Awful flame tops.

[tyrant21]

Re: Awful flame tops.

carvin's have some really impressive flame and quilt tops, i picked up a used carvin tele for 500 bucks and i have to say, it's top blows my jacksons, and almost every jackson ive seen away(note, ive only actually seen about 5 jacksons with flame tops in real life)

[RacerX]

Re: Awful flame tops.

its top

[img]graemlins/poke.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/evilimages/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Genebaby]

Re: Awful flame tops.

In the very last pic it looks like the top is mis-matched. I still don't think the first two guitars are ass ugly. They are two seperate veneers of maple reacting differently to the light at the angle the pic was taken at.

[JACKSONWOLF]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Here`s a couple of Photo`s of my Archtop, the first shot makes it look pretty plain but the second, from a different angle, picks out the Flame quite nicely.
Pic 1.... http://steve-wright.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1171846
Pic 2... http://steve-wright.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1496404

[ October 22, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: TEKKY ]

[VitaminG]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Originally posted by Genebaby:
In the very last pic it looks like the top is mis-matched. I still don't think the first two guitars are ass ugly. They are two seperate veneers of maple reacting differently to the light at the angle the pic was taken at.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, and that was the point I was making too.

Deneb, in your pics the light is pretty much overhead, lighting the guitar squarely from the front. In the examples that started this thread, the sunlight is hitting both guitars from a fairly acute angle to one side. If the sun had been directly over head, or the guitars turned to face the sun, I'm sure both guitars would have photographed much nicer.

Nice shots, BTW. I couldn't get pics that good with my camera, even if I DID try. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[ October 22, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: VitaminG ]

[Deneb]

Re: Awful flame tops.

It was really over cast today and raining or I would have taken some outside to show.

Yeah, the G3 is a SWEET camera and for all it costs (yeah I know 500+ is more than some have, but you wont need another camera) it is well worth it.

And Racer, the correct context he would have to use for that sentence would have been, it beats the flame maple capped guitars I have seen.

Flame top would not fit in the sentence, and in this instance, Flame tops sounds more appropriate.

[charvel750]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Deneb, you crack me up, [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] bro! Those pics are photo flaws, not flame flaws. And, Racer was suggesting (correctly) that the term "it's" should have been "its." [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[JACKSONFREAK]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Um I beg to differ because thats what i do!!!
Check it yo!!!!

yeah its not a great pic but its a nice flame top and yes its mine and no its not custom shop.
It's my DKGC36.
Gil

[Genebaby]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Piccy no worky Jacksonfreak...but I've seen those on Ebay, do they really have solid lacewood bodies?....

[Tekky]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Originally posted by JACKSONWOLF:
Here`s a couple of Photo`s of my Archtop, the first shot makes it look pretty plain but the second, from a different angle, picks out the Flame quite nicely.
Pic 1.... http://steve-wright.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1171846
Pic 2... http://steve-wright.fotopic.net/photo.php?id=1496404

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gotta put a space between your text and the URL to activate the hyperlink. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[The Eristic]

Re: Awful flame tops.

It's just the pics. Take a look at this McInturff:

I can assure you this top is PERFECTLY matched, but the angle and lighting make the two pieces look completely different in the photo.

[ October 22, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: The Eristic ]

[Genebaby]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Dude, that guitar looks like ass man, like, literally some old guys ass [img]graemlins/puke.gif[/img] ....why on earth did you buy it?

KIDDING of course!!!! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[Deneb]

Re: Awful flame tops.

I would be willing to bet those flaws are not all photo flaws.

i have seen better photo flames than those ones!

The 1st 2, look like crap. No way around it. You could have used some Ed Roman-esq way of editing/better camera angles to capture the *better* spots on those flames, however they still are flawed.

Seriously look at them. Just look how they line up. Yeah the light may make things look lighter/darker/more vibrant, however the grain is still seen, and it is still off.

Those 2 first guitars are poor examples of flames, on pricey guitars, along with some oaf that did not put a few bucks into a camera to get nice pics.

Argue it all you want, however I have my humble opinion. I take about 250-300 pictures a week, I know a good one and a bad one.

Yes, they are bad pictures, also they are bad examples of flame tops.

As a *reputable* seller, you would think they would spend a few minutes trying to get pictures, honestly, if you were an uninformed customer/photographer, would you buy those guitars looking like that, even if some of it IS just picture flaw?

Bottom line, pics suck, flames suck.

[RacerX]

Re: Awful flame tops.

Originally posted by charvel750:
And, Racer was suggesting (correctly) that the term "it's" should have been "its." [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly, Joe! [img]graemlins/toast.gif[/img]

For some reason,the "it's" thing is my #1 pet peeve! [img]graemlins/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Genebaby]

Re: Awful flame tops.

My pet peeve is when people put 'loose' in place of 'lose'....I've seen the Kiss song written as "Nothing to Loose"....ahhhh!!!! [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]