You honestly think the finish makes a difference?My spec preferences are for tonal purposes rather than functional or aesthetic bs, so big no-no's for me are poly or oil finishes. The former seems to always make the guitar sound choked, homogenous and stripped of lots of good tonal nuances and responsiveness in expressive in playing, while the latter seems to typically sound dry and lacking in harmonics and good connection between notes on leadwork. Ideally I seem to like shellac finish guitars, but since most vintage guitars use nitro I go with that as the next best finish option for tone. IMO it shouldn't be acceptable for guitars that are considered high quality to be using poly finish, but sadly most of them still use it
Other must not-have/tone sucker specs to me are Floyd or Kahlar bridges vs bridges that allow the strings to go through the body
Also I never heard a basswood guitar yet with remotely good tone nor an ash guitar I liked other than on teles and maybe a few Strats here and there. The best overall body tone wood imo for humbucker guitars is good Honduran mahogany (just hard to rival) and others I still have are alder, Spruce (most tonally complex wood ime), rosewood (yes whole body), Paduak, Poplar and would like some in the future in limba and port Orford cedar or Mediterranean cypress
Other than that not too many strong preferences. I like tall, fat frets. I like scalloped ones too. I like stainless steel frets also, but not a must have for me
110% yes. I know some may think it’s crazy, but try for yourself comparing lots of other guitars with otherwise fairly similar specs other than finish type and you get a feel for it like with anything else. IME it’s very apparent. The biggest differences tends to be on lead work with lots of milky/expressive vibrato’s. On a good shellac finish guitar or nitro (but a bit less so than shellac) you hear on the vibratos much more complexity in tone where all these nuances and extra overtones come out, while on poly guitars (even the best vintage ones I’ve had) it comes off in comparison choked sounding without much extra to squeeze outta the notes with vibrato or even when letting powerchords ring out (less detail), so it just comes off bland and uninspiring comparatively. Oil finish also doesn’t sound as good imo (too dry, lacking harmonics and note connection). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the fact that most high end guitars (that most guys on here are really into) use poly is imo unacceptable and comedic to me that many of them will be so meticulous everywhere but in tone related details on a musical instrument of all things LOLYou honestly think the finish makes a difference?
You and I would get along just fine ?Generally -
- 1 11/16 nut
- Prefer 12 inch radius
- Thicker neck, something with some meat. Not baseball but not paper thin. I'm cramping up just thinking about thin necks.
- Prefer Ebony boards but can live with Rosewood on my PRS's and Gibsons.
- Prefer Jumbo frets but can and do live with PRS and Gibson frets.
- Prefer set or neck through but can and do live with bolt on.
You would hate every guitar I own ?Hate big baseball bat '59 LP necks.
Hate recessed Floyd Roses.
Not a fan of compound radius fingerboards.
Finally learned I prefer rosewood fingerboards.
Oil doesn't help with moisture content.I prefer rosewood boards as well.
I've never owned a truly high-end guitar with an ebony board, but my best-sounding guitars have always had rosewood boards and the ebony ones have usually been thinner-sounding compared to rosewood ones.
I also hate how they sometimes crack for no reason even if I oil them every odd string change.