GuitarGuitar challenge - which is the real vintage guitar?

Fretwired

One of these is an original Fender Guitar 1962 model, the other is a Custom Shop Masterbuilt replica. Which is which?? I think there's one giveaway ..

xHymnal

I think the first is the vintage one? Has three way blade. Thought might have a bit too much red in the finish. Sounds better to my ears anyhow. 

ICBM

The first one is the original. It sounds miles better too.

IvisonGuitars

The first one is the original and is superior sounding to me. I wonder which is the better player though??

sinbaadi

Headstock on the second one is far brighter yellow, it looks "newer", the fretboard has much more yellow in it too.  I don't know what that means, mind, but I agree the first sounds nicer.

ESchap

First one sounds much more lively, bigger if you like.  Would be the one I'd take home based on "tone" ... hope it's the real one. 

It also has stained marker dots which I notice that the custom shop ones tend not to have.  It's not easy to replicate 50 years of rosewood oil staining and finger sauce convincingly ... I know, I've tried!

octatonic

Hymnal said:

I think the first is the vintage one? Has three way blade. Thought might have a bit too much red in the finish. Sounds better to my ears anyhow. 

I prefer the tone of the first one but I think the 3 way might be a red herring they put in there to trick people.

Certainly they put 3 ways in some of the custom shop guitars.

It is going to be really hard to say for sure- I'd need to take a look in person to know which is which.

Based on that video I preferred the first one but it would be easy to fake the video to make the vintage guitar sound worse- change the amp settings, screw the pickups down  etc.

Think of who it is- GuitarGuitar sell a lot of custom shop guitars and very few vintage guitars- I think they have a vested interest in making the custom shop guitar sound better.

grungebob

I liked the sound of the 2nd one the best,but the nut looks too bright to be the vintage model.

richardhomer

I streamed the audio of this video through a B&W Zepplin in order to get to hear it with enough clarity to make an informed judgement. Whichever guitar is the 'real' vintage one, the only thing the demo proves conclusively is that to the audience the difference isn't worth worrying about.

Incidentally, the amount of fret buzz audible on the first one is a characteristic I tend to associate with newer Fender style guitars. As they get older, they tend to sound less 'twangy'. Based on cosmetics though, I would have said that was the old one....

I don't think either sounds particularly special....

jd0272

Irrespective of the truth, I prefer No 1 sound wise and visually. No 2 sounds dry as fuck, no depth to it at all, assuming the settings were identical, and that board needs an oil.

thermionic

Wow, both sound good on their own but the first sounds much richer in comparison. Almost like a different EQ setting (and more reverb) on the amp.

IvisonGuitars

And the first is tuned slightly flat - that must be where the difference lies! ;-)

streethawk

Might be easier if they didn't film with a potato.

I'd be surprised if the custom shop served up a replica with a fingerboard that dry, also the corny split in the scratchplate tells me the custom shop made the first one. Sounded 'better' but might be pickup height, or they're just hotter. 

randomhandclaps

How can I make a judgement of which ones sound the best until I know which one is the dearest?  :-\"

IvisonGuitars

Turns out, they've obviously got a '62 Strat in on trade and this is nothing more than a sneaky advertising ploy...

http://m.guitarguitar.co.uk/Product/com-KT174NY20

Who would have thunk it..??

Edit: and at a rather 'hopeful' price too..

ICBM

octatonic said:

Based on that video I preferred the first one but it would be easy to fake the video to make the vintage guitar sound worse- change the amp settings, screw the pickups down  etc.

Think of who it is- GuitarGuitar sell a lot of custom shop guitars and very few vintage guitars- I think they have a vested interest in making the custom shop guitar sound better.

They make a lot more money per instrument on their overpriced vintage guitars though! So it's more in their interest to make the old one sound better, if they're cheating.

That said I think the demo is probably honest in the sense that they didn't change the amp settings, but there still could be reasons why the old one sounds better, which might not be just the guitar itself... strings and set-up can make that sort of difference.

I also agree with richardhomer that although they sound quite different to me - and even if that isn't due to the strings or set-up - then you could easily tweak the amp to get effectively the same sound, and the difference really wouldn't matter.

(Edit - miserneil beat me to the first bit!)

IvisonGuitars

It's actually a really cool looking Strat (never thought I'd utter those words!) and IF it's a recent re-finish, possibly a Clive Brown, then it'd suddenly get a lot more interesting....

richardhomer

miserneil;154901" said:

It's actually a really cool looking Strat (never thought I'd utter those words!) and IF it's a recent re-finish, possibly a Clive Brown, then it'd suddenly get a lot more interesting....

Two replaced tone controls, repaired crack in the body, refinished? My concern for £8000 would be whether there are any other undisclosed none-original aspects.

I have it on good authority that many vintage Fenders have been mixed with doctored Tokai or early Squiers, to make two 'vintage' guitars, using one old pot in one and two in the other. Questions like why would both tone pots wear out, when the volume pot hasn't spring to mind....

I am not suggesting that the retailer IS misdescribing the guitar (either deliberately or unknowingly). What I AM saying is that vintage Fenders are a minefield and should be carefully authenticated before parting with a large amount of money.

I owned a '65 and a '63 in the past, when they could be bought for £500. These days, I wouldn't dream of buying a vintage Strat. The risk of bring stiffed is too great.

IvisonGuitars

@richardhomer I totally agree with you, there are so many excellently aged repro parts available to many unscrupulous sellers these days, buying a vintage Fender is a minefield - unless you have an expert with you. Parts are too easily changeable.

Gibson's are slightly better, in so much as the body and neck are 'usually' original to the guitar.

I think I've successfully talked myself out of my vintage guitar owning dream...

ICBM

I have been thinking about this while having dinner, so bear with me if it turns out a bit long-winded .

I have no interest in owning vintage guitars really either. I can see both sides of the 'vintage' thing. I do genuinely think that old guitars sound old in general - ie different from new ones. Not necessarily good, there are plenty of dogs and average ones too, but they sound like old dogs and old average guitars not like new dogs and average ones! It isn't completely conclusive but if you play enough, you start to be able to tell. For me, the old one in that clip does sound like an old one, and the new one doesn't - and I'm pretty sure I would have been able to tell which was which even without the visual clues (inc dead giveaway). I'm occasionally paid to be an 'expert' on these things, so I do know a fair amount about this.

As to the originality and 'value'… I know full well that 'value' is determined by the market, but really, are these old guitars worth several times what a near-perfect modern replica is - even if the replica doesn't sound quite 'right' initially? Especially given that the modern guitar will be functionally perfect, and the old one may well have issues - which can't be properly repaired without "de-valuing" the guitar in many cases. I find this idiotic. When I'm working on old guitars, I never change parts unnecessarily, but if necessary then I will without hesitation. I wouldn't replace an original scratchy pot without trying cleaning it first, but if the cleaning doesn't work then it goes. I don't believe in "saving" the old parts either, unless the customer specifically asks for them - why? They're just junk. If they needed to be replaced, it was because they're unfit for use and the proper place for them is in the bin. I *will* go to the trouble of rebuilding old pots with new internals to preserve the date codes on the casings, if it's possible! But the worn-out original innards still go in the bin. (Curiously, people don't seem to want these.)

So if originality is out of the window, how much is down to tone, and how much just to age? You could argue that a knocked-around, refinished example like the Strat in the video is still worth "vintage money" because it sounds good, but is it? From a proper collector's point of view - which is where the really high valuations come from - it's almost worthless. From a player's point of view - disregarding tone - is it even as good as the Masterbuilt? Unlikely. So why is it priced at eight grand? It seems to me that even if it sounds better, it should perhaps be a little higher than the second hand value of the new guitar.

For what it's worth I am also suspicious that the tone pots but not the volume pot have been replaced. Why? The volume pot almost always wears out first. If it's been refinished, can we see under the pickguard please? OK a sunburst is less suspicious, but the number of old Strats which have been modded and then 'put back' is quite substantial. I've done a few myself, and although I never tried to mislead anyone, who knows what might have happened a few owners further down the line. I did a couple of patch-repair jobs where once refinished in a solid colour - not by me - it was impossible to tell the body had ever been routed. (Although sinkage can occur later and reveal outlines.)

So personally, I would not spend near-collector money on a definitely non-collector guitar, or advise anyone to. Just because truly original, mint examples fetch tens of thousands does not mean that second rate or "player grade" examples should be worth a large fraction of that. The whole point is that they're non-collectable. When the market moves away from strict originality as the test of value and towards purely valuing the old wood and the tone it (probably) gives, that may change, but it isn't true now. An old dog is worth as much as an old good one, if it's in the same condition.

There is a reason I have a quote from Homer in my signature .

Which means its probably time for another beer, too .

ToneControl

yes, I also did think that a random strat from the production line way back was pretty unlikely to match the quality of construction from the custom shop.

I like the sound of the first one best, but I'm very suspicious with any guitar shop's comparison, since I was a kid there were USA strats setup badly next to cheap guitars set up well.