Are old guitars actually better than new ones

meltedbuzzbox

richardhomer said:

The 'best' vintage guitars I have played are better than the best modern guitars I've played - these include a '54 Les Paul Gold Top, a '54 Strat, my own '63 Strat (which I foolishly sold) and my '64 335.

I have played a lot of old guitars that are not that great, including a '59 Les Paul - and a '65 Strat which I owned.

I have played a lot of modern guitars that are outstanding; Custom Shop Relics are almost invariably great, as are most PRS.

The 'gentrification' of some older American guitars (specifically from the late 70s) is largely vintage dealer hype.

Ultimately every instrument has to be evaluated on its own merits.

you had a credible argument until you mentioned PRS :-P

RaymondLin

This wouldn't to do with the resin in the wood crystallising would it? It's what PRS always talk about with their drying process. Wood, after all is an organic material and eventually will turn to dust in time, so eventually there comes to a point where the strings might snap it in half!

monquixote

ICBM said:

monquixote said:

I've got a 1980 "Strat" which is a fairly decent guitar so I know they did make some good ones.

I don't doubt it, although every one I've played has been an over-heavy dog. But an old friend of mine has a 1981 "International Colours" Maui Blue Strat which I remember being good too, and those are normally regarded as being about the low point. It's not that they're *all* awful, just that the bad ones vastly outnumber the good by that time.

There are a couple of late-70s Strats in the shop too, both weigh over 10lbs and both are total crap in my opinion. But they're "worth" well over a grand each purely because they're 35 years old.

It is too heavy which is pretty much standard for Strats of that era and as I say it's decent, but not amazing considering it was a very high end guitar at the time.

When I bought it in the mid 90's I also tried a very cool looking 79 Strat which was black with a red scratchplate, but it was total shit. At that point it was not considered vintage so was £300 or something and the blokes in the shop all said 70's Fenders were crap. 

WezV

RaymondLin said:

This wouldn't to do with the resin in the wood crystallising would it? It's what PRS always talk about with their drying process. Wood, after all is an organic material and eventually will turn to dust in time, so eventually there comes to a point where the strings might snap it in half!

yeah, although what PRS don't tell you is that the process cannot be rushed.... but I suppose a good drying process could give it a head start

some very old acoustics have tops which are practically translucent and the wood has become very brittle

carlos

Sassafras said:

That makes sense to me if the wood's being vibrated by the strings for years, it must be affected and somehow becomes more resonant.

What???

richardhomer

meltedbuzzbox;522476" said:

you had a credible argument until you mentioned PRS :-P

May be - but I am in a position to directly compare a '64 335 with a PRS McCarty.

Clearly they are 'different' in that one's solid and newish and one's semi-hollow and old. But they are the two best electric guitars I own. There is 'something' they have in common, in terms of quality/the way they respond in terms of coaxing sustain with vibrato.

If the house was on fire, the '335 would be rescued as it's less replaceable. If I had to decide which guitar I could play a whole gig with, I'd take the McCarty...

WezV

georgenadaintl said:

Sassafras said:

That makes sense to me if the wood's being vibrated by the strings for years, it must be affected and somehow becomes more resonant.

What???

think of it like running in an engine or breaking in a speaker.   some items do get better at performing a certain task  just by doing it repeatedly

Voxman

The truth is that there's a load of crap talked about re this old v new thing. Many new guitars are way superior to many old guitars simply because build construction, consistency, better quality hardware, pickups, machineheads etc are by and large better made.

Yes of course there are some wonderful vintage guitars but these are exceptions rather than the rule, especially Fenders where they varied enormously in construction materials and build quality. The pup construction and windings varied hugely. But there are also some wonderful new guitars too.

The values placed on these old guitars is largely due to some whimsical and mystical emperors new clothes nonsense based on the myth that they dont make them like that anymore, the wood has aged, the pups have gained magical tone because of sweat seeping into them etc or the nitro finish acquired a magical tonal quality.

In truth the custom shop Fender Strats and Teles and Gibson Les Pauls available today are easily as good if not better than most vintage counterparts. The vintage guitars that genuinely exhibit real mojo do exist, but they are such rare exceptions that most of us will never find one. Just because a strat or les paul is old doesnt mean its better. Its worth more, sure. But mostly their value is to perpetuate what for the most part is a myth, to make stupid money for dealers, and convince themselves and custimers that because someone will pay £30000 for an old guitar it has to be better than modern guitars.

In a blind test I wonder how many people really could tell the difference? I have my doubts. I have a 69 strat thats worth £5k+. But my 2010 strat is actually a better guitar to play and my 50th anniv 2004 Deluxe is better to play than either of them.

If I had the money I'd like a 58 or 59 vos LP and a CS or master built strat rather than pay stupid money for a vintage guitar and try to convince myself at how wonderful it is to justify the money...unless I'm really lucky and find one with genuine mojo.

ESchap

ICBM said:

*Some* old guitars seem to have a magical resonance and tone that no new guitar I've ever played has. Although some have been close, including a parts Strat of ESchap's I have here right now, which vibrates like an acoustic… but it does still sound like an incredibly vibrant modern guitar, if that makes sense. Most old guitars "sound old", even if many of them don't sound that special, just old, and some of them sound old and crap.

Good new guitars are much less variable, but still sound modern. Whether that will change as they get old, and some of them turn into magical old guitars as well, I don't know. My guess is that they will, although possibly not if it's only down to a certain type of old-growth wood - I tend to find the 'magical old guitar' thing is more associated with mahogany than with other woods… I've certainly played more amazing old Gibsons than amazing old Fenders.

Thanks @ICBM, but that guitar is just a happy accident.  The Fender neck is old, from '83, but one of the early reissues of that time, which seem to be sought after.  The body is an MJT.   While it's hardly a statistically relevant sample, I've got two guitars with MJT bodies and they are both extremely resonant.  Of course as relics, they don't have much finish on them!

However, I've got a 1967 SG special, it's had some restorative surgery on the neck joint and a refinish, but it really is more resonant than the Parts Strat.    You could get white finger playing it for extended periods, the whole guitar vibrates in your hand, particularly the neck.   I think that translates to the distinct sparkle in the tone it has.  I'll bring it over one day.  You won't like it though as it weighs just 6lb 4oz ... or perhaps that part of the reason it's so resonant?

shaunm

I've only ever played an old Martin accoustic (I don't own it as I don't have a list of hit records to my name) which I thought was sensational. It wasn't because it was old that I thought that, it really was the best sounding acoustic I've played. 

ICBM

ESchap said:

The Fender neck is old, from '83

I must be getting old too! - that's still "modern" to me .

ESchap said:

You won't like it though as it weighs just 6lb 4oz ... or perhaps that part of the reason it's so resonant?

Oddly I like light SGs. They're the only guitar design I can think of where there doesn't seem to be a lower weight limit for good tone - quite the opposite, the best ones all seem very light, and heavier ones seem deader usually.

Voxman

shaunm;522525" said:

I've only ever played an old Martin accoustic (I don't own it as I don't have a list of hit records to my name) which I thought was sensational. It wasn't because it was old that I thought that, it really was the best sounding acoustic I've played. 

Acoustics are a very different kettle of fish where age really can give superb tonality.

mark123

I remember a thread from the old music radar site someone who was old and  ill health (I hope you are well) sold a load of guitars 50s Gibson les pauls 50s/60s strats and he wittled his collection down to 2 or 3 ...and his favourite was ???bearing in mind what he had owned and played ...

a japan tokai les paul .......

ESchap

ICBM said:

ESchap said:

The Fender neck is old, from '83

I must be getting old too! - that's still "modern" to me .

ESchap said:

You won't like it though as it weighs just 6lb 4oz ... or perhaps that part of the reason it's so resonant?

Oddly I like light SGs. They're the only guitar design I can think of where there doesn't seem to be a lower weight limit for good tone - quite the opposite, the best ones all seem very light, and heavier ones seem deader usually.

Yeah, '80's feels like yesterday to me too.  

Forgot to mention the SG is white, another reason for you not to like it .. 

Fretwired

Modern guitars are vastly superior courtesy of computer design, CNC technology and at the budget end Far East-based factories. My first guitar was a Rose Morris LP and it was truly shite.

meltedbuzzbox

richardhomer said:

meltedbuzzbox;522476" said:

you had a credible argument until you mentioned PRS :-P

May be - but I am in a position to directly compare a '64 335 with a PRS McCarty.

Clearly they are 'different' in that one's solid and newish and one's semi-hollow and old. But they are the two best electric guitars I own. There is 'something' they have in common, in terms of quality/the way they respond in terms of coaxing sustain with vibrato.

If the house was on fire, the '335 would be rescued as it's less replaceable. If I had to decide which guitar I could play a whole gig with, I'd take the McCarty...

I honestly have no bone to pick about PRS. 

Whilst they are not for me they have obviously earned their reputation through quality/feel etc. 

A 335 is a bit grey, being that it is a semi acoustic. I cant imagine that ages the same way like a solid body.

Its almost got one foot in the acoustic world and one in the electric. 

I have only played one 335 and that was a 62 and it was a wonderful guitar. Unfortunately I have nothing to compare it to. 

Philly_Q

I think there is "something" about old guitars, and it's in the timber, certainly not because they were built any better.

Whether that's because it was better quality timber in the first place, ot whether it's because of the ageing process, I don't know.  Maybe it's because an old guitar has had 40 or 50 years of being played and getting used to the idea that it's a guitar, all the component parts settling into place and resonating together....

I must admit I haven't played many old guitars (....I'm not including the 1980s!), and I've only owned two.  I always try to buy guitars which are acoustically very resonant, but I have a '65 Melody Maker which rings in a way none of my newer guitars can quite match.  On the other hand I had a '64 SG Special which really wasn't very special at all. 

Lew

RaymondLin;522478" said:

This wouldn't to do with the resin in the wood crystallising would it? It's what PRS always talk about with their drying process. Wood, after all is an organic material and eventually will turn to dust in time, so eventually there comes to a point where the strings might snap it in half!

http://cf.chucklesnetwork.com/items/1/3/1/8/0/9/original/what-if-we-are-all-just-dust-in-the-wind.jpg

My dusty guitars DO sound better than my undusty ones!


















http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/j-chan-jackie-chan-reminisces-over-bruce-lee-and-it-s-the-sweetest-thing.gif?width=852&height=479

carlos

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10750846/Stradivarius-Youd-be-better-off-with-a-modern-violin.html

(and the above is for an acoustic instrument! the wood in an electric should have negligible effect on tone)

Megii

Fretwired said:

Modern guitars are vastly superior courtesy of computer design, CNC technology and at the budget end Far East-based factories. My first guitar was a Rose Morris LP and it was truly shite.

I do think at the lower end of the price spectrum, modern guitars are very much better than the older ones. At the higher end it may be a different story, but I still tend to think that the high end guitars being made today are at least as good as any old guitars.