How good can a guitar be?

YorkieBarre

I’m sure it’s been pointed out by others before, but compared to what seems to me a bonkers price of $135,000 for a Martin ‘special’ (https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/custom-special-editions/10D200.html), most normal luthier made stuff seems more realistically priced.

I’m proud to own one Fylde as well as a Taylor 5 series and a Tanglewood Micheal Sanden collaboration made in a Chinese factory. If I could only have one it would be the Fylde all day long and it didn’t cost that much more than a mid-range factory Taylor, but all three do different things ‘better’ in my limited experience. I’m no expert, but to me Roger at Fylde makes cracking good guitars at a very good price for a top-end luthier.

I’ve stopped trying more guitars as I’m bound to find yet another one I like and I’d rather spend the time practicing on the ones I already own!

Jez6345789

I agree the outrageous Martin collector pieces are just that wall art for people who would stick something equally OTT on the wall as for D45 being better than an HD28 I always think internally they are much the same and the real difference is the level of decor.

Devil#20

Vintage65 said:

My Eastman is already too good for me!

To be fair Eastman guitars are too good for most of us. IMO they are the best bang for the buck guitars out there. They may be Chinese (Beijing) but you can safely ignore your prejudice regarding Chinese built instruments. Eastman have a long history of making wooden stringed instruments. I think they started off making violins a long while ago. Only issue with them is they still seem to be routinely using protected species woods protected by CITES. Not sure how they manage to do that but they do. Ethics aside it does make for great guitars though. Craftsmanship is second to none. Better value by far compared to Martin and Taylor. 

Kurtis

Jez6345789 said:

I agree the outrageous Martin collector pieces are just that wall art for people who would stick something equally OTT on the wall as for D45 being better than an HD28 I always think internally they are much the same and the real difference is the level of decor.

That's what I'm thinking. You're paying for the fancy inlay "art", there's no reason why they should be better guitars. In fact you might argue that any inlays will only have a negative effect on the sound and any decoration should be kept to an absolute minimum. 

MartinB

YorkieBarre said:
I’m proud to own one Fylde as well as a Taylor 5 series and a Tanglewood Micheal Sanden collaboration made in a Chinese factory. If I could only have one it would be the Fylde all day long and it didn’t cost that much more than a mid-range factory Taylor, but all three do different things ‘better’ in my limited experience. I’m no expert, but to me Roger at Fylde makes cracking good guitars at a very good price for a top-end luthier.

 After having picked up the nice Fylde mandolin that CamF had in the classifieds on here, I'm quite curious about the guitars. I listen to a lot of old UK folkies and play a fair bit in that style, and a Fylde would very much fit the bill and have the right sort of vibe. And the used prices for them tend to be at a point that I could just about shift some other gear around to manage. So I could see myself doing that if the right one came up at the right time.

Devil#20 said:

Vintage65 said:

My Eastman is already too good for me!

To be fair Eastman guitars are too good for most of us. IMO they are the best bang for the buck guitars out there. They may be Chinese (Beijing) but you can safely ignore your prejudice regarding Chinese built instruments. Eastman have a long history of making wooden stringed instruments. I think they started off making violins a long while ago. Only issue with them is they still seem to be routinely using protected species woods protected by CITES. Not sure how they manage to do that but they do. Ethics aside it does make for great guitars though. Craftsmanship is second to none. Better value by far compared to Martin and Taylor. 

I have an Eastman E1OM that I enjoy. They're good value for what you get and how they sound, but comparing to the big US brands I'd liken it more to something like the Road Series Martins rather than the fancier stuff. I haven't tried much further up the Eastman range though - what I don't know is whether they get better sounding or just prettier.

Devil#20

YorkieBarre said:

I’m sure it’s been pointed out by others before, but compared to what seems to me a bonkers price of $135,000 for a Martin ‘special’ (https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/custom-special-editions/10D200.html), most normal luthier made stuff seems more realistically priced.

I’m proud to own one Fylde as well as a Taylor 5 series and a Tanglewood Micheal Sanden collaboration made in a Chinese factory. If I could only have one it would be the Fylde all day long and it didn’t cost that much more than a mid-range factory Taylor, but all three do different things ‘better’ in my limited experience. I’m no expert, but to me Roger at Fylde makes cracking good guitars at a very good price for a top-end luthier.

I’ve stopped trying more guitars as I’m bound to find yet another one I like and I’d rather spend the time practicing on the ones I already own!

I get my guitars set up by Eddie Green who worked with Roger in St Annes before Fylde moved to Penrith, whereby Eddie stayed on the Fylde coast. One person who puts in his specific medieval stringed instrument requirements, and preferred builder, who chooses Fylde guitars (and has done for a very long time) is none other than Ritchie Blackmore. Enough said. 

Ecit: When I was stood in Eddie's workshop at his house during lockdown he was making a Mandolin and it was marvellous. It got me thinking that, although I don't play one, I wanted him to make me one. As far as the OP goes I would have enjoyed owning it even if I could just play "Going to California" on it. 

BigPaulie

MartinB said:

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.

I agree 100%.

You saved me having to write a reply. 

It irked me intensely to see a video comparing several of the subject's similar high end guitars being used to play a famous song recorded using a similar guitar. The guitars were lovely, but the playing of the song could only be described as rudimentary at best. It's not even a difficult song.

Was the player playing their interpretation of the tune, or did they actually think they were playing it accurately? Who knows?

It maybe comes across as gatekeeping. I'm not suggesting that there should be a certain level of ability required before you're allowed to own an instrument at a given price point. I'm merely suggesting the player in this particular video could get a lot more out of their guitars, and guitar-playing experience if they spent a few quid on lessons.

Jez6345789

BigPaulie said:

MartinB said:

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.

I agree 100%.

You saved me having to write a reply. 

It irked me intensely to see a video comparing several of the subject's similar high end guitars being used to play a famous song recorded using a similar guitar. The guitars were lovely, but the playing of the song could only be described as rudimentary at best. It's not even a difficult song.

Was the player playing their interpretation of the tune, or did they actually think they were playing it accurately? Who knows?

It maybe comes across as gatekeeping. I'm not suggesting that there should be a certain level of ability required before you're allowed to own an instrument at a given price point. I'm merely suggesting the player in this particular video could get a lot more out of their guitars, and guitar-playing experience if they spent a few quid on lessons.

=============

I understand it can be irksome watching a player not as good as you knocking out something basic badly on a 20k luthier built acoustic and its the same when I watched some Japanese guy who bought the Dickie Betts Les Paul knocking out the roughest version of Jessica with a hideous completely wrong tone and all the Japanese Audience fawning over him, mostly I think because of his money and status and the guitar.

That said I am no adept finger stylist but I would get immense satisfaction from say a nice Bashkin 00 as even if you are not a fine high funcitoning guitarist you can still appreciate what that instrument brings once you get to play it but as with all things a few lessons can help all of us. 

Tannin

There are some nasty vibes coming out of this thread.

DavidR

For me, @SixStringSage sums up this thread best by saying,"...not as good, but still good ".

What is quality anyway? Primarily, a good tone in my book. Then playability, then appearance. Others would put those three things in a different order and add to them the sheer joy of owning an instrument, which would include the factors of brand and history. For example, I would adore a real Gibson J200 just because Gary Davis played one - but they're £5K! So no.

Used to be that bling and near-perfect build came with cost; but no more. Cheaper guitars can be really lovely. For appearance, I lust after this Sigma and it's only £1.2K. Cheap in acoustic terms.





I have no idea what it sounds, or plays like though. It is lovely looking.

To paraphrase, There's many a good tune played on a cheap (or cheaper) fiddle.  :-)

drofluf

My guitars have far more potential than I’ll be able to fill; but I’m in the fortunate position of being able to afford them, I derive great pleasure from playing them and I’m probably more inspired to play because they’re great sounding instruments. 

The guitar doesn’t care how good you are as long as it gets played. 

GTC

Here's my personal take on things. Yes, when you get to a certain point there is the factor of diminishing returns - and you start looking at "specialness" and exclusivity. However, the "preciousness" factor then comes into play - where you are unlikely to put a fine instrument to full use for risk of damage or theft. It sort of gets shut away in its case, only to emerge occasionally - like a priceless work of art stuck away in a private collector's vault.
That is why I am currently selling my left-handed Santa Cruz 1929 000 12 fretter on Reverb. It is clearly the finest steel-strung instrument ever to come into my hands - but it is only very marginally better than my two Brooks and Fylde Orsino, which I feel more comfortable with for everyday use.

SixStringSage

guitarjack66 said:

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.)

That's a tough question! It's somewhere between "not as good as my Gibsons, but much better than it has any right to be."

 When I got my Dove recently the goal was to sell the Epiphone Dove and that Fender. But I just can't part with it. Part of that is certainly sentimental, but it's honestly fun to play. The neck is a nice comfortable size, it sounds good (not as full or rich as the expensive acoustics, but if I heard it blindfolded I'd assume it was from a better guitar than it really is), and it's super reliable — as I said before, it lives on the wall above a radiator and somehow rarely goes out of tune. 

octatonic

Check out Ervin Somogyi.

https://esomogyi.com/

MartinB

I think I do hear a level of acoustic body and projection with some of the really good stuff that makes a difference in unamplified settings like certain folk sessions, or a bluegrass group using single mic technique for example. But I've heard that kind of sound from the lower price tier of small builders, or the standard non-budget range of some of the big US names and there's a whole world of high end instruments beyond those. So I think there's a level at which "serious" has been attained and beyond that it's mostly about specialisation.

Kurtis

SixStringSage said:

guitarjack66 said:

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.)

That's a tough question! It's somewhere between "not as good as my Gibsons, but much better than it has any right to be."

 When I got my Dove recently the goal was to sell the Epiphone Dove and that Fender. But I just can't part with it. Part of that is certainly sentimental, but it's honestly fun to play. The neck is a nice comfortable size, it sounds good (not as full or rich as the expensive acoustics, but if I heard it blindfolded I'd assume it was from a better guitar than it really is), and it's super reliable — as I said before, it lives on the wall above a radiator and somehow rarely goes out of tune. 

I'd get rid and focus on developing the same kind of feelings for the dove.

If the dove is too "precious" get rid of it. 

SixStringSage

Kurtis said:

SixStringSage said:

guitarjack66 said:

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.)

That's a tough question! It's somewhere between "not as good as my Gibsons, but much better than it has any right to be."

 When I got my Dove recently the goal was to sell the Epiphone Dove and that Fender. But I just can't part with it. Part of that is certainly sentimental, but it's honestly fun to play. The neck is a nice comfortable size, it sounds good (not as full or rich as the expensive acoustics, but if I heard it blindfolded I'd assume it was from a better guitar than it really is), and it's super reliable — as I said before, it lives on the wall above a radiator and somehow rarely goes out of tune. 

I'd get rid and focus on developing the same kind of feelings for the dove.

If the dove is too "precious" get rid of it. 

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant — I bought a Gibson Dove recently, and was going to sell the Epiphone Dove and the Fender. The Epiphone is for sale, the Fender is most likely going to be staying. I don't think I implied the (Gibson) Dove was too precious or doesn't get played, it's currently the guitar I'm playing the most. The Fender gets very little play time actually, but on the occasions that I do play it I find myself enjoying it more than I expect to.

Kurtis

SixStringSage said:

Kurtis said:

SixStringSage said:

guitarjack66 said:

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.)

That's a tough question! It's somewhere between "not as good as my Gibsons, but much better than it has any right to be."

 When I got my Dove recently the goal was to sell the Epiphone Dove and that Fender. But I just can't part with it. Part of that is certainly sentimental, but it's honestly fun to play. The neck is a nice comfortable size, it sounds good (not as full or rich as the expensive acoustics, but if I heard it blindfolded I'd assume it was from a better guitar than it really is), and it's super reliable — as I said before, it lives on the wall above a radiator and somehow rarely goes out of tune. 

I'd get rid and focus on developing the same kind of feelings for the dove.

If the dove is too "precious" get rid of it. 

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant — I bought a Gibson Dove recently, and was going to sell the Epiphone Dove and the Fender. The Epiphone is for sale, the Fender is most likely going to be staying. I don't think I implied the (Gibson) Dove was too precious or doesn't get played, it's currently the guitar I'm playing the most. The Fender gets very little play time actually, but on the occasions that I do play it I find myself enjoying it more than I expect to.

No I get you. I guess I just don't get very sentimental, and I'm sure the dove is fun to play too. Just thought that maybe the reason you find the fender such fun is that you don't care if it gets damaged. 
Up to you of course and if you have room and can afford to keep both go for it! Just saying what I would probably do. Especially if the fender isn't getting much use. 

Tannin

There are guitars which don't get much use, and then there are guitars which don't get much use. 

I have (well, had - I got rid of them all) guitars which don't get much use because, all things considered, they aren't as good as my other guitars. Maybe "not as good" really means not as good (my old Yamaha 12), maybe it means "not my kind of instrument" (my Cole Clark 12; my Guild). I can think of examples of both. So they get played only now and then.

But then I have guitars which I play seldom not because they are not good (they are excellent!) but because they are specialised. An example is my pair of baritones. They are precious and special; they are physically difficult to play, they make a sound no other guitar makes or even comes close to. I play them maybe twice a week on average. Most of my orthodox six strings get played pretty much every day; some of them often get played several times a day. 

But when I do play the baritones, it's 100%. I don't practice on them (too hard, and I don't want to wear these precious instruments out for no good reason); I don't noodle on them (I have plenty of other instruments to noodle on) - when I play them I play them! 

MartinB

Tannin said:

But then I have guitars which I play seldom not because they are not good (they are excellent!) but because they are specialised.

I have a little of this with my Kalamazoo KG-21 archtop. OK, they were a budget line, but it's also a pre-war instrument from the Gibson factory using the good materials of the time. For certain things it sounds great, but the things it does best aren't the main thrust of my playing. I'll tend to play it a lot for a couple of days and then put it away for weeks, while my less valuable Eastman E1OM stays out in regular use. For someone looking for a melodic voice in an early swing jazz/blues/rootsy field it could be just the thing (especially in a duo where you want a distinct sound from the other guitar), while I'll appreciate it but haven't quite found exacrly the role for it.