Update on the Peavey CA guitars

[Acousticado]

Originally Posted by AndyFrank

That's twice you have tried to minimize someone else's post by pointing out how long they've been members here, now I see why the UMGF hides that info from the main pages.

C'mon, no attempt to minimize anyone's posts, bud. I only noted it in case you or Tony weren't around here to know the early story. I still say that your earlier statement that I quoted is a stretch. Whatever.

[mchalebk]

Originally Posted by mc1

i actually misread that word as 'dozen' when i first read it, so perhaps that was what was meant.

Dozen does make more sense. I think "few dozen" is selling us a little short, but may not be far off the mark.

[ac]

IMO, anyone reading Mr. Pooles comments will see he was talking about that there were issues in the past with the process of making CA guitars. Focusing on "ALL CA guitars" out of context -- well, anything out of context can have any meaning spun to it so that it "seems" correct to those who haven't read the posts. Fortunately, the original posts are still all there.

In communication, "Context is King" and it is the context that provides the framework to understand the meaning of what anyone writes.

By now, those who have chosen to be upset with Peavey are happy with their interpretation and very unlikely to ever change. But for anyone else who is tuning in to this thread for the first time, and if you have real interest, please go back, read the entire posts by Fred Poole, and I believe that his comments, taken in context, will make it extremely clear that he was not trashing the old CA company.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Acousticado

Hi Tony. Perhaps you were lurking here prior to your join date of March 2008, but in case not, as I mentioned in my reply above, the Cargo buzz started here at the AGF in the months prior to you joining. I remember the first threads maybe going back to Jan. '08 with early pics of the Cargo being posted. The reports by those actually trying them were really positive, which led to my purchase of a Cargo in March 2008 while vacationing in Florida from Canada (via a referral by fitness1 to retailer Danny Brevard in Texas, who shipped my order to me in Sarasota, FL). At that time, I don't think the MacNichol forum had yet been started, but Mike did start it soon after because I began frequenting it in the summer of '08, which led to my purchase of my GXi from him in November of '08.

That is interesting. I did not recall those discussions here, but I may not have been reading then. Thanks for the info.

One thing I do recall is that when I bought my first Cargo in 2008, there was discussions among some there (not necessarily employees at The Podium) that CA Guitars had done some things to improve the Cargo. As I recall, quality issues weren't mentioned in that conversation, so much as CA fiddling about with the bracing a bit to improve the overall sound of the instrument. So I guess there may have been some subtle continuous improvement, or at least changes, for a few years on the Cargo. All three of mine sound pretty much the same, but I don't think I have played any earlier models.

Tony

[Doubleneck]

I am sorry but I see he last post by Fred as one with much more corporate spin and yes making sure the it was clear that there were issues with how All CA Guitar were made. He added the emphasis by capitalizing it. I do not think going back to past post's dismiss this in that I think there is much more pressure to get things out after a long absence. There was a huge underestimation of what "art" it took to make the old CA's. They got the machinery but left the people and they had to develop their own processes. I do hope they are superior and less "art" is necessary to make one right. But I see spin.
Steve

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

I am sorry but I see he last post by Fred as one with much more corporate spin and yes making sure the it was clear that there were issues with how All CA Guitar were made. He added the emphasis by capitalizing it. I do not think going back to past post's dismiss this in that I think there is much more pressure to get things out after a long absence. There was a huge underestimation of what "art" it took to make the old CA's. They got the machinery but left the people and they had to develop their own processes. I do hope they are superior and less "art" is necessary to make one right. But I see spin.
Steve

I have thought too that there was most likely quite an under estimation of what it took to build these instruments.

Regarding Fred Poole's comments, I still think it is possible there may be more than one interpretation to what he intended to say.

Tony

[whamonkey]

The real question is why hasn't Larry Pattis chimed in about the neck angle on a Cargo yet? Dang........

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by whamonkey

The real question is why hasn't Larry Pattis chimed in about the neck angle on a Cargo yet? Dang........

Oh, I'm watching...if just a bit. I check in at the MacNichol forum infrequently, and I *do* welcome the addition of the CF sub-forum here at the AGF.

It's interesting to see the same lines drawn between folks with some of these issues, as in the past.

It's true, apparently, that when presented with factual information that is contrary to one's belief, dissenters or non-believers simply continue to hold their original beliefs...sometimes even more strongly than before. I know that the psychiatric/psychology community has done studies on this.

When CA was building Cargos that I found objectionable, I mostly kept this to myself...except for several email interactions with the CA production manager, where in early 2008 I objected to their set-up specs, and tolerances for variance of saddle height with a given, proper string height. They didn't seem to understand the issue fully, and I later discovered that this manager came from GM, and not a guitar background at all.

My first email to CA was in fact in November of '07...I have them all catalogued on my desktop machine. I purchased my first of several Cargos after the first of the year (into 2008), but at just higher than a 3/32" and 2/32" set-up (and with medium gauge strings in DADGAD) it had less than 1/16" of saddle showing over the bridge...unacceptable break-angle for me.

They replaced that first instrument, and acknowledged that it had an unacceptably low saddle, but unfortunately replaced it with a guitar that had the exact same problem. I then engaged them in regards to the full details of their set-up specs and tolerances, and found that they basically were not set-up to build a guitar to my preferred specs.

I didn't feel a need to make this public, since I did not want to materially harm CA, and I felt that eventually they would either realize their mistakes, or not...but it was none of my business at that point.

I did hope, over a period of time, that corrections might be realized and implemented...but I was mistaken. The final email I have a record of in regards to the original Cargo/CA situation was January of 2010, with a well-known midwest retailer for CA who privately had agreed completely with my assessment...and I had inquired about any guitars they might get which would be outside the usual tolerances for saddle height. None came to this retailer, unfortunately

As CA closed I tried to pick up 3 more Cargos (from 3 different sources), but each was symptomatic of the same problems I encountered in early 2008. One had a crack in the neck-body area, which appeared to be a manufacturing defect...the guitar was unrepairable, and of course the retailer could never re-sell the guitar...a shame.

I emailed with Fred Poole in January of 2011 after a formerly supportive retailer for CA reported negatively following the 2011 January NAMM show.

It was a productive interaction, and I believed then (as I believe now) that Mr. Poole and his team fully understood most (if not all) of my specific concerns....as noted with the MacNichol forum posts repeated here, in fact.

IMO Peavey has been honest, direct and forthright, although like others watching this from afar, I was hoping to see production ramped up sooner.

Peavey's investment in CA will either pan out as a good thing, or perhaps as an investment that did not work out...but I hope like all get-out that they don't abandon the project.

Cost aside, Emerald is now building super-short-scale instruments that might meet my needs, and even Blackbird now has a 13 fret 24.75" scale (too long for me) guitar. Rainsong could eventually enter the 24" scale world, but it hasn't happened yet...I believe that they have a 24.75" scale guitar, now, as well.

I understand why the Cargo was/is popular, and I also understand why many folks don't object to specs that are not acceptable for me...no big deal.

The reason why I haven't chimed in is because it's essentially a dead-issue. The current owners of the CA patents and production-capabilities agree with me, as per Mr. Poole's commentary on the MacNichol forum. Discussing whether Mr. Poole respects or disrespects the original CA products is the least productive thing I can imagine doing with one's time. The only thing that matters now is if Peavey can truly bring the products and product-line back to life...at any price-point.

I'm sad that CA couldn't make their business a profitable one. I'm hopeful that Peavey and other manufacturers in the CF world continue to explore the possibilities, and continue to attempt to produce fine instruments.

[whamonkey]

Larry,
I am glad you chimed in, I know that you have had extensive experience with CA and an informed discussion is what I enjoy.

Thanks again!

[Larry Pattis]

Let me mention that all of my direct/hands-on experience on this topic has been with the Cargo exclusively...I have no knowledge of other instruments that were in the original CA product line.

[tbeltrans]

In a sense, the whole discussion is essentially moot, but fun to pass the time. The original CA Guitars is gone, Peavey will do whatever they plan to do when the plan to do it. What is said here probably won't affect these events much, if at all - though companies do monitor various forums and jump in as they feel the need, so we know that what is said can matter to them at times.

A part of being human seems to be to read into what is said, things that may or may not have been intended by the speaker. It happens all the time.

As to the neck angle issue, I don't doubt that it exists, out of deference to those who know these things. My points have always been not to question that fact, but to raise the issue as to how much of a factor it is to most players. If there was variance in the degree of neck angle problem with the pre-Peavey Cargos, then I can see some being really affected by it, while others were not.

Over on the MacNichol forum, I mentioned that there have been a lot of guitars built long before the finer aspects of the instrument (such as neck angle) were commonly discussed. Martins were apparently made without truss rods for a long time too. Yet, despite this, a lot of great music was made. Maybe this is a naive view, and those who REALLY play (such as Larry) have been concerned with this issue for a long time and, back then, had guitar repair people to adjust these aspects of the guitar to their liking. But I wonder if the Leok Kottkes, Doc Watsons, Robert Johnsons, and people of those eras and before were cognizant of these types of issues, or did they simply play what was available to them.

I do know that this midwest dealer sent a number of CA Guitars back to CA (back when CA was in business prior to the Peavey acquisition) because they were not up to the standards that the dealer would want to sell to their customers, while other instruments were kept and sold. Though I don't know the specifics regarding what was sent back and why, I do believe there was a level of filtering that resulted in what this midwest dealer put into customers' hands.

Threads about CA Guitars (whether pre- or post-Peavey) have attracted a lot of speculation. Though there is some real information exchanged in forums such as this, reading through the various threads in general, there is a lot of what in essence is just people hanging out and passing time. I see these CA threads as being not that much different.

Tony

[Doubleneck]

I can see what peavey is trying to do with their manufacturing process making the guitar neck more rigid and the neck angle more forgiving so that there are reduced variables in the process. Probably a good thing, CAs neck did move to get relief. Just hard for me to believe they didn't have the process down pretty well. Peavey is just doing it differently and probably with a process with less chance of error.

[dkoloff]

Think of it as the Taylor philosophy using a guitar manufacturer (or as any good company) refining the process to make the most consistent product you can. Better to do it know then use the old process and damge the reputation at the start. I will say my CA OX that I have had for two years is exceptional so I think they hit the mark but not as consistently as needs to be.