For All Of Us Vintage Freaks

[JuanCarlosVejar]

folks ,

 

Tom Barnwell has been kind enough to upload a bunch of his acoustic demo's of his vintage gibson collection

here are a few samples :

 

1931 L 2 :

 

 

1944 J 45 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom if you read this . it it always a pleasure to hear your beautiful playing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[duluthdan]

Love the sound that he coaxes out of these guitars.

[tpbiii]

Hi all,

 

I am putting up a lot of our vintage guitar demos on Youtube. When I started this several years ago, the audio quality on youtube was not good enough to hear what you need to hear, even with a really good sound system. Now it is a lot better -- close enough I think. A lot of people have asked me to do this, and I have decided now is the time.

 

The recording environment is designed and tuned to give a faithful reproduction of a single guitar in the room in which it is played. That means when you play the guitar in the room and you listen to the recording on high quality headphones, they sound the same. No claims are made about more complex sound environments.

 

I wish the quality of my playing matched the quality of the guitars -- I tell myself it is the guitar's sound that is important, but I still wish I were a better player. Now that I have the environment in place, I am going to bring in some good players to demo the guitars.

 

It will take awhile to get this all sorted out -- it will be a work in progress for awhile.

Here are the vintage guitar demos I have up and labeled so far.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[duluthdan]

Looked at the listing Tom - gonna fill up my Saturday morning looking at guitar clips.

[zombywoof]

Assuming you mean a 1931 L-2 yeah, gotta say those be some very nice guitars. Sure makes me wish I had taken better care of my instruments

[tvguit]

Great videos Tom. Got a clip of that Rosewood SJ you got at SC?

[tpbiii]

Great videos Tom. Got a clip of that Rosewood SJ you got at SC?

 

The stuff I have been uploading is mostly old stuff. When I got the RW SJ, I thought of it as the bookend to the J RW where our other bookend is our 1936 AJ. So the recordings I made were to that end.

 

Here is the basic SJ RW demo recording.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF7rlLRVn9k

 

Here is the pairwise comparison with the AJ and one with a 1942 mahogany SJ.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH9Bkfc9Fqo

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[Martin 1940D28]

b

[ballcorner]

Restored guitars are not necessarily vintage guitars. A true vintage guitar is in original condition with the original finish. Once restored (finish especially), a guitar becomes a nineteen-whatever year it was restored guitar.

 

This isn't an opinion based on pickiness - the reality is that refinishing alters the tonality of an instrument. A nineteen thirty something guitar has a certain sound that changes when restoration takes place. Buried in these videos, is information about who restored the instruments. It was obvious to me just from the glare that the L-2 was a restoration.

 

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that these instruments or others like them are lessened by restoration. If a guitar sounds great, it is a great guitar, but I think it is important to refer to vintage guitars as vintage and restored guitars as restored. Among the thousands of guitars I have bought, sold and worked with - some restored instruments have ranked among the best. I just feel a restored guitar does not deserve the same badge in the same way a kit version of a 427 Cobra can be exact in every detail, but it is still not a true 427 Cobra.

[tpbiii]

Restored guitars are not necessarily vintage guitars. A true vintage guitar is in original condition with the original finish. Once restored (finish especially), a guitar becomes a nineteen-whatever year it was restored guitar.

 

In forty+ years of vintage guitar collecting, I have never heard anyone say that before! General usage is that they are all vintage guitars. The originality of the finish is often a concern to collectors who value old guitars as fine visual objects of art, and they do indeed bring more money. And I totally agree that the entire history of a guitar should be disclosed if known. And anyone who could not tell that L-2 is refinished would have to be blind. But fine guitars are built to be worked on, and most all of them that have been used have worked on. This is a far more complex situation than your statement implies.

 

This isn't an opinion based on pickiness - the reality is that refinishing alters the tonality of an instrument. A nineteen thirty something guitar has a certain sound that changes when restoration takes place. Buried in these videos, is information about who restored the instruments. It was obvious to me just from the glare that the L-2 was a restoration.

 

The effect of a well done refinish on tone is really minimal if at all. If the top is sanded too much, it can effect stability -- which can certainly be bad -- and if the new finish is of the wrong sort or of dramatically wrong thickness it can have an effect, but for people who acquire old guitars for their sound qualities, there are many more serious areas of concern. Anytime glue is used to repair a guitar, there is at least an initial effect that (luckily) attenuates with time -- even stuff as common as neck sets and re-glued bridges and braces. I my experiences, refinished vintage guitars often sound better than those with original finishes -- there seems to be no average detectable effect in that regard.

 

Of course, total originality guarantees no hack has screwed it up, which can be a concern on all old objects. But it does not protect against age and use deterioration, which is at least as great a concern.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[E-minor7]

Restored guitars are not necessarily vintage guitars. A true vintage guitar is in original condition with the original finish. Once restored (finish especially), a guitar becomes a nineteen-whatever year it was restored guitar.

 

That angle certainly reduces the number of vintage guitars out there.

Think of all the exchanged bridges f.x. - then go on to removed popsicle braces and to other lesser sound-changers like saddles, nuts even pins and tuners.

Not to mention the main-braces themselves, fixed or reconstructed.

 

Can I ask - Where did you pick up this criteria. Is it your own point of view or do you belong to a 'culture' that sees things this way ??

Best Thoughts -

[GT Hurley]

And there lies my concern. Opinions like yours Ballcorner have me wondering just what is my 1959 J200? Is is a vintage guitar or is it a resto? I will go with a vintage. I am not sure about your analogy of the 427 Cobra, however if you watch Mecums you will see the examples of vintage, and resto. If PROPERLY restored, they are in most cases worth more than a unrestored original in poor condition. Because in the Vintage (old and abused) state, most that are found are in need of repair. I personally think guitars are built to be played, not worshiped. I will continue with my "restoration" and, I will also continue to view it as a "Vintage" guitar. Some folks are just wrapped too tight. Maybe that means me... :)

[tpbiii]

I just feel a restored guitar does not deserve the same badge in the same way a kit version of a 427 Cobra can be exact in every detail, but it is still not a true 427 Cobra.

 

Wow -- you have a 427 Cobra! Cool!

 

Here is my vintage wife with our vintage 427.

 

 

Here is my vintage wife with our vintage AJ.

 

 

You have to love vintage!

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[RichG]

Wow -- you have a 427 Cobra! Cool!

 

Here is my vintage wife with our vintage 427.

 

 

Here is my vintage wife with our vintage AJ.

 

 

You have to love vintage!

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

 

Sometimes wonder which site I'm reading when the original vs restored discussion comes up, the National Corvette Restorers Society or the Gibson board.

I've got the bookends for that 67.

 

Rich

 

66 327/350 Corvette Convertble

68 427/435 Corvette Coupe

[E-minor7]

To Be or Not To Be

 

Well, vintage isn't an exact science, is it. . . .

I'm sure we could start an intriguing discussion about when a guitar qualifies for the status.

Some would say 25, others 35 or over 50 years old.

 

I don't regard my 29 year old D-35 vintage, but it's getting there.

I can see it (the bindings are yellowing and the nitro is becoming dark and mat).

I can can also hear it as the sound develops that certain extra, which to a high and maybe crucial degree defines 'vintage'.

To me it's in the air and ooooze around the guitar when it happens, , , but as a rule (my personal one) I'd say older than 35 and there we go. . .

 

A refinish of course can have the effect of an disturbing facelift for a dear oldie, but listen to the soul of the thing. Is the v-factor there or not.

 

Surely some of you have completely different views – let's talk about it. . . .

[EuroAussie]

To Be or Not To Be

 

 

Well, vintage isn't an exact science, is it. . . .

I'm sure we could start an intriguing discussion about when a guitar qualifies for the status.

Some would say 25, others 35 or over 50 years old.

 

I don't regard my 29 year old D-35 vintage, but it's getting there.

I can see it (the bindings are yellowing and the nitro is becoming dark and mat).

I can can also hear it as the sound develops that certain extra, that to a high and maybe crucial degree defines 'vintage'.

To me it's in the air and ooooze around the guitar when it happens, , , but as a rule (my personal one) I'd say older than 35 and there we go. . .

 

A refinish of course can have the effect of an disturbing facelift for a dear oldie, but listen to the soul of the thing. Is the v-factor there or not.

 

Surely some of you have completely different views – let's talk about it. . . .

 

Technically, the mainstream assumption of vintage is based on a simple calculation, that being guitars made prior to 1970.

 

But to me vintage is all in the tone, and how it compares to newer versions of same model, or in other words the sound of old wood vs new wood.

 

And if we go down that path, if I try to capture the essence of 'vintage tone' I would have to zero in on 40's Gibson slopes.

 

I have to admit that Ive played a few 50's J-200's and 60's Birds, and have to admit I dont find the tone that much different to its younger cousins, yes, more mellow, dryer a bit, but really not that much. In particular the Hummingbirds.

 

But I do find a big difference between 40's Gibson slopes with their modern cousins. There is a big difference in tonality, a richness and complexity that to me defines the 'vintage' tone.

 

So, zeroing in, that would be my best interpretation of vintage ...tone first, other fine attributes behind it.

[j45nick]

Restored guitars are not necessarily vintage guitars. A true vintage guitar is in original condition with the original finish. Once restored (finish especially), a guitar becomes a nineteen-whatever year it was restored guitar.

 

 

 

So I guess that means there are no vintage violins today from the shop of Stradivari of Cremona, since they've all had a lot of work over the last 300 years. Such a shame. And I guess the Mona Lisa isn't a vintage painting because it's had some re-touch and resto work over the centuries,

 

And you'd better take that modern plumbing out of your 1820 Federal house if you want to call it an 1820 Federal house when you go to sell.

 

I have a 1948 J-45 that was re-topped by Gibson in 1968, with a top that was re-finished by Ross Teigen in 2010. If I call that a 2010 J-45, I'm going to get laughed off the forum. It's a 1948 J-45 with a 1968 top and a 2010 top re-finish.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

And it's almost the same vintage I am.

[E-minor7]

So I guess that means there are no vintage violins today from the shop of Stradivari of Cremona, since they've all had a lot of work over the last 300 years.

 

Thought exactly the same thing. . .