Fret markers

[GNAPPI]

Personally I don't like them much. I buy a guitar despite them being there, not because they are there but... the wrong markers can definitely steer me away from a guitar.

[barrymclark]

I don't mind markers being there as I never look at those when I play. Side dots only. Aesthetically, I like the clean look of no markers... but I also dig the classic simplicity of the dot inlays.

[larry graves]

The history of the plectrum guitar, which is mainly Gibson, i.e. fingerboard markings. A guitar without them always looks bare to me......L..

[disco~juice]

Nothing on the fretboard, just ebony...
And side dots.

[artcore]

I still use them like training wheels....

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Especially with ebony, plain looks the best to me. My ASAT Special:



And even on archtops, I'm tired of bling (fancy inlay, binding, gold hardware, fancy tuner knobs, etc..). Keep it simple.

[RonD]

Doesn't make any difference to me as I don't look at them.
However, I nearly had a rebellion on my hands when I started using a guitar with no markers and worse, a guitar with very fancy "tree of life" inlay, during lessons.
Many of my students complained, very loudly!!
I didn't realize how important the visual aspect was to them.
Lesson learned.

Cheers, Ron

[feet]

i love them, from an aesthetics standpoint. though a clean fretboard looks great, i just prefer to have something there. when properly executed, of course. i don't hate dots, but find them so plain, like a missed opportunity to have done something cool. they are so boring and prevalent.

[coolvinny]

I need side dots for sure. I'm a bit torn on whether I prefer a clean fretboard without any inlays or whether I prefer block inlays. I decided to split the difference and get dots on the fretboard when I had my custom Holst laminate made last year. I can ignore them if I want to, or I can look at them if I want to. Also, having something visual on the fretboard is helpful for when you are showing another guitarist how to play something. All guitar teachers should use an instrument with fretboard inlays when teaching!

(regarding the fretboard dots, I like them in the center...not up high under the bass strings...again because I like having the option to "ignore" them if I so choose)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I give a tip of the hat to anyone who does something different with the markers. We all know who did this:

[50Hz]

I prefer the classic dots since that's what I'm used to using. The first two guitars I had and did the bulk of my learning on had them. It's a comfort thing I suppose, and very utilitarian, I like that. My other guitars are bare fretboard w/ side dots which I can work with, but don't prefer them. Blocks or anything more ornate is just simply not for me. I would tolerate them but never seek a guitar out because of them.

[cosmic gumbo]

If I played only one guitar all the time, I wouldn't need markers, but since I play different guitars regularly, different neck scales, body styles, my left hand relationship to the neck is different with every guitar, so markers are a convenience for quick orientation. All my guitars have side markers and dots on the fretboard.

[mangotango]

Recently recorded a demo in my teacher's studio and for the intro to a Latin number (MCMLVIII?) he suggested that I use his nylon string guitar. So I tried it out, but kept running up against the fact that my nylon-string electro has the dot at the 9th fret, whereas his had it at the 10th. Took a few more takes to nail that one than I thought would be necessary.

In fact my own nylon-electro originally had no fret markers either on the fingerboard or the side, and I added some sticky luminous dots to the side, which did the trick. Plus they're very visible on a dim stage. which is good.

[Agate]

I'm beginning to convert to the markerless fingerboard. They remind me of violins and just seem more sleek or refined.

Guild X-150s always make me giddy, but I'm starting to think it's the pickguard and tailpiece that does it for me more than the inlays..

[coolvinny]

Recently recorded a demo in my teacher's studio and for the intro to a Latin number (MCMLVIII?) he suggested that I use his nylon string guitar. So I tried it out, but kept running up against the fact that my nylon-string electro has the dot at the 9th fret, whereas his had it at the 10th. Took a few more takes to nail that one than I thought would be necessary.

In fact my own nylon-electro originally had no fret markers either on the fingerboard or the side, and I added some sticky luminous dots to the side, which did the trick. Plus they're very visible on a dim stage. which is good.

I can relate - I have a 5-string semi-hollow guitar (technically, it's an "Emandocello", but that is a discussion for another day) and while I have adapted to the fact that it only has five strings rather than six, I cannot get over the 10th fret side dot (it has no fretboard markers). It causes me endless problems. I tried covering it with a little dot of tape, but it was still tripping me up - just last week I took it to a luthier to have the 10th fret side dot removed and a 9th fret dot installed. You'd think missing a low E string would trip me up more than something like a measly side dot...

[AlainJazz]

I'm also beginning to really dig a markerless fretboard like on the Sadowsky's. There's something very classy about it.

[zigzag]

Man, I love the look and simplicity of a plain ebony fretboard (white dots on the side) with stainless steel frets and steel strings set low, looking from the player's perspective; like a blonde in a black evening dress. (Does that make sense? I don't know what it is about that image.) That said, looking at a guitar straight on, I like the look of block abalone or pearl inlays in an ebony fretboard for most guitars.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I'm also beginning to really dig a markerless fretboard like on the Sadowsky's. There's something very classy about it.

I agree, but this means at some point there was an aesthetic shift. It used to be, on archtops, that bling was considered classy.

[Patrick2]

As a collector, aesthetic appeal is very high on my priority list of what it takes for me to bond with a guitar. For me, as being the traditionalist that I am, finger board postiton markers need to be appropriate to the make/model/type guitar. For example, I couldn't live with a strat or tele style guitar with block inlays . . or anything other than dot inlays for that matter. Could anyone picture a Super 400 with dot inlays? An L5 with traps? An Artist Award with anything other than the abalone/MOP they're supposed to be? I just couldn't be happy with that. It took me quite a while to warm up to Heritage's H575, which is pretty much a Gibson ES175. The Gibson 175 has set the traditional look with the double parallelograms. The 575 is available with dots or blocks.

I do agree that on some custom builds, an ebony board with no inlay or position markers can be cool. But, that clean look would then need to be consistent throughout the rest of the guitar. No inaly in the bridge base, or in the tail piece or the tail piece insert, etc..

[fws6]

I agree, but this means at some point there was an aesthetic shift. It used to be, on archtops, that bling was considered classy.

that shift would be Jimmy dAquisto who in the mid 1980s switched from building the very elaborate dAngelico design, to making guitars that generally became less and less decorated, to finally havng wood bindings and no inlays at all

the Sadowsky design didnt fall from the sky, but is largely based on the electric that DAquisto made for Jim Hall (althoug jim's still has blocks)

[fws6]

"Beginning in the mid-1980s D’Aquisto moved in a radical direction with the design of his guitars, which mirrored his belief in a simple, clean aesthetic. His philosophy was that the metal and plastic parts and added inlays all negatively affected the acoustics. In 1989 D’Aquisto introduced the Avant Garde, which has an ebony pickguard, bridge, tailpiece, and truss rod cover and dispenses with the celluloid bindings usually found on the body, fingerboard, and headstock. This guitar was made for the jazz icon Jim Hall (pictured), who has played D’Aquisto instruments extensively since the 1970s."

[GNAPPI]

I'm kinda sorta with Patrick in many respects as far as "traditionally" accepted models go. A 175 wouldn't look the same with dots, but I have to say that the unbound dot marker 575 neck definitely grew on me after a while.

There are guitars that I do not like the markers on... The Tal Farlow, Martin D45, Gretsch thumbnail and Epi S series strat for example are guitars I own or would own despite the markers. Overall guitars without markers do it for me best though I only have two sans markers.

I've seen some made of wood, skulls, vines, religious symbols, flags, flowers, birds etc. that I would not buy at all though.

Overall though it looks like (so far) the no marker camp is the one that the industry seems to be ignoring.

I like BigDaddy's ASAT, I never saw one. I'd like to see others with no markers... anyone?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I'm looking at the original poll list -- what is sharkfin?

[GNAPPI]

I'm looking at the original poll list -- what is sharkfin?

Shark fin markers are used on Jackson guitars and the Epiphone "super strat" guitars. Rickenbacker markers are similar but sharkfins have a curved slope and don't go the width of the neck like rick's do.

Sharkfin



Rickenbacker

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Thanks. I guess you have to have them on the right guitar.

I was thinking that certain models are so associated with one type of inlay, like maple fretboard Teles and dots, that anything else looks bad.



See? That would have looked even worse with a '50s Tele.