would you really notice any difference if you could afford to buy a vintage guitar?

Alnico · May 2014

I've spent a little while really thinking about this discussion and i'm glad. It's made me really think hard about what it is I actually want. As it happens it's not a vintage guitar. I do like the idea that an old vintage guitar has been around and has history but as has been said, it's a risk and there are some modern guitars that are easily as good.

I have come to the conclusion that Mojo comes from within and as has also been said (Somewhere), the best guitar in the world is the one that you fell in love with.

Roland · May 2014

Modern equipment is generally more consistent and better quality, and much cheaper in real terms than stuff from the 60s and 70s. There are some excellent historic guitars around, and some worn out ones. They represent the few. A lot of the old stuff was crap at the time, and hasn't survived. Trust me, I was there. I'd rather have a PRS or a Parker any day.

UnclePsychosis · May 2014

If I wanted to own a piece of history I'd buy a vintage guitar.

If I wanted a top notch guitar I'd bit a modern one.

ToneControl · May 2014

ThePrettyDamned said:

ToneControl said:

Sounds like most people share my opinion, that current top notch guitars are at least as good as any era

There is another point to consider: When buying expensive vintage guitars, you have to accept the risk of forgeries

Same for modern production these days, sadly

True, but you can avoid fakes more easily with a newish guitar - you can buy from a main dealer, or pick a brand not often faked

koneguitarist · May 2014

As someone who is lucky enough to have owned some vintage guitars, I am of the opinion that it's all bullshit. New is better in my opinion, more consistent, higher tolerances and pickups are matched these days unlike the 50's and sixties.

The whole vintage vibe started due to 70's Fenders being so poor, badly made and finished, even though some sounded fine. Now we are told a Vintage strat from the 70's an era which was worst decade for quality is better and worth more than a high spec modern equivalent.

And we say drummers are daft?

koneguitarist · May 2014

Acoustics though are a whole different ball game!

richardhomer · May 2014

koneguitarist;239391" said:
Acoustics though are a whole different ball game!

I'm not sure that's true.

I agree that older acoustics 'play in' over time but the standard of construction of a modern Martin, Santa Cruz, Collings, Taylor, etc is beyond reproach.

I can see no reason why a well played 'newbie' wouldn't develop into a guitar that would rival one from any era.

octatonic · May 2014

koneguitarist said:

Acoustics though are a whole different ball game!

Not necessarily.

Wood does change as it gets older, but not necessarily for the better.

There are too many variables to say 'old = better'.

Certainly there are some amazing old guitars- but there are some amazing new guitars too- Sobell, Somogyi, Klepper, Nick Benjamin and a bunch of other guys make some truly astonishing sounding instruments in the here and now.

Neil · May 2014

I like the idea of vintage guitars as they have a bit of history and you can imagine the original owner buying it in 1959 or whatever, it holds the same appeal as antiques.

I don't hold with the idea that all old guitars are better than new ones though, after all guitars are not exactly earth shatteringly complex are they?

A couple of bits of wood and some very basic electrical components.

Of course in the past when guitars were more hand made you would probably have quite a bit of difference even between the same models but nowadays with CNC etc they are going to be more uniform.

luscombe · May 2014

The problem with flat-top acoustics is that their method of construction means they are effectively trying to pull themselves apart from the moment they are strung and tuned. An archtop acoustic is entirely different, and could theoretically last for 100's of years.

ICBM · May 2014

The very best electric guitars I've ever played were old, but that certainly doesn't mean that all old guitars are good or that no new ones are.

If I could afford to buy the '56 Les Paul Custom I should have bought in '99 when I could have, I would.

kelvinburn · May 2014

Some guitars inspire you to want to play them more, some leave you cold. Im not sure theres anything quantifiable about it.

I think for some there will always be guitars you aspire to own because of other factors. I'll always aspire to owning a black les paul custom and a guild S100 because some of my favourite music was made on them and they look cool as fuck. Im not bothered about vintage though.

A few years ago I was searching for a '75 hardtail strat (yob and bit of billy corgan influence). I was very disappointed with the ones I tried so gave up. At the time they were seen as a poor example of fenders history and subsequently were only about £450. Now they're going for £1500+ because they're a bit older. For half of that you can by a billy corgan signature, which is a significantly better playing and sounding guitar.

Kelvin

richardhomer · May 2014

kelvinburn;239491" said:
A few years ago I was searching for a '75 hardtail strat (yob and bit of billy corgan influence). I was very disappointed with the ones I tried so gave up. At the time they were seen as a poor example of fenders history and subsequently were only about £450. Now they're going for £1500+ because they're a bit older.

And that is really the issue; 70s guitars (by and large) were not as good as ones made a decade or two earlier.

With Strats it was often because design improvements (the Micro-tilt 3 bolt neck joint being the most obvious example) were badly executed. Manufacturing tolerances were poor, neck pockets were over-sized and the join was unstable.

It was exactly these kind of things which resulted in the 'Older is better' belief among players. And at the time, it was true. Incidentally, a Strat came in four variants; with or without trem, 1 piece maple neck/maple neck with rosewood fingerboard. Colours choices were extremely limited too. The Dan Smith/Bill Schultz era signalled Fender attempting to remain their lost reputation.

Now they make endless variations, across an incredibly wide range of price points. Even the cheapest are pretty good.

Subsequently, makers like Anderson & PRS has redefined what quality looks like and have caused other companies to up their game.

A modern guitar may not always be made from the finest tone woods but it is likely to be better made, better value and more playable 'out of the box' than instruments from any other era.

impmann · May 2014

Wisdom awarded mate.

That's exactly it.

ThePrettyDamned · May 2014

There is a shop near me that has a vintage les paul junior for 4 grand or so I think, fairly worn finish. It's a 60s or 50s one, can't remember.

It smells bad. Beyond that, I wasn't interested because it had a fairly big chip in the finish at the bottom. Yup, it was genuine wear and looked old, but that doesn't mean it looks nice...

Misty · May 2014

My feeling is that the whole vintage thing is slowly but surely dying a death. Having said that, I like them; I like the fact that they have a history, have done some work and some, but not all, have great character. Like richardhomer I'm fortunate enough to own a '64 335, all original, no changes or breaks, and I love it. I've owned several 335's in the past; a '72 which was not very good at all, a '97 which was very good but not particularly individual, a '67 which had a really sweet and vibrant sound, and this '64 which is the best I've played. Whether it's better than a good new example is debatable, but I love it and to me that's what counts. I also have a '64 Strat which is what you would call players' grade, not all original but close enough and good enough to be my #1, and I prefer it to my other two Strats, both early CS models, and still good guitars. I also have a '69 Tele, not the best year by any stretch but a good example which one or two people in the know have confirmed, though I would say my '00 CS Tele is the better of the two. Old guitars are most definitely not better as a rule, but a good old one is a great find. There are plenty that are not, including a pre CBS refin Strat I tried recently which at around £6k was very ordinary.

For me it's like a lot of gear related issues, it's what works for the player. I've owned several PRS's in the past, and a very nice Anderson, but I prefer playing that Strat and 335 above anything else I own or have tried in the last few years. Could listeners tell the difference? Probably not, but I can. Do other players agree with me? Again maybe or maybe not, but they work for me and that's what counts.

koneguitarist · May 2014

With Acoustics there was a big review of how a guitar sounds better, what they found was, it takes roughly 60years for a flat top acoustic to be as good as it's gonna get, ie well played in and opened up. However the Arch tops would mature in about 200 years.

The trouble with that now is so many people want an acoustic to sound great straight out of the box, and let's be honest some certainly do, and can't be bothered to wait for it to mature. This is where the vintage acoustics score. Quality wise, it's as good now as it ever was.

I have played some old 1930's small bodied Martins, and the volume coming out of them was staggering, not sure of that's down to wood or age, I personally think it's down to being played regular that a guitars tone opens up.

Not really true with a solid body though.

koneguitarist · May 2014

Misty said:

My feeling is that the whole vintage thing is slowly but surely dying a death. Having said that, I like them; I like the fact that they have a history, have done some work and some, but not all, have great character. Like richardhomer I'm fortunate enough to own a '64 335, all original, no changes or breaks, and I love it. I've owned several 335's in the past; a '72 which was not very good at all, a '97 which was very good but not particularly individual, a '67 which had a really sweet and vibrant sound, and this '64 which is the best I've played. Whether it's better than a good new example is debatable, but I love it and to me that's what counts. I also have a '64 Strat which is what you would call players' grade, not all original but close enough and good enough to be my #1, and I prefer it to my other two Strats, both early CS models, and still good guitars. I also have a '69 Tele, not the best year by any stretch but a good example which one or two people in the know have confirmed, though I would say my '00 CS Tele is the better of the two. Old guitars are most definitely not better as a rule, but a good old one is a great find. There are plenty that are not, including a pre CBS refin Strat I tried recently which at around £6k was very ordinary.

For me it's like a lot of gear related issues, it's what works for the player. I've owned several PRS's in the past, and a very nice Anderson, but I prefer playing that Strat and 335 above anything else I own or have tried in the last few years. Could listeners tell the difference? Probably not, but I can. Do other players agree with me? Again maybe or maybe not, but they work for me and that's what counts.

I think the crappy end of vintage guitars is dying, ie the 70's strats and stuff, but the pre war Martins, the early Gibson Arch tops and of course the late 50's Les Paul's, are still among the best investments you can make at the moment.

Misty · May 2014

Good point, though I do still think the electric vintage market is subsiding in general, I just get the impression that the good ones are spoken for, and what's left hangs around for long periods at inflated prices still, though those have come down a bit. Also, I'm sure there are fewer people with the money or the desire to invest in old guitars, and the younger players are just not that interested. Why would they be when new guitars are so good now? Having said that, I recently looked at a '65 Gibson ES175 which I really thought had something special about it.

ICBM · May 2014

The basic point, as already said, is that a typical 70s Strat is not vintage, it's just old... and as poor in relation to a typical 50s one now as it was when they were new and started the 'vintage' thing. And it always will be.

Although, with drastic work they can actually be quite nice - but this shows the stupidity of the vintage market because with a refinish, neck pocket repair, re-contour and new bridge, you "destroy" its "originality" and hence "value". I did that to a boat anchor of a '79 one once, it made it a nice guitar... and about a couple of pounds lighter!

But I've also played a complete dog of a '57 that, even though also refinished and with a badly-done neck shave, was still "worth" much more because "it's a '57 Strat".

ie age trumps originality which trumps being any good as a musical instrument...

Which still doesn't mean that the very best as a musical instrument might not be an all-original 50s Fender or Gibson, it's just that the reverse is not necessarily true.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

would you really notice any difference if you could afford to buy a vintage guitar?

Comments