When is "Vintage" actually vintage?

paul_c2

Sporky said:

Skipped said:

Classical Musicians

[snip]

How do you explain these huge buying decisions? 

You don't get into a serious orchestra with a nice shiny new Yamaha.

There is an expectation that you'll have an instrument a couple of hundred years old with a hint of provenance, and ideally made by one of the right makers.

Same mojo-bullhonky as with guitarists, effectively.

Not actually completely true - well its true only for violin/cello players. Viola - people don't care. Others like the brass and woodwind, will prefer a newer instrument over an older one for the obvious reasons such as quality, consistency etc. Professional musicians don't seem to have this "GAS" phenomenon, partly because orchestral instruments are so expensive and partly because it takes a little time to switch from one to another and become accustomed to it, so there's no value (and a detriment) to having 2 instruments of the same type. Professionals "double" on something else frequently....but that's a different instrument (and in any case, they'll keep eg mouthpiece the same for the two).

Regarding vintage guitars, there does seem to be an awful lot of people who are quite happy to prop up what's basically a load of bollocks regarding older instruments being somehow "better" than newer ones. There may be rare cases where its true, but in the whole, its not, or it doesn't matter. And then there's the collectors who either have more money than sense, or are in it for financial reasons......

impmann

Skipped said:

impmann said:

Round and round in circles we go.

I'm out.

You are out? 

It was your mojo-fairy-dust-feel-the-history bollocks comment that we were discussing.

The mojo-fairy-dust-feel-the-history bollocks that Jo Bonamassa is displaying even when he is completely alone with his guitar of choice.

The "mojo-fairy-dust-feel-the-history bollocks" comment was made in the context of that a modern guitar can't have that...  And I do believe it to be in the main "bollocks". Thats just my opinion.

Joe B can play whatever the fuck he wants. And I totally agree with the comment above, its what is expected of him and his 'brand'. Good luck to him - he's got the money and its great to see these old instruments being played rather than traded like commodities. However, to my ears he sounds the same whatever Les Paul he plays - but its clearly important to him that he plays particular guitars on particular tracks to inspire him/give him that extra whatever he needs... the end result, to this non-fan is he sounds the same when he plays his late 50s burst or a reissue of one. But, like I say I'm not a fan of that sort of thing...

I'm out because you clearly have your own opinion, as do I - and we are going around in circles, with you trying to discredit my opinion, rather than answering the OP's question.

paul_c2

paul_c2 said:

Sporky said:

Skipped said:

Classical Musicians

[snip]

How do you explain these huge buying decisions? 

You don't get into a serious orchestra with a nice shiny new Yamaha.

There is an expectation that you'll have an instrument a couple of hundred years old with a hint of provenance, and ideally made by one of the right makers.

Same mojo-bullhonky as with guitarists, effectively.

Not actually completely true - well its true only for violin/cello players. Viola - people don't care. Others like the brass and woodwind, will prefer a newer instrument over an older one for the obvious reasons such as quality, consistency etc. Professional musicians don't seem to have this "GAS" phenomenon, partly because orchestral instruments are so expensive and partly because it takes a little time to switch from one to another and become accustomed to it, so there's no value (and a detriment) to having 2 instruments of the same type. Professionals "double" on something else frequently....but that's a different instrument (and in any case, they'll keep eg mouthpiece the same for the two).

Regarding vintage guitars, there does seem to be an awful lot of people who are quite happy to prop up what's basically a load of bollocks regarding older instruments being somehow "better" than newer ones. There may be rare cases where its true, but in the whole, its not, or it doesn't matter. And then there's the collectors who either have more money than sense, or are in it for financial reasons......

Found it:



Around 14:25 and on, Stefan talks about how the Berlin Phil switched to new Yamaha 667s for a couple of years.

SNAKEBITE

Isn't it a relative term?

It's like an antique, I believe at one time it was, by definition when something was over 100 years old, but was reduced to 50 years old.

But just because something is an antique it does not make it valuable, or desirable.

Is there an age where a guitar becomes vintage?

Maybe at 25 years for instance, but just because it has become vintage does not mean it increases in value automatically.

guitars4you

paul_c2 said:

Not actually completely true - well its true only for violin/cello players. Viola - people don't care. Others like the brass and woodwind, will prefer a newer instrument over an older one for the obvious reasons such as quality, consistency etc. Professional musicians don't seem to have this "GAS" phenomenon, partly because orchestral instruments are so expensive and partly because it takes a little time to switch from one to another and become accustomed to it, so there's no value (and a detriment) to having 2 instruments of the same type. Professionals "double" on something else frequently....but that's a different instrument (and in any case, they'll keep eg mouthpiece the same for the two).

I'm not an expert on the classical market, but both my Dad and grand father, both ex-pros, who ran the classical side of the family music business for many years, so I have some knowledge based on working in the same environment

Many wood wind players double up on other instruments ie sax and flute or sax and clarinet and even alto/tenor - but it is unusual to have say 2 tenor saxophones in working order - My dad for a number of years played old Sax's from the 30's and 40's and loved the tone, but after many years of playing they mechanically wear out and really only tolerate so many complete overhauls - Not unusual to see my dad and cronies at jazz gigs with a rubber band holding something together - He now plays new Yamaha and/or Yanagasawa and prefers the feel and balance of these by a big margin - agrees about the tone on an old cigar cutter or King etc, but today feels they are a bitch to play in comparison - he equates it to driving a 1960's old car and a modern car

Regarding violins etc - 10K is cheap in that industry - There are many small luthiers today that make quality instruments, but never ever in the string business has there been that big name like Fender or Gibson, that have dominated the market place - Based on units made and the influence they have via a guitar hero worship status - Yes Strad's are well known, but only around 500/600 are known to exist today - But the string business has always been, and is still the same today, in that it is supplied by small discerning workshops, from various countries - I'm talking about the discerning pro market and not the low end production student market (generally from the far east) - However it is fairly common that a violin player will have an exceptional 100K plus violin and use a 5-10K violin for less 'important' work - But violins are similar to the acoustic guitar market in that there are many mighty fine luthiers today, so old v new is not the only reason to buy - Feel, performance, tone, etc takes priority

rsvmark

Definition of vintage from OED

vintage

NOUN

• The year or place in which wine, especially wine of high quality, was produced:

  ‘1982 is one of the best vintages of the century’
  
  
  Synonyms
  1. A wine of high quality made from the crop of a single identified district in a good year.
     
     
  2. literary [mass noun] Wine.
     
     
  3. The harvesting of grapes for winemaking:
     ‘the work songs of the scything and the vintage’

     
     
  4. The grapes or wine produced in a particular season:
     ‘they have released the 1988 vintage of their best-selling red wine’

     ‘he never lost a vintage through frost’

     
     

• The time that something of quality was produced:

  ‘rifles of various sizes and vintages’
  
  

ADJECTIVE

Relating to or denoting wine of high quality:

• ‘vintage claret’
  More example sentences
  Synonyms

• Denoting something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind:

  ‘a vintage Sherlock Holmes adventure’

  More example sentences

  Synonyms

Origin

Late Middle English: alteration (influenced by vintner) of earlier vendage, from Old French vendange, from Latin vindemia (from vinum wine + demere remove).

p90fool

One thing which gets forgotten in all this is that it wasn't the AGE of "vintage" guitars which made them better, it was the DESIGN.

There was nothing at all preventing Fender or Gibson from making guitars just like they had in the 50s and 60s, they just chose not to.

The manufacturers didn't regard staggered polepieces, properly contoured bodies or full-sized humbuckers as important, so players HAD to buy old guitars if they wanted classic sounds.

They undoubtedly became sloppy and careless in the execution, but more importantly they changed the design, and we didn't want them to.

Imagine if on January 1st 2017 suddenly ALL Fenders had shitty, weedy pickups, lazy, ugly body shaping and a stupidly complicated neck join. We'd all be clamouring for pre-2017 guitars, and nobody would be bullshitting about "mojo" or "aged wood", they'd just want Fender to start making them properly again.

That is effectively what happened to us guitarists 40 years ago - "vintage" is actually a totally misleading and inaccurate term for it. Nobody would call a 2014 Les Paul vintage, but almost everyone would choose one over a 2015. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ageing process.

Sassafras

Vintage guitars are great, aren't they?

Who'd have thought they could be so divisive?

olafgarten

p90fool said:

One thing which gets forgotten in all this is that it wasn't the AGE of "vintage" guitars which made them better, it was the DESIGN.

There was nothing at all preventing Fender or Gibson from making guitars just like they had in the 50s and 60s, they just chose not to.

The manufacturers didn't regard staggered polepieces, properly contoured bodies or full-sized humbuckers as important, so players HAD to buy old guitars if they wanted classic sounds.

They undoubtedly became sloppy and careless in the execution, but more importantly they changed the design, and we didn't want them to.

Imagine if on January 1st 2017 suddenly ALL Fenders had shitty, weedy pickups, lazy, ugly body shaping and a stupidly complicated neck join. We'd all be clamouring for pre-2017 guitars, and nobody would be bullshitting about "mojo" or "aged wood", they'd just want Fender to start making them properly again.

That is effectively what happened to us guitarists 40 years ago - "vintage" is actually a totally misleading and inaccurate term for it. Nobody would call a 2014 Les Paul vintage, but almost everyone would choose one over a 2015. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ageing process.

I agree, but now Guitars are being made properly, especially Custom Shop jobs, so there is no need for Vintage Guitars. 

fields5069

octatonic said:

richardhomer said:

To use the wine analogy - some wines from some years are highly prized - some aren't.

My '63 Strat was 20 years old when I bought it - it was magnificent - and very much considered 'vintage' at the time.

My '94 American Standard Strat is now 22 years old - and is neither magnificent, nor vintage....

This nails it.

At this point in time I don't think of anything made after 1969 as 'vintage'.
I've seen it said that anything 25 years or older is a 'vintage guitar' but that means 1990 now.
Sorry but 1980's guitars are simply not vintage guitars in the way a '62 strat is a vintage guitar.

There are some "iconic" guitars or versions of guitars which came from the 70s though - 72 Tele Thinline for example. That, to me, is vintage.

p90fool

olafgarten said:

p90fool said:

One thing which gets forgotten in all this is that it wasn't the AGE of "vintage" guitars which made them better, it was the DESIGN.

There was nothing at all preventing Fender or Gibson from making guitars just like they had in the 50s and 60s, they just chose not to.

The manufacturers didn't regard staggered polepieces, properly contoured bodies or full-sized humbuckers as important, so players HAD to buy old guitars if they wanted classic sounds.

They undoubtedly became sloppy and careless in the execution, but more importantly they changed the design, and we didn't want them to.

Imagine if on January 1st 2017 suddenly ALL Fenders had shitty, weedy pickups, lazy, ugly body shaping and a stupidly complicated neck join. We'd all be clamouring for pre-2017 guitars, and nobody would be bullshitting about "mojo" or "aged wood", they'd just want Fender to start making them properly again.

That is effectively what happened to us guitarists 40 years ago - "vintage" is actually a totally misleading and inaccurate term for it. Nobody would call a 2014 Les Paul vintage, but almost everyone would choose one over a 2015. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ageing process.

I agree, but now Guitars are being made properly, especially Custom Shop jobs, so there is no need for Vintage Guitars. 

Exactly. Vintage guitars can be nice to own, and some have an undeniable "something", but they're no longer a necessity and haven't been for around 30 years.

guitars4you

p90fool said:

I agree, but now Guitars are being made properly, especially Custom Shop jobs, so there is no need for Vintage Guitars. 

Exactly. Vintage guitars can be nice to own, and some have an undeniable "something", but they're no longer a necessity and haven't been for around 30 years.

that is a very valid comment - I have a couple of vintage pieces  I'm glad I can afford them but they don't get played as well as my 'modern guitars' as I prefer the actual playing performance of those - hence the C/Shop replica market is so strong and more affordable - and replaceable if it gets damaged/lost/stolen (assume insured)

Vintage are great to have around and certainly possess some mystical mojo - but do you need one is another story

ChuckManual

ICBM said:

My first amp, in 1985, was a 1964 Centurion Hi-Fi Five. It was vintage then, both in sound and in age - 21 years. My 1994 Mesa Trem-o-verb is now 22 years old and is quite definitely not vintage - it's almost the definition of a 'modern' amp in fact.

...and thus, at a stroke, my long, long quest for a band-name for my Ska/Mento/Rocksteady revivalist quintet was over...

Voxman

• My 2 cents:
• There is a lot of ill-infomed rubbish spoken about 'vintage' gear.  Some vintage gear can be superb, and have a mojo not available from 'modern' gear - BUT most of the really good stuff has already been snapped up by pro players and/or rich collectors.  Many are simply 'very good' but no better than modern 'custom shop' versions or even a good example of a 'stock' guitar, but some can be dogs. 
• Age of its own does not guarantee great tone or quality.  There was a lack of consistent quality (old Fenders specifically) because of varying build techniques and materials (often, these depended on what woods etc were around)
• With guitars, there is a major problem now with determining what is truly vintage and completely original, what is mostly vintage but with some changes, and what are fakes. 
• There is no doubt in my mind that, whilst acknowledging that some vintage gear can be superb, there is a huge element of 'mind-fooling' and 'psychological' beefing up (aka placebo effect) to justify their purchase and maintain/increase vintage values especially amongst owners who swear blind that their vintage guitar is superb, has mojo, and a tone & feel different to even top-end Custom Shop guitars. Whilst this may be true for a relative handful of truly quality vintage instruments, in truth most players (including the owners!) could not tell the difference in a true blind test.  
• The requirements of many modern musicians have changed when practical considerations are paramount.  Eric Clapton, mentioned earlier, uses modern guitars for 4 key reasons - (i) Easy and cheap to replace with no fear of losing/damaging really valuable vintage guitars (ii) Modern manufacturing techniques means more consistent quality (iii) better tuning with modern bridges and machine heads and (iv) modern features eg noiseless pickups, boost circuit, staggered, locking machine-heads etc.  
• For amps, most modern players want practical features not found in most vintage gear eg Master Volume, Reverb, FX loop, built in power adjustment etc.  Again, consistency of components, design, and quality varied in vintage amps - which is why two Vintage AC30's might sound very different.  However, it is reasonable to say that overall build quality tended to be better because not only were these hand built but parts were usually well over the specification required ie there were many components that were effectively 'over-engineered' and a big reason why so many vintage amps are still around.  
• Effects - owners of a vintage Ibanez TS808 tube screamer or a Boss SD1 might swear blind that these are way better than modern versions (even 'Waza' versions). Even if there is some modest sonic difference, what's 'better' is in the eyes/ears of the player.  But again, there's no avoiding owners swearing blind that their vintage pedal has a mojo not available today from modern units.  

A big problem is the placebo effect because even respected players and technicians can be affected by this.  It's not that anyone is fibbing - they genuinely believe that there is something better/special about certain vintage gear. But how much of that 'difference' is genuinely there and how much is psychological? It's almost an intangible thing that can only be resolved on a particular piece of gear with independent blind testing - and that's not practical.  There's also the question as to whether a piece of gear sounds better or sounds different ...it's not necessarily the same thing.

We're kind of getting a similar thing in the 'modern world' with the 'valve is still better than modelling' thing - but in truth the lines are merging (think Kemper, Helix, Axe Fx etc) and it's becoming increasingly difficult to sonically tell the difference even for true die-hard valve-amp afficiandos - some of whom are so impressed at modern solutions that they are beginning to 'turn' not least because of issues such as weight, maintenance costs, flexibility, tonal consistency, reliability, linking to PA, recording etc etc.  

So, what is vintage? Well, I don't think there's a precise answer - mostly you just kind of know that certain things are vintage from common sense and from accepted 'wisdom' eg pre-CBS, late 60's (possibly even early 70's but this is where it gets very 'grey') Fenders, Gibsons (1950's-1960's - possibly some earlier 70's?), the JMI era of Vox amps, 1960's Marshall amps etc.  It's partly to do with age, partly who the manufacturer was, when manufacturing materials/techniques underwent a more fundamental change, and/or when key personnel left etc.  But I don't think you can take the view that a 1990 LP Custom is vintage just because its 26 years old and in 1990 a 1964 Strat was only 26 years old!  That clearly doesn't mean anything. 

And sometimes its only years later that certain types of gear get appreciated and begin to have a 'vintage' standing.  Who knows, in 30 years time maybe the Line 6 Helix or even my humble Vox Valvetronix AD120VTX, or Mark I Marshall Valvestate 8080 or 2002 PRS Cu24 will be regarded as 'Vintage'!  

Bridgehouse

@Voxman - that was about $1.43 I reckon! Good points tho

impmann

@Voxman BRAVO, many wisdoms be had.

Evilmags

For a collector with tonnes of money Loyd Loar Gibson and Ted McCarthy Gibson are examples of what would be considered "Vintage" as opposed to old. Likewise pre CBS Fender. Calling most 70s strats vintage is nonsense because they were not in any way exceptional. Likewise a lot of Norlin ea Gibsons. They can get as old as they want, but will still me fairly mediocre. Given the huge production and demand for guitars in the past 30 years, it is likely some of todays will get tht vintage tag too. 

pintspiller

Doesn't the term "vintage" just mean it's over 25 years old? Whether it's "desirable" depends on a lot of factors.

Age alone is not a reason to buy an instrument solely. However, most acoustics will sound nicer after a long period.

57Deluxe

In the car world vintage kicks in at 50 years, then you have Historic at the ton.

paul_c2

57Deluxe said:

In the car world vintage kicks in at 50 years, then you have Historic at the ton.

Does it?