Introducing The New Zachary Ikea Model.

[crafty]

"It just shows you how much power advertising has on the inexperienced. You can sell anything if you advertise it enough." --Alex Csiky (builder of Zachary Guitars)

[MCH]

I think the point Southpa is trying to make is why would you spend $2,000 on such a basic guitar, from some no name chump on the internet? The buyer could spend that money on a PRS, but I guess Zachary guitars are a lot better and cheaper than PRS. I dunno. If the guitar cost him 500 to build in materials, what justifies that extra 1,500 in his pocket? Labor? Yeah right, I wouldn't pay him +$40 an hour to build me a guitar that's for sure.

Although, I don't feel right speaking for Southpa, but this post is basically all my opinion.

Chris

Obviously you missed my point.

The beauty of the internet is the exchange of opinions with no impunity. In this case your opinion is taken but not valid as a rebuttal.

Million dollars for paint splashed on a canvas is not justified if measuring in materials and labour. The buyer justifies paying that for other reasons that is peculiar to his needs.

PRS selling guitars for $4000 or more is not because of materials and labour.

sigh. life goes on.

[GregP]

Looks like a stop tailpiece to me, too.

And the closeups on the headstock... anyone wanna play "spot the problems"? Other amateur errors in other pictures around the site (I know, 'cause I made them, and when I made them I said "crap, I gotta make sure I never do THAT again!") include file gouges right into the fingerboard from when he was working at the fret ends.

<shrug>

I still totally agree with Perry-- it's amusing to give this guy so much free publicity, but it's hard not to laugh.

Actually, on that point: The more I read the site, the more I actually have to laugh at the guy's sense of humour. His vitriotic character is showing itself to be just that-- a "character." It's hard to be too mad at the guy when you can't help but suspect he has a lot of fun being this over-the-top Ed Roman type guy.

But then, the "snake oil salesman" parts bring the humour down a bit. For example, embedding all kinds of actual brand names and famous players into his web pages (the SG page's header is "Gibson SG" not "Zachary SG", and the video page's header is "Vai Satch Petrucci G3" if I remember correctly)... so what would have been a really funny larf is a bit ruined when you know that he would gladly fleece an unsuspecting buyer.

[Mickguard]

is that 'wraparound' nothing more than a tunomatic stop tailpiece? No intonation adjustment whatsoever?

That's the style of the original Gibson wraparound bridge --what they used on the early LP Jrs. Some people feel (claim) that that bridge played a big part in defining the sound of those guitars. The originals were also made of aluminum--they're extremely lightweight.

I wonder how much of that is hype, how much is true. I do know that when I took the Badass off my Melody Maker (a mod made before I bought it) and put a compensated wraparound back on there, the sound changed dramatically --much brighter, better definition, more resonance. More sustain too, or at least it felt that way. The difference in tone was real. Different doesn't always mean better of course.

The bridge I used isn't aluminum...but I was so curious I went ahead and bought a non-compensated aluminum wraparound. It's going on to the project I'm working on right now, so I'll know in a month what it sounds like in real life. But if it was good enough for Leslie West and Johnny Thunders...

The problem I'm having with this latest round of Zachary bashing is that most of it is just plain wrong. Off base. It's like you're all shooting at fish...in the sky.

I mean, just take your problems with his prices. Well, hell, a lot of you wouldn't blink at paying $2,000 for a Gibson--even though those are assembly line guitars, with well-known quality issues, and even though you all should know that the CEO himself admitted that everytime they raise the price, they sell more guitars. PRS too has outgrown its roots as a boutique builder. It's a big company now, churning out the guitars at prices every bit as unreasonable as Gibson...or Zachary for that matter.

The fact that a guitar is relatively easy or relatively complicated to build simply has nothing to do with any of it. The price is what the market will bear. As Perry pointed out, this guy sells EVERY one of his guitars. Sure, his customers might be complete goofballs, big deal, it's their money.

Still, much of what you pay for when you pay for a guitar has little to do with the materials, or even the workmanship that goes into it. I mean, Leo Fender designed his guitars to be cheap and easy to build. And the modern Fender Inc. (which has nothing to do with Leo Fender) sells those cheap-to-build guitars at some pretty extraordinary prices-- ever check out the prices on those custom shop deals? So what are you paying for? The Fender name. The Fender legend.

In the case of Zachary and builders like him --let's put Perry, Myka and Scott French into this category--you're paying for the cachet of a boutique, small-scale builder working out his own designs in public. There's a vibe, a hipness to buying this category of guitar--and yeah, you have to pay more for that. You're paying for the builder's (artist's) vision, his ideas, his design choices, his technology, his opinions on what makes a guitar great or not. Obviously if you don't agree with their choices, well, don't buy the guitar. But just because you don't agree doesn't mean HE's wrong.

Now, I'll say this for Zachary guitars-- for better or worse, they excite, anger, inspire...and that is what art is supposed to be about, right?

[GregP]

<shrug> There's a lot to debate in what you say. I'll give you the tailpiece/bridge one-- it rings true to me that some early bridges looked like this, though the groove in the back looks odd and out of place.

Have you looked at the close-ups of the headstock in the "SG" page? Any opinion on why he puts misleading text into his webpage headers? What evidence do we have that he sells all of his guitars, and how many of them ARE there for that matter? Using his website as a source is "begging the question" and doesn't actually prove a point. There are good points to be made that are NOT "shooting fish in the sky," and they've been made.

As for putting him together with Perry, Myka, or Scott... let's not, and say we did.

Why so passionate about this guy and his "work"? I'm glad they're exciting and inspiring you, I guess, I just hope that you maintain your critical eye and don't let that inspiration ruin any of your builds. If you're going to take inspiration from his minimalist headstock, that's great... but improve upon it, and do it RIGHT.

Greg

[Mattia]

Mick: re: tailpiece, OK, although I'd never want to use one. Vintage hype and all that jazz, and there are aluminum compensated wraparounds out there for those looking for them. Down to taste, though.

It amuses me you feel the need to defend the guy, though; let's get a reality check here: this is a guitar building forum. The point is to discuss building the damn instruments, not pricing, not marketing, not whether something's worth the money simply because of the name attached to the brand on the headstock (because I'm with you on the pricing on new production Gibsons and the like).

The point is to build better guitars. And that includes calling 'foul' when marketing hype gets turned into absolute truth, when the rationale for design or material choices doesn't line up with your (ie, you, me, everyone, the posters to this forum's) experiences. Just because he has a right to an opinion doesn't mean we shouldn't tear down the inconsitencies we see locked within. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean HE'S right. Doesn't mean I'm right, either, but that's a given, I'd think. I also freely admit I'm a sucker for a good (or even a bad) debate, so I wade in even if there's little real value to any of this blather; it's not helping me be a better builder, certainly.

As for his guitars, they neither excite, anger or inspire me. It's the attitude that irritates, but little more.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Mattia

[AlGeeEater]

Obviously you missed my point.

The beauty of the internet is the exchange of opinions with no impunity. In this case your opinion is taken but not valid as a rebuttal.

Million dollars for paint splashed on a canvas is not justified if measuring in materials and labour. The buyer justifies paying that for other reasons that is peculiar to his needs.

PRS selling guitars for $4000 or more is not because of materials and labour.

sigh. life goes on.

I got your point, I just can't see anybody justifying that amount of money for a guitar from him. His attitude & ideals are disgusting. Zachary Guitars isn't doing anything extraordinary, or anything out of this world either. How is the buyer getting their needs satisfied from buying from him? He's not doing anything out of the ordinary really (well, except maybe the dumpster guitar, which I think should be returned where he found it. ). I don't know, I just don't see anybody getting their needs satisfied by Zachary. The consumer can go to a real, reputable lutheir and get anything Zachary has built.

In all honesty though, I could really careless. I don't give two flying f***s about this Zachary clown, and I don't care to argue about him.

Chris

[rhoads56]

It amazes me how much effort everyone is putting into this argument (me included, but im bored).

I take more offense in Fender, selling their "US built" guitars here in Australia for the starting prices of $3000 ($2600 USD), than i do with Zachary selling everyone one of his projects for less. Fender STILL cant get a neck joint right (shims and sloppy fit), after 50+ years of building Strats, AND computer controlled machinery...

If you dont like it, dont buy it. Simple.

The tailpiece he is using on the SG, has adjustment grub screws at each end. Its not a stop tail, its a bridge. I spent over an hour trying to talk a guy out of using one of those once... but he had to have it.

Chris, he isnt a no name on the net, he is Zachary. Not a household name, sure, but certainly more famous than most luthiers out there. May i challenge you to quit your job, and let me commission builds from you for materials plus 10%? Or would you like to actually earn a living from your work? The guy has a RIGHT to earn a living, without having his prices questioned, by anyone other than the guy with the cash ready to buy. Considering no one in here has ever played one of his guitars, how do we not know its the best playing guitar in thew world? Playability and tone are the MOST important characteristics, right, not attitude, personality, and looks... surely...

Rich, i just read over that page. Sorry, i dont really see ANYTHING there that i would argue with.

Tone: I agree thick plastic lacquer jobs effect tone. Ive stripped and oiled enough guitars, and had enough clients raving about it, to know im not alone in that opinion. I spray my lacquer as thin as i can, to limit the effect of tone, and even select the TYPE of lacquer depending on my clients personal needs. Im yet to build a custom for someone with an oil finish, because everyone wants gloss, or graphics, etc. I also agree with his comments on reasonance vs traditional timbers, tight neck joints, contact area, etc. However, i have a few coming up this year with oiled finishes.

Feel/Comfort: Ive always wondered why we dont build guitars with a wider nut. Ive built a 46mm wide nut neck for a strat player, and it felt good. Maybe my fingers are more chunky than most? You and I have never played his guitars, so how can we comment?

Balance: Agree with the points on Fender.

Tuning/hardware: I also hate graphtec products.

Innovation: These are Zachary trademark design features, who are we to disagree?? If i could, id build every guitar with 26" scale, it DOES have an effect on the tone. Slowly, my clients are believing me, and letting me dictate specs like this.

Uniqueness, etc: Cant disagree with him there...

[AlGeeEater]

The guy has a RIGHT to earn a living, without having his prices questioned, by anyone other than the guy with the cash ready to buy. Considering no one in here has ever played one of his guitars, how do we not know its the best playing guitar in thew world? Playability and tone are the MOST important characteristics, right, not attitude, personality, and looks... surely...

I agree, and there's nothing stopping him, but i'd still never buy a guitar from him. I just don't see why buyers are attracted to getting a guitar from him really.

[soapbarstrat]

I agree, and there's nothing stopping him, but i'd still never buy a guitar from him. I just don't see why buyers are attracted to getting a guitar from him really.

Maybe his girlfriend looks better than yours, too. How we gonna solve that one ?

[Primal]

It amazes me how much effort everyone is putting into this argument (me included, but im bored).

I think you hit the nail on the head there Perry.

[GregP]

I'm going to call that as my excuse, too. I literally stared at my computer monitor for much of today wondering, "what should I do?" And since I never answered that question, I just continued picking at the scab.

[crafty]

It's funny, I think I may have checked this page maybe twice today. I actually did something with my Saturday, for once. I upgraded my ham radio license to General Class this morning, caught some free beer and chili and watched some friends play a benefit concert this afternoon, and then I went and watched "The Astronaut Farmer". Cheesy but nifty film. Then I sat down this evening and watched some movies from Netflix this evening with a plate of leftover chicken enchiladas and some Dr. Pepper.

My closing thoughts on Alex and "Zachary" guitars: the joke is on all of us. He's smart enough to know that if you create enough buzz, you'll get customers no matter what. I *highly* doubt that any of his instruments have sold anywhere near what he's been asking for them. A lot have probably been given away, too. His attitude and philosophy seem to have changed a great deal over the years, even contradicting himself many times along the way. I get the feeling that he's still learning and improving his skill set, just like the rest of us. I don't think he's ever going to build a guitar like the dumpster guitar again because the level of workmanship on his guitars HAS increased, whether he intended it or not. I'd be willing to bet that if his first guitar really was better than a PRS, he wouldn't have been bad mouthing them all over the web.

The "stickittothemanneosis" he seems to suffer from is all an act. Pure marketing genius learned straight from the model of Ed Roman.

[Mickguard]

I'm a touch typist, so there's no effort involved.

I'm NOT defending Zachary guitars...at least not per se. It's the wrongness of the arguments that get me going-- and yes, this has to do with guitar-building in general. Because I certainly don't want to see everyone here building exactly the same guitar, with the same design ideas, etc. And I definitely do not want to see people trashing someone who develops new ideas for how guitars should be built--and has the balls to try things out.

And sorry Greg, but yes, he does indeed belong in the same category as Perry, Myka, LGM, Scott French and most of the other luthiers on the Cool Luthier Sites thread. You don't have to like his designs, you don't have to like his marketing spiel, you don't have to like his 'innovations'--but you have to be able to recognize that his guitars (every single one exposed from a dozen or more angles at high-resolution) are every bit as well-built--as much as we can judge any of those, since we've only seen the photos of those too. This is not a hack amateur posing as a 'real' builder. This is someone who has been paying his dues --and remember, that Ikea guitar is NOT new, it's seven years old already. To me that's an example of the wrongness behind the arguments here.

And he's Canadian...you'd figure he'd get a few points from you for that?

And OF COURSE the guy is joking through much of that chatter. He's just having a laugh. It's unfortunate though--there is no doubt in my mind that people's negative reaction to his GUITARS comes only because of their reaction to HIM.

As for the bridge...I can't wait to try mine out. And yes, Mattia, it looks exactly like that one, except mine's nickel plated. The nice part though is that if I decide I don't like it, it can be retrofitted with any other wraparound style bridge.

[Mattia]

It amazes me how much effort everyone is putting into this argument (me included, but im bored).

I think you hit the nail on the head there Perry.

Heh. We're an incorrigible lot, ain't we?

[fryovanni]

Rich, i just read over that page. Sorry, i dont really see ANYTHING there that i would argue with.

Tone: I agree thick plastic lacquer jobs effect tone. Ive stripped and oiled enough guitars, and had enough clients raving about it, to know im not alone in that opinion. I spray my lacquer as thin as i can, to limit the effect of tone, and even select the TYPE of lacquer depending on my clients personal needs. Im yet to build a custom for someone with an oil finish, because everyone wants gloss, or graphics, etc. I also agree with his comments on reasonance vs traditional timbers, tight neck joints, contact area, etc. However, i have a few coming up this year with oiled finishes.

Feel/Comfort: Ive always wondered why we dont build guitars with a wider nut. Ive built a 46mm wide nut neck for a strat player, and it felt good. Maybe my fingers are more chunky than most? You and I have never played his guitars, so how can we comment?

Balance: Agree with the points on Fender.

Tuning/hardware: I also hate graphtec products.

Innovation: These are Zachary trademark design features, who are we to disagree?? If i could, id build every guitar with 26" scale, it DOES have an effect on the tone. Slowly, my clients are believing me, and letting me dictate specs like this.

Uniqueness, etc: Cant disagree with him there...

You know Perry, I read it again and your right. I guess it is the way he describes things in absolutes that made me read more into it. A heavy finish is not good. I was reading plastic finish=bad and oil is the only option if you want your guitar to sound good. I guess I will just leave it alone. I suspect I am not very objective when I read most anything he writes because I don't care for the way he presents himself.

Peace,Rich

[aidlook]

I don't think this guy is really serious with his black and white views on everything...he sounds like a christian defending creationism.

Anyway...this is a quote from his website

if they are using some solid state or, god forbid, a digital amp, they should not get a Zach.

And this is a picture apparently taken at the guy's house.

[Duane]

That's the kind of wood I find very homely.....mosaic wood or whatever, not my thing at all.

[soapbarstrat]

That's the kind of wood I find very homely.....mosaic wood or whatever, not my thing at all.

Well, it's about damn time ! Do you have any idea how long I've been wondering what you think about that guitar ?

[westhemann]

hehe...point taken,soap...but that guitar does make my eyes cross...all of the holes combined with that pattern makes it hard to focus on.

this is simply a case of a guy marketing his guitar building philosophy agressively.much like ed roman...

i can't say i find anything in his gallery appealing at all...but i don't think i am his target audience.only thing i really have a problem with is that samurai headstock...his #1 and #6 tuners have to wrap opposite of the other strings...aside from being ugly,i just think i would hate that(matter of fact i know i would...i made that mistake on a seven a while back)

[Southpa]

You can see the huge gap between tuners 5 and 6 and between 1 and 2, so they (1 & 6) are swapped in order to turn them the right way to tighten strings.

[AlGeeEater]

Maybe his girlfriend looks better than yours, too. How we gonna solve that one ?

Is it really relevant?

[westhemann]

You can see the huge gap between tuners 5 and 6 and between 1 and 2, so they (1 & 6) are swapped in order to turn them the right way to tighten strings.

i know..but you still have to stick it in the opposite direction...

[GregP]

And sorry Greg, but yes, he does indeed belong in the same category as Perry, Myka, LGM, Scott French and most of the other luthiers on the Cool Luthier Sites thread. You don't have to like his designs, you don't have to like his marketing spiel, you don't have to like his 'innovations'--but you have to be able to recognize that his guitars (every single one exposed from a dozen or more angles at high-resolution) are every bit as well-built--as much as we can judge any of those, since we've only seen the photos of those too. This is not a hack amateur posing as a 'real' builder. This is someone who has been paying his dues --and remember, that Ikea guitar is NOT new, it's seven years old already. To me that's an example of the wrongness behind the arguments here.

Wrong. I DID look at the closeups, and even as a non-expert I can see some serious flaws. I mean AMATEUR flaws. Sorry, Mick, but I absolutely do NOT have to put him in that same category. If you want to buy that he's the real deal, that's fine. You're allowed to. But I think you've missed some very telling mistakes. Mick, there's a difference between "wrong arguments" and "arguments I don't agree with."

And he's Canadian...you'd figure he'd get a few points from you for that?

Celine Dion doesn't get any points from me, either.

And OF COURSE the guy is joking through much of that chatter. He's just having a laugh. It's unfortunate though--there is no doubt in my mind that people's negative reaction to his GUITARS comes only because of their reaction to HIM.

Partially, but not "only". You're going to have to give me credit for some freakin' intelligence here. If I respond any more than that, it means making new points and debating. For someone that *I* know is full of BS.

For the record, I understand that he probably makes better guitars than I could. But a "hack" is not just someone who does a bad job. I get to do a bad job and not be a hack, because I'm an amateur hobbyist. That's not a hack. He is a hack because he has pretenses of being a professional.

Besides, that numpty doesn't even use pickguards. How can he be a real luthier?

As for the above photo-- is it just me or was the point missed? It wasn't about the mosaic guitar, but the fact that he's using a Line 6 amplifier.

[erikbojerik]

I think the original 50s LP junior bridges had a subtle bevel machined into the top of a regular LP tailpiece to serve as the witness point. I don't think it was just a tailpiece slapped on there.