Are G&L S style guitars bigger than theirfender counterpart?

[Silverman]

I was lucky enough to find a fallout used the other day, and I am super impressed with the quality.

This has gotten me interested in the brand. I while back, I played a legacy, or something like it, and it seems like it was bigger, or chunkier than a Strat. is this my mind playing tricks on me, or is there a documented difference in the size of these 2 brands?

[DanDoulogos]

The Legacy which Leo designed based on his previous design (the stratocaster) is indeed larger, though not by much. It matters if you're buying a case for a Legacy - you can't use most Stat cases - they're just too small.

[John C]

I was lucky enough to find a fallout used the other day, and I am super impressed with the quality.

This has gotten me interested in the brand. I while back, I played a legacy, or something like it, and it seems like it was bigger, or chunkier than a Strat. is this my mind playing tricks on me, or is there a documented difference in the size of these 2 brands?

It depends on the Strat model - some Strats are more contoured than G&Ls wind up being so the G&L will feel a bit "bulkier" than say an Eric Johnson signature or a 50s reissue Strat that represent some of the deepest contours that Fender has done. G&Ls do have longer headstocks so as Dan says they won't fit in a Fender case.

Regarding the body shape - G&L didn't move to a "true" Strat shape until late 1990/early 1991 - shortly before Leo passed away - so who knows whether he pushed for the change from the original rounder/stubbier horn shape that Leo & George developed in 1980 (for the F-100) or if it came from someone else in the organization. It's my understanding that Leo was forced to really scale back his participation in the company during the last months (year?) of his life as his Parkinson's worsened. At any rate they went to the "true" Strat-shape at the time when Fender's American Standard models were less contoured than the vintage models so it would probably make sense that the G&Ls followed along with their contouring.

[neutralomen]

Biggest problem with the Legacy shape, IMO, is that it's not as rounded at the corners. Fender has a specific roundness. I believe Fender usually does a 1/2'' "radius" on the corners. G&L DEFINITELY does something sharper, and IMO it makes them look like knockoffs. It gives it a "cheap" look to my eye. To me, the roundness makes the overall silhouette of the guitar look proportional and pleasing at many distances. It "reduces well" if you will.

From far away, Legacies look like strats, and from close up, they look disproportionally sharp at the edges. This has always bugged me and it's the main reason I only buy ASAT body shapes from G&L.

I have an ASAT and an ASAT bass which are phenomenal instruments.

I really think they should adopt a 1/2'' roundness on the corners of all their contour body instruments.

[Danley]

Sort of wish they were secure enough only to use the Leo-era shapes (SC, F100 etc.) ASAT is ok I guess

[Craig]

Biggest problem with the Legacy shape, IMO, is that it's not as rounded at the corners. Fender has a specific roundness. I believe Fender usually does a 1/2'' "radius" on the corners. G&L DEFINITELY does something sharper, and IMO it makes them look like knockoffs. It gives it a "cheap" look to my eye. To me, the roundness makes the overall silhouette of the guitar look proportional and pleasing at many distances. It "reduces well" if you will.

From far away, Legacies look like strats, and from close up, they look disproportionally sharp at the edges. This has always bugged me and it's the main reason I only buy ASAT body shapes from G&L.

I have an ASAT and an ASAT bass which are phenomenal instruments.

I really think they should adopt a 1/2'' roundness on the corners of all their contour body instruments.

I suspect you have looking at Legacy's and S-500's with body binding (wood, white and black plastic).
See: Current G&L Guitar Body Shapes (U.S. models)
Also, see this Gabe post: S500s: 1984 vs. 1994 vs. 2004???

Hope this helps.

[neutralomen]

no def. not. back in 2006, i was going to get an s-500, and one of the reasons i didnt was because, even as a stock contour body, it was too sharp around the corners. it didnt look right to me. it looked 95% strat, which is uncanny valley.

the horns on legacys and s500s from that era were slightly taller and narrower as well i think.

i was recently told by g&l that newer legacies conform more to a classic s type in proportions.

[Silverman]

What a shame. In my opinion, the regular strat body is a tad big as it is - throw the lack of contouring into it and the G&L s styles become a no-go for me. A bummer because my US fallout is a thing of beauty and is quickly becoming my favorite guitar.

[neutralomen]

What a shame. In my opinion, the regular strat body is a tad big as it is - throw the lack of contouring into it and the G&L s styles become a no-go for me. A bummer because my US fallout is a thing of beauty and is quickly becoming my favorite guitar.

Like I said. go check out a new legacy and compare it to a strat. they're much closer these days if not identical. I was going on my experience with a 2006

[Danley]

I don't think a G&L needs to be a Strat; I prefer the era before they drifted away from their original body shapes anyway.