MSA Millennium Pictures

Bob Lawrence · Post by **Bob Lawrence** » 29 Sep 2002 7:13 pm

Click on the link below to view or download the pictures:
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/robert.lawrence/msa/

MSA298.jpg 1.3MB
MSA301.jpg 1.4MB
MSA302.jpg 1.4MB
MSA303.JPG 1.4MB
MSA304.jpg 1.4MB
MSA305.jpg 1.2MB

------------------

Rex Thomas · Post by **Rex Thomas** » 29 Sep 2002 8:03 pm

THANX, BOB!! Uh... royal blue?

Marco Schouten · Post by **Marco Schouten** » 29 Sep 2002 9:43 pm

Upside down it looks very good, however the blue and red guitars look very 'plastic'.
A black one will look better I think.

------------------
Steelin' Greetings
Marco Schouten
Sho-Bud Pro III Custom; Sho-Bud LLG

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 30 Sep 2002 5:58 am

the blue and red guitars look very 'plastic'

I felt the same way. Perhaps the pictures don't do the guitars justice. At Dallas this year Reece and Kyle has some samples of a quilted pattern that I thought looked very nice. I'd like to see some pictures of guitars with that pattern.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 30 Sep 2002 6:34 am

Like I said, one ugly looking guitar. Looks like a $5000.00 piece of plastic.

Jay Jessup · Post by **Jay Jessup** » 30 Sep 2002 7:00 am

I agree that the pictures do make the guitars look like they are plastic finished and I am not real sure why that is because I didn't notice that at the convention. They appeared to be a very traditionally shaped guitar with a shiny, smooth finish so I am not real sure what there is to not like. I certainly enjoyed the underside view and the light weight. I would opt for the black version that let the carbon fibre weave show through, if you are going to go high tech you might as well show it off.

Kenny Davis · Post by **Kenny Davis** » 30 Sep 2002 7:28 am

So, what does a solid color mica guitar look like???

Jim West · Post by **Jim West** » 30 Sep 2002 8:18 am

"Like I said, one ugly looking guitar. Looks like a $5000.00 piece of plastic."

I always thought that mica was the the el cheapo look. The Millenium is one fine looking instrument.

Post by **Joey Ace** » 30 Sep 2002 8:30 am

"I agree that the pictures do make the guitars look like they are plastic finished and I am not real sure why that is because I didn't notice that at the convention."

So True. They looked very sharp in person.

Steve Stallings · Post by **Steve Stallings** » 30 Sep 2002 10:14 am

When I saw the red guitar, I immediately had the thought "Red Baron" in my mind. I know that this is much more upscale, but for some reason, they are not very photogenic in these shots. I do like the pic of the black one on the website.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 30 Sep 2002 10:25 am

Reece, or Kyle, clearly it is time to bring in a professional photographer and get some really good pictures of the guitars to post on the web site.

Kenny Davis · Post by **Kenny Davis** » 30 Sep 2002 11:02 am

I don't think you can get any more professional than what's on the website. If anything, they should include the red, blue, etc. to get a good representation of the way they look other than black. The only thing that affects the look of one of these compared to a mica guitar is the lack of a "binding" accross the front of what would be the front apron. A decal could solve that.[This message was edited by Kenny Davis on 30 September 2002 at 02:43 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Sep 2002 1:24 pm

The pics on the Robert Lawrence website (listed above) are very hi-res...maybe too much so. About the only thing I see wrong with them as photos is that there are a lot of "swirl marks" visible. The lighting emphasizes these, and they look a little excessive, like someone wiped the guitars down with a dry paper towel prior to the shoot. Often I see the same type of swirls in a car that's just been buffed out. They can be removed with a little Liquid Ebony, and some elbow-grease.

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 30 Sep 2002 2:56 pm

The label on the front says "carbon composite technology". Sounds closer to plastic than wood to me!

Terry

Johnny Cox · Post by **Johnny Cox** » 30 Sep 2002 4:00 pm

I saw all the guitars that MSA had at St. Louis. Every guitar I looked at had a very deep, rich finish. The pictures that were posted absolutely do not do the Millennium justice. No, it's not a wood guitar, it's not intended to be. It is, however, a very innovative, hi-tech composite that is more durable yet lighter than wood. It's sound qualities are wonderful as well.

------------------

Johnny Cox
So many steels, so little time.

[This message was edited by Johnny Cox on 30 September 2002 at 05:01 PM.]

Bill Moore · Post by **Bill Moore** » 1 Oct 2002 5:16 am

------------------
Bill Moore

my steel guitar web page

Steve Stallings · Post by **Steve Stallings** » 1 Oct 2002 5:30 am

just to clarify my post....

I was in no way making a derogatory comment about the MSA Millenium. I was making a comment about the pictures. I have the utmost respect for MSA, Reece, and Kyle.

I still want to get up to MSA and play one, but it is difficult to get the time.
God Bless....

Rex Thomas · Post by **Rex Thomas** » 1 Oct 2002 6:21 am

Ok, is that what they're calling royal blue?
The Millennium looks like a BABE to me!

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 1 Oct 2002 6:49 am

I have a "framed picture" of a prototype on my bookshelf. The photos above do not accurately show the "beauty" of this guitar! www.genejones.com

Kyle Bennett · Post by **Kyle Bennett** » 1 Oct 2002 7:02 am

Let me clarify the color of the blue MSA Millennium shown above. That is NOT our Royal Blue. That guitar is a custom color match for Eugene Huggins. He specifically wanted that shade of blue. In person the color of this guitar appears to be a sky blue. MSA can color match any shade you desire and so was the case with this one.
Kyle Bennett / MSA

Rex Thomas · Post by **Rex Thomas** » 1 Oct 2002 8:20 am

Thanx, Kyle!

Marco Schouten · Post by **Marco Schouten** » 1 Oct 2002 8:49 am

If it had polished knee levers and a strip or inlay across the front it would look better in my eyes. That's just my personal opinion, so I hope it doesn't sound too negative.

------------------
Steelin' Greetings
Marco Schouten
Sho-Bud Pro III Custom; Sho-Bud LLG

Fred Layman · Post by **Fred Layman** » 4 Oct 2002 8:33 pm

FWIW, I observed an interesting thing at St. Louis. I was showing a "sky blue" lacquer finshed S-12 Universal and a gloss black lacquer D-10. I had the S-12 set upright on the table and the D-10 upside down displaying the uncercarriage and changer mechanism.

Viewers fell into two types: those who spent their time viewing the S-12, commenting on the cosmetic features while spending little time viewing the D-10 undercarriage and changer mechanism. The other type spent little time viewing the S-12 but were drawn to the engineering features of the D-10 undercarriage, pumping pedals and knee levers, etc. Both groups probably had equally good players, but one group was cosmetic oriented and the other was engineering oriented.

Relevance here: As an "engineering type,"I was immediately drawn to the photos of the undercarriage and the superior machining evident there and was glad for the closeup shots and the detail in the photos in that respect. I had seen the exterior of the guitars at St. Louis and discounted any "flaws" in the photography, knowing that there was some discrepency between the reality and the photos.

Our discussion here seems to divide in the same way, i.e., cosmetic appearance and engineering qualities. That's not to say that either viewpoint is better than the other. But for me the primary test of a good guitar is the sound it produces and the effective efficiency of its related engineering features. Cosmetics are a secondary consideration and the most simple to produce. Pretty is easy to come by; good engineering is a skill and the operation and sound of pedal steels live or die by it.

Watching the pedal steel community for over forty years now, my conclusion, FWIW, is that we are a pretty conservative bunch and tend to be resistive to significant jumps in innovation and change, preferring a slow evolutionary development instead. MSA stood at the forefront of innovation in the early 70s with their "scissor" changer mechanism (before that all changers in the industry, with the exception of the push-pull Emmons, were adaptations of the Fender 400, 800, 1000 and 2000 changer), discarding castings for milled solid aluminum and other features. The "scissor" changer mechanism rapidly became the standard for other steel guitars and continues so to the present.

The new Millenium, IMHO, at the same time incorporates what is tried and true from the past, but represents a significant advance and next step in several areas of design, a good balance between traditon and innovation. And, if "imitation is [still] the highest form of flattery," we can again expect to see other brands following some of the MSA precedents, while maintaining the integrity of their own guitars. For anything to advance and improve, someone has to "think outside the box," as the contemporary cliche has it. It's risky and often has to be refined, but that's the way progress seems to happen and we all benefit by it.

[This message was edited by Fred Layman on 21 March 2003 at 08:01 PM.]