Lungimsam Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 For instance: You will never be the owner of a '57 Goldtop LP unless you have $100,000 to blow; are a celebrity or other VIP; or it is hot; or someone was nice enough to give it to you; or you found it, or it has a Fender neck bolted on it, etc. All this "collecting" drives these great axes out of the hands of so many people. I think collecting takes certain guitars off the market forever. Like the Goldtop LP. That is kinda sad when you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 One thing we have now that we didn't is hundreds of thousands of copies and clones. ANYONE can have a '57 Gold top, ranging from one built to be an exact copy of the BEST samples, to one built better than they ever were, to an affordable representation. I don't think ANY guitar should not be played, but in the case of some that have been deemed "magical", sometimes it is better to try and preserve and study it in order to learn to build better ones to bring the magic to more poeple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I voted no......because it's just the way it is...It's reality..........It's a shame, but, if I had the money, I'd collect these rare guitars myself....... I'd let them be used though, at times..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 No, some guitars are meant for rich people and some are not. Just like cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'd say absolutely not it's probably nice when they get played but the average 57 Goldtop was not a collectors item when it was made, hell they were not even popular for years. Those guitars were played hard for years and years and many of them were destroyed, damaged or even converted and worked on until they were not collectors. For the few surviving guitars well thats why there so valuable, very few of them survived the years when they were being played. I think it's kind of nice to know some of them will survive for a lot more years just because they are being protected and put in collectors vaults. out of the total number of 57 gold tops how many do you think would even still be in the world now, let alone 20 years from now if they were not valued and collected. Many of them still get played by there famous owners and even recorded which is great. Think about it like a Stradivarius violin there worth millions so they are protected and cared for like precious artifacts but there sometimes still allowed to be used sometimes for special events and concerts by the worlds most promising violinists so Ive had a few opportunities to hear them in concert. Sure that means that the average young violin player most likely will never own or even play a real stradivarius but how many of the delicate violins would still be in the world if they were worth only $500 or god forbid were sitting in some high school music rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This_Dying_Soul Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I voted no because initially the thing that made them collectable were players who discovered how amazing they sounded and started trying to get their hands on one; driving up the value because the instrument became high in demand and then eventually caught the attention of collectors. a '59 Les Paul would not be collectible if Clapton had not played one on the Beano album. When people discovered what guitar he used, they went out in search of them... not being many produced to start with people started offering more money to ensure they got the guitar over someone else because of how hard they were to find. I think considering the demand for '59 Les Paul models created by Clapton's use of the guitar, even if collectors hadn't gotten involved, the desire of the players to own one with the hopes of recreating those tones would have eventually driven up the price anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This_Dying_Soul Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 One thing we have now that we didn't is hundreds of thousands of copies and clones. ANYONE can have a '57 Gold top, ranging from one built to be an exact copy of the BEST samples, to one built better than they ever were, to an affordable representation. I don't think ANY guitar should not be played, but in the case of some that have been deemed "magical", sometimes it is better to try and preserve and study it in order to learn to build better ones to bring the magic to more poeple. One point that gets raised here also, even if it wasn't specifically stated... not every example of a guitar that is a potential collectable is going to be locked away and unplayed. There will always be people who put these guitars through heavy use. If a few of these examples get put into a vault the other side of things besides the eventual increase in value of the instruments in the best condition is that the best examples may get used as a template for manufacturers to learn how to make a desirable instrument and fine tune their ability to do it consistantly. I do buy guitars for their potential investment value, but those guitars will get some play even if I say that I don't want to play them too much. The really good ones are just too tempting to resist playing. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't think so. If you are interested in making music, it isn't necessary to have a real 1959 Les Paul / '48 Broadcaster / '54 Strat etc...etc... If you are interested in the guitar as a piece of history then, by default, you are thinking and feeling like a collector and, given sufficient funds, might just become one yourself! Personally I think the playability, tone and build quality of some of the newer Gibson and Fender instruments is possibly as good as - if not better than - ever before although I've never played a genuine '59. Incidentally; back in 1980 I was buying my first really good guitar. An old ('64) Fender Strat. It cost me £217 at the time. I was a student and had saved up my holiday-job pay to afford it. I was earning £50 per week...One of the members of staff - just a regular salesman, not a manager or anything - had, that very that morning, bought a '59 'burst. He paid £3,000 for it. I couldn't believe any instrument could be that expensive!...If only I knew then what I know now! I would only have had to save up all my income for 16 months..... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't think so. If you are interested in making music, it isn't necessary to have a real 1959 Les Paul / '48 Broadcaster / '54 Strat etc...etc... If you are interested in the guitar as a piece of history then, by default, you are thinking and feeling like a collector and, given sufficient funds, might just become one yourself! Personally I think the playability, tone and build quality of some of the newer Gibson and Fender instruments is possibly as good as - if not better than - ever before although I've never played a genuine '59. Incidentally; back in 1980 I was buying my first really good guitar. An old ('64) Fender Strat. It cost me £217 at the time. I was a student and had saved up my holiday-job pay to afford it. I was earning £50 per week...One of the members of staff - just a regular salesman, not a manager or anything - had, that very that morning, bought a '59 'burst. He paid £3,000 for it. I couldn't believe any instrument could be that expensive!...If only I knew then what I know now! I would only have had to save up all my income for 16 months..... P. Puppy I remember you said this at Rogers and spoke of the days 'vintage guitars' didn't have the romance about them and were just second hand guitars. Also Pippy, it isn't a coincidence is it, that once Gibson and Fender got wind that people were buying their older guitars (which equals less profit for them), being the excellent businessmen they were/are, adapted for the market and started producing more re issues etc. As well as making brilliant guitars I have always admired Gibson's business savvy and also adaptability. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Puppy I remember you saud this at Rogerd and spoke of the days 'vintage guitars' didn't have the romance about them and were just second hand guitars. Also Pippy, it isn't a coincidence is it, that once Gibson and Fender got wind that people were buying their older guitars (which equals less profit for them), being the excellent businessmen they were/are, adapted for the market and started producing more re issues etc. As well as making brilliant guitars I have always admired Gibson's business savvy and also adaptability. Matt Hi Matt...I like the name Puppy; if it's house-trained I think I might adopt it! LOL! Yes. My '64 was about 35% cheaper than a new Strat and the same price as any other s/h Strat. I also bought a Fiesta-red maple-necked '59 Strat a couple of years later for £300. It was a dog. I sold it after a month or so for the same money. The '59 Les Paul, on the other hand, already had a bit of the air of being a legend - hence the price - but any other old guitar was still just 'second-hand'. And Marketing Men have always been quick to spot a niche market! Gibson are at the forefront of replica instruments - and very fine instruments they are too. The Fender 'Road-worn' instruments give you 'instant Mojo' without having to Work At It! Even a company with little in the way of 'history' - PRS - can charge £7,999 ($12,652.14) for a "Custom 24" with a 'Private Stock' maple cap! Extraordinary! P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I just saw that! My predictive text did it on my iPhone! But I kind of like Puppy! FETCH!!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 As with most anything the rarity of the item and nostalgic significance will play a major role determining it's value. The reality is that there were not that many 57 gold tops made, so the chance that one of us commoners would own one were rare to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 ...it isn't a coincidence is it, that once Gibson and Fender got wind that people were buying their older guitars (which equals less profit for them), being the excellent businessmen they were/are, adapted for the market and started producing more re issues etc... Well, I don't agree with less profit for them, there just weren't enough of those guitars around to hurt anyones bottom line. The same guitars are bought and sold, because there just aren't that many. In other words, if Gibson was being hurt by the remaining 59 Les Pauls that were trading hands 25 years ago, they should have closed up shop. That woulda been what? Of less than 900 made, what? 2, 3 hunnert guitars maybe? Truth is I've had the glorious pleasure of playing bunches of those vintage Fedners and Gobsins in the heady pre-collector 70's. Truth is, they just weren't all that great. SOME were, just like today. I am always amused that it is assumed that the reason for the collectors price is that it was such a "great" guitar. It isn't, anymore than a "great" Cabbage Patch doll exists. It's just a collectors thing. Let them collect. Yer money can buy much better, much more consistent, much easier to replace guitars today, and has been that way for a very long time. I don't care what they do. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 it doesnt ruin it for me thats there guitar there right to do what they want with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Well, I don't agree with less profit for them, there just weren't enough of those guitars around to hurt anyones bottom line. RCT, I have read your post and think you're actually right! It isn't logical given the small numbers of stuff that it could 'hurt' them financially. I suppose they felt the pulse of the way things were going though, i.e 'second hand' was being transformed in the public's mind as vintage and they capitalised on this. It is interesting what yourself and Pippy say about your experiences with older gear and it not always being that great. RCT, what was fun was a few years back UK Gibson forums members - Roger, Pippy (Puppy LOL), Simon and me went to an auction in London and got to play the legendary 59 Les Paul! I would love to say it was ropey but it felt just lovely! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Another thing to bear in mind is that it will always be the 'Blue-Chip' models that are out of most peoples financial reach - just as it is with everything else; be it Vintage Rolls Royces; Rolex's or Rembrandts. The lesser models ARE still - relatively speaking - affordable. As a prime example; This absolute beauty, a 1957 ES-225 Thinline, is currently for sale from one of London's (and therefore expensive) dealers but it still costs less hereabouts than a s/h R9. If I didn't require my gonads anymore I'd get it today! As long as you want something other than the most collectible version of a Strat, Tele or Les Paul most of the rest is still attainable with a bit of determination. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You are all wrong as the day is long. I voted yes with the enthusiasm of a kid at xmas. These collectors have ruined the used market for guitars and pushed up the prices on *everything* to absurd prices. Forget that '57 Les Paul. You now find novelty guitars like Silvertones, Harmonys, and Airline guitars at $$$$. Give me a fμcking break! This isn't a painting! It is an instrument that is meant to be played and if it is used it should be priced accordingly. You want something collectible for your lawyer or dentist office? Buy a painting. That Andy Warhol original will cost you just as much and make you look a lot more genuine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 You are all wrong as the day is long. I voted yes with the enthusiasm of a kid at xmas. These collectors have ruined the used market for guitars and pushed up the prices on *everything* to absurd prices. Forget that '57 Les Paul. You now find novelty guitars like Silvertones, Harmonys, and Airline guitars at $$$$. Give me a fμcking break! This isn't a painting! It is an instrument that is meant to be played and if it is used it should be priced accordingly. You want something collectible for your lawyer or dentist office? Buy a painting. That Andy Warhol original will cost you just as much and make you look a lot more genuine. This. I mean, vintage Gibsons and Fenders I can understand. But Silvertone amps, Harmony guitars, etc. for well over a thousand bucks? You gotta be kidding me. I love them, and I found a really nice Harmony Rocket (yeah, like Dan Auerbach's) and it had some good wear and tear on it, but they wanted 3 grand! You have to be kidding me. That's ridiculous This is why I am all for relicing. Most of the time, people are ecstatic because they don't play that much, if at all, and will happily put that on their wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 ...Forget that '57 Les Paul.... Can I ask you for what reason/s, exactly, you think someone would want a 1957 Les Paul? Why do you think it would be better than a 2011 '57 re-issue? P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Can I ask you for what reason/s, exactly, you think someone would want a 1957 Les Paul? Why do you think it would be better than a 2011 '57 re-issue? P. Vintage wood resonates better. Call me a cork sniffer, tone snob, idiot, drinking the kool aid, whatever. Old wood sounds better, and vintage P90s (I know it doesn't apply here) but they sound better. I have played a few 1950s LPs, and some were awesome, some had terrible necks, and were either going to get completely overhauled, or were going to end up as a wall trophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Can I ask you for what reason/s, exactly, you think someone would want a 1957 Les Paul? Why do you think it would be better than a 2011 '57 re-issue? P. I mentioned the '57 because that is what everyone was fixated on. Why would they want it? Because of the supposed legendary status. If they are rare, like a white Gretsch Penguin, the price will reflect that. But when it starts artificially inflating the price of everything else (late sixties Mustangs, Melody Makers, Harmony Rockets, etc), then we have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 No you're all wrong. The 57 les paul is a myth. It never existed and was only a pigment of someones colorful imagination. That or I didn't get enough sleep and thought I was on the epi forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 And I could make the argument that a true '57 is better than the reissue with one point: The real '57 has been played and those years of singing sweet notes has aged the wood into tonal gold. You can't get that with a new instrument. The flip side is that the new instrument does not have - fret wear - rusted/corroded parts - worn finish on the back of the neck - broken or poorly working tuners - crackly pots Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 And I could make the argument that a true '57 is better than the reissue with one point: The real '57 has been played and those years of singing sweet notes has aged the wood into tonal gold. You can't get that with a new instrument. The flip side is that the new instrument does not have - fret wear - rusted/corroded parts - worn finish on the back of the neck - broken or poorly working tuners - crackly pots Take your pick. Ah well; we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Personally, as far as electric guitars are concerned, I don't for a split-second believe in the 'old-wood' concept. As far as I can judge it's just more Snake-Oil to fuel the Vintage Fire. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Ah well; we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Personally, as far as electric guitars are concerned, I don't for a split-second believe in the 'old-wood' concept. As far as I can judge it's just more Snake-Oil to fuel the Vintage Fire. P. I don't want to derail too much, and I'm not being a d!ck, but have you played a lot of vintage instruments? A lot of a guitar, to me, is about feel. They feel better, and especially on semi hollows, you can tell a huge difference, and because of that, I think they sound better. Just the opinion of some kid on the internet. If you don't like vintage, more power to you, More for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.