EVOL! 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. It is a matter of preference and it depends on which is more important to you. I love the sound and feel of a played Gibson or Fender (h/t Fuzzy). About the only turn off are worn down frets. For the feel of tall, shiny frets you cannot beat a fresh from the factory Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 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 No derail and you're not being a d!ck. Yes, as it happens I have. Not many '50s Les Pauls, sadly, but quite a lot of '50s and '60s Gibsons (both solid and hollow-bodied) and Fenders. As Matt mentioned earlier; back when I was starting to buy guitars these instruments were merely 'second-hand' (the 'Vintage' market was yet to appear) and the guitar shops were full of the things. Being 'used' they were also cheaper than the new stuff. In fact I probably got to play pretty much everything except a '58-'60 'burst! (well, or a '58 Explorer; or a '58 'V'...) I've owned quite a few '50s and '60s Fenders and the '64 Strat I mentioned in an earlier post is the guitar which has spent the longest time in my posession; 24 years by the time I sold it. As far as I can tell over such a long timescale it sounded exactly the same when I sold it as when I bought it. Certainly there was no Liquid Gold (if I may borrow Evol's wonderfully evocative phrase) type evolution between 1980 when I bought it and 2004. It was a wonderful, wonderful guitar; but that was probably just because it was wonderful to start with. Other '60s Strats came and went as they were not as good as the '64 and, again as I mentioned earlier, the '59 Strat I had was a right dog. It always seems to be overlooked that when Clapton played on the 'Beano' his guitar was only 5 or 6 years old. Does that mean my '91; my '93; my two '95 Les Pauls will have better sounding wood than his '59/'60 did? Perhaps; but I don't think so. Lastly, please don't think I don't like Vintage - nothing could be further from the truth! I absolutely love vintage stuff. I just don't believe that 'vintage' always equates to 'better tone' where electric guitars are concerned. puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoRedFoot Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think collectors just artifically inflate the prices making certain guitars more unattainable. Marketing etc...you never know it's going to be a collector's piece until years later. So more recently, big guitar makers are making more limited edition models with high prices knowing collectors will buy them. Think about the Explorer when it first came out for example. Not big seller back then. But can you get one of the 1st issued ones without selling your house? No way. People even scoffed at the first Fender Broadcaster when it debuted. Can you get one nowadays? Hell no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbreslauer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 i wonder how collectible those old LPs would be now if those crazy British kids in the 60's didn't jump on 'em when they were (at that point) not too popular... just a thought. ;) if you have the $$ and want to stick a bunch of wood and wire in a glass case, have at it. it is a shame though: instruments should be played and heard, not stared at. my 2c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 No derail and you're not being a d!ck. Yes, as it happens I have. Not many '50s Les Pauls, sadly, but quite a lot of '50s and '60s Gibsons (both solid and hollow-bodied) and Fenders. As Matt mentioned earlier; back when I was starting to buy guitars these instruments were merely 'second-hand' (the 'Vintage' market was yet to appear) and the guitar shops were full of the things. Being 'used' they were also cheaper than the new stuff. In fact I probably got to play pretty much everything except a '58-'60 'burst! (well, or a '58 Explorer; or a '58 'V'...) I've owned quite a few '50s and '60s Fenders and the '64 Strat I mentioned in an earlier post is the guitar which has spent the longest time in my posession; 24 years by the time I sold it. As far as I can tell over such a long timescale it sounded exactly the same when I sold it as when I bought it. Certainly there was no Liquid Gold (if I may borrow Evol's wonderfully evocative phrase) type evolution between 1980 when I bought it and 2004. It was a wonderful, wonderful guitar; but that was probably just because it was wonderful to start with. Other '60s Strats came and went as they were not as good as the '64 and, again as I mentioned earlier, the '59 Strat I had was a right dog. It always seems to be overlooked that when Clapton played on the 'Beano' his guitar was only 5 or 6 years old. Does that mean my '91; my '93; my two '95 Les Pauls will have better sounding wood than his '59/'60 did? Perhaps; but I don't think so. Lastly, please don't think I don't like Vintage - nothing could be further from the truth! I absolutely love vintage stuff. I just don't believe that 'vintage' always equates to 'better tone' where electric guitars are concerned. puppy. Good points. I notice more of a difference in Gibsons, Les Pauls and Hollowbodies because there is more wood to resonate. I played a 65 Jazzmaster at a shop, and much preferred the new 62Reissue to it. Just because its vintage, doesn't mean its amazing. Just because it isn't vintage, doesn't mean it sucks. Luckily, on less popular guitars, like Jazzmasters, deals can still be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct 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. The people that invented the 'old-wood' concept didn't play these guitars when the paradigm was that 'new-wood' was better. Most were probably crapping mustard when guitar players were getting tired of the old ones being the measure. Let them do whatever it takes to justify their purchase. When a crusty guy like you or myself maybe plays it and deems it "eh", they'll see the error of their ((marketing says old wood) = great guitar) ways. Even Leo laughed at the idea that his old guitars were worth anything more to anyone but him and Forrest, George, Abby, Tad, few others. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Hopefully not to derail too much but here's a (very nearly ruined) snap I don't think I've posted here before which shows my '64's 'board after nearly 40 years (24 of them mine) playing wear... Yngwie Malmsteen? HAH! P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Cant we just all love Vintage and new guitars? If you put down either one than thats just foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc3c46 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I disagree with the collectors aspect. I buy guitars to play not put on display. I disagree a older guitar is better just because its older. I do not believe there is a magic process that makes the wood sound better. The wood has something to do with the tone as does all the material and the electrics have a huge part of the audio the guitar puts out. I believe the process to make guitars, and the materials are far superior today. I'll take a newer mfg guitar over its "Vintage" brother almost any day of the week. Side by side, apples to apples the newer one would sound the same, play the same, look newer and cost a portion of the cost. The vintage market is laughable and the old saying goes when you see that 1959 tarnished tailpiece for $390.00 bucks; a sucker born every minute. Or whats the other one about a fool and his money. Sure there is a huge market for those parts and guitars; even if I could afford it I would not waste money on a what the car collectors call a "Trailer Queen". +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Cant we just all love Vintage and new guitars? If you put down either one than thats just foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinh Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm not sure of the premise that collecting is removing great guitars from circulation. The modern collecting market has become obsessed with originality, hence the $1000 pickguards, $250 pots, $100 pickup surrounds and other nonsense that you see on ebay. The collecting market is removing "freak" instruments, e.g those that have survived fifty years in original condition. However, collectors, as opposed to players, seem to have little interest in the great vintage instruments that are refinished or have replacement parts. My mate has a '58 junior that was sanded down to the wood (including serial number and logo) in the 60's. All that was left was the wood and the P-90. It plays every bit as well as one with with the original pots, pickguard, hang-tags, case, solder joints, and other crap that has no effect whatsoever on the musical usefulness of an instrument. I welcome the collectors' obsession with originality - it leaves more great instruments that are not museum pieces for the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Owl Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Certain vintage Cars and trucks did their jobs back in the day, but should be taken off active duty and preserved with collectors who will take care of them so that future generations could see a real one instead of having to look it up on google. Same with guitars, protect the rare ones that would be more of a loss if damaged than if played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 i wonder how collectible those old LPs would be now if those crazy British kids in the 60's didn't jump on 'em when they were (at that point) not too popular... just a thought. ;) if you have the $$ and want to stick a bunch of wood and wire in a glass case, have at it. it is a shame though: instruments should be played and heard, not stared at. my 2c. les paul lp or vinyl lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Puppy really is an absolute guitar ****! He's been through the lot! :) I have a classical guitar that over the 14 years I've owned it has really become much warmer sounding this last couple of years. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Puppy really is an absolute guitar ****! He's been through the lot! :) I have a classical guitar that over the 14 years I've owned it has really become much warmer sounding this last couple of years. Matt LOL! I love you too! I have an acoustic that I bought new (I still can't play it to save my life) in Jan '80 and it, too, has become much warmer and mellower sounding as I grow, errmm, ever-more-hard-of-hearing.... Puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 LOL! I love you too! I have an acoustic that I bought new (I still can't play it to save my life) in Jan '80 and it, too, has become much warmer and mellower sounding as I grow, errmm, ever-more-hard-of-hearing.... Puppy. C'mon Pup! 60 is the new 40. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 C'mon Pup! 60 is the new 40. Matt Wrinkles on the forehead? You've been talking to Aeroplane again(?). Mutt. I mean Pup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Collectors have their place in a lot of markets. If some of the rarest guitars were not put aside for future generations that would kind of suck. I could not care less about owning vintage guitars, I am a hack and while I know what good tone is my playing is not to par. I do however enjoy the history behind them and appreciate that some collectors keep them in good shape/original condition and lend them to accomplished players on occasion. I whole heartedly disagree with the lawyer/dentist argument as an absolute reality, Slash has more then a few Bursts and he can play, same for Rick Nielsen, Rick Vito and Billy Gibbons, there are a ton of professional musicians that collect guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This_Dying_Soul Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 No derail and you're not being a d!ck. Yes, as it happens I have. Not many '50s Les Pauls, sadly, but quite a lot of '50s and '60s Gibsons (both solid and hollow-bodied) and Fenders. As Matt mentioned earlier; back when I was starting to buy guitars these instruments were merely 'second-hand' (the 'Vintage' market was yet to appear) and the guitar shops were full of the things. Being 'used' they were also cheaper than the new stuff. In fact I probably got to play pretty much everything except a '58-'60 'burst! (well, or a '58 Explorer; or a '58 'V'...) I've owned quite a few '50s and '60s Fenders and the '64 Strat I mentioned in an earlier post is the guitar which has spent the longest time in my posession; 24 years by the time I sold it. As far as I can tell over such a long timescale it sounded exactly the same when I sold it as when I bought it. Certainly there was no Liquid Gold (if I may borrow Evol's wonderfully evocative phrase) type evolution between 1980 when I bought it and 2004. It was a wonderful, wonderful guitar; but that was probably just because it was wonderful to start with. Other '60s Strats came and went as they were not as good as the '64 and, again as I mentioned earlier, the '59 Strat I had was a right dog. It always seems to be overlooked that when Clapton played on the 'Beano' his guitar was only 5 or 6 years old. Does that mean my '91; my '93; my two '95 Les Pauls will have better sounding wood than his '59/'60 did? Perhaps; but I don't think so. Lastly, please don't think I don't like Vintage - nothing could be further from the truth! I absolutely love vintage stuff. I just don't believe that 'vintage' always equates to 'better tone' where electric guitars are concerned. puppy. I just think the people who started hunting for the elusive '59 Les Paul were after it because they believed there was something different about that particular year in the quality of the guitars or the way they were made that made them stand out as having a more desireable tone... it very well could be and most likely was simply that Clapton had one of the better examples of a '59.... oh, and the fact that he was Eric Clapton. :) One local bluesman who spent years buying and selling vintage gear once told me that he found the instruments collectors were after, being obsessed with keeping them all original and in the best possible condition were not the ones to go after if you were looking for great tone. He said the ones that looked like they were played within an inch of their lives were usually the real gems for a player - his logic : if the guitar was an example of one of the better sounding/playing guitars, it was usually played heavily... the ones in exceptionally good condition for their age that collectors are paying huge dollars for because they are all original and in really good shape were usually the lemons that didn't get much play because they weren't that good anyway. So if you're looking for great vintage tone, the ones that are modded or show signs of heavy use and of less value to a collector - and therefore have a lower price tag - are the ones to go after. I have to agree with Fuzzy, that I think it's gotten out of hand when guitars that are considered to be of poor or questionable quality and originally intended as a beginner's guitar or a novelty like the original Silvertone or Harmony models are becoming expensive simply because their old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 ... it very well could be and most likely was simply that Clapton had one of the better examples of a '59.... oh, and the fact that he was Eric Clapton. :) Peter Green has been quoted as saying Clapton's 'Beano' LP was the best-playing-and-sounding Les Paul PG has ever played. In contrast PG said his own (now Legendary) LP was a real B!tch to play. Interestingly enough, Gary Moore echoed this last observation. One local bluesman who spent years buying and selling vintage gear once told me that he found the instruments collectors were after, being obsessed with keeping them all original and in the best possible condition were not the ones to go after if you were looking for great tone. He said the ones that looked like they were played within an inch of their lives were usually the real gems for a player - his logic : if the guitar was an example of one of the better sounding/playing guitars, it was usually played heavily... the ones in exceptionally good condition for their age that collectors are paying huge dollars for because they are all original and in really good shape were usually the lemons that didn't get much play because they weren't that good anyway. This does seem to be the case. In Yas' Iwanade's "Beauty of the 'Burst" one of the interviewed 'Burst Collectors, Ichiro Kato, says the following regarding some of his ; "...The ones that show lots of playing wear on the neck seem to sing better. 8 6728 is not so played on so I need to play it more. 8 6727 was a one-owner guitar before me but the owner was a player and played it regularly for a long time. It really sings." Pup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I have to agree with Fuzzy, that I think it's gotten out of hand when guitars that are considered to be of poor or questionable quality and originally intended as a beginner's guitar or a novelty like the original Silvertone or Harmony models are becoming expensive simply because their old. Those guitars have not become expensive simply because they are old, they have become expensive because people that were young back then and had one of those guitars are old now and have disposable income and want to re-capture memories of their youth. Another reason is simply collecting, fact: people collect sh!t, if you don't have the bucks to collect big ticket items you move to the items that you can afford. A lot of people like the "weird" factor and think that collecting sh!tty an unusual guitars sets them apart when in reality they are all part of the same hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 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. Hi Pippy. I think EVOL's point here was that the reissues are also damnably expensive (as your price comparison between the surely lovely R9 and the beautiful, but tailpiecefully challenged 125 indicated), and that it isn't just the Gibson and Fender reissues which are expensive, but also reissues of some originally pretty low-rent vintage instruments. I remember in the late '80s when vintage Strats were already up on what you paid for your 64, when LPs were already off the scale, and Guitarist magazine could still run a feature on vintage instruments like Nationals which essentially implied that they looked quirky, but sounded crap. The atmosphere was essentially such that a line was still drawn between collectible and good sounding oldies and amusing things that you wouldn't want to spend much money on, and which nobody in their right mind would want to reissue. Now original National electrics cost shed loads, and the reissues, while relatively cheap, are still pretty pricey for a fibreglass and plastic guitar with feedbacktastic pickups. All you need is one Jack White, and something nobody wanted other than for novelty value goes sky high, bringing in a range of cheap replicas which also cost more than they would do if they didn't look like that guitar played by the guy from the White Stripes. Sure Jack White sounds great on his, but as the trailer to It Might Get Loud demonstrated, Jack White sounds good on a plank of wood with one string and a pickup nailed to it. While it only takes one JW to make the Montgomery Airline pricey, the precondition for that effect is a whole market which rather fetishizes the old, in the hope that anything can become the next 1957 Strat. Which brings me to a question. Why is the all-new set-neck, scooped solid-wood Gibson Midtown cheaper than an MIA Tele or Strat? Rejoice Gibson lovers! Some things are not as overpriced as others... EDIT! I thought I wrote this quickly, but evidently a lot has gone past since I started it. Seems a bit defunct in light of intervening comments. Where did all the stuff about your playing loads of old guitars come from? Are you pasting PMs in now? Couldn't find the quoted post. In fact can't find anything in any order on this thread. Arrghghghgh. It's 40 degrees centigrade here. Can't think any more. Still the last question applies. The whole guitar market may be rather overpriced, as EVOL points out. But certain Gibsons seem like relative bargains in the light of other major companies' pricing policies. Love a Tele, and its bolt-on neck, and its poly finish, but how can it be more expensive than a gloss nitro, set-neck LP/335 clone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Hi Pippy. I think EVOL's point here was that the reissues are also damnably expensive (as your price comparison between the surely lovely R9 and the beautiful, but tailpiecefully challenged 125 indicated), and that it isn't just the Gibson and Fender reissues which are expensive, but also reissues of some originally pretty low-rent vintage instruments. In light of which I now understand better the original post and beg Evol's pardon for having misunderstood! Thanks, Mojorule. And although my R9, costing precisely £4.00 more than the advertised price for that ES-225T, was still not a cheap instrument - even to buy second-hand - I was just trying to show that some very lovely Gibsons from the Golden Era are still relatively affordable for us mere mortals. The numbers of R9's sold shows there are plenty of folks with enough in the bank to start a fine collection should the mood take them just so long as they steer clear of those models deemed to be 'Iconic' by the established collectors market. Incidentally; I've double checked with my books and the 'Trapeze' tailpiece was the original fitment on these instruments at this time. And I still think that two P-90-equipped baby is a thing of great beauty! P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 In light of which I now understand better the original post and beg Evol's pardon for having misunderstood! Thanks, Mojorule. And although my R9, costing precisely £4.00 more than the advertised price for that ES-225T, was still not a cheap instrument - even to buy second-hand - I was just trying to show that some very lovely Gibsons from the Golden Era are still relatively affordable for us mere mortals. The numbers of R9's sold shows there are plenty of folks with enough in the bank to start a fine collection should the mood take them just so long as they steer clear of those models deemed to be 'Iconic' by the established collectors market. Incidentally; I've double checked with my books and the 'Trapeze' tailpiece was the original fitment on these instruments at this time. And I still think that two P-90-equipped baby is a thing of great beauty! P. Hi Pippy. Yes indeed, your book is no doubt right, and the tailpiece was the original fitment. My comment was not to do with dodginess on the originality score, but rather to do with the fact that those single-unit trapeze tp/bridge were not much loved at the time. Intonation issues and so on. So the original, but not the best. Scotty Moore got rid of his from the famed 295. And they didn't grace the LP for long, either, did they? It's interesting that they kept with them on the poor old budget 125 for so long. Must have had a lot left in stock! I must say that I'd fancy a 1950s 125 over my 1990s Casino. Paul Pigat sounds great playing rockabilly on his. But then he has a Bigsby instead of the trap. I'd rather pay less for non-original, and take the trem... PS. On my computer, posts keep appearing on this thread retrospectively. I just found Fuzzy Fred's question asking for your experiences with vintage guitars. I swear it's not just the heat and my own sloppy reading. Page 2 of this thread was much shorter when I read it about 30 minutes ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Theirs tons of Vintage Gibsons under the 2k price and even more other brand vintage guitars under the 1k price. My 1959 ES 125t has a lot of character and tone, it proved to me that Vintage guitars are great and horrible. The smell of vintage guitars i can do with out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.