This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Exhibit A)
Which I may.... or may not have returned....Seriously not a Suhr fan at all, but I'd rock the absolute shit out of that green one; that thing looks sweet. The other one....well....not so much
The issue with Kiesel's finishes though is that when the customer tells them what they want, they don't always deliver it well, if at all. One only needs to recall the infamous Agile colormatch. I've seen lots of Kiesel posts about how X was requested and Y was what they got, and yeah, like 85% of the time it's close...ish, but still off enough that if I was super sold on a picture I had in my head, I'd be disappointed; but that other 15% is just bad.
I'm not saying they don't make some great looking guitars though. @Albake21 has one coming in that has one of the best finishes I've seen in a long time.
Yeah...... It was for a lot of reasons. It came out great, but not to my liking. For one, it looked WAY different from that picture I posted. Now a days, I really require a trem, and I am now having the opportunity to buy an Ibanez LACS directly from my all time favorite guitar player and band. So I'm returning it for now to spend the money else where, but I will definitely plan another build for the future. It was my first build and I didn't really know what I was doing. I'll definitely learn from my mistakes with this one. Thankfully they returned it, no questions asked. Super easy. The guitar itself was great, it was my own fault on what I chose.Haha ohhhhh no
It's not bad, it's just super dark compared to the picture they took. When I placed the order back in May, I was looking for a blue closer to the picture they sent me. Aurora blue though was very new at the time so there weren't many pictures of it. It was a risk, and sadly it didn't work out. No big deal to me since I have another guitar being built right now which should be done next week.Would like to see any pics if you took any, but perhaps over in the other non-Neve-Again! thread.
Those weren't experiments, though. Those were thoroughly designed and planned and likely tested several times before they put this out as a production option. We never saw their experiments.
Also, "Really, Kiesel? Crackle finishes? the 80s called and they want their guitars back!"
10 minutes later: "Check out the awesome Suhr!"
They will be receiving it tomorrow. So if you're interested, you can grab it probably next week haha.
My first thought at looking at the showroom photo was that the pale moon ebony in the background is over-exposed, and that flamed maple on the guitar's top in the lighter spots is never that pale unless it's bleached. I assume since there's no real white in the image that the camera white-balanced itself to something not-quite white, brightening everything up.
I guess I've been around too many photographers.
i've seen people shit on Kiesel for photographing the Crescent in such a way as to accentuate the carve to be more than it is, which I don't think is really the case, but I've complained to them directly on FB and IG that their photos aren't accurate. They say that they photograph them the way they do to show what they really look like...and that might be true..but it's only what they "really look like" under direct San Diego sun, and not in any realistic environment in the real world that most other people live in, or how most other makers photograph their builds. Taking a guitar into the sun should wow you...not be the expectation, i think.
And while I'd be more accepting of the saturation "pop" in sicial media posts if it didn't carry through to the photographs of the in-stock guitars. There's got to be some happy medium between their photos, and the garbage "the guitar might as well just be black since you can't actually make out any details" photos that guitar Center uses for the used instruments.
I guess I've been around too many photographers.
i've seen people shit on Kiesel for photographing the Crescent in such a way as to accentuate the carve to be more than it is, which I don't think is really the case, but I've complained to them directly on FB and IG that their photos aren't accurate. They say that they photograph them the way they do to show what they really look like...and that might be true..but it's only what they "really look like" under direct San Diego sun, and not in any realistic environment in the real world that most other people live in, or how most other makers photograph their builds. Taking a guitar into the sun should wow you...not be the expectation, i think.
And while I'd be more accepting of the saturation "pop" in sicial media posts if it didn't carry through to the photographs of the in-stock guitars. There's got to be some happy medium between their photos, and the garbage "the guitar might as well just be black since you can't actually make out any details" photos that guitar Center uses for the used instruments.
It's not bad, it's just super dark compared to the picture they took. When I placed the order back in May, I was looking for a blue closer to the picture they sent me. Aurora blue though was very new at the time so there weren't many pictures of it. It was a risk, and sadly it didn't work out. No big deal to me since I have another guitar being built right now which should be done next week.
It's like it's not even the same guitar. I tried putting as much light as I could on it and I could never get close to their picture. I was expecting it to look bright just like the picture, but sadly it was very dark. Again that's not the only reason why I returned.
Something has to be going on, because I tried my absolute best to get it to look like the picture, and I absolutely couldn't come even close.
It's not bad, it's just super dark compared to the picture they took.
