Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Telecaster Discussion Forum' started by BoogerRooger, Feb 25, 2012.
Just announced...Fender Jenny Craig Baja FSR Tele. Ordering now, hope it's worth the weight.
Holy necropost Batman!
Why start a new thread when there are old ones to resurrect with useful (or at least interesting) info within
Light or heavy Bajas sound the same, because tone is a factor of the pickups and vibrating strings. The improved pickups in the Baja are what made it a hit. Mine weighs 8.8 lbs or 8 lb 13 oz. I swear I lose myself in that guitar tone so I don't think of the weight, especially while playing. The whole thing really feels balanced and the 10-46 set of strings (pure nickel Fenders) actually feel lighter than stated.
I love the neck bend shimmer that I get out of it. I can't do the same on a modern C neck on a Strat I have. Neck thickness is better for my hand and reduces cramping.
I guess there's time, bandwidth, and space to discuss EVERYTHING, including if there's a one pound variance in the weight of a production line guitar, never mind that we're talking about a natural thing like a piece of wood, which by its very nature (no pun intended), has variance in weight, density, etc...
Since Sweetwater lists the weight of the guitars on their site, I grabbed their current Bajas, which are all pretty close:
Baja Serial = $ price/lb
‘270 = 100.00
‘623 = 100.00
‘401 = 104.92
‘388 = 102.40
That 6-9 lb range that people talk about ...
6lb = 133
9lb = 89
!! so best value is to go for the heavy ones
I serious doubt it is more than 5 ounces, most ridiculously thickly finished 50s Baja ever sold. Getting weight off guitars already in commerce is maddeningly hard to do.
I think you're entirely wrong trying to emphasize only width and depth. The real difference in so many necks is in the entire profile. Huge D or U style shoulder, or virtually none on a Hard V neck. And all the gradations inbetween. I'm not saying all those other terms are a panacea but I think by now if just width and depth was enough, the boat would've sailed for that destination by now. And arrived many times over.
I hear you but......
This thread started in 2012 before (I think) we had heard of the Classic Player 60s "Baja" model. Against my druthers, FMIC has two Baja models now and both are equally in the current reader's mind when the word "Baja" is the topic. This thread is full of references to one guitar when a 2016 reader may not know which of two guitars this thread is even about.
Just an illustration as to why a revival of a long buried thread is not always pain free.
Point Taken ... I am on about the "52" one , the 60s one has a normal modern strat profile neck (C with 9.5) , have no idea how they vary weight wise, I`ve never even handled one or met anyone with one.
Heh...the zombie police would be on ya right quick
One reason that's been given is that it is upsetting to see posts from dead forum members. They don't cal these zombie threads for nothing.
Amended : WIDTH, DEPTH, PROFILE
Those are the three parameters.
Now can we be completely done with, "Man I played a Nocaster ! What a chunky baseball bat neck ! Gotta say, I like a fat neck..."
A pound of finish on a Baja - of course I was hyperbolizing.
I just remember not liking the thick finish on the Baja's I played.
Especially the opaque desert pudding sand On a couple I tried.
Heck - my '92 black MIM standard has a much thinner finish than a buddy's old Baja.
Chips tell the tale !
I`ve seen a couple stripped and Nitro'd by their owners - they should have offered that as an option in the first place, the hardware ages nicely , would be even better if the body did also and I like natural finishes especially when its ash . you can barely see the grain through the milky haze of the butterscotch "blond" .
I like to see those posts- being reminded of someone that has passed should be a good thing.
I had a nice Telecaster that I toured with for a couple years, recorded a bunch, sounded great, I sold it cheap and never regreted it because that thing was heavy.
I still miss my cheap Squier though. That one was comfy.
In any case that's what I heard, this rule is because of dead forum members.
Tele players never really die, they just go to #2:
Nice to meet you. I can't speak to variance, but my 60's CAR Baja is 7lb, 10.75oz.
I would have preferred a new topic as well, but I see you're fairly new here (post-wise), so: welcome!
I really looked forward to giving a Baja a chance after reading about the beefy necks all over the web. Like yourself, I was terribly disappointed in just how average in size it felt. USACG Fatback (full inch all the way through) with a 1 3/4" nut. I'm screwed for life now
Thanks for the welcome TC .. yeah I am new here (though not new to Teles) , most forums (from Cameras to saxophones) I`ve been on frown on multiple threads on the same subject as threads become a knowledgebase and searching is easier if its all in one place - also this is the only one ever I`ve encountered where people may be distressed about reviving them (that came as a shock !) ..
I`m liking the Baja very much, still think I prefer my slim profile 7.25 radius 72RI Custom neck . I do wish they hadn`t covered that lovely ash body with so much poly and then given you the hint of what could have been by making the finish minutely translucent .
as for the neck thickness, IMO it`s only average in thickness compared to 50s Gibsons (especially ES175s etc) which are wide as well as thick and also a lot of acoustics etc. I`m used to Fenders with slim C profile necks as are a lot of people so the Baja feels thick , its narrowness helps of course . To an Ibanez player after something classic, a Baja neck is a fencepost sawn in half - LOL