# Parker Fly Adam Dutkiewicz Signature Model



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 6, 2009)

Buy Parker Adam Dutkiewicz Electric Guitar | Signature Model Electric Guitars | Solid Body Electric Guitars | Musician's Friend

Parker Adam Dutkiewicz Signature Fly Dusty Black from RockPalace.com!







all I will say is...


----------



## synrgy (Jul 6, 2009)

Reading the description -- the only thing that makes it 'different' is the EMG pickups. A pair of pickups is enough to constitute a 'signature'? Really?


----------



## 777 (Jul 6, 2009)

I saw him play this at Wacken 2008 Looks pretty damn good up close


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 6, 2009)

I don't know if it is any different to the normal Fly, but it sounds AWESOME


----------



## splinter8451 (Jul 6, 2009)

Well it is the FIRST production Parker to have EMG's so I guess that is enough to make it his signature. 

I am no fan of EMG's but it is awesome seeing Adam D. rockin out with a Parker.


----------



## Battousai (Jul 6, 2009)

wow nice price hike for a guitar with LESS options than other parkers... i dont see the big deal in it.. its another black guitar oooh shinyyyy


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jul 6, 2009)

I don't think parkers are usually made of mahogany either.

It is fun to finally see a parker in the metal scene though xD (at least I haven't seen anyone else using one)


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 6, 2009)

the Fly Classic and Fly Mojo are made of Mahogany, but the Fly Deluxe is made of Poplar.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 6, 2009)

Thats pretty secksy.


----------



## damigu (Jul 6, 2009)

"but why does it look like a bleeding machine gun?" to quote keith richards about parkers


they play absolutely killer. but i still have trouble getting down with their looks.


----------



## yingmin (Jul 6, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Reading the description -- the only thing that makes it 'different' is the EMG pickups. A pair of pickups is enough to constitute a 'signature'? Really?




It's hardly the first time signature guitars have had pickups be their only defining feature. Personally, I'm not into this one.


----------



## Apophis (Jul 6, 2009)

looks really nice, but nothing special looking at other Parker guitars


----------



## liamh (Jul 6, 2009)

It's ruined by the pickups rings imo.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 6, 2009)

The thing is, they had to dramatically change the pickup mounting system, rout depths, and likely even body thickness (or at least bridge height) to fit the EMGs into the guitar. That's where the price hike is coming in... it's very hard for Parker to do that kind of modification since everything is so crammed in such a thin body and works with very specialized molds. That said, I don't think it's worth the money either.

Also, there are a fair few Parkers in the hands of metallers. When I saw The Agonist opening for Epica, one of the guitarists was playing a white Fly.


----------



## damigu (Jul 6, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Reading the description -- the only thing that makes it 'different' is the EMG pickups. A pair of pickups is enough to constitute a 'signature'? Really?



why does something have to be fully unique in order to be a signature guitar?

most signature guitars of the past have been just a normal model with some small functional changes to facilitate the endorsee's sound/style.

it's only been for the last 10 years or so that everyone has jumped on the "my sig guitar has to be completely unique and immediately identifiable" bandwagon.
(yes, i know unique sigs existed before--like ace frehley's abomination--but i was speaking generally)


----------



## PnKnG (Jul 6, 2009)

Great fucking guitar.
Ridicules fucking price.


----------



## tian (Jul 6, 2009)

TemjinStrife said:


> The thing is, they had to dramatically change the pickup mounting system, rout depths, and likely even body thickness (or at least bridge height) to fit the EMGs into the guitar. That's where the price hike is coming in... it's very hard for Parker to do that kind of modification since everything is so crammed in such a thin body and works with very specialized molds. That said, I don't think it's worth the money either.


People have been stuffing EMGs/Blackouts into Fly Mojos for a while now...


----------



## yellowv (Jul 6, 2009)

I would love to have that guitar simply for the pickups rings. Even though I normally hate them they make it easy to throw some BKP's in there. But other than that it's really just a black Mojo with EMG's. Soon the Adam D and Vernon Reid sig Dragonflys will be out. They are definately something new for Parker, just not sure if it's something good.

Adam D




Vernon Reid


----------



## Thin_Ice_77 (Jul 6, 2009)

I wish Parkers didn't have to look like crap. Fix that headstock and that stupid upper horn and I'd probably buy one.


----------



## damigu (Jul 6, 2009)

yellowv said:


> I would love to have that guitar simply for the pickups rings. Even though I normally hate them they make it easy to throw some BKP's in there. But other than that it's really just a black Mojo with EMG's. Soon the Adam D and Vernon Reid sig Dragonflys will be out. They are definately something new for Parker, just not sure if it's something good.
> 
> Adam D
> 
> ...



i like the body on these--that top horn looks much nicer!


----------



## Mattmc74 (Jul 6, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Buy Parker Adam Dutkiewicz Electric Guitar | Signature Model Electric Guitars | Solid Body Electric Guitars | Musician's Friend
> 
> Parker Adam Dutkiewicz Signature Fly Dusty Black from RockPalace.com!
> 
> ...




 VERY AWESOME!


----------



## The Echthros (Jul 6, 2009)

if he is just going to to play the dragonfly anyways(I'm assuming thats the name for the new body style) why release this one?

all the parker purists are going to hate on this and the new parker body style...but then parker should have never sold to US Music Corp.

soon Parkers and Washies will be pretty indiscernible and even negligible differences


----------



## MTech (Jul 6, 2009)

And the OP was even one of the last to post in the Original Thread!


http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/standard-guitars/75977-adam-ds-got-a-parker-sig-now.html


----------



## signalgrey (Jul 6, 2009)

damigu said:


> i like the body on these--that top horn looks much nicer!





MUUUUUUCH better looking IMHO


----------



## zimbloth (Jul 6, 2009)

I played this at NAMM. It's sweet but it's blasphemous nonetheless


----------



## Harry (Jul 7, 2009)

It's not bad, but nothing totally special


----------



## Metalus (Jul 7, 2009)

I personally like the new Dragonfly model. Hopefully it will be just as lightweight and thin on the fingerboard as the original parkers because or else it will be a dissapointment. Im gonna save up for one regardless though.


----------



## loktide (Jul 7, 2009)

pickup rings = fail 


otherwise, i  parkers


----------



## HighGain510 (Jul 7, 2009)

yellowv said:


> Adam D



Did they state what they price on the Adam D Dragonfly sig was going to be? Is it crazy expensive like the standard one?  That thing is pretty sweet looking! 



MTech said:


> And the OP was even one of the last to post in the Original Thread!
> 
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/standard-guitars/75977-adam-ds-got-a-parker-sig-now.html



I was kinda curious about that too, I knew there was a thread on this already but that's even funnier!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 7, 2009)

haha whaaat?

man I posted this without thinking


----------



## HighGain510 (Jul 7, 2009)

Well some good did come of it, I hadn't seen the Dragonfly models prior to this thread.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 7, 2009)




----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jul 7, 2009)

Yeah that upper horn thing solved my only real issue with parkers.

Now to work on the new headstock a bit xD


----------



## Nick1 (Jul 7, 2009)

Parker has that Futuristic look to them and thats kinda cool. but 4Gs thats way way too much.


----------



## yingmin (Jul 7, 2009)

Nick1 said:


> Parker has that Futuristic look to them and thats kinda cool. but 4Gs thats way way too much.


 It's not just a look, though; nearly everything about the way Parkers are made is unique, and in my opinion, a big advance over the way guitars are traditionally made. Considering that something like a Suhr, which is really nothing more than a well-made Strat copy, can put you back around $3-4,000, I think the prices of Parkers are fairly reasonable.


----------



## Nick1 (Jul 7, 2009)

yingmin said:


> It's not just a look, though; nearly everything about the way Parkers are made is unique, and in my opinion, a big advance over the way guitars are traditionally made. Considering that something like a Suhr, which is really nothing more than a well-made Strat copy, can put you back around $3-4,000, I think the prices of Parkers are fairly reasonable.



Im not really a fan of parkers. I like the idea of what they do more than the guitar itself. I never played a parker I liked. Nor liked the sound of one. I like a guitar to have some weight to it. Not 15-20 Lbs but 8-10 is good.

But hey its a fairly big name. (its not Gibson or Fender) but still pretty big and it wont do anything but help the band. So good for him.


----------



## zimbloth (Jul 7, 2009)

Nick1 said:


> Im not really a fan of parkers. I like the idea of what they do more than the guitar itself. I never played a parker I liked. Nor liked the sound of one. I like a guitar to have some weight to it. Not 15-20 Lbs but 8-10 is good.
> 
> But hey its a fairly big name. (its not Gibson or Fender) but still pretty big and it wont do anything but help the band. So good for him.



Weight has very little to do with tone, it's all about how the guitar is constructed and the materials used. Parker models such as the Classic and Mojo sound absolutely huge despite being thin and light. My friend's mahogany Mojo flame for example sounds beefier and more resonant than any bulky Gibson I've ever played.

Parkers are really a work of genius. I understand aesthetics is personal taste, but if people don't like the sound that's probably because they're not a fan of the pickups more so than the guitar. They sound as they should. The mahogany models sound ballsy and warm, the poplar ones sound lively, articulate, and loud, and so on.


----------



## damigu (Jul 7, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> Parkers are really a work of genius.



indeed. ken parker really knows what he's doing and is unwilling to sacrifice quality (luckily there wasn't TOO huge of a quality drop when he left and they began greater manufacturing).

there was a great article about him in "the new yorker" in may or june of 2007. someone posted up a PDF of it. it's a read i recommend:
http://bobmartin1111.com/KenParkerNewYorker.pdf


----------



## Dusty201087 (Jul 7, 2009)

I like his sig, although I don't see the need for that huge price jump.  If I want that I'll just grab a normal fly and stick EMG's in it, or better yet a set of BKP's. I can't wait for the Dragonfly though, especially if a seven comes out


----------



## 6or7mattersnot (Jul 9, 2009)

Reverse the headstock on the signature Adam D. Dragonfly for those of us who are Drop-D'ers. I know that Killswitch plays in Drop C, so a reverse headstock would help, wouldn't it?


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Jul 9, 2009)

Not as nice as a regular Parker, the colour a bit generic for me and I'd rather not have EMGs. If I were in the market for a Parker, I'd save money and get non-sig fly, which imo are better guitars anyway.


----------



## damigu (Jul 9, 2009)

6or7mattersnot said:


> Reverse the headstock on the signature Adam D. Dragonfly for those of us who are Drop-D'ers. I know that Killswitch plays in Drop C, so a reverse headstock would help, wouldn't it?



help in what way? the string tension remains the same either way.

since these aren't locking nuts, probably all that would happen is that you'd get more noise from beyond the nut on the low strings (instead of on the high strings like w/ non-reverse heads).

i don't know that a reverse headstock would look good on a parker. and they're already questionable enough in the looks department!


----------



## Dusty201087 (Jul 9, 2009)

damigu said:


> help in what way? the string tension remains the same either way.
> 
> since these aren't locking nuts, probably all that would happen is that you'd get more noise from beyond the nut on the low strings (instead of on the high strings like w/ non-reverse heads).
> 
> i don't know that a reverse headstock would look good on a parker. and they're already questionable enough in the looks department!



You're pulling the same string to the same note but over a longer distance, so it's like increasing the scale length. Or at least that's what I assume he was talking about. I'd like to see a mockup of a RH Parker though, but then again I think the Fly is one of the coolest looking guitars ever


----------



## damigu (Jul 9, 2009)

the scale is determined by the length between the bridge and the nut. there is no functional increase in distance there regardless of what's going on past the nut or behind the bridge.
for the same strings at the same tuning, the tension of the strings is the same on a headless (with nothing past the nut or bridge) as it is for a TOM bridge (where the strings extend both beyond the bridge and the nut).

if the tension were different, then the note would be different. reverse vs. non-reverse is just an aesthetic difference with moderate functionality (some people are more comfortable with the tuners underneath vs. above).


----------



## Dusty201087 (Jul 10, 2009)

damigu said:


> the scale is determined by the length between the bridge and the nut. there is no functional increase in distance there regardless of what's going on past the nut or behind the bridge.
> for the same strings at the same tuning, the tension of the strings is the same on a headless (with nothing past the nut or bridge) as it is for a TOM bridge (where the strings extend both beyond the bridge and the nut).
> 
> if the tension were different, then the note would be different. reverse vs. non-reverse is just an aesthetic difference with moderate functionality *(some people are more comfortable with the tuners underneath vs. above)*.



Maybe that's what he was thinking then, idk, I was just trying to guess at what was running through his head


----------



## MTech (Jul 10, 2009)

Nick1 said:


> Parker has that Futuristic look to them and thats kinda cool. but 4Gs thats way way too much.


Maybe they're just trying to makeup for all that inflation that's coming in the near future..


----------



## Nick1 (Jul 11, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> Weight has very little to do with tone, it's all about how the guitar is constructed and the materials used. Parker models such as the Classic and Mojo sound absolutely huge despite being thin and light. My friend's mahogany Mojo flame for example sounds beefier and more resonant than any bulky Gibson I've ever played.
> 
> Parkers are really a work of genius. I understand aesthetics is personal taste, but if people don't like the sound that's probably because they're not a fan of the pickups more so than the guitar. They sound as they should. The mahogany models sound ballsy and warm, the poplar ones sound lively, articulate, and loud, and so on.





I totally agree that its all about build quality. A thin guitar constructed well can totally out sustain a "15 LB slab of mahogany. I just like some weight. And I like the feel of a wood neck. I like to feel the grain.


----------



## tian (Jul 11, 2009)

Nick1 said:


> I totally agree that its all about build quality. A thin guitar constructed well can totally out sustain a "15 LB slab of mahogany. I just like some weight. *And I like the feel of a wood neck. I like to feel the grain.*




As much as I love Parkers, this has been their big downfall for me. They are without a doubt some of the best playing guitars I've laid my hands on, but I really start missing the feel of a wood neck after a while. It's odd.


----------



## zimbloth (Jul 11, 2009)

Nick1 said:


> I totally agree that its all about build quality. A thin guitar constructed well can totally out sustain a "15 LB slab of mahogany. I just like some weight. And I like the feel of a wood neck. I like to feel the grain.





tian said:


> As much as I love Parkers, this has been their big downfall for me. They are without a doubt some of the best playing guitars I've laid my hands on, but I really start missing the feel of a wood neck after a while. It's odd.



Completely reasonable 

The reason *I* don't own a million Parkers is simply because I'm mainly a 7-string guy and I roll with Ricos now. Also, I've really fallen in love with the Caparison stuff lately, especially the Angelus, Horus HGS, and Dellinger-CA, so my gas for these has pretty much subsided for now.

Still though, it's hard to think of a more perfectly engineered guitar on the market than the Parker Fly.


----------



## MTech (Jul 12, 2009)

If somebody is actually looking for a deal on one I know somebody sellin a Blue Mojo Flame that comes with an evolution in the bridge (and still includes the stock JB) for $1500 cause he's trying to get an 8 string.


----------

