# Parker Guitars 2017 Revival Announcement



## marcwormjim (Jun 21, 2017)

Those of you who have been following Parker Guitars since the closure of the Washburn Custom Shop in Buffalo Grove, Illinois know that their front page has been teasing an announcement for the 2017 re-release they've been gearing up for. Winter NAMM came and went without a word, and this left Summer NAMM as the platform for the reveal.

After months of speculation as to whether Godin was going to take over from Jam Industries or whether the classic Fly designs would be carried over or further modernized, and even then whether production would resume in North America or only South Korea (with WMI teasing clues as to a new contract with a forward-thinking, American brand), Parker has updated the front page with a detailed explanation as to their new ventures, going forward into 2018:

http://www.parkerguitars.com/


----------



## electriceye (Jun 21, 2017)

I don't know if I'd call that "detailed."


----------



## oracles (Jun 21, 2017)

electriceye said:


> I don't know if I'd call that "detailed."



Agreed, but I'm mostly just happy to see Parker will be coming back. I'm (very impatiently) waiting for my CS Maxxfly to show up, and I've definitely caught more Parker GAS recently.


----------



## jephjacques (Jun 21, 2017)

Parker seems like an ideal company to take advantage of the ERG market, it would be great to have them back


----------



## HexaneLake (Jun 21, 2017)

Hope they arent SHIT


----------



## narad (Jun 21, 2017)

Aristides should totally buy up the Parker rights. I can't think of a more appropriate company to carry on Parker's vision.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 21, 2017)

narad said:


> Aristides should totally buy up the Parker rights. I can't think of a more appropriate company to carry on Parker's vision.



I think Ron Thorn could really do them justice. Maybe even Moses?

No offense to Aristides, but other than being made of not-wood, what do they do as far as innovation? I just see off the shelf pickups and hardware. 

In a perfect world, Fender would buy Parker. They have the market muscle and facilities to make it successful and it would be awesome to see some of the more Parker-esque features show up on Jacksons, Fenders, Charvels, etc.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 21, 2017)

That page update has been up for months.

I'm a Parker slut. The real problem with Parkers is that the amount of shit you have to do to make them just makes them cost too much for the mass market.

Oh, and I had a CS order that got canceled at the last minute when the shop closed. It sucked. Glad I snagged my Maxxfly.




oracles said:


> Agreed, but I'm mostly just happy to see Parker will be coming back. I'm (very impatiently) waiting for my CS Maxxfly to show up, and I've definitely caught more Parker GAS recently.


Where are you getting a CS Maxxfly from? The CS has been closed for like a year. I'm assuming its used?


----------



## marcwormjim (Jun 21, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> That page update has been up for months.



Yes, but with a "7" for "2017." The point of this failed joke thread was that Parker's big announcement was to change the "7" to an "8" and make-believe they're still on course.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 21, 2017)

Ah. Ok. 


I'm just worried they will further "refine" the process and cost cut.


----------



## oracles (Jun 21, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Where are you getting a CS Maxxfly from? The CS has been closed for like a year. I'm assuming its used?



It is, yeah, though it's been a case queen it's whole life. The owner bought it, played it twice for about an hour and decided 7s weren't for him. Threw it back in the case and kind of forgot about it.


----------



## narad (Jun 21, 2017)

oracles said:


> It is, yeah, though it's been a case queen it's whole life. The owner bought it, played it twice for about an hour and decided 7s weren't for him. Threw it back in the case and kind of forgot about it.



That's what they all say.


----------



## narad (Jun 21, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think Ron Thorn could really do them justice. Maybe even Moses?
> 
> No offense to Aristides, but other than being made of not-wood, what do they do as far as innovation? I just see off the shelf pickups and hardware.
> 
> In a perfect world, Fender would buy Parker. They have the market muscle and facilities to make it successful and it would be awesome to see some of the more Parker-esque features show up on Jacksons, Fenders, Charvels, etc.



Apart from being made of non-wood, what innovations did the Parker have that aren't commonly found on other guitars today? I think a JPX is fairly close here -- piezo electronics with dual outs, bridge has a similar sweep and size (sure, doesn't lock, but a simple fix with a tremelno). So what innovations are we looking for? We can talk about Ken's intentions all day, but to the average guitar buyer, I think it was just, "hey! cool shape!"

Meanwhile Aristides have the exoskeleton sort of thing going, and are cast in a mold, so I don't think are so far removed from the CF wrap. They both use alt-wood fretboards. They both have sort of crazy finishes. If some company with mega-bucks can buy it, great, but as far as aristides goes I just think they'd do a good job at it without deviating far from their own specialties these days.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 21, 2017)

Plus if Aristides bought them, then maybe I'd be able to get an Aristides that doesn't look awful. I'm not a fan of their designs at all, but a Parker-designed guitar made of Arium would be tempting.


----------



## A-Branger (Jun 22, 2017)

plus they can fix the non ears pickups, so we can trow any set we want in there and the non-tang frets, so luthiers out there can be happy. And dont remember if they had another crazy spec like those


----------



## A-Branger (Jun 22, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> and even then whether production would resume in North America or only South Korea (with WMI teasing clues as to a new contract with a forward-thinking, American brand),



where did you hear that?, as far as I knew WMI doesnt really talks openly, or has even a site. So where are they teasing stuff?. Or even feel the need to do so, they build stuff for brands not for customers. 

giving the popularity of the factory it would be a good idea for a more affordable versions of it. But not sure if then they would keep the whole carbon fiber thing. I see Parker like someone else mention Aristides, a more high end/boutique stuff, and they should start again like that, once they gain momentum they go explore affordable stuff


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> Apart from being made of non-wood, what innovations did the Parker have that aren't commonly found on other guitars today? I think a JPX is fairly close here -- piezo electronics with dual outs, bridge has a similar sweep and size (sure, doesn't lock, but a simple fix with a tremelno). So what innovations are we looking for? We can talk about Ken's intentions all day, but to the average guitar buyer, I think it was just, "hey! cool shape!"
> 
> Meanwhile Aristides have the exoskeleton sort of thing going, and are cast in a mold, so I don't think are so far removed from the CF wrap. They both use alt-wood fretboards. They both have sort of crazy finishes. If some company with mega-bucks can buy it, great, but as far as aristides goes I just think they'd do a good job at it without deviating far from their own specialties these days.



What I'm referring to is the specialized, from the ground-up built hardware and electronics. Sure, you could cobble together something that functions similarly today, but it wouldn't be the same. Back when Parker came out, and even till the end, you couldn't get a production guitar with all of the following: reinforced wood body and neck, composite fretboard, stainless frets, fixable trem with piezo and good tone.

Like I said, not hating on Aristides, aside from the goofy bodies I like everything they're doing. I just don't see how they relate to Parker on anything but the non-wood thing, which was never exactly a big push from Parker which used wood in every guitar they made. Maybe if they were doing some interesting things with hardware or electronics, but I just haven't seen it.

The big sell on Parker was the bridge/electronics suite and carbon reinforced wood that allowed it to be both made of wood and crazy light. Yeah, some goobs just liked the goofy upper horn and minimal headstock, but those were far from the target audience.



A-Branger said:


> plus they can fix the non ears pickups, so we can trow any set we want in there and the non-tang frets, so luthiers out there can be happy. And dont remember if they had another crazy spec like those



They did have models towards the end without needing proprietary pickup mounts, that said, there were several workarounds that were relatively easy and allowed the player to use whatever pickups they wanted.

As for the frets, they were stainless steel, so as long as the guitar wasn't damaged there wasn't really a need to have traditional fret tangs. There was a bad batch of epoxy used once, but the issue was corrected quickly.


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What I'm referring to is the specialized, from the ground-up built hardware and electronics. Sure, you could cobble together something that functions similarly today, but it wouldn't be the same.



But besides the bridge, what are we really missing from this today? Personally the electronics don't do much for me - a plethora of meh tones. An innovative idea at the time, but something I think a lot of people have moved past by now.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> But besides the bridge, what are we really missing from this today? Personally the electronics don't do much for me - a plethora of meh tones. An innovative idea at the time, but something I think a lot of people have moved past by now.



The Parker trem was really it's own thing in feel and function. Yeah, if you're not a trem person or don't really plan to utilize the features it's nothing special and easy to dismiss, but for a lot of folks, myself included, it was a big part of what made a Parker special.


----------



## Kaff (Jun 22, 2017)

Parkers are somewhat rare where I live and I'd kill for a Dragonfly7. Hope they'll have 7st guitars in their upcoming production.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 22, 2017)

I would do terrible terrible things for an 8 string parker..maybe pondman would sell me the one he built lol


----------



## bostjan (Jun 22, 2017)

When the Fly came out in 1993 (mainstream release after prototypes existing since '85 or so), it was one of the first guitars using a piezo pickup along with magnetic pickups, it was one of the first guitars to utilize a multi-mode flat-spring trem, it was one of the first guitars to use locking tuners, it was the lightest electric solidbody guitar, it was the first to use tangless stainless frets, it was the thinnest guitar, it was the only guitar on the market at the time to use wood with a composite exoskeleton (including the fretboard), it was a unique body style and headstock shape (and still is), and it was one of very few manufacturers to use large side markers that were visible in low light.

Since then, several electric solidbody guitars with piezos came to be, several trem systems utilizing locking tuners followed, many guitars made of composite materials followed, many other brands started making bodies with harder angles and headstocks with open space, many guitars got thinner and lighter, and luminlays...so how can any sane person stand there and say that the original Parker Fly wasn't that innovative or that it didn't influence other designs?!

The company changing hands and moving around and then closing up shop has been kind of difficult for me to watch. This "teaser" that something is brewing to bring the brand back is interesting, but honestly, I don't have high hopes.

If somebody like Fender bought them out, it could be a great thing, but it might be a disaster, too, I guess we'll have to wait and see whether we get more details in 2018, or if they just update the site to say check back in 2019.


----------



## sakeido (Jun 22, 2017)

the worst part of the Parker factory shutting down is what it did to prices of used Parkers... they were unbelievably cheap for a long time. Now prices are quite a bit higher. Not inflated, really, just where they should have been all along


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> But besides the bridge, what are we really missing from this today? Personally the electronics don't do much for me - a plethora of meh tones. An innovative idea at the time, but something I think a lot of people have moved past by now.


Just because YOU dont really like it doesnt' mean they didn't innovate things. Its actually quite a few things. More than I can think of.

OG parkers didnt even have truss rods. It was similar to a large piano string.
They have a different neck joint that has fingers that lock and make more surface area contact than any other neck joint.
The introduction of the carbon fiber and the neck joint made them able to make literally no neck heel. (Don't know if that existed before)
Again, the electronics with the Piezo.
The bridge is completely unique and also doesn't use a traditional spring system. They use a flat piece of metal for the spring and work differently.
The bridge also has offset intonation screws for easy adjusting that I don't think anyone ever had.
They have the ability to lock the bridge, dive only, or leave it floating. With a switch in the back with the OG's, and now with a little tool on the refined versions.
The reduced weight because of many of the factors listed above.
Tangless frets.
Stainless steel frets.
Carbon fiber fret boards.
Ect. Ect. Ect.

Saying Parker hasnt introduced innovation clearly shows you havn't done your homework.
Are any of these essential to the guitar? Obviously not. Many guitars exist without out any of these things. But they are all innovative solutions.




narad said:


> But besides the bridge, what are we really missing from this today? Personally the electronics don't do much for me - a plethora of meh tones. An innovative idea at the time, but something I think a lot of people have moved past by now.


We HAVE move passed these things? Look at the Aristides. Looks like the bridge is the same bridge that we have used for years and years. The pickups are the same. No Piezos. Seems like the ONLY thing that makes them different is the material they use for making the body. But I'm failing to see where we have moved past Parker designs. if anything, the rest of the industry is just catching up to the original ideas, and you STILL don't get all those things in a single guitar today besides a Parker.



narad said:


> Meanwhile Aristides have the exoskeleton sort of thing going, and are cast in a mold, so I don't think are so far removed from the CF wrap.



The method of casting a body and doing the CF wrap are VASTLY different things. Look on youtube and they have a few videos of the CF process, baking it in ovens, ect.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

oracles said:


> It is, yeah, though it's been a case queen it's whole life. The owner bought it, played it twice for about an hour and decided 7s weren't for him. Threw it back in the case and kind of forgot about it.


If you decide to sell it, hit me up first


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Just because YOU dont really like it doesnt' mean they didn't innovate things. Its actually quite a few things. More than I can think of.
> 
> OG parkers didnt even have truss rods. It was similar to a large piano string.
> They have a different neck joint that has fingers that lock and make more surface area contact than any other neck joint.
> ...



Well I didn't say Parker hasn't introduced innovation AND I've done my homework, so... 0/2.

The point is not how did Parker innovate, but what innovations did they present that haven't been incorporated into tons of currently available guitars, and that people are still clamoring for. i.e., what would make them unique and desirable in *today's* marketplace. The fact they keep having financial difficulties should be somewhat evident of this being a very short list. I would imagine their main unique selling point today is that they're still comparatively lighter than just about anything out there. Everything else, meh. Modern necks have carbon/graphite inside them, many luthiers don't like the tonal effect of thinning out the heel, you can get the trem adjustments with a tremel-no, SS frets are common, and if you want a smooth non-wood fretboard you can get richlite.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> We HAVE move passed these things? Look at the Aristides. Looks like the bridge is the same bridge that we have used for years and years. The pickups are the same. No Piezos. Seems like the ONLY thing that makes them different is the material they use for making the body. But I'm failing to see where we have moved past Parker designs. if anything, the rest of the industry is just catching up to the original ideas, and you STILL don't get all those things in a single guitar today besides a Parker.



We've moved past them in that people don't want them.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> The fact they keep having financial difficulties should be somewhat evident of this being a very short list.
> We've moved past them in that people don't want them.



This is where your wrong. If you take a few minutes and look at the process of making a Parker on youtube, you can clearly see the problem. They are so labor intensive to make, there is no way they would beable to turn a decent profit at the price point the kept. Even at 4k, they had to make like no money.

At one point in one of the tour videos of the factory, they mention each guitar has about 40 man hours in it and they they are horribly labor intensive. If you do the math, 4000 divided by 40 hours equals 100 bucks an hour. And thats just the labor, not even mentioning materials. I don't know how you could make a profit off that.

Say for instance, you look at how they make your production PRS that cost 4K. Parker has to do all the same steps, PLUS all the carbon work. Applying, baking, ect. Frets had to be done by hand. No machine or presses. Ect.

Its not everyday most people look for a 4 thousand dollar guitar. So the amount you sell is probably not too high. But when you have a slim margin like Parker did, its gonna be a rough business. The only option for them was either to charge more, pushing them further out of the market, or refine the process even more. Which I suspect is what they are doing.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> Well I didn't say Parker hasn't introduced innovation AND I've done my homework, so... 0/2.





narad said:


> Apart from being made of non-wood, what innovations did the Parker have that aren't commonly found on other guitars today? I think a JPX is fairly close here -- piezo electronics with dual outs, bridge has a similar sweep and size (sure, doesn't lock, but a simple fix with a tremelno). So what innovations are we looking for? We can talk about Ken's intentions all day, but to the average guitar buyer, I think it was just, "hey! cool shape!"


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

bostjan said:


>



"Apart from being made of non-wood, what innovations did the Parker have *that aren't commonly found on other guitars today? "*

Those pesky relative clauses.


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> This is where your wrong. If you take a few minutes and look at the process of making a Parker on youtube, you can clearly see the problem. They are so labor intensive to make, there is no way they would be able to turn a decent profit at the price point the kept. Even at 4k, they had to make like no money.



I never said they weren't labor intensive. Aristides, for however labor intensive or not those may be, are marketed at 3500-4k and the line is growing longer every day. I never said the margins on Parkers were huge -- we really have no idea what they are -- but simply that people who have 3500-4k to spend didn't want to spend it on what a Parker Fly offered, circa 2015. But they'll keep buying Aristides all day long at this point.

And I'll cut to the chase here -- I own a Parker Fly. I even own a super expensive Parker Fly, so it's not like I bought one of the $1200 ones hanging around just for diversity. I have owned other Parkers. I know the features and build process. But I see no indication that a long list of guitar players want a single piece no truss rod neck. Or a tang-less frets. Or some completely different bridge design. I'm not saying Parker didn't innovate. Just that people didn't care enough for those innovations to justify the extra build difficult to make the guitar sell more successfully. And I'm being presented with absolutely no proof to the contrary.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

So 2 things, First, you've morphed your point.
Second, how many Aristides do you think they sell?  "But they'll keep buying Aristides all day long at this point". I'd be willing to bet its not more than Parker sold on a regular basis. Aristides big get was that they can do something different but not have it add much difficulty to the manufacturing process. As a matter of fact, it probably made it easier.

And lastly, "Apart from being made of non-wood, what innovations did the Parker have *that aren't commonly found on other guitars today?" *
Well, they are used on tons of other guitar today. And your eating your own tail on this one. The thing that no one wants according to you, it seems everyone wants. Hence tons of other guitars using those ideas. The real achillies heel for parker interms of taking off really was that they look so damn weird.
Strats look the same from 70 years ago, but its a standard look now. Parkers just look weird. Which is probably the number one reason most people don't have them(price being a big factor as well but we already discussed that.). If you had a strat that had those same features, all of them, people would be freaking out over them. But Parkers come in that funny shape(which I love personally).

I guess what I'm saying is, your trying to say people don't want a guitar with such vast feature sets. I'm saying they absolutely do, but most people don't get along with the Parker look. Which is part of why they didn't catch on that much. If you look on paper, there is nothing to not like that a Parker offers.


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> So 2 things, First, you've morphed your point.



This is getting painful. There are 3 things going on here with Parker’s innovations: 1.) they were good, and practical, and found their way into other guitars (SS frets, piezo to some extent), 2.) they weren’t particularly useful / cost-benefit not great (CF wrap, tang-less frets), 3.) they got replaced (internal strengthening in necks, richlite boards instead of CF, tremel-no replacing the 3-way bridge setup). In all 3, it’s hard to justify paying a ton of money for a Parker these days, and for the things you don’t get on other guitars, I don’t see anyone asking for them. I don't think it's about the appearance...I think it's that people don't like the sound and don't care about having a CF wrap and other expensive options.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 22, 2017)

Moses and a few other companies were already doing graphite reinforcement rods in the 80's, though.

Richlite is really not a substitute for carbon/glass composite...

but whatever.

If your point is that nobody wants a Parker these days, then you are your own counter-example. Either way, I am not certain what your point is or what relevance it has with the real world.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 22, 2017)

Also, Aristides makes something halfway between a Switch and a Parker than something akin to a Parker. And to imply that the brand is more popular than Parker was is a bit of a surprising claim to me, but I haven't seen the numbers.

A big part of the downfall of the Parker brand was poor management and public relations. There are plenty of folks who love the instruments, but the brand's assets were poorly managed the past few years that they operated.


----------



## narad (Jun 22, 2017)

bostjan said:


> If your point is that nobody wants a Parker these days, then you are your own counter-example. Either way, I am not certain what your point is or what relevance it has with the real world.



That any new incarnation should probably focus on the options people actually want, unless they want to stay in a perpetual cycle of failure<->restructuring. But whatever.


----------



## sakeido (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> This is getting painful. There are 3 things going on here with Parker’s innovations: 1.) they were good, and practical, and found their way into other guitars (SS frets, piezo to some extent), 2.) they weren’t particularly useful / cost-benefit not great (CF wrap, tang-less frets), 3.) they got replaced (internal strengthening in necks, richlite boards instead of CF, tremel-no replacing the 3-way bridge setup). In all 3, it’s hard to justify paying a ton of money for a Parker these days, and for the things you don’t get on other guitars, I don’t see anyone asking for them. I don't think it's about the appearance...I think it's that people don't like the sound and don't care about having a CF wrap and other expensive options.



just sayin, the carbon/glass fretboard is expensive but the Washburns made with that neck are now selling for above their original selling prices... people absolutely wanted that neck, just too expensive. to be pedantic, the tangless frets are required by the design of the neck... they solve a problem that doesn't exist with other neck and FB materials 

saying a tremol-no "replaces" the Parker bridge doesn't make any sense either. there is more to a bridge than if it is fixed, dive-only or full floating. the feel of it on your hand, how many steps you can bend in either direction, tuning stability, ease of changing strings, etc. all big factors and the Parker bridge gets maximum marks in all those categories except bend range where naturally it can't compete with double lockers



narad said:


> That any new incarnation should probably focus on the options people actually want, unless they want to stay in a perpetual cycle of failure<->restructuring. But whatever.



they made exactly what people wanted from them, they just sold everything for far too much money. they also sucked at PR... you think everybody playing those fugly ass Artistedes 060 and 070s wouldn't very happily play a Maxxfly instead?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

narad said:


> This is getting painful.


Yea. This is painful. You started out talking about how they had no innovations that current guitars didnt have. Multipul people pointed out like a dozen. Then its morphed into I don't even know what. I don't even know what your point is or where your going with it anymore. Gibsons, Fenders, PRS, ect ect ect don't have any innovations that arn't seen elsewhere. Well, Fender was at one point in the past like the Parker was in the 90's with innovation, but since other guitars have used those same ideas, we shouldn't buy those either I guess?

Eh. I'm done wasting my time


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Jun 22, 2017)

Pretty exciting news, personally. I really like Parkers and I hope they get managed properly this go around.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jun 22, 2017)

Which detail most excited you?


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 22, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Which detail most excited you?


When that digit changed from 7 to 8? Oh boy. Did I go apeshit!!!!


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Jun 22, 2017)

Haha, I wasn't familiar with the previous announcement so it's all new to me!


----------



## A-Branger (Jun 22, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> The real achillies heel for parker interms of taking off really was that they look so damn weird.



actually I think they are beautiful (I know you do too), and the weird shape is what I love about them the most. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before I knew anything about guitars and specs, I just loved the shape of it. And yes, I love the upper horn matching with the headstock.

but I know what you are saying, the vast majority of players out there are too traditionalist, and they are a reaaaaaaally hard crowd to make them pull away from their fender/gibson and co. guitars. I think Parker was bit too ahead of time. These days people are ore open to these types of gutiars, look at Aristides. With a good marketing and target audience, plus help of some players they do can make something great again.

They have to market a bit more into the new prog/modern metal side of things. In the past they were jsut triying to sell to traditionalist, which this shape of guitar wont cut it. My old guitar player once asked them in the past for a guitar as it was his dream and they say "no" to both making a lefty and making a 7 string.

As for the bridge I dont really care, for me they can put a hipshot contourn and Im happy as a pig, as long as they still have piezzo.

And not sure why some folks keep mentioning the tangless frets as an "innovation", what part of it is it good?, if not in a way could lead into a worse outcome. The fact that they are glued in vs pressed into the board would make no difference in sound (them being SS have a far bigger impact), but the location of them is the issue. You can have a fret slot machine, you can CNC a fretboard so the locations are as precise as they can be. With a tangless fret, you are to the mercy of a steady hand of a worker when glue them in. Like someone else mentioned, these frets are tangless only as a way to solve the problem of the composite neck/fretboard. Where you couldnt cut slots in, so you had to deal with a flat surface to put frets on. But "innovation" they are not


----------



## marcwormjim (Jun 22, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> When that digit changed from 7 to 8? Oh boy. Did I go apeshit!!!!



This may be the hardest I've laughed at a post, here. Wish I could "love" it, rather than "like" it.

I made this thread as a joke, and the joke's been rolling through three pages of guys who forewent the OP in favor of just arguing whether or not a unique guitar is unique if other guitars have been unique in the meantime.


----------



## narad (Jun 23, 2017)

sakeido said:


> just sayin, the carbon/glass fretboard is expensive but the Washburns made with that neck are now selling for above their original selling prices... people absolutely wanted that neck, just too expensive. to be pedantic, the tangless frets are required by the design of the neck... they solve a problem that doesn't exist with other neck and FB materials
> 
> saying a tremol-no "replaces" the Parker bridge doesn't make any sense either. there is more to a bridge than if it is fixed, dive-only or full floating. the feel of it on your hand, how many steps you can bend in either direction, tuning stability, ease of changing strings, etc. all big factors and the Parker bridge gets maximum marks in all those categories except bend range where naturally it can't compete with double lockers



Sure, these things are not literally the same as what you find today. However, if you want a really artificially smooth feeling fretboard that doesn't warp to humidity changes, richlite has it. If you want a bridge that is adjustable from fixed/down-only/free, you can get that too. With an tremel-no, changing strings is equally convenient, and as far as feel, yes, it's its own thing, but that's subjective. You can get these things for way less than you do with Parker -- it's only if you absolutely need all of these things together AND you like the fly shape AND you like the pickup options your given, that paying more for the Parker becomes an option. Evidently this was not enough people.



sakeido said:


> they made exactly what people wanted from them, they just sold everything for far too much money. they also sucked at PR... you think everybody playing those fugly ass Artistedes 060 and 070s wouldn't very happily play a Maxxfly instead?



Who's to say? I mean, there's not a lot on a Parker fly I would actively want to get rid of, but unfortunately they obviously priced out most of the people that wanted them. And what does it mean to if all your new ideas raise the cost of the guitar and no one buys it? It means the market doesn't appreciate that innovation enough to create a sustainable company, which is all I'm saying. Sure, their marketing could have been better, but if you're offering something unique, and people aren't willing to pay your asking price for it, take the hint.



7 Strings of Hate said:


> Yea. This is painful. You started out talking about how they had no innovations that current guitars didnt have. Multipul people pointed out like a dozen. Then its morphed into I don't even know what. I don't even know what your point is or where your going with it anymore. Gibsons, Fenders, PRS, ect ect ect don't have any innovations that arn't seen elsewhere. Well, Fender was at one point in the past like the Parker was in the 90's with innovation, but since other guitars have used those same ideas, we shouldn't buy those either I guess?
> 
> Eh. I'm done wasting my time



Innovations that current guitars didn't have -- that people actually care about! Reading comprehension and reasoning on this board is getting frikkin' abysmal. You already have the one guy popping in trying to be snooty with the rolling eyes emjoi just because he couldn't read a complete sentence. Like you don't have to agree with me, but neither of us knows the specifics of why Parker failed. I just see a guitar that's priced a good chunk above its competitors, sat for long periods of time at dealers, had terrible used value, and which offered things like... a CF wrapped body, piezo electronics, an adjustable bridge... things I hardly ever hear people asking for. Again, people pointed out like a dozen? There is one literally < 5 feet away from me right now -- I know the specs -- I don't hear anyone wanting to pay extra money for those specs. Anyway, glad to hear you're done because I'm just paraphrasing the same stuff now.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 23, 2017)

Salt


----------



## oracles (Jun 23, 2017)

narad said:


> Sure, these things are not literally the same as what you find today. However, if you want a really artificially smooth feeling fretboard that doesn't warp to humidity changes, richlite has it. If you want a bridge that is adjustable from fixed/down-only/free, you can get that too. With an tremel-no, changing strings is equally convenient, and as far as feel, yes, it's its own thing, but that's subjective. You can get these things for way less than you do with Parker -- it's only if you absolutely need all of these things together AND you like the fly shape AND you like the pickup options your given, that paying more for the Parker becomes an option. Evidently this was not enough people.



These things may not be exclusive to Parker anymore, but for the modern guitars with these feature sets, they still don't feel, nor do they sound like a Parker. There just isn't anything else like them in that respect. I own 4 Aristides builds I love them, they're as close as I've gotten to a Parker in that regard, but they're still not quite there. 

I agree that the shapes were polarizing, and for as much as the Fly is something that I get along with aesthetically, having the upper horn trying to do its best to pierce my chest all the time is ultimately why I don't own one. 

I think marketing (and lack thereof) definitely contributed to why Parker doesn't enjoy the same success as Aristides does for trying to push the composite material angle.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 23, 2017)

narad said:


> You already have the one guy popping in trying to be snooty with the rolling eyes emjoi just because he couldn't read a complete sentence.



I read your sentence. I read your other sentences, too. You clearly changed what you were saying, then tried to play it off like you were right all along, and now you are trying to insult my intelligence.

If Parker makes a big comeback, we'll see how interested people are in purchasing new ones. I'm not going to make a conjecture one way or the other, but the brand suffered some serious setbacks since Ken left. People might be afraid of poor quality builds, or might have lost interest in the specifications, given the price. If they revamp their line, and release a seven string Fly Deluxe, I may well have to spring for one, regardless of scale length.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 24, 2017)

oracles said:


> having the upper horn trying to do its best to pierce my chest all the time is ultimately why I don't own one.


Thats why I moved my Flys and moved to the Maxxfly line. My Flys were perfect except for the horn and the Maxxfly fixed that perfectly.


----------



## xzacx (Jun 24, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Thats why I moved my Flys and moved to the Maxxfly line. My Flys were perfect except for the horn and the Maxxfly fixed that perfectly.



Same reason I've never kept a Fly. Some day I'll get my hands on a Maxxfly.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 24, 2017)

A lot of Parker nuts tend to disagree, but I always loved the look of the MaxxFly over the standard Fly.

Always wanted a NiteFly, though. Cheap and common on the used market, and still has some of the innovative Parker features.


----------



## Fathand (Jun 25, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Always wanted a NiteFly, though. Cheap and common on the used market, and still has some of the innovative Parker features.



I had a NiteFly for a while. Pretty cool for what it was but the one I had was really heavy, which is the reason I sold it. If I could find a lighter one I wouldn't mind getting one again. The specs and the neck were pretty cool.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 25, 2017)

The niteflys are really nice guitars, but I wouldn't consider them a "real" Parker. I mean, of course they are, but the features that make a Parker known arn't really present on the nitefly.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 25, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> The niteflys are really nice guitars, but I wouldn't consider them a "real" Parker. I mean, of course they are, but the features that make a Parker known arn't really present on the nitefly.



At the same time, they're super cheap on the used market compared to the "true" Flys and Maxxflys. And they do offer some of the things that the big boys have. Not gonna say you're getting EVERYTHING, but it's like an appetizer for the real thing.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 25, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> At the same time, they're super cheap on the used market compared to the "true" Flys and Maxxflys. And they do offer some of the things that the big boys have. Not gonna say you're getting EVERYTHING, but it's like an appetizer for the real thing.


Oh absolutely. I'm not nocking them at all. They are great guitars.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 25, 2017)

I've been wanting a H-S-S Strat-like guitar that isn't a Strat either.

Fucking thread making me want a Nitefly.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 25, 2017)

My Maxxfly is HSS and I always say its the best strat in the world .


----------



## JDizzle (Jun 25, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> The niteflys are really nice guitars, but I wouldn't consider them a "real" Parker. I mean, of course they are, but the features that make a Parker known arn't really present on the nitefly.


The newer Niteflys lack the carbon glass epoxy neck reinforcement that older models (pre-Maxxfly) have, but the older models are basically bolt-on versions of Flys with a different neck profile and more readily replaceable pickups. As you say though, all good guitars!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 25, 2017)

JDizzle said:


> The newer Niteflys lack the carbon glass epoxy neck reinforcement that older models (pre-Maxxfly) have, but the older models are basically bolt-on versions of Flys with a different neck profile and more readily replaceable pickups. As you say though, all good guitars!


The flat top always kinda turned me away. At least when comparing them to the Fly.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jun 29, 2017)

Guys, this must be the revival Parker was referring to:

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-5...0001&campid=5338014327&icep_item=332261619089


----------



## bostjan (Jun 29, 2017)

Wow! $200 for a kit with all no-name hardwear and knock-off parts?


----------



## bloc (Jun 29, 2017)

The upper fret access on a neck through Deluxe Fly for example is unmatched imo


----------



## sakeido (Jun 29, 2017)

JDizzle said:


> The newer Niteflys lack the carbon glass epoxy neck reinforcement that older models (pre-Maxxfly) have, but the older models are basically bolt-on versions of Flys with a different neck profile and more readily replaceable pickups. As you say though, all good guitars!



Niteflys sounds better than the Flys imo. even with the pickups replaced, Flys sound very bright and thin. You can get more chunk from the Nitefly's bigger mahogany body. Then again I never have played a Fly with War Pigs in it... the guitar and those pickups would probably be a very good match 

also only 22 frets vs. 24.


----------



## Andromalia (Jun 29, 2017)

I lack direct comparison experience, but a dude I knew in the 2000s had a blue fly and he was all right in the heavy department.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jun 29, 2017)

The 7 lb Fly Mojo (all mahogany) I had with the JB/Jazz combo sounded like an SG.

Just something for folks critical of how the light poplar/basswood Fly sounds to consider.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 30, 2017)

If you doubt the Fly, just listen to some Martone.


----------



## JSanta (Jun 30, 2017)

I have a 97 Fly Artist and to me, sounds far better than both the mahogany and poplar ones I've had previously. 

These are phenomenal instruments, and I can do anything with them. My Artist has been so good that I haven't even played my Benedetto since getting it because the jazz-ish tones are so convincing. And for heavier stuff (for me that's Dream Theater type stuff), it's crystal clear and cuts. 

I really hope Parker gets back to making guitars (with the old headstock while I'm dreaming).


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 30, 2017)

I did find that my 96 fly deluxe set next to my 2013 maxxfly sounded thinner. But of course, it came down to pickups as well. But I didnt want to get into the ribbon wiring and screw something up on the fly, so I left it.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 1, 2017)

By the way, I ripped all that stuff out of your Fly, sold the components, and rewired it PTP with a Graphtech Ghost system and 13 pin-out.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 1, 2017)

Welp, you just devalued the fuck out of it 
But I can understand wanting some new pups in there.
If you ever sell it, come to me first


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 1, 2017)

I don't intend to repeat my mistake of selling a Ken Parker-era Fly - Or yours, for that matter.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 1, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I don't intend to repeat my mistake of selling a Ken Parker-era Fly - Or yours, for that matter.


 Yea, I did kinda fuck up. But my Maxxfly really suits me. I'd just be buying it back for hoarder greed.


----------



## Albake21 (May 15, 2018)

Bump! Anyone have anymore information? Their home page just says "updated re-release in 2018". Anyone know if they are getting a new shop or what?


----------



## DeathCubeK (May 15, 2018)

Very much doubt anything is happening this year. I think Parker is dead forever, unless someone buys it from USMC.


----------



## Albake21 (May 15, 2018)

DeathCubeK said:


> Very much doubt anything is happening this year. I think Parker is dead forever, unless someone buys it from USMC.


To be honest, I don't know much of the history with them. I know Ken Parker is the founder and that they closed their shop here in Illinois (Buffalo Grove) but why did they close?


----------



## DeathCubeK (May 15, 2018)

All the companies under the USMC brand are doing badly. Ken Parker sold the company years ago and makes archtop acoustic and semi-acoustic guitars. Sold the company in the mid-00's I think? 

Anyway, yeah. USMC is downsizing. Washburn aren't producing as much guitars as they used to either, and the Custom Shop also closed within the past year or so. They're using independent builders to make the N4's last I heard.


----------



## gunch (May 15, 2018)

Albake21 said:


> To be honest, I don't know much of the history with them. I know Ken Parker is the founder and that they closed their shop here in Illinois (Buffalo Grove) but why did they close?



Ken Parker sold to USMC in 2003 and well, we all know how USMC is doing running all these brands...


----------



## Albake21 (May 15, 2018)

silverabyss said:


> Ken Parker sold to USMC in 2003 and well, we all know how USMC is doing running all these brands...


What other brands does USMC own? Also I've never heard of USMC. When I google it, all I get is United States Marine Corps.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 15, 2018)

Albake21 said:


> What other brands does USMC own? Also I've never heard of USMC. When I google it, all I get is United States Marine Corps.



http://www.usmusiccorp.com/


----------



## Albake21 (May 15, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> http://www.usmusiccorp.com/


Ahh I appreciate it!


----------



## Vyn (May 16, 2018)

Explains why Randall has gone down the toilet lately, didn't know it was them in charge. Marshal is probably the only brand there keeping them afloat.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 16, 2018)

Vyn said:


> Explains why Randall has gone down the toilet lately, didn't know it was them in charge. Marshal is probably the only brand there keeping them afloat.



They don't own Marshall outright, they just distribute and have part ownership in thier US based business. Same with Natal and Eden which are owned by Marshall UK.


----------



## spudmunkey (May 16, 2018)

Albake21 said:


> Bump! Anyone have anymore information? Their home page just says "updated re-release in 2018". Anyone know if they are getting a new shop or what?



As long as it's better than the "Return!" of Atari. Logo hoodies, and baseball caps with speakers in it, branded with their logo, and then a new product that LOOKS like an updated version of the old, but with actually nothing new, missing most of what people liked about the old, and likely overpriced.


----------



## Musiscience (Sep 13, 2019)

A huge bump from the dead. 

Their website is now non-existent. I will just assume that there will be no re-launch at this point and that the brand is officially dead.


----------



## nikt (Sep 13, 2019)

Hope not. Crossing fingers to see them back in production soon!


----------



## Mathemagician (Sep 13, 2019)

nikt said:


> Hope not. Crossing fingers to see them back in production soon!



Based on what? The cliche “Hope is not an investment strategy” comes to mind here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 13, 2019)

Musiscience said:


> A huge bump from the dead.
> 
> Their website is now non-existent. I will just assume that there will be no re-launch at this point and that the brand is officially dead.



It was probably safe to say this a year earlier. 

Parker is dead. It was on life support when Ken lost interest.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 13, 2019)

It was basically dead when the factory was closed in 2016, to be honest. Rest was just the guitars that were still available and fanbase hope driving the speculations of a potential return of the brand, really.


----------



## Musiscience (Sep 13, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It was probably safe to say this a year earlier.
> 
> Parker is dead. It was on life support when Ken lost interest.



For some reason I still held hope as the site was still up and there was a new line mentioned on the front page. Now that the page is completely down, it could not be more evident that the 2018 relaunch will never happen.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 13, 2019)

I was just looking at this thread and the website a couple of weeks ago, must have just taken it down.


----------

