52 vs 62 reissue

marctrain · February 6th, 2006, 09:15 PM

I am considering getting a new tele. I have long had gas for both a 52 reissue and a 62 reissue but only have the funds for one. Could someone with expierence with both describe the tone of each. I like blues and blues based rock so I am looking for a warmer tone than say country. Also what is under the pickguard of each. If I decided to put in a humbucker is either one routed to handle it or are both only able to handle single coils. Finally what do the pups sound like on each.

StetsonMan · February 7th, 2006, 12:01 AM

If it all possible...try and play both models. The '52 is probably easier to find in a guitar store than the '62. If you follow the links it provides the differences between the '52 and '62. You will also find sound clips which will give you a general idea of what both models sound like.

http://www.fender.com/products/searc...tno=0100202850

http://www.fender.com/products/searc...tno=0106200883

Considering your music styles...both tele's would get the job done, but I think the '62 gives you more of that dirty growl due to the staggered pups, rosewood board, and steel threaded saddles. The '52 gives you more of the country twang sound with the brass sadles, maple board, and flatpole pups. If I were going to buy a tele for strictly blues/rock it would be the '62, but that is just my opinion. I tend to like the "fancier" look of the '62 over the '52 also. I am no expert by any means, but just thought I would share my 2 cents.

P.S. both models are routed for a tele neck pup, so you would have to route in order to put a bucker in.
P.P.S. In the end it only comes down to what you think feels, sounds, and plays the best. Ok...im going to shut up now...

TAZ · February 7th, 2006, 05:23 PM

Marctrain,

Everyone is going to give you their experience, so here's mine and this is real general observation having played both for many hours. '62 reissues just feels good to me. I've played 5 or 6 and they are comfortable to wear and play. A couple had some cosmetic blemishes but so what, right. Getting a tone is easily dialed in. If you like the bound look with the sharp edge, you're half the way there. I've tried to like the '52s but haven't found one that works for me yet. It's all in my head but the ones I've sampled feel big, heavy or clunky. But nothing is wrong about the tone.

For a point of reference, I've been playing a '69 ri Thinline for 6 years and while it's not for everyone, it been a pretty good.

Nicky B · October 22nd, 2008, 07:07 PM

what the main defference????? all i could see is that you cant get the butterscotch...

graphs · October 22nd, 2008, 07:12 PM

I think the big differences are: the 62 is a bound alder body rather than ash, it has a rosewood fretboard rather than maple and i guess the pickups are less compressed sounding than on the 52 (only speculation seeing how i've never A/B'd them).

mellecaster · October 22nd, 2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicky B

what the main defference????? all i could see is that you cant get the butterscotch...

Yer Funnin us...right ??

Nicky B · October 22nd, 2008, 07:22 PM

Yes, dont worry, im not as dumb as i seem

Said above-alder body
and i tried one a while back...it had binding, the neck seemed less glossy, and the pickups were different.
BUT-it still had the 52 bridge and neck.

graphs · October 22nd, 2008, 07:24 PM

Really? The 62 should have threaded steel saddles, not brass.

Nicky B · October 22nd, 2008, 07:29 PM

whoopsies!

g6120 · October 22nd, 2008, 07:30 PM

my thoughts are the 62 has thats 60s twang and the 52 more snarl darker sounding

both birds will do you well you cant lose but my choice a nocaster

3 Chord · October 22nd, 2008, 07:50 PM

I think the biggest decision is that of a maple or rosewood fret board. They both sound like Teles but the 62 is dressup up a little more, and that is exactly what Leo had in mind!

The 52's I have played felt a little more "raw" than the 62's. I also make the same comparison when I have played the MIM 50's and 60's guitars. For me it is the feel of the fret board that determines how the guitar leaves you.

Both are great though, I wish I had either!

p.s., maybe check out the MIMs' and get one of each! They are pretty nice for the money.

Jellecaster · October 22nd, 2008, 08:44 PM

Here are mine:

The AV62 is definitely twangier and really nails that Bakersfield sound - I think it sounds better for country, but I love both models. The AV52 is a tad darker and probably better for blues. The AV62 has sharper edges because of the bindings where the AV52 is rounded. Of course, there is the rosewood vs maple issue and the threaded steel vs brass saddles.

I haven't looked under the pick guards, so I can't tell you anything about the routing.

TeleHonk · October 22nd, 2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jellecaster

The AV62 is definitely twangier...

I always thought it was the '52 that was twangier, and never to be considered more compressed...

But the '62 I know only through samples. Never played one.

More opinions regarding that?

Let it be said also that I am reeally far from being any expert.

igorBG · October 23rd, 2008, 05:40 AM

I compared them one year ago. I wrote post here about differences with two Youtube clips.
In general 62RI Tele sounds exactly like John Frusciante in Live at Slane Castle in song "Can't Stop"

It has warm sound but twang is still there if you need it.
Like someone wrote 52 has dirtier sound, raw sound and lot of twang.
Both are great, but for blues I think 62 is way to go.

FredDairy · October 23rd, 2008, 10:08 AM

The biggest difference to me wasn't the rosewoood vs maple or the pickups, or ash vs alder, or the binding, or even the saddles. That was minimal compared to the difference in the shape of the neck profiles. After owning the '52 first and trying out a '62, the '62 felt like a mosrite in my hands. The AV '62 reissue neck is skinner than the MIJ 60s reissue and the MIM 60s reissue.

I would certainly try one of these before buying.

byrdbrain · October 23rd, 2008, 10:13 AM

I agree completely with FredDairy.
Biggest difference is the neck.

Stubee · October 23rd, 2008, 10:16 AM

I've had both, still have a 62 RI. I pretty much agree with what's said above on tone, etc. though I'd call the 52 maybe "cleaner" than the 62.

You can adjust pup height and tone control to make one sound quite a bit like the other. So I'd perhaps tend to choose based on other criteria, such as vibe, feel, neck radius, RW vs. Maple board, neck contour. My '52 was a really nice sounding guitar, but the 62 neck is more comfortable to me so that's what I kept.

powermatt99 · October 23rd, 2008, 10:27 AM

Question for you more experienced Tele owners. Are there foreseeable problems with putting a 52RI MIJ neck on a 62RI MIJ (w/ bigsby)?

The gentleman who owned the guitar before me put on a cheapo Mighty Mite neck with the thinnest neck ever. The guitar sounds great but my hand can't get used to the thin neck. I really like Maple necks for the smoothness and I like thicker necks for rhythm playing which is 75% of what I do.

Thanks.

The Saint · October 23rd, 2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powermatt99

Question for you more experienced Tele owners. Are there foreseeable problems with putting a 52RI MIJ neck on a 62RI MIJ (w/ bigsby)?

I've done it. Perfect fit. No Bigsby but that shouldn't matter.

ajgus · October 23rd, 2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicky B

what the main defference????? all i could see is that you cant get the butterscotch...

Ahh yes, but the '52 don't come in Surf Green

Mmmm...surf green...

February 6th, 2006, 09:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
marctrain TDPRI Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 43	52 vs 62 reissue I am considering getting a new tele. I have long had gas for both a 52 reissue and a 62 reissue but only have the funds for one. Could someone with expierence with both describe the tone of each. I like blues and blues based rock so I am looking for a warmer tone than say country. Also what is under the pickguard of each. If I decided to put in a humbucker is either one routed to handle it or are both only able to handle single coils. Finally what do the pups sound like on each.

February 7th, 2006, 05:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
TAZ TDPRI Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 19	52 vs. 62 Marctrain, Everyone is going to give you their experience, so here's mine and this is real general observation having played both for many hours. '62 reissues just feels good to me. I've played 5 or 6 and they are comfortable to wear and play. A couple had some cosmetic blemishes but so what, right. Getting a tone is easily dialed in. If you like the bound look with the sharp edge, you're half the way there. I've tried to like the '52s but haven't found one that works for me yet. It's all in my head but the ones I've sampled feel big, heavy or clunky. But nothing is wrong about the tone. For a point of reference, I've been playing a '69 ri Thinline for 6 years and while it's not for everyone, it been a pretty good.

October 22nd, 2008, 07:30 PM	#10 (permalink)
g6120 Tele-Meister Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: usa Age: 58 Posts: 192	my thoughts are the 62 has thats 60s twang and the 52 more snarl darker sounding both birds will do you well you cant lose but my choice a nocaster __________________ g6120

October 22nd, 2008, 08:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
Jellecaster Friend of Leo's Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Hampshire, USA Age: 40 Posts: 2,150	Here are mine: The AV62 is definitely twangier and really nails that Bakersfield sound - I think it sounds better for country, but I love both models. The AV52 is a tad darker and probably better for blues. The AV62 has sharper edges because of the bindings where the AV52 is rounded. Of course, there is the rosewood vs maple issue and the threaded steel vs brass saddles. I haven't looked under the pick guards, so I can't tell you anything about the routing. __________________ It was born at the junction of form and function...

October 23rd, 2008, 10:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
FredDairy Tele-Holic Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: chicago Posts: 708	The biggest difference to me wasn't the rosewoood vs maple or the pickups, or ash vs alder, or the binding, or even the saddles. That was minimal compared to the difference in the shape of the neck profiles. After owning the '52 first and trying out a '62, the '62 felt like a mosrite in my hands. The AV '62 reissue neck is skinner than the MIJ 60s reissue and the MIM 60s reissue. I would certainly try one of these before buying. __________________ The Stacks The Reluctant Aquanauts

February 7th, 2006, 12:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
StetsonMan Tele-Meister Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: PA Posts: 220	If it all possible...try and play both models. The '52 is probably easier to find in a guitar store than the '62. If you follow the links it provides the differences between the '52 and '62. You will also find sound clips which will give you a general idea of what both models sound like. http://www.fender.com/products/searc...tno=0100202850 http://www.fender.com/products/searc...tno=0106200883 Considering your music styles...both tele's would get the job done, but I think the '62 gives you more of that dirty growl due to the staggered pups, rosewood board, and steel threaded saddles. The '52 gives you more of the country twang sound with the brass sadles, maple board, and flatpole pups. If I were going to buy a tele for strictly blues/rock it would be the '62, but that is just my opinion. I tend to like the "fancier" look of the '62 over the '52 also. I am no expert by any means, but just thought I would share my 2 cents. P.S. both models are routed for a tele neck pup, so you would have to route in order to put a bucker in. P.P.S. In the end it only comes down to what you think feels, sounds, and plays the best. Ok...im going to shut up now...

October 22nd, 2008, 07:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
Nicky B Tele-Meister Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: New York Posts: 109	what the main defference????? all i could see is that you cant get the butterscotch...

October 22nd, 2008, 07:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
graphs Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,092	I think the big differences are: the 62 is a bound alder body rather than ash, it has a rosewood fretboard rather than maple and i guess the pickups are less compressed sounding than on the 52 (only speculation seeing how i've never A/B'd them).

October 22nd, 2008, 07:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
Nicky B Tele-Meister Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: New York Posts: 109	Yes, dont worry, im not as dumb as i seem Said above-alder body and i tried one a while back...it had binding, the neck seemed less glossy, and the pickups were different. BUT-it still had the 52 bridge and neck.

October 22nd, 2008, 07:24 PM	#8 (permalink)
graphs Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,092	Really? The 62 should have threaded steel saddles, not brass.

October 22nd, 2008, 07:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
Nicky B Tele-Meister Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: New York Posts: 109	whoopsies!

October 22nd, 2008, 07:50 PM	#11 (permalink)
3 Chord Tele-Meister Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Billings MT Age: 42 Posts: 152	I think the biggest decision is that of a maple or rosewood fret board. They both sound like Teles but the 62 is dressup up a little more, and that is exactly what Leo had in mind! The 52's I have played felt a little more "raw" than the 62's. I also make the same comparison when I have played the MIM 50's and 60's guitars. For me it is the feel of the fret board that determines how the guitar leaves you. Both are great though, I wish I had either! p.s., maybe check out the MIMs' and get one of each! They are pretty nice for the money.

October 23rd, 2008, 05:40 AM	#14 (permalink)
igorBG Tele-Meister Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Belgrade, Serbia Age: 31 Posts: 478 9 Photos	I compared them one year ago. I wrote post here about differences with two Youtube clips. In general 62RI Tele sounds exactly like John Frusciante in Live at Slane Castle in song "Can't Stop" It has warm sound but twang is still there if you need it. Like someone wrote 52 has dirtier sound, raw sound and lot of twang. Both are great, but for blues I think 62 is way to go.

October 23rd, 2008, 10:13 AM	#16 (permalink)
byrdbrain Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sweden Age: 50 Posts: 1,416 4 Photos	I agree completely with FredDairy. Biggest difference is the neck. __________________ In vino securitas

October 23rd, 2008, 10:16 AM	#17 (permalink)
Stubee Tele-Meister Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mid-Michigan Age: 57 Posts: 442	I've had both, still have a 62 RI. I pretty much agree with what's said above on tone, etc. though I'd call the 52 maybe "cleaner" than the 62. You can adjust pup height and tone control to make one sound quite a bit like the other. So I'd perhaps tend to choose based on other criteria, such as vibe, feel, neck radius, RW vs. Maple board, neck contour. My '52 was a really nice sounding guitar, but the 62 neck is more comfortable to me so that's what I kept.

October 23rd, 2008, 10:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
powermatt99 NEW MEMBER! Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Milwaukee Age: 27 Posts: 1	Question for you more experienced Tele owners. Are there foreseeable problems with putting a 52RI MIJ neck on a 62RI MIJ (w/ bigsby)? The gentleman who owned the guitar before me put on a cheapo Mighty Mite neck with the thinnest neck ever. The guitar sounds great but my hand can't get used to the thin neck. I really like Maple necks for the smoothness and I like thicker necks for rhythm playing which is 75% of what I do. Thanks.