$2,000 for a part-laminate acoustic?

BigPaulie

Timcito said:

https://www.davesguitar.com/products/222ce-k-dlx-2

I'm intrigued at the confidence of Taylor in demanding two thousand dollars - that's around 1,650 UK pounds - for a part-laminate guitar. The 100 and 200 series Taylors used to be good budget guitars, the classic 'great-value-for-the-money' type instruments. But now, at $2,000, they're competing with handcrafted all-solid instruments in desirable woods by such as Eastman and even all-solid models by Gibson.

The Eastman guitars in that price range (E20 etc) are made in China and, although objectively good instruments, should be cheaper.

The Gibson G series are shite.

Soupman

If you're in the market for a guitar & this Taylor is on the wall, it's a case oftry before you buy!  I suspect better instruments are to be had for that money.

@DavidR makes a good point - good guitars don't need to come from the USA, there are now plenty of other options.
 
 

Timcito

earwighoney said:

To the OP, prices of Taylors have gone through the roof.  I remember my friend bought an all solid brand new 410 for about £900, it was a great guitar too.

https://www.elderly.com/products/taylor-412ce-20u-218918?variant=42652946727103

Here's a used 2013 400 series model currently for sale in the US ... at nearly 2000 bucks! In fact, in real terms, that guitar will cost more like $2,150 after tax and shipping have been added.

But I do remember when Taylor 300 and 400 series were around $1,000 brand new, and it wasn't that long ago.

Timcito

BigPaulie said:

The Gibson G series are shite.

Played a bundle, have you?

Come on, you can diss any guitar by making a sweeping and unfounded statement like that. There are many reports of people who like them more than some of the more expensive models on account of the non-gloss open-pore finish.

In fact, buying non-gloss in the US can mean a good saving because Americans seem generally to prefer gloss to non-gloss. This topic has come up numerous times on the Acoustic Guitar Forum and others, and whereas many Europeans might see 'classy' in a matte finish, many Americans see 'cheap.' 

BigPaulie

Timcito said:

BigPaulie said:

The Gibson G series are shite.

Played a bundle, have you?

Come on, you can diss any guitar by making a sweeping and unfounded statement like that. There are many reports of people who like them more than some of the more expensive models on account of the non-gloss open-pore finish.

In fact, buying non-gloss in the US can mean a good saving because Americans seem generally to prefer gloss to non-gloss. This topic has come up numerous times on the Acoustic Guitar Forum and others, and whereas many Europeans might see 'classy' in a matte finish, many Americans see 'cheap.' 

I've played 2. The 45 and the 200.

I didn't like them at all.

The fit and finish were borderline agricultural.

And I really don't like matte finished acoustics.

Kurtis

I think it looks quite nice. The burst is a bit uneven though. 

Tannin

Double tops and laminated backs are completely different things. Not even remotely similar other than the coincidence that they have more than one layer of material.

Laminate backs are (almost always) just a cheap way to make a guitar. They (usually) sound like exactly that. They take a leaf out of the cheap furniture book.

Double tops are a more expensive way to make a very responsive guitar which (according to some) sounds better. Double tops take a leaf out of the high-performance sport construction book (e.g., racing yachts). I have only played one double top guitar, which was nice but not particularly my thing. I'd be happy to sample others some time. 

The theory behind them is that most of the force on a stress-bearing object (a beam, a girder, a guitar top) is taken by the outside of it. This is why I-beams are shaped in an I or H. They are almost as strong as a solid rectangular bar but far lighter. However, those outside surfaces have to be held rigidly apart or they lose their "magic" strength. 

For this reason, it is common to build high-performance items out of materials which have lightweight centres between strong  outer surfaces. In natural materials, a popular combination is two very thin Western Red Cedar sheets held apart by a thicker layer of end-grain Balsa. The result is a very light, extraordinarily strong combination - in fact, the lightest, strongest thing there is short of modern artificial materials (e.g., substitute in expanded polystyrene foam instead of the Balsa, and glass, Kevlar, or carbon fibre for the cedar). Cut apart a Eurofighter or a 787: you'll find it's mostly composites (exotic mixes of materials  using basically the same principles). 

Timcito

Tannin said:

Double tops and laminated backs are completely different things. Not even remotely similar other than the coincidence that they have more than one layer of material.

Laminate backs are (almost always) just a cheap way to make a guitar. They (usually) sound like exactly that. They take a leaf out of the cheap furniture book.

Double tops are a more expensive way to make a very responsive guitar which (according to some) sounds better. Double tops take a leaf out of the high-performance sport construction book (e.g., racing yachts). I have only played one double top guitar, which was nice but not particularly my thing. I'd be happy to sample others some time. 

The theory behind them is that most of the force on a stress-bearing object (a beam, a girder, a guitar top) is taken by the outside of it. This is why I-beams are shaped in an I or H. They are almost as strong as a solid rectangular bar but far lighter. However, those outside surfaces have to be held rigidly apart or they lose their "magic" strength. 

For this reason, it is common to build high-performance items out of materials which have lightweight centres between strong  outer surfaces. In natural materials, a popular combination is two very thin Western Red Cedar sheets held apart by a thicker layer of end-grain Balsa. The result is a very light, extraordinarily strong combination - in fact, the lightest, strongest thing there is short of modern artificial materials (e.g., substitute in expanded polystyrene foam instead of the Balsa, and glass, Kevlar, or carbon fibre for the cedar). Cut apart a Eurofighter or a 787: you'll find it's mostly composites (exotic mixes of materials  using basically the same principles). 

Quite so. Not all 'plywood' guitars are born equally. I think some of Guild's premier flattops used to feature a laminated arched back, and one guitar I've owned and liked, the nylon string Ramirez 2CWE, has a solid cedar top and laminated rosewood back and sides. It was not a cheap instrument.

However, Bob Taylor has always stressed a kind of 'hierarchy' in guitar ownership. In his magazine "Wood and Steel," which I used to receive until they went paperless, part of the strategy seemed to be that one 'rose up through the ranks' of Taylor guitars. The sapele-backed 300 series was labeled an 'entry-level' Taylor, as though it was okay for an all-solid wood starter, but once we got more serious, we would want a 'better' (and more expensive!) wood like rosewood or pure mahogany.

And in his pictures of people playing his instruments, he nearly always had teenagers or people laughing with 100 and 200 series guitars. These were clearly aimed at youngsters learning their first C and G chords or adults 'just having fun.' As one went up the food chain, I remember a 500 series being played by what seemed to be a lowish-level female singer songwriter performing in a pub: clearly a serious musician but not flush with money, young, and still on her way up. At the top of the chain was the koa presentation model. I remember in one issue there was a slim, bespectacled serious-looking guy of about 40 dressed up like Steve Jobs in a black turtle-necked sweater sitting in a luxury basement beside a table with a fancy-looking computer on it: a youngish, forward-thinking tech executive or something of the sort.

I wonder if, in whatever incarnation "Wood and Steel" still exists, there are still pics of kids and laughing shop-floor level employees playing 200 series Taylors ... at $2,000 a pop! 

idiotwindow

Taylor 100 and 200 series guitars are made in Mexico not in the USA factory. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the $2k examples are pretty fancy versions in the 200 series, the more basic guitars are significantly cheaper. A quick Google search shows a 214ce is £999 at GuitarGuitar. Still quite a lot of money for a non-USA made acoustic but I think Taylor have established themselves as a very respected brand that people who are not guitar obsessives are prepared to pay a bit of a premium for. Not everyone cares all that much about solid wood versus laminate or where the guitar is made. If it sounds okay, looks nice enough and has a trusted brand name on the headstock, people will buy it. The marketing that @Timcito mention above has been very effective and Taylor has, I think, much greater appeal to a younger demographic than old farts like us in this forum who get all dewy-eyed at the idea of vintage Gibsons and Martins being played by long haired stoners in 1960s Laurel Canyon, etc.

grayn

When I bought my Taylor AD27 recently, an all solid US guitar for £1100 new, I also played their 210ce dread, priced at £854.  It was a great sounding guitar, both acoustically and through an amp.  It's my opinion that Taylor's pickups are some of the best around.  As said, not all laminates are equal and it doesn't bother me if a guitar is made in Mexico and has laminate B&S.  If it sounds and feels good, then that's all you need.  
Like with everything over the last year or so, prices have soared.

rlw

It always make me laugh when I see an ES335 style guitar advertised as being made from solid woods, as if that's something special and an improvement on the original.

It's called progress, I believe, when manufacturers try different methods or different woods.  Something to do with making a better product or making a new model more economically, for the benefit of the customer.

You should all come and live in York where progress is viewed as a very bad thing.

Tannin

rlw said:

It always make me laugh when I see an ES335 style guitar advertised as being made from solid woods, as if that's something special and an improvement on the original.

There is some sense to this. Not for actual 335-style semi-hollow instruments where the sound is produced by the electronics, but real acoustic archtops can certainly benefit from being solid. The very best ones always are (and they are hand-carved, so don't even ask the price). 

So it's easy to see someone getting the idea that a 335-style guitar (which looks just like a full-on archtop only smaller) should be made using the same methods and materials as the fully acoustic model.

(As an aside, acoustic archtops are quite often made with laminated construction. Yes, actual acoustic ones. Not the very best, but not by any means cheap and nasty either. Apparently this is considered OK because - let's face the facts here - an archtop is mainly designed to go "plink, plink" with bugger-all sustain in the first place, so who cares if it's laminated? It might even be an advantage. In archtopland, as I understand it, one isn't interested in the tone as such, but rather in the consistency of tone across the strings and all the way up the neck. Me, I tend to regard that as aiming at "bad tone on every fret" but I know that's not fair. And sooner or later I will buy one and find out for myself. I mean they look so very, very cool, how can they not be lots of fun to play?)

BigPaulie

Tannin said:

Double tops and laminated backs are completely different things. Not even remotely similar other than the coincidence that they have more than one layer of material.

Laminate backs are (almost always) just a cheap way to make a guitar. They (usually) sound like exactly that. They take a leaf out of the cheap furniture book.

Double tops are a more expensive way to make a very responsive guitar which (according to some) sounds better. Double tops take a leaf out of the high-performance sport construction book (e.g., racing yachts). I have only played one double top guitar, which was nice but not particularly my thing. I'd be happy to sample others some time. 

The theory behind them is that most of the force on a stress-bearing object (a beam, a girder, a guitar top) is taken by the outside of it. This is why I-beams are shaped in an I or H. They are almost as strong as a solid rectangular bar but far lighter. However, those outside surfaces have to be held rigidly apart or they lose their "magic" strength. 

For this reason, it is common to build high-performance items out of materials which have lightweight centres between strong  outer surfaces. In natural materials, a popular combination is two very thin Western Red Cedar sheets held apart by a thicker layer of end-grain Balsa. The result is a very light, extraordinarily strong combination - in fact, the lightest, strongest thing there is short of modern artificial materials (e.g., substitute in expanded polystyrene foam instead of the Balsa, and glass, Kevlar, or carbon fibre for the cedar). Cut apart a Eurofighter or a 787: you'll find it's mostly composites (exotic mixes of materials  using basically the same principles). 

The reason this subject always produces such a range of views is because we all have a different idea of what "laminate" means. And each of our own definitions may or may not correspond to the accepted definition of the word.

OED defines "laminate" as: (of wood, plastic, etc.) made by sticking several thin layers together.

Note the use of the word "several" which in turn is defined as: more than two but not very many.

So in order to comply with the OED definition a "laminate" structure would need to have a minimum of 3 layers.

Admittedly my own appreciation of "laminate" in the specific context of guitar construction doesn't quite tie in with the accepted definition of the word. I consider "laminate" to mean a structure that is made of multiple (i.e. 2 or more) layers of the same wood.

When different woods are layered together I consider it "ply".

When other non-wood materials are introduced, such as with double-tops, I tend to use the word "composite".

So, no matter how technically advanced the materials/processes/reasons for building double-tops are, they are still "made by sticking several thin layers together" and are still, by definition, laminate.

Stratavarious

Seriously,.. if I am playing that much, the whole thing - body and neck - needs to be carved from a single block of wood.  Those composite separate neck and body guitars are cheapo.  They even glue on a bridge.. more laminations.. and stick on a nut isolating the strings from the rest of the guitar.

 If I ask for all solid, it should be all solid!

Littlejonny

Sorry accidentally hit ‘quote’ and now I’m stuck in the grey…

I wanted to make a few comments:

As stated above Double tops are an expensive process that’s been around since the 70s in classical guitar building in an attempt to make the guitar louder for concert halls. The likes of Manuel Barrueco and David Russell have been playing them since then.

Some of the most expensive classical guitars (eg Smallman - £25K) use layered back and sides. This makes them stiffer and less resonant so they have less impact on the tone, leaving the top to do its thing.

Now to the Taylor - have you played on one? I have played on quite a few 100 and 200 series, and used to own a 214. They are very good guitars, almost the same sound as a solid wood Taylor IMO. The most recent ones I tried gave me GAS for them for a month or so. I think they are worth around 1K. As for the fancy Koa one…nah. 

If you want a better acoustic at that price, I honestly don’t think Eastman quite gets there. I’ve tried a few, including the Taylor copy with solid B/S and they don’t quite have the responsiveness of Taylor’s IMO. Furch however definitely does, with a slightly more balanced response. 

Also don’t overlook Yamaha - the LL and LS solid versions are in the Taylor league, just slightly different voicing. I haven’t tried the laminate versions. 

Also, I agree about the ES2 system - they sound really nice, a bit more like a K&K type but with more definition. They need extra EQ to really sound good though, as do all acoustic pickups. 

Tannin

Oh yes @Littlejonny, I have played plenty of Taylors. Taylor is probably the second-best selling brand around here, so I see them often. 

Their 1 and 2 series models are remarkably good for what they are, but are comprehensively trumped by all-solid models at the same price and lower from Maton, Cole Clark, Furch, Takamine, and doubtless various others I am not familiar with. When you consider that all those companies just mentioned have much higher labour costs than Taylor in Mexico, and that they are building all-solid  instruments from sustainable timbers, it shows up Taylor's very poor value proposition. 

(I am not considering Chinese and Indonesian-made instruments. I wouldn't buy one and I don't care how good or bad they are, or how cheap they are, there is far too high a risk of them being made from illegally logged timbers. China in particular has a shocking record for this, and is only getting worse.)

(Nor am I a Taylor hater. Great company. One of these days I'm going to buy one of their superb all-Koa guitars. But their cheapies are way, way, way too dear.) 

bugileman

Laminate has always been a dirty word in guitar making. But in reality it's about the quality of it. Not all laminate/veneers are the same. I'm a fan of laminate, it's more durable than wood, resistant to cracks and some laminate can look fantastic done well. 

hollywoodrox

earwighoney said:

bertie said:

Lowden did some "laminate" tops - in conjunction with Jon Gomm for his sig model

That was a double top, there is a difference between that and a laminate top.  The Taylor above I presume is solid top, laminate back and sides. 

There's nothing wrong with a laminate top or back and sides. 

To the OP, prices of Taylors have gone through the roof.  I remember my friend bought an all solid brand new 410 for about £900, it was a great guitar too.

I was looking at a Taylor around 98 it was £750 I asked if they could do it for £700 but they said no  so I went with my first love a Takamine FD360SC  it should have been about 1300 rrp but I got it for about 699 mail order from a shop in Golders Green that advertised in guitarist . I made the right choice it was superb & far better specced & id seen Glen Frey play one