Well, it was fun....... but it's over.

[JohnnyB]

Has it ever occurred to anybody on this thread that maybe a lot more people simply like the PRS guitars better? For starters, they weren't particularly derivative of any earlier shape, whereas the Sunburst has the basic geometry of a Gibson double cutaway LP Special. They offered a 3+3 direct pull headstock, bringing identifying features of Gibson and Fender together. Hamers based on that shape don't balance particularly well and are prone to neck dive. The PRS shape, OTOH, has an extended upper horn, placing the strap button at about the 12th fret for very comfortable balance. Maybe PRS had a better business model as well. For a long time they offered only ONE main set neck shape, one boltneck shape, and the Hamer-like Santana model. Scrape binding is available on the body only, no bound necks or headstocks. Inlays are limited to dots or birdies and you pay dearly for the birdies. However, you could get it in just about any color or burst imaginable, with plain, flame, or quilted maple tops, with or without the double stain. For all the sweat generated over bindings and inlays, PRS proved you didn't have to sweat over binding at all.

They flew out the door on the wings of those bird inlays.

Meanwhile, Hamer offered several guitars based on a not-very-ergonomic shape, with or without binding, dots, crowns, or victory inlays, almost always with a seriously good maple top, refused to do double staining, and was available in only 2 or 3 standard colors. You could get any color as long as it wasn't double-stained, but at a serious upcharge.

Maybe a broad color selection trumps binding and custom features. It has certainly worked for PRS.

Yeah but there is always a WHY behind the current situation and that's what we're discussing. WHY is PRS dominant, how did they get that way. If the marketing is great, you can sell ice to eskimos.

Where I think you have it wrong in your proposition is the implied 'comparison.' I'd say 99% of PRS users never compared a PRS to a Hamer before they bought. They just saw the PRS in the hands of an artist they connect with, tried out a few models and bought. Though I would agree that Hamer's self-limitations hurt them in the long run - when Kim told us that Hamer's color varatiions were limited due to the inventory software they used, I threw up my hands.

I never said anything of the kind. Prospective PRS and Hamer buyers in the '80s-on would have been comparing them to Fenders and Gibsons primarily, and Ibanez and Yamaha to some extent. When you compare a PRS to an SG or LP, the PRS balances better, is contoured, has a smaller, more efficient headstock, locking tuners, and a highly functioning vibrato that keeps its tune while delivering a competitively big, fat tone. When you compare the PRS to a Fender, it has a the fatter tone and tonal balance of a mahogany-based set neck, a better vibrato tail, a distinctive yet compact headstock, and stunning looks in any color you want. The basic PRS design is a halfway morph between a Strat and an LP: 25" scale, ergonomically designed, with 3+3 but with straight string pull, and a compact, effective vibrato tail. Whether you were a Gibson guy or a Fender guy, PRS offered a guitar with the features you wanted to have without giving up the ones you already liked.

Without changing jigs but just substituting woods, PRS could make their basic shape sound more Stratish by substituting maple for the neck and ash for the body (which they did). They also offered a Fralin-sourced noiseless 3-P90 model to get even strattier with the same wood cuts other than the pickup routs.

Strap on a Hamer Sunburst/Archtop/Studio, and compared to the Gibson it is made better and probably sounds better (in some cases by a lot), but doesn't distinguish itself with ergonomics, headstock, pickup designs (mostly off-the-shelf DiMarzio and later Duncans), or tuners. If you look at PRS vs. Hamer from different angles--design, manufacture, endorsements, marketing--it's not much mystery why PRS is the one still standing and still independently owned. That doesn't mean it's a better guitar, but it does mean they had a more viable business model.

[Andrew]

I agree PRS got many things right, especially their own distinctive hardware. They have one guitar design (okay the Santana is a bit more symmetrical and they made single-cuts) and they have flogged it to death with various options. BUT it was recognisable. And a good ergonomic design, especially the straight string pull on the headstock.

Hamer had everything at some point.

I have a 78 DA headstock Sunburst with straight string pull - they didn't pursue it.

Archtops started in 81 apparently but they never pursued it.

They pioneered the Floyd and let Kramer and Jackson/Charvel make it their own.

They hand-made locking tuners years ahead and then abandoned them.

They did make their own hardware (sub-contracted, I know) but then went back to off-the-shelf stuff.

I don't want to promote my pages but just take a look at the number of models! Possibly more than anybody else ever (except maybe Gibson).

Every type of guitar imaginable.

36 frets, seven-strings, double necks, 12 string basses when hardly anybody else could manage it.

Now they have demised I can say this.

Who took this history and then made Strat and Tele copies in Chicago? And when they gave this up Gibson copies (Vees and Explorers)? It doesn't actually seem to matter to anybody but us chosen few that these are better guitars than Fender or Gibson could make.

An original Standard is an interpretation of a classic shape. A Korina Standard is a copy.

A Vintage-S is an updated, deluxe version of a popular guiter type. A Daytona is a close copy of a Fender Strat.

So I agree: the business model was terrible. They established no clear identity by being too innovative. Ironically they reacted really well to market changes (such as the Chaparral bolt-on) in the eighties. But it started going wrong in early nineties: Slammers, the re-introduced Special with TOM rather than Sustain block, Day-strat-onas etc. And then in the noughties all those semi-solids and hollow bodied guitars when Hamer are known (if for anything) for superstrats and pointy metal guitars.

I could go on and on and on and on....... the lost opportunity when Judas Priest relaunched for example.......

I am obviously very sad that Hamer is no more and it deserved to be more successful and long-lived. But the market can be unforgiving and mistakes more likely than not will be punished.

[SteveB]

People that want Gibson style guitars tend to buy Gibsons, and the market for people looking for ultra quality Gibson style guitars that are not Gibson is probably not huge. Gibson still has a powerful brand name even with all the crap they've put out in recent years. For the longest time Hamer disavowed and refused to even admit to the guitars that they were probably most famous for. PRS carved out it's own space between Gibson and Fender while adding technical and ergonomic improvements, rather than just making a better something else. The PRS also turned out to be a very good looking guitar. PRS is also continously innovative and always trying new things, some of which work, and some of which don't, but they don't just sit around trying to copy past successes. The product line changes and remains fresh. And Yes, Paul has known the value of marketing since day one. PRS works for me exactly because they did split that Gibson/Fender space with a supremely comfortable guitar (and the best tremelo unit in the business), whereas every Hamer I've tried that was not a Daytona or Shredder had balance issues that drove me nuts, the same as the Gibsons they were modeled after. Hamer was basically trying to sell better Gibsons at higher than Gibson prices with poor resale value during an economic downturn. Can't imagine why that didn't work.

[Andrew]

No, PRS is a one-trick pony but a good recognisable trick that people want!

[MCChris]

Andrew, your earlier post is spot-on IMO.

Putting binding on an Explorer shape was proprietary. Putting binding, humbuckers and a sustain block bridge on a double cut Junior shape was proprietary. The Prototype, Phantom, Virtuoso and Scarab were proprietary. The list goes on. Calis and Chaps, not so much, but they were so well built and (gasp) marketed that Hamer carved out a niche in that department. How the Duotone didn't become a fixture in every "modern country" band is an astonishing failure.

And you are so right about the Daytona and T51. Great guitars as they may be, utterly pointless from a business perspective. If anyone can sufficiently explain the thinking behind those models as it relates to being a positive move for Hamer, I'm all ears.

[gorch]

There are so many factors that decide on win or loose. So, for me it is hard to tell what made Hamer fail at the end. Think of the newer models, how many continuous awards Hamer had received for the new models, about 7 or so? That makes me think the newer models are not bad at all and brand perception was there. In contrast PRS, at least in Germany they are known for having pleasant sound, but nothing outstanding. Many people sell them just for the reason. It's not all perfect with PRS either.

What about pricing? Quality PRS guitars are not cheap either. PRS run a cheaper line-up as well.

Maybe it had been overall marketing activities and missing iconic guitarists playing them that were big factors. At least what I have learned, with proper marketing you can make nearly any dull product sell successfully.

[Andrew]

Andrew, your earlier post is spot-on IMO.

Putting binding on an Explorer shape was proprietary. Putting binding, humbuckers and a sustain block bridge on a double cut Junior shape was proprietary. The Prototype, Phantom, Virtuoso and Scarab were proprietary. The list goes on. Calis and Chaps, not so much, but they were so well built and (gasp) marketed that Hamer carved out a niche in that department. How the Duotone didn't become a fixture in every "modern country" band is an astonishing failure.

And you are so right about the Daytona and T51. Great guitars as they may be, utterly pointless from a business perspective. If anyone can sufficiently explain the thinking behind those models as it relates to being a positive move for Hamer, I'm all ears.

I have an interview from the mid-nineties somewhere in which a senior Hamer man says that they wanted to prove they could build a better guitar than Fender (Daytona/T51) or Gibson (2nd Special with P90s) for less money.

I think that Kaman just wanted higher volume sales so made Hamer fall back on proven designs. Its an accountant thing, just like using off-the-shelf hardware or introducing Slammers.

[murkat]

^ and that was the killswitch...

[MCChris]

The push to build the Daytona and T51 came from Kaman headquarters- not from anyone inside the Arlington Heights facility. Those listed for $800 new when they were introduced and tremendously underpriced.

I own two of the prototypes we sent to corporate- I got them from Bill Kaman. They kill most CS Fenders that sell for 5 times the price.

Was there any taking into account anticipated public perception of putting dead-nuts copies of Strats and Teles out to market?

[HamerHokie]

The push to build the Daytona and T51 came from Kaman headquarters- not from anyone inside the Arlington Heights facility. Those listed for $800 new when they were introduced and tremendously underpriced.

I own two of the prototypes we sent to corporate- I got them from Bill Kaman. They kill most CS Fenders that sell for 5 times the price.

Couldn't G&L say the same thing about their line? And yet G&L made some pretty significant improvements - the Legacy Special was better than the Strat in almost every aspect. I'd rather own a Legacy Special than a Daytona.

[SteveB]

Couldn't G&L say the same thing about their line? And yet G&L made some pretty significant improvements - the Legacy Special was better than the Strat in almost every aspect. I'd rather own a Legacy Special than a Daytona.

G&L gets a pass obviously because of the involvement of Leo Fender

[BCR Greg]

I repeatedly asked for an arch topped double cut with a sustain block, triple coil pickup and Standard(Explorer) headstock.

"No. Too obvious" was Jol's only answer.

[kizanski]

Jol was an obvious douchecake.

He wasn't interested in any "ideas" that were not his own.

So, he copied the Huber Dolphin.

[diablo175]

Jol was an obvious douchecake.

Sig line worthy right there.

[django49]

Jol was an obvious douchecake.

He wasn't interested in any "ideas" that were not his own.

So, he copied the Huber Dolphin.

But at least he added extra V and T knobs. Original idea! Oops, there WAS another G outfit that did THAT first.

Having played the Dolphin and Tally Pro back-to-back, and as much as I think the latter is a good guitar (though it was overpriced) I would take the Huber every time.

[MCChris]

I don't know the answer to that question. I was carving and fretting necks at the time so I didn't have much interaction with the marketing guys.

The T62 was Hamer's interpretation of the Strat and it didn't do well either. Most people just want a Fender when it comes to Teles and Strats.

Certainly when you're talking about identical designs, the casual observer/fan will take a Strat with Fender on the headstock over the Hamer version 10 times out of 10. And when I say identical, I'm aware that the bridges and headstocks are different. The casual observer/fan, a.k.a. the segment that can make or break a business, doesn't notice that stuff.

The T62 and Vintage S could have had some success had they been marketed like a Tom Anderson or a Suhr. Once again, it all comes down to marketing.

Corgan played a Daytona. An endorsement deal with him wouldn't have sucked. What would it have taken to put a Daytona in McCready's hands and a T51 in Gossard's? Making a better Strat and Tele than Fender matters not if no one knows you're doing it.

[Andrew]

Jol was an obvious douchecake.

He wasn't interested in any "ideas" that were not his own.

So, he copied the Huber Dolphin.

But at least he added extra V and T knobs. Original idea! Oops, there WAS another G outfit that did THAT first.

Having played the Dolphin and Tally Pro back-to-back, and as much as I think the latter is a good guitar (though it was overpriced) I would take the Huber every time.

Hubers are nice, no doubt.

But I have checked the prices. A Talledega is HALF the price of the equivalent Dolphin.

Hamer were always just a good marketing gimmick short of success.

[kizanski]

"A Talledega is HALF the price of the equivalent Dolphin."

...and worth every penny.

[coolfeel]

I have never played a Dolphin, would love to. My Tally Pro is hands down the best electric guitar I have ever played - tone, fit, finish, playability...

[django49]

When I got my Tally Pro it was the fully tricked out version and, IIRC, listed up around $6k. Naturally, when they blew out the warehouse stock, they ended up selling for a lot less. At least at the list price, that was just about the same as the Dolphin, if I am not mistaken----_Though with Hubers, it does not take long to find out, are seldom discounted at all. I was lucky enough to find a used one (near mint) at a very good price. Actually, less than I paid for the Tally----Yes, I know, it was used........

So, yes, the Hubers are both harder to find and harder to get a price break on than Hamers.....

It is not my intent to bash the Tally Pro, as I think it is a great guitar. It is an even better guitar with upgraded pickups. But I think it would be hard for most (starting with me, owning a bunch of Hamers) to not quickly see, feel and hear the difference. IMO, this particular Huber is markedly better in each of those senses. I guess I am a bit off the beaten track, geographically, from the majority of HFC members. But it would be interesting to have others stop over and see if their conclusions differed to any great degree.

[tommy p]

And you are so right about the Daytona and T51. Great guitars as they may be, utterly pointless from a business perspective. If anyone can sufficiently explain the thinking behind those models as it relates to being a positive move for Hamer, I'm all ears.

To me it's no different than basing some models on Les Paul doublecuts or Explorers. The Strat and Tele are a couple of the most popular shapes/styles and EVERYBODY seems to want one sooner or later, but not everyone wants a Fender. I've owned Fender Strats before and gotten rid of them but I kept looking for others because I really wanted to have one. Because I loved my Hamers, I eventually decided to stop looking at Fenders and look at Daytonas (and G&L Legacy's) instead. I just recently bought a Daytona and if I can find another I like someday I'll likely snatch it up.

If you want to be big, you have some variety - a "full line" so to speak. I don't know who had the first SUV, but because it was successful now every major auto maker has full lines of them. maybe Hamer was just trying to cover all the bases.

[MCChris]

They were doing that with the Vintage S, T62 and, to a lesser extent, the TLE.

There's a difference between basing a model on something else and directly copying it. The earliest Hamers had design twists that set them apart. The later ones didn't. Thus the decline.

[tommy p]

Oh, gotcha. I didn't know the history that well to know those other models came first. Still, I ended up with a Daytona and I guess a lot of other people did too so it worked at least a little bit.

[ajay315]

Has it ever occurred to anybody on this thread that maybe a lot more people simply like the PRS guitars better? For starters, they weren't particularly derivative of any earlier shape, whereas the Sunburst has the basic geometry of a Gibson double cutaway LP Special. They offered a 3+3 direct pull headstock, bringing identifying features of Gibson and Fender together. Hamers based on that shape don't balance particularly well and are prone to neck dive. The PRS shape, OTOH, has an extended upper horn, placing the strap button at about the 12th fret for very comfortable balance. Maybe PRS had a better business model as well. For a long time they offered only ONE main set neck shape, one boltneck shape, and the Hamer-like Santana model. Scrape binding is available on the body only, no bound necks or headstocks. Inlays are limited to dots or birdies and you pay dearly for the birdies. However, you could get it in just about any color or burst imaginable, with plain, flame, or quilted maple tops, with or without the double stain. For all the sweat generated over bindings and inlays, PRS proved you didn't have to sweat over binding at all.

They flew out the door on the wings of those bird inlays.

Meanwhile, Hamer offered several guitars based on a not-very-ergonomic shape, with or without binding, dots, crowns, or victory inlays, almost always with a seriously good maple top, refused to do double staining, and was available in only 2 or 3 standard colors. You could get any color as long as it wasn't double-stained, but at a serious upcharge.

Maybe a broad color selection trumps binding and custom features. It has certainly worked for PRS.

Well, the only "pro" type guitars I have left are my PRS and 2 Hamers. When things got bad I sold the G&Ls, the Fender, the Reverend...because I brought EVERY instrument to at least one gig when I knew I was going under. Months and months later, the final 3 were what simply played & sounded the best, and of the best quality. I spend most of my playing time going back & forth between the Studio & the McCarty. very different in a number of ways, but dead even for build & just feeling like "my guitar". Hamer needed a high profile player list, and a marketing push. No one knew about the brand...other than the people who knew about the brand. :/

[Joe G]

I just wanted to add that I clearly remember Hamer doing a run of double stained tops. I think it was about 1998 or so.

Jol was never a fan of the stained top because it killed the 3D effect of the flame (the top would no longer flip when moved around in the light). Hamer paid a premium to get the best flame maple money could buy and a lot of times Jol and Frank would be part of the selection process. I personally watched them downgrade tops from the supplier. In other words, what the supplier thought was AAA flame would sometimes get downgraded to AA, so it was only suitable for the less expensive models. Thats how the Special FM (which listed for $900 or $1000 at introduction) came with better flame tops than Gibson was using on their premium Les Pauls.

Thanks for that piece of info. I was wondering why the Special FM that I have and the few that I have seen have such killer tops on them.