Special 75th Anniversary guitar?

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:59 pm

Listen to the COLOR of your dreams.
-Lennon/McCartney

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:27 pm

I don't think it's going to be 75 editions of a particular model. If JH said no limited editions, then that scraps that idea.

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:42 am

I agree with the folks who have suggested a special finish for four models with the run consisting of 75 units per model. That scenario seems to fit best with what we've heard from John and Ben Hall. The instruments could also have special TRC's and pickguards. Assuming a 4003 is part of the equation, it sure would be nice if they came with checkerboard binding!

godber · Post by **godber** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:06 am

Four existing models, 75 of each in the new colour (Smokey Joe-glo) with silver/commemorative TRC and pickguards. Probably won't even get a look at them in the UK anyway...

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:28 am

Hey - if I'm right - do I get a prize?

eric_b · Post by **eric_b** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:20 am

I love this thread..The creativity here is impressive.

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:06 am

But JH said no limited editions. So that would knock out any idea of 75 pieces. I'm thinking again that it could be a re-issue of a Capri, 4 different models, with 75th anniv markings on it.

vito · Post by **vito** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 am

But RIC wouldn't leave us bassists in the dark, would they?

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:22 am

Nice clue there Eric!

shinynewtoy · Post by **shinynewtoy** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:49 am

JH...

Have you and the boys ever thought about doing a game show if you tire of the guitar business?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:55 am

Agreed Eric. Some guarded interpretations here for sure.

rickon · Post by **rickon** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:07 am

So, Occam's Razor is in effect then.

cmuk · Post by **cmuk** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:09 am

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:30 am

Actually, Clive, Ockham never said that.

What he said was:

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.

And

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

John Ponce (that's right, ponce!) wrote the common misquote.

cmuk · Post by **cmuk** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:35 am

Whoops! Sorry Paul, I accept the correction.