So I'm setting up a friend's GIO and it seems to have the FAT-10 tremolo. I'm wondering, is there any way to adjust the action on this thing? There are no grub screws I can find on the saddles or the trem itself. Would I have to adjust the pivot posts and then re-adjust the spring tension?
That's correct. The individual saddles of the FAT-10 have no height adjustment mechanism, so the only way you can adjust the height of the strings is to adjust the height of the trem posts themselves. Before you do that, I would suggest removing the tension from the trem (by loosening the strings and/or removing the springs) to avoid damaging the posts or the knife edges.
Created for Wired guitaist, there were only 54 of them ever made and came in 6 string and 7 string options.
"The Ibanez WG RG7 is our very own exclusive Ibanez model made in an extremely limited quantity of 54 guitars. Each guitar is hand-numbered and includes the Prestige hardshell case plus toolkit.
Specs for this run:
-Purple Doom Burst finish, the first ever done on an RG shape.
-Figured birdseye maple fretboard.
-Mahogany body, very unusual to find on non-Jcustom Ibanez.
-Ultra stable 5 piece neck!
-Ibanez Lo Pro Edge 7
Model:WGRG 7 Prestige
Finish:Purple Doom Burst
Yeah, I'm aware of that model. I haven't added it yet just because I've never gotten a definitive answer as to the model name Ibanez gave it (and hence what name to give the wiki article). Unlike some of the other special runs (like the RG752MFS) this WG run doesn't seem to have ever appeared on Ibanez's website.
If you've got one, does it have a model number stamped on the back of the headstock?
Good edit. I had no idea they made the RG470FMR prior to 1996.
Looking at the catalog, there seems to be a change between the 1994 and 1996 models, from Wizard (=Wizard 1?) to the Wizard II neck. I'm not wiki-adept enough to make the necessary changes just yet. Perhaps you
Thank you for adding that new info about the AC30. Fills in another piece of the puzzle. I am curious if the body is actually made of ash knowing that information? Indeed I spoke with Ibanez but admittedly that said that info dating back that far is scarce and unorganized. I love the feel and sound of my own AC30. It's feel and sound is more similar to a Gibson SG rather than a les paul to me. In love with mine. My Ghost rider and RT650 are other favorites. I seem to like the models that didnt sell well when they were produced haha
It's really difficult to speculate on the specs of these older models that aren't documented in any catalogs or other contemporary material. The "rescue" model theory makes sense in many ways, and Jim Donahue is a solid source given that he literally wrote the book on Ibanez's history (or at least was a major contributor to that book). That said, if these really were AR100 bodies that didn't pass muster, one would expect them to be mahogany, as the AR100 is.
It's possible the Donahue is incorrect about the genesis of this particular model. It may have been conceived as a budget model from the start with a different (presumably cheaper) wood species and a simpler control layout.
Unless and until we find some more definitive source, I think the description of the AR30 on the wiki is the best we can do even if it may contain some inaccuracies. Right now this article is a bit of an outlier anyway given that the wiki's coverage extends back only to '88 or '87 in any comprehensive way. Eventually the plan is to extend this back further, so perhaps when we get around to filling in some of the gaps around this model we'll discover some new information on the AR30.
I can see where the AR30 might feel as much like an SG as a Les Paul, it certainly has some attributes of both models.
I've never tried out any of those RTs. They were a bit of a stop-gap solution for Ibanez when the end of the hair metal era caught them a bit flat-footed in the marketplace. However, the idea behind the RT has been revived to some degree in the last few years with the introduction of the RGV series.
You can feel free to add it if you've got the information. If you don't want to tackle it, I'll probably get around to it at some point.
If you want to give it a shot, you might find this article helpful.
I did take a peek at the catalogs and didn't see any information on this particular model (as you noted in the article). Those catalogs are usually the best resource. It did look like there was a bit of information on the AR30 around the web, though, so we can probably piece most of the information together. If you don't know about some particular spec, you can also just leave it blank for now.
Right now, we don't have many models of this vintage documented. Our coverage currently extends back to around '87-88 and prior to that it's spotty-to-nonexistent. So its great to see at least one small gap getting filled in with your article. Of course, it just points out that many other gaps :). At some point I expect we'll get around to filling some of those in.
I definitely appreciate your initiative and feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.
Hello! I'm Tono555, and I'm representing Wikia's Vanguard team. We're users who volunteer to help communities adopt to new technologies and features, like content portability. We've identified your community as a high priority for introducing the Portable Infobox tool, which has a lot of benefits for your community. Rather than get into all of the metrics and numbers (though I can present some of those if you're interested), I'll keep it simple. I'd like upgrade the Infobox templates themselves so that they can be accessible on any current and future platform. Maintaining them if you want to make changes should be very simple.
I've completed the draft for your Template:Infobox which you can modify or approve early if you'd like. There are guides and resources on the Portability Hub for the structure and styles that can help you modify them. Everything should work properly as set up, so if we don't hear back from you, we'll assume there were no problems and will come back and approve the work as-is on or after October 31.
Also, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thanks!
Your draft (this, I assume) looks fine, but I don't believe there are any articles on this site that actually use that infobox.
I'd be more interested in understanding whether there are portability concerns with any of the more frequently used templates on the wiki. The most widely used template is likely Template:Speclist which is used on over 1,400 pages. Can you provide an opinion on whether that template can be improved from a portability perspective? Barring that, can you share what traits might make a particular infobox or template less portable than another?