Fender acoustic owners.

[sleeperservice]

This is my F65 from the late 70s before a once over.its no gibson or martin but it does the job it was made for admirably and doesn't complain about humidity or lack thereof or the occasion knock.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by FoxHound4690

Hey AGF,
Question regarding Fender acoustics.

Are they any good?

I'm only curious because someone I know who has been playing guitar for decades said to me Fender have never made an acoustic guitar worth a darn thing.

All you guys that have played/owned acoustic Fenders. what are your thoughts on them?

It depends on what you want and need.

A few years ago, I was on the other side of the country from my home for many months restoring a house.

There was a bar in town that had open mics once a week. I hadn't really been playing for years, but with little to do in the evenings I bought a low-end Fender acoustic ($120 with cheap gig bag and strap) and started playing at that open mic.

I was a very playable, decent sounding guitar an fit my needs at that time. That guitar started me playing again, but I've definitely gone upscale in my guitars. Now I play open mics regularly and have even had several paid gigs in the last year.

So, my answer is, yes, it was a good guitar for my purpose at the time, but I wouldn't replace my Martin HD-28V with one!

[Danley]

I like it; a lot. For the reasons described in my earlier post. Low action, still has a lot of meat under the saddle. Walnut bridge and fretboard are ‘convincing’ and it just plays really well. The Fishman ‘Classic’ preamp is a bit on the heavy/dark side, but no quack or unpleasant honkiness. Probably keeping it More than worth the deep discount I got on it.

It’s a half step down at the moment using 10s, I plan on using 9s (silk/steels) and tuning to standard.

[TJE"]

I once had a really cheap Fender acoustic and for the price it was OK, as in stayed in tune, and the chords sounded reasonably distinct.

It would probably be foolish of the company to make a really dire cheap acoustic,because I think this is how many people start their guitar journey and hence get on to the 'Fender ladder' with their electrics.

[Le Chef]

In the movie "From Here to Eternity," the guitarist in the barracks strumming that song "Re-enlistment Blues," was playing an acoustic with a Stratocaster looking headstock. May have been a Fender.

Agree with others -- there are at least 5 companies (Takamine, Washburn, Alvarez come to mind) who make better guitars for the same money. Nothing wrong with them, particularly, that I know of. One guy plays one at this song circle I go to sometimes. It sounds okay, and he likes it.

I recommend you save up for a Martin or Taylor. That way you are almost guaranteed not to be disappointed.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by Le Chef

In the movie "From Here to Eternity," the guitarist in the barracks strumming that song "Re-enlistment Blues," was playing an acoustic with a Stratocaster looking headstock. May have been a Fender.

No, actually, that was the great Merle Travis playing his customized Martin D-28. He had Mr. Bigsby, of Bigsby whammy bar fame, make a custom neck for his Martin. Travis also played a Bigsby solidbody electric guitar during that same phase of his career.

Who came up with that headstock first was a point of contention between Leo Fender and Bigsby, with both of them claiming to be first. Years later, after Bigsby had died and the argument had become meaningless, Leo Fender admitted that he had been inspired not by his own native genius (which was considerable,) but had seen a family of Serbian stringed instruments with all the tuners on one side that gave him the idea for the famous Fender six on a side headstocks.

Short version: in “From Here To Eternity” Merle Travis was playing a Martin D-28 with a custom Bigsby replacement neck.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by Danley

I like it; a lot. For the reasons described in my earlier post. Low action, still has a lot of meat under the saddle. Walnut bridge and fretboard are ‘convincing’ and it just plays really well. The Fishman ‘Classic’ preamp is a bit on the heavy/dark side, but no quack or unpleasant honkiness. Probably keeping it More than worth the deep discount I got on it.

It’s a half step down at the moment using 10s, I plan on using 9s (silk/steels) and tuning to standard.

Nice looking guitar - except for the color of the pickguard. I saw a few Fenders with that color years back - on different color bodies, too. Can't for the life of me figure out why they chose it when I first saw it I thought it might be a protective paper, but no...

[Tony Burns]

In defense of Fender :

Fender does have a level of decent acoustics - but they are not cheap
When you pay something like a 100 bucks for a guitar -you get a basic first guitar - like gramma buys her grand kids . this is OK in my books ,
I wish i had as nice of a guitar when i bought my first 15 dollar guitar used ( it was a piece of - - - - well you get the idea )

They are more prized for their electrics ( im a past owner of a Telecaster custom and a Strat )

I wouldn't look down my nose at fender -they have their place - and are respected !

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Tony Burns

I wish i had as nice of a guitar when i bought my first 15 dollar guitar used ( it was a piece of - - - - well you get the idea )

Exactly. My $100 Fender was head and shoulders above my used $5 Stella I bought as a kid, and those Stella "fingerbleeders" are now selling for $100-200!

[GarrisonGuy]

I have the above guitar that was passed down by my father. It is very nice to look at and it has a very nice treble! Not a lot of bass though. It is all laminate spruce and rosewood.
I haven't owned any other Fender acoustics. I'm sure they can/do make great acoustics but I don't think they generally have a reputation for them. I'd be concerned about the resale value because of that.

[Danley]

Originally Posted by Tony Burns

In defense of Fender : Fender does have a level of decent acoustics - but they are not cheap

Originally Posted by GarrisonGuy

I'm sure they can/do make great acoustics but I don't think they generally have a reputation for them. I'd be concerned about the resale value because of that.

I agree with you both - if I had to pay full price (greater than $500 ) for the Villager above I'd have just bought a Taylor 150e used (or similar.)

But for $160 (!) , I really couldn't say no (full disclosure - it was sold to me with the knowledge that the 15th fret was too high; something I was able to rectify myself. I basically plan to do setup work like this in some form with any import guitar anyway.) To put some onus back on Fender I understand that walnut often does not give as much 'grip' to frets. In this particular scenario, it worked out - Could have been a potentially greater gamble but resale goes both ways after all, for anyone who wishes to grab one used.

[beachbum205]

Originally Posted by cb1956

Go try some and decide for yourself.
I have two, both solid spruce top and laminated sides and back.
They both sound good and play easy.
Are they the best in the world? No. I wouldn't expect them to be at those prices. Are they decent beginner intermediate instruments? Yes.
Good enough to play out with? Yes and I have.

My dreadnought has solid spruce top, laminate rosewood back and sides, scalloped bracing, Tusq nut and brisge saddle, Rolled fretboard edges, Fishman electronics and a cutaway. $400 new with case. Sounds great. The only thing coming out of the guitar that sounds bad is due to operator error.

My Parlor has solid spruce top, laminate mahogany back and sides. Sounds good, plays easy. $200.

I can afford them and I'm not good enough to need anything super fancy.

My story is similar. I have a Fender Acoustic 12 string that I actually love. And honestly, I have received a number of compliments on how it sounds. Solid spruce top, layered hog back and sides, onboard tuner (something every 12 string should have IMHO). Stays in tune, plays like butter and sounds surprisingly good, either straight acoustic or plugged in. And I paid less than half of what it is selling for now- Musician's Friend "Stupid Deal of the Day"!

For years, many Fender acoustics were sub-par at best. But in recent years, many of the Asia/Pacific Rim manufacturers, including Fender, have really come a long way in terms of build quality and sound quality too.

If you haven't played a Fender acoustic recently, put aside any pre-conceived notions you have and try one. You might just be pleasantly surprised!

[Roksbug]

Last year I was looking for a cheap thin body acoustic with nylon strings. I found a new Ibanez at GC. I returned it after one day. Then I bought a Fender CN-140SCE. It was around $400 and came with a pretty decent hard case. This was a better feeling and sounding guitar. Keep in mind that I got it to have a cheap beater that I could throw in the back of a truck and take to the beach.
It seems to serve that purpose.

[jezza]

Sorry this is so late Wade. I've got a Fender Balboa and it's absolutely excellent. The stock piezo and pre amp were pretty awful so I replaced them. Now it sounds excellent amplified. The acoustic sound is great. I have a Martin D15 a Guild D4 and probably my favourite, a Taylor GS Mini E. The Fender holds it's own soundwise, and is breeze to play. The action is ridiculously low with absolutely no fret buzz. It was made in Korea I think in the 90s. I got it for £70 ...a real steel!! If you ever see one get it. Cheers

[YeOldRocker]

I think the biggest problem with Fender's acoustic market has been that they have a big name in the electric world and their acoustics - for the most part - are/were always aimed at a bottom-tier market mostly made in Asia. They were never meant to impress serious acoustic players, but - because they are Fender and not, say, Ibanez - they get less respect for their attempts. They're not terrible for what they are, but the Fender logo promises something better then they can deliver.

Every so often, they try to up their game (the recent Paramount series, for example), but they now competed with established companies in Asia that have been doing this for a while and are pretty good at it. And they generally cost more, too, largely for the name brand. So, do you get a solid wood Guild or Eastman, Epiphone Masterbilt or Breedlove Organic, or a Fender? The Paramounts aren't bad guitars, they're just not outstanding.

Where a Guild or Breedlove make an Asian version of their American guitars, or Epiphone uses similar specs to Gibson, and Eastman just makes great guitars, Fender is still looking for a niche market. They've actually succeeded in their pricey Acoustisonic series, because it appeals, I think, to strictly electric players and ignores our lot entirely.


I bought a Fender dread in '85 to busk with in the subway. Its solid-top body and rosewood laminate back mimics a D-35 (which is pretty funny) and its neck was made for electric player comfort, complete with a Strat headstock. As a predominantly electric player myself at the time, I appreciated that.

So It did its job back then and I still have it. I'm sure if I took it to a luthier, changed out the nut and bridge, I could get it to sound a bit better. But it is what it is and I don't think it's worth the expense. Great campfire guitar, either to play or keep the fire going.

That said, I have a '91 Strat Plus I will die with before ever relinquishing, so my affection for Fender is still a thing, in spite of their acoustic stumbles.