DeTemple Owners.... Worth the wait?

[ricoh]

Was the wait worth it? Was the guitar as nice as you hoped for
and are you completely satisfied?

[Just1more]

YES! My Detemple is my favorite guitar out of everything I have owned. Which includes 50's, 60's strats, and a lot of modern syle strats. Think of it this way, the longer you wait, the more attention your guitar received. I was fortunate to live close to his shop, and was able to see the progress about once a month. Detemple is fanatical about the finishes, and it shows. BE PATIENT!

[Barrie]

My wait is coming close to 2yrs he is making a Strat and a Tele for me at the moment, but I'm sure that the length of time I have waited will be worth it.
Barrie:)

[tradarama]

I've been through hundreds of guitars and this is the best strat I've owned period. It's just a cut above all of the others. I loved my Lentz but sold it vs. the DeTemple. Michael is a class guy who wants you happy. I just sent mine to him to put jumbo frets on and he did it for me in a couple of weeks just to make me happy (even though I picked the small vintage frets myself). I'd nvever hesitate to buy another. I was one of the early purchasers when he just started advertising in VG. I took a chance and it was the best and only custom ordered guitar that ever exceeded my expectations.

[tonefreak]

DeTemple guitars are very nice indeed!

I just couldn't wait 2 years for a guitar I would like to play now. What does Lentz and DeTemple offer that Suhr, Tyler, Anderson or Grosh do not? I'm certain John Suhr can build you a guitar to your exact specs much faster. Or is it the concensus that Lentz and DeTemple build better guitars than the alternatives?

I am NOT saying that DeTemple guitars are not worth the money or the wait! What I am asking is what does he offer that a shop like Suhr's could not create? What is the justification for such a long wait?

[OWENMUSTANG]

tonefreak,
for me, the reason i started looking at lentz was what he and others were talking about. fit, finsh,feel, tone and other than the hardware, the guitar is handmade inc the pick ups.
no frills, fancy tops, nothing other than one would expect for a killer classic fender.
now that i have 3 of these wonderful guitars, i can't think of
a reason to sell them. now, if lentz's keep going through the
roof. a Detemple will be something i will look at.
i have talked to michael on his creations before. i would love to play one of his guitars. (i have his titanium block and saddles on
another guitar)
all of the other copy makers used something other than what scott did on his stuff. either slight style changes, or hardware,
or for me, the pick ups. i think scott hit on something that people were looking for. i'm sure all of the others make fantastic guitars,
lentz just had everything i was looking for.

hey, i got slightly off topic sorry, could not help it:D

scott talked to me about matching neck and body woods, alot.
michael doubled that, if not more.
i have talked to a few others, one even told me this was nonsense.
i didn't know what to think about that till i got my 1st lentz.
now i'm a believer! anyway, Detemples seem to have quite a following. i would have no problem ordering one.

[OWENMUSTANG]

forgot to mention. you might consider scotts new stuff.
an interesting twist on what he was doing.
btw, his P90's sound killer

[Leucadian]

A friend of mine, Jeff Snider, traded one of his amps to DeTemple for one of his Strats. I played it and it DOES have a cool mojo about it...extremely resonanant and light...impressive guitar. I would wait...but I've got two Grosh's that I impulsively bought...no waiting!:D

[RAD]

Hey Detemple owners! Do you have any pictures of your guitars?

I ordered mine about 1 year ago, and I am still waiting. But I am hoping to visit Michael in his shop this summer to talk about my guitars.

[Dillon]

Up in the thread, someone implied that the wait for a Lentz was on the same order as the wait for a DeTemple. That certainly was not my experience. My first Lentz was completed in three months. The second took five months. Just my experience...

[tacorivers]

I'd like to know if there really is any difference between these and a Suhr classic, and if the difference is worth the price and wait. I'm of the opinion that there is a ceiling on how "good" a strat style guitar can be. Vintage strats aside, a well made strat like a Suhr seems as good as it gets. Especially one that is made to your specifications.

There's nothing real magical about a strat provided that one starts with quality wood.

[KLB]

Originally posted by tacorivers
I'd like to know if there really is any difference between these and a Suhr classic, and if the difference is worth the price and wait. I'm of the opinion that there is a ceiling on how "good" a strat style guitar can be. Vintage strats aside, a well made strat like a Suhr seems as good as it gets. Especially one that is made to your specifications.

There's nothing real magical about a strat provided that one starts with quality wood.

The Suhr is a mighty fine instrument, but it does not have a nitro-cellulose lacquer finish. This is a significant part of the vintage tone equation.

The wait and cost of a DeTemple is discouraging.
I'm sure it is a stellar guitar, though.

Check out D'Pergo and Morgaine, too.

Cheers,
Ken

[tonefreak]

D'Pergo... yes!

DeTemple and Lentz are fine instruments and I can understand that these guitars have a certain "mojo".

For me, life is too short. 1-2 years is a long time to wait, and I personally would rather be playing than waiting.

Just my opinion.

[philster]

Well, I got 2 years and counting on my DeTemple strat and tele. A little frustrating to wait for a guitar but I guess no point in moaning about it. Heck, I waited 28 months for a Callaham, which turned out to be a great guitar.

[Jon Silberman]

2 years wait time on a guitar? I didn't wait that long for both of my kids combined.

[tacorivers]

"The Suhr is a mighty fine instrument, but it does not have a nitro-cellulose lacquer finish. This is a significant part of the vintage tone equation."

That is one difference! I'm not so sure that nitro finishes are that important, as I've heard arguments on both sides of the equation. Usually the person finishing in nitro argues for it, and the person arguing against it finishes in poly.

Even if there is a discernable difference, it is worth the extra $2K?

I still go back to my point that the Vintage strat is a reatively simple instrument. At some point, spending more money on a strat will yield seriously diminishing returns. Hell, the only reason I can justify my Suhr is that it has certain things that you do not find on a low dollar Fender (compound radius, jumbo frets, Buzz Fietein, better pickups).

I'm admittedly not a collector of guitars. If I was, the extra money to get a dead on 50's strat may be worth it.

[Just1more]

tacorivers:
I don't know how you could compare the Suhr with the Detemple if you haven't played a Detemple. I have owned both, to me there is a difference. Suhr makes an excellent guitar. I would never say this guitar is better than that one, blah, blah, blah. Sure, the law of diminishing returns comes into play. The difference to me was in the personal detail that went into the Detemple. It may not be what people are looking for in a strat style guitar. Just because it's a "bolt on" guitar, doesnt mean the same amount of craftmanship can't be put in, like a LP/335/etc. I look at luthiers like artists. Each has their own personal touch. Detemple puts out 2-3 guitars a month, Suhr puts out a lot more. There different. Obviously with a two year wait, enough people think they are worth it.

[philster]

Originally posted by tonefreak
D'Pergo... yes!



I have seen D'pergo's web site and it looks nice. Do you have any direct or indirect experience with these guitars? I am curious.

Thanks!

[Mutley]

There are other builders besides John Suhr who use alternative finishes. Terry McInturff uses what he calls nitrothane. I think the most important aspects of the finish are how thin it is and how hard it gets. My DeTemple has a pink streak from a red shirt I wore during a gig a month after I received the guitar. It was a hot night and I was sweating like a steer and the color came off of my polyester shirt into the nitro. Now it is like having a super custom paint job. Mike DeTemple made a Strat for me with "my" neck. At the time neither Suhr or Grosh would make a neck that big. Don actually said he wouldn't make a neck that big because it would look freakish. I ordered my DeTemple in January of '03 and received it in March of '04. The wait killed me, but I think less and less of that now and more and more about how wonderful my DeTemple '56 Spirit is. I wouldn't do it again, but I'm happy I did. I get the tone of a great Strat in a beautiful lightweight package. I've gigged with it since receiving it and have never had a problem I couldn't fix easily. The waiting period is because Mike picks out the wood with weight, tone and color in mind and the neck wood ususally is highly figured stuff. My fencepost neck is flamed front and back the length of the neck. Wood like he uses isn't always hanging around waiting for someone to come buy it. My strat weighs 7lbs. 6oz. with a huge neck on it. It is balanced and sounds loud unplugged and has all the strat you want when plugged. I'm blowing Mike's horn here because he made my neck for me when others wouldn't. Definitely worth the wait.

Ned

[Mutley]

John, it was you. I am not knocking anyone or any brand here. Just stating that Mike agreed to do my neck. I own one of your Teles and love it. I do not use it for entire sets (my band ususally does long sets to keep people up drinking and dancing) because my hand cramps. In late 2002 we had contacted you about doing an ash Strat with a big (really big) maple neck any you didn't want to do the neck and seemed to want to build an alder guitar for me. Not a big deal to me now, although I do believe in the law of diminishing returns and would have liked to have saved a buck at the time. My neck depth is 1.125" at the first fret (not including wire) and 1.25" at the 12th with a uniform 12" radius and a slight "V" on the first 5 - 6 frets transitioning to a nice big "C". I guess I wanted a Suhr a little too early on. LOL. It is nice to know that I have options open to me when I order my alder Strat. It was a frustrating time for me. I went through a lot of guitars and loved some of them, but couldn't get comfortable with them. Seems the older I got the crampier my hand got. Even had a Lentz which was another great Strat, but the 1 5/8" nut made me sound even sloppier than usual. Again, I'm just stating that Mike D. was happy to make my neck for me, those dimensions with a 1 11/16" nut. It's a big piece of maple, but it hasn't moved in the 14 - 15 months I've owned it. I'm very happy with the road that got me to it.

Ned

[Mutley]

That is what you told me at that time and I was good with that. After all, it is your company and I understand that stopping production for a one off isn't necessarily good business. That is cool that you could approximate that now. I love your guitars. . . every one that I've ever played. Got my Tele at Synergy in So. FL. It kills. The SS frets make a huge difference. I tried to get Mike to do them, but he balked at that. When I refret, I guess. It's funny, everyone who has grabbed my Strat has just said s--t, but after they play it a bit, most find it quite comfortable. Pink Strat is known on this forum and he has small hands for a guitar player, but he loves my DeTemple neck (he loves my Suhr Tele, too). Like I said earlier, I couldn't wait two years. . . not even a year. I'm too old. I'd be afraid I'd kick the bucket or get hit by a bus before I got a chance to play the guitar.

Ned

[Shades]

Originally posted by Mutley
It's funny, everyone who has grabbed my Strat has just said s--t, but after they play it a bit, most find it quite comfortable.
Ned That's very close to the same size neck that I made for Decay-o-caster on his Fatline (baconfat-o-caster) and it often gets the same reaction. It's freakin' huge but still comfortable.

[Mutley]

Fatline baconfat-o-caster! I love it. It must get that good greasy guitar tone we all love.

Ned

[decay-o-caster]

Originally posted by Mutley
Fatline baconfat-o-caster! I love it. It must get that good greasy guitar tone we all love.

Ned

Well yeah, since you mention it... :)

Doesn't really sound like anything else, just a damn big sounding guitar!

[sundaypunch]

Originally posted by Jon Silberman
2 years wait time on a guitar? I didn't wait that long for both of my kids combined.

Now that's a refreshing bit of perspective :)

[studio8000]

dont know if someone clarified this yet or not, but i see that some posts have bunched Detemple and Lentz together on this 1-2 year wait time. i've had 7 Lentz guitars, and NEVER had to wait longer than 6 months. in fact, most of mine were done in less than 4. the average wait time when Scott was doing his S and T styles was like 4-6 months. there may have been a few cases where it was longer than 6 months, but no where near 2 years.

anyways, thought i'd chime in about that. and currently with Scott's new guitars the wait right now is less than 4 months i believe. better get your orders in now before the wait time grows!! (but i'm sure it'll never get to 2 years);)

[DestroyAllGuitars]

These are variations of Fender Strats and Teles and there are
plenty of amazing originals to found and bought in a day.
If you want the boutique version and are willing to wait a year
or two than that's each persons prerogative. I just bought a
Gretsch Duo Jet because Saul Koll cannot start building a Duo
Glide for me for 6 months. The Duo Jet is great and it's one that
Saul actually urged me to buy. I may keep it or I may decide to
sell it once the Koll arrives.

My point is, what are we talking or arguing about here. If
someone wants a DeTemple or Lentz or Suhr or whatever,
it's their right to decide what to buy, how much to spend and
how long their willing to wait. Personally I think there are some
great builders out there and I also believe that there are a great
deal of High Flamed Maple junk dealers out there as well, but to
each his own.

Now everbody go play your guitar for 1 hour.

[Jim Soloway]

Originally posted by Suhr
If I thought nitro sounded better I would use it. Trust me! Nitro is WAY easier to use than what I use, My permits do allow me to use Nitro in the Qty I need if I desired.
The UV paint I use is on $30,000 acoustics like Olson, If Olson thought lacquer sounded better he would still be using it.
The problem with Nitro today is that it is a different formulation than it used to be and at best will take more years than most of you will live to fully sink in and dry out. Havent you ever noticed your Lacquer necks get sticky? Especially when it is hot? Case imprints in your fine lacquer finish if it gets warm?.
Believe me I have done many tests both here and at Fender, I dont use Laquer because it takes too long to sound good. What I use is designed to sound good today.

I had a nice conversation with one of the builders who swears by lacquer, I asked "Why dont you use some of the more modern paints? Do you really think they dont sound as good?" He said " I've already boxed myself in by telling everyone the Nitro sounds better, I cant very well go back on my word now!"

Dont forget that Fender used a Fullerplast catalized undercoat (Not Nitro) and the Custom Car colors many of which were not nitro but Acrylic. The Lacquer Ihave seen on many guitars is applied thicker than what we do. It isnt the type of finish that matters but how thick it is and the hardness, too hard is no good and too soft is no good either. Lacquer these days is gummy so I choose not to use it.

We offer both nitro and poly finishes. We've learned a lot of tricks to make nitro harden up fairly quickly but still I think there's a great deal of truth to what you're saying.

I think that tonally, the real issue is not what material you use, but rather how thick the finish is. Poly finishes got a bad rap very early because it went on very thick. That was a function of the process though, not the material. It is possible to do a very thin poly finish and given a similar amount of care and precision, there is absolutely no reason why a nitro finish should sound any better than a poly finish.

Nitro does age differently and I personally like the look, especially a clear or light tint over natural woods, but it's also much more fragile than poly, especially during the first year. Unless you really like the look of a damaged finish, I think that players with a hard right hand attack are much better served by a poly finish.

In necks, I like the look of nitro, but in the real world of guitar as tool, I think satin poly is really hard to beat. Not only is it more durable, but it also has a better feel than nitro. My own guitar has an all nitro finish and while I'm happy with the body, I wish I had a poly finish on the neck.

[Terry McInturff]

I'd just like to reinforce what John and others here have said, namely this...

If we are talking about a hard finish that sits on top of the wood and does not appreciably penetrate it, it is the film hardness and thickness that determines the tonal effect that a finish has upon a stringed instrument.

The actual nature of the resin itself is of little consequence, tonally.

Having said that, I suppose that easy repairability is the last remaining character that nitro has over the various cat finishes. These days, any decent repairman is delighted to perform major surgery on a nitro finished guitar, I'll bet.

Am I wrong, or is cyano glue still the stuff to use to fill dents and other touchups on cat finishes? Or am I behind the times on this one? To put it another way...if I have to remove the back on a cat finished acoustic, what are the most modern touchup techniques? Ones that leave no witness lines, etc? Or is a complete refin the only answer?

My repair days have been over for years and I hope that a decent technique has evolved. Please inform!

Many thanks,
Terry Mc

[stringer]

I did some repair work way back, so I can appreciate the difficulties of working with some of the synthetic finishes. Sorry, Terry I've been away from that business for a long time so I can't chime in on current techniques.

I can however, safely say that I have the ultimate in finish repairability in a tele that I put together last year for personal use in the DeTemple tradition (i.e. 1pc quartersawn maple neck, 1pc swamp ash body, etc.).

The entire guitar is french polished. I used button lac (hardest known) to make the "clear" shellac (it has a darkish tint to it) and added some aniline dye to a different recipe to create the body color. Very tough to work with colored french polish btw. Don't think I'll try that again! Anyway, the overall result is a nice sounding, light weight guitar with a thin finish with a great feel to it. The neck finish is surprisingly durable, the body less so as I didn't use the button lac there for coloring reasons. Admittedly an experiment, but with a good result.

Now this finish is arguably one of the lightest, thinnest finishes possible, and it's a great sounding guitar, but I can't honestly say (at least at this point in time) that it's appreciably better than a comparable guitar with a less traditional, quality finish. In other words, there are too many factors in producing great tone to isolate one and credit it with making all the difference. May be interesting to see how it ages, though.

http://home.socal.rr.com/srotondi/images/TeleAngleReflect512.jpg

[Ian Anderson]

Nothing else looks or feels like a lacquer finish.
Unfortunatly it's the most difficult and expensive finishes to do. It doesn't work too well in a production environment these days.

I'd love to be able to cut the finishing schedule from a month of good days to a few days period. I'd love to go UV but nitro has the look and feel we are after, and our customers know the difference.

BTW we have none of the aforementioned problems with our lacquer finish. It's done right, and formulated to Scott's specification after 27 years of experience working with it.

Wasn't this a topic on Detemple guitars? ;)

[studio8000]

Originally posted by Ian Anderson
Nothing else looks or feels like a lacquer finish.
Unfortunatly it's the most difficult and expensive finishes to do. It doesn't work too well in a production environment these days.

I'd love to be able to cut the finishing schedule from a month of good days to a few days period. I'd love to go UV but nitro has the look and feel we are after, and our customers know the difference.

BTW we have none of the aforementioned problems with our lacquer finish. It's done right, and formulated to Scott's specification after 27 years of experience working with it.

Wasn't this a topic on Detemple guitars? ;)

i never had sticky or gummy feeling on any of my Lentz necks, and the bodies looks as good as they sound. so i guess Scott is getting something right!

but oh yea, detemple... i never tried one, but a buddy of mine has one of his T styles, he said he'd bring it by sometime so we can compare with my Lentz T. should be fun.

[sanhozay]

We all should acknowledge the folks building these timeless and awesome sounding guitars with non-nitro finishes.

And

I've played my share of new guitars finished in *new* nitro that sounded absolutely wonderful.

And on an uneducated hunch I would bet that if the modern finishes utilized by builders were replaced with nitro that their production would drop from yielding 800 guitars over 365 days to producing around 400 guitars. And instead of a client waiting two months for a guitar they'd be waiting five months.

I think their is an economy of scale issue that can't be overshadowed beyond the "what's a better finish conundrum" simply because nitro introduces a lot more benchtime into the equation.

While I greatly prefer the delicate aesthetics of an aged nitro guitar, I think both finishes sound great and there's a thousand perfect examples to argue it either way for both sides.

[Gazza]

As a Lentz owner I opened this thread to hear what the consensus on Detemple was. I'd also like to second, third, and fourth the fact that none of my Lentz's took more than 4 months, in fact, I think I had my first S in abut 2.5 months! Now I will say that I have no experience with Detemples and I don't have any reason to ever consider gaining any, but I must say, 2 years wait for an S or T copy in my mind is ridiculous. I feel that any good craftsman should be able to turn around a classic design pretty quick. I don't know how many guitars Detemple sells, how far he may be behind with orders, or what his production consists of, but I would think the process could be streamlined a bit. What also occurs to me is that the longer it takes to produce a guitar means more hours speant by the worker which results in a higher cost to the consumer. This is never good and seldom worth it imo.

[stringer]

Hi Gazza - I've met Mike, been to his shop (about a year ago), and played both a tele and strat. It's a handmade guitar (mostly by him). As a result, yes, his output is less than the more automated or heavily-staffed makers, and yes that is reflected in the price. Some people have a special appreciation for the unique craftsmanship of a handmade instrument and are less sensitive to price.

Also, for a luthier, Mike has an unusually deep background as a player which brings an understanding of and sensitivity to the voice of each guitar which I believe factors into the overall character and value of the instrument. There are subtleties in his instruments that not everyone would notice or appreciate.

But it's not a matter of build time, it's a matter of waiting list. Simple as that. Whether it's worth it or not to you is a subjective thing. Just based on your last post (IMHO), I would guess that a DeTemple just might not be your thing.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ian Anderson
Nothing else looks or feels like a lacquer finish.
Unfortunatly it's the most difficult and expensive finishes to do. It doesn't work too well in a production environment these days.

I'd love to be able to cut the finishing schedule from a month of good days to a few days period. I'd love to go UV but nitro has the look and feel we are after, and our customers know the difference.

BTW we have none of the aforementioned problems with our lacquer finish. It's done right, and formulated to Scott's specification after 27 years of experience working with it.

Wasn't this a topic on Detemple guitars? ;)

I completely agree with Ian. I don’t believe that lacquer sounds better. I just prefer lacquer for it’s looks and feel. Unlike lacquer, urethane does not age gracefully. It’s too durable. Lacquer has character. I love the way it wears and sinks into the wood. I’ve never had problems with any of the lacquer guitars I’ve owned (including a Lentz) getting gummy.