In defence of the American Original

[Larry Mal]

Good points. I think I get what you mean about the marketing. They market the flatter board and taller frets on the AO's as "improved/easier playability" then how would they market a change back to vintage spec other than "it's like how it used to be"?

My guess is the AO's will be tweaked in their era specific specs in terms of styling. Currently the 60's Tele is basically the '64 Tele with binding and the aforementioned radius and fret changes. So maybe they'll push more to the transition era aesthetics? AO Jazzmaster is based on the AV65 so maybe they'll push it more to early 60's looks? Dunno. But that's my guess. It'll be mostly cosmetic changes. Maybe they'll flip to different pickups I don't know. Not sure how else they can tweak the lineup without moving even further away from the vintage vibe they're supposed to be channeling.

Not sure, either... I mean, how to you persuade people that a product is new and improved even while hewing to the design aesthetic of the past?

Fender has been playing around with other magnets and overall different pickup designs. They see that there is a market out there for specialized pickups and they are responding in a good way. For instance, I talked about the American Special vs. the American Performer, and the pickups there were Texas Specials (hot wound) and now Yosemite (more vintage voicing, with Alnico 4 in the bridge pickup of the Telecaster).

I like that a lot. So if I had to guess, maybe Fender will have a hotter wind 70's era Jazzmaster pickup or something to replace the '65 Pure Vintage. I mean, probably not that, but something like that. That'll get it a new name, a product refreshment, and some press.

Fact is, we are talking about a mature product that really is as good as it can be within the limitations of what the market will accept.

Fender has a lot of guitar necks out there, and they are all absolutely excellent in their own way. What else is there to do except rotate them in and out, you know?

[Larry Mal]

I cannot imagine a group of people more successfully marketed towards other than guitar players.

This is probably the most accurate statement I've read in a long long time

Right? Let's look at the premise of this thread, apparently there are people out there that don't accept the modern twists on a vintage instrument because "that ain't how they done it".

And there is another group of people that will recite the supposed deficiencies of the guitars that made Fender a worldwide name in the first place as if it was their own thinking.

When the truth is, really, both of these products are very good. In a normal business environment, the product would evolve and change over time. I can't think of any market as big as the guitar market where nostalgia rules as much as it does, forcing companies to simultaneously re-create their past products even while attempting to explain why their new, ever so slightly changed current versions are actually better.

Coke and New Coke is the only example I can immediately think of.

I don't really care a lot, it's just funny... seeing Fender contort to explain why their new guitars are better than the old ones has always been fascinating to me. I mean, if they are really better, then why don't you just make those and save yourself a lot of trouble? No company wants to have to produce more parts than they need to.

And if the modern Fenders aren't good enough to actually persuade a large portion of your own customers that they're better, then why not just make the legendary instruments that you are known for?

[Squareball]

I had to google the American Original to find out which exact model the OP was talking about.
It's gotten so confusing over the last years with the new model names, Ever since they stopped using the words "Vintage" and "standard".

So, first there was the American Professional, then the American Original and now there is the American Pro II.
I can't wait for the NEW Original
Reminds me of this :

https://youtu.be/PROS7aKoZuY

TBH I didn't see anyone on this forum really dissing the AO models much. - And the Original 60s Jazzmaster RW OCT got a lot of love if I remember.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I had to google the American Original to find out which exact model the OP was talking about.
It's gotten so confusing over the last years with the new model names, Ever since they stopped using the words "Vintage" and "standard".

So, first there was the American Professional, then the American Original and now there is the American Pro II.
I can't wait for the NEW Original
Reminds me of this :

https://youtu.be/PROS7aKoZuY

TBH I didn't see anyone on this forum really dissing the AO models much. - And the Original 60s Jazzmaster RW OCT got a lot of love if I remember.

Oh totally. The naming of the series is kinda stupid. Interesting thing: if you look inside the pickup cavities at the little barcode stickers Fender leaves in there they say "American Classic" so the series was probably supposed to be called "American Classic". That would have made a lot more sense and been better than "Original" from a marketing perspective.

I'm just saying the AO's are phenomenally good guitars. I think anyone who hasn't played one and has written them off out of hand because of the published specs really should wait until they have one in their hands to pass judgement. I've got an 08 Wildwood Thin Skin Tele and my AO's are better quality guitars (AND they have a thinner finish than the "Thin Skins").

[JSett]

I don't understand why Fender don't just have a permanent run on certain historic popular models and then run their weird 'alternatives' alongside. McDonalds put all all sorts of different burgers each year to keep their menus 'fresh' but you bet your bottom dollar you'll ALWAYS be able to get a Big Mac and some chicken nuggets!

If they just committed to a solid, definitive, version of each guitar and just produced them consistently they'd keep everyone happy.

a 50's Tele
a 60's Tele
a 50's Strat
a 60's Strat
a mid-60's JM
a mid-60's Jaguar

All in period-correct specs. Always in the main colours, always in nitro. Maybe each year offer 3 different finishes to mix it up. Raise prices in line with inflation. They know this shit sells - so keep selling it. They already have the tooling.

[Embenny]

Oh totally. The naming of the series is kinda stupid. Interesting thing: if you look inside the pickup cavities at the little barcode stickers Fender leaves in there they say "American Classic" so the series was probably supposed to be called "American Classic". That would have made a lot more sense and been better than "Original" from a marketing perspective.

Oh boy, really? That would have been a marketing misstep IMO.

American Original was a smarter name, given that they released while there were Classic Player MIMs. There were also Classic Series 60's Lacquer MIMs.

They'd have to be like, "No, no, this is an AMERICAN Classic, based on 60's specs, which has lacquer, but not the Classic Series 60's Lacquer, which isn't American. And it's more classic in specs than a Classic Player, because it has Lacquer, but has more modern specs than the Classic Series 60's Lacquer, so it's less Classic than that. But still lacquer."

A real Xbox One/Xbox One X/Xbox Series X situation.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Oh totally. The naming of the series is kinda stupid. Interesting thing: if you look inside the pickup cavities at the little barcode stickers Fender leaves in there they say "American Classic" so the series was probably supposed to be called "American Classic". That would have made a lot more sense and been better than "Original" from a marketing perspective.

Oh boy, really? That would have been a marketing misstep IMO.

American Original was a smarter name, given that they released while there were Classic Player MIMs. There were also Classic Series 60's Lacquer MIMs.

They'd have to be like, "No, no, this is an AMERICAN Classic, based on 60's specs, which has lacquer, but not the Classic Series 60's Lacquer, which isn't American. And it's more classic in specs than a Classic Player, because it has Lacquer, but has more modern specs than the Classic Series 60's Lacquer, so it's less Classic than that. But still lacquer."

A real Xbox One/Xbox One X/Xbox Series X situation.

I still think Fender screwed up with the naming of the American Vintage series. It was incredibly confusing when they went from American Vintage Reissue to just American Vintage. There's people to this day that have no idea the entire line was redone starting with the 2013 model year.

[hexes]

I’m a hack and can’t appreciate the difference between radius like many people. I have had everything from 7.25 to 10-16 compound.

Fret size, however, I hate anything jumbo. give me mosrite, rickenbacker, and vintage fender wire any day.

My JM has the 9.5” radius and i think slightly bigger frets, and compared to my 7.25” vintage feel jag, they both play well and equally fast to my hands. i might do more tapping stuff on the JM..

my only complaint is the bridge on the AO Jag. it feels like the same poorly machined rattling mess as the import squiers. otherwise seems like a great instrument.

[Larry Mal]

I used to be fussy about the neck profile and radius, I basically learned how to really play guitar on a Jazzmaster with vintage specs, and all I knew was that other guitars (other than my acoustics) didn't feel anywhere near as good. I would buy Gibsons and just sell them on, modern Fenders too, I never knew what the issue was.

Then I learned why it was that I liked the necks, shortly thereafter I got money again and started buying other guitars. I adapted... now I don't care at all, and I can see that a quality neck can be a lot of different things.

I only get fussy because there is such a bias against the vintage Fender necks, and so much absurd voodoo about them, some of it perpetuated by Fender itself. It might not be for everyone, what is, but these days people think it's just a bad neck but it's actually great, and confers some distinct advantages.

But I don't give a shit what Fender puts on their guitars.

[Maggieo]

I used to be fussy about the neck profile and radius, I basically learned how to really play guitar on a Jazzmaster with vintage specs, and all I knew was that other guitars (other than my acoustics) didn't feel anywhere near as good. I would buy Gibsons and just sell them on, modern Fenders too, I never knew what the issue was.

Then I learned why it was that I liked the necks, shortly thereafter I got money again and started buying other guitars. I adapted... now I don't care at all, and I can see that a quality neck can be a lot of different things.

I only get fussy because there is such a bias against the vintage Fender necks, and so much absurd voodoo about them, some of it perpetuated by Fender itself. It might not be for everyone, what is, but these days people think it's just a bad neck but it's actually great, and confers some distinct advantages.

But I don't give a shit what Fender puts on their guitars.

I'm sure this surprises no one, but I'm with Larry. And to me, part of having different guitars is that they each have their own voice and each one adds its own character to my playing. Feature, no bug, IMO.

[BTL]

This is interesting to me in that, when I developed the standard spec for my guitars and basses, the AO spec is pretty much what I came up with on my own. I feel validated.

[Embenny]

This goes back to that point of guitarists being super gullible when it comes to marketing, but the whole concept that 1/16" on the nut or 0.5mm of height difference between E and D strings makes a guitar "suited to solos" or "better for chording" is absolute insanity.

I play instruments with scale lengths from 14" to 35", nut widths from 1.5" to 3", and radii from truly flat to 7.25". It's OK to have a slight preference, but they've indoctrinated people to believe that you "need" certain specs for certain musical uses.

When I gave guitar lessons, if someone had trouble fretting a chord on a 1 11/16" nut guitar, my advice wasn't to go and buy a 1 5/8" nut guitar. It was to practice. If a 7.25" radius guitars was fretting out, I recommended a setup, not the purchase of a 9.5" radius guitar.

There are genuinely people on the Acoustic Guitar Forum who own 1 11/16" nut guitars "for strumming" and 1 3/4" nut guitars "for fingerstyle," as though 1/16" of nut width renders a guitar suited to one particular righthand technique or the other.

I have comfort-based preferences, myself, but this attitude of "Fingers cramped on a Les Paul? Buy a Telecaster!" drives me absolutely insane. Older kids can play 2" nut classical guitars. 5' tall women can play full-scale basses. 6'3" obese men can shred on a mandolin. You just have to practice the instrument is all.

And they've got people on guitar forums preaching this nonsense for them at this point.

I've never met a guitar that, with an appropriate setup, needed anything more than practice to be perfectly playable for the intended style (as long as the instrument is capable of the desired ballpark tone).

Has anyone noticed that they don't build pianos with 97% and 103% scale keys "for different styles" or "for women" or "for bigger guys?" Sure, some electronic keyboards are mini for other reasons, but my point is that pianists just learn how to play the instrument instead of blaming a 3.5% difference in the width of the keyboard for their failures.

Different instruments sound and feel different, sure, and it's fine to want different options, but the internet myths that you "need" certain specs for a given style or stature are ridiculous in the context of just about every other instrument. You'll often hear celtic players repeating the exact same melody or solo on a 13" scale fiddle, a 14" scale mandolin, a 25" scale guitar, and a 27" scale bouzouki with a random distribution of physical player size. Violinists, violists and cellists in an orchestra don't line up according to size, either. It's all marketing nonsense on guitar.

Edit: autocorrect

[Maggieo]

This goes back to that point of guitarists being super gullible when it comes to marketing, but the whole concept that 1/16" on the nut or 0.5mm of height difference between E and D strings makes a guitar "suited to solos" or "better for chording" is absolute insanity.

I play instruments with scale lengths from 14" to 35", nut widths from 1.5" to 3", and radii from truly flat to 7.25". It's OK to have a slight preference, but they've indoctrinated people to believe that you "need" certain specs for certain musical uses.

When I gave guitar lessons, if someone had trouble fretting a chord on a 1 11/16" nut guitar, my advice wasn't to go and buy a 1 5/8" nut guitar. It was to practice. If a 7.25" radius guitars was fretting out, I recommended a setup, not the purchase of a 9.5" radius guitar.

There are genuinely people on the Acoustic Guitar Forum who own 1 11/16" nut guitars "for strumming" and 1 3/4" nut guitars "for fingerstyle," as though 1/16" of nut width renders a guitar suited to one parti ultra righthand technique or the other.

I have comfort-based preferences, myself, but this attitude of "Fingers cramped on a Les Paul? Buy a Telecaster!" drives me absolutely insane. Older kids can play 2" nut classical guitars. 5' tall women can play full-scale basses. 6'3" obese men can shred on a mandolin. You just have to practice the instrument is all.

And they've got people on guitar forums preaching this nonsense for them at this point.

I've never met a guitar that, with an appropriate setup, needed anything more than practice to be perfectly playable for the intended style (as long as the instrument is capable of the desired ballpark tone).

Has anyone noticed that they don't build pianos with 97% and 103% scale keys "for different styles" or "for women" or "for bigger guys?" Sure, some electronic keyboards are mini for other reasons, but my point is that pianists just learn how to play the instrument instead of blaming a 3.5% difference in the width of the keyboard for their failures.

Different instruments sound and feel different, sure, and it's fine to want different options, but the internet myths that you "need" certain specs for a given style or stature are ridiculous in the context of just about every other instrument. You'll often hear celtic players repeating the exact same melody or solo on a 13" scale fiddle, a 14" scale mandolin, a 25" scale guitar, and a 27" scale bouzouki with a random distribution of physical player size. Violinists, violists and cellists in an orchestra don't line up according to size, either. It's all marketing nonsense on guitar.

HEAR, HEAR!!!

Well put, very well put.

[sunburster]

A 9.5'' board really doesn't feel that different from a 7.25'' board.

It does to me. I really like my Ric 360 with the 10" radius, but I definitely prefer my AVRIs with their 7.25".

The frets really aren't that much bigger, either.

Yes they are. I really do not like tall frets on any guitar and won't buy a guitar that has them. Feels like railroad tracks under my fingers.

Nitro isn't some magic elixir that is required for good tone (although the AO series is finished in nitro as far as I know).

Agreed here. I only like nitro for the feel and look of it (including how it ages). But I don't think it has anything to do with the sound.

But sure, maybe if you hold out for a guitar with the exact same specs as your fav guitar hero from the 60s you'll magically become him.

It's really not about that at all (and what's with all the snarkiness??). It's about guitar necks you find the most comfortable to play. You prefer 9.5" and tall frets, I prefer 7.25" and small/vintage frets. Some people prefer other specs. Other people do not have a preference and like pretty much any neck. Simple as that. I've played enough guitars over the past 25 years to know what I prefer by now. But I'm not going to rag on you for liking neck specs different from the ones I prefer.

[Larry Mal]

I can say that I'm sitting here playing my American Special Stratocaster, and it's a wonderful playing guitar. So if there's anyone out there who feels that the American Original won't be good because it deviates from vintage specs, take it from this vintage spec asshole: you'll be fine.