vintage vs newer models

[guitar_randy]

This is a waste of time.

 

The people that have been here a while know the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Who whoa,I never said any guitar I own is better than anyone elses,including yours.Please don't assume things about me or put words in my mouth.I never said I have a $500 special better than a vintage guitar.What I said was I don't think good wood is determined by a date.THere are both good wood guitars now and vintage ones.I don't see why you are getting so bent out of shape just because I don't readily fall for your bs.

And if you are going to start picking my sentences aprat and disecting regarding what you say I stated as facts,lets look at you.You said"I said that easily 75% of vintage Gibsons are better than any comparable Gibson made today.

I also said that 25% of today's Gibsons are really good to great guitars.

I stand by those numbers."

Do you work as a Gibson employee and personally see and test each guitar made today ,go out the door or where are you coming up with these stats of 25% of todays Gibson's are great guitars.And did you play every vintage guitar there ever was to make a statement that 75% of vintage guitars are better than todays Gibsons?

You see Lous,its very possible your knowledgeable with guitars and an intelligent person,but you are not correct on everything,you don't know everything.You didn't personally test every guitar Gibson makes years ago and today.So for you to say the things you do here,doesn't make you look 100% credible to me.

You like your vintage guitars.Not a thing wrong with that.But when your dissing me and making statements of what percentages are great,then and now,saying I don't know anything of guitars and so forth,well then Lous ,your not looking so intelligent.

I'm in the belief there are great and crappy made guitars in the 60's as well as today.I don't believe there ever was any magical wood in the 60's.I make no claims to be an expert on wood.I make no claims that my guitars are superior to yours or anyone elses.I do think mine are good.If yours are better,I really wouldn't know,nor am I concerned with that.My only point I was bringing up in this topic before you made it into more than that,is that wood can be great or poor in the 60's as well as today.If you or anyone else agrees with that or does not,its really ok,and I hold nothing against nobody for what they think.I'm not going to go in the lp forum so you and your friends can flame on me.In fact,this topic is pretty much ran its course and maybe we just should agree to disagree?

[Hall]

Randy,

 

Thanks for the reply on my question. You used a double negative in your last exchange with, Lous. But then Lous, you used 'that' instead of 'who' when referring to a person. A draw! And, I can't spell, nor can my spell check! Randy, Lous doesn't even talk to me anymore. But, if only Gibson hadn't destroyed the old posts. It suffices to say Lous1952 not only has the credentials, but knows his s_ _ t from top to bottom (pun d_mn well intended!). There, Lous. You temperamental old brat. You have been complimented by someone you tossed out way back for only once disagreeing with you! Don't come much better, eh? And, Randy. You have a real point, but defending today's Gibson production line desperation and materials use weakens your argument beyond retrieval. You should have bought a Gibson in the 60ies, if you wanted weight in your "discussion" with, Lous. It would have helped your point considerably.

 

You two guys are going to pace this one off for certain. What ever happened to the good old Gibson forum! So, you men do the walking and then turn and fire. Randy, no hard feelings I hope. Lous, I still say "thanks" for the assistance you provided me in a past purchase. How often should I change my strings?

 

Steve

[guitar_randy]

Randy' date='

 

Thanks for the reply on my question. You used a double negative in your last exchange with, Lous. But then Lous, you used 'that' instead of 'who' when referring to a person. A draw! And, I can't spell, nor can my spell check! Randy, Lous doesn't even talk to me anymore. But, if only Gibson hadn't destroyed the old posts. It suffices to say Lous1952 not only has the credentials, but knows his s_ _ t from top to bottom (pun d_mn well intended!). There, Lous. You temperamental old brat. You have been complimented by someone you tossed out way back for only once disagreeing with you! Don't come much better, eh? And, Randy. You have a real point, but defending today's Gibson production line desperation and materials use weakens your argument beyond retrieval. You should have bought a Gibson in the 60ies, if you wanted weight in your "discussion" with, Lous. It would have helped your point considerably.

 

You two guys are going to pace this one off for certain. What ever happened to the good old Gibson forum! So, you men do the walking and then turn and fire. Randy, no hard feelings I hope. Lous, I still say "thanks" for the assistance you provided me in a past purchase. How often should I change my strings?

 

Steve[/quote']

 

 

Thanks for your opinion.But no one is going to convince me that wood is better at a certain time period.I still am not buying into the mind set of that . If I am not coming through clear,I am not stating Lous doesn't know alot of info on sg's or older guitars,but for anyone to stereotype a certain time frame as producing superior guitars due to the wood being superior during that time,is just nuts.It does appear to me however,that he seems to have a need to be correct with everything he says,and when I do not agree with it,he then states I know nothing of guitars and attempts to belittle me.To state that only 25% of todays guitars being made to be great ones,is nothing more than a mans opinion and definately not an opinion of mine.

[NeoConMan]

Lous doesn't even talk to me anymore.

 

There' date=' Lous. You temperamental old brat.

 

You have been complimented by someone you tossed out way back for only once disagreeing with you!

 

Don't come much better, eh?

 

[b']So, you men do the walking and then turn and fire. [/b]

I'd pay money to see that.... :-)

 

Lou, boring at the "other site" eh?

So you come over here to spread more hate & discontent than one forum can hold?

So much for singing your praises and trying to broker a deal where these guys could get GOOD reliable info.....

 

I tried more than once to turn the other cheek, give you your due, and allow you the respect you deserve.

Anybody with extensive knowledge on ANYTHING is a valuable resource, but if sharing it comes with a price....

 

Take it from somebody who's provided alot of training over the years.

Those with curiosity and an open mind are not gonna hang around long when you start pissing all over them.

Who needs that sh!t?

It doesn't mean that much to them, not to be treated like a child by a childish adult. 99% will say "See ya!"

 

You know your stuff, I have no doubt.

You are sorely lacking in people skills, I think THIS forum as a whole would agree.

 

- and another forum I know of, Mr. Moderator-so-don't-fxck-with-me-or-you'll-be-sorry.

 

 

What sort of weapons will you require for your duel?

As a gun dealer, maybe I can offer some advice....

 

Love,

Neo

[lous1952]

I'm not the kind of guy to back down from anybody.

 

Randy can believe anything that he wants to believe.

 

He has his opinion, and he's not going to change it, no matter what I say.

 

What I'm writing next has nothing to do with Randy, it's about this forum in general.

 

My concern here is the amount of bad information that gets disseminated to guitarists that don't know better.

 

A lot of opinions get posted here as facts, and many young players take them as facts.

 

That's why I get annoyed and prickly about certain things.

 

Anyway, don't take my word for anything here.

 

I'm not the ultimate authority on all things Gibson, even if I have owned around 200 of them.

 

Neither is anyone else here.

 

Do some research, and find out what acknowledged experts in the field have to say.

 

Don't rely on what is being posted here.

 

My personality, or lack thereof, means nothing.

 

As to vintage guitars, do some research about them independent of anything written here.

 

Then go out and play some, in stores, from other players, any way that you can.

 

Then form your own opinions.

 

Do that with everything- use the forum for basic info, but make the effort to learn as much as possible from all the sources that you can find.

 

Neo-

 

I'm in law enforcement, have qualified on various firearms, and carry a firearm virtually all of the time.

 

My people skills, and my interaction with the public, are better than you think.

 

I have zero complaints against me as a law enforcement officer.

[NeoConMan]

I'm in law enforcement' date=' have qualified on various firearms, and carry a firearm virtually all of the time.[/quote']

I'm NOT in law enforcement, am proficient on MANY firearms, and I've carried a firearm all my adult life.

I've had a Concealed Carry Permit for 15 years, in two states.

Been thru several safety courses and two live shooting galleries. Better than some of the cops, I must say...

 

In New Jersey, it's you and the crooks. No middle ground where citizens can legally carry a handgun.

Got a gun, and you're not a cop? Handcuffs.

That makes it easy, eh?

 

I have zero complaints against me as a law enforcement officer.

That doesn't tell me anything.

I've TRIED to file complaints on a couple officers, physically impossible.

First, you have to have the official complaint form.

Where do you get that? From the cops - yeah, wait just a minute...............................................................

 

I had the town manager on the ropes in a Houston suburb, the police chief threw him under the bus to save his guys.

Two cops lost their jobs when I was done. No complaint was ever filed, so nothing ever happened? Hmmmm....

 

Does NOT make you an angel in the eyes of somebody who knows better.

I may not be an empty headed Keyboard Kommando after all...

Try again.

 

Look, somebody who can walk the walk is okay in my book.

You put your money where your mouth is, and you do not spread bad info.

I've NEVER seen a bullsh!t post from you concerning guitars, even your opinions are usually sound near as I can see.

***-hole is a matter of perception, I might be running a tight second place behind you - who cares?

 

I'll be the first to tell you, when I find somebody off on some goofy tangent and calling it the truth, I like to twist their tail a little. See how they react. Some people get into a hole and just keep on diggin'.....

 

I have a little fun with them and let 'em go - usually.....

:-)

 

Be cool, Lou.

[guitar_randy]

I'm not the kind of guy to back down from anybody.

 

Randy can believe anything that he wants to believe.

 

He has his opinion' date=' and he's not going to change it, no matter what I say.

 

What I'm writing next has nothing to do with Randy, it's about this forum in general.

 

My concern here is the amount of bad information that gets disseminated to guitarists that don't know better.

 

A lot of opinions get posted here as facts, and many young players take them as facts.

 

That's why I get annoyed and prickly about certain things.

 

Anyway, don't take my word for anything here.

 

I'm not the ultimate authority on all things Gibson, even if I have owned around 200 of them.

 

Neither is anyone else here.

 

Do some research, and find out what acknowledged experts in the field have to say.

 

Don't rely on what is being posted here.

 

My personality, or lack thereof, means nothing.

 

As to vintage guitars, do some research about them independent of anything written here.

 

Then go out and play some, in stores, from other players, any way that you can.

 

Then form your own opinions.

 

Do that with everything- use the forum for basic info, but make the effort to learn as much as possible from all the sources that you can find.

 

Neo-

 

I'm in law enforcement, have qualified on various firearms, and carry a firearm virtually all of the time.

 

My people skills, and my interaction with the public, are better than you think.

 

I have zero complaints against me as a law enforcement officer. [/quote']

 

 

 

 

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/i/news/b_doughnut_1127554.jpg

[guitar_randy]

.

[groovyjud00]

Today they use stronger materials, have more efficient methods of building

though I admit some vintages are built well .. thats why they have probably lasted

[charlie brown]

 

I agree. I'll put my '05 Standard up against my brother-in-law's '68 any day. I think the overall quality of today's vs. the '60s is probably about the same' date=' but your paying more to get that quality just like most anything these days.[/quote']

 

Ummmm, I think "overall" quality of Gibson's is MUCH higher, today, than back then. Much more

repeatable, too...with all the technological help, etc. The "wood" may (or may not) have been

"superior" back then...that's always the contention, anyway...but over all quality is much better,

more consistant, now..IMHO!

 

 

CB

[Gibson CS]

i didnt buy into the whole vintage thing until i bought a 28 year old guitar

now i understand

[NeoConMan]

This debate is no different than the "Epi is JUST AS GOOD as a Gibson" bullsh!t.

There are facts, irrefutable and plain to see, people simply ignore them and try to justify their purchases.

Real world experience and wisdom from those who know is usually disregarded by fools.

 

Fools come in all shapes and sizes, with fat or skinny wallets.

There are wealthy collectors who will pay stupid prices for anything they think they must have.

More dollars than sense....

 

I buy what I want when I have the cash - I never use credit for toys.

I look, shop, research, chat on forums, and talk to people I know.

Some people I respect their opinions more than others, but I gather info from EVERYBODY.

Some guitars I bought simply for the hell of it, because I liked them and the price was decent.

Some guitars I bought because I had dreamed and lusted for them forever. Found a good price and jumped on it.

Some guitars I bought because they are rare as hell, or almost impossible to buy at any price. Simply too few built.

 

I don't lose too much sleep finding out I could have save $20 on a $5,000 guitar somewhere else.

If I was SO WORRIED about saving money, I wouldn't be buying a fxcking guitar to start with - it would be in the bank.

 

I listen to the old farts, and don't always agree with them either.

But I ALWAYS try to remember that whatever I'm trying to figure out, they were there way back when - they LIVED it.

 

I listen to the young punks because they have the energy and passion to surf EVERY website and read everything on it.

They will find new stuff I missed, and can indeed offer great knowledge along with the places to find it.

 

Vintage or new?

Would you rather pay $60k for a 2007 ZO6 Corvette, or a 1967 427 Corvette roadster?

No wrong answer there....

Depends what I'm gonna do with it after I buy it.

Drive around, travel, use it for transportation - get the new one. Fantastic car, reliable and hauls *** in comfort.

Buy it because it's what I've ALWAYS wanted and lusted for, to cherish it forever - the '67. No question about it.

 

Oh, that was just an example.....

That '67 Vette is several times that price, even though it only cost $7,000 new.

Kinda like the guy who got his '59 LP Standard on sale for $200, eh?

[guitar_randy]

Or like old Harley Daivdsons,the old ones are worth money because they are old,not becasue they are superior in any way.They look cooler back then,but if you want a reliable bike that is faster, doesn't leak oil,break down or need an engine job every 3500 miles,you then better get yourself a new one.

[apillock]

apillock (good name' date=' it'll lose something in its Atlantic crossing I think) I've added a comment to your youtube video.

It's a"SG 100" series, or maybe a professional, they ran from '71-'72.

 

I had one years back, it was great set up for slide playing. They whole range puts the Ug in ugly though.[/quote'][/img]

 

 

Thanks for the comment but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There are far too many pretty guitars being made to adorn pretty boys and make them look glamorous.

My son's SG has a simple, uncluttered, functional, minimalistic, sleekness about it which, I'll admit, is not immediately apparent. It grows on you. . . . slowly.

The most obvious thing is the wood quality and that it doesn't feel like a lump of prettified plastic.

[hbomb76]

Wow...I FINALLY was allowed to re-register...maybe I stir up too much...it's been months since I've been on here..ANYWAY:

 

Lou basically said it, most of the vintage stuff (esp. the late '63 to even early '66 "transitional" SG's) is cool, and even the "low end" Juniors and Specials, as basic as they were, are fifty times the guitar quality of today's stuff. Good wood is the main thing, and AESTHETIC is another. Now, it'd be awesome if they took a prime example of an actual mid-60's model and scanned it into their big CNC machine so that the shape, contouring, etc would be as dramatic and sexy as those original ones. I've seen a LOT of '65 models lately which have divine near-symmetry from a front-view, and anyone who remembers my rants from the past decade knows that I really dislike the improper (or at least sterile and not as pleasing to the eye) beveling, lack of tapering of the horns on the Historic series SG's and of course the horrid color they try to pass off as "Cherry" and no Maestro option (which I think "completes the overall SG look) for the '61 Reissue. They could essentially take a more aesthetically pleasing example and use that as their blueprint for the early 60's reissues (I still affectionately call my 2001 (or 2003, I can't remember) '61 RI w/Vibrola my "64/65 Reissue"), and they need to quit skimping on the finishes. Use more color, make them bloody red, and for chrissakes what happened to those mirror-gloss finishes of the old days??? Nowadays the nitro's sinking into the woodgrain and all orange-peeled. Would it rip into profits that badly to toss in a better pore-sealer, a few more drops of dye and an extra coat or two of laquer???

 

I don't care that the electronics aren't "historically accurate" (and they're not), in fact that might be a good thing because the modern pots and switches are stout and they get the job done. Plus hopefully nobody's gonna' be all up in your guitar looking at your guts, so who cares? But they definitely should show a little more love in SG's (and other models for that matter) when it comes to keeping some of the attributes that make those classic ones so doggone desirable. Honestly, they could (for '61 RI's and Historics) take the typical '61 RI body (with its tapered horn tips) but apply the Historic Std's bevels and add the Historic neck for a vastly improved overall guitar cosmetically. Certain changes, like the different tune-o-matics and better modern tuners are fine, they are practical upgrades which we can live with. And that's fine if they want to do some non-classic models (although look how the Goddess, GT and other novelties kinda' tanked and were discontinued pretty fast), but at least make the "premium" offers (or premium PRICED at least) authentic. God knows they make enough off the "Faded" series of guitars they should be able to afford throwing some of us a bone.

 

I haven't bought a new Gibson since my Custom Shop one-off "64/65 Reissue" Historic model in 2003 or 2004 (which, yes, had to be CUSTOM ORDERED with a better color and slightly better contours...ugh), and in fact the only new guitars I've bought since have been a couple of the Maestro equipped Epi's and a clearanced "Vintage/Faded" Epi (one of the last made with neck binding). But if tomorrow they said "we're gonna' fix the '61 RI 's color, bevels and add a Maestro option" or "we've revamped the Historic SG Standard to better represent ACTUAL early-to-mid 60's models", even at a slight price increase, you bet your tuckuss I'd be increasing those credit limits and ordering a couple. Will it happen? Who knows.

 

But back to the "vintage" argument, I too have seen a few turkeys from every era. The worst tend to be some of the Norlin era Gibsons, but I've even played a few of them that although not as visually appealing are decent playing guitars. And one of my all time favorite '65 SG Standards that I believed body-wise represented the best of the best (although its cutaways aren't quite as deeply beveled it still is awesome) has its Maestro mounted slightly off-center. See?:

 

 

 

 

So it happens. BUT, having things like that happen every so often and offering overall inferior products are two different things. Like with all markets, if enough people made things like this a big deal and quit buying guitars till something was done, maybe there'd be some action. Till then, it's a crapshoot whether or not Gibson will start showing that artisan pride that's so often and loudly touted. I've been waiting for several years, and if they don't, so be it. Functionally, the modern era guitars are fine. Do they represent fine craftsmanship or aesthetics like their predecessors of the 60's? Not by a long shot. They're just hunks of wood with a name on them right now. I'd love to see that change, but all we can do is fuss about it until that happens.

 

Wow. I type almost as much as I talk. It's good to be back.

 

H-Bomb

[NeoConMan]

Glad you're here!