The new Mcpherson Honeycomb Sable in gold
 

There has been a discussion regarding the original Kevin Michael Sable which rolled out of the Mcpherson shop in February, 2016 and the new Mcpherson Sable. Many mixed assumptions ran abound.

I decided to contact Larry Klenc the general manager of Mcpherson Guitars to get the skinny.

This what Larry said...

“Hello Alan,

We shipped our first Sable 2/18/2016. They were under the Kevin Michael brand at that time.

Since that time, we have redesigned the entire guitar except for the shape of the body and neck.

The changes include:

New layering process for the top
New brace kit
Stiffer carbon truss rod
Fret markers
Enclosed Hipshot tuners
Gold Schaller Tuners and Gold EVO frets option (upcharge)
Honeycomb weave top option
New Baggs pickup
New higher quality paint on back and sides
New blend of carbon fiber for all molded parts

Please let me know if I can help you further.

Thanks,


Larry Klenc
General Manager/Artist Relations”

Rebranding to Mcpherson was a smart marketing move.

I’ll find out in a week. I’m glad I waited to pull the trigger on the Sable.
More later.

Their guitars are simply gorgeous. Extremely well built. I really like the ones Kramster has!

I love how technology and new materials are incorporated to advance the state of traditional lutherie. Looking forward learning more about the new and improved McPherson Sable.

That doesn't specify when, between 2016 and now, the changes were made. Did he nail that down?

I like my Sable fine, it's very nicely finished, but it's kind of ugly, quiet, and boring compared to the X30. I'm not sure what special thing it has to offer.

I did not sleep well last night and I'm in a mood to piss in the well :~)!

I've been always a fan of CA's styling. To my eye brilliant industrial design (clearly in the eye of the beholder). But for me, in a contest for ugly it would be no contest that Emeralds are the winner (the wood veneer on some does not overcome the physical design for me). Not a comment on ergonomics.

I had one other thought about the video you posted. In all my years of playing I've always found an HD-28 a benchmark for great guitar tone, but it actually sounded sort of tinny when I played the video back through high quality speakers. No doubt that video is selling some X-30s, but I would be concerned that however it was recorded does not reproduce my experience with a well known benchmark.

I can’t deny I used to find Emeralds sorta ugly. And the Sable the most ruggedly beautiful guitar I’d ever seen. Now the flip is complete! But in another context I’d probably swing back to agreeing with you.

I’m not sure about the Martin sound other than my conviction that YouTube is an atrocious way to judge guitar sound. I would much have preferred to leave the sound test out altogether but everyone would have freaked. Or, perhaps my HD28e is a bad egg, but it doesn’t sound off to me in person.

Another thought is that the X30 is so meaty that it creates the impression of imbalance in the Martin, even though the Martin is overall probably better balanced.

In any case, well-pissing is always welcome. With that I myself am off to bed.

Hey, Jon, I hope you're able to get some sleep. :)

Beauty is all about personal taste. I once heard: "You don't dis a man's wife, dog, or boat." I'd probably put guitar into that mix, too. ;)

I will admit that a few years ago, the offset soundhole on any guitar just didn't look right to me. And, I wasn't sure about that carbon fiber stuff - guitars are supposed to be made of wood... and look like guitars.

When I bought that first CF, it was a RainSong (Shorty), because it looked pretty much like a Taylor Grand Concert... only black... and not as attractive. The bling of the sharks and the abalone rosette helped "spruce" it up (see what I did there?). I liked the tone. But, I bought it because of the ease of care, considering our traveling lifestyle.

A stop at Michael's guitar shop in Salt Lake City introduced me to some other CF options. But, I still thought a guitar should look like a guitar.

Then, I took a leap of faith and bought that first Emerald. It was different. I knew I shouldn't like it as much, but it felt SO good, sounded SO good, and played great (especially after I did a set up on it). From the first strum, I was hooked on it.

When I'd go into my guitar room and the Shorty and the X7 were hanging side-by-side, I found myself always picking up the X7. All those curves... that little guitar unassumingly seduced me. I began to see it in a different light... after 50 years of playing guitar, it wasn't just different, it was better. It made sense: the curves, the offset soundhole... after all those years of playing guitar, I had a fixed image in my mind about what an acoustic guitar should look like.

Now, when I look at a "traditional" acoustic guitar, it just looks old fashioned to me. Like a squared off car from the 20s and 30s compared to a current sports car. Oh, sure, I can still appreciate a classic, but I also appreciate forward thinking that makes a classic even better.

Are you watching an old cathode ray TV these days? Still have a "brick" cell phone? Does your car run on bias ply tires or radials?

I am happy that your traditional style new RainSong does it for you. I wouldn't call your choice wrong or ugly. But, hang it on the wall next to a stylish Emerald, and the choice would be as clear to me as it is to you. And, we each get to vote with our dollars.

I would welcome the opportunity to play with you some time... but, stay away from my well. :D

Happy Holidays!

I like the honeycomb and gold on my travel McPherson

What's not to like????



Tony

Whippersnapper! I have the stuff that keeps me regular.

TMI? :D

Too much thinking - I'll have bacon and eggs, thanks. :) And, the CF guitar(s) that please you.