70'S Strats, how big were they?

robgilmo

I take it they were quite heavy because of being made of Ash? But where the bodies any bigger?

webrthomson

I've got 76 - other than the headstock nowhere that I've noticed is obviously larger - I'd also say that I dont feel it's all that heavy as well

crunchman

robgilmo said:

I take it they were quite heavy because of being made of Ash? But where the bodies any bigger?

About the same size.  The body contours don't match the pre-CBS ones so that gets some people worked up.

The oversized headstock will add a little bit of weight, but the main problem with that headstock is that it just looks horrible.

The main reason they weigh as much as they do is the timber used for the construction.  It's just very dense.

robgilmo

Would 10 pounds be around the mark? Also the contours , did they change them when Mex strats came along?

webrthomson

Mine is just a hair over 8 pounds - so heavier that a moden strat but not by that much, certainly less that all of my Les Pauls, modern or otherwise.

robgilmo

The thing is this Aria that I have just feels big, and I am trying to figure out why, my old Mex Strat that I sold from memory seemed a lot smaller, thinner maybe? This one is 45mm thick, thats the same thickness as my Baja Tele. My old Strat just seemed to be thinner and smaller.

crunchman

webrthomson said:

Mine is just a hair over 8 pounds - so heavier that a moden strat but not by that much, certainly less that all of my Les Pauls, modern or otherwise.

I've not played a huge number of 70's examples, but I remember playing a 79 once that was ridiculously heavy.  I think the earlier 70s ones weren't so bad, apart from the ugly headstocks.

All the modern Mexican Strats I've played have been much better guitars than that 79 monstrosity.

WezV

Ash is almost always a heavy dense wood.  Think of a baseball bat

Like any wood this varies by environment.   The stuff that grows in wetter conditions gets bigger cells full of water. as it dries this leaves more air space in the wood , so its lighter.  Hence the term "swamp ash", which you normally expect to be a lot lighter than your standard Ash even though the species is often the same.   

Most woodworkers actually rejected this wood as its not as strong and a bit more  awkward to work.   fine for a guitar body but not so good for  a chair or a house.   It probably would have been a budget choice that led Leo to use it as much as anything... it was dirt cheap.   


Fender got stuck with the heavy stuff towards the end of the 60's as lighter stuff became harder to find.   No one would have been purposely planting ash trees in wet lands as there was no money in it.

robgilmo

I dunno, Im quite liking this , apart from it feels huge. It might just be me though.

webrthomson

crunchman said:

webrthomson said:

Mine is just a hair over 8 pounds - so heavier that a moden strat but not by that much, certainly less that all of my Les Pauls, modern or otherwise.

I've not played a huge number of 70's examples, but I remember playing a 79 once that was ridiculously heavy.  I think the earlier 70s ones weren't so bad, apart from the ugly headstocks.

All the modern Mexican Strats I've played have been much better guitars than that 79 monstrosity.

Yeah both Fender and Gibson produced some horrors in the late 70's - my issues with the strats of that era are the stupid three bolt neck system and the crap pickups.

robgilmo said:

The thing is this Aria that I have just feels big, and I am trying to figure out why, my old Mex Strat that I sold from memory seemed a lot smaller, thinner maybe? This one is 45mm thick, thats the same thickness as my Baja Tele. My old Strat just seemed to be thinner and smaller.

45mm is on the money, thats the same thickness as mine.

JezWynd

robgilmo said:

I dunno, Im quite liking this , apart from it feels huge. It might just be me though.

Extra thick poly finish maybe?

robgilmo

It could be, it is quite thick by the looks of it, It just seems bulky compared to my old Strat. I thought because it was a 70's Strat copy perhaps 70's strats were bulky too. Did 70's strats have one piece necks?

ICBM

I do feel that 70s Strats are very slightly larger, particularly around the upper horn area - the outline seems slightly wider and not as 'sleek' - that said, I've never measured it and it could be just an impression created by the poorer contouring.

The larger headstock does weigh more - about 30% if I remember correctly - because it's not only larger but slightly thicker. This extra mass does definitely change the tone in my opinion, by altering the resonance of the neck - I find the big-head Strats sound more open and deeper, maybe slightly more scooped; small-head ones are more focused and midrangy. Not a big difference but when you play a lot of them you may notice it. I personally prefer the big-head tone, so I have come to like the shape.

That Aria is a brute if it's over 9lb though - that's up in late-70s territory for a Strat, when they just felt and sounded like a dead weight. Whether that was only due to the extra mass or the ridiculously thick (actually called Thick Skin) finish is debatable - I once stripped one down to the wood and oil-finished it, but I also recontoured the body, and which reduced the mass the most I don't know! It made a huge difference to both the weight and the sound - but I had also replaced the alloy bridge with a steel one, so the tone change is still not conclusively down to the weight or the finish.

I have played many 70s Strats which weighed over 9lb, and I think a few over 10lb... the worst was a 1980 candy apple red 'The Strat' which felt like it was made from uranium or something - it felt heavier than a heavy Les Paul, but that may have just been down to expectation... we didn't actually weigh guitars in those days.

robgilmo

ICBM said:

I do feel that 70s Strats are very slightly larger, particularly around the upper horn area - the outline seems slightly wider and not as 'sleek' - that said, I've never measured it and it could be just an impression created by the poorer contouring.

The larger headstock does weigh more - about 30% if I remember correctly - because it's not only larger but slightly thicker. This extra mass does definitely change the tone in my opinion, by altering the resonance of the neck - I find the big-head Strats sound more open and deeper, maybe slightly more scooped; small-head ones are more focused and midrangy. Not a big difference but when you play a lot of them you may notice it. I personally prefer the big-head tone, so I have come to like the shape.

That Aria is a brute if it's over 9lb though - that's up in late-70s territory for a Strat, when they just felt and sounded like a dead weight. Whether that was only due to the extra mass or the ridiculously thick (actually called Thick Skin) finish is debatable - I once stripped one down to the wood and oil-finished it, but I also recontoured the body, and which reduced the mass the most I don't know! It made a huge difference to both the weight and the sound - but I had also replaced the alloy bridge with a steel one, so the tone change is still not conclusively down to the weight or the finish.

I have played many 70s Strats which weighed over 9lb, and I think a few over 10lb... the worst was a 1980 candy apple red 'The Strat' which felt like it was made from uranium or something - it felt heavier than a heavy Les Paul, but that may have just been down to expectation... we didn't actually weigh guitars in those days.

It is a brute, its weird playing it because it feels big a heavy but the neck is really lovely and feels very refined, really smooth to play but still a nice handful, its certainly different than my last strat.

ESBlonde

I have one of the Canadian rock maple Aria PE1000s from 77/78 and it's quite heavy. I also have a 1976 Strat that is all the things people deride them for, like sloppy neck socket, 3 bolt micro tilt neck, big headstock, poor contour, thick poly finish and heavy. But it has that sound that sets it on a pedestal for my ears. Beacuse of the Aria I never noticed the strat as heavy for years when I gigged the two of them side by side. I don't think the overall dimensions are significantly different, but the contours are. It's just the timber available at the time was not as good as before and word at the time was the Japanese makers had stockpiled the better timbers for themselves, that may be myth but it was the word on the street at the time.

JamieWakeham

As another data point - my 1978 Strat is 4.74kg (just over 10lbs 8oz) and a shade under 45mm thick.  It is an absolute beast to wear; my Les Paul is 3.72kg and qualifies as my lighter guitar!

Having said that, the pickups are really very good. 

ICBM

JamieWakeham said:

As another data point - my 1978 Strat is 4.74kg (just over 10lbs 8oz) and a shade under 45mm thick.  It is an absolute beast to wear; my Les Paul is 3.72kg and qualifies as my lighter guitar!

Having said that, the pickups are really very good. 

They have a very variable reputation, but I kept them in the one I stripped and changed the bridge on, and they sounded fantastic as well. I’m sure the shrill tone they’re often thought to have is more to do with the rest of the guitar.

Henrytwang

70s ash body Stratocasters are usually quite heavy as the wood used for the bodies was very dense. During the decade Fender seemed to reduce the amount of wood removed for the arm and tummy cuts which didn’t help Back in the 70s many players thought that sustain was the thing and thought that heavy guitars sustained better many of them fitted brass nuts and other hardware which made them even heavier .  We all hated the large headstock but I don’t think it added that much to the weight, oddly enough I now look back with some nostalgia for them. My 1979 Strat weighs a ton but sounds and plays great, I also love my old 1974 Tele and it’s a light weight guitar. The heavy Fender thing isn’t just restricted to the 70s guitars, I used to have a Baja Tele with an ash body that was extremely heavy, these days I tend to look for swamp ash if I’m buying an ash guitar, it’s much lighter and usually sounds better to my ears.

ICBM

Henrytwang said:

We all hated the large headstock but I don’t think it added that much to the weight

Not overall it doesn't - but it does to the headstock, which is important to the resonance of the neck and hence the tone.

sweepy

Along with cast bridge saddles a wonky neck joint, tuners that sometimes worked, stupid 3 bolt neck they were fit for boat anchors, some were actually heavier than the Les Pauls of that era and they could be shocking too. Guitars from the 70's should be viewed as curiosities and avoided at all costs imho

ICBM

sweepy said:

Along with cast bridge saddles a wonky neck joint, tuners that sometimes worked, stupid 3 bolt neck they were fit for boat anchors, some were actually heavier than the Les Pauls of that era and they could be shocking too. Guitars from the 70's should be viewed as curiosities and avoided at all costs imho

Some are good. A smaller proportion than in most other eras for sure, but I wouldn't write off the entire decade just because the Big Two made a lot of bad design and manufacturing decisions - some other companies weren't affected at all.

What I don't really agree with is the pricing of so many of them - including some of the worst boat-anchor Gibsons and Fenders, and the odder/budget Gibsons - as 'vintage' guitars with associated price tags. They are the very guitars that started the whole 'vintage' thing in the first place by being so crap compared to the 60s ones.

When you see a late-70s Fender listed at more than the price of a new Custom Shop one you know something is wrong.