How good can a guitar be?

BigPaulie

We've got premium (factory) brands: Martin, Gibson, Taylor etc.

We've got premium (workshop) brands: Collings, Bourgeois. Lowden etc.

We've got super premium single luthier makes: Ralph Bown, Michael Bashkin. Froggy Bottom etc.

I've no doubt that Ralph Bown makes some objectively stunning guitars and that it's more expensive to craft a single guitar at a time, built specifically for an individual customer, but where's the value in commissioning a Bashkin over a Brook?

blobb

I'd love an Andy Manson acoustic. I'd never do it justice, but as a craftsman I appreciate I would cherish it simply because it was an Andy Manson. It would be special becasue of that fact alone.

Tannin

How many of us have enough experience of the "super premium" luthiers' products? I certainly haven't. 

There is certainly a quality difference between a very good quality factory guitar (Martin HD-28, Maton Messiah, high-end Taylor) and a custom-shop level factory guitar (certainly in the ones I own or have tried out, I expect that the same is true for the ones I have not, e.g. Martin).

And there is a quality difference between those custom shop level instruments and the ones made by a competent single luthier.  I probably need to play more examples to be sure, but my limited experience suggests that the solo operators' products tend to have greater strengths but also more obvious weaknesses. 

My guess - and it is pure guesswork, nothing more - is that the "premium single luthiers" retain the enhanced strengths of a typical good single luthier but also retain the all-round ability and balance of a factory custom shop instrument. If so, that's the perfect guitar in all respects (other than price).

SixStringSage

This is where the subjectivity of "value" comes into play.

Ultimately, what does it mean? 

Some of you already know that I currently own an Epiphone Dove and a Gibson Dove, which I'll use as an example here. There's no question that the Gibson is superior in every way: the sound is much richer, the neck is more comfortable, the wood quality is better, the nitro/poly finishes are worlds apart (the Epi feels somewhat plasticky), and there's a different level of craftsmanship.

But I was playing the Epiphone last night and thought it's actually got a very nice tone. No it's not as rich or resonant and it's not "as good", but it's still good. You could get on stage and play it and the audience wouldn't know it's a cheap guitar. I dare say it would sound decent on record too.

It's like watches. Swiss watches like Rolex and Omega are made with time-honoured techniques, jaw-dropping engineering and precision, and are wonderful items. But they're less accurate than a digital watch, they don't monitor your heart health, automatically change as the clocks change, and so on. Which is better? 

 There's an echo with guitars there — sure, my expensive Gibson Dove looks, sounds, and feels better, but there's a vulnerability to it. My laminate entry-level Fender acoustic lives above a radiator and never goes out of tune, but needless to say I'd never put an expensive guitar there!

I think with guitars, and boutiques, is a lot of what you're paying for is the craft. And there's nothing wrong with that — I have huge respect for craft and believe it should be paid for. But objectively, the final output may not be "better" in a measurable sense. On the one hand you'll be paying for that maker not getting the same bulk prices as a larger factory brand. You're paying for it taking them longer to make a guitar. You're paying for any flourishes with materials (e.g. mother of pearl). You're paying for different profit margins. 

And the final finished product might very well have a 1% improvement in sound, but to answer your question does that improve "how good" the guitar is? That's very much a personal question that each player may have a different answer for. 

slacker

Also with a custom made guitar the customer is deciding the build. So if someone wants a specific shape and wood, it can be done. 

The good in how good is it can mean different things. I have an expensive guitar that was bought with the intention of it being the best guitar I could find and afford. I think it is. I also have a travel sized guitar that had to be cheap, almost disposable and it is. It was a quarter of the price of the good one and better than it should be. If I get another guitar it has to be loud.

So good changes for me.

Shadow

I wondered that when I saw that Mak has two pre-owned Kim Walkers at £32995 each! He says there's a 9 year waiting list for a new one with prices starting at $61000. Blows my mind.

SixStringSage

Shadow said:

I wondered that when I saw that Mak has two pre-owned Kim Walkers at £32995 each! He says there's a 9 year waiting list for a new one with prices starting at $61000. Blows my mind.

At that point I highly suspect it's less about how good a guitar is and more about the status/prestige of owning one.

Very much like the $50,000 Greeny Les Paul

guitarjack66

SixStringSage said:

This is where the subjectivity of "value" comes into play.

Ultimately, what does it mean? 

Some of you already know that I currently own an Epiphone Dove and a Gibson Dove, which I'll use as an example here. There's no question that the Gibson is superior in every way: the sound is much richer, the neck is more comfortable, the wood quality is better, the nitro/poly finishes are worlds apart (the Epi feels somewhat plasticky), and there's a different level of craftsmanship.

But I was playing the Epiphone last night and thought it's actually got a very nice tone. No it's not as rich or resonant and it's not "as good", but it's still good. You could get on stage and play it and the audience wouldn't know it's a cheap guitar. I dare say it would sound decent on record too.

It's like watches. Swiss watches like Rolex and Omega are made with time-honoured techniques, jaw-dropping engineering and precision, and are wonderful items. But they're less accurate than a digital watch, they don't monitor your heart health, automatically change as the clocks change, and so on. Which is better? 

 There's an echo with guitars there — sure, my expensive Gibson Dove looks, sounds, and feels better, but there's a vulnerability to it. My laminate entry-level Fender acoustic lives above a radiator and never goes out of tune, but needless to say I'd never put an expensive guitar there!

I think with guitars, and boutiques, is a lot of what you're paying for is the craft. And there's nothing wrong with that — I have huge respect for craft and believe it should be paid for. But objectively, the final output may not be "better" in a measurable sense. On the one hand you'll be paying for that maker not getting the same bulk prices as a larger factory brand. You're paying for it taking them longer to make a guitar. You're paying for any flourishes with materials (e.g. mother of pearl). You're paying for different profit margins. 

And the final finished product might very well have a 1% improvement in sound, but to answer your question does that improve "how good" the guitar is? That's very much a personal question that each player may have a different answer for. 

How do you rate your entry level Fender? I have a Squier by Fender Jumbo and it's still my best sounding guitar by a mile. But in terms of monetary value it is 'I'll give you a tenner for that mate' level above being thrown in a skip (Dumpster to our North American friends.)

BigPaulie

Shadow said:

I wondered that when I saw that Mak has two pre-owned Kim Walkers at £32995 each! He says there's a 9 year waiting list for a new one with prices starting at $61000. Blows my mind.

Wow! 

That's my point exactly. 

I didn't realise I had to add a super-strato-premium category!

I know there are people out there to whom $61k is not a lot of money and I'll never be in a position to have to justify spending that sort of wedge on a guitar. Even if I had the money I wouldn't. If I won the lottery I could potentially see myself paying that for a vintage collectible instrument, but not a new one. However, short of the use of rare materials, what makes a new guitar "worth" £61k?

To use Brook as an example again. I could go to them and specify a guitar to my exact requirements, even adding on all sorts of embellishments such as purfling and custom inlays, made from the timbers of my choice (Brazilian Rosewood and reclaimed Titanic Captain's table notwithstanding) and walk away 18 months later with an objectively superb instrument, built to impeccable standards for under £5k.

How does a luthier even get to the point that they charge $61k for an instrument and find customers willing to pay that? Is it similar to the Dumble phenomenon where you get your product in the hands of a few famous players and let the orders roll in, or is there something objectively significantly better about a Kim Walker guitar?

Winny_Pooh

@Castro ;

BigPaulie

I found this interesting piece on pricing on the Kim Walker website: 

"I find pricing to be a tough assignment. What I have found by tracking the resale of my guitars (in mint condition) over the last 40 + years is that they have typically sold for more than my current list price, often for substantially more than their original selling price.

The prices that I have charged for my instruments have increased by approximately 10% annually, on average, for the last 28 years. Though, the price increases between 2007 and 2012 averaged 5%. Sometimes the market price outpaces this and I make adjustments accordingly."

So it seems that, at least partially, he sets his prices in line with what the market will tolerate rather than a materials+labour+desired profit margin model. 

Fair play to him if he can get away with that. I just wonder how a builder manages to get to such a level of demand/desirability. It can't just be based on the quality of his work. A guitar can only be "so good".

Incidentally, I'm now in a YouTube wormhole of Kim Walker guitar videos and I'm not entirely impressed with the sound profile of a good proportion of the ones I've listened to.

Kurtis

It's interesting that really expensive acoustics tend to use fancy looking woods and lots of inlays etc. Does that guarantee a better guitar?

Has anyone ever built a guitar using really ugly looking wood, to see how it sounds? 

BigPaulie

Kurtis said:

It's interesting that really expensive acoustics tend to use fancy looking woods and lots of inlays etc. Does that guarantee a better guitar?

Has anyone ever built a guitar using really ugly looking wood, to see how it sounds? 

https://www.essexrecordingstudios.com/products/taylor-custom-shop-namm-2000-legendary-pallet-masterbuilt-acoustic-guitar-breedlove-inlay

Kurtis

BigPaulie said:

Kurtis said:

It's interesting that really expensive acoustics tend to use fancy looking woods and lots of inlays etc. Does that guarantee a better guitar?

Has anyone ever built a guitar using really ugly looking wood, to see how it sounds? 

https://www.essexrecordingstudios.com/products/taylor-custom-shop-namm-2000-legendary-pallet-masterbuilt-acoustic-guitar-breedlove-inlay

Ooh, sorry I asked! 

MartinB

BigPaulie said:

How does a luthier even get to the point that they charge $61k for an instrument and find customers willing to pay that? Is it similar to the Dumble phenomenon where you get your product in the hands of a few famous players and let the orders roll in, or is there something objectively significantly better about a Kim Walker guitar?

I gather Dumble worked a bit differently - the prices he charged weren't as crazy high as the resale prices we see, but he was extremely selective about who he would build for. So he wasn't really letting the orders roll in, the used prices went nuts because unless he knew you and/or liked your playing, no amount of cash could buy you one direct from him,

Devil#20

The alternative way to think about this is how good a guitar player you think you are and would a guitar of superior quality be justified to match your mediocre efforts. Justification probably comes down to pride of ownership rather than the former. There's no doubt a better guitar helps you to play better but only up to a point. I couldn't justify paying more than say £1500-£2500 on a guitar because I'm not a virtuoso player; far from it in fact. The output of a guitar is only as good as its input. Ed Sheeran doesn't need a Lowden as he's only using it to play the same 3 chords but he can afford it. 

Vintage65

My Eastman is already too good for me!

MartinB

Devil#20 said:

The alternative way to think about this is how good a guitar player you think you are and would a guitar of superior quality be justified to match your mediocre efforts. Justification probably comes down to pride of ownership rather than the former. There's no doubt a better guitar helps you to play better but only up to a point. I couldn't justify paying more than say £1500-£2500 on a guitar because I'm not a virtuoso player; far from it in fact. The output of a guitar is only as good as its input. Ed Sheeran doesn't need a Lowden as he's only using it to play the same 3 chords but he can afford it. 

I've never been quite sure how to apply this idea - a fair few working original musicians doing stuff I enjoy are out there with instruments that are pro grade, but not anything rarified, instruments that wealthy retiree hobbyists on American guitar forums would only consider owning as their "beater". I've played for a long time and while I don't think I'm anything special, I see a lot of guys demoing their high end instruments on YouTube who definitely aren't more advanced players than me. So as someone on a low income it would be quite easy to slip into unhealthy chip-on-my-shoulder thinking about it, and I try not to.

Castro

@Winny_Pooh tagged me but I don't think I can add much to this conversation.

Ultimately, a guitar is only ever worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Jez6345789

I have whole personal schizophrenia about Luthier made instruments. On one hand the whole crazy mentality and business model incenses me. I think a lot of so called luthier made instruments are often made by people who have made less than a dozen guitars and charge 10-15-20k they make 3-6 guitars a year as they really are not every good or experienced with their craft. Then there is the ridiculous up charge a recent example was my standard model in old growth EIR.mI offer Paduak which is cheap as chips for a £400 quid up charge all wood changes with approx 400% markup. Who gets to make a 400% on materials.

Luthier built guitars, I looked at a 20k Jason Kostal a while ago now and the mitre was cut wrong on the neck purfling, for 20k and at that level you would expect them to execute properly or if they screwed it up redo it and in fairness to Mr Kostal I have also seen some spectacular guitars.

The other side of that I have played and lusted after a few of Mr Bashkins fine works and a lovely JT model in Brazlian and cedar from Olsen. All largely out of my price range although I would probably like to commission Mr Bashkin not sure I have that many years left playing with his waiting list. 

I also think as many Luthier built guitars are so different in response and tonality from the mainstream you also have to develop your ear and technique to get the best from them. 

Anyway as I said too conflicted on this subject LOL

strtdv

I think it's possible to get really fantastic playing and sounding guitars for £3000-£3500. There are "better" guitars (a D-45 is "nicer" than a HD-28  for instance), but much past £4500 you're well into the diminishing returns territory (maybe objectively 10% better for 300-400% cost)

Similarly, if you're prepared to go for a slightly less mainstream brand you can get something very nice that would play beautifully and sound at good that no-one listening to a recording or live performance would care (or possibly even notice) for substantially less (the Furch vintage range comes to mind, and Dowina are arguably even better value).

I do far more of my playing on electric guitar than acoustic, and I've played really great electric guitars that cost £3000 and really great electric guitars that cost £300.
I'm very fortunate to be in the position where I can afford the £3000 one but I certainly wouldn't despise the £300 one, nor would I kid myself into thinking anyone in the audience notices or cares