Squier vs. Fender ?!?

[andare]

I had a Chinese Squier CV '60s P bass which was a perfectly fine instrument except for the rubbery feel of the neck - unfortunate, since otherwise I liked its J style neck.
The MIM P that I replaced it with is much more stable.

The CVs have never had a J neck. The nut width is usually the same as modern Ps, 1 5/8", although it's advertised as being wider.

 

[bassrique]

The basic jazz and precision designs are pretty good as far as they go. I don't begrudge Fender the decision to just keep making them as a business model.

My issue with them is that they can't seem to innovate even within the confines they have set up for themselves. Offering necks with different wood types is an easy thing for them to do, and would cost them very little. Or getting a neck with a headstock painted the same color as the body. A little bit extra in terms of cost and time, but if someone is buying a new bass and spending a couple grand to do it, it should at least be an option.

The attitude of some people on here seems to be that if I want a bass with some of those somewhat unique options, I should be happy going to the Custom Shop and paying their prices. That mentality boggles my mind. But whatever. If Fender can't seem to offer choices to customers that are clearly within their power to offer, without a significant upcharge, I'm happy to go spend my bass dollars elsewhere.

So many people want so many things though. How can anyone keep up?

Fender already has so many lines I can't keep up.

My objection to Fender is the price, but that's like complaining about the weather I suppose.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

The basic jazz and precision designs are pretty good as far as they go. I don't begrudge Fender the decision to just keep making them as a business model.

My issue with them is that they can't seem to innovate even within the confines they have set up for themselves. Offering necks with different wood types is an easy thing for them to do, and would cost them very little. Or getting a neck with a headstock painted the same color as the body. A little bit extra in terms of cost and time, but if someone is buying a new bass and spending a couple grand to do it, it should at least be an option.

The attitude of some people on here seems to be that if I want a bass with some of those somewhat unique options, I should be happy going to the Custom Shop and paying their prices. That mentality boggles my mind. But whatever. If Fender can't seem to offer choices to customers that are clearly within their power to offer, without a significant upcharge, I'm happy to go spend my bass dollars elsewhere.

I mean, that’s why FSOs are so popular from other brands. Fender does what Fender wants to do, and you, as a consumer, have a right to go elsewhere.

 

[BlueTalon]

If those things sold they would offer them. They don't so they don't.

How on earth do you think you know that? The only way to tell would be to actually offer the options for a long period of time. It's impossible to know how many people might order black hardware on a Fender bass, or a neck made with some other wood besides maple, if Fender never offers it.

Why should Fender change or innovate when they're more profitable than ever with what they sell now?

They're in business to make money, right?

As any business is. So why would they alienate a portion of their possible customer base by not offering options that would cost them nothing to offer?

Besides, that logic about trying to innovate doesn't hold with Fender anyway. Otherwise they wouldn't be putting their name on record players and rings and other stuff. They just suck at it when it comes to guitars and basses.

I mean, that’s why FSOs are so popular from other brands. Fender does what Fender wants to do, and you, as a consumer, have a right to go elsewhere.

As the owner of several FSOs, I can tell you one of the reasons they are popular -- they are modular in their construction. (Plus the body shapes are appealing.)

It raises an interesting point for me, though. Warmoth's business is booming. How much of that boom consists of customers who might have ordered from Fender, had Fender offered what they wanted? How much business has Fender effectively chased away?

 

[tvbop]

The walnut urethane finish on the Squier looks great, but it’s just plastic, after all. No real contest here.

And so it was on all Fenders from 70 onwards. I agree a thin Nitro finish is super but I owned an original 75 urethane clear lacquer P bass which was very good (regret selling it), but my CV and its plastic walnut finish feels exactly the same.

 

[Old Blastard]

Innovation and Fender: it's an odd situation. When Fender does something different, they are lambasted for a variety of sins and the new product eventually fails. Dimension is the most recent example and I'm guessing the Meteora will soon follow. The customer base doesn't necessarily want innovation in design unless it's dressed in old clothes. And that's ok.

Personally, I love my MIJ fretless Jazz Bass special, my MIJ Jag Deluxe which has more sounds than my old dog and my Starcaster which is heavy but awesome.

I dug the reissued Coronado II and I dig the looks of the Meteora, but in a year or two it will be dropped and I can get it cheap. I didn't have the money at the time Dimensions were killed off or I would have snagged one.

I do have a P and a J bass, one by @Drake Custom and the other by FGN

 

[BlueTalon]

Innovation and Fender: it's an odd situation. When Fender does something different, they are lambasted for a variety of sins and the new product eventually fails. Dimension is the most recent example and I'm guessing the Meteora will soon follow. The customer base doesn't necessarily want innovation in design unless it's dressed in old clothes. And that's ok.

I think they kind of painted themselves into a corner. It's not a bad corner to be painted into, but it does impinge on their ability to be flexible. The innovation I'd like to see from them doesn't involve any new body shapes or designs. I just want to see them offer more options on things that have the same shapes as what they make now (and have been making for decades).

 

[Old Blastard]

I think they kind of painted themselves into a corner. It's not a bad corner to be painted into, but it does impinge on their ability to be flexible. The innovation I'd like to see from them doesn't involve any new body shapes or designs. I just want to see them offer more options on things that have the same shapes as what they make now (and have been making for decades).

I think many feel that way. For me, the selection of J and Ps from performer to player to professional all get a little confusing, like the Ibanez SR series. Can't tell you without research the difference between a Sr300, 500, 800, and so on, except price. If

 

[Kipp Harrington]

The CVs have never had a J neck. The nut width is usually the same as modern Ps, 1 5/8", although it's advertised as being wider.

I think nomaj meant that it is a J "style" neck, in that it has a very comfortable modern C neck and it's more comfortable to play vs. a traditional P bass neck.

 

[andare]

I think nomaj meant that it is a J "style" neck, in that it has a very comfortable modern C neck and it's more comfortable to play vs. a traditional P bass neck.

The nut width is halfway between the original 1.75" and the Jazz width of 1.5". More comfortable is subjective. For example I find Jazz necks cramped and the 1 5/8" or 42mm (MIJ) width is as narrow as I'll get provided the neck has an oval or D profile. I think most P necks from the 60s onwards have had a C profile.