Peeve of the day

Bridgehouse

guitars4you said:

Bridgehouse said:

guitars4you said:

Jack_ said:

I've got condoms in my wallet older than some of these so called vintage guitars.

Does anyone want some vintage rubber? They don't make 'em like they used to.

more info required - are they clean, used, original - any comments on wear and tear - any known history - original packaging etc

If they are relic then I'm out...

seriously going off tangent here, but with you mentioning relic are we talking masterbuilt or master ?

Self inflicted job with sandpaper

richardhomer

Philly_Q said:

To me "vintage" still means 1950s and 1960s and (according to received wisdom) any guitar made in the 1970s is shit.

And I'd have said exactly the same in 1983.

And qualitatively correct for the most part.

fandango

And what confuses the whole blinking thing about "vintage" is that you can buy a brand new vintage guitar. Its not vintage, but it is vintage. *Muddy waters... and i know that you know what i mean.

*yes i know he didnt play vintage.

Bygone_Tones

People will write anything to get a sale. Any angle they can find to make their item seem special. "Limited edition of only 1000 guitars made with this particular paint finish to the whammy bar." Nobody cares mate.

midlifecrisis

i had some "Vintage" brand guitars, in a few years they will be called Vintage vintage guitars

Roland

Right, I've had several of my guitars for more then 30 years so they mus be worth a packet

impmann

There are plenty of guitars from the 1960s that are turd. But they are still vintage.
There are plenty of 90s guitars that are turd. But the ones made pre 97 are officially 'vintage'.

I would argue and could make quite a good case that there were more good guitars made in the 90s than the 60s. There was more consistency and the *overall* quality across the industry was higher.

However we are all told that 60s guitars are somehow 'better' by dint of them being made in this so-called golden era. And that by-and-large is bullshit perpetuated by those seeking to profit from the values of all old guitars being 'better'.

Ive played some amazing 60s guitars but I've also played some worn out crap and also some utter junk. Just the same as any era of manufacturing.

What I would say about the 90s is that it was the time that the general quality of manufacturing started coming on leaps and bounds, plus consistency became key. Even cheap guitars started gaining reasonable pickups, better woods started to be used and hardware quality was improved. 

With all the above,I'm actually talking about the run-of-the-mill guitars - look at the advances in mid-range guitars during that period and you'll see what I mean. As someone who was selling this stuff during this period I saw it first hand - the first Mexican Strats were terrible in the early 90s... we sent them all back, but by the end of the decade....

No doubt someone will pipe up about 90s Strats (US) being "rubbish" based on Internet twaddle or the fact they have swimming pool routes or similar. Well, tbh, I've not played a genuinely 'bad' one. And I probably sold more than most have played during my time in retail. I've owned a few recently and aside from that shitty two post trem (still fitted to the new guitars) they aren't 'bad'. Yet I've played a few toneless and non-resonant late 60s guitars that according to internet wisdom are "bargains".

Gibson arguably were making guitars that are perceived as better than they are today. Certainly the fit and finish of them was good, the weight relief that some seem to blather about wasn't quite so prevalent and the woods used were good. I read all sorts about Studios of that period being the next big 'thing' in the collecting world - I can see why, the ebony board Studios were superb.

PRS was making superb guitars - it's when he built his reputation. So they must be great. No first hand.

So the 90s... a 'vintage' decade? I'd say so - the last hurrah for British guitar based music I'd argue too. Britpop gave guitar based bands credibility and frankly we sold shitloads as a result. The music and musicians were inspirational - ok the older guys will Bang on about Clapton etc but I've met plenty that site Bernard Butler or Graham Coxon as the reason they picked up guitars. Whilst Bernard thrashed around on a vintage 355 live, in the studio most of the nude album was recorded and written on a 1990s reissue Les Paul. Graham played 52 reissue Teles made in the 90s... etc etc. They are just two examples.

I can totally see why 90s guitars are interesting. Do I understand why someone would pay more for one over a more recent guitar? No but then I'm not into this notion of older guitars being 'better'. A good guitar is a good guitar irrespective of when it was made. 

guitars4you

^^^^^^^^^^ @impmann - so the interpretation of vintage from above is based on a) it is over 20 years old and b) about the quality of the guitar - I fully agree a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of heritage, age etc and we are lucky today that there are so many fine vintage replicas on the market that are far more affordable to buy for today's musicians - I agree that some of the finest guitars ever built are from this era and have said many many times that the golden era of guitar building is now - But that doesn't mean they can be vintage in 20 years time IMO

I agree not all old guitars are good - and many aren't - I agree there are many fine guitars from the 90's which musicians wish to buy, but on the basis that after 20 years then a guitar is now vintage I don't buy - As that will surely make all guitars vintage one day and regardless of the build quality, tonal character and playing performance then there has to be some separation between a golden era Fender/Gibson/Ricky etc and a 90's LP Std 

Then we all have to accept it is of course a matter of opinion

It doesn't mean there is no demand or collectability for 80's, 90's or 21st century guitars as that is obviously not the case, but I struggle to see them as a 'vintage guitar' both now and in 20 years time

UnclePsychosis

-the thing is, 1990s guitars (and 2000s guitars, for that matter) will be vintage one day whether you like it or not. (also worth reiterating that a guitar born in 1990 has now almost lived longer than Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix did...) 

The problem here isn't that 1990s guitars shouldn't be described as vintage, it's that guitar salesmen ever thought that latching on to vague and wooly descriptor words like "vintage" was a good idea in the first place.

Vintage doesn't tell you anything useful (which of the "acceptable" decades does vintage cover?) and it certainly doesn't tell you whether the guitar is any good. It's almost as useless as putting "rare" or "collectible" or "L00K, W0W, R@RE". 

"-I've got a vintage strat"

"cool, is it 50s?"

"-nah"

"60s, then?"

"-nah"

"70s?"

"-Yeah, '73"

"cool, must be sweet as?"

"-to be honest mate it's a total dog, I'm just keeping it to sell one day" 

Neil

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^ @impmann - so the interpretation of vintage from above is based on a) it is over 20 years old and b) about the quality of the guitar - I fully agree a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of heritage, age etc and we are lucky today that there are so many fine vintage replicas on the market that are far more affordable to buy for today's musicians - I agree that some of the finest guitars ever built are from this era and have said many many times that the golden era of guitar building is now - But that doesn't mean they can be vintage in 20 years time IMO

I agree not all old guitars are good - and many aren't - I agree there are many fine guitars from the 90's which musicians wish to buy, but on the basis that after 20 years then a guitar is now vintage I don't buy - As that will surely make all guitars vintage one day and regardless of the build quality, tonal character and playing performance then there has to be some separation between a golden era Fender/Gibson/Ricky etc and a 90's LP Std 

Then we all have to accept it is of course a matter of opinion

It doesn't mean there is no demand or collectability for 80's, 90's or 21st century guitars as that is obviously not the case, but I struggle to see them as a 'vintage guitar' both now and in 20 years time

But that is exactly what they are.

You are confusing the term vintage IMO.

Vintage is all about the year, in this case twenty or more years old, nothing to do with the quality. 

A vintage '59 LP will always be worth more than a '90's version but both are vintage.

guitars4you

Neil said:

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^ @impmann - so the interpretation of vintage from above is based on a) it is over 20 years old and b) about the quality of the guitar - I fully agree a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of heritage, age etc and we are lucky today that there are so many fine vintage replicas on the market that are far more affordable to buy for today's musicians - I agree that some of the finest guitars ever built are from this era and have said many many times that the golden era of guitar building is now - But that doesn't mean they can be vintage in 20 years time IMO

I agree not all old guitars are good - and many aren't - I agree there are many fine guitars from the 90's which musicians wish to buy, but on the basis that after 20 years then a guitar is now vintage I don't buy - As that will surely make all guitars vintage one day and regardless of the build quality, tonal character and playing performance then there has to be some separation between a golden era Fender/Gibson/Ricky etc and a 90's LP Std 

Then we all have to accept it is of course a matter of opinion

It doesn't mean there is no demand or collectability for 80's, 90's or 21st century guitars as that is obviously not the case, but I struggle to see them as a 'vintage guitar' both now and in 20 years time

But that is exactly what they are.

You are confusing the term vintage IMO.

Vintage is all about the year, in this case twenty or more years old, nothing to do with the quality. 

A vintage '59 LP will always be worth more than a '90's version but both are vintage.

So I have a Gibson LP with a 1997 serial number and made in October - so today it isn't vintage but in a month's time it is - I get it now - Sorry but I don't buy it - I appreciate we have our own opinions on this but IMO it is time to agree to disagree

I'm not sure it is easy to 100% define a term vintage as other factors come into play, especially if you are trying to describe vintage in one sentence, or phrase, but IMO I can define it far easier to define what isn't vintage

Neil

guitars4you said:

Neil said:

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^ @impmann - so the interpretation of vintage from above is based on a) it is over 20 years old and b) about the quality of the guitar - I fully agree a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of heritage, age etc and we are lucky today that there are so many fine vintage replicas on the market that are far more affordable to buy for today's musicians - I agree that some of the finest guitars ever built are from this era and have said many many times that the golden era of guitar building is now - But that doesn't mean they can be vintage in 20 years time IMO

I agree not all old guitars are good - and many aren't - I agree there are many fine guitars from the 90's which musicians wish to buy, but on the basis that after 20 years then a guitar is now vintage I don't buy - As that will surely make all guitars vintage one day and regardless of the build quality, tonal character and playing performance then there has to be some separation between a golden era Fender/Gibson/Ricky etc and a 90's LP Std 

Then we all have to accept it is of course a matter of opinion

It doesn't mean there is no demand or collectability for 80's, 90's or 21st century guitars as that is obviously not the case, but I struggle to see them as a 'vintage guitar' both now and in 20 years time

But that is exactly what they are.

You are confusing the term vintage IMO.

Vintage is all about the year, in this case twenty or more years old, nothing to do with the quality. 

A vintage '59 LP will always be worth more than a '90's version but both are vintage.

So I have a Gibson LP with a 1997 serial number and made in October - so today it isn't vintage but in a month's time it is - I get it now - Sorry but I don't buy it - I appreciate we have our own opinions on this but IMO it is time to agree to disagree

I'm not sure it is easy to 100% define a term vintage as other factors come into play, especially if you are trying to describe vintage in one sentence, or phrase, but IMO I can define it far easier to define what isn't vintage

Think of it like wine, where the term is mainly used.

All decent wine has a vintage, it is merely the year it was made.

Some more recent vintage can be better than older vintages. It is just a year it doesn't denote quality.

The term vintage in cars denotes anything prior to 1930 which none of the modern '50's electric guitars fall under so the using word vintage in that respect is probably a misnomer anyway.

I think personally Classic is a better term for '50's - '60's guitars and again is a term used in the motoring world. 

impmann

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^ @impmann - so the interpretation of vintage from above is based on a) it is over 20 years old and b) about the quality of the guitar - I fully agree a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of heritage, age etc and we are lucky today that there are so many fine vintage replicas on the market that are far more affordable to buy for today's musicians - I agree that some of the finest guitars ever built are from this era and have said many many times that the golden era of guitar building is now - But that doesn't mean they can be vintage in 20 years time IMO

I agree not all old guitars are good - and many aren't - I agree there are many fine guitars from the 90's which musicians wish to buy, but on the basis that after 20 years then a guitar is now vintage I don't buy - As that will surely make all guitars vintage one day and regardless of the build quality, tonal character and playing performance then there has to be some separation between a golden era Fender/Gibson/Ricky etc and a 90's LP Std 

Then we all have to accept it is of course a matter of opinion

It doesn't mean there is no demand or collectability for 80's, 90's or 21st century guitars as that is obviously not the case, but I struggle to see them as a 'vintage guitar' both now and in 20 years time

Using your logic then...

A Watkins Rapier with a squiffy neck is a "vintage" guitar because it is a 1960s instrument. It doesn't matter that its not playable or wasn't great in the first place.

But a 1992 PRS with a 10 Top signed by Paul in perfect nick isn't and can never be?

Or a 1963 SG with three headstock repairs, replaced pickups, a refret and a refinish is a vintage guitar but a 1993 ReIssue of the same guitar but totally stock and mint isn't and can never be?

Doesn't make sense.

The term "vintage" isn't being used as a descriptor for anything other than age in the OP's post.

I imagine that your view on 80s onwards guitars was shared by many people concerning the so-called "post-CBS" Fenders in the 1990s - the shop I worked in did. I remember a time when anything post 65 was seen as just an old guitar and nothing particularly interesting - no demand etc - but oh how that has changed.

Using furniture as an analogy - I remember when so-called "mid century" stuff was landfill. Now it is in demand by "retro" enthusiasts - the old school antique dealers don't understand or 'get' it and there is a lot of snobbery from them about this movement. I can see similar happening here...

For example: those who were young during the rise of Britpop are now those surfing the nostalgia wave of the late 30s into the late 40s and as such now have the funds and wherewithall to finance their fantasies, unlike when the music was current. So I can forsee that certain guitars that were "big" as part of this scene becoming quite prized and so prices rise - we've already seen the huge rises in the value of Epi Rivieras from the "golden years" as played by Bonehead and Noel. These young players aspired to the guitars played by *their* peers not those of the past - 1960s guitars of course played their part in that, but the majority of bands weren't using them... 

Will these guitars ever be worth the same as the 1950s/60s guitars? Probably not. But I'd wager there are *A LOT MORE* truly good 1990s guitars than there are of this so called "golden era".  And certainly a lot more genuine ones!!!!! I predict that certain flavours of Les Paul and Strat will become quite sought after (the LP Classics and Strat Plus Deluxes for example).

But back to the use of the word "vintage" - when used as a descriptor for age, its totally valid to describe something of that age.

guitars4you

impmann said:

But back to the use of the word "vintage" - when used as a descriptor for age, its totally valid to describe something of that age.

Well I hope you don't mind if I don't list any used guitars over 20 years old as 'vintage' - be they come from the 70's, 80's or 90's - To be fair I don't really list any 60's guitars as vintage either as I just list them as say 1964

I agree vintage does not endorse in any way the guitars ability to perform in a required way - And I have certainly never endorsed vintage means quality and or a certain grade of goods - I'm not 100% sure as to what the correct ingredients are, certainly with regards to trying to put it into a simple phrase - For the record I'm a big PRS fan but I would not endorse one of my own PRS Guitars that is over 20 years old as vintage

I would tend to agree that a term 'over 20 years old' could simply endorses any guitar as vintage, but I don't agree with its concept - And as I have said a few times above that I could not write down in one simple sentence what exactly is vintage

@neil - I do tend to use the word 'classic' more than vintage when discussing the shape or model of the guitar like a Strat

Sassafras

Here's a thought: how about ignoring the seller's inevitable hyperbole and simply judge the guitar on its own merit?
Sellers will always want to dress up whatever item they're selling in the best way they can think of even if that involves sprinkling glitter on a turd.

impmann

Sassafras said:

Here's a thought: how about ignoring the seller's inevitable hyperbole and simply judge the guitar on its own merit?
Sellers will always want to dress up whatever item they're selling in the best way they can think of even if that involves sprinkling glitter on a turd.

This

rico

Sassafras said:

Here's a thought: how about ignoring the seller's inevitable hyperbole and simply judge the guitar on its own merit?
Sellers will always want to dress up whatever item they're selling in the best way they can think of even if that involves sprinkling glitter on a turd.

Invariably the addition of certain buzzwords seems to elevate the asking price...

guitars4you

Sassafras said:

Here's a thought: how about ignoring the seller's inevitable hyperbole and simply judge the guitar on its own merit?
Sellers will always want to dress up whatever item they're selling in the best way they can think of even if that involves sprinkling glitter on a turd.

so if you are SELLING a 1976 Les Paul it is VINTAGE - But if you are BUYING a 1976 Les Paul it is just OLD

I do agree that each guitar, regardless of what it is, needs to be judged on its own merits and what it means to you

richardhomer

I've posted this before on a similar thread - so please forgive the repetition.

In 1983 I bought a '63 Strat. A bona fide 'vintage' guitar - pre-CBS, original Custom Colour finish, mostly original in every other respect. It was a magnificent guitar to play.

In 1994 I bought an American Standsrd Strat, which I still own. That was not magnificent then - and is not magnificent now - but it is older than my '63 was when I acquired it. For this reason, 'vintage' has to take into account 'quality' - rather than just 'age'.

My American Standard Strat is a used guitar from the '90s - no more - no less....

OilCityPickups

The dictionary says:
of high quality and lasting value, or showing the best and most typical characteristics of a particular type of thing, especially from
the past:

If you look at the definition from the wine trade there can be good and bad vintages :-)