JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm a guitarings fan . Guitarings is a youtubesite/website were Kyle Gass and John Konesky of the band Tenacious D teach stuff about guitars and give tutorials on songs that they have written . I was watching a video at Norm's Rare Guitars and in it Norm states that alot of companys ( Martin and Gibson more than others I think) are going back to building guitars the way the used to because people have develped more interest and desire for vintage guitars . what are your views or thoughts on this matter ? . Do you agree or Disagree ? . I for one thing think that he is right I think vintage guitars cost alot of money for the average Joe and it helps to put reissue's and guitars similar to the ones of previous years (TV series for Gibson and GOlden Age series for Martin). I think it's really nice that you can have a guitar built to vintage specs (at least most of the original specs) . how about you guys ??? . Here is the video : JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 JC, I agree. What you won't get with a modern guitar built to vintage specs is aged wood. Only decades can do that. What you can get is a guitar built in the same way, with the same materials, that we know has produced great guitars over time. Although everyone has their opinion on this, I love the post-banner J-45s built between the end of the war up until the time they changed to the untapered headstock profile and the larger pickguard, say about 1954-'55. JT could probably confirm or deny it, but it seems to me that Gibson settled on a set of specifications and methods that produced consistently good guitars, if you like the J-45 style and sound. Good examples of J-45s of this vintage are not cheap, and few of them come without at least some problems that need to be corrected, whether it is neck sets, worn frets and boards, or braces that need re-gluing. You might spend $4000 for the guitar, and another $1000 on modest repairs for a guitar that was actually in pretty good shape. We will accept a reasonable amount of cosmetic flaws just based on 60 years of living. Fast forward to today. If you can buy a new guitar built to the same specs for half the price, it looks like a pretty good value, unless you just have to own a "real" vintage piece, which means a lot to some of us. But the new guitar may not sound like the vintage one for years. Personally, I would love to see Gibson build a "real" 1948-1950 J-45, with belly-up bridge, tapered headstock, the block logo, etc, rather than cobbling together a variety of mistmatched features from slightly different periods. I know the TV does that to some extent, but the banner on the headstock just ain't right. A banner guitar is a banner guitar, and it's close to sacrilege to recreate it in a slightly inauthentic way. I happen not to be a great fan of the Legend, because I like the late 40's round neck profile better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I've said this numerous times, but I'll chip it in again.... People are always looking for a vintage tone, much like the end of the rainbow or the lost chord, it doesn't exist: 1) Decades have aged these vintage samples that have survived and these samples too have aged, this much is true... 2) However, the classic songs recorded on these rare and lovely vintage samples are the reference point and those reference points are pointing to a guitar that was 'NEW' at the time. Bottom line is that you have no way of getting close to how that guitar sounded all those years ago, even on that very same guitar. so how do you get that vintage tone then? 3) Finally and most importantly, a vintage recording setup using vintage microphones and vintage post recording treatments are all part of the colouration of the records we all love from the past, the guitars and amps have little to do with it. If you really want to sound like you've jumped out a time machine, but yourself a decent guitar and/or amp and invest the rest in some very outdated recording technology, it will get you a lot closer than dropping several K's on a guitar that has some nice sales banter attached to it and a suitably exclusive price-tag. This applies to all fields of hobbies and interests: Car Enthusiast: I have the latest & Greatest limited edition engine with the new fuel management chip that calibrates the ride for maximum performance.... Alonso/Schumacher/Hamilton: Yes but any one of us could get a 2nd hand ford fiesta round the circuit quicker and cleaner than you ever could. Cycling enthusiast: I have the latest gear management system from <insert boutique bike builder here> that gives me more throughput, smoother management, and cuts the energy needed on a tough climb Lance Armstrong: Yes but I could win almost any cycling contest with a Raleigh BMX from the 80's Photography enthusiast: I just bought the latest lens from <insert boutique lens maker who charges by the nanosecond for acknowledging your very existence> it cost half the price of my house and I can depend on all my shots having that extra nudge of quality David Bailey: Yes but I could shoot a coffee table book with a disposable camera sold at any pharmacy and get a best seller, a cover or two for Vogue and maybe use some of the other shots for Cosmo Generally, the return to lighter bracing, more resonant instruments is a good thing overall, boutique builders will build lighter as they are dealing with small/single orders, for a 'mass' manufacturing there will always have to be considerations for the strength and integrity of the durability of the build. While all these factors are wrapped up in nice sales chat, it translates to little other than liking the instrument/or not. A J-45 legend hand-crafted by Ren himself will not sound like a 1942 J-45, because the comparisons we have are coloured recordings of a J-45 model from that period, so the remaining 'artefacts' (ie, the recordings) are not actually a true sound sample of how it would sounded. I'd argue a Std J-45 from today would be a better guitar than the old one, standardisation, higher amounts of precision support that, we'll have to wait 50-60 years to find out though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I really like old instruments. I do think that, on average, old guitars in good condition sound better than new guitars. But, they don't always sound better. To me, the appeal of an old guitar goes beyond its sound. Old and rare guitars are like all old and rare things: some folks value them simply for their rarity. I like having a 1931 argentine gray, gold sparkle L-2 not only because it is one of the finest guitars ever made (IMHO and to my ears and hands), but also because it's one of the rarest Gibsons ever. But, beyond value as a maker of music and collectibility, I value old instruments as repositories of cultural history. Consider my (minty) 1943 SJ, the guitar that started me on my journey to write my nearly completed book about Banner Gibsons. I took it with me to Kalamazoo, MI when I interviewed a dozen women who worked for Gibson during WWII. One woman was reluctant to speak with me because she had "nothing interesting" to tell me. Nonetheless, I prevailed upon her to let me visit her in her home. Once there, I asked her what her job had been. It turned out that in 1943, she was the sole flattop guitar inspector at Gibson. "Well," I said, " I've got something in the car that you've seen before." I then ran out to my rented car, grabbed the guitar, and had her inspect it ... again, after the passage of six and a half decades. Here it is, the only Gibson that's been inspected in two different centuries: But, there aren't many affordable vintage guitars available. And, most do come with wear and maintenance issues that some prefer to avoid. Vintage spec guitars get you as close to possible to the sound of old guitars, have the appearance of old, cool, rare stuff, and serve as great reminders of points in time that some of us cherish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I really like old instruments. I do think that, on average, old guitars in good condition sound better than new guitars. But, they don't always sound better. To me, the appeal of an old guitar goes beyond its sound. Old and rare guitars are like all old and rare things: some folks value them simply for their rarity. I like having a 1931 argentine gray, gold sparkle L-2 not only because it is one of the finest guitars ever made (IMHO and to my ears and hands), but also because it's one of the rarest Gibsons ever. But, beyond value as a maker of music and collectibility, I value old instruments as repositories of cultural history. Consider my (minty) 1943 SJ, the guitar that started me on my journey to write my nearly completed book about Banner Gibsons. I took it with me to Kalamazoo, MI when I interviewed a dozen women who worked for Gibson during WWII. One woman was reluctant to speak with me because she had "nothing interesting" to tell me. Nonetheless, I prevailed upon her to let me visit her in her home. Once there, I asked her what her job had been. It turned out that in 1943, she was the sole flattop guitar inspector at Gibson. "Well," I said, " I've got something in the car that you've seen before." I then ran out to my rented car, grabbed the guitar, and had her inspect it ... again, after the passage of six and a half decades. Here it is, the only Gibson that's been inspected in two different centuries: But, there aren't many affordable vintage guitars available. And, most do come with wear and maintenance issues that some prefer to avoid. Vintage spec guitars get you as close to possible to the sound of old guitars, have the appearance of old, cool, rare stuff, and serve as great reminders of points in time that some of us cherish. Wow JT great guitar !. by the picture it looks indeed in mint condition . JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataylor Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 But, there aren't many affordable vintage guitars available. And, most do come with wear and maintenance issues that some prefer to avoid. Vintage spec guitars get you as close to possible to the sound of old guitars, have the appearance of old, cool, rare stuff, and serve as great reminders of points in time that some of us cherish. I think this sums it up nicely. For many, it's simply about getting a vintage aesthetic and a vintage-inspired tone in a new model. And honestly, for me, the simple appointments of vintage-spec models are just as important as any differences in tone there might be compared to a standard version -- I'm a sucker for the old style tuners, finishes, inlays, etc, and I'm glad I don't have to save half a lifetime for a vintage instrument to get them. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I think this sums it up nicely. For many, it's simply about getting a vintage aesthetic and a vintage-inspired tone in a new model. And honestly, for me, the simple appointments of vintage-spec models are just as important as any differences in tone there might be compared to a standard version -- I'm a sucker for the old style tuners, finishes, inlays, etc, and I'm glad I don't have to save half a lifetime for a vintage instrument to get them. :) +1 on that ataylor :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Hang on PM, but the vintage tone is simply the tone being played 'now' using an old guitar, thats how i would describe a 'vintage' tone. Its true that Keefs Bird which he only had for a few years when he recorded Angie was not a vintage tone, and arguably one should be able to recreate the same tone if you build a new Bird on identical specs and play it for a few years. But to me the vintage tone is the woody, creaky tone that 40 - 60 year old wood exhibits. I clearly hear this in my 69' Bird, its something that will never be recreated except through age. I think this is the appeal, at least to me of 'vintage' tone, the blend of time that went into it and how it sounds 'now. I've said this numerous times, but I'll chip it in again.... People are always looking for a vintage tone, much like the end of the rainbow or the lost chord, it doesn't exist: 1) Decades have aged these vintage samples that have survived and these samples too have aged, this much is true... 2) However, the classic songs recorded on these rare and lovely vintage samples are the reference point and those reference points are pointing to a guitar that was 'NEW' at the time. Bottom line is that you have no way of getting close to how that guitar sounded all those years ago, even on that very same guitar. so how do you get that vintage tone then? 3) Finally and most importantly, a vintage recording setup using vintage microphones and vintage post recording treatments are all part of the colouration of the records we all love from the past, the guitars and amps have little to do with it. If you really want to sound like you've jumped out a time machine, but yourself a decent guitar and/or amp and invest the rest in some very outdated recording technology, it will get you a lot closer than dropping several K's on a guitar that has some nice sales banter attached to it and a suitably exclusive price-tag. This applies to all fields of hobbies and interests: Car Enthusiast: I have the latest & Greatest limited edition engine with the new fuel management chip that calibrates the ride for maximum performance.... Alonso/Schumacher/Hamilton: Yes but any one of us could get a 2nd hand ford fiesta round the circuit quicker and cleaner than you ever could. Cycling enthusiast: I have the latest gear management system from <insert boutique bike builder here> that gives me more throughput, smoother management, and cuts the energy needed on a tough climb Lance Armstrong: Yes but I could win almost any cycling contest with a Raleigh BMX from the 80's Photography enthusiast: I just bought the latest lens from <insert boutique lens maker who charges by the nanosecond for acknowledging your very existence> it cost half the price of my house and I can depend on all my shots having that extra nudge of quality David Bailey: Yes but I could shoot a coffee table book with a disposable camera sold at any pharmacy and get a best seller, a cover or two for Vogue and maybe use some of the other shots for Cosmo Generally, the return to lighter bracing, more resonant instruments is a good thing overall, boutique builders will build lighter as they are dealing with small/single orders, for a 'mass' manufacturing there will always have to be considerations for the strength and integrity of the durability of the build. While all these factors are wrapped up in nice sales chat, it translates to little other than liking the instrument/or not. A J-45 legend hand-crafted by Ren himself will not sound like a 1942 J-45, because the comparisons we have are coloured recordings of a J-45 model from that period, so the remaining 'artefacts' (ie, the recordings) are not actually a true sound sample of how it would sounded. I'd argue a Std J-45 from today would be a better guitar than the old one, standardisation, higher amounts of precision support that, we'll have to wait 50-60 years to find out though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Couldn't agree more, most of these are sold on aesthetic value... the nod to the past in the styling is the meat & veg of the deal here... Countless sound tests on forums up & down the years display those with even 'sensitive' ears get calling a 'tone' totally wrong time & time again then blame the recording scenarios for their errors in identifying it. The longer I participate on guitar forums the more and more I'm convinced the equation is as simple as: looks the part (..and sounds good too) = Sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 looks the part (..and sounds good too) = Sold. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I would think they should be built no different anyways.... But I hope they are not trying to cash in with the idea these New Guitars are as Good as Vintage... if that would be the case... I would rather buy Vintage.. I like the way some of the New Gibsons are done.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I read an interesting article in the newspaper today. At an international violin competition, 21 musicians were asked to conduct a 'blind-test' on 6 violins. 3 of which were modern instruments and 3 of which were old master builds ( 2 Stradivaris and 1 Guarneri ). Most of the players preferred the modern instruments, with one Stradivaris comming last ! Quote " They're excellent (they were up against very good modern violins) but they're not magic, and it seems likely their reputation rests on a looped set of associations. A great violinist must be able to recognize a greatness that might be inaudible to lesser ears. So the supreme qualities of these instruments are likely to be talked up" (my italics) It was mentioned that players themselves were maybe not in the best position to judge the projection of an instrument... but basically the article was stating that it is all a "fable/cherished myth" (that older equals better). Personally, I'm not sure. i suppose a great instrument is a great instrument. My experience, all be it modest, with comparing True Vintage models to non TV proved a very substantial difference in tone and character, the TV being superior to my ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I agree but you pay through the nose for it. Those Gibson Legend Series and Martin Golden Era or whatever guitars ain't cheap. Mere mortals we will have to be happy with guitars that are "representations" of the oldies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I just want to say that I really dig that bald guy in the shorts with the white socks and flip flops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I just want to say that I really dig that bald guy in the shorts with the white socks and flip flops. Doug , that would be Kyle lol he is actually an awesome acoustic guitar player !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 2) However, the classic songs recorded on these rare and lovely vintage samples are the reference point and those reference points are pointing to a guitar that was 'NEW' at the time. Bottom line is that you have no way of getting close to how that guitar sounded all those years ago, even on that very same guitar. so how do you get that vintage tone then? Huh? No one I know is interested in recording with vintage guitars. They are nearly impossible to record well anyway -- if a popular sounding recording is what you want, or even an old sounding recording, lesser guitars are generally better. After that, it is all DSP. The only reason I know that people buy vintage is how they perform acoustically. There is some argument about why the old guitars perform so well acoustically, but there are very few informed claims that they so not. This is not a subtle effect. Of course, becoming informed can be challenging -- there are not a lot of them out there. If your music generally involves sound reinforcement or recording, don't waste your money on vintage. Certainly, if you can't hear the difference, then also don't buy vintage either. Has long as my friend John Thomas is putting up pictures, I guess I will too. As primarily a bluegrass player, I have discovered that the Js form the mid 30's are in a class by themselves. '35 Roy Smeck Radio Grande, '36 Roy Smeck Stage Deluxe, '35 Jumbo, '36 Advanced Jumbo, '36 J-35 Trojan. Let's pick, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubstar Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 "No one I know is interested in recording with vintage guitars. They are nearly impossible to record well anyway -- if a popular sounding recording is what you want, or even an old sounding recording, lesser guitars are generally better. After that, it is all DSP." ryan adams latest record recorded by glynn johns was recorded completely in the analog medium using vintage acoustics...in fact, I don'r think ryan even has any "new" guitars both neal casal (ryan adams and the cardinals, chris robinson brotherhood) and jon graboff (ryan adams and the cardinals) own and record with some excellent sounding vintage gibsons and martins david rawlings and gillian welch record with vintage instruments, including rawling's epiphone archtop I am fairly certain jeff tweedy and nels cline of wilco record with vintage acoustics, as do johnny marr, neil young, and many others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Firstly, those are some beautiful guitars, congrats. Your statements reaffirm so much for me regarding the vintage guitar market above the 'first tier' of vintage instruments. I find it easy enough to accept that a wonderfully aged instrument can also have a wonderfully aged sound acoustically that can be very unique, however I do find it hard to believe that in a bangin' bluegrass session there are people who can hear a 42 from a 43 or a 46 from 47 and so on. Sure we can wax lyrical about it but that fractional percentage of difference between a few models that can shine in a solo acoustic performance is lost in a band setting with other instruments often overlapping the sonic space for the guitar. There have been countless sound tests posted down the years on forums, the most common result is the majority (often including the ones with 'special' ears) can't pick one from the other, then will justify being wrong with a snippet about recording conditions or that the builder had obtained that 'tone' well or similar, the point being a blind-test fooled most, almost all of the time. I love vintage guitars myself but I do question how special they can be if they wont record well as you stated, or have to be heard in very specific conditions to have any perceived audible difference, isn't that getting massively into diminishing returns territory? I could never imagine saying 'I have this wonderful unique acoustic, a true gem .....you should hear it, but only one thing, it can't be recorded'. Like the Stradivarius, mentioned above, it has an air of elitism, which is fine... I'd quite happily take a room full of these sweet gems too, but I'd still need a few usable guitars. Huh? No one I know is interested in recording with vintage guitars. They are nearly impossible to record well anyway... ...If your music generally involves sound reinforcement or recording, don't waste your money on vintage. Certainly, if you can't hear the difference, then also don't buy vintage either. Let's pick, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roughdiamond Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 No one I know is interested in recording with vintage guitars. They are nearly impossible to record well anyway -- if a popular sounding recording is what you want, or even an old sounding recording, lesser guitars are generally better. After that, it is all DSP. I tend to think that they can be recorded rather well - with analogue outboard it can well sit into the modern medium If your music generally involves sound reinforcement or recording, don't waste your money on vintage. Certainly, if you can't hear the difference, then also don't buy vintage either. Player/ Artist choice I should believe A popular example in the 'Americana' genre using vintage acoustic guitars in recording and live show concert would be Gillian Welch and Dave Rawlings. Not so sure in the bluegrass field, but I would hedge my bets that the likes of Peter Rowan, Norman Blake and Tony Rice would've also exploited their vintage acoustic's in similar fashion as well. P.S.That's a grande picture indeedy -aesthetically very pleasing to the eye and beholding. Thnx for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There are two sides to the vintage angle for me - I love to play an old guitar so I think I play differently and then possibly I could perhaps play better on a recording. But in a jam, or other situations, it might be better to take the less irreplaceable guitar! It is good that you could pick up for a gig tonight say, a new Gibson J45 with pickup, anywhere on the planet! BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I find it easy enough to accept that a wonderfully aged instrument can also have a wonderfully aged sound acoustically that can be very unique, however I do find it hard to believe that in a bangin' bluegrass session there are people who can hear a 42 from a 43 or a 46 from 47 and so on. Sure we can wax lyrical about it but that fractional percentage of difference between a few models that can shine in a solo acoustic performance is lost in a band setting with other instruments often overlapping the sonic space for the guitar. Well, if you are talking about D-28s -- which would be the norm in a bluegrass session -- between 43 and late 44 there was a major spec change that is usually audible (scalloped bracing). 46 was also at the end of a transition period in terms of the type of spruce being used for the tops -- those changes may and may not be audible. But old instruments are indeed inconsistent, often (mostly I would say) because of inconsistent care and feeding over their lives. It was a long century. As it turns out, I was holding forth recently on the rhythm role of vintage cannons recently. Here is a link. However, it is the second point that I would like to address. Of course, the guitar as a lead instrument in an acoustic playing or jamming situation is at the mercy of the other musicians -- they can be blown away by fiddles, banjos, and mandolins. However, it turns out that old vintage, particularly RW, guitars are much more audible than other guitars. This is really the property that drew me to them 35 years ago -- I spent my "real career" as an acoustics researcher in an institute of technology. This also speaks to why the full effect of vintage sound can't come out on a (band) recording. To understand, you need to know two things. First, the human ear is an amazing sound receiver, which can detect and interpret tones which differ in intensity by 13 orders of magnitude -- that is an astronomical number. The other thing to understand is that the ear has a masking effect -- critical band masking -- in which two tones (music is composed of tones) that are close in frequency mask each other, but if they are far apart in frequency, the masking goes away. This means that tones of the proper type and place can be heard, even though they are far less intense than other tones. This is the effect that sound data compression techniques like MP3 use to hide coding distortion and reduce the bit rate. The second thing to understand is the "clarity" effect in old instruments is measurable in the acoustic signal as the higher Q of the individual resonances of the guitar. A bell that rings a long time has a high Q -- a garbage can lid has a really low Q. Because of the masking effect, any sound field (like the other instruments in an acoustic band)has an associated "threshold of audibility" which a tone (harmonic) must exceed to be heard. Thus, the higher Q tones are more audible -- they cut. Now it did not take science to figure this all out -- it was common knowledge among serious BG musicians very early -- many of whom may not have finished high school. This was why old RW guitars were so popular so early. As to recording, the problem is that the ear is a much better audio receiver that any modern microphone -- there is no way any microphone can maintain 13 orders of magnitude across the whole frequency spectrum. These are functional features of vintage instruments that only come into play in complex sound fields -- i.e. bands and jams. The 32 bit A/Ds do have the dynamic range, but neither the microphones nor the speakers can keep up -- mathematically equivalent to using bad lenses on good cameras and projectors. So the musicians can hear it, the acoustic listeners can hear it, but it is not captured electronically. I am in the mood to wax poetic right now because I just took this out to a jam session a couple of days ago. Here is a picture of the guitar with its previous owner. We've had this guitar for six years, and it has needed a neck set and setup all that time. The previous owner uses a STRANGE setup which seems fine for him , but for nobody else. Finally, I took the plunge. I have been at this jam session zillions of times -- so I know what it is like. I have also used a lot of guitars, so I know what they are like. It is kind of a test bed for me. Even expecting it, it still blew me away. Every note (good and bad) -- clean, clear, and audible. Such a jewel. I guess the last owner thought so too. Let's pick, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Tom, I really, really enjoy reading and hearing this stuff. A lot of people don't realize just how loud the "mountain music" of my forbears was (is). They didn't call it "shouting" for nothing. All you have to do is visit a real rural church in the Blue Ridge or Appalachians that has a real musical tradition, such as shape-note singing. Country people--either black or white-- didn't always have a lot of education or money, but they knew how to SING. JJ Niles and the Lomaxes did those of us who are interested in traditional music a great favor with regard to the music, and people like you and John Thomas do the same thing with their instruments. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Majestic thread – Thank you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Yes, fantastic thread thanks. That Martin could tempt us to the other channel too, TPBiii. Is that a 00-42? BluesKing7777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I Love both the Trojan and that martin :D . the Trojan is one of my dream guitars but I'm sure they never made lefties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.