Reverend Gallery

[Fred_C]

And BTW thaks for the pics Wes, a wall of Reverends looks better than a wall of Marshalls to me!

[Rebel-Guitars]

Couldn't resist.

[Paul Conway]

I wasn't overly taken with the set neck guitars from the pics on the Rev site, but Wes' pics might change that. Hmmm. I have been finding that for the funk music I've been playing, my SS can sound a little thin....

[Jon Silberman]

Great pics, Wes, thanks for sharing!

[propellr]

Originally Posted by Crazyquilt

I agree wholeheartedly.

That Jazzmaster would make Elvis Costello proud!

[c-dub]

Originally Posted by wesb14jr

Ok, ok, I know I'm slacking. Got home Monday evening, literally got 3 hours of sleep, got up at 4:00am and drove close to 700 miles and picked up 6 pinball machines(my other hobby).

NAMM was fun, way crowded. Met a lot of celebs(if you're into that kind of stuff), got lots of autographs and pictures. I would have tried to get more individual Reverend pics, but everytime I walked by the booth, it was crowded and I didn't want to disturb/get in the way of business.

I did get my hands on some(I think I already posted this info- )

I really liked the 10th Anniversary, Volcano, and the Buckshot, but all of them looked great in person. I should have picked up one of the new T-shirts.

Joe, it was nice meeting you and I hope you had a good show.

Now, who wants to buy a pinball machine!

Hi all, newb here. I've got a black/silver Rocco with zebra PUs I've had 3-4 years, and I just recently bought Martyn's p-90 converted black cat on e-boink (#103). I also have a 70s Les Paul Deluxe Gold Top, a Carvin bass over six DN640 doubleneck, and my most recent pride and joy -- a mid-80s Carvin SH-225 semi-hollowbody.

Wes, I've noticed you moving a couple of engine turn Rev's on ebay. I was all set to bid on the ET rocco a few weeks ago but someone in Europe BIN'd it right from under me. The second one was a little too Frankenguitar for me. If you come across another, let me know.

[Jon Silberman]

Welcome to TGP and the Rev Congregation, c-dub. Y'all come back now, hear?!

[Rebel-Guitars]

Originally Posted by c-dub

Wes, I've noticed you moving a couple of engine turn Rev's on ebay. I was all set to bid on the ET rocco a few weeks ago but someone in Europe BIN'd it right from under me. The second one was a little too Frankenguitar for me. If you come across another, let me know.

It was a little to modded for me too, but still very cool. I love that finish, but it didn't go over well when it came out, so I don't think there's very many to choose from. Congrats on getting Martyn's guitar, I know it will be cool. Keep a check here and if I find something cool, I'll post a picture of it here.

[A42]

Originally Posted by Fred_C

What's up with the bridge pickups on the Buckshots?

Just noticed that myself -- they're backwards!

[Jon Silberman]

Another Buckshot question: is a minihum a direct drop-in replacement for a RevTron and, if not, will the rout nevertheless accomodate a mini-hum?

[Jeeves]

This should be an easy question:
What's your suggestion for a first-time Reverend buyer?? I play mostly tele's (and acoustics) and always play clean; mainly jazzy-folky fingerstyle stuff. My amp is a Cube-60.

I don't need another guitar but I can't stop looking at these Reverend's because I want something with soapbar pickups. I like the looks of the Charger and Club King 290. Any ideas?

And I don't mean to sound irreverent but how can these guitars be any good and be so inexpensive?

[Secret Ingredient]

Originally Posted by Jeeves

And I don't mean to sound irreverent but how can these guitars be any good and be so inexpensive?

I'm finding more often that the selling price of something in many cases has little to do with the cost of producing it. Take a telecaster for instance. Basic body shape, no forearm or belly cuts. two single coil pickups, and minimal electronics. POS stamped steel tailpiece. It's as simple as an electric guitar can get. You can buy them cheap, or you can pay thousands. I honestly don't believe the cost to produce an inexpensive one versus a high end unit is all that different. Sure, more artisan type work goes into a nicer one, but $1k - $2k more? I doubt it. Joe Naylor is obviously an expert on production costs. Maybe I'm way off, but I think it's totally possible to make a nice electric guitar for the prices these instruments are going for.

I do notice a few things: One, the number of options for any particular instrument is fairly low. Reverend has to stock fewer items, and what they do buy they can negotiate better deals.

Reverend is not using solid figured maple tops for the maple topped instruments. You can make a lot more guitars out of an expensive hunk of curly maple if it's cut into veneer. Nothing wrong with that.

NONE of the instruments AFAIK have a carved top or body contouring (ie forearm and belly cuts). Could be wrong, but I think the limited finish options and the flat tops make a big differrence in cost. Also, the trem and non trem bodies are identical.

Number one cost saver: overseas manufacture.

CORRECTION: the real cost saver is the name on the headstock. If it said Gibson, Fender or PRS, you would probably pay more.

[ticohans]

SwirlCrazy makes some great points with regards to keeping production costs low. That said, I want to respond to the notion that tele costs should be low because it's such a simple build. No doubt there are some VERY over-priced guitars out there, not just tele body styles. With that said, for as simple as the body shape is, more often than not, the higher-end guitars are made from much nicer pieces of wood. It's one thing to use any old slab of wood versus some really nice, light, resonant swamp ash. And beyond that, the cosmetic appeal of certain grain patters is deemed desirable by some players. Due to the limited supply of such woods, these things increase the price of raw materials to the manufacturer, and thus the consumer sees higher prices, too. Not saying that it's worth the extra cash to get the super-duper flame - different strokes for different folks.

[ticohans]

Originally Posted by SwirlCrazy

CORRECTION: the real cost saver is the name on the headstock. If it said Gibson, Fender or PRS, you would probably pay more.

Amen to that. Thank goodness Joe isn't as interested in name-brand markups!

[Secret Ingredient]

Originally Posted by ticohans

SwirlCrazy makes some great points with regards to keeping production costs low. That said, I want to respond to the notion that tele costs should be low because it's such a simple build. No doubt there are some VERY over-priced guitars out there, not just tele body styles. With that said, for as simple as the body shape is, more often than not, the higher-end guitars are made from much nicer pieces of wood. It's one thing to use any old slab of wood versus some really nice, light, resonant swamp ash. And beyond that, the cosmetic appeal of certain grain patters is deemed desirable by some players. Due to the limited supply of such woods, these things increase the price of raw materials to the manufacturer, and thus the consumer sees higher prices, too. Not saying that it's worth the extra cash to get the super-duper flame - different strokes for different folks.

I think you are right. Hence Reverend's use of solid finishes over tone woods like spruce that are not used extensively for electric guitars, and veneer for some of the clear tops. The process of routing out the body as a unit and then attaching the flat top has to be a very efficient way of machining it. Benefit is a chambered body made from solid wood (not plywood) at an attractive price. Nice work Reverend!