#1
What guitars/accesories look cheap and crappy.

For me Recessed FRs look really cheap and sloppy

Dean ml guitars look cheap.

B.C. rich warlocks look really cheap

Ibanez rgs look really cheap.
Last edited by linknchuk at Apr 21, 2008,
#2
Ibanez guitars look cheap. BC Rich guitars look like toys. Lower end Jacksons look cheap. ESP guitars look cheap and tacky with all of the abalone they drown them in. Epiphones look cheap. Dean Dime guitars look like crap.

Everything looks cheap.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#4
Every amp compared to my CBB.

Lol, jk.

Um, dean ML X's, cheaper guitars with FR's on it, Yamaha strat copies (although they play nice)
Call me Wes.
Gear:
Fender American Deluxe HSS Strat
Chicago Blues Box Roadhouse
Bad Cat Cougar 5
1957 Gibson GA-5
Ceriatone 18w TMB Combo
Hughes & Kettner Tube Factor
Various Ibanez TS9s
Weber MASS Attenuator
#6
ibanez gios, b.c.rich guitars and most behringer products
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
#7
By recessed you mean like the low profile ones on the dxmg? if so, I'll have to disagree
#8
Wow...this is ****ing pointless.
Oh no he just divided by zero again...*gets sucked into vortex*

Originally Posted by Sirwinston89
whoa man this is turning into the Dream Theater appreciation thread!!! If only every thread kicked this much ass!


You're welcome
#9
95% of Ibanez guitars (sorry, my personal opinion)

Most of the new gibson guitars

Anything with flames on it

Anything with more than just a bit of binding (Looks at LTD and Schecters menacingly)

The trem on fenders (sorry, it just looks like a toy to me)

Chrome hardware on most colors (it just looks weird to me)

LP's with those fancy pick guards

Elaborate straps

Anything that lights up
#10
95% of Ibanez guitars (sorry, my personal opinion)

Most of the new gibson guitars

Anything with flames on it

Anything with more than just a bit of binding (Looks at LTD and Schecters menacingly)

The trem on fenders (sorry, it just looks like a toy to me)

Chrome hardware on (depending on the color, it just looks weird to me)

LP's with those fancy pick guards

Elaborate straps

Anything that lights up
#13
- All Ibanez guitars. I tried trashing a JEM once (easily the cheapest looking guitar ever created), and it actually held up really, really well... but it still looked like it should fall apart at any minute.

- Any guitar that has been fake-relic'd, or is covered in abalone, has a full-body pickguard, and so on. I just hate any new stock stuff which is supposed to make a guitar look 'special' or 'custom'. Hint; it's not special if the brand is producing hundreds of guitars just like it every single day. These guiatars always look very cheap, like you know the wood inside will be ****. Even when sometimes they're actually pretty good, just the fact that they were artifically made to look older/more expensive, makes them look tacky and cheap.

- Most 'metal' shaped guitars. This includes Flying-Vs, Mockingbirds, Warlocks, Explorers, Iceman (Icemen?), and so on.

- Telecasters. They just always, always look as cheap as possible. I suppose that's why the feux-'indie' crowd love them so much.

- Les Pauls with a transparent/burst finish, but only plain maple underneath. I really can't stand that one. It looks horribly price-slashing, corner-cutting, cheap-n-cheerful. Flame or Quilt maple should be required by law. Even Gibson Custom Shop models look like they should only cost £20 when they have plain maple.

- Dot inlays.

- Over-the-top custom inlays, such as dragons or thorns running the full length of the fretboard.

- In fact, any dragons or thorns anywhere instantly make anything look cheap.

- Active pickups with their horrible 'flatbed' look, or open-coil passive pickups. If it's not got gold or chrome covers, it's bad and looks poor, get it the **** off my guitars.

- Creme binding and other plastic, and 'vintage white' finishes instead of alpine/arctic white. Vomit. It's like they were too poor to use proper white.

- Rosewood. Use Ebony you cheap ****ers.
#14
Floyd Roses don't look as much cheap as they do bulky and unattractive.

That's right. Floyd Rosie O'Donnel.
No offense, but (see above).
#15
Most ESP's look awesome on the computer screen, then look like cheap knockoff Jackson's in real life(IMO).
dean's look cheap and so do B.C. Rich guitars
#16
Quote by sxymnky777
By recessed you mean like the low profile ones on the dxmg? if so, I'll have to disagree

I mean the ones that are really low and have a WHOLE BUNCH of routing around it.

post a pick of what your thinking of though
#20
Quote by bokuho
- All Ibanez guitars. I tried trashing a JEM once (easily the cheapest looking guitar ever created), and it actually held up really, really well... but it still looked like it should fall apart at any minute.

- Any guitar that has been fake-relic'd, or is covered in abalone, has a full-body pickguard, and so on. I just hate any new stock stuff which is supposed to make a guitar look 'special' or 'custom'. Hint; it's not special if the brand is producing hundreds of guitars just like it every single day. These guiatars always look very cheap, like you know the wood inside will be ****. Even when sometimes they're actually pretty good, just the fact that they were artifically made to look older/more expensive, makes them look tacky and cheap.

- Most 'metal' shaped guitars. This includes Flying-Vs, Mockingbirds, Warlocks, Explorers, Iceman (Icemen?), and so on.

- Telecasters. They just always, always look as cheap as possible. I suppose that's why the feux-'indie' crowd love them so much.

- Les Pauls with a transparent/burst finish, but only plain maple underneath. I really can't stand that one. It looks horribly price-slashing, corner-cutting, cheap-n-cheerful. Flame or Quilt maple should be required by law. Even Gibson Custom Shop models look like they should only cost £20 when they have plain maple.

- Dot inlays.

- Over-the-top custom inlays, such as dragons or thorns running the full length of the fretboard.

- In fact, any dragons or thorns anywhere instantly make anything look cheap.

- Active pickups with their horrible 'flatbed' look, or open-coil passive pickups. If it's not got gold or chrome covers, it's bad and looks poor, get it the **** off my guitars.

- Creme binding and other plastic, and 'vintage white' finishes instead of alpine/arctic white. Vomit. It's like they were too poor to use proper white.

- Rosewood. Use Ebony you cheap ****ers.

1. Explorers aren't just for metal. Ever heard of Lynryd Skynrd? V's aren't either, ever heard of Albert King?
2. I actually don't like FM much, but I really like plain maple and QM. I think Flame is overdone.
3. You must really not like most strats then, or most fender style guitars.
4. Open coil HB's are much more subtle looking and better looking IMO.
5. Ebony, since it is stupidly hard, is hard to work with and therefore costs more to do so. hence the more economical Rosewood. Plus, they don't sound REMOTELY the same.
/rant
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400 with Gotoh GE1996T (EMG 85/60)
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.