Parker *Dragon*Fly 7 Strings are coming, supposedly at NAMM in Jan!

[littledoc]

Umm, I'm gonna have to disagree. What makes the Fly great is the "baked-on" (Ken used to use pizza ovens ) carbon-fiber (fibre?) skin, the ergonomic cuts, and the carbon-glass fretboard. If it doesn't have those things, it ain't a Fly to me.

Having owned a USA Washburn with a carbon-gass epoxy composite fingerboard, I can confidently say they are not a big deal, particularly if you use jumbo frets (your fingers won't even touch the fretboard 99% of the time). I can't say to what extent fretboard material affects tone on an electric (if at all), but personally I'd rather have a high-quality piece of wood underneath my fingers than a synthetic material. SS frets, however, significantly affect the feel of the guitar.

And although I usually play neck-throughs, I don't have anything against bolts provided that the neck joint is ergonomic, a la most modern Ibanez models. I don't think it significantly affects tone or fret access.

SO, provided that it's not exorbitantly expensive, I'd be willing to consider a Dragonfly 7. But knowing that it's Parker, it'll probably be obscenely overpriced.

 

[JPMike]

I haven't tried the DragonFly so I can't really tell much, about the shape.

Well, we can complain about the shape the materials used till forever, but we can say that finally companies started doing 7s, of course at the start this is going to be more of a "testing" kind of product and I believe that the will go on making the Flys as 7s too with the same specs.

Till I see one, I won't be saying anything about buying one or whatever, even though I would want to.

 

[Speedy Fingers]

Having owned a USA Washburn with a carbon-gass epoxy composite fingerboard, I can confidently say they are not a big deal, particularly if you use jumbo frets (your fingers won't even touch the fretboard 99% of the time). I can't say to what extent fretboard material affects tone on an electric (if at all), but personally I'd rather have a high-quality piece of wood underneath my fingers than a synthetic material. SS frets, however, significantly affect the feel of the guitar.

I'm gonna have to disagree. For me, the composite fretboard combined with the SS frets is completely different than playing a guitar with say, a maple fretboard and SS frets.

I really hope they get this thing right the first time.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Regardless of the fact that it's not going to be a "real" Parker, I still think it's got potential to be a really killer guitar.

 

[Xaios]

EDIT-OT, but since when has Anand Bhatt been anybody that really matters?
Anand Bhatt | Feature Artists

That is the mystery of the fucking decade.

 

[littledoc]

I'm gonna have to disagree. For me, the composite fretboard combined with the SS frets is completely different than playing a guitar with say, a maple fretboard and SS frets.

I really hope they get this thing right the first time.

Well, my two most recent Carvins, including the one I own now which has a birdseye maple fretboard, both have had SS frets. The only real difference I can discern is in the thickness; composite boards are paper-thin, making the overall neck profile feel that much slimmer. But that's really a preference thing, and for me that 1/4" or so that a wood fingerboard takes up doesn't affect the playability to any significant degree. In terms of feel, since I use jumbo frets my fingers so rarely make contact with the board that it doesn't make much of a difference what it's made of.

I also think that an oiled (versus painted) neck does much more to improve the feel than the fretboard. All the Parkers I've seen have gloss necks, and personally I'd much rather have an oiled finish opposite a wood fretboard than a gloss neck opposite a composite fretboard.

 

[Hollowway]

I don't intend to be whiney here, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated by companies who seem to think that they can address endless requests for a specific product by producing something other than the product which was requested. I mean, did anyone ask for a 7 string Dragonfly?

It's a really vicious cycle, because nobody ends up buying the product (which nobody asked for), and then the company uses that lack of sales to justify not making the product people actually asked for.

We ask for Fender, they give us Squire. We ask for Gibson, they give us Epiphone. We ask for PRS, they give us SE. On, and on, and on.

It makes me a sad panda.

This +1000. Just like when Moser ventured into 7 strings and made a very plain, non-Moser 7 that didn't sell. Now there's the one company in the dealer section (I forget the name) that is known for hollowbody jazz guitars that wanted to get into making 7s and 8s - and is going to make a very plain solidbody 7. It's as if Apple decided to make a TV and decided on a CRT to make it affordable and mainstream. I just don't get it.

 

[Hemi-Powered Drone]

This +1000. Just like when Moser ventured into 7 strings and made a very plain, non-Moser 7 that didn't sell. Now there's the one company in the dealer section (I forget the name) that is known for hollowbody jazz guitars that wanted to get into making 7s and 8s - and is going to make a very plain solidbody 7. It's as if Apple decided to make a TV and decided on a CRT to make it affordable and mainstream. I just don't get it.

It's like if Apple decided to make a tablet computer but gave us a giant iPod Touch.

Oh wait.

Sorry, had to do it!

I definitely see where you're coming from. It's like how we've been asking Gibson for seven strings and yet they keep giving us shit with EMGs that are designed like every other seven string.

 

[Cancer]

If it's under 2K, I'm in. I like the Dragonfly shape, and if this is what needs to happen before KP finally makes a "real" 7 string Parker then so be it.

 

[wannabguitarist]

If it's under 2K, I'm in. I like the Dragonfly shape, and if this is what needs to happen before KP finally makes a "real" 7 string Parker then so be it.

But isn't this a real Parker? Sure it's not the same shape as the Fly but everything else that's important is identical. You guys are talking like their totally different guitars.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

But isn't this a real Parker? Sure it's not the same shape as the Fly but everything else that's important is identical. You guys are talking like their totally different guitars.

Keep in mind, I'm all for the Pretucci-killer this Dragonfly 7 sounds like it's going to be.

Though the Dragonfly and the Fly are totally different guitars.

Different materials, neck joints, overall construction, electronics, etc. In fact, the only thing they really share are the bridge, fret material, and logo on the headstock. They are just as different as a Jackson Soloist is to a Fender Strat.

 

[yingmin]

If it's under 2K, I'm in. I like the Dragonfly shape, and if this is what needs to happen before KP finally makes a "real" 7 string Parker then so be it.

Ken Parker hasn't had anything to do with Parker guitars for several years. They're wholly owned by US Music, and Ken only makes Ken Parker archtops these days.

 

[celticelk]

It's like if Apple decided to make a tablet computer but gave us a giant iPod Touch.

Oh wait.

Sorry, had to do it!

I definitely see where you're coming from. It's like how we've been asking Gibson for seven strings and yet they keep giving us shit with EMGs that are designed like every other seven string.

The iPad comparison, although you meant it disparagingly, is actually appropriate for this case. When the iPad was introduced, a bunch of very vocal mobile technology geeks dismissed it loudly in public as "just a big iPod Touch". And what happened? Apple sold a shitload of them to people who were not mobile technology geeks, and were therefore able to look at the iPad not for what it *wasn't*, but for what it was. The mobile tech geeks assumed they were the target audience - wrongly. I see the same thing happening here.

 

[Slunk Dragon]

I'd rather build my own 7-string first.

 

[wannabguitarist]

Keep in mind, I'm all for the Pretucci-killer this Dragonfly 7 sounds like it's going to be.

Though the Dragonfly and the Fly are totally different guitars.

Different materials, neck joints, overall construction, electronics, etc. In fact, the only thing they really share are the bridge, fret material, and logo on the headstock. They are just as different as a Jackson Soloist is to a Fender Strat.

Maxx/Dragonfly: DF824 | MaxxFly Models
Fly: Fly Deluxe | Fly Deluxe Models

Both have carbon reinforced basswood necks with the same neck joint (not bolt on), both have the Parker bridge and piezos, both have carbon-glass fingerboards and stainless steel frets. The only differences are the body/headstock shape, pickup configuration (HH vs HSS), and number of frets (24 vs 22).

All of the things that make a Parker a Parker are there

The specs are the same

 

[Hollowway]

The iPad comparison, although you meant it disparagingly, is actually appropriate for this case. When the iPad was introduced, a bunch of very vocal mobile technology geeks dismissed it loudly in public as "just a big iPod Touch". And what happened? Apple sold a shitload of them to people who were not mobile technology geeks, and were therefore able to look at the iPad not for what it *wasn't*, but for what it was. The mobile tech geeks assumed they were the target audience - wrongly. I see the same thing happening here.

I don't think that's going to happen. If Parker were early to the 7 string game, then maybe. The ipad as innovative when it came out, because there was nothing like it. A 7 string in 2012 is not innovative. Who is the target audience for these, if not 7 string players willing to spend over $1000 for an instrument? The fact is that guitar makers are dipping their toes in and testing the water with ERGs, but it's waaaay to late for that. Just like how the guy that works for Moser convinced him to do a 7 string, and he begrudgingly made a stripped down one to see if the guitar buying public responded. Of course they didn't. Meanwhile, look at the 7 strings that are selling well - they're as good or better than their 6 string counterparts.

 

[troyguitar]

Who is the target audience for these, if not 7 string players willing to spend over $1000 for an instrument?

7 string players willing to spend over $3000 (possibly even twice that) for an instrument.

I still love their guitars, but Parker have priced themselves out of reasonable for my tastes anymore. Still, if they just made a 7-string Fly Deluxe/Classic/Mojo/Mojoflame for $4000 or less AND IT WAS NOT BLACK I'd have one on order with my next paycheck.

 

[Cheesebuiscut]

Parkers really aren't amazingly expensive considering what goes into them

Considering what goes into them besides the.. bridge? I could just get a full custom made to my exact excruciating specs probably pick out my own piece of wood etc etc and still save hundreds / thousands of dollars.

I don't see the sense in parkers at all, the guitars seem to be freaking awesome but the price tag is just ludicrous. They're not even multiscale!

 

[sell2792]

My understanding is this will have the same specs (as pointed out by several people) as the Fly, so I'm not getting the confusion here.

 

[SnowfaLL]

Considering what goes into them besides the.. bridge? I could just get a full custom made to my exact excruciating specs probably pick out my own piece of wood etc etc and still save hundreds / thousands of dollars.

I don't see the sense in parkers at all, the guitars seem to be freaking awesome but the price tag is just ludicrous. They're not even multiscale!

Carbon fiber exoskeleton and phenolic fretboards are much more expensive and difficult to find than your standard metal guitar customshop can make. I dont think ANYONE really makes anything like a Parker except for Oni (not including Moses, Emerald Acoustics and CA/Rainsong Acoustics which are major companies also).. my point being, theres almost no one-person customshops making anything similar to Parker for at least under $7k

Not to mention not having to worry about dealing with a Halo Guitars or Chris Woods type "builder" because Parker is a large, repuatable company.