Pacifica 112 vs. Squier Standard Stratocaster

My recent Squier Standard Stratocaster has me thinking about entry level guitars, and specifically the first new electric guitar I purchased, a Yamaha Pacifica 112.  They're great guitars if you ask me, but for obvious reasons don't get the exposure a "real Stratocaster" does (as real  as a Squier can be I suppose).

A comparison of the two may be apt. A Squier Stratocaster lists for $289.99 on L&M, while a new Yamaha Pacifica 112J will set you back $239.99 plus tax.  I seem to recall that the Yamaha and a hard case ran me just over $400, so we're about exactly where we were 20 years ago in terms of price.  Weird.

Don't expect a comprehensive review of either guitar - that really isn't the point.  I want to talk about a few differences that indicate where your money is going and hope you can figure the rest out yourself.

Yamaha Pacifica 112 / Squier Standard Stratocaster

The Yamaha was my second electric, purchased sometime around 1995.  The first, an MIK Squier Stratocaster, was traded into Murch Music to get my hands on this (plus a case - because THAT makes it better.... idiot). 

There are some things that set this apart from the Squier Standard Stratocaster, aside from age and the shape.  The first and most noticeable is the finish - No, not that they're different colors - I mean, they are, but not the point.  I mean the Squier has a gloss finish, while the Yamaha is satin.

Generally speaking, satin finishes mean better vibration of the body wood - making the whole guitar feel more "alive."  Most of my guitars have a typical-for-Fender poly finish. The bodies vibrate, but there's a blanket of hardened chemical over it.  Think blanket over a speaker and you'll get the idea.

The exceptions are nitrocellulose finishes, which are much more expensive - you're between $500 and $1K for a nitro finished guitar. The resonance of the Yamaha's body is excellent - a feat when you consider the Yamaha body is 4 pieces of wood laminated together.  Compared to my EJ Strat, a nitro finished instrument, the resonance is similar - cool considering cost difference.

Fender has done satin finishes, but from what I've seen online, they're prone to wearing down.  Weird, because after 20 years of play, the only noticeable wear with the Yamaha's finish is that the arm rest is slightly most glossy than the rest of the body thanks to forearm buffing.  Obviously they're doing something differently, so keep this in mind when considering a Fender satin finish.

The trade off of satin?  Your guitar doesn't shine, and I suppose it is more prone to wear than poly.  Personal tastes aside, the body vibrating more is a good thing, so unless you absolutely must shine on like some crazy old diamond, take the satin. Gloss finishes cost money - money that isn't being spent on something else, like the wood or hardware.

Or be this guy instead.  He's pretty cool.

The Yamaha is a lot lighter too.  How much of this is the lack of clear poly coats and how much of this is down to wood quality is beyond my pay grade, but I will note that the Yamaha is alder, the classic "strat" wood, while the Squier is agathis, a wood that didn't enter into the lexicon of guitar people until much more recently.

The sixties called... They want their necks.

Both guitars have rosewood fingerboards, and while the Yamaha's is noticeably darker, you might chalk that up to maintaining the guitar for 20 years.  Consider the fingerboard when buying secondhand - if it looks dry, the guitar hasn't been cared for.  You may be able to bring it back to life, but if you're new to this be warned.  I had already oiled the Squier neck twice before taking the pic.

Another major difference is in how the truss rod is installed in these guitars.  On the Yamaha, the neck blank is routed, the truss rod installed, and the finger board glued on to seal it up.  On the Squier, there is a "skunk stripe" on the back of the neck, which means the rod was installed from the back, a walnut insert glued in, and the fingerboard glued on top.

Why the difference?  Probably down to machine tooling, but feel free to call me out on this - I'm just guessing.  The advantage to Squier's way is that they could conceivably make one piece maple necks (with skunk stripe) without having to change process too much.  The downside is rosewood board guitars will have an unnecessary skunk stripe.

In contrast, Yamaha seems to be tooled to make rosewood finger board necks.  If they want to do maple, the process would involved gluing a maple board to the maple neck to seal the truss rod channel.  Less desirable if you like maple, but the majority go for rosewood.

Does this really matter?  Probably not.  Every rosewood board guitar I own has the skunk stripe save for the Yamaha, and it is obviously down to cost (all Fender - Bad Fender!).  Every neck starts as a maple neck, and later they decide if it should be a rosewood board.  

Consider that '60s rosewood board Fenders have no skunk stripe, and high end makers like Tom Anderson don't either.  It might be a stretch to say that the Yamaha is therefore more like a '60s Stratocaster, but in this respect at least, it is.

Digression:  I was pro-rosewood forever, but I'm starting to come around to maple thanks to my EJ Strat.  Still, if cork sniffers claim that solid wood is better, why is a neck made of 2 different pieces of wood, plus skunk stripe, better?  Nevermind that - Ask those same people about the maple top on a Les Paul.  Book matched top you say?  So that guitar is 5 different pieces of wood, but you'll turn your nose up at a guitar with a 3 piece body and a solid maple neck? 

This is worth checking out, just for context.

The neck on the Yamaha is nicer though.  Whether it's down to years of playing or just a better overall shape and finish, it feels much better than the Squier. The neck pocket is tighter too. 

The Squier may just need some love.  The neck hasn't really been cared for, and the "raw wood" feel isn't exactly "custom shop relic" territory.  The solution?  Pledge.  I know - the internet will collectively scream at me for suggesting it, and for the most part you should never use Pledge on a guitar.  But for low end necks with a rough feel...  Don't use it on the fingerboard - just the back.

I used the "pledge method" on this Yamaha, and the neck feels a lot better, with no ill effects after 20 years, though in fairness I probably only did it for the first year or two.  Eventually that shit will build up.

What's in a Name?

The Squier is always going to have the name recognition (and big store support), but at this level Yamaha builds a better guitar by a country mile.  I used that Yamaha at tons of gigs and it never once let me down save for the occasional string break. Sure, I had graphite saddles installed, was sporting EMGs, and had played it relentlessly for years, but in comparison I'm just not convinced the Squier would hold up nearly as well.

At this level, get the guitar with the best wood and construction you can - as you get better, you can spend a few bucks here and there on improvements.  Things like pickups and pots can always be replaced.

Don't buy new though... especially not when there are deals like this to be had.  There's no point in spending 3x what you need to.

Too bad the big chain isn't carrying Yamaha, which is disappointing, because the new stuff looks great.  Who wants to bet Fender's dealer quotas are part of the reason?

Sometimes it's hard to like Fender.