Members Loobs Posted February 27, 2011 Members Share Posted February 27, 2011 I think you're exaggerating the difference between the SCs and other offerings in G&L's line. Same woods, same pickups, same bridges, tuners. The finishes on them for the most part look just as good. There are control plates, no there aren't any pickguards. But I don't think paying $1000 for such a well made, great sounding guitar is extortionate at all. This finish looks great to me, and also the neck finishing is way way better than what you'd see on many 70s entry-level Fender guitars: I can see why people would think that the SC-1/2/3 is a lesser guitar but I have no doubt they are every bit as well made as ASATs/Legacys etc A Tele is a very easy to manufacture, slap bodied guitar with no contouring either....what's the difference.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimash Posted February 27, 2011 Members Share Posted February 27, 2011 It is painted with automobile paint. It doesn't look that good.And you can get a shiny USA Tele for $800 .When you ask "What's the difference" you are ignoring the difference that the manufacturer intended.G&L may just be taking advantage of a market niche here.If there was no difference they would ask for $1500.If there was no difference , the original Mustangs and Duos would have been equal in price and performance to a strat or Tele. They were/are not.Using the parts you have laying around already to produce a cheaper guitar by making a cheap body and one-piece neck is valid. Saying it is as good or valuable as the more premium models is just perverse. A Bronco Bass has the same materials, parts and pickup as a Sting-type Tele or P-Bass. No one would argue that they are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.