Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:42 am
Spotted at NAMM by a friend:
This is good value if you play both guitar and quidditch.
ALTHOUGH I SECRETELY WANT TO TRY IT BECAUSE FUN.
Page 49 of 117
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:48 am
This is good value if you play both guitar and quidditch.
ALTHOUGH I SECRETELY WANT TO TRY IT BECAUSE FUN.
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:01 pm
Not sure what someone did to this guitar, but I'd probably still play it (not at that price though) 
:
https://reverb.com/item/4021076-teisco- ... s-anaconda
:https://reverb.com/item/4021076-teisco- ... s-anaconda
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:52 pm
Strandbergs fit this category pretty well. That said, they do have a certain elegance about them. And they look hella nice when they get custom paint jobs.
Not sure if I'd ever rock one personally, but I would love to try one.
Not sure if I'd ever rock one personally, but I would love to try one.
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:08 pm
That's a no for meBitchPudding wrote:Strandbergs fit this category pretty well. That said, they do have a certain elegance about them. And they look hella nice when they get custom paint jobs.
Not sure if I'd ever rock one personally, but I would love to try one.
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:32 pm
Totally -- love that greygreen with binding and tele-ish headstock.worra wrote:I actually love Conan but yeah.....that guitar. It'd be fine without the graphic and the inlays.
How's about this:
or this:
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:49 pm
His expression is like "Just make me a cool fucking guitar already"spacelordmother wrote: How's about this:
Conan is awesome.
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:12 pm
Yeah, well, can someone, please, explain to me what the fuck is going on here:
https://reverb.com/item/4026765-new-jer ... -namm-2017
https://reverb.com/item/4026765-new-jer ... -namm-2017
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:27 pm
Yeah, well don't ask Tom Waits, cuz he's all like, "WT actual F?"
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:51 pm
what'd be even funnier is if those guitars were built to the luthier listening to a loop of only that song. (Springsteen's version, of course.)
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:03 pm
Looks like he intends it to be played through a Pignose amp....
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:02 pm
Looks like a weasel or a stoat, maybe?Chankgeez wrote:Yeah, well, can someone, please, explain to me what the fuck is going on here:
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:04 pm
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:49 pm
[/quote]echorec wrote:
Even the new Rubberneck is somewhat disagreeable with me, because they just couldn't help themselves---they had to add arrows and circles. They couldn't keep it cleaner and more minimal like the vintage DOD designs. They had to clutter it up.
Arrows and circles? You mean the diagrams and label pointers?
The machismo thing is making me laugh though, total projection.
Re: UGLIEST GEAR
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:52 pm
echorec wrote:
I don't have anything personal against those guys, and I don't want to e-fight them over their amateurish graphics. I appreciate their electronic efforts and their overall contributions to the pedal world/family, but their pedals are just so inexcusably unsightly.
