13down
Well-known member
The first uke I bought was an Oscar Schmidt OU53S.
It has a tone that I loved as soon as I took it out of the box, even with GHS strings.
I bought it in 2007 and its solid spruce top has improved the sound over the years.
The first time that I changed its strings, I did a lot of things wrong. For one, I left it without any strings for a while. Later on, I began stringing it up and then left it missing a string for a while before finishing it.
This also coincided with the beginning of the winter season. When I finally finished stringing it, it had a noticable buzz that was so bad, it made it impossible to play on the first fret. I stopped playing it. I started playing again in the spring and it was fine. The same thing happened again the next winter.
I bought other ukes and ignored it for the most part, only picking it up during the humid seasons. I assumed that I had messed up the neck.
Years later, I realized that I really liked the tone of that instrument, and thought about either doing something to repair it or buying a new uke of the same model. I found that I really liked playing that uke more than I liked many of the others I'd bought and then returned or sold in my fits of Ukulele Acquisition Syndrome.
I took the instrument to an expensive string-instrument tech and had him take a look at it. He told me some things that surprised me. He told me that the neck was broken beyond repair. That didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was that he said it wasn't my fault.
I described to him how badly I treated the instrument and he said the following: "Leaving it without strings, or partially strung, might bow the neck a little bit, but not like this. The neck is bent backward in the middle, which means that the wood wasn't cured properly in the first place. I could build you a truss rod to fix it for $600, but I can't even guarantee that would work and, in all honesty, I wouldn't advise it." He advised me to not get a new uke of the same model.
I read a bit about that model - the OU53s - and, while you will find a lot of people saying that they're happy with it, and a lot of people saying, "It's alright, but it's cheap," you'll also find a lot of people describing the same issue with the neck. And, more than that, if you search for reviews of the Samick baritone uke (it is nearly identical to the OS except for the headstock), you will find that people have had the same issue.
Cheap ukes are not that reliable - that's old news. But I think that this particular *type* of problem deserves a little bit of attention. Many people say "that uke is crap," and mean different things. Many people will call ukes "crap" because they have a somewhat weak sound, even though they might be well-constructed otherwise.
I have a laminate Johnson uke with a plastic nut and saddle. It sounds kind of mediocre, but its sound hasn't changed. It's been through the same conditions as the Oscar Schmidt, but, unlike the OS, it's never stopped being playable.
The frustrating thing to me personally is that I actually love the sound of the Oscar Schmidt. I understand why some people don't - it's a bit "compressed," with lows that aren't too low and highs that aren't too high - but I do. I actually like its sound better than many ukes that cost twice as much... when it's playable. It's kind of pointless, though, to have a uke that sounds great for a third of the year but can't be played at all for the other two thirds.
I guess I have two points to make:
1) Be careful with Oscar Schmidts... or at least baritone Oscar Schmidts, because they seem to have poor quality control on the necks. Unless they say that they've addressed this issue, their necks will probably continue to be hit and miss.
2) When we advise people on the quality of cheap ukes, or consider which cheap ukes we want, maybe we should think about more than just the general quality of the instrument, as there are many ways that instruments can be "cheap." I don't think the question is "Do you want a better instrument or not?" I think it's more like "Which defects can you live with?"
From now on, when I advise someone on an instrument, I'm going to try to never say anything general about the quality. I'll try to be more specific and say things like "good sound, crap neck," or "weak sound, but it lasts," or "bad sound, bad construction, no redeeming qualities," as opposed to just "half-decent," "good deal for the money," or "total crap."
It has a tone that I loved as soon as I took it out of the box, even with GHS strings.
I bought it in 2007 and its solid spruce top has improved the sound over the years.
The first time that I changed its strings, I did a lot of things wrong. For one, I left it without any strings for a while. Later on, I began stringing it up and then left it missing a string for a while before finishing it.
This also coincided with the beginning of the winter season. When I finally finished stringing it, it had a noticable buzz that was so bad, it made it impossible to play on the first fret. I stopped playing it. I started playing again in the spring and it was fine. The same thing happened again the next winter.
I bought other ukes and ignored it for the most part, only picking it up during the humid seasons. I assumed that I had messed up the neck.
Years later, I realized that I really liked the tone of that instrument, and thought about either doing something to repair it or buying a new uke of the same model. I found that I really liked playing that uke more than I liked many of the others I'd bought and then returned or sold in my fits of Ukulele Acquisition Syndrome.
I took the instrument to an expensive string-instrument tech and had him take a look at it. He told me some things that surprised me. He told me that the neck was broken beyond repair. That didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was that he said it wasn't my fault.
I described to him how badly I treated the instrument and he said the following: "Leaving it without strings, or partially strung, might bow the neck a little bit, but not like this. The neck is bent backward in the middle, which means that the wood wasn't cured properly in the first place. I could build you a truss rod to fix it for $600, but I can't even guarantee that would work and, in all honesty, I wouldn't advise it." He advised me to not get a new uke of the same model.
I read a bit about that model - the OU53s - and, while you will find a lot of people saying that they're happy with it, and a lot of people saying, "It's alright, but it's cheap," you'll also find a lot of people describing the same issue with the neck. And, more than that, if you search for reviews of the Samick baritone uke (it is nearly identical to the OS except for the headstock), you will find that people have had the same issue.
Cheap ukes are not that reliable - that's old news. But I think that this particular *type* of problem deserves a little bit of attention. Many people say "that uke is crap," and mean different things. Many people will call ukes "crap" because they have a somewhat weak sound, even though they might be well-constructed otherwise.
I have a laminate Johnson uke with a plastic nut and saddle. It sounds kind of mediocre, but its sound hasn't changed. It's been through the same conditions as the Oscar Schmidt, but, unlike the OS, it's never stopped being playable.
The frustrating thing to me personally is that I actually love the sound of the Oscar Schmidt. I understand why some people don't - it's a bit "compressed," with lows that aren't too low and highs that aren't too high - but I do. I actually like its sound better than many ukes that cost twice as much... when it's playable. It's kind of pointless, though, to have a uke that sounds great for a third of the year but can't be played at all for the other two thirds.
I guess I have two points to make:
1) Be careful with Oscar Schmidts... or at least baritone Oscar Schmidts, because they seem to have poor quality control on the necks. Unless they say that they've addressed this issue, their necks will probably continue to be hit and miss.
2) When we advise people on the quality of cheap ukes, or consider which cheap ukes we want, maybe we should think about more than just the general quality of the instrument, as there are many ways that instruments can be "cheap." I don't think the question is "Do you want a better instrument or not?" I think it's more like "Which defects can you live with?"
From now on, when I advise someone on an instrument, I'm going to try to never say anything general about the quality. I'll try to be more specific and say things like "good sound, crap neck," or "weak sound, but it lasts," or "bad sound, bad construction, no redeeming qualities," as opposed to just "half-decent," "good deal for the money," or "total crap."
