What actually happened "after CBS?"

[Steve L]

We all hear references to Fender guitars as "pre-CBS." The quality before CBS took over (around '65??) was supposedly much better for some reason. (Though I don't recall any "line in the sand" at the time.) Clearly today's market has a specific timeline of 1965 with respect to value and desirability.
I am wondering specifically what happened in the shop where they were being built after CBS took over. That is, I realize it was a different ownership, etc., but did they fire all the employees (I assume it was the same people building them throughout...)? Change the designs? Change wood sources? Etc.?
In other words, what specifically happened in the shop to make the quality so different before and after the change in ownership?

[scottlr]

At first, nothing I think. Then they slowly began changing things up a bit, and most changes were not well recieved by the players, who had grown used to the products the way they were. Details? I am not the one to ask the details of. Many amps weren't changed at all for years (the low end ones IIRC). I recall when the large headstock first showed up most guys I knew were appalled. Then after awhile, when Hendrix played them, they were OK.

[frostbitefalls]

Sometimes ownership changes are used more as a sort of timeline for determining collectability/value, than as an indicator of quality. When one outfit sells out, there will (gasp) be no more of theirs made, so that limits the quantity ever available to what has been produced so far. Other times, new ownership brings along new ideas, and quality can suffer, or even improve. If quality suffers, it is not always from attempts to cheapen things up (Harley/AMF), it may just be different ideas that don't work out too well (Gibson/Norlin). In the case of Fender, I admit I don't know which scenario it was. I'm going to be watching here for answers, myself.

[go7]

Many employees were part of Leo`s family as he called them. He was so disgusted with the quality of instruments being made and the designs changes that when he walked out of the office Fender had provided for him. Many of the employees left with him to build with long time friend George Fullerton. The rest is history Music Man and Finally G+L. His office at G+L remains intact, where Leo worked until his death. From the book" George & Leo How Leo Fender and I built G+L guitars". Written by George Fullerton.

[dharmafool]

Originally Posted by scottlr

At first, nothing I think. Then they slowly began changing things up a bit, and most changes were not well recieved by the players, who had grown used to the products the way they were. Details? I am not the one to ask the details of. Many amps weren't changed at all for years (the low end ones IIRC). I recall when the large headstock first showed up most guys I knew were appalled. Then after awhile, when Hendrix played them, they were OK.

+1. They really went after the amps first, investing lots in solid state designs that were fabulous on paper but manufactured poorly and thus sounded awful. Really, for all intents and purposes, changes in the guitars were cosmetic for the most part, paisley this and racing stripe that. Finishes started getting a bit heavier in the late '60s, things reflecting a bit less production time or finesse. The wood and the parts and tolerances only gradually began to cheap out, so that, by '69, there were some notable differences. Tone and playability were beginning to slide. Even the logo on the peghead took a sorry hit.

It wasn't until the early '70s that real design changes like the bullet truss rod were introduced.

[StJimmy]

I think the pre-CBS mentality came more into the mainstream during the early 70s when the thick polyester finishes and things like micro tilt 3 bolt necks irked a lot of players. The farther you move away from the originals, you get nostalgic about "when Leo ran the company" or "Leo would have never let this happen". And also a distrust for beancounters from large corporations making decisions on how musical instruments are to be made.

I don't recall in the late 60s ever hearing much talk about pre-CBS vs post-CBS. There was no line in the sand although it seems like it now when you hear it discussed. The differences in the instruments evolved over the years, not immediately.

Same thing happened to Gretsch in the 60s when Baldwin took them over in 67. I've got an early 71 Gretsch Country Gentleman that is identical in specs and materials to a 67 pre-Baldwin Gent. When they started changing/cheapening all of the models in the 70s (for the worse) and closed the Brooklyn facility to move it to Arkansas, that's when Baldwin era guitars got a bad name. But mine is considered a Baldwin Gretsch, so it has a stigma attached to it.

[brad347]

nobody has really talked about the massive expansion of the company that happened after CBS bought it out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but within the first little amount of time didn't they literally more than double the floor space fo the factory, hire on a bazillion new inexperienced hands all at once and ramp up production to staggering numbers over the Leo years?

[Bobb2]

If my memory of the time is anywhere near correct, the first real changes occurred in the amps. First came the infamous solid state series that sounded terrible and had little or no reliability. Next was the beginning of the silver face amps. These hit the stores in 68/69. The changes were made by the new CBS engineers to try and rid the world of that nasty distortion problem that the blackface amps were famous for. The result was a dull anemic sounding amp.

As for the guitars, the only significant change was changing the neck mounting from 4 bolt to 3 bolt with a "micro-tilt" adjustment. Even though this was one of Leo's designs, it was not well implemented or received by the public due to problems with the neck shifting. No idea what year this was done but I seem to remember that it was early 1970s.

Anybody able to add to this or correct where I went wrong?

[Jim Soloway]

Lots of good answers so far from the Fender side, but you also have to look a bit at the CBS side. Fender was not the only company that CBS trashed at that time, nor were they the highest profile. They had also became the majority owners of the New York Yankees in 1964, right about the time that the Yankees were about to collapse from greatness of mythological proportions all the way to the cellar in one fell swoop. With all their stars aging at once, it probably would have happened anyway, but CBS took the blame and their reputation took a horrible hit. So being owned by CBS was already viewed as a strong negative before they had even invested in Fender.

[Steve L]

I still don't understand why the specific year ('65) is such an issue. If, in fact, the amps were "the first to go bad," that means that '66 and '67 (and probably '68) guitars were probably still "good." But one look at the vintage, collectable market and you begin to realize that pre-CBS was a momentous change somehow.
Also, as I previously stated, I don't remember any discussion of who owned Fender back then--who cared?. We went into guitar stores and just asked to see Fender guitars...not Fender guitars from the pre-CBS era. In fact, it seems that newer meant better!
Didn't Hendrix only buy new guitars at his famous shopping trips in NYC in 1969? Weren't those post-CBS? Who else??---I think almost everybody from that era was buying "new" guitars. Doesn't appear there was such a thing as "vintage sound" or a stipulation of what year your guitar was built.
Just when did that "CBS factor" become important to people who were buying and playing guitars? I don't remember when that happened...or why!?

[JMPRO]

There is some great reading and many facts concerning this event in both Richard Smiths book "Fender" and Tom Wheelers book "Chronicals". Both are great books that deserve a read.
JMPRO

[buddastrat]

Yeah Hendrix used CBS too. But imo, the bad CBS changes at least for guitars, didn't happen until the early 70's. The 60's CBS strats that I've played/owned were awesome.

[scottlr]

I seem to recall the CBS era thing starting up in the early 70s, too. Before that, we didn't care. The amps were still good amps (the tube amps), and even the early SF amps are good amps. I don't have one at the moment, but I'd buy one. I am quite happy the post CBS stuff sells for less. I have a 64 Bassman, and a 67 Super Reverb, and they are both kick ass amps.

I can't recall seeing Clapton with a large headstock Strat, but I may be wrong. Some of those guys caught on to the vintage vibe WAY before any of the rest of us did. When I was a kid, a 50s Strat was an old used guitar. If it had any wear on it, it was way less desireable. I bought a 55 Strat, that was what we now call a relic, for $100 from a classified ad that simply said old electric guitar $100. Played it a couple of years and sold it for $125, and was tickled I made a profit LOL

[michael30]

Originally Posted by Steve L

If, in fact, the amps were "the first to go bad," that means that '66 and '67 (and probably '68) guitars were probably still "good."

The best strat that I've ever played was a '68.

[Karmateria]

By 1968 the word was already out about how the older Fenders and Gibsons were better. The pro players at the time were already coveting the older guitars and the British bands came to the states and stocked up on vintage guitars and amps.

There were already "Vintage" guitar shops by the early 1970s like Gruhn, Northern Prarie and Mandolin Brothers.

If some of the guys who played back then think that this wasn't going on, it's just because they weren't hip to it yet.