Fender American Vintage II

Loobs

the only thing I chug is a pint of lager

GavRichList

Loobs said:

Oh that's gone? 

Sadly so. Wish I’d hung onto it tbh but cash was needed for churn. 

NCo

chris78 said:

NCo said:

Gerz6558 said:

NCo said:

Geez, that's a used custom shop price...

I guess the colours are nice, especially the fiesta red, but could anyone shed some light into specs that would justify this? Doesn't seem too far off compared to current offering.

I'm not a strat player, but I tried a few Strats from the AV line (59, 65), AVRI (62) as well as AO (50's, 60's). All have some differences but all seem to be similarly built in terms of quality. Never understood why the AV are so overpriced in the 2nd hand market compared to the AVRI.

Hopefully these new guitars will send a few more used 62/60's into the market

In many eyes the previous American Vintage series nailed the look, sound and feel of a vintage guitar. So, when they were discontinued and succeeded by the American Original line they became even more desirable. Hence the massively inflated prices you see for them now.

Most custom shop offerings have 9.5 radius necks, and that is a big enough deal for some to go for one of the American Vintage models instead. Sellers know this and try to exploit it.

Thanks, that makes sense I guess.

Could you please shed some light as to why this price hike doesn't this apply to the AVRI 57/62?

The AVRI 62 I tried felt just as good as the AV 65. Different, yes, but at least on par, both had (if I'm not wrong) a 7.25" board, yet the AV65 are priced well over the AVRI, which seem to go for a very reasonable price.

Yeah - avri, nitro over poly, generic neck shapes and pickups, lots of incorrect features for model year.
av- vintage accurate, pure nitro, model year specific pickups. Mostly highly select woods

The avs were a huge leap forward over avri in my view, the aos are a downgrade 

I guess I'm not the target audience as I don't care about vintage correct features or nitro over poly.  I understand that there are many who care about that, fair enough.

Personally I felt that the AVRI was on par, just different, and considering the price diffrences I's pick up a used AVRI over a used AV/new AVII without hesitation.

Loobs

GavRichList said:

Loobs said:

Oh that's gone? 

Sadly so. Wish I’d hung onto it tbh but cash was needed for churn. 

churn?

Offset

Loobs said:

GavRichList said:

Loobs said:

Oh that's gone? 

Sadly so. Wish I’d hung onto it tbh but cash was needed for churn. 

churn?

Funding GAS :-)

Norlin4life

The poly is just sealer and makes absolutely zero difference to anything. I’ve owned an avri and an ao and chipped both. The finish is super thin but less flakey on the ao. Dunno why people get so tangled up over a fretboard radius. Is it really even that noticeable (unless you’re a whiny strat nerd like Mick)?

Loobs

Would have to agree with the above. 

Lewy

Norlin4life said:

The poly is just sealer and makes absolutely zero difference to anything. I’ve owned an avri and an ao and chipped both. The finish is super thin but less flakey on the ao. 

Not my experience at all. I've stripped two AVRI 52 Tele bodies and the poly basecoat was incredibly thick. Are you sure that you were actually seeing wood through the chip in your AVRI, and not the surface of the poly basecoat? This isn't mine but it's representative:

Offset

Norlin4life said:

Dunno why people get so tangled up over a fretboard radius. Is it really even that noticeable (unless you’re a whiny strat nerd like Mick)?

Yes, it really is.  The difference between 7.25" and 9.5" is immediately noticeable (especially if you're used to 9.5" and then play 7.25" for the first time).  Fine for chord work but more challenging for solos IMO.

Loobs

Idk. Didn't seem to stop most of the 'greats' playing their solos on vintage Strats. 

chris78

Loobs said:

Urgh, narrow tall are kind of uncomfortable too. I have them on my thin skin '62 RI Jazzmaster. Never got on with them. They feel too sharp. Prefer whatever it is F are using on the Am. Pro II series. 

They’re using narrow tall on the am pro ii!

Offset

Loobs said:

Idk. Didn't seem to stop most of the 'greats' playing their solos on vintage Strats. 

True - but just not for me :-)

Whitecat

Loobs said:

Idk. Didn't seem to stop most of the 'greats' playing their solos on vintage Strats. 

I mean we used to drive cars with no power steering or ABS brakes or air conditioning or whatever but it's sure nice to have all those things... for some reason it's mainly guitarists who are firmly embedded in the past... I've never been on a golf equipment forum, surely they are absolutely horrible, but I bet they aren't terribly wistful about their gear being exact replicas of stuff that was used in the mid-20th century.

Loobs

chris78 said:

Loobs said:

Urgh, narrow tall are kind of uncomfortable too. I have them on my thin skin '62 RI Jazzmaster. Never got on with them. They feel too sharp. Prefer whatever it is F are using on the Am. Pro II series. 

They’re using narrow tall on the am pro ii!

Really? Shows how much I know! Feels quite different though...

OK did a bit more research and apparently my JM has 6105...so maybe it's that I don't like. Or are they the same thing? Either way, those on my Am Pro II feel wider and less pointy. 

idiotwindow

Whitecat said:

Loobs said:

Idk. Didn't seem to stop most of the 'greats' playing their solos on vintage Strats. 

for some reason it's mainly guitarists who are firmly embedded in the past... I've never been on a golf equipment forum, surely they are absolutely horrible, but I bet they aren't terribly wistful about their gear being exact replicas of stuff that was used in the mid-20th century.

Presumably, if a 7.25" radius is so obviously inferior or difficult, players in the 50s and 60s would have been clamouring for a flatter radius? It's not as if there weren't other guitars to compare with at that time.

stickyfiddle

I have 3 guitars all with "6105 frets" - they're all a tiny bit different. Different fretwire manufacturers all have slightly different dimensions for their respective "narrow/tall" wire, and then any fret dresses done will take the height down a smidge as well.

Personally my ideal is something narrow/tall that has been dressed just a tad more than would be necessary to remove a little of the height. So still narrow but medium-tall rather than matching the height of a jumbo fret

Loobs

I agree with you. 6105 that's been taken down a hair feels pretty good. Somehow Fender has achieved that on the Am. Pro IIs. It's very comfy (to me). 

slowpilgrim

In my experience the whole 7.25” vs 9.5” debate misses the point - that it really depends on the setup of the guitar, which is linked to QA, which is generally going to be better with high end models.

My MIM 60s strat was always ‘almost there’ no matter how hard my tech tried to dial it in. It was always developing dead spots and buzzing over time, fretting out on bends - everything people dislike about 7.25. My AV65 JM rings perfectly and is a breeze to play, I assume because the factory QA is that much better and ensures it sits inside the slim margin of error you have with a 7.25 setup vs the more robust 9.25.

Just my take.

borderlibrarian

This news puts me in a bit of a pickle. I'm interested in the combination of cool colours and hopefully larger than modern necks. Recently was hankering for my 1st USA Fender. I was about to click buy on an AV 64 Tele. Now I'm wondering if I should hold on and wait for the new AV 2 Jazzmaster. I'd have to sell my LPB Road Worn Inoran Jazz though. Something to keep my mind busy at least. Decisions, decisions

GavRichList

borderlibrarian said:

I'd have to sell my house though. Something to keep my mind busy at least. Decisions, decisions

Ftfy