit of research about the brand. Oh well, guitar players will always suffer from tunnel vision.

I couldn't agree more. The people on the Fender discussion pages usually like their Fenders and don't need to look further. That's fine.

But BBE/G&L could also do a better job getting the word out there. They cut back their advertising, cut out their clinic program, and depend on word-of-mouth to get the word out. Well guess what? There's a lot of competition out there now. And it's no longer viable to just make a good product anymore. You have to really understand how to market what you've got. Otherwise, you're making just another "boutique" product that very few will experience.

My 2¢
Will

Hamer made truly great guitars, far better than the competition was making. Every figured top was jaw dropping, all the mahogany was real Swietinia Macrophyla Honduras, fretwork was great, pickups were Duncans not some generic in-house stuff, etc.

But they didn't market hardly at all. How'd that work out for them? Well, they no longer exist, and even though a USA Hamer destroys the equivalent PRS in terms of ergonomics, quality, and woods used, a used USA Hamer goes for $700-$1200 and a used PRS, twice that. Why?

Marketing. Everyone knows PRS, hardly anyone knows WTH Hamer is, and they were around 10 years before PRS.

Scary comparison!
I'm really hoping G&L collectively have the wisdom to stay alive without compromising their products or narrowing their wonderful options.

If they ever just make guitars with narrow, Fender-type heels, 1 5/8" nuts, skinny necks and no option to change these, I'll be really sad.
But even then, I'd want to have someone build me what a G&L used to be, rather than buy a Fender.

I find it incredible that they have cut back their marketing. They offer something really special for players who value their attributes. And, in a sense, competition with Fender is not an option for anyone; it's surely a matter of illuminating one's own niche so the public get it, as well as the players who will always want the instruments.

If G&L feel that their marketing hasn't been worthwhile, then they need to change it, not cancel it!

Some astute marketing needn't be too expensive, and some more review instruments offered for the enthusiast press to feature would surely be good. I'd bet that sales of USA Legacys and Asats in England would turn up nicely after some positive reviews in our national guitar-fanciers' monthlys. That and some penetration into some more-committed dealers. It's all a bit quiet on that front, too. Having said that, the dealer that's handling my two current custom G&L orders is first-rate and then some, but I had to really go looking in order to find him, and not let myself be put off by some of the others!

After reading through the entire linked thread I am surprised at the amount of ignorance regarding G&L. With the entire sum knowledge of the history of mankind available in 2 seconds from a smart phone, you think people might do at least a tiny bit of research about the brand. Oh well, guitar players will always suffer from tunnel vision.

I couldn't agree more. The people on the Fender discussion pages usually like their Fenders and don't need to look further. That's fine.

But BBE/G&L could also do a better job getting the word out there. They cut back their advertising, cut out their clinic program, and depend on word-of-mouth to get the word out. Well guess what? There's a lot of competition out there now. And it's no longer viable to just make a good product anymore. You have to really understand how to market what you've got. Otherwise, you're making just another "boutique" product that very few will experience.

My 2¢
Will

Exactly--what I came away with also was the general ignorance of the brand, historically and currently--and this correlates to lack of exposure.

I too like the G&L headstock very much. It's a great idea that probably kept the Fender corp legal team at bay. I'm also saddened by the loss of Hamer. The Hamer standard as most of you know appears similar to the Gibson Explorer but blows it out of the water for less money. Again, dedicated guitar people know this, but John Q public doesn't.

Just gotta fight the good fight people.

Larry

Threads like that make me thankful to have walked into The Seattle Guitar Store as a neophyte last year.

Relatively speaking, there must be a glut of G&L dealers around Seattle, I think there are four all within 30 minutes driving from home/work. I don't have much trouble finding these guitars irl. But for every 1 G&L there are at least 10 Fenders nearby I can try out. If my guitar searching is irrespective of brand, then the chance of me finding "the one" is much better for Fender.

The Legacy and ASAT models are knockoffs of the Fender Company's most iconic designs. No matter the quaint back-story, G&L is another brand making a Tele and Strat knockoff. So it should be expected that many Fenderites see it this way and continue to prefer their real Fender models.

p.s. I couldn't think of a better term than 'knockoff' not trying to offend anyone

You know, I have never bought a G&L from a store. Two from Buffalo Bros. and two from individuals. After all these years, I pretty much know what I'm getting both in feel and in sound.

Larry

Interesting indeed. I always thought the headstock was cool and an evolution of all similar headstocks. Look at Fender, MusicMan, original G&L, Valley Arts, JB Player, Carvin, Suhr, Anderson etc., they all are similar. It would be eye opening for sure to see a naysayer have a blind test with a few guitars and see what they prefer sound and feel wise without seeing the headstock. How many of these responders have even played a G&L? But it goes back to the idea that some like chocolate and some like vanilla, or some like Fender and some like Gibson based on pure volume of production and history. Maybe a little more marketing in the proper places would help, and how about more Will Ray clinics! Just sayin'

I really have to voice my disagreement about G&Ls being "knockoffs".

The G&L neck being wider at the heel (where Fenders are just too narrow, vintage-correct or not);
Quatersawn neck as an option;
Stainless frets, and two sizes of fret, as options;
The nut width being variable as an option;
The neck profile and board radius being options;
The choice of fingerboard wood being an option;
The body wood being an option;
The nut and tuners being options too, as well as combinations of pickup covers, pickguard and finish.
The Saddle-Lock bridge being a huge improvement over any Fender hardtail / Tele.

And (personal, I know) wide-range innovative pickups (which I personally love).

Knockoff? I can't imagine ever wanting another Fender...

Leo kinda did a knock off from his own self , lol ..... I wonder if Fender even really has a ground to stand on since it's been a long time since CBS has owned Fender ??

Well, there it is. What's in a name? What's in some branding?
And what, for that matter, is in a body-shape?

The actual guitars are quite different characters to use (G&Ls for me). What BBE / G&L are making right now are really excellent instruments by any realistic judgement.
If anyone is knocking-off the past in search of sales, it's Fender. Bit meaningless really.

I guess this could sort of be related , but interesting nonetheless.
A story involving some old fender reps and the unveiling of the new MusicMan instruments
at the 1975 NAMM show.
It's about 2/3 of the way down the page (type control 'F' and enter NAMM SHOW).
The author is Jody Carver;

http://steelguitarforum.com/Archives/Ar ... 13178.html

I'm fine with the 1 5/8" neck, it's one thing that sets them apart from Fender. Also the heels are both 1.25", but G&L was 1.2" up til '98, which I also greatly preferred over Fender. I had a ton of Fenders before I bought my first G&L (after which the Fenders went buh bye) and the Fenders just never felt right to me, the G&L did. The only Fenders I have now are a couple Mexican Blacktops, which have better fretwork and more ergonomic necks than the USA junk, but they are still toys compared to my G&Ls.

A Porsche is not a Volkswagen knock off.

As for the headstock, I like it. It is surely more interesting than the generic Suhr/Anderson/Grosh/Sadowsky "swooshes", which I can't tell apart without reading the logo. I can spot a G&L from a long way away, and it immediately says "I'm not another herd animal playing a generic FMIC Fender". The fact that it immediately says "NOT FMIC" is what I like the most.

Elwood,

Very cool find.

Larry

Fumble- Leo didn't actually knock himself off - he didn't want to make the ASAT or Legacy.

As for CBS' rights, what I've read is they only could trademark the headstock. Their filing for the S-style body shape was refused due to (by the time of application) the prevalence of its use by other makers.

Nick-
I didn't mean knock of as in "cheap copy" but as in a "derivative of the original." Suhr, Anderson, et al make `knock-offs` of the original Fender designs.

At any rate the first brand associated with the Tele and Strat is owned by FMIC. I think anything that comes after and tries to capture or capitalize on that is by definition, a knock off.

But my point was not to deride G&L, I think they make great guitars. I can just see the Fenderite's logic - G&L's are not `Fenders` in the sense of what FMIC has trademark rights to make.

Ray-

Thats a comparison between to makes of vehicles, not two models.

Fender and G&L aren't two makes?

FMIC guitars are also knock offs by that reasoning, they have little in common with a pre-65 Fender other than the general shape.

Great read Tim and I agree with you ideas on running a great business. The big box stores have very little to offer in the area of knowledge. Our local G&L dealer has a similar philosophy about their customers and It works. I think that I have purchased 18 guitars from them since 2009. I can be assured that things will be right if there are any problems. Unfortunately I lived a long way from your store but I enjoyed your website a lot. The pictures were great. Thanks again for your insight Tim.-- Darwin

Tim your two cents is worth much more. Good stuff, and a lot of the same reasons I prefer our smaller local shops.

To be fair to the GC in my neighborhood they are always courteous, helpful and at least reasonably knowledgeable when I deal with them. But I have bought no guitars from them either, so I guess I prefer the small shop

I'm not sure they (big stores) really have so much more _variety_ than many of our local small shops. I would definitely say there is more variety at TSGS for electric guitars (as in different types) and Dusty Strings is close in terms of acoustic variety, with a staff who is extremely knowledgeable and helpful.

Ray- I'm saying you compare the makes: Porsche versus VW. But I think that is only relevant if they make similar models.

Fender makes a strat, G&L makes a strat.

VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

See? It doesn't compare. If Porsche made a beetle, then what you say would be relevant, but then Porsche would have 'knocked off' another design.

But I'm not going to keep arguing for the Fenderite's position, because I don't necessarily believe in it. I can just see their way of thinking.

At any rate, I digress...

... VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

See? It doesn't compare. If Porsche made a beetle, then what you say would be relevant, but then Porsche would have 'knocked off' another design.

Were it not for the fact that Ferdinand Porsche is the inventor of the VW Beetle ...

- Jos

... VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

See? It doesn't compare. If Porsche made a beetle, then what you say would be relevant, but then Porsche would have 'knocked off' another design.

Were it not for the fact that Ferdinand Porsche is the inventor of the VW Beetle ...

- Jos

And if it wasn't for the fact that Fender has only been Fender in name since 1965 when Leo sold it to CBS. And that G&L "Strats" are not just another knock off Strat since Leo Fender & George Fullerton designed the G&L "Strat" type guitars to improve on the original Fender Strat designs. And yes it does compare since Porsche makes VWs and Leo Fender made both Fender and G&L "Strats".

... VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

See? It doesn't compare. If Porsche made a beetle, then what you say would be relevant, but then Porsche would have 'knocked off' another design.

Were it not for the fact that Ferdinand Porsche is the inventor of the VW Beetle ...

- Jos

uh, no. because IF Porsche still made a beetle it would not BE the VW beetle. See? That is exactly the point the Fender fans make. When we think of e.g GM and say the Pontiac Firebird versus Chevy Camaro - which is the knock off? The firebird right? I don't think it is about lineage, or even which is 'better.' The point is with which brand/make did the design originate.

I think that is part of the appeal to some players. If what appeals to a player is the Fender Stratocaster that Leo, et al. designed back in the 50's when he owned Fender. The design that was subsequently used by innumerable great guitarists, and is arguably the most recognizable electric guitar shape on the planet, then the one and only place to get that is FMIC, they own it.

All of this conveniently ignores the history, recorded here on this board, that Leo had no interest in revisiting the tele or strat designs again. The Legacy, ASAT and the current S-500 form were not Leo's work - so even if the beetle argument held up it would be invalid here because Leo did not re-invent the same models at G&L. They were created because consumers wanted those Fender designs.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the quality of G&L guitars, or which is better. I own one G&L and zero Fenders.

So much for digression...

Agreed - but perhaps 'recreated' would be a better term...

Re the the TDPRI bit... interesting to see my '90 ASAT Classic Bluesboy Prototype in its earlier incarnation...

Word Up.

KF

Last edited by Katefan on Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Uh, actually no. Pontiac Firebird and Chevy Camero are virtually identical cars (with minor trim differences), "Branded" differently, manufactured at the same time under the ownership of GM. Neither is a "knockoff" unless you are a purist that liked the brand before it merged.
Just like the Plymouth Barracuda & the Dodge Challenger are the same car and the Plymouth Roadrunner and Dodge Charger are similar. Us MOPAR fanatics get it. Neither are a knockoff. Just the same/similar & branded differently. Originally it was a marketing ploy to not lose the prior to merger customers that stood by their favorite brand. Later many of the brands and their models were cut to save money (where duplicity didn't matter to the bean counters anymore).

Look at the many knockoff companies that are under Fender now. So are they really knockoffs if Fender owns their companies? In my mind a knockoff is a company (that does not belong to the orinatator of the product) that manufactures something similar to get a piece of the action.
"In recent years, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has branched out into making and selling steel-string acoustic guitars, and has purchased a number of other instrument firms, including the Guild Guitar Company, the Sunn Amplifier Company, and other brands such as SWR Sound Corporation. In early 2003, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation made a deal with Gretsch and began manufacturing and distributing new Gretsch guitars. Fender also owns: Jackson, Charvel, Olympia, Orpheum, Tacoma Guitars (based in Seattle, WA), Squier and Brand X amps. In addition, Fender has recently purchased Kaman Music Corporation, which owns Ovation guitar, LP and Toca hand percussion products, Gibraltar Hardware, Genz Benz Amplification, Hamer Guitars and is the exclusive U.S. sales representative for Sabian Cymbals and exclusive worldwide distributor of Takamine Guitars and Gretsch Drums."

But I digress. We have taken the term "knockoff" way to far. Maybe "Strat like" or "Telecaster like" are better terms. I personally think that G&L products are more Fender than the Fender branded guitars. I have played current versions of both and prefer the newer styles/modifications of G&Ls. I would love to try a Leo era G&L someday.

No hurt feelings intended. Just friendly discussion here.

Uh, actually no. Pontiac Firebird and Chevy Camero are virtually identical cars (with minor trim differences), "Branded" differently, manufactured at the same time under the ownership of GM. Neither is a "knockoff" unless you are a purist that liked the brand before it merged.
Just like the Plymouth Barracuda & the Dodge Challenger are the same car and the Plymouth Roadrunner and Dodge Charger are similar. Us MOPAR fanatics get it. Neither are a knockoff. Just the same/similar & branded differently. Originally it was a marketing ploy to not lose the prior to merger customers that stood by their favorite brand. Later many of the brands and their models were cut to save money (where duplicity didn't matter to the bean counters anymore).

fair enough, the Camaro/Firebird was a poor choice on my part because they came out the same year.

Look at the many knockoff companies that are under Fender now. So are they really knockoffs if Fender owns their companies? In my mind a knockoff is a company (that does not belong to the orinatator of the product) that manufactures something similar to get a piece of the action.

...snip...

That is exactly what G&L did, they made something to get a piece of the T and S style guitar action. They are not owned by or affiliated with FMIC.

Another example in guitardom would be all the LP knockoffs. ESP, Hamer, PRS et al. make a knockoff version of the original. Epiphone is a daughter company of Gibson (now) but they make a LP knock-off. Because Gibson owns them it somehow lends any legitimacy to their version? Lots of those other companies make a fine product, many way better than the Epiphone version. But the PRS, Hamer etc are knock-offs where Epiphone is not?

The G&L ASAT and Legacy exist only because consumers wanted a Fender Tele/Strat type of guitar. That is how the history of those models has been presented. Leo wanted (and had) little to do with desigining either ASAT or Legacy. And the S-500 has since been harmonized to be more akin to the Legacy/Strat type of guitar Leo didn't want to revisit.

I don't see how G&L ASATs and Legacys are more `Fender` than Fender's Tele and Strat. Neither by history or CLF's association with them. Leo had about the same level of involvement in the current incarnation of either - very little. What is retained from his inputs in either design?

To the G&L offerings there are some bridge designs, certainly the neck and pocket has changed. But those are not true to the 50s-60s versions of the guitars. But the Fender versions are still available with period authentic setups (like the trem and such). I think the latter point here is what the some of the pro-Fender strat/tele people on the linked thread are saying.

But I digress. We have taken the term "knockoff" way to far. Maybe "Strat like" or "Telecaster like" are better terms.

I think the 'knockoff' analysis has taken off because people consider it a derogatory term. Maybe it is, but I tried to disclaimer that from the get-go. At any rate I can take the blame for that.

I personally think that G&L products are more Fender than the Fender branded guitars. I have played current versions of both and prefer the newer styles/modifications of G&Ls. I would love to try a Leo era G&L someday.

So here is what I don't get: if what you have now is somehow less "Leo" because its not a Leo-era guitar, how are the current ASAT/Legacy more Fender than the current Fender stuff?

No hurt feelings intended. Just friendly discussion here.

No hurt feelings here either, a good discussion that would be better with a couple cold beers is all.

G & L's are more Fender because they are made at Leo's shop on Fender ave just like the original Leo Fender guitars , can't get any better than that

So here is what I don't get: if what you have now is somehow less "Leo" because its not a Leo-era guitar, how are the current ASAT/Legacy more Fender than the current Fender stuff?

I am extremely happy with my 1-2 y.o. G&Ls. However, just making a comment in reguards to what others here have said that in their opinion the Leo era guitars were better than current versions. It's been said cheaper materials and time saving cuts have changed the feel. That's why I would like to actually play one and see if it is in fact true. Just as I would love to play a early 60's strat.

The G&L ASAT and Legacy exist only because consumers wanted a Fender Tele/Strat type of guitar. That is how the history of those models has been presented. Leo wanted (and had) little to do with desigining either ASAT or Legacy. And the S-500 has since been harmonized to be more akin to the Legacy/Strat type of guitar Leo didn't want to revisit.

The G&L ASAT and Legacy exist only because consumers wanted a Fender Tele/Strat type of guitar. That is how the history of those models has been presented. Leo wanted (and had) little to do with desigining either ASAT or Legacy. And the S-500 has since been harmonized to be more akin to the Legacy/Strat type of guitar Leo didn't want to revisit.

I don't see how G&L ASATs and Legacys are more `Fender` than Fender's Tele and Strat. Neither by history or CLF's association with them. Leo had about the same level of involvement in the current incarnation of either - very little. What is retained from his inputs in either design?

Agreed. You can say they aren't Leo guitars because he didn't want to continue with his earlier design. However, they were manufactured in his G&L shop and improved on with input he provided. Both sets of guitars were produced in his shops (previous Fender & current G&L). The creator/owner of the design can't be accused of knocking off a design. Well, maybe legally since he sold the design rights and company name. But you get the drift.

Doesn't make any sense to make a design that no one wants. Smart money is on going with the market choice designs and introduce new designs to see how the public reacts.

Just my opinion and impression that something more recent, that had a owner/creator's hands on, is more his than something he gave up many years prior. I know I'm mixing "Fender" company name with Fender the person. Just as many diehard Fender fanatics don't realize that G&L guitars exist and are actually newer improved Leo Fender guitars.

G & L's are more Fender because they are made at Leo's shop on Fender ave just like the original Leo Fender guitars , can't get any better than that

+1

VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

Not to belabor it, but that was exactly my point. That is exactly how I felt about my Fenders once I got a G&L. Fender makes a beetle, G&L makes a 911.

I am extremely happy with my 1-2 y.o. G&Ls. However, just making a comment in reguards to what others here have said that in their opinion the Leo era guitars were better than current versions. It's been said cheaper materials and time saving cuts have changed the feel.

I won't even try to deny that I am much more partial to Leo-era G&Ls than to recent ones. My ratio right now is about 5:1 (Leo-era to BBE instruments). I would not say the early G&Ls are better than the newer ones, though. They are just different. A lot of the difference is in the neck shaping and body finishing. Neck shaping is 100% a matter of personal preference, so I couldn't call one set of profiles better than another. On average, though, I would say my Leo-era guitars have slimmer necks than most of the BBE-era ones I've played.

Weight-wise, my Leo-era instruments are all over the place. The maple bodies tend to be lighter than the ash and 'hog bodies, which can feel like boat anchors compared to current production G&Ls. G&L used some great looking wood back then, and still does today. It's from different species though, as sourcing has changed. I wouldn't expect a new mahogany L-2000 to sound like my '81 L-2KE, simply because it's a difference species of wood. From what I've read, the current 'hog basses are fairly lightweight and very resonant. The old ones often weighed well over ten pounds, and the body's mass makes it sound like you're playing through a low-pass filter. Which one is best depends on the music you're going to play and the sound you're after. My BBE-era basses ('98 ASAT, '99 L-1500 and '00 L-2000 fretless) are great all-around basses. My Leo-era basses each tend to have one or two genres that they absolutely set a standard for, but aren't necessarily all-around instruments.

One thing all of my newer G&Ls have in common is drop-dead gorgeous finishes. The body wood is either book matched, or very carefully selected for a good appearance. I won't compare them to the earlier instruments in terms of finishing, since (a) the technology is much different today, and (b) they haven't been through thirty years of wear and tear. I will say, though, that all of my BBE-era instruments have exceptional finishes. Right now I have a Clear Orange '99 L-1500 sitting next to a 2003 PRS Electric Bass, which has a dark cherry sunburst over a "ten top". The flame on the PRS is stunning, but the L-1500 is a much more attractive instrument IME. The finish quality is better, and the grain in the ash body was clearly selected by somebody who cared about the end result just as much as the PRS does. The difference in grains, though, is that the PRS has a premium, upgraded top while the G&L is "just" regular production.

Caveat: All of my BBE-era G&Ls were built before the shift to CNC production, so they may not be completely representative of what's leaving the factory now.

That's why I would like to actually play one and see if it is in fact true. Just as I would love to play a early 60's strat.

When I was picking one of my bass amps from from being serviced last year, I checked it out in the shop with an '80 L-1000 they had hanging on the wall. Then I tried a stock 1964 Precision that they had. If I had been blindfolded, I don't think I could have told the difference by feel alone. The neck profiles were identical as far as I could tell (and I am very, very picky about bass necks). There was no mistaking the sounds, though. That large-hex MFD hit the amp's input harder (with very sweet results!), and had an overall fuller sound. That was through a stock '82 Fender Bassman Ten, which tends to emphasize the mids. I'm not sure if I would have noticed the difference as much on another amp, say a B-15 that has to be dialed back to handle bass MFDs.

FWIW, I was not tempted in the least to buy that L-1000. I had tried it before, and it just didn't sound as good to my ears as my 'hog L-1000. I suspect my 'hog would have stomped all over the '64 Precision.

The creator/owner of the design can't be accused of knocking off a design. Well, maybe legally since he sold the design rights and company name. But you get the drift.

IMO, most of the debate is just about the "brand". Every time I see the "it's not a real Fender" argument, I can't help picturing a "TM" and copyright mark after "Fender".

G & L's are more Fender because they are made at Leo's shop on Fender ave just like the original Leo Fender guitars , can't get any better than that

I know I've posted this before, but my response to the "it's not a Fender" argument about my old G&Ls is:

"My guitar was designed by Leo Fender, and hand-built in his factory by craftsmen he hired and trained, with Leo sitting in the next room. Your guitar was built under license to the corporation that bought the name Fender from the corporation that bought the name Fender from the corporation that bought the name Fender."

Ken

Edited to clean up some sloppiness and bad grammar.

Thank you KenC for sharing your personal experience with older and newer G&Ls. Very informative to me and much appreciated.

The first few years of BBE G&Ls had necks very similar to Leo era in terms of size/shape. They drifted away from that over the years. Whether that is plus or minus is personal preference. Personally, I prefer the early BBEs and Leo era necks, of which were similar to a 1a, or slightly larger but with the same gradual taper, not the extreme taper used on G&Ls non-1a necks now. I also wish they still offered the 25" radius.

VW makes a beetle, Porsche makes a 911

Not to belabor it, but that was exactly my point. That is exactly how I felt about my Fenders once I got a G&L. Fender makes a beetle, G&L makes a 911.

But the comparison isn't true because the 911 never set out to be like a beetle. And while we think the G&L versions of the T and S type guitars are superior they only came into being in order to satisfy the market demand for the Fender(tm) designs.

I don't think we're belaboring it at all. Just discussing, right? This seems to me like as good place as any for the discussion. Unless the OP protest because we're too far OT

The creator/owner of the design can't be accused of knocking off a design. Well, maybe legally since he sold the design rights and company name. But you get the drift.

But Leo did not make these (ASAT and Legacy).

IMO, most of the debate is just about the "brand". Every time I see the "it's not a real Fender" argument, I can't help picturing a "TM" and copyright mark after "Fender".

Which is closer, by design, to the 50s and 60s design of the Tele and Strat? FMIC's current product or G&Ls? FMIC by a long shot. Outside of basic body shape the current G&Ls have different electronics, bridges and some important dimensions (e.g. nut width). No G&L's ship with a screw in trem arm, or the six screw bridge, all have a bathtub route and the 'wrong' headstock, etc etc...

Mind you this is not about what we prefer, or which is better, but which is more period authentic.

G & L's are more Fender because they are made at Leo's shop on Fender ave just like the original Leo Fender guitars , can't get any better than that

Unless what you want is a guitar that looks, feels and operates like the guitars Leo made in the 50s and 60s.

I know I've posted this before, but my response to the "it's not a Fender" argument about my old G&Ls is:
"My guitar was designed by Leo Fender, and hand-built in his factory by craftsmen he hired and trained, with Leo sitting in the next room. Your guitar was built under license to the corporation that bought the name Fender from the corporation that bought the name Fender from the corporation that bought the name Fender."

But you guys arguing the wrong point, or missing the point of the fenderites entirely.

These guitars are more Clarence Leo, because they are made on Fullerton Ave, in Leo's shop.

Ok, thats like saying if I had Picasso's paint brush and studio I could paint like him?

The FMIC T and S models are more accurate to the design that Fender(tm) was building pre-CBS than the G&L models.

This is demonstrably true, but Leo himself considered those designs inferior to his designs at G&L.

But the basic points of each camp's arguments are not exactly invertible.

I agree with the sentimentality that G&L is closer to Leo's (and we should include George and Dale) heart than FMIC. And I generally prefer G&L to Fender.

But, if the goal is to evangelize for g&l then I think it is worth objectively analyzing the opposition's arguments rather than simply discounting them as baseless fanboys who are blinded by the FMIC marketing machine. That sort of elitism spells doom.

But BBE/G&L could also do a better job getting the word out there. They cut back their advertising, cut out their clinic program, and depend on word-of-mouth to get the word out. Well guess what? There's a lot of competition out there now. And it's no longer viable to just make a good product anymore. You have to really understand how to market what you've got. Otherwise, you're making just another "boutique" product that very few will experience.

My 2¢
Will

Couldn't agree more. Marketing is a constant necessity and the methods used have to keep up with the whims of consumers. Ray Barbee's comment about Hamer is on the money too.

I acquired my first G&L (used USA Legacy) this year and after I bought it, I went to the G&L website and was pretty disappointed in it. The first thing to hit me was a splash screen for a '2012 Special Collection'! WTH? 2012? What better store window do you have to keep things fresh and up to date than your website? How about 'new for 2014', or 'coming in 2015'? Why would anyone re-visit their webpage if they haven't updated it since 2012? (I know they have, I am just making a statement). In the ADHD age where 2 seconds is an eternity, you might not get another chance to get their attention.

And the audio clips? Why are there so few? These are things that cost next to nothing to implement. When someone hits your website with a bad case of GAS, you need to feed the frenzy.

Eighty percent of all business fail due to poor business practices, not because of poor product or service.

Guitars are a FUN business. If I was to market for a guitar company, there are so many ideas and options available that would make it an exciting and fun job. Guitar of the day – new finishes – colors – sound bites, artist of the month, show your G&L in action, new talent contests…. With facebook, twitter, websites, these things are painless and create instant traffic and interest.

There are no dealers in my area (the one shown on the G&L website closed about 6 years ago!) so had I not found the used one by chance, I would have opted for another Fender. After getting my guitar set up properly, it is a pleasure to play and obviously well made with quality materials. I will certainly be looking to G&L for my next purchase. Maybe a Comanche…. hmmm…. or a Z3… or a Fallout….

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, not intended to be. The company I work for has to be very conservative in its marketing and I would jump at the chance to do some fun work once in a while. Guess I got carried away!

Other than 6 screw trems, which are mostly on the import line, what dimensions on FMIC guitars are the same as Pre-CBS Fenders? Not the nut, not the neck shape, not the dimensions etc. Of the actual pre-CBS Fenders I've been able to get my hands on, pretty much all of them felt extremely similar to Leo era G&L necks. That continued through the early BBE Era to. Not a single one felt like what FMIC was putting out, including their 'reissues'. Only recently have I seen some necks from FMIC that had a similar feel, and those were imports.

Other than 6 screw trems, which are mostly on the import line, what dimensions on FMIC guitars are the same as Pre-CBS Fenders?

Just some quick thoughts:

1 routing FMIC still SSS (G&L bathtub, Leo actually never endorsed this afaict)
2 neck pocket dimensions - G&L is bigger
3 can you get any G&Ls with nitro finishes?
4 skunk stripe
5 location of TR adjustment
6 fingerboard thickness
7 FMIC Ri's use the slim 'D' profile, this was the most common strat shape since '58 on I think
8 radius (G&L does option 7.25, but Fender has this and the 9" variant)
9 volume & tone controls
10 stamped saddles
11 headstock shapes
12 ashtray bridge on teles

there are probably others things...

I spent a lot of time this summer researching Strats and all the various mods. Seems everyone swaps out pickups and makes other wiring mods to their Strats. Even Fender uses different wiring in different models. Then I stumbled across a post that compared the the Fender TBX to the G&L PTB. Another post implied that people don't generally feel compelled to swap out their pickups and do wiring mods to their G&Ls. From there I learned the Leo story and stopped discounting G&L when I saw them. In fact, I started seeking them out. I found one at a local store that also had a wall full of Fender Strats, so I was able to do side by side comparisons. I think a guitar finds you rather than you finding a guitar. The neck profile was different than I was use to, but I thought the quality and feel of this 2003 G&L Tribute Legacy was better than anything on the Fender wall under $1,000. I did not compare it to anything more expensive. I came home with the G&L and haven't felt the need to make any mods.

Now for me, I'm not chasing some authentic sound from the 60s. I simply want a quality instrument to make "new" music with. G&L obviously has a brilliant pedigree which makes me more comfortable with the relatively unknown brand.

I heard an interview with Pink Floyd who said something to the effect that they would never tour again because they didn't want to be a tribute band. That if they played their old stuff they'd be a tribute band to their old selves.

Nothing made in 2013 is an authentic Tele or Strat in the sense that they are all copies or reproductions of earlier designs. In many ways we have much better quality instruments at much more affordable prices than at any point in history, due in large part to modern manufacturing techniques and competition. We all also own multiple guitars now when we may not have 50 years ago. That's part of the fun.

Yes there are differences. For a guitar to find you, you have to play a few and see which one speaks to you. To do that G&L has to get them into the stores, not just have authorized dealers who can order them for you. In fact, I would encourage G&L to get them into the same stores as Fenders so people can see the quality side by side, first hand. G&L compares very favorably to Fenders. Plus, that poster of Leo with the story goes a long way to tearing down buyer resistance.

On to the lack of parts availability objection. I don't see it as much of a problem because an authentic neck or body from Fender runs half the price of a whole guitar, which may be all a used guitar is worth anyway. And then you still really end up with a partscaster, and they never play the same. Personally, I'd rather part out what isn't broken and buy another complete guitar that I can test drive and fall in love with all over again. On the other hand, I don't really understand the resistance to making parts available either. At those rates, there's got to be profit in it, and it would go a long way to easing some potential buyers concerns. If they don't want to sell parts outright, they can follow the Taylor model where you can send your guitar to the factory for repairs, but to just say no, you can't get a new neck, does scare some people off.

Last edited by dougl on Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Great discussion, there are some good points in this article. http://gtroblq.blogspot.ca/2011/08/fender-or-g.html .
I think its been posted before, but I here it is again.

Interesting link that Glvourot posted and a lot of truth in it I think. It mirrors my sentiment about the Quality of G&L and even though I still have a mess of Fenders I am down to about half of what I had. This has been a fun thread!-- Darwin

That's a great article.

A recurring theme we see everywhere is the lack of G&L guitars people can actually put their hands on.

I wonder if (they probably have) G&L has/would consider making two standard, mass produced USA built models. A legacy and an asat. No options, just standard #1 necks, maple fingerboard on the asat and rosewood for the legacy. Have the employees vote for the body color each year.

A couple standard models might make G&L easier for retailers to get and it would improve exposure.

If by doing this they could have a slightly lower priced model then would be great too. I think G&L are fairly priced now, but how much markup is due to the very custom order nature? If at volume you could drop MSRP by 20% then you're probably competing (or obliterating) with some upper end MIM Fender offerings.

That's a great article.

A recurring theme we see everywhere is the lack of G&L guitars people can actually put their hands on.

I wonder if (they probably have) G&L has/would consider making two standard, mass produced USA built models. A legacy and an asat. No options, just standard #1 necks, maple fingerboard on the asat and rosewood for the legacy. Have the employees vote for the body color each year.

A couple standard models might make G&L easier for retailers to get and it would improve exposure.

If by doing this they could have a slightly lower priced model then would be great too. I think G&L are fairly priced now, but how much markup is due to the very custom order nature? If at volume you could drop MSRP by 20% then you're probably competing (or obliterating) with some upper end MIM Fender offerings.

See this post in the G&L Knowledgebase: USA Budget Models around 2007 ish?.