Invader...does it deserve a place in Norlin LPs?

[sonar1]

I remember watching "Say Anything" and being very puzzled by what I learned later was a black Gibson Sonex.
Thought it was cool looking and kind of an "underground" model.
Over the next years in all my regular trips to local shops I never even saw one.
So it remained a mystery.

Eventually I got to see / play a Sonex and thought it wasn't really worth the money asked.

Bear in mind that those (bolt on) models were "cheap" entry levels guitars and that's exactly
what they are. They might carry the "Gibson" aura because of the headstock and some
"Vintage" aura because of the year / period they were made but in the end they didn't get any better
than they were when they came out.

If you can play it and really bond with it instantly then you'll know if it's worth the money.
Otherwise you should pass.

Guitar value: A guitar is usually worth what you think it's worth to you.
Pay "too much" but acquire the ultimate guitar for you: fine.
Pay "not enough" and settle for a lesser guitar that doesn't excite you: bad.

Bolt on is a viable design.
But the Gibson Sonex used a strange body material like compressed sawdust.
Tone and sustain suffered for that, but they were very consistent: each and every one sounded the same: awful, to my ears.

Later on I had a Lindert made from a similar material. Sounded OK, but absorbed humidity and swelled!

Wood can resonate and is stable, at least.

 

[01GT Eibach]

... But the Gibson Sonex used a strange body material like compressed sawdust. Tone and sustain suffered for that, but they were very consistent: each and every one sounded the same: awful, to my ears.

I thought the Sonex used some kind of cheap composite material. I did not know there was some latent relation to wood in there. Similar to Sonar1, I was never a fan of them either. I don't want to totally disparage them because I know they have their fans here in this forum.

 

[sonar1]

I thought the Sonex used some kind of cheap composite material. I did not know there was some latent relation to wood in there. Similar to Sonar1, I was never a fan of them either. I don't want to totally disparage them because I know they have their fans here in this forum.

They we’re casting about in that era: Marauders, etc.

Grabber bass was that era. L6S w ceramic humbuckers. Carlos Santana raved about those.

Sonex was a concept (done better by others). The hardware was conventional at least.

”They don’ like the 12 lb black beauty Fretless wonders? S’okay. Try this lightweight bolt neck…”

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

Yep all the technical details do not push me away ... we all tend to despise bolt ons here and I’m not a fan either but here it’s more like a taste of the moment... while browsing guitars today I saw a The Paul @ the same price, so today I am more inclined towards the invader: exactly the same body / layout except for the wood & neck & pickups which overall make her a dirtier dog ... never realized that before about th the Paul . Same era

 

[mudface]

Yep all the technical details do not push me away ... we all tend to despise bolt ons here and I’m not a fan either but here it’s more like a taste of the moment... while browsing guitars today I saw a The Paul @ the same price, so today I am more inclined towards the invader: exactly the same body / layout except for the wood & neck & pickups which overall make her a dirtier dog ... never realized that before about th the Paul . Same era

The Paul is a fantastic guitar,.. it was my first ever Gibson back in 1979..... the Invader is not even in the same league.

I love bolt on necks.... I have several. That wouldn’t be the issue if that was all there was to the Invader.... the body really doesn’t have enough mass I think..... thinner. The ones I played with didn’t fit the bill for me back in the day... I’m sure if I had one now I could find a niche for it. But it’s all about finding it for the right price...... free would be better.

 

[HardCore Troubadour]

A The Paul will kill the Invader, quality wise, at the same price point......it is not even a contest.

it is actually hard for me to believe there's anyone that stupid (at either side of that equation).

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

A niche... correct ! Right word. A lot of us here have niche gear for different moods.

As per being stupid for not liking some crap ... thank you mr « others are bragging »! You big and dominant boy ... don’t have the emoji on iPhone but : kiss you. Cmon, grow up, a lot of people did great music without Gibson on a headstock or western boots, baby
Don’t get aggressive this is talk, you don’t like me then don’t talk to me. Or pleasure yourself on kink.com

 

[01GT Eibach]

As per being stupid for not liking some crap ...

I think Troubadour was calling the seller of The Paul "stupid" (i.e., not calling you or your gear stupid) for selling a "The Paul" model for a similar price point as an "Invader" -- as the Paul is a higher quality guitar than the Invader. (This has me stepping right in the middle of a pissing contest, though, which I am already starting to regret ...)

 

[Lester]

Bear in mind that those (bolt on) models were "cheap" entry levels guitars and that's exactly
what they are. They might carry the "Gibson" aura because of the headstock and some
"Vintage" aura because of the year / period they were made but in the end they didn't get any better
than they were when they came out.

That was my earlier point. Just because it has a quality brand name on it (or sometimes not) doesn't mean it has value... especially when it was designed as entry level.

EX: The Fender Mustang was an entry level guitar back in the 70's. It's just not very good. But because Cobain and a couple other people reworked them into something nice, suddenly they're selling for $2K average. They're still entry level guitars with cheap parts and a horrible tremelo that guarantees you're always out of tune.

It's even worse with the second-string brands. Some aging Aria or Peavey or Ibanez (unless it's one of the desirable models that really were diamonds in the rough) isn't worth $300 - $700 as a slightly aged mass manufacture piece. But now everyone lists them for that. Same thing with the infinite 70's Japanese clones a la Tiesco - they were junk then, they are junk now, even if someone really famous had a professional guitar tech turn one into a good instrument.

A The Paul will kill the Invader, quality wise, at the same price point......it is not even a contest.

it is actually hard for me to believe there's anyone that stupid (at either side of that equation).

Kicking myself for not buying a The Paul back a few years ago. A little different, but they had some kuel uniqueness. I wanted to find an early one with the right features so I didn't pounce on any. They were selling for $600-$800. Then I lost track of that ship. Now they go for way too much... might as well buy an SG for the same money.

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

Maybe my English isn’t right enough...anyway
I try to keep cool when only talking about things we like and we don’t...I like lots of crap that I even criticize myself for liking, that doesn’t make me stupid...except maybe for that old Ducati that cost a fortune and left the garage only a few days

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

Yep. One thing : I do agree about the whole « lower than entry level » point , but that’s exactly what picks my interest. Not saying it’s going to make my collection of a greater value, it’s a pretty illogical wish. Same with Mustangs as stated right before: not because of Cobain, but I want one...at a correct price, that’s why I haven’t one yet: even for low $ , I find it too much. Aside from lurking around 58 LPs...

 

[HardCore Troubadour]

no one called you stupid.

That is funny, your English is good enough for you to hurl insults at someone, but not good enough for you to understand simple concept sentences about price and quality value.

you are correct, the best thing for me to do is not type to you.

PS: There's no emoji's on your iphone?
It must be the only one in the world, if you sell it, you will have enough money to buy 2 Invaders.

Enjoy.

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

Then if it’s me ok, I only can apologize...thank you for letting me know. I consider 2 telling to 1 guy he is fool , he needs to take 1 step back. I am talking about gas which isn’t really measurable by means of cold logic, as repeated I don’t find the amount of$ is justified. Last, sorry but I never got it for walnut guitars, the construction is ok, I like p90 specials, but have always been left cold by these ones...

The only emoji translated is which wasn’t quite the one needed, in fast typing. The other ones (from toolbar above) were greyed ...

i do think the above has pissed off enough people as for today.

 

[Bobby Mahogany]

Bolt on is a viable design.
But the Gibson Sonex used a strange body material like compressed sawdust.
Tone and sustain suffered for that, but they were very consistent: each and every one sounded the same: awful, to my ears.

Later on I had a Lindert made from a similar material. Sounded OK, but absorbed humidity and swelled!

Wood can resonate and is stable, at least.

I got a couple of bolt-on's that are quite great. So no hate here.
And I still regret no buying a '52 RI that I tried while searching for a '57 RI that I eventually found.
Followed a '62 RI given to me by my wife but I still regret that '52 RI.
And that was early '98.
So...

 

[sonar1]

I got a couple of bolt-on's that are quite great. So no hate here.
And I still regret no buying a '52 RI that I tried while searching for a '57 RI that I eventually found.
Followed a '62 RI given to me by my wife but I still regret that '52 RI.
And that was early '98.
So...

I’ve had ‘52 RI’s.
But my current Am Pro II is more versatile.

 

[Filthypussybreaker]

A few pics just to throw peace around over the audience - when contradiction can lead to closeness :

Here a The Paul ('81 they said, it looks it's actually a goldburst, but has faded over the years to almost silverburst - don't look at the weird hardware setup, not mine ):

And there another Invader ('84, not the same as the one that started the thread, but pretty close):

I accidentally found these (from Gibson forum I think) this morning while GASsing for worn silverburst...

 

[mudface]

A few pics just to throw peace around over the audience - when contradiction can lead to closeness :

Here a The Paul ('81 they said, it looks it's actually a goldburst, but has faded over the years to almost silverburst - don't look at the weird hardware setup, not mine ):
View attachment 549230

And there another Invader ('84, not the same as the one that started the thread, but pretty close):View attachment 549232

I accidentally found these (from Gibson forum I think) this morning while GASsing for worn silverburst...

Funny to see a "The Paul" in silverburst...........and it is a silverburst....the clear coat nitro has yellowed giving it a greenish-gold look. One of the reasons i dislike silverburst,...especially when they go snot green. Yuck.

The harmonica bridge is original for that late year.

The pickguard is questionable.

By late 1981 The Paul was introduced in colors as well as natural finishes....kind of a precursor to the Studio.

Here's a 1984 with the same pickguard.

here's another in natural / walnut finish without the guard.