With all due respect, why would it matter? It's all anecdotal at this stage - whatever issues there may or may not have been with CA's original instruments, they aren't making them any more.

Seems to me that tolerances on guitars are probably much finer than most people realize. If they are being built by traditional means, there are more opportunities to correct anything that might creep in than if they are being, essentially, moulded in a completely predetermined manner.

So, if Peavey has identified a couple of things which were on the edge of acceptable with CA's original methods, I'm inclined to trust them. They are, as manufacturers, trying to rein in the tolerances, and increase their ability to deliver a satisfactory instrument which does not require after-sales service.

Time will tell how successful they are - but I'd say, based on much experience with their products over the years, that they are in with more than a sporting chance.

I have stated repeatedly that my only experience with CA is with the Cargo.

CA no longer exists, and I am rarely critical of them, even though I have experience dealing with their production people in regards to manufacturing specs that I found absolutely not-acceptable.

I don't care one way or the other what information anyone here deems reputable.

I am certainly satisfied with my own knowledge about guitars.

I am not satisfied with my knowledge in many other areas of life, and I rely upon those with greater experience when that's the case.

I'm starting to now wonder why Peavey would pick up the Composite Acoustics brand, if the original CA guitars had a reputation for having such aforementioned problems?

Hmmm, I sense and predict much discussion about pre-Peavey CAs.

If you have read all the extensive threads here on the subject you could certainly reach that conclusion, but I think some people do like to beat a dead (or in this case, dying) horse. Some of the comments give an exaggerated view of the actual number of guitars they built with less than perfect neck angles. I owned and/or played dozens & only found one bad one which CA was quick to replace for me at no cost - they even picked up the shipping both ways. I have had 5 Cargos & they were all fine & I play finger style & like very low action. If you read Tarpman's comments you will get a more accurate picture - he was a dealer & saw hundreds of them & found minimal if any problems. I think most of the problem necks occurred near the end when things were spiraling down with the company & they let a few get by quality control. Most of them are still great composite guitars - I still have a couple & doubt I will be replacing them with a Peavey.

Actually I think CA had more quality control issues a year before they went under. In 2009 they start to put cards in the case with the setup measurements - relief and string height and a phone number to the individual that set it up. My guitar was built in September of 2009 and was right on to those measurements. I think they were correcting some of the issues but obviously too late. I think it is like most companies they have times when they just aren't doing it is good as before. They were bringing a lot of new products to market and I heard they were experiencing turnover as well.
Read the history of Gibson!! and I love my Gibson.

It's not in Peavey's interest to say anything more than "We've taken a great guitar design and made it even better."

If asked what they've done to make it better, they need merely say that QC is up, that a couple of areas of manufacturing inconsistency have been eliminated, and that minor design changes to the neck and bridge have created what they believe will be consistent top notch performance for discriminating players.

Someone at Peavey needs to hire a better PR hack.


j

I think one has to assume that owner of Peavey must have a passion for guitars, as the travel guitar market is a niche market, perhaps representing, what 2%??

I have emailed their product development dept and asked that they come on this forum to get input on the Cargo, and other CA products. Let's see what happens.

I have never owned a Peavey product, but gosh knows, they have been around forever. One has to believe that as small as the travel guitar market is, that they would not want to put out a sub-quality product. So, they have corrected a couple of issues that is a start. This makes me very optimistic that the Cargos will be better, and that perhaps they will consider putting a truss rod in and creating a 24" scale model. That would be a home run for them!

A home run? Perhaps if they can add a truss rod without increasing the cost, and without increasing the weight, and without the truss rod rusting when you take the Cargo sailing. Perhaps. Or perhaps the Cargo is perfect for many people as-is, and that's why it's so popular.

I'm keeping my pre-Peavey Cargo. :)

Alright...just couldn't resist...

To hit a home run with the Cargo, Peavey needs to make it a double-neck instrument. One neck should be pre-Peavey, no truss rod, the short 22.75" scale, and "messed up" neck angle. this will appeal to the "purist" in many of us who revere "vintage". The other neck will be a 24.xx" scale, truss rod, and the "correct" neck angle. This will appeal to the "purist" in many of us who revere a "properly built" instrument. We CAN have it both ways.

Heck, I might even buy one for its novelty value. :D:D:D

Tony

Update
 

I emailed Peavey and got this response. For now they are not going to add a truss rod.

Hello,

The cost will remain unchanged for now. We have corrected the neck angle on the guitars and improved the structural integrity of the top under the fingerboard. We will also be offering a slightly slimmer neck on the GX.
Thanks,Aubrey

Not to be a wet blanket but is there a product line that Peavey actually improved after they bought it? I can't think of any.

Pre-Peavey CA's are going to be the one to hold on to.

Common sense reigns at Peavey
 

Hurrah, that is very good news indeed.

I've followed the various threads on this topic for a while, haven't commented until now...

I own 3 CAs myself, an old school Legacy Dreadnaught (Corvette metallic green body, natural top), one of the first GX Performers shipped from the new factory (black with blackburst top, pearl rosette, LR Baggs I-Beam pickup, top of the line, later renamed the 8MCE or somesuch), and a grey beerproof Cargo.

To me, much of the conversation on this truss rod topic has been goofy. A composite guitar does not need a truss rod, because it is not subject to the same warping factors that a wooden neck is. It's far, far stiffer, and is not affected by humidity. It's unlikely a truss rod like the ones used in wooden necks could even do anything, given how stiff composite necks are. I remember watching Ned Steinberger put a composite neck guitar across two chairs and stand on it, then get down and demonstrate that the guitar had not even gone out of tune. So what's a truss rod going to contribute? Nothing except unneeded complexity and expense and weight.

And besides, why mess with success? The CA company was selling all they could make, as fast as they could make them, with no truss rod. A majority of their customers were professional musicians who were looking for what CA delivered in spades: a bulletproof road guitar that you did not need to mess with. Bulletproof. No truss rod needed, period. That was never an issue for anyone I know.

Yes, I understand there is a tiny percentage of guitar tweakers who have found a different use for truss rods than the original purpose of compensating for the weakness of wood necks, but they were never CA's target market, and should not be Peavey's target market. 95% or more of the market can get what they need by adjusting saddle and nut. And CA has always supplied two saddles with their better guitars in case you get the first one too low. I've still got my spare ones for the Legacy and GX because once they were set up the way I like them, they stayed that way.

I watched Arlo Guthrie play a CA on his recent Family Tour, and last Monday I watched the Beamer Family playing music for Governor Abercrombie's inauguration in Hawai'i, and one of them (Keola?)was playing a CA. In the heat and humidity of Hawai'i' it's a no-brainer to play a guitar that never needs adjusting, ever. And that's what CA was all about.

It's also been goofy to read people expounding on at length about CA guitars based on having their played a Cargo. That's like thinking you know all about about CF Martin guitars after playing a Backpacker. No joke.

All the first couple runs of Cargos were bought by people who, like me, already owned full scale CA guitars and liked the idea of a relatively inexpensive (about 1/3 the price of the top line), 3/4 size, rugged, knock-around guitar they didn't have to worry about. No kidding, the dealers were pre-sold for months, to people who had never even SEEN a sample, because we CA users already knew they had to be good. And they were.

Matter of fact, they were so good they created a little market niche of their own with new customers who had never played CA before. The easy-to-play short scale, handy overall size, and amazing sound (for what it is) charmed a hell of a lot of us. To correct a few myths floating around, except for the very first shipments, when the correct cases were not yet available from the manufacturer, they've always shipped in a very nice gig bag. Second, mine came with Elixer Medium strings factory installed, and a quick call to the factory revealed they only recommended using Medium gauge strings, never Lights, because at the reduced tension you get using standard sets on a short scale, Lights are too sensitive to intonation problems. My experience bears that out.

So what you got for a whole lot less than $1,000, was a fun little guitar that beat the snot out of anything else as a travel guitar. And I should know... I've owned them all. Anybody want to buy an original model Chiquita with two pickups, recently set up by Mark Erlewine personally? I don't play it any more. Or how about a European travel guitar that's all neck and no body, with piezo pickup? Got one of those too.

Matter of fact, once the CAs came into my life all my other guitars stopped getting played as much, even the 1963 Gibson SJ with a tobacco sunburst that had been my go-to guitar for more than 40 years. The Gibson and the GX sat side by side in my music room, and I just found myself reaching for the GX more and more and more. And when it came to going anywhere with a guitar, I realized that my fear of having my guitar destroyed on route had disappeared when I took the CA. The Gibson has gotten more and more fragile over the years, and even with a recent rehab from Bob Barrett I just didn't want to take it traveling with me any more. With the GX I had no such worries, and it always sounded terrific whether played acoustic or amplified. And I never had to retune during a set. Often I didn't have to retune for a whole trip. And I check my tuning with a Peterson strobe. Yes, the GX is THAT stable.

And THAT'S what CAs are all about. So why change something that is that good?

Another goofy thread here has been about why the company folded. The simple truth is it was a Business 101 Classic failure. They had a successful product, which they made money on, but they were undercapitalized to deal with the unexpected expense of replacing a major piece of equipment (I've heard it was a quarter $mil), just as the partnership was falling apart for other reasons. Period. Had nothing to do with the quality of the product.

As to the comments about McNicoll's actions, selling off $100,00 in inventory at cost. That was a strategic decision, a choice, and in hindsight it was a mistake, because other dealers actually raised their prices, and got what they asked. But I can't fault a guy who sees the risk of holding that much stock with useless warranties from a failed business and decides it is too risky for him. He played his cards one way, but the deal went the other way. There was more demand for the product than he thought. He could have made a fortune betting the other way.

And that pent-up demand is exactly what Peavey should be out to satisfy. If they can improve production tolerances and improve weaknesses, OK, but my three have been completely trouble free, and they shouldn't do anything to mess that up.

I was tickled to see, looking at a new 8MCE in a dealer showroom recently (which you can buy today, for $2,695) that CA acted on the suggestion I made when I first got my GX, to change out the plain black bridge pins they shipped the first ones with, for the pearl-eye Tusq pins I put on mine. That was my experience with them... they paid intense attention to customer suggestions about possible improvements.

Be interesting to see what Peavey does next, but I hope to high heaven they don't muck things up with an unnecessary truss rod. And I hope they get the 12-string to market that CA had announced. That was going to be my next purchase.

Interesting side note, to finish this epistle... I was talking to an experienced musician today in Hilo who also loves CAs. He mentioned that his house is small, so he keeps his CA X guitar (the thin body model) outside on the lanai. With the high humidity in Hilo that would be murder on a wood guitar. We both laughed, because we know you could play a CA under a waterfall without it going out of tune or warping in any way.

OK, back to the groundless opinions already in progress... :)

OpenD

To emphasize the point, they had the reputation among professional musicians of producing absolutely great sounding, bulletproof road guitars. That's why the few guitars left in stock around the country command top prices to this day.

Just another vote of confidence in pre-peavey ca. I have a gx, setup by macnichol. I'm not one who measures string heights, neck angles, etc. I just play. I haven't played any cargos or any other ca's for that matter. I've played many many other guitars over the last 35 odd years and it's one of the easiest I've ever played. Maybe not quite the absolute best sounding but definitely in the top 10. I love it.