Sevendaymelee

Most of the guys who I use to party with (yes, I have had my share) twenty-five years ago are either dead, suffering from major health problems and/or depression, in jail, or are going nowhere fast, working entry level jobs along side teenagers and college students lol. I don't envy party-goers. It's a lifestyle for the very young, and very naive. Or, if you really wanted to get to the crux of it: the very empty, and very lonely.

Pot has a lot more carcinogens than tobacco, so it's not 1:1. I can't remember exactly what the ratio was, but it was ridiculous, I remember that. Something like one joint to one whole pack etc.

Both are known (and proven) carcinogenic substances, with the former actually having untold amounts of more cancer-causing substances than cigarettes. So if you're drinking and smoking pot all the time and avoiding cigarettes, you might as well go buy a pack of unfiltered Pall Malls and have at it. Cigars too.

Yes, old wood. I hear that a lot. But you know what you never hear? People saying 70's Martins are superior because they were using old-growth Indian rosewood. Now why do you think that is? Seems to me, if "old growth" was the holy grail, than those guitars would be coveted, since they were using first generation, old-growth rosewood. But they're not. As a matter of fact, if the internet is to be believed, 70's Martins are the worst sounding guitars in the history of solid wood guitars. The vast majority of what we all think is fact is actually myth. Double blind studies have proven it. Of course, we snicker at these studies, because we want to continue to believe what our less-than-informed parents and grandparents told us... but that doesn't make it any less true. There are bad guitars, good guitars and great guitars. The age of the wood doesn't elevate these things. It may change them, but it doesn't elevate them. You can find a dud from the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's just like you can find a dud from the guitars built today. The only difference? Modern guitars will (mostly) be flawless, carry a warranty, and won't set you back the cost of a kidney to obtain.

Humdipack into the sound hole, keep it in case. That's all that needs to be done.

Imo, vintage is overblown to the point of lunacy. Do they sound different? Absolutely. Do they sound better? That's subjective. Is it worth the added money? You'll have to decide that for yourself. But I've played fifty-year-old guitars, and I've played brand new guitars, and there's no winner either way. Some new ones blow the older ones away and visa versa. Probably because there's no clear difference. A great guitar sounds great, new and old.

Let the guy like what he likes.

Understandable. But life isn't guaranteed. Remember that. So if there's something you want really badly, and you can afford it, I wouldn't sweat it. You can always replace the extra cash, but you can never replace the one that got away.

I see a Fender amp, so that checks off one of my boxes. But do you own a Strat to go with it?

No, not in the least. But I put up with it, anyway. lol

Things are worth what the market says they're worth. The market and I rarely agree on anything.

I don't know if it's bias or what, but it's the shape of the Epiphone headstock that gets me. I find it really unpleasant to look at.

Fixed. 😂

It probably has nothing to do with guitars at all. It's probably just the whole sociological aspect of owning something that other's don't, so you feel validated as a human being. Because think about it... why are all the mystical properties attached things that are hard to obtain? Doesn't law of averages say that sooner or later, there would come a day when something mystical was easy to obtain? That we would find an abundance of trees which produce this harmonious sound that everyone could afford? If people had a look at the top forty-or-so greatest rock and folk albums, they would be shocked at just how very few of them were recorded with brazilian rosewood guitars. They would be even more shocked to discover that a great many of them featured 70's Martins... large bridge plates and all.

See how I formatted your post? It's also easier to read when every sentence isn't bullet-point. Just some friendly advice for the future. As for the guitar, it looks fishy to me, so I would pass if I were looking at it. At that price, I would always err on the side of caution.

There are several people who prefer EIR to BRW, so there will also be several who prefer Sitka to Lutz. Tone is subjective, not objective. So there's no such thing as a better tone wood, at least as far as tone goes. Martin should still be telling people what wood they're using, though. That should be a standard thing.

Yeah, but it would still be cool, high cost or not. The thread was asking what I'd like to see, and that was my answer lol.

Down-to-spec replicas of their older guitars. No "with a modern twist" models. Straight up replicas, using the same building methods, tools, materials and glues.

I've often thought about trying 80/20's, but because everyone says they sound brighter, and I like my guitars to sound very dark and soulful, I haven't pulled the trigger.

This is my argument as well. Yes, I have my preferences, but we should all know what wood is being used before we buy it.

I don't know about you, but I expect my guitars to have better tone than my cabinets...

Glad I made my purchases when I did. Also glad that there are millions of used Martins for sale. I'm not paying that kind of money for mystery neck wood and mystery sound boards, and I don't want my ebony to look like a bottle or peroxide threw up on it. I want to know what I am getting before making a purchase, and I want solid black ebony, even if it has to be dyed. If Martin will no longer do and supply the above, it's on to the used market for their guitars, permanently.

The internet has caused every one to think Christmas begins the day after Halloween; Thanksgiving? Pfft. Screw that! I still wait until December 1st to entertain the season. By then, when I'm just starting to decorate and listen to the music etc, everyone else is already over it... which is exactly why people in the past waited for Thanksgiving to finish before putting up a tree: burnout.

Hence why I'm bugged by it. I want that old, less-echo-y, fundamental tone. I have modern, scalloped guitars. They're wonderful to play. But there's so many overtones that trying to do early Dylan or Isakov (late 60's J-50) is neigh impossible. Too much noise. Too much resonance. Not dry enough. Not enough decay imo. So its frustrating.

That last is what bugs me. People think scalloped automatically means better, and the makers have subsequently started carving all the braces. But we all know scalloped doesn't equal better.. Different, yes. But not empirically better. And if you're like me, and prefer the non-scalloped tone, what then? lol. It's frustrating.