Lost 100 series.....variance among the end products

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

Ladies & Gentlemen of the DEAN forum.....I have a question/observation that I hope you guys can help answer.

I am the proud owner of 2 Lost 100 MLs. 96 & 71.

Both are clean, well built fun to play and sound great but each is very different from the other.

While they are close to identical on initial observation (except the finishes which are two very different takes on the TBZ finish), they each have different neck carves....#71 being a bit fatter.

When I insepected the control cavities, one is shielded with the black coating (#96) while the other has no visible shielding. And, the wiring of each is different (all hooked up the same but clearly installed by 2 folks who had differeing ideas about about what makes for a neat and clean wiring).

And, while my bathroom scale is not that accurate it seems to indicate a weight difference (250-300 grams) between the two.

And lastly, it seems #96 has a slightly 'bigger' sound....perhaps due to material variances.

I thought I had read that the Lost 100 series was farmed out to the so called Master Builders (presumably contracted luthiers) which could explain some variance as each has an interpretaion of the specs and a style. But the more I learn these two guitars, the more surprised I am by the variances.

Anyone have anything to offer to explain these subtle (except the finish) but clearly present differences? Any insight on the Master Builders? Any way to identify the Builders for these 2 MLs? Any other comments?

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:21 am

Uhhhh...... Two guitars that are not the same are different.....

That's all I got.

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

That's helpful Very Happy

Joined: 20 Jul 2007 Posts: 1742 Location: NJ

Are you the original owner, did you buy them both brand new?

They could have each been made at different factories, they could have each been made in the same factory by different people.

As for the necks, even if they are precisely machine cut they do go through sanding and finishing, if it is just slight difference then one was probably sanded down a little more, maybe one has less sanding and a thicker finish.

The control cavities. Not just one person works on the wiring and they each have their own style. I have never seen a Dean that came with a shielded cavity, but myself and a few other forum members have shielded our own. Also I have re-wired a few of my Deans as well.

If you are not the original owner, maybe someone shielded it themselves and possibly even re-wired it themselves because the way you said "differing ideas about about what makes for a neat and clean wiring" makes me believe one is sloppy.

Two of the same guitar are not going to weigh the same.

Two of the same guitar are not going to sound the same.

The best answer for the variances is because they are two different guitars Wink

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:03 pm

Pics! Now!

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

OK...a few images

#96

#71

Close up of Finish differences (front & back)

versus

and the back side

and the control cavities

and just becasue I now noticed....the screw for the cavity covers are different....

So far as I am aware, I am first owner of #96 - that is the one with the tobacco burst and painted cavity and neater wiring...#71 was picked up second hand but all solder joints on both guitars are fresh and presumably original.

I am happy to accept that sanding and finish contribute to neck differences....but man, if one is +/- 250 grams heavier, it does make me curious.

Dont get me wrong....THEY BOTH ROCK!!!!!!!

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:00 am

Interesting.... I have #62 Z in TBZ and have compared it to two others. All were different in their own right but they had the same neck carves. I've never opened up the cavity on mine but I may do just that to see what's what....

From what I know, they were all made by the same builder ( CNC'd) and hardware assembly is always done at Dean HQ.

Great playing and sounding guitars! Certainly worth every penny....

I'll keep you posted on my findings after some exploratory surgery tomorrow Cool

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

and I recently noticed this.....
the 'neatness' around the control cavities where the cavity covers are placed.

#71 seems to have some dried goo that collected in the edges of the control cavity recess for the cover. This in turn caused there to be some material that was ground away from the cavity covers so they would lie flat and be flush with the back of the guitar. I had seen this so a few other Deans as well,

#96 has very clean lines by contrast and has no such goo present. The cavity covers we not ground in order to fit properly.

Confused

Joined: 27 Feb 2009 Posts: 729 Location: Missouri

I think i used to own #71. Or maybe it was #77. I will look into it.

Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 13396 Location: Earth

Have you ever gone to a shop and picked up 2 or 3 or 4 different Les Pauls? They will all be slightly different. That's just what happens. That's not a problem at US Masters, or at Dean Tampa, or any other manufacturer. Guitars with hand finishing will be different. As long as they play well and make you happy to own them, that's about all you can expect. If you want exacting precision then buy a Japanese, mass produced guitar. Wink

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:30 pm

Lost 100s are all Tampa built AFAIK.

I would guess that the one you bought used might have had the cover screws changed.

I can not comment on the no shielding paint in the cavity but it does appear to be there around the cavity cover hole. The dry "goo" might be the cover being put on while not "quite" dry yet.

The USAs are finished by a couple of differant painters, here in Tampa Bay and in California, so that might account for that color variance and perhaps the shielding too. Looks like maybe there was a shielding plate across the wood between the top and the wood or that was left unfinished for a reason.

Joined: 27 Feb 2009 Posts: 729 Location: Missouri

Yep #71 was mine. I have a lot of pics of it if you want them?

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

Cool replies from all.

I know that variances can exist from end product to end product....and this is no problem in this case.

I guess that after playing and inspecting these instruments, it appears to me that some of the more apparent work was done by different people, with different styles and approaches. Comments from the board seemto confirm this.

@Finnflash....no pic required (unless you have some celeb shots or something). I would be curious about how the guitar went from you and ended in a GC in Seattle. I watched it there for a number of months. I think I snagged it for 1,300 all in. I have only identified only minor wear on #71 or any other insight on #71. Thanks.

Joined: 27 Feb 2009 Posts: 729 Location: Missouri

I bought it from a GC in California and never played it much. Then sold it to a member here in Seattle, i assume he sold it to GC.

Joined: 13 Feb 2004 Posts: 5593 Location: phoenix az.

are these guitars neck heavy?just wondering with the giant headstock and all

Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Posts: 3195 Location: UK

My DFH was finished in the same way it had that black paint on the screw ledge only.

Joined: 06 Jul 2011 Posts: 121

The MLs are not neck heavy at all....very nicely balanced.

Joined: 28 Mar 2006 Posts: 5452 Location: White Haven,Pa

balsack wrote:

The MLs are not neck heavy at all....very nicely balanced.

Yepper