Best undervalued Gibsons (kalamazoo Epiphones count)

[Oringo]

Gentlemen,

 

The topic about the economy and slow sales on Ebay was getting me depressed! Especially all of the political talk...there's an election coming up let's save it for the ballot box!

 

Instead, I was thinking about the best under-rated and under-valued Gibsons out there. If I had the cash, what would I get...

 

If 59-60 LP Standards are the ultimate yardstick, then in each respective category you've got 59-60 ES 335's, early LP/SG's, and reverse body Firebirds as bluechip price trend-setters. For each of these greats, you've got similar Gibson family cousins that aren't fetching bluechip prices but can be great sounding and playing guitars. My list in no particular order would be:

 

Non- reverse Firebirds

Epiphone Casino/Sheraton

Epiphone Coronet

Melody Makers

SG Jr.

ES 330

 

What do you think?

[mrktwn]

I think ALL of those are way over-priced. Especially Melody Makers. Sorry, I remember a time when nobody cared about these guitars, now suddenly ther're full of "tone". And I'm not that old.

[Oringo]

I meant to put a few others on the list:

 

ES 335S

L5S

L6S

 

Hmmm...overpriced, maybe in terms of asking prices on Gbase, but when it comes to real sales of used but good playing guitars, I've been seeing prices that aren't that high $1500-4500...a bargain compared to reverse-body Firebirds with headstock repairs going for over $10k!

[Ignatius]

I wish I knew where you are shopping. I haven't seen an ES-330 in good condition selling for under six grand for over a year. I've seen a few with a lot of "mojo" (or what others call dings, scratches, and player's damage, depending on you perspective) going for $4500. I was at a guitar show this past weekend, and the cheapest 330 there was $5500, and it was not in great shape.

 

And given that Epiphone Casinos are going new for as low as $600, and that even the vintage ones were meant as budget-conscious 330s, then even the price-spread you offer above really is too much for a Casino, I think, unless it is in pristine condition. YMMV

 

The ES-125 used to be a great steal: I bought mine ten years ago for $500. Now, I see guitars in worse shape than mine going for $1200-2000. Way too much for a student model guitar, even if it is a great instrument.

 

That's what you have to keep in mind about many of the guitars on your list, Oringo: they were budget-model guitars to begin with. Even if they are good guitars, no one--including Gibson--thought these were meant to be long-term investments. Paying big bucks for any of them is simply giving in to the vintage market hysteria. There truly is more guitar in a new ES-335 than there is in a vintage ES-125, so why pay anything near the new price of a high-end guitar in order to buy a used low-end guitar? Of course, if you know what you need and know that the particular guitar will do it, then great; but how many vintage buyers actually know their stuff well enough? Until the vintage market settles down, I am almost always recommending to people that they buy new unless they have done their research very carefully.

 

Ignatius

[Notes_Norton]

I think the ES-330 should sell for as much as the LPs of the same era, but it doesn't, therefore I'd say it is one of the undervalued ones. Right now you can't get $2K on eBay for one, although a few months ago, they were selling for up to $5k.

 

And I think the 330 "Long Neck" is even more under-valued simply because it is closer to 1970.

 

If the 330 is NOT undervalued then I think Casinos made in the 'zoo are overvalued. Same guitar, but since the Beatles played Casinos, they fetch a higher price. Hero worship I suppose.

 

BTW, I have a 1979 330 and a 2001 Casino and they are both fine guitars. The 330 is made of better wood, has real abalone fret inlays, and a longer neck, but they sound relative close to each other, and both necks feel almost identical (The Casino is a tad wider at the nut, probably due to English vs. Metric measurements).

 

My apologies for my contribution of the political-ness of the post you mentioned. BTW, I did stop my participation in that part of the thread and invited my debate-mate to take it off the board. I should have done that sooner, but (1) I didn't realize it was going to get so political and (2) I guess I got a little carried away.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Oringo]

Hey guys,

thanks for getting in on this post. I was hoping to get away from the slightly gloomy aspect of the the other thread and get on a "wish-list" "wouldn't that be great" kind of vibe, but I realize it's going more towards the "aw, the markets over-priced" "those aren't worth what they're asking" side and I apologize! I guess it's a sign of the times.

 

Then again, if we're on this vintage post, I guess it's because we each have our reasons for owning or appreciating something special about older Gibsons. I don't think any of you guys I've read are pure "investors," just waiting for your '59 Standard to be worth 10% more before selling. So, I guess if we own or are just interested in vintage Gibsons, the rareness/mojo/nostalgia/value factors are all involved. So the sticky question becomes how much more does one pay for those factors? Maybe beyond questions of the economy, the reason things aren't selling on Ebay is that prices have just got out of hand and it's time for a correction.

 

Personally, up until now I've always paid less for an old Gibson than a new re-issue would have cost me, but I haven't been buying pristine collection quality guitars. I'm still convinced that good playing bitzas and promising projects can be found at reasonable prices, but one does have to look carefully and know what you're looking for.

[mrktwn]

Hey guys' date='

thanks for getting in on this post. I was hoping to get away from the slightly gloomy aspect of the the other thread and get on a "wish-list" "wouldn't that be great" kind of vibe, but I realize it's going more towards the "aw, the markets over-priced" "those aren't worth what they're asking" side and I apologize! I guess it's a sign of the times.

 

Then again, if we're on this vintage post, I guess it's because we each have our reasons for owning or appreciating something special about older Gibsons. I don't think any of you guys I've read are pure "investors," just waiting for your '59 Standard to be worth 10% more before selling. So, I guess if we own or are just interested in vintage Gibsons, the rareness/mojo/nostalgia/value factors are all involved. So the sticky question becomes how much more does one pay for those factors? Maybe beyond questions of the economy, the reason things aren't selling on Ebay is that prices have just got out of hand and it's time for a correction.

 

Personally, up until now I've always paid less for an old Gibson than a new re-issue would have cost me, but I haven't been buying pristine collection quality guitars. I'm still convinced that good playing bitzas and promising projects can be found at reasonable prices, but one does have to look carefully and know what you're looking for.

[/quote']These are all really good observations, I think the overall question is what is or what determines value? Like everybody else I think old Gibsons are cool as hell. The prices that they demand now are more a reflection of there perceived collectibility than their functionality. So it would seem to me that any debate about how these guitars sound is moot.

[mrktwn]

..And another thing! What exactly is Vintage?? My '89 Explorer?? I dont think so, but its kind of looking like at some point it will be, wich to me seems ridiculous.

[Ignatius]

..And another thing! What exactly is Vintage?? My '89 Explorer?? I dont think so' date=' but its kind of looking like at some point it will be, wich to me seems ridiculous.[/quote']

Hey mrktwn--

 

Of course it will be vintage some day! In my mind, there's no question about this because vintage is simply a measure of distance in time. My gut instinct is that the vintage label appears to circulate around the area of 25-35 years after a particular guitar was manufactured; somewhere in that range, a guitar becomes vintage. For instance, I have a cheapo Electra guitar that I bought new in 1984 or so. I think that technically, it could be called a vintage guitar starting in the coming five or ten years, but it is still not going to become valuable unless some bigshot artist is seen playing the same guitar or begins to record hits with it regularly.

 

All instruments, just like all cars, eventually become vintage items if they survive the passing of time. The only question is whether they are valuable as vintage pieces. (Furniture and textiles become "antiques," but instruments and cars become "vintage items"--why the modern English language has two different group names for "old objects" is rather interesting in and of itself, but that's another issue.)

 

I have an odd theory about this: I think that with the passing of time, we will see that the standard instruments of today begin to outshine the re-issues in terms of value. Let's be honest: the re-issues are just very well-done clones made by Gibson or Fender, rather than by some other competitor. The standard models, with all their idiosyncratic changes over the years, are the real "bloodline" of the various guitar model lines. Historically, standard models tend to hold value better than the fancy-pants models that flash in and out of favor. I am willing to bet that VOS finishes, Fender relic jobs, and so on, all will eventually fade in value because what the vintage market really wants are the authentic examples of players' models made during a given period. How can a re-issue of a 1959 Les Paul ever rise in value anywhere near to that of the actual vintage 1959 Lester? The whole point of the re-issue is to make the original available at a cheaper price: copies will never be of equal value to the original. In contrast, however, we do see that players are now beginning to see late-'60s and early '70s standard instruments in terms of "vintage value," and their prices are beginning to move accordingly.

 

Won't it be ironic if some day, the Norlin-era Gibsons and the CBS-era Fenders are valued in the upper end of the collectors' market? I'm willing to bet they will move there as the last of the '50s and early-'60s eras instruments move out of the market entirely (and into hermetically-sealed vaults). The disappearance of the earliest ES-335s, Lesters, and Telecasters is part of why the other, more lowly models of those eras are now rising in value (Melody Makers, ES-125s, etc.). People want the old mojo and will pay for it wherever they can find it.

 

You can't find it in your Explorer because you bought it new, but the budding guitarist who was born today will see that Explorer in 2028, and to him or her, that '89 Explorer will be a 39-year-old example of genuine Gibson authenticity.

 

Ignatius

[rscott4079]

The ES-125 used to be a great steal: I bought mine ten years ago for $500. Now, I see guitars in worse shape than mine going for $1200-2000. Way too much for a student model guitar, even if it is a great instrument.

 

Hmmm....ten years ago I bought a house on San Francisco Bay for $67k. As my personal favorite vintage guitar, I have to chime it on this one. THe ES-125 is my vote for most undervalued vintage Gibson. The ES-125s are still easy to find, and if you're lucky, you can still get them on Ebay for under a grand in good shape.

 

Despite the fact that the ES-125 was orginally intended 60 years ago as a student model guitar, like many guitars and amps, its original purpose isn't all that it's good for. (Hey, I never see anyone playing jazz on a Jazzmaster, but I know lot's of guitarists who play through a Bassman)

 

The ES-125 is lightweight, durable and good looking. The thick body of the 40's and 50's models make it very easy to get used to if you play a lot of acoustic guitar. The action on these guys is consistently great and they're very easy to play. And of course most importantly, they sound wonderful. I have mine strung up with jazz 12s - played acoustically I think it sounds very much like a Selmer. And amplified it's warm and lush and thick.

 

And, unlike your new guitars, it's actually worth a little more now than when I bought it. That makes it a bargain if you ask me.

[Ignatius]

Hmmm....ten years ago I bought a house on San Francisco Bay for $67k. As my personal favorite vintage guitar' date=' I have to chime it on this one. THe ES-125 [i']is[/i] my vote for most undervalued vintage Gibson. The ES-125s are still easy to find, and if you're lucky, you can still get them on Ebay for under a grand in good shape.

 

Despite the fact that the ES-125 was orginally intended 60 years ago as a student model guitar, like many guitars and amps, its original purpose isn't all that it's good for. (Hey, I never see anyone playing jazz on a Jazzmaster, but I know lot's of guitarists who play through a Bassman)

 

The ES-125 is lightweight, durable and good looking. The thick body of the 40's and 50's models make it very easy to get used to if you play a lot of acoustic guitar. The action on these guys is consistently great and they're very easy to play. And of course most importantly, they sound wonderful. I have mine strung up with jazz 12s - played acoustically I think it sounds very much like a Selmer. And amplified it's warm and lush and thick.

 

And, unlike your new guitars, it's actually worth a little more now than when I bought it. That makes it a bargain if you ask me.

Hey rscott4079--

 

Again, I have to ask where you guys are finding these great deals. I haven't seen a full-depth ES-125 for under $1200 in at least two years. They are easy to find, but frankly, a lot of the $1200 models that I have seen have signs of hard use, and if you are a player who doesn't know what to look for, you can easily be stuck with a guitar that will be falling apart in a matter of months unless you know how to treat a hollow-body that is well over fifty years old.

 

I love the ES-125. I have an early '50s full-depth ES-125, and after almost a year now of dithering over whether to get an ES-335, I've decided to hold with the ES-125 as my only electric guitar. I have the money now for an ES-335, but I see that the 335 will not get me any better sounds for what I do, than what I am now getting from the 125. That being said, however, I would be absolutely naive to claim that the ES-125 is a guitar equal to the workmanship of a 335. It's not. Having played even the "lowly" satin-finish ES-335, I can see and feel that the 335 is a superior instrument, even the ones rolling out of Memphis today.

 

Now, I just looked at gbase.com and saw that the cheapest ES-125 there is going for either $1200 or $1350 (I am assuming that all those "call for price" options are horribly overpriced), and the upper end is over $2000. A brand new satin-finish ES-335 goes for $1999 at Guitar Center, and if you hit them with either a sale day or with one of their financing deals, you can knock as much as $200-300 off that price.

 

So, the question is: a beat-up ES-125 for $1200 (no warranty, most likely structural issues, and probably at least some weakening of the P-90 pickup over the years, plus the '50s neck--which I love, but many players don't), or a brand new ES-335 for $1700? If I'm making a recommendation to a new player or to someone who is not sure what they are looking for, but knows that he or she wants a hollow-body/semi-hollow? It's the ES-335, hands down, as it would be even more for the new ES-175. The story was completely different ten years ago when the ES-125 was $500 and the ES-335 was $1200. It was a $700 difference then and only a $500 difference now, but in terms of value at the time, it was the difference between much less than half the price of a 335, and now more than 2/3 the price of a 335.

 

The question was not whether the ES-125 is a great guitar; the question was whether it is over-valued, and when a vintage guitar marketed as a student model is approaching the cost of a new standard or professional model, then yes, I say the vintage instrument is overpriced.

 

And speaking of the housing market, if Notes Norton is right in his comments about ebay, I suspect we may be seeing a similar correction in an the vintage market: the prices were overinflated for years, and now they are coming back to earth.

 

Ignatius

[rscott4079]

Here's couple recently sold ES 125s - true enough, not pristine examples but certainly not beat to crap:

 

$999.00

 

$900.00

 

And if you're willing to deal with refin or repaired cracks there are even some in the $700-800 range:

 

$700.00

 

$869.00

 

But of course you're right, the pristine ones are in the $12-1300 range. Which is still a bargain for a vintage Gibson and a great guitar.

 

The vintage market may fall back some, but unlike the housing market there is still a very limited supply. The days of walking into your local shop and finding a 40 year old used Gibby hanging on the wall with the Corts and the Deans are over.

[Ignatius]

Here's couple recently sold ES 125s - true enough' date=' not pristine examples but certainly not beat to crap:

 

$999.00

 

$900.00

 

And if you're willing to deal with refin or repaired cracks there are even some in the $700-800 range.

 

The vintage market may fall back some, but unlike the housing market there is still a very limited supply. The days of walking into your local shop and finding a 40 year old used Gibby hanging on the wall with the Corts and the Deans are over.

Not bad, not bad. I'm impressed, and I stand corrected. The one that sold for $900 actually appears to be a good deal although the picture angle could suggest the back has some pretty severe wear and tear on it. And both of those guitars sold with just one bid. I think that suggests they already are victims of the contracting vintage market. (The one that sold for $999 sets off alarms for me, though: the headstock and the neck heel both have been repainted.)

 

In any case, this thread is reminding me that the markets are very different all over. Here in Chicago and Milwaukee (and likewise while I was in Boston), I run across ES-330s, ES-125s, and L5s and L7s in local shops and even in the Guitar Centers on a regular basis. I saw an ES-150 in a GC near by just last week. I tend to avoid ebay because I want to be able to see the instrument in hand first so all my pricing comes from looking at shops in the area or at gbase where the approval period is the norm.

 

Still, thanks for the links. It gives me more to ponder.

 

Ignatius

[Ignatius]

Hey again, rscott4079--

 

I think I responded to your post in between your edits because I didn't see the lower-priced ebay links. I have to thank you again; not only am I learning a lot about the market, but that $869 ES-125 just crushed any thought that I had of adding a bridge P-90 to my guitar. I truly don't care about the value hit because my guitar is not one of the pristine ones to begin with, but I don't like at all how that second bridge P-90 looks in those pictures! My guitar has a very nice vibe to it. I know now that I better not mess with it!

 

Thanks again! I had been seriously thinking about taking the guitar to a shop for pickup work as soon as this week. Now, I know that if I go with a second pickup, it needs to be a floating one and not one that involves cutting up the body or adding additional controls. The full-depth ES-125, like the early Telecasters, is beautiful in its very simplicity.

 

Ignatius

[rscott4079]

I apologize if I sounded overly passionate. I just like mine alot. In fact I'm going to go talk baby-talk to it right now....Daddy wubs his widdle Gibby-Wibby, yes he does.......

[Ignatius]

I apologize if I sounded overly passionate. I just like mine alot. In fact I'm going to go talk baby-talk to it right now....Daddy wubs his widdle Gibby-Wibby' date=' yes he does.......[/quote']

No, you didn't sound overly passionate. You sounded committed to a great instrument, and I respect that a LOT, especially when it isn't the latest over-hyped model that everyone is supposed to own.

 

It's hard not to be passionate about the ES-125. It's one of the reasons I don't want to see it turn into a high-end vintage piece that only collectors can own. They are such great guitars that I want them to remain available to players (vs. collectors) as they were in the old days. In fact, mine is the only reason that I returned to guitar after several years away. I opened the case one day, took the ES-125 out, re-strung it, strummed a few chords, and knew that I needed to start lessons so I could earn the right to play such a good guitar.

 

I have been promising to post pictures for months. I will try to do so now that summer is here in Chicagoland along with good natural light.

 

Ignatius

[mrktwn]

Hey mrktwn--

 

Of course it will be vintage some day! In my mind' date=' there's no question about this because vintage is simply a measure of distance in time. My gut instinct is that the vintage label appears to circulate around the area of 25-35 years after a particular guitar was manufactured; somewhere in that range, a guitar becomes vintage. For instance, I have a cheapo Electra guitar that I bought new in 1984 or so. I think that technically, it could be called a vintage guitar starting in the coming five or ten years, but it is still not going to become valuable unless some bigshot artist is seen playing the same guitar or begins to record hits with it regularly.

 

All instruments, just like all cars, eventually become vintage items if they survive the passing of time. The only question is whether they are valuable as vintage pieces. (Furniture and textiles become "antiques," but instruments and cars become "vintage items"--why the modern English language has two different group names for "old objects" is rather interesting in and of itself, but that's another issue.)

 

I have an odd theory about this: I think that with the passing of time, we will see that the standard instruments of today begin to outshine the re-issues in terms of value. Let's be honest: the re-issues are just very well-done clones made by Gibson or Fender, rather than by some other competitor. The standard models, with all their idiosyncratic changes over the years, are the real "bloodline" of the various guitar model lines. Historically, standard models tend to hold value better than the fancy-pants models that flash in and out of favor. I am willing to bet that VOS finishes, Fender relic jobs, and so on, all will eventually fade in value because what the vintage market really wants are the authentic examples of players' models made during a given period. How can a [b']re-issue[/b] of a 1959 Les Paul ever rise in value anywhere near to that of the actual vintage 1959 Lester? The whole point of the re-issue is to make the original available at a cheaper price: copies will never be of equal value to the original. In contrast, however, we do see that players are now beginning to see late-'60s and early '70s standard instruments in terms of "vintage value," and their prices are beginning to move accordingly.

 

Won't it be ironic if some day, the Norlin-era Gibsons and the CBS-era Fenders are valued in the upper end of the collectors' market? I'm willing to bet they will move there as the last of the '50s and early-'60s eras instruments move out of the market entirely (and into hermetically-sealed vaults). The disappearance of the earliest ES-335s, Lesters, and Telecasters is part of why the other, more lowly models of those eras are now rising in value (Melody Makers, ES-125s, etc.). People want the old mojo and will pay for it wherever they can find it.

 

You can't find it in your Explorer because you bought it new, but the budding guitarist who was born today will see that Explorer in 2028, and to him or her, that '89 Explorer will be a 39-year-old example of genuine Gibson authenticity.

 

Ignatius

Well no I didnt buy it new. I bought it 3 years ago from a friend. For what it was worth then, I geuss. 800 dollars. I keep it because it sounds awesome. But see heres my point, the way you talk about these guitars has nothing to do with these guitars functionality. As much as ES-125s are now, no way would I ever advise somebody to buy one to play. Ever. A new(er) 335 is a much better guitar in terms of sound and ability to play different styles of music on. Overall a beter "value" in my opinion.

[Ignatius]

Well no I didnt buy it new. I bought it 3 years ago from a friend. For what it was worth then' date=' I geuss. 800 dollars. I keep it because it sounds awesome. But see heres my point, the way you talk about these guitars has nothing to do with these guitars functionality. As much as ES-125s are now, no way would I ever advise somebody to buy one to play. Ever. A new(er) 335 is a much better guitar in terms of sound and ability to play different styles of music on. Overall a beter "value" in my opinion.[/quote']

Actually, that was my point, too: the vintage market is overpriced, and I specifically said that I recommend new (or as you added, newer) instruments unless someone already knows what they are looking for.

 

[in defense of my personal guitar, however, I have to add that yes, I do agree that in most respects, the ES-335 is a superior guitar. But if you say you would NEVER advise someone to buy an ES-125, then you clearly do not know what an ES-125 can do. For one thing, it is one of the most versatile sounding guitars that Gibson ever made. Second, as they already have demonstrated, they are built like tanks. How many other guitars have been abused by so many people and have survived forty, fifty, and sixty years? There are active ES-125s that can be bought for reasonable bucks that are more than ten years older than the first ES-335. Fourth, in my humble opinion, the ES-125 is the best-playing guitar that I have ever owned. It is my standard by which I measure whether another guitar plays well or easily. Lastly, the ES-125 has P-90s (one or two, depending on the model), and no humbucker will ever sound like a P-90. Ever. To tell you the truth, if I know that a player knows what he or she is doing as a guitarist, then the ES-125 might be one of the first guitars I would recommend to that person. I can tell you that many professional guitarists believe that the ES-125 is a mandatory guitar to own, right next to a LP, an ES-335, or a Telecaster.]

 

But you missed my larger point: the term vintage has nothing to do with functionality. It is merely an indication of age. All guitars eventually become vintage guitars. The question merely is whether they become valuable as vintage guitars, retain their value when they become vintage guitars, or lose their value when they become vintage guitars. So, yes, you are correct: when people say a guitar is vintage, they are saying nothing about its functionality--or even about its value.

 

Of course, on ebay, "vintage" is a way to make hysterical buyers think they are buying something great when they see a guitar for sale. But that is because uniformed buyers misunderstand what the term vintage means.

 

Ignatius

[Ignatius]

And I have to add that in case you missed it, rscott4079 and I were passionately discussing the precise point that the ES-125 is an amazingly functional instrument. These guitars (especially the oldest full-depth bodies) play blues, jazz, country, hard rock, folk, pop, R&B--you name it, and I've seen someone using an ES-125 to do it at some point. I'm currently using mine very effectively to learn classical technique because, as rscott4079 noted, they also sound good as acoustic guitars. Try playing for a group without an amp with an ES-335, and you'll have a big answer to one reason why the ES-125 is so versatile.

 

Ignatius

[Oringo]

I think you have all made some very wise and valuable points, and at the same time, everyone has let some of their "passion" slip through. Hey, I think that's why we're here, 'cause something about these instruments does light a fire somewhere inside us.

 

I think Notes-Norton has mentioned a few times that he doesn't want to gig anymore with his 330, it's too dangerous on stage for a Gibson with collectable value, so a thoroughly usable Epiphone does the job for him. I've got a good friend who's a top-flight studio guitarist in NY, and he sold his '68 Les Paul years ago because he never used it professionally (though we drooled over it 30 years ago when he first got it!), it simply wasn't functional for his needs, nor is apparently his pre-factory PRS which he admits he never uses anymore. For solid-body work he uses Tom Andersons, and for jazz an Epiphone Elitist L-5 copy (real carved tonewood, not laminated). He's had over 150 guitars over the years and since that's his bread-winner, he has to take other things into consideration than someone like me.

 

I am a professional musician, but I'm a classical violinist, not a guitarist, so my love affair for Firebirds has nothing to do with functionality. I love the feel, sound and look of these guitars, and I'm willing to pay up to a certain amount to be able to have one in my hands whenever I want. I will probably never buy a $15,000 perfect reverse body, even if I had the cash, both because that's a lot of money to spend on my hobby and especially because I don't think having a "perfect" one would give me more pleasure than the repaired/bitzas I've been accumulating for 1000-2000$ a pop.

 

As a violinist, though, I have to say their are a lot of similarities between the growing "vintage" electric guitar trade and the fiddle trade, only the fiddle trade's been going on for 400 years or so! Get this, there's a documented case of a violinist suing for fraud in 1684-seems like someone sold him a Ruggieri pretending it was an Amati, and at the time it would have been a bit like passing off an Epiphone for a Gibson. Of course today, both fiddles would be worth over $500,000!

 

I think what is healthier about the guitar world, is precisely that professionals, young or experienced, don't feel they have to have a '58 Les Paul to sound good, so that leaves the "vintage" market basically to collectors and amateurs, whereas violinists can't shake the fundamental belief that a first class new instrument will never sound as good as even a mediocre old one. With the sums involved, that's beginning to change, but violinists still get the shaft all too often!

 

Back to Gibsons...what about '70s-'80s solidbodies? I've tried a couple LS-6S' and 335S' and I find them pretty interesting, especially when they're going for less than a grand. The character's a little different from mahogany bodied Gibsons, but I didn't find them bad, just different. Anyone else out there have one/play on one for a while? (Tried a Sonex when it was new...didn't like it at all)

[Notes_Norton]

<...>

I think Notes-Norton has mentioned a few times that he doesn't want to gig anymore with his 330' date=' it's too dangerous on stage for a Gibson with collectable value, so a thoroughly usable Epiphone does the job for him. [/quote']

 

Yep, that's me, guilty as charged.

 

Especially since I double on sax, wind synth, flute, vocals, and guitar. Doing so much on stage looks good for the audience, is musically rewarding and fun for me, but is an accident waiting to happen. I would cry if I dropped my ES-330 but only frown if I dropped my Epiphone Casino.

 

Plus the Casino plugged in for all practical purposes sounds like the ES. The ES does sound better as an acoustic guitar, but unless I'm home practicing, I don't use it as an acoustic guitar so that doesn't matter.

 

<...>

I am a professional musician' date=' but I'm a classical violinist, not a guitarist, so my love affair for Firebirds has nothing to do with functionality<...>

As a violinist, though, I have to say their are a lot of similarities between the growing "vintage" electric guitar trade and the fiddle trade, only the fiddle trade's been going on for 400 years or so! Get this, there's a documented case of a violinist suing for fraud in 1684-seems like someone sold him a Ruggieri pretending it was an Amati, and at the time it would have been a bit like passing off an Epiphone for a Gibson. Of course today, both fiddles would be worth over $500,000! <...>[/quote']

 

I'm not a violinist, but I am a lover of "Classical" Music (mostly from Beethoven's Eroica to Prokofiev). I believe a lot of the difference between the violin trade and the classic "electric" guitar trade is (1) classical music has a more standardized definition of good tone - I know that a classical sax tone differs greatly from Stan Getz who sounds nothing like John Coltrane, who sounds nothing like Clarence Clemmons and so on and (2) since the violin is an acoustic instrument, the physical materials and dimensions of the violin influence the sound much more than those things do on an electric guitar. On the guitar I would guess the pickups would be the greatest influence on tone, and then the amp, pedals, strings, fingers and perhaps lastly the wood or body shape.

 

So my Casino with its similar body shape and similar pickups (worth about $425 used) and my ES-330 (worth about $4,500 used) on stage are essentially the same guitar

 

 

While my father's Strad-Style violin sounds nothing like the real thing from Cremona built by Antonio himself.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Ignatius]

I think what is healthier about the guitar world' date=' is precisely that professionals, young or experienced, don't feel they have to have a '58 Les Paul to sound good, so that leaves the "vintage" market basically to collectors and amateurs, whereas violinists can't shake the fundamental belief that a first class new instrument will never sound as good as even a mediocre old one. With the sums involved, that's beginning to change, but violinists still get the shaft all too often![/quote']

Hey Oringo--

 

While this might not be as true in the guitar world as it is in the violin world, I think it still is true to a large extent. The re-issue craze of the last twenty years suggests that many guitarists think the '58 LP or '58 ES-335 or the '52 Telecaster are the Holy Grails of tone and playability. Go visit the Telecaster discussion forum, and you'll see that the blackguard Tele is the only true Telecaster for many players. I see a lot of similar debates here: when we are debating whether a capacitor is exactly the same in a re-issue as it was in the original, I don't think we're all that far from the classical violin market discusssions.

 

And the irony of all this to me is that the amp and the player do far more for the electric guitar sound than almost else, including the guitar. People debate like crazy whether Jimmy Page was using an LP or a Telecaster on a given album when the answer is that it doesn't matter: if such different guitars sound so much alike in his hands, maybe the guitar isn't the source for his sound.

 

Ignatius

[Oringo]

Hey Notes,

About that ancient violin fraud case, I believe the price difference between the Amati and the Ruggieri was 12 Ducats vs. 4 Ducats in 1684, so maybe in 300 years your Casino and your ES330 will both be worth more than 500 grand each!

Don't want to get off the Gibson track too much, but actually, among violin aficonados, there is a huge difference in sound from one great violinist to another. Where violinists start sounding alike is when you go down to 2nd and 3rd tier artists, and I think that's kinda true in all styles of music and all instruments. The great ones can always be identified after a few notes, and the rest of us mere mortals can be kinda "generic."

As for the Strad style fiddle, if it's a serious copy, it would be like a '58 re-issue. If it's the more typical factory-type fiddle, it's as close to a Strad as a Harmony hollow body is to and L-5!

[Oringo]

Ignatius, looks like we posted at the same time!

I agree with you, there is a lot of mythology/bull out there and it's a shame when it makes a naive player poorer and an exploitative dealer richer.

 

Of course, there's a lot of psychology in how we feel about the instrument we're playing, but let's face it, it's really the ears of the player that will determine how he sounds. If he can imagine the sound he wants and can hear the difference between what he wants and what he's getting, he'll get that sound out of a shoe box. Okay, maybe not a shoe box, but you know what I mean.

 

Your point about amps is absolutely right, too, of course, and I'd say not so much what type, brand or model, but in how one uses them. I proved it to myself just recently when I was playing one of my guitars, a "bitza" that has aftermarket pickups. Playing back to back with a similar guitar with original vintage pickups, I felt it just didn't have the sparkle and clarity of the original pups. A few days later I was playing the guitar again, and I started to realize that the new pickups are just a lot hotter than the vintages so I re-adjusted the amp so it wouldn't start overloading as early, and lo and behold, sparkle and clarity in spades. The problem wasn't vintage vs. new, it was playing the new pups with the same amp settings as the old ones. Duh...

[Notes_Norton]

<...snip...>

And the irony of all this to me is that the amp and the player do far more for the electric guitar sound than almost else' date=' including the guitar. People debate like crazy whether Jimmy Page was using an LP or a Telecaster on a given album when the answer is that it doesn't matter: if such different guitars sound so much alike in his hands, maybe the guitar isn't the source for his sound.

 

Ignatius[/quote']

 

I've seen a video of Jimmy Page playing a Danelectro, and he still sounded like Jimmy Page.

 

Thinking out loud here.....

 

In the hands of a Joshua Bell, a Strad might be played to it's fullest potential. But he would be a great violinist on any quality violin.

 

Charlie Parker sounded like Charlie Parker even when he played a plastic Grafton sax.

 

I don't know if the average player is helped that much by a top-notch instrument, nor do I wonder if the top-notch player is hurt that much by an inferior instrument.

 

Hmmmmmmm......

 

Although we often like to think "this" or "that" instrument will make me a better player, perhaps some time in the woodshed would do us a lot more good

 

Notes