No, the special has a gloss urethane finish. With a gloss finish on the special, the difference between it and the Am Std appears to be hardware and a gig bag instead of a case.
Invalid Link Removed
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Fender Highway One series discontinued?
- Thread starter recreate.me
- Start date
No, the special has a gloss urethane finish. With a gloss finish on the special, the difference between it and the Am Std appears to be hardware and a gig bag instead of a case.
Invalid Link Removed
Yes, as mentioned, mid 2006 was the transition from Hwy 1 to the 'upgraded' Hwy One ... but keep in mind before anyone starts hammering on the original Hwy 1's, that back in '03 - '05, it was NOT unrealistic to find one of these in the low $400 range brand new, and $300 and LESS only slightly used ... so, value is a relative term, in relationship to time and market pricing
$400 is a far cry from the $799 street price of the ONES (excluding of course the '$421 One episode' that some managed to slip through the cracks) ... there are some that feel that the very simple early 1's were some of the best values ever to be had in any Fender line-up, and some of the very first '03's also shipped prior to the Greasebucket innovation ...
also, with the lack of understanding by the public of the transition from 1 to ONE, I saw many of those pre-upgrade Hwy Series basses sell on Ebay for into the $600 range ... even in this thread, the misnomer still continues, with lost of generic terminology taking place calling the 1's, ONES, and vice versa ... JMHO
$400 is a far cry from the $799 street price of the ONES (excluding of course the '$421 One episode' that some managed to slip through the cracks) ... there are some that feel that the very simple early 1's were some of the best values ever to be had in any Fender line-up, and some of the very first '03's also shipped prior to the Greasebucket innovation ...
also, with the lack of understanding by the public of the transition from 1 to ONE, I saw many of those pre-upgrade Hwy Series basses sell on Ebay for into the $600 range ... even in this thread, the misnomer still continues, with lost of generic terminology taking place calling the 1's, ONES, and vice versa ... JMHO
What I'd like to know is why the bodies on the Special and Highway more true to the original design than the American Standard series. Why do they make the Special and Highway without the swiming pool routing, while the higher end models are routed like the MIM Standards? That doesn't make sense to me.
That's one reason why I grabbed a daphne blue Highway body for my Jazz bass project. Nitro finish that polished up nicely, lightweight, and looks good w/o the pickguard if I decide to take it off (no swimming pool).
That's one reason why I grabbed a daphne blue Highway body for my Jazz bass project. Nitro finish that polished up nicely, lightweight, and looks good w/o the pickguard if I decide to take it off (no swimming pool).
LoveThatBass
Supporting Member
That does sound nice!
Also, I agree about the routing. If as you mentioned about the American Standard having "swimming pool Routing" while the Hwy 1 and American Special do not, it makes no sense.
Also, I remember thinking about getting a Hwy 1 when they were $400 approximately but they increased the price before I could get one.
but consumers believed the myth that finish thickness makes a tonal difference on a solidbody (it doesn't), so Fender marketing humored them.
In the long run, finish thickness does make a tonal difference. But since neither of our theories can be proven...
Believe it or not, there are many, many guys out there with many years (likely more than you) under their belt who agree with the "thin skin" myth. Means about as much as your belief in the contrary, I guess.
In the long run, finish thickness does make a tonal difference. But since neither of our theories can be proven...
Believe it or not, there are many, many guys out there with many years (likely more than you) under their belt who agree with the "thin skin" myth. Means about as much as your belief in the contrary, I guess.
If they have more years "under their belts" than me, I pity them. I've only been working on these things for over forty years.
The lab proof, I believe, would be effectively impossible to obtain because of the impossibility of constructing adequate and effective controls in the protocol.
Regardless, the claims for audible sonic superiority of a thin finish on a solidbody are inherently nonsensical on their face as they defy logic, and their roots lie in misattribution.
What do I mean by that?
This superstitious belief has its muddled origins in the history of classical acoustic string instruments.
On a world-class violin with a top carefully carved from a single piece of wood and "tuned" by adjusting points of thickness on a very thin, intensely vibrating top, the thickness, rigidity and makeup of a finish can and does make a measurable difference in the way the top vibrates and consequently how the violin sounds. It affects the top's material consistency and to an extent even its mass.
Still, even here, these effects are somewhat subtle.
To a substantially lesser degree, these same concerns apply to a fine classical guitar, which has a top of relatively lightly-braced, very thin, very light, very soft cedar or spruce vibrating under relatively low tension. Such a top bonded to an extremely hard ~.006" layer of catalyzed polyurethane finish has been substantially altered in its makeup and vibrational properties.
A trained ear may detect a noticeable difference between a comparable batch of guitars with tops finished this way rather than in another, as the tops are very closely graded for consistency in the production of fine classical guitars.
With steel-string acoustics, this situation is still present, but has diminished even further as the guitar top is more rigidly braced and under far higher tension so the structural characteristics of the finish are proportionally less important to the vibrational characteristics of the top.
So, the importance of the finish is meaningful on these guitars where the sound is produced by a thin membrane of coniferous softwood. A classic Cremona thin varnish may produce, to the trained ear, a more complex tone than a thick layer of polyurethane.
All right. With me so far?
OK, while we've been talking, Bubba has arrived lugging his Peavey T-40 and has been trying his best to follow all this.
At this point, he says to himself, "Dang! I'm gonna go home and strip them polyurethoodles off and get me some of them cremonies and Ol' Betsy gonna have AWESOME TONE!"
He can barely contain his excitement, though -- predictably, being Bubba and not real good at this thinking business -- he errs. Worse, he's typical of his breed, gristlehead gear forum trash, so he will disseminate his dire misconceptions to his fellows worldwide by nightfall. He will laboriously trash Ol' Betsy and will offer to fight anyone who suggests she does not have improved TONE as a result of all his arduous and destructive scraping.
Me: Class, in which errors do Bubba's tragic folly lie?
Billy: Bubba isn't playing a fine classical guitar. He's playing a whacking great boat anchor of an electric bass which relies for its sound primarily upon electromagnetic transduction and downstream signal modification and amplification.
Gordon: [rolling his eyes] Never mind the isolation of the body by that anvil of a high-mass bridge anyway.
Nigel: To expand upon William's point, even if this...um...Bubba chap was considering unamplified results, he is not dealing with a delicately vibrating wafer of fine spruce weighing an ounce or two, but a body consisting of some frightful, six pound hunk of ungraded furniture ash. I should imagine it would make relatively no difference if he dipped the wretched thing in road tar.
Molly: Bubba is a waddling swine who weighs twenty stone if he weighs a bloody ounce...
Me: Language, Molly!
Molly: Sir. When he plays that thing, he wraps his sagging fat around it until he looks like an amoeba taking his feed. If anything touching that bass could vibrationally damp it, such extensive contact with Bubba's foul, wet self should, I reckon, be like having it played whilst jammed into a vat of axle grease.
Me: Splendid, and full marks to you all! I thank you for reinforcing my decision to teach in a decent prep instead of an odorous sink school full of chavs and schemies!
Bongolation said:
Best post I have ever read in Talkbass. Made me feel less guilty about staying late reading instead of getting some sleep. Bongolation, you rock!
Bongo, thank you. Ive been having this "discussion" for years and people are set in the anti-polly ways, and here im just a member of that class. Ha
I also dig the finish. I also own a jazz i had done in flat black, so i guess its just me.
I also dig the finish. I also own a jazz i had done in flat black, so i guess its just me.
I like the looks after it's been buffed out a little as it pretty closely resembles a true, pre-Fullerplast vintage finish with some years on it...but it lacks durability and has no effect on AWESOME TONE.
There's nothing magical about it. It's just cheap and authentic-looking. That's fine.
I like the looks after it's been buffed out a little as it pretty closely resembles a true, pre-Fullerplast vintage finish with some years on it...but it lacks durability and has no effect on AWESOME TONE.
There's nothing magical about it. It's just cheap and authentic-looking. That's fine.
When will us finishistas learn? Your posts are irritating to those who know better. But only because they seem designed that way. You're trying too hard. I'll never convert.
LoveThatBass
Supporting Member
Nitro vs. Poly and Jazz vs. P brings the heat out in people it seems. We all have our preferences. That's what makes the world go around. I have had nitro finished Gibson Electrics and poly finished Fender Basses. Buffed and polished Nitro is absolutely gordeous but is very tempermental to sudden temperature changes but I prefer poly for it's durability on a solid body guitar as I can't find one reason for having Nitro on a solid wood body. Acoustic with a solid wooden top, yes maybe but I have to say I had a $1649 Martin (Nitro) and now a $200 Mitchell Acoustic (Poly) and I don't hear as much difference to warrant the other $1449. This may not work for you but it works just fine for me.
You're missing the point: The claim for magic tone is either true or it's not. It's not a matter of "opinion."
It's not merely that there is no way that the claim for magic tone from finishes on a massive solidbody can be proved, nor is there any persuasive evidence for it, there's no logical basis even for the claim, which simply defies common sense. It's a myth based on the grossly misunderstood importance of finish in fine acoustic classical instruments.
Nobody in tech at FMIC believes a word of this nonsense (I know, because I've discussed it with them), but this myth has eventually been recognized as an exploitable marketing angle. It's easier to pander to pervasive ignorance and make money from it than to try to educate the unwilling and impenetrably stupid at your own expense. Bubbas believe there's a difference, so by all means sell them what they want and tell them they're right.
It's like Gibson putting Orange Drop bleeder caps in their better guitars, the Bubba imaginary advantage of which is also based on a misunderstood actual benefit in a completely different application. Gibson knows there's absolutely zero technical advantage to it, but the Bubbas believe there is, so why not drop twenty cents to attract them to some otherwise wildly overpriced product?
Etc., etc., etc. While we're at it, let's sell them some magic guitar cables, too.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- especially when what you claim flies in the face of logic, common sense and received scientific knowledge. The Bubbas have no such evidence for these various myths any more than they have for abduction by space aliens.
If you can't provide evidence, you should at least have a plausible hypothesis, but they lack that too.
Nitrate spectacle frames would combust if slightlly over-heated when adjusted. So, it doen't have to sound better to still be a cool chemical!
... actually, you may want to double check on your daphne blue finish ... if I remember correctly, the daphne blue was only offered on the Hwy 1 series, not the Hwy ONE ... that would leave it what I believe was a different type of lacquer finish, with the finish being changed to the nitrocellulose lacquer for the ONE 'upgrade' Series ... even though the original 1 series and the ONE series both had the satin finish, they had different top coats if I remember correctly ...
My best guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that the final HO bodies were the same as the RI bodies or those of the MIM Classics.
The HO guitars also had vintage radii and inletting, same as RIs.
At some point, FMIC made the decision to rationalize and economize production by eliminating a lot of differences in component inventory between the models. This much I know for a fact.
I suspect the HOs used the same body as another model or models as part of that inventory reduction.
It would be interesting to get some examples on the bench to compare them.
