warmoth strat shape vs fender's

[mayfly]

I know this is a strat body shape thread, but I feel I must jump in with some telecaster information.

For a long time, the warmoth 'tele' shape was not what a cork sniffing purist would have called "correct to fender specs".  The issues included:

[list type=decimal]
[*]No flat spot on the body where the 1/4" jack lives
[*]Incorrect neck pickup wire routing / drilling under the pickguard
[*]Incorrect depth of pickup routes
[*]Incorrect routing where the cutaway meets the neck joint - that is the absence of the correct 'ski jump'.
[*]Non- recessed string ferrule holes
[/list]

None of this affects the operation or sound of the guitar.  But the vintage tone hawks (or is that tone penguins?) go absolutely NUTS over details like these.

Fortunately most of these issues have been fixed in the warmoth "vintage" telecaster bodies that were introduced a few years back.  But for some time the warmoth telecaster bodes were not "vintage correct".


... not that any of us actually cared. 

 

[Cagey]

I know I don't care. All my Teles are deliberately and aggressively non-vintage. Wouldn't want a true vintage Tele (or Strat), other than to put it up as auction/trade bait.

 

[musicispeace]

I know this is a strat body shape thread, but I feel I must jump in with some telecaster information.

For a long time, the warmoth 'tele' shape was not what a cork sniffing purist would have called "correct to fender specs".  The issues included:

[list type=decimal]
[*]No flat spot on the body where the 1/4" jack lives
[*]Incorrect neck pickup wire routing / drilling under the pickguard
[*]Incorrect depth of pickup routes
[*]Incorrect routing where the cutaway meets the neck joint - that is the absence of the correct 'ski jump'.
[*]Non- recessed string ferrule holes
[/list]

None of this affects the operation or sound of the guitar.  But the vintage tone hawks (or is that tone penguins?) go absolutely NUTS over details like these.

Fortunately most of these issues have been fixed in the warmoth "vintage" telecaster bodies that were introduced a few years back.  But for some time the warmoth telecaster bodes were not "vintage correct".


... not that any of us actually cared. 

Boy, if I had a dollar for every Northwest guitar tech that is a rabid cork sniffer who doesn't like Warmoth because they don't follow every yesteryear nuance. And string trees? You don't want to know the shouting I've done over the phone on that subject with my local cork sniffers who were working for money on something of mine, not theirs, back when I would have to use these "connoisseurs." Try talking about Bare Knuckle Pickups at most shops in Seattle....they have never heard of them. My Warmoth tele doesn't have a pickguard and has an all roasted maple neck and I love it.

 

[Cagey]

Sometimes I wonder if all those "cork sniffers" are really just profoundly insecure and frightened of their ignorance, which drives them to defend what little they know as if they're the last bulwark of some bizarre religion in support of a vengeful deity. Always full of myriad details and anecdotes to justify their position, but surprising bereft of any facts to support them.

 

[Wolfie351]

I have two MIMs and a Warmoth hardtail strat body, and for the life of me, they look the same to me. I heard once though that there are some subtle differences.

Compare where the forearm and tummy contours meet.  W's will be rounded the whole way like a 50's Strat, your MIM will likely be flatter and more angular looking.  Don't want to make a blanket statement on ALL MIM Strats though, yours may be different.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  Now, call me a cork sniffer if you want, but I think the original...dare I say, VINTAGE...design looks far better.  Just like the flat bottom looks better on Teles and Warmoth Jazzmasters just don't look right either.  Sniff, sniff...ahhhh, '63 was a good year

 

[musicispeace]

I have two MIMs and a Warmoth hardtail strat body, and for the life of me, they look the same to me. I heard once though that there are some subtle differences.

Compare where the forearm and tummy contours meet.  W's will be rounded the whole way like a 50's Strat, your MIM will likely be flatter and more angular looking.  Don't want to make a blanket statement on ALL MIM Strats though, yours may be different.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  Now, call me a cork sniffer if you want, but I think the original...dare I say, VINTAGE...design looks far better.  Just like the flat bottom looks better on Teles and Warmoth Jazzmasters just don't look right either.  Sniff, sniff...ahhhh, '63 was a good year

Wow, that is an interesting difference. I personally have not got hands on with the larger version.

 

[aarontunes]

I had thought that Warmoth has a license from Fender and therefore don't need to necessarily vary the body shape. But other members here may know more on that.

There exists in the guitar world a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of Warmoth's licensing agreement with Fender. I've seen it peated and repeated a million times, on a million forums. It goes something like this:


"Warmoth is paying a monthly fee for a license to duplicate Fender products. As a result, Warmoth gets access to all Fender's CNC programs, tooling, and manufacturing processes. Therefore, Warmoth has no excuse for not making every detail of every product exactly the same as Fender."


It ain't like that.


There isn't a single part of that paragraph that is correct.

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

I had thought that Warmoth has a license from Fender and therefore don't need to necessarily vary the body shape. But other members here may know more on that.

There exists in the guitar world a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of Warmoth's licensing agreement with Fender. I've seen it peated and repeated a million times, on a million forums. It goes something like this:


"Warmoth is paying a monthly fee for a license to duplicate Fender products. As a result, Warmoth gets access to all Fender's CNC programs, tooling, and manufacturing processes. Therefore, Warmoth has no excuse for not making every detail of every product exactly the same as Fender."


It ain't like that.


There isn't a single part of that paragraph that is correct.

As a former employee, I must concur.

 

[aarontunes]

Let me try to explain one reason why Warmoth parts don't match Fender's, via analogy:


Before coming to work for Warmoth, I worked for 25 years in the designer jewelry industry.


Quite frequently, we had wealthy customers approach us with stories similar to this one: "I have this pair of expensive earrings. Well...it used to be a pair, but I lost one while snorkeling near my vacation home in Tobago. Can you duplicate it?"


A jeweler's worst nightmare.


Our answer: "This earring was made by someone else. I can come close, but it won't be a perfect match. If it has to be exact, I could make you a new pair of earrings that look similar to this one, and they would match, but if you want me to make one earring that matches this perfectly, it just ain't gonna happen."


Them: "Well can't you just measure it really carefully?"


Us: "Of course we can, and of course we will, but trust me....they ain't gonna be a perfect match."

 

[Ivandrov]

I had thought that Warmoth has a license from Fender and therefore don't need to necessarily vary the body shape. But other members here may know more on that.

There exists in the guitar world a fundamental and widespread misunderstanding of Warmoth's licensing agreement with Fender. I've seen it peated and repeated a million times, on a million forums. It goes something like this:


"Warmoth is paying a monthly fee for a license to duplicate Fender products. As a result, Warmoth gets access to all Fender's CNC programs, tooling, and manufacturing processes. Therefore, Warmoth has no excuse for not making every detail of every product exactly the same as Fender."


It ain't like that.


There isn't a single part of that paragraph that is correct.

Don't think any of us in this topic said that. This was all about how close you guys do get. If the detailed spec drawing of the neck pocket and the neck back profiles on the website is anything to go by, you do have the full spec list for the bodies and necks right?

 

[Cagey]

If the detailed spec drawing of the neck pocket and the neck back profiles on the website is anything to go by, you do have the full spec list for the bodies and necks right?

Everybody does. Whether they follow it or not is usually the question. Even Fender doesn't always follow their own specs. In my experience, Warmoth follows Fender's design drawings closer than Fender does. But, since all (particularly older) Fenders aren't the same, it would be difficult to duplicate one without a CMM and an example of the unit you want to have duplicated identically.

As for licensing, I'm not aware of any need to license Fender body styles, at least not the "classic" styles like Strats, Teles, Precisions, etc. They're all essentially in the public domain and your or I could kick them out by the hundreds every day and FMIC couldn't do anything but weep. I think there may still be some IP ownership of the headstock design(s), but I don't think they're particularly rabid about enforcing it. I think basically all they want is a non-compete agreement. In other words, don't build complete guitars identical to theirs, and don't call them "Fender" parts. Replacement parts are ok, which is what Warmoth makes.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[aarontunes]

Don't think any of us in this topic said that. This was all about how close you guys do get. If the detailed spec drawing of the neck pocket and the neck back profiles on the website is anything to go by, you do have the full spec list for the bodies and necks right?

Nope, Fender never sent us their "full spec list". Never got that email....maybe it's in our SPAM folder.  :toothy12:  Everything we know we learned from measuring, just like everybody else.


It's not like Fender sent us their spec list so we could duplicate what they were doing. Not at all. All our products and processes were developed by us. Back in 1980, Warmoth wasn't trying to duplicate a Fender neck. We were trying to create a better neck than what Fender was making at the time. We were creating replacement necks for Fender products, so naturally we used their headstock shapes (didn't think much of it at the time, and neither did Fender), but the construction of the neck was completely different. The processes we used were different, and developed by us. Even much of the machinery we used (and still use today) was developed by Ken. A lot of things people think of today as "common" were pioneered by Warmoth. Compound radius, e.g.

 

[aarontunes]

Everybody does. Whether they follow it or not is usually the question. Even Fender doesn't always follow their own specs. In my experience, Warmoth follows Fender's design drawings closer than Fender does. But, since all (particularly older) Fenders aren't the same, it would be difficult to duplicate one without a CMM and an example of the unit you want to have duplicated identically.

As for licensing, I'm not aware of any need to license Fender body styles, at least not the "classic" styles like Strats, Teles, Precisions, etc. They're all essentially in the public domain and your or I could kick them out by the hundreds every day and FMIC couldn't do anything but weep. I think there may still be some IP ownership of the headstock design(s), but I don't think they're particularly rabid about enforcing it. I think basically all they want is a non-compete agreement. In other words, don't build complete guitars identical to theirs, and don't call them "Fender" parts. Replacement parts are ok, which is what Warmoth makes.

But, I could be wrong.

You're not.


The body shapes have been ruled "functional shapes". IOW, they are intrinsic to the functionality of an electric guitar, and are therefore "un-trademarkable". The headstock shapes, OTOH, are not functional shapes, but "decorative", and may be therefore be trademarked. This is why every "boutique" builder out there uses essentially straight-up Fender body shapes, but original headstock shapes.


Headstock shapes are the crux of our agreement with Fender. Actually, not the crux, but the full and total scope of our agreement with Fender.


When some boutique builder runs afoul of Fender's legal team, it's over the headstock shapes.

 

[Rick]

While not a strat shape, when I was building my Tele-Deluxe, I found that the outline of the fender body was identical to the warmoth body, but the rounding of the edges of the body were so different that I couldn't use the fender pick guard on the warmoth body, though I could've gone in the opposite direction. 

Fender, when it come to the teledeluxe, has subtle variations from model to model. 

Wait ... what is the post about?  Never mind, back to work.

 

[aarontunes]

While not a strat shape, when I was building my Tele-Deluxe, I found that the outline of the fender body was identical to the warmoth body, but the rounding of the edges of the body were so different that I couldn't use the fender pick guard on the warmoth body, though I could've gone in the opposite direction. 

Fender, when it come to the teledeluxe, has subtle variations from model to model. 

Wait ... what is the post about?  Never mind, back to work.

This, of course, is the other problem with people comparing our products to Fender's.


Oh, you want our Strat replacement neck to match Fender's specs exactly? OK....which ones?  :dontknow:

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

My quote to customer's requesting that back in the day were, "When Fender follows their own spec, then we will have the objective reference to start from, but since they have several specs to choose from, so do we".