Couldn't be a Warwick. In order for it to be a Warwick it would have to be:
1. For the most part, made out of some type of dark wood (yes, I know they have lighter woods).
2. Have a neck like a baseball bat.
3. Have really dead strings (can't forget that Guitar Center experience, you know).
4. Be recommended by a GC salesman.
5. Sound horrible regardless of what one plugs it into.
6. Be heavier than my '81 Gibson Victory Artist (believe it or not, it's heavier than any of the Alembics I own).
7. Feel like a boat anchor in one's hands.
8. Been played by some metal artist of the moment, preferably with some kind of mask on.
Geez, I crack myself up.
Before all the Warwick owners come to my door with torches and a battering ram ... I'm only kidding! My comments are more in line with a lot of stereotypes I've seen on other forums, and are meant to be taken tongue in cheek.
I know there are some great Warwicks out there, but I think it's because they're so popular with many young players these days that the individual asked if it was a Warwick. That and the fact that Alembics aren't a mass produced instrument.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't play a Warwick even if it was one of John Entwistle's original Warwick Buzzards. Every Warwick I've ever played (outside of GC too) just didn't appeal to me, but to each his/her own. What works for one guy (or gal) may not work for another, and that's cool. It's great we have so many choices in instruments today, whether it's an Alembic or other marque. It wasn't always that way.
Alan
P.S. Last time I took an Alembic into a GC (it was my SC Sig Std) a crowd developed, and I had to refuse repeated requests to try it out, especially amongst the younger crowd (based on what they were doing to Warwicks, Fenders, and Musicmans, I demurred).