Fender acoustic owners.

[Golffishny]

I had a made in Korea dread made during a short 3 year run, 1988-1990? It was solid top and laminate back and sides and a dream to play. I think it listed about $330. If I hadn't hurt my shoulder it would probably still be my only guitar. It stood with any sub $1000 when I sold it. Look for solid tops and try them. As with all brands some are better than others. If they fit your budget, it is another option. There can be negativity on any brand here. I don't pay attention to it. Good luck in your search .

[RP]

Originally Posted by J-Doug

Also consider how loaded Cash was in the 60s...

From being paid to endorse Fender acoustics???

[Wade Hampton]

I’ve played some Fender acoustics from other eras that played well and sounded good. The only ones I’ve consistently disliked have been the 1960’s models with the support rod (sometimes encased in a plastic pipe) running through the body cavity. I’ve never heard one of those that sounded good.


whm

[harpspitfire]

i really dont know threads sometimes get locked down or shut-off, its just opinions and sometimes get heated, no big deal in my book, a lot of time valuable info pops up unexpectedly, anyway- i got a fender acoustic, GDC200SCE, i like it a lot, had it over 4 years now, bought it used, and havent seen any need to upgrade to anything

[TD2]

I've owned a Fender Villager 12string since I bought it in 1968. It sounds and plays wonderful. I've been offered a lot of money for that gitfiddle just because it sounds so good.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by RP

From being paid to endorse Fender acoustics???

I'm pretty sure he meant the OTHER kind of loaded.

Originally Posted by RP

From being paid to endorse Fender acoustics???

Loaded on amphetamines, barbiturates and alcohol. Maybe it clouded his musical judgement...?

For what it's worth I owned a MIK Fender 800SX acoustic for many years. It was great for what it was but I can't hang with my Martins and Gibsons tone and feel wise.

I've owned a Fender Tele and a Strat in the past and I own a Fender amp right now so yeah I'm a fan of the brand.

[RP]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I'm pretty sure he meant the OTHER kind of loaded.

Well that is different.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by J-Doug

Loaded on amphetamines, barbiturates and alcohol. Maybe it clouded his musical judgement...?

Or maybe he just had a good backup crew and it didn't matter what guitar he was holding?

Such casual banter about a legend.

[MikeBmusic]

Fender acoustics ALWAYS get maligned on this forum.

8-9 years ago when I started shopping around for an acoustic-electric to use in the band I was in, my budget was very limited. I played just about every guitar under $400 that I could find. Epiphones were hit and miss (quality issues, typically). Never played a Yamaha in that price range that I liked for feel and sound. There were 3 or 4 different Fender models in the price range, including the model with the electric-style in-line headstock.
The one I kept going back to was the CD140-SCE, solid spruce top, laminated side/back. Regular selling price $299. When I saw a barely used one appear at GC, I snapped it up for $199. It's narrower neck and lighter strings make it very playable. Does it sound as good as my Taylor plugged-in or acoustically? No. Does that really matter when I'm playing out? Not really.
I used it regularly for rehearsals with my band 2 years ago, saving wear-and-tear (and string changes) on my Taylor. Right now I'm using it tuned down a half step for the duo gig I'm practicing, the Taylor tuned standard.

Everyone's tastes, ears, fingers and likes are different - make your own decision.

[TRW1]

I don't know if I was just lucky, but I bought one of the last Fender PM-TE solid wood all-mahogany travel guitars when an online vendor was recently selling them out. Mine came perfectly set up (for me), and once I replaced the factory strings with something more to my liking it sounds and plays great. The plugged-in sound is perfectly fine as well. Very nicely appointed with bone nut and saddle and a pretty nice hardshell case. If it had a slightly wider nut it would be just about all I could hope for in a small bodied guitar. I certainly have no regrets over the purchase. Heck, even the Fender logo on the headstock looks kind of cool.

[RP]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Fender acoustics ALWAYS get maligned on this forum...

Good point, Mike. I suppose there are several reasons for this that have little basis in actual playing Fender acoustics.

1. This thread like another recent one starts with the notion that Fender acoustics are no good, and the readers are charged with proving that they are. It reminds me of the line, "I stuck up for you the other day. Bill said you weren't fit to eat with the pigs, but I said you were."

2. A second reason is the Big Brother/Little Brother rationale. Big Brother excels in sports, academics, entertainment or whatever, and Little Brother can never measure up despite stellar accomplishments of his own. I'm not a huge football fan, but maybe Peyton and Eli Manning typify this. Fender's Big Brother is its electrics and acoustics are its Little Brother. For whatever reason, Fender's acoustics have always fallen way short of its electrics in the guitar world so the acoustics are perceived as lacking even though they may be very decent guitars at their price point.

3. M&Ms (Myths and Momentum)- Opinions take on lives of their own when repeated frequently by a lot of people. It's really hard to steer the M&M train in a different direction once it gathers up a head of steam. How many people who have never played a Taylor will say that their tone is too bright; note that the word "bright" is always preceded by the word "too." Try any 32X Taylor and then tell me it's bright, let alone too bright as a definite exception to the "rule."

4. I may be wrong, but I don't think that Fender has done much to change the narrative. There are numerous ways they could do this but seem content to allow the acoustics to sink or swim on their own.

5. Those who have Fender acoustics that they like seem to support the myth by saying that theirs is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself....

[zombywoof]

I do not have a ton of experience with Fenders other than the 1960s "broomstick" models. One of the newer Fender acoustic which turned out to be a pleasant surprises was that Tim Armstrong Hellcat which was very loosely based on a 1960s Harmony-made Fender. While I did not have a clue who Tim Armstrong was, all of us who got a chance to play one at a local shop walked away really liking the guitar.

[B W Rigby]

I ordered a Fender Tim Armstrong Hellcat several years ago from Sam Ash, before they started showing up regularly on music store walls. I took it out of the box at the store and realized it was barely playable, but thought it was very cool looking. So I immediately took it to the store luthier and had the action lowered and a new nut installed (strings spaced a little wider).

With those tweaks, it was great. It's got a chunky neck and built in tuner, but best of all, more than any guitar I've ever owned, it stays in tune. Because it's small and thin bodied, it's just a great guitar to own and keep handy to play.

Would it be the main guitar you'd play on stage? I doubt it. I have, at open mics, and it was fine, but it's more of a fun thing than a professional thing.

I've owned a couple other Fender acoustics over the years. I felt like they were good values, and I had no regrets.

[personatech]

Their recent Paramount series of all-solid guitars have gotten some good reviews and feature a nice bang-for-the-buck. I've only played one, a used PM-3 000, and was a bit disappointed but who knows what the previous owner (or the GC where I found it) had done to it.

I've also played a new parlor of theirs recently and was pleasantly surprised.