Fender Model Range - Does it Even Matter Anymore?

[Mossman]

After reading @Flatline's post about his recent score of a Fender "Performer" Strat for the price of a "Player", it got me thinking; what really is the difference between a Player and Performer, other than country of manufacture? Back before Fender changed the names of all their models, I used to wonder what the difference was between an MIM Standard and an American Special. The "Special/Performer" tier of the Fender product like always seemed redundant to me. As far as I could tell, an "American Special" was just an MIM Standard that was made in Corona, and had Alnico pickups instead of ceramic. Not really worth the extra coin in my opinion.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Fender has added TWO MORE tiers to their product line! Now they've added a "Deluxe" model (MIM) that falls between the "Player" and the "Performer" in the price range, and a new top-tier line above the Ultra, called: "Ultra Luxe" which retails for $2,300.

"Ok, this is getting insane", I thought. What possible meaningful difference in spec can there be between a "Player" and a "Deluxe", or a "Deluxe" and a "Performer", or an "Ultra" and an "Ultra Luxe" that can validate a price difference of several hundred dollars? Or between ANY of these models, for that matter? We all know about the law of diminishing returns and in Fender's case, there's even less wiggle room. Fender guitars are simple machines. There's not a whole lot of value you can add. You can only fancy up a Strat or Tele so much. As far as I can see, all their production model guitars are identical in quality from one tier to the next, and I'll even include the Squier Classic Vibes in that group. But I didn't really have a granular knowledge of what the differences were in the specs between each model tier, so I went to Sweetwater and compared the specs of every (standard production) model from the Player up to the Ultra Luxe, and found the differences are so minimal as to be almost non-existent. The only major differences between models are the pickups and the wiring scheme, and even that was pretty similar. Almost all models have the capability of activating the neck pickup in any switch position via either a push-pull pot, or an S-1 switch, and the Ultra Luxe has the addition of the "Grease-Bucket" circuit (which is basically a resistor). Of course there are minor differences in neck profile, fret dimensions, fretboard radii, etc., but nothing that speaks to value.

You can't even say that a $1,500 or $1,800 Fender feels better, or more well constructed, or there's more attention to detail than a $750 Mexican Fender anymore... Or even a CV, for that matter. I never thought I'd say this about any guitar's product line, but they're all pretty much the same. Cut on CNC machines and built on an assembly line, using the same woods, the same hardware (pretty much) and even the same finishes (it's not like you get nitro for the extra grand). Whenever I play Fenders in a store, I have to look at the headstock to remind myself which model I'm playing, because there's no real palpable, objective difference, except for slight variances in tone (which you can find between two guitars of the same model), and neck dimensions.

A few years back when I caught the Telecaster bug and went shopping for a "real" Tele (the only Tele I had was a partscaster that I built), I had my sights set on a '52 AVRI, but I had never played one. I was a little flush with cash at the time from a small insurance settlement I recently received, so I hit the local stores to try out some Teles, and allowed myself a budget of up to an American Standard. Turns out, I fairly hated the '52 RI, and started trying out other Teles at various price points. I had a hard time telling them apart in terms of quality, and nothing really knocked my socks off. I'm not saying that any of them were bad, just nothing very special. It's not like going from an MIM Standard to an American Standard made me go: "Woah! This is SO much better!". In some cases, I preferred the sound of the MIM to the MIAs. Ironically, the only Tele that did make an impression on me (that stuck with me for weeks until I eventually bought one) was the CV '50s Tele. And even to this day, I can't see what the difference in quality is between that and a MIM or MIA Fender. Everything's right about it. I can't see what it's lacking besides a Fender logo on the headstock.

This is not a bash on Fender. I love Fender. I'll probably never buy another one, since I can build whatever bolt-on guitar I want, but I have no animosity towards them. And this isn't even a rant about prices, really, but when I look at two guitars that are $500 or $1,000 apart in price, and the only palpable differences come down to the types of pickups and switches it has, I have to say I can't see where the money is going. At least the Ultra Luxe has stainless steel frets, but that still doesn't justify the $2,300 price tag in my opinion.

If anything, I guess I'm saying that the quality of Fender guitars is so good across their entire product line that it hardly makes any sense to go above the Player level anymore. Anything that a Player doesn't have (besides rolled fingerboard edges, or a "sculpted heel") that a Professional or Ultra has, you can add yourself. And Fender's addition of more tiers to their production line just seems to confuse things even more, and strains the limits of "perceived value".

[Chocol8]

I can’t say I agree with you on the feel and quality. I have a 1980’s MIJ, plus more recent Squier CV, MIM, and MIA Fenders. The last three are all maple boards.

The MIA definitely has more man hours and attention to detail than the MIM and CV. The most obvious difference is in the way the edge of the fretboard and frets are finished and feel. I could easily pick out the MIA blindfolded just by feeling the neck. Obviously I could pick out the MIJ as well but that’s not fair due to the rosewood board.

Diminishing returns? Certainly. Similar sounds, yes. Can they all be easily modded to be very close in tone? Yes. Still, there are real and noticeable differences.

Also, the difference in neck profiles, finger board radius, and frets are pretty important differentiators across the Fender range. Some are more modern feeling, some more vintage. I think Fender is smart to offer more options, even if the price points are very close. They aren’t meant to be simply “good better best”.

[Partscaster]

This is what crosses my mind, but i dont really know much about marketing.
They are letting the customer more finely target the amount they want to spend.

To many people, $1,000, or $3,000, neither is a big purchase. Even if they may not play much, they may want a guitar that they dont think is too "cheap" for them. Give them 2 price levels, vs giving them 4 price levels. I bet they sell more guitars above the lowest range with 4 price levels. And while there are notable improvements, I bet the profit margin gets higher as the levels increase.

[Mossman]

I can’t say I agree with you on the feel and quality. I have a 1980’s MIJ, plus more recent Squier CV, MIM, and MIA Fenders. The last three are all maple boards.

The MIA definitely has more man hours and attention to detail than the MIM and CV. The most obvious difference is in the way the edge of the fretboard and frets are finished and feel. I could easily pick out the MIA blindfolded just by feeling the neck. Obviously I could pick out the MIJ as well but that’s not fair due to the rosewood board.

Diminishing returns? Certainly. Similar sounds, yes. Can they all be easily modded to be very close in tone? Yes. Still, there are real and noticeable differences.

Also, the difference in neck profiles, finger board radius, and frets are pretty important differentiators across the Fender range. Some are more modern feeling, some more vintage. I think Fender is smart to offer more options, even if the price points are very close. They aren’t meant to be simply “good better best”.

Ok, well, I was talking about the Fender range as it stands today. I can't get into debates about guitars made 20, 30, 40 years ago. In the past, there was a greater difference between tiers in terms of feel, fit and finish, but it's not really that way anymore. As it is now, there's very little in additional value as you go up in price. Yes, there are differences in neck dimensions and other tactile and ergonomic differences, but that speaks to personal preference and perceived value, not actual added value. A guitar is not of a lower quality because it doesn't have a compound radius fretboard, or a corner whacked off the neck heel, and it doesn't cost manufacturers any more money to do that on a CNC machine. From my perspective, I don't think the price points are close. An American Professional Strat costs twice as much as as a Player Strat, and they're nearly identical guitars. Adding more tiers in between is just splitting hairs. An American Performer costs $450 more for Yosemite pickups and an S-1 switch (and those pickups aren't exactly setting the world on fire, from what I've heard). The new "Deluxe" series costs $200 more and has Noiseless pickups (a dubious upgrade at best). I don't consider those prices to be close for what you get in return for your additional investment. To me, $450 is a lot to pay to get different (not necessarily better) pickups and a switch that I could buy from Amazon for $8. $750 more to get the same from an American Professional is definitely not worth it, and I can't say there's a huge gulf (or any at all) between the tiers in terms of craftsmanship and quality.

[Mossman]

This is what crosses my mind, but i dont really know much about marketing.
They are letting the customer more finely target the amount they want to spend.

To many people, $1,000, or $3,000, neither is a big purchase. Even if they may not play much, they may want a guitar that they dont think is too "cheap" for them. Give them 2 price levels, vs giving them 4 price levels. I bet they sell more guitars above the lowest range with 4 price levels. And while there are notable improvements, I bet the profit margin gets higher as the levels increase.

Yes, that is exactly why they're doing it, and as business practice, it makes sense. It's a pretty big leap from a Player to a Professional. It would be crazy not to have an intermediary step in between. But I'm speaking strictly from the perspective of a consumer (specifically a consumer who knows how to mod guitars, and how much things cost) and I don't think the price gap between a Player and a Professional should be that big to begin with. For the rest of the non-savvy, guitar buying public, this all looks right and natural, but not for people like us, who know better.

[mickey]

Got to say I have never thought MIA Fenders were worth the asking price.
Which is why I've never owned one. (Except for amps.)

[Flatline]

I feel the same way about Gibson. Better value in Epiphone than the lower end Gibsons. Not much value in the lower end Gibson stuff and the standard lines are overpriced. Then there is all the crazy expensive stuff they put out. The QC issues continue to be a concern. The SG is probably my favorite guitar of all time, and I wish I hadn’t sold mine.

I have 3 Fenders (1x MIA, 2x MIM) and another MIA on the way. I have 2 Squiers. Bang for the buck Squier is where it’s at. Although, my American Standard strat is the best playing guitar I own.

[slowhand84]

After reading @Flatline's post about his recent score of a Fender "Performer" Strat for the price of a "Player", it got me thinking; what really is the difference between a Player and Performer, other than country of manufacture? Back before Fender changed the names of all their models, I used to wonder what the difference was between an MIM Standard and an American Special. The "Special/Performer" tier of the Fender product like always seemed redundant to me. As far as I could tell, an "American Special" was just an MIM Standard that was made in Corona, and had Alnico pickups instead of ceramic. Not really worth the extra coin in my opinion.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Fender has added TWO MORE tiers to their product line! Now they've added a "Deluxe" model (MIM) that falls between the "Player" and the "Performer" in the price range, and a new top-tier line above the Ultra, called: "Ultra Luxe" which retails for $2,300.

"Ok, this is getting insane", I thought. What possible meaningful difference in spec can there be between a "Player" and a "Deluxe", or a "Deluxe" and a "Performer", or an "Ultra" and an "Ultra Luxe" that can validate a price difference of several hundred dollars? Or between ANY of these models, for that matter? We all know about the law of diminishing returns and in Fender's case, there's even less wiggle room. Fender guitars are simple machines. There's not a whole lot of value you can add. You can only fancy up a Strat or Tele so much. As far as I can see, all their production model guitars are identical in quality from one tier to the next, and I'll even include the Squier Classic Vibes in that group. But I didn't really have a granular knowledge of what the differences were in the specs between each model tier, so I went to Sweetwater and compared the specs of every (standard production) model from the Player up to the Ultra Luxe, and found the differences are so minimal as to be almost non-existent. The only major differences between models are the pickups and the wiring scheme, and even that was pretty similar. Almost all models have the capability of activating the neck pickup in any switch position via either a push-pull pot, or an S-1 switch, and the Ultra Luxe has the addition of the "Grease-Bucket" circuit (which is basically a resistor). Of course there are minor differences in neck profile, fret dimensions, fretboard radii, etc., but nothing that speaks to value.

You can't even say that a $1,500 or $1,800 Fender feels better, or more well constructed, or there's more attention to detail than a $750 Mexican Fender anymore... Or even a CV, for that matter. I never thought I'd say this about any guitar's product line, but they're all pretty much the same. Cut on CNC machines and built on an assembly line, using the same woods, the same hardware (pretty much) and even the same finishes (it's not like you get nitro for the extra grand). Whenever I play Fenders in a store, I have to look at the headstock to remind myself which model I'm playing, because there's no real palpable, objective difference, except for slight variances in tone (which you can find between two guitars of the same model), and neck dimensions.

A few years back when I caught the Telecaster bug and went shopping for a "real" Tele (the only Tele I had was a partscaster that I built), I had my sights set on a '52 AVRI, but I had never played one. I was a little flush with cash at the time from a small insurance settlement I recently received, so I hit the local stores to try out some Teles, and allowed myself a budget of up to an American Standard. Turns out, I fairly hated the '52 RI, and started trying out other Teles at various price points. I had a hard time telling them apart in terms of quality, and nothing really knocked my socks off. I'm not saying that any of them were bad, just nothing very special. It's not like going from an MIM Standard to an American Standard made me go: "Woah! This is SO much better!". In some cases, I preferred the sound of the MIM to the MIAs. Ironically, the only Tele that did make an impression on me (that stuck with me for weeks until I eventually bought one) was the CV '50s Tele. And even to this day, I can't see what the difference in quality is between that and a MIM or MIA Fender. Everything's right about it. I can't see what it's lacking besides a Fender logo on the headstock.

This is not a bash on Fender. I love Fender. I'll probably never buy another one, since I can build whatever bolt-on guitar I want, but I have no animosity towards them. And this isn't even a rant about prices, really, but when I look at two guitars that are $500 or $1,000 apart in price, and the only palpable differences come down to the types of pickups and switches it has, I have to say I can't see where the money is going. At least the Ultra Luxe has stainless steel frets, but that still doesn't justify the $2,300 price tag in my opinion.

If anything, I guess I'm saying that the quality of Fender guitars is so good across their entire product line that it hardly makes any sense to go above the Player level anymore. Anything that a Player doesn't have (besides rolled fingerboard edges, or a "sculpted heel") that a Professional or Ultra has, you can add yourself. And Fender's addition of more tiers to their production line just seems to confuse things even more, and strains the limits of "perceived value".

Honestly, I swore off Fender permanently a couple of years ago. Sure they make very solid guitars, but the reality is that you can get WAY more from other companies for way less, especially in the form of something like a used Warmoth or other high quality partscaster. Nowadays Fender wants close to $1,000 for a MIM with pretty much no truly high end features which is just whacky. You're absolutely right in that the difference between import Fenders and USA models has been eroding further and further in recent years.

I have 4 used Warmoths, they cost me between $350 and $600 and all have top notch woods, electronics, and hardware...and they absolutely lay waste to every Fender I've ever had including some very nice MIAs. If any of these Warmoths had Fender on the headstock they'd be "custom shop" and would cost $4K+.

The deal with Fender is not unlike the deal with Gibson...you pay a hefty, hefty premium for the price on the headstock and there are instruments of comparable or better quality available for less. They're not bad guitars in any way shape or form (nor are Gibsons), but ultimately it just comes down to whether you care to have "the real deal" or you'd rather pay less for more. I would rather pay less for more every time, in that no one has ever come up to me at a gig and said "wow that beautiful strat you're playing sounded amazing but I would've enjoyed your gig much more if you had a Fender"

[BatUtilityBelt]

I agree with pretty much all of the @Mossman musing. I own a few of each (MIA, MIJ, MIM, CV), and the law of diminishing returns is especially applicable to this brand. I can play any of them and within a couple songs I have stopped caring which one I'm playing. I took Fender's line reorganization as them stretching out and trying to gobble up new market because Gibson was being hit from all sides at the time. I also stopped buying new Fender or Gibson guitars a few years ago because I'm not going to support either behavior. As a lefty, I tend more toward the used market for broader availability anyway, but it felt right to step away from new Fender and Gibson offerings for those exaggerated diminishing returns (all prices went up quickly with the retooling).

[golem]

The higher end MIM models have been impressing me for quite a while so I suppose I'm I agree with @Mossman's comments in the last paragraph in particular. I'm a bit confused about what the newer Fender lines mean. Any time you change all the models and their specs you're going to confuse your customer base a bit. I haven't put any effort into learning the new models unless it really struck my interest. I've loved the professional line models I've come across but I also really liked the Elite models they discontinued in favor of the Ultras.

[Rollin Hand]

I have one made in the USA Fender--my Highway 1 HSS. I love it, but I still felt the need to upgrade it (locking tuners, stanless neck screws, GFS steel block). It is my number 1, but the distance is slight. It cost me $879 Cdn in 2003, and awith the current market, I could probably sell it for what I paid, but I don't plan to.

My Peavey Predator that I modded up has some flaws, but it ended up ridiculously good for the $3-400 that I have in it (including used Duncans).

I feel no need for another MIA Strat.