Are old guitars actually better than new ones

Maynehead

Lots of talk about old wood, but no one mentions old pickups?

I would have thought the reason old guitars sound "old" was more due to the demagnetization of the pickups than the way the wood has aged... if you put brand new pickups into an old guitar does it still sound "old"?

ICBM

Maynehead said:

Lots of talk about old wood, but no one mentions old pickups?

I would have thought the reason old guitars sound "old" was more due to the demagnetization of the pickups than the way the wood has aged... if you put brand new pickups into an old guitar does it still sound "old"?

Yes.

Some time ago I did exactly that experiment with two Strats, a '64 and a modern one (Highway One, if it matters). I swapped the whole pickguards over - the "old" tone stayed with the old guitar, not the old pickups. There was surprisingly little change in either guitar.

A friend of mine also has another '64 which the bridge pickup died on - we were going to get it rewound, but while it was out, for a laugh we put in a spare Hot Rails just to see what it would sound like… it sounded like a massively powerful old guitar, not like a new guitar. Ten years later and we've still never bothered to get the old pickup rewound and he still has the Hot Rails in it.

Old pickups can sound softer and sweeter than new ones, but the real "old tone" is in the wood.

Nomad

I read somewhere that the demagnetisation rate is something like 5% per 100 years.

meltedbuzzbox

Nomad said:

I read somewhere that the demagnetisation rate is something like 5% per 100 years.

I would guess that depends on the charge and the conditions?

emphasis on guess

monquixote

I've currently got partially demagnetized pickups in one of my strats and I'm not that fond of them TBH. 

richardhomer

I think the quality of the woods must be part of it.

My '63 Strat was twenty years old when I bought it and it was magnificent. A really outstanding sounding guitar. My '94 American Standard is 21 years of age and is just another Strat. This would go some way to explaining why CS Fenders and PRS are more comparable to vintage instruments.

Perhaps 'old wood' is simply 'better wood' - and more stable?

The classic recordings - where the benchmarks of guitar tone were established - were made on using instruments which were not 'that' old. Clapton's 'Beano' Les Paul was about seven years old at the time. So while I agree there is an 'old wood sound' as @ICBM puts it - I'm not convinced it's simply age that creates it.

Jez6345789

I think a lot of wood back in the 50's and to a certain extent 60's was old wood to start with air dried. All modern wood is kiln dried. Quality is better in most cases today for mass produced guitars. Remember you could not give a strat away in mid 70's they were crap.

ToneControl

Manufacturing is far better now than in the past

All the old guitars you see now are the ones that played well, and that have been maintained and improved by years of repairs and adjustments - many manufacturing defects will have been ironed out since new

Chalky

I have been through a LOT of guitars in recent years as I realised that most posts on the internet are based on regurgitated opinion instead of first hand experience. In my first hand experience and wilfully ignoring all the 'theory' of why old guitars are 'better', old guitars are NOT inherently better. Sure you get good ones but there are an an awful lot of overpriced poor-to-mediocre guitars out there whose only claim to fame is that they are old.

The main problem is that so many guitarists buy with their eyes and prejudice instead of their ears and experience.

WezV

Nomad;522602" said:

I read somewhere that the demagnetisation rate is something like 5% per 100 years.

That's true. An alnico magnet in isolation will keep its charge for a very long time, google magnet half life if unsure.... But they looses its charge more if knocked. Strat polepeices get a lit of small knocks over their life

....

What do we know for sure?

Wood changes as it ages
Glue changes as it ages
Lacquer changes as it ages
Magnets change slightly as they age

All 4 are small things in the tone of an electric. But you would be daft to write them off altogether

p90fool

richardhomer;522630" said:

I think the quality of the woods must be part of it.

My '63 Strat was twenty years old when I bought it and it was magnificent. A really outstanding sounding guitar. My '94 American Standard is 21 years of age and is just another Strat. This would go some way to explaining why CS Fenders and PRS are more comparable to vintage instruments.

Perhaps 'old wood' is simply 'better wood' - and more stable?

The classic recordings - where the benchmarks of guitar tone were established - were made on using instruments which were not 'that' old. Clapton's 'Beano' Les Paul was about seven years old at the time. So while I agree there is an 'old wood sound' as @ICBM puts it - I'm not convinced it's simply age that creates it.

I agree with this totally. My 63 Strat was 18 years old when I bought it. It was better than a new one by miles, but not because of "aged wood", it was because new ones at the time were garbage.

If Fender (and to a lesser extent Gibson) hadn't completely fallen off the rails during the 70s there probably wouldn't even be a vintage guitar market as we know it today.

It was the era of mass market manufacturing finally killing off craftsmanship, but it was in the gap before technology caught up enough to replace craftsmanship as it has now.

Fender were not alone, just think back to AMF-era Harley-Davidson or British Leyland.

It was a global and relatively brief hiccup in manufacturing quality, but thinking that those Austin Allegro-type Strats will magically improve because the wood molecules will eventually wiggle into line from string vibrations is well, frankly wishful at best.

JayGee

I realise we're looking for objective effects here, but, my experience is that it's a mistake to overlook the subjective/psychological side of things with something as, well, intimate as the connection between a musician and a musical instrument.

I'm in no doubt that if an instrument feels good, and makes me feel good *I* play better and sound better (not the instrument, me), and nice old instruments (sometimes just plain *interesting* instruments) feel good, engage me, put me into a particular frame of mind, and make me feel good in a way that new ones (usually) don't.

Or, to put it another way Mojo is alive and well and living in Essex... :-)

ICBM

p90fool said:

thinking that those Austin Allegro-type Strats will magically improve because the wood molecules will eventually wiggle into line from string vibrations is well, frankly wishful at best.

I've said this many times before I know, but the wood in them is good - it's the fit, finish and hardware that kills them. Strip one down to the actual wood and rebuild it properly and you can make good guitars out of them - admittedly while "ruining" the "value", which to me is stupid but is a fact of the market.

I found that out years ago when I acquired a late-70s Strat in a poor state and did that to it - before they were "valuable" though... at the time it made little difference, but today I'd have thrown away at least £500.

BigLicks67

I know he is being paid by Fender - but here's Eric Johnson saying the 56 reissue is as good as his 57 original.

My problem with the modern American Standard guitar is not that it's new, but that they changed the nut width and string spacing so the neck feels completely different to an old style Fender.

Skipped

The Gibsons and Epiphones (from the same factory) I picked up in second hand guitar shops when I was a kid were consistently great instruments.
Er......That is how the reputation came about.  (No Internet)

Modern instruments are uniformly consistent. That is a good thing. I don't think it is the same thing.

p90fool

ICBM said:

I've said this many times before I know, but the wood in them is good - it's the fit, finish and hardware that kills them.

I totally agree, and proper body contouring would probably lighten them enough to sound good too once the hardware has been binned.

Although I hated new Fenders when I started gigging, there still is for me a kind of Fullerton heritage in those guitars which gives them potential, which may or may not be psychological.

Even at their absolute nadir in the late 70s they still had the same old geezer winding what were essentially Broadcaster pickups at the same bench he always had, but they weren't installed in Teles, they were only used for lap steels. Once it's gone, it's gone, as they say.

MattFGBI

Why has nobody posted this yet: 

impmann

To answer the original question.

No.

Despite the oft repeated bullshit, just because a guitar becomes old it does not magically turn into a brilliant instrument.

Those shitty Teisco things from the 70s are just as awful as they were back in the day.

I've played a very famous late 1950s Les Paul that recently sold for more money than sense. I can tell you it is not a "great" guitar - its OK, don't get me wrong, but its not as magnificent as the BS in the press and online - but it has been played by great players. Does that give it 'mojo'? Does that make you play differently? Does it sound better than an R8 or R9? .... er that will be a no on all counts. You'll just have to believe me on that...

I had a 1965 Strat that I spent every penny I didn't have to buy - because it was a 65 Strat and it did look cool (Daphne/Sonic blue). But in truth the 1993 Strat Standard I had in the shop I worked in was better than it in every measurable way. So I sold it and bought the '93. 

Just because a guitar is old, it is not necessarily 'better'.

Skipped

Q: What does the term Golden Era mean when applied to Ferrari....or Gibson....or other brands?

A: "Yeah - That's a tough one.
Possibly...... that they were "rather good?"

Teetonetal

I agree, that just because a guitar is old doesn't automatically mean it's good. Every major brand has periods where they make better than average products and periods where they make poor products, it's just a fact of modern production. Inside both these periods you still find gems and turds.

Personally I think that the overall quality of guitar production has steadily increased from mid 1990's on-wards, meaning that most off the shelf guitars you buy now are made to better than acceptable standard. I think guitars from any period before this were much more hit and miss unless professionally hand crafted..

I can't remember the last time I picked up an off the shelf Fender and thought what a load of rubbish, nearly all feel nice and play well now and even those that don't often just need a setup.

I wonder if Internet shopping and blind buying has increased pressure on stores/manufacturers to increase the average of well made instruments too? Not to mention that the range of brands and availability is in now huge!!

Doesn't mean to say though that a 1960's guitar won't be the most amazing thing you ever played - but if I had that amount of money to spend, I would be getting something hand made to my spec instead and I'm pretty sure it would be awesome.

I must also qualify my opinion by saying I've only played 2 60's era guitars, but never owned any.