# Taylor Acoustics With Solid B/S



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Just doing a comparison on Taylor guitars which I have come to appreciate more than in the past. One thing I have found that is quite different from other mfrs. is that you have to get into the 300 series before you get a guitar with solid back and sides and now you're into $2000.00 or more for a new one. Most other high volume manufacturers have solid back and side models at price points quite a bit below that price point. Any thoughts on why that is so?

Guitar Comparison

A Guide to the Taylor Acoustic Guitar Line | Taylor Guitars


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

In my opinion it's because Taylors are generally over priced for what they are.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Why are so many people obsessed with "laminated" is inferior? I've said this again and again. Laminates are made with veneer. Veneer is the best possible wood that can be bought. When a tree is chopped down and divided up the veneer is sliced off first and the rest is made into 2x4 or whatever.... What is so wrong with veneer? And if you mention plywood you get a slap in the head. Not the same thing.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Taylors aren;t for everyone. Have you considered Alvarez? great guitars, most people listening on Youtube swear they are identical to Martins

Alvarez & Alvarez Yairi Acoustic Guitars


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

knight_yyz said:


> Why are so many people obsessed with "laminated" is inferior? I've said this again and again. Laminates are made with veneer. Veneer is the best possible wood that can be bought. When a tree is chopped down and divided up the veneer is sliced off first and the rest is made into 2x4 or whatever.... What is so wrong with veneer? And if you mention plywood you get a slap in the head. Not the same thing.


Perhaps so. Many would not agree. Some will. This is what Taylor themselves say about solid back and sides.

*"The all-solid wood construction complements the resonance of a solid top, increasing the projection and volume of the guitar while adding tonal complexity. Additionally, solid wood tends to age very well, meaning that your guitar’s tone will improve over time."*


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

So thats why the old Yammies all sound like shit?

I can see the concern if it is an inferior wood being covered by veneer, as in plywood bodies etc... But if it is true laminated it's still all wood, just lots and lots of really thin layers... Hey it works for the Gibson ES line.... Is there a solid wood ES version out there?


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

vadsy said:


> Taylors aren;t for everyone. Have you considered Alvarez? great guitars, most people listening on Youtube swear they are identical to Martins
> 
> Alvarez & Alvarez Yairi Acoustic Guitars


If I swear it will they give me one too?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

player99 said:


> If I swear it will they give me one too?


they'll give you a ukulele


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Tokai Cat's Eyes and Martin were made in the same Japanese factory for a while during the 70's or 80's can't remember which. What was it with the American Guitar companies in that era? Everyone was having problems and getting the Japanese to help out... If you own an "American Martin" made during that period, chances are it has Japanese parts. And you can get an old Tokai cat's eyes for about 2000 Yen plus shipping back to Canada for a tenth of the price of a new Martin

Tokai CE300 binding everywhere and the clubs for fret marking.... Identical to a martin and only 60 USD right now including HSC


----------



## 12 stringer (Jan 5, 2019)

You can do much better for the money, imho. Taylors are, again imho, way overrated and grossly overpriced (I used to own one).


----------



## leftysg (Mar 29, 2008)

I love Taylors so much I married one! A fine lass. I also have a 114e model that was on for 30% off. Along with some gift certificates, I got it for about $350. Great gal and great guitar.


----------



## brucew (Dec 30, 2017)

Guitars are such a subjective product my only input would be to suggest that if taylor is able to sell it's, "x" quality guitar for more than the competitors there must be sufficient number of people that think they're worth more. Could be better advertising, or current trends play a part as well.

When I was shopping I tried every brand I could get my hands on, compared how nice they played, sounded and compared quality of those things to my eye by price point of different brands. Quite frankly when compared to others with no brand loyalty some were very overpriced impo, others could be said to be undervalued comparatively.

My only suggestion would be if you suspect the taylors are overpriced for what you're getting then to your eye, they are; try other brands, a bunch, and you'll end up with the guitar you really wanted, just may not be the logo on the headstock you thought. Best of luck.


----------



## 12 stringer (Jan 5, 2019)

Taylors cost that much more only because they are popular, sexy, heavily marketed, and - a biggy for them - Taylor Swift plays them (ever noticed girl players usually play Taylors...?). They are not priced based on labour intensity as they are really big on (cheap-er) CNC machines. No, Taylors are priced higher like they are because they can, and do, get away with it.


----------



## qantor (Nov 19, 2014)

Master luthier Michael Greenfield uses laminated sides. His guitars are among the best in the world. Meaning, you can have an excellent or a very bad guitar with laminated back and sides. The same goes for solid wood back and sides.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Taylor's definitely have a distinct sound. That sound is not for everyone. It must be for quite a few though because they sell a lot of guitars. I also like their policy of using sustainable woods. If all manufacturers did similar the world would be a better place. Personally I like the sound of Taylors for live use in a band or with other guitars. For solo use or mic'ed I'd probably pick something else. I really like their laminated guitars for gigging. I don't have to worry as much about humidity or cracks from the guitar getting banged while carrying it around. Their bolt on neck system is pretty cool as well. Makes it very easy to do a neck reset.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I have a Taylor 416CE. I played a bunch of Taylors and a bunch of Martins and a few others in that price range (2200?) at an L&M one night and I preferred the 416CE. and it was on sale so it was even better.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

knight_yyz said:


> So thats why the old Yammies all sound like shit?
> 
> I can see the concern if it is an inferior wood being covered by veneer, as in plywood bodies etc... But if it is true laminated it's still all wood, just lots and lots of really thin layers... Hey it works for the Gibson ES line.... Is there a solid wood ES version out there?


True, but that is a different kettle of fish being a hollow body electric. Most of the mfrs. making those models use laminates but they are not comparable to even low end acoustics.


----------



## GuitarPix (Jan 11, 2007)

I have a 214 that took me a few years to find, and I like it more than anything else from Taylor up to the $4000 mark and even some of those. Like any typical acoustic - you find ‘the one’ and it is really exceptional. I’m not hung up on the ‘solid sides’ thing for a gigable guitar. 

Now my friend’s hand made acoustic that cost 5 figures is a different beast entirely- but I could never take it a jam if I owned it. Of course it sounds absolutely stunning.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

brucew said:


> Guitars are such a subjective product my only input would be to suggest that if taylor is able to sell it's, "x" quality guitar for more than the competitors there must be sufficient number of people that think they're worth more. Could be better advertising, or current trends play a part as well.
> 
> When I was shopping I tried every brand I could get my hands on, compared how nice they played, sounded and compared quality of those things to my eye by price point of different brands. * Quite frankly when compared to others with no brand loyalty some were very overpriced impo, others could be said to be undervalued comparatively.*
> 
> My only suggestion would be if you suspect the taylors are overpriced for what you're getting then to your eye, they are; try other brands, a bunch, and you'll end up with the guitar you really wanted, just may not be the logo on the headstock you thought. Best of luck.


That over/under pricing can quite often be seen without looking around too hard. We all know the big boys use marketing to find out how much they can get for their products because people do buy with what's on the headstock often enough that they can get big bucks for their products. They all do it. Getting back to Taylor, they do have a unique tone and if that is what you like and want, many are willing to pay if they have or can get the money. I also think they make one of the nicest looking acoustics.


----------



## MarkM (May 23, 2019)

I played with a fellow with a Taylor this summer and we traded guitars for a bit. I had my cheap cedar Norman and we both agreed we like the Norman better? He brought it up, I would never dis a man's guitar or women!

I am sure it was one of the lower end models, it was truly a beautiful instrument especially compared to my beat up Norman.


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

The steep rise in pricing with Taylor solid woods came along their innovative "V" bracing...
These prices are not as high as were estimated before landing on the market though : Orienting differently the bracing could not justify as much as 100% price rise (regular 500 series worth 3k$ were estimated to rise to 5-7k$ !). I had read that their high end series could get over 10k$...

On the market, my plain "regular" 322 sells for 2k$, while I quite remember I saw a "V" class 12-fret for some 2,7k$ : some 700$ for a pack of "options" including cutaway, electronics, 12-fret AND "V" bracing.

Their sustainable wood policy should not explain price rise as black ebony counts for only 10% of ebony trees : dumping on the market the other 90% of non uniformly black ebony that formerly used to be discarded should move pricing policy toward more affordable guitars (as richlite does for Martins). But taking control of ebony industry in Honduras would explain why the prices do not actually drop much.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

How much do you expect to pay for a fine guitar? I paid almost $500 for my Yamaki in the mid-Seventies - with ply back and sides. That's probably 3 grand in today's dollars. FWIW she's still my favourite acoustic ever (and probably still worth about $500 today). She doesn't leave the house though - she's earned her retirement.

If I'm doing an acoustic gig I will take my second favourite Gibson J-185 or my Taylor 414ce.

My Taylor is a fine guitar that plays and sounds great - but somehow it lacks the soul of the Gibby or Yamaki. What's great about Taylor (and PRS) is that they are all very consistently well-made. If something happened to the Taylor I am confident that it could easily be replaced by any other 414ce and be 99% the same. Great workhorses.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

MarkM said:


> I played with a fellow with a Taylor this summer and we traded guitars for a bit. I had my cheap cedar Norman and we both agreed we like the Norman better? He brought it up, I would never dis a man's guitar or women!
> 
> I am sure it was one of the lower end models, it was truly a beautiful instrument especially compared to my beat up Norman.


You sound unsure. Did you both like the Norman better?


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I've liked 1 or 2 but it seems a number of the models leave something to be desired for me. Even though I'm not crazy about the sound profile when I play them, they sound fantastic when I hear someone else play them. Maybe I just suck balls at guitar.


----------



## MarkM (May 23, 2019)

vadsy said:


> You sound unsure. Did you both like the Norman better?


We both liked the sound and action on the Norman better

The Taylor was way nicer as far as build, finish and looks!


----------



## brucew (Dec 30, 2017)

Personally as primarily currently a fingerpicker 20's country blues and delta slide afficionado (sp?) I found the taylors to be, "bright". Very, "bright" sounding(I'd say tinny but it'd piss people off  ), but like I said, it's subjective. They Were pretty though, and played well. (saying that, I've never played a yamaha, ovation or tanglewood that didn't play, "well". For me personally the two that played so well it was like they were sent straight from heaven to sit on my lap were that martin, and one of two gibson 00's in the store. (the other played like a 2x4 bolted to a washtub which was a lesson in itself)

I'm on my 3rd locally produced hooch(picture apple's, rye, copper and a fire)(keep that in mind) so I'll say if I could look at myself in the mirror with spending this kind of hard earned money on a guitar I'd have a gibson solid mahog 00; hands down. Played a martin cutaway rosewood/spruce small body in regina that to my opinion actually was nicer playing than the gibson, however sound didn't make it an equal.

I'm rambling and half drunk; point again being brand don't mean sh*t. From my relatively limited experience, you find a good one, buy it.

edit, edit: hey I said I was drinking.........I ended up buying a solid mahogany tanglewood. Does it play as nice as the gibson or that rosewood martin......close but not quite. Does it sound as good......Very close but not quite. Did I spend over 4 grand on it? No. You lives your life you makes your decisions. Happy new yr everyone.

edit: please taylor folks don't be offended, like I said it's Purely subjective. Heck, most don't like ovations, and while I don't think they sound as good as a wood guitar I also think all mfgr's should be copying their neck and action, especially if they'd make it an eighth wider.

edit, edit, edit: but like I said, I'm about 2 sheets to the wind. Now I'm gonna go have a smoke. (we grow our own tabacco)


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

MarkM said:


> We both liked the sound and action on the Norman better
> 
> The Taylor was way nicer as far as build, finish and looks!


do you think he possibly had the same philosophy as you when it came to someone elses guitars and women?


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

The prices for Martins have gone through the fuckin roof; I could sell mine for what I paid for them.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Taylor makes nice guitars and they seem to sell at the current prices. Also, guitar prices have gone up quite a bit in the past few years, helped in no small part by our dollar going down. I like lots of different guitars and have played some amazing-sounding ones of many different brands. 


MarkM said:


> We both liked the sound and action on the Norman better
> 
> The Taylor was way nicer as far as build, finish and looks!


The action? Wouldn’t that just mean that a decent setup would help the Taylor play better?


----------



## MarkM (May 23, 2019)

vadsy said:


> do you think he possibly had the same philosophy as you when it came to someone elses guitars and women?


Haha maybe your right?


----------



## MarkM (May 23, 2019)

jdto said:


> Taylor makes nice guitars and they seem to sell at the current prices. Also, guitar prices have gone up quite a bit in the past few years, helped in no small part by our dollar going down. I like lots of different guitars and have played some amazing-sounding ones of many different brands.
> 
> The action? Wouldn’t that just mean that a decent setup would help the Taylor play better?



Decent setup and new strings would help. Do all Taylor's need a setup before they have good action? My Norman has not had a setup. I bought it used and judging by the pick scratches the previous owner strummed BIG!

I am by no means saying my $250 guitar is anywhere near the guitar a $2,000 + Taylor is, I was just disappointed in the one I played. I don't play the ones up high at L&M cause I don't have that kinda cake in my disposable income account.

I used to drool at the Larivee's when I was young, I saw one with a dragon inlay in the headstock and that is still burnt in my head! 6 string cutaway with a big body.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

MarkM said:


> Decent setup and new strings would help. Do all Taylor's need a setup before they have good action? My Norman has not had a setup. I bought it used and judging by the pick scratches the previous owner strummed BIG!
> 
> I am by no means saying my $250 guitar is anywhere near the guitar a $2,000 + Taylor is, I was just disappointed in the one I played. I don't play the ones up high at L&M cause I don't have that kinda cake in my disposable income account.
> 
> I used to drool at the Larivee's when I was young, I saw one with a dragon inlay in the headstock and that is still burnt in my head! 6 string cutaway with a big body.


It’s kind of tough to say if all Taylor guitars need a setup to have “good action” because it’s subjective. If you bought your Norman used, it’s possible you don’t know whether the previous owner had the nut slots filed or the saddle adjusted to get it to the current action. Perhaps your friend’s Taylor would benefit from some TLC or even a turn of the truss rod. I have found that most guitars I acquire do benefit from a good setup, including filing the nut slots and sometimes sanding the base of the saddle a bit to get the action to where I like it.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I forgot to mention, when I bought the Taylor I obviously had a budget, but when I had actually come to the point of choosing, I had no idea of any of the materials of any of the guitars I was playing. that night I'll admit the beauty of the Taylor gave it an extra couple of points, as well as the Venetian cutaway, but I had no idea what the woods were or if it was solid/laminate what kind of bracing etc... One thing I remember is I found the Taylors to be brighter, and I personally like a brighter guitar.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

knight_yyz said:


> I forgot to mention, when I bought the Taylor I obviously had a budget, but when I had actually come to the point of choosing, I had no idea of any of the materials of any of the guitars I was playing. that night *I'll admit the beauty of the Taylor gave it an extra couple of points,* as well as the Venetian cutaway, but I had no idea what the woods were or if it was solid/laminate what kind of bracing etc... One thing I remember is I found the Taylors to be brighter, and I personally like a brighter guitar.


IMHO, Taylor builds the nicest looking guitars of all the major mfrs.

BTW, the way you picked the guitar in the correct way. It was the best sounding, despite what materials were used or how it was built. Playability comes first but I take it that you already figured that out.


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

I've own both solid and laminate and can't say that solid back and sides have added anything to the mix that I can detect. For me it's all about the top and the bracing.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

As someone who hasn't owned a solid B/S I find your comment fairly interesting @BEACHBUM . I'm curious how they differ over X amount of time. Anything to add to that?


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Dorian2 said:


> As someone who hasn't owned a solid B/S I find your comment fairly interesting @BEACHBUM . I'm curious how they differ over X amount of time. Anything to add to that?


Even laminate acoustics age over time. I have a red label Yamaha from the 60’s. It is laminate top, back and sides. It has been in my family since it was new. It definitely sounds different now than it did when it was new. It has a wonderful tone that many solid wood guitars can’t match. I am not a fan of the neck on it but there is no denying the tone.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Kerry Brown said:


> Even laminate acoustics age over time. I have a red label Yamaha from the 60’s. It is laminate top, back and sides. It has been in my family since it was new. It definitely sounds different now than it did when it was new. It has a wonderful tone that many solid wood guitars can’t match. I am not a fan of the neck on it but there is no denying the tone.


I have not experienced that myself but have heard of many who have. It only stands to reason as wood is wood. Being a laminate, it may take a bit longer as it is glued together. Some of those old Yamaha's have gotten a lot of praise.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Kerry Brown said:


> It has a wonderful tone that many solid wood guitars can’t match.


I think you answered it right there maybe. My understanding is the laminate tends to be a bit louder. I have 3 older Laminate sides and back Dreads with the standard Cedar and spruce tops (thanks Godin co.) and the combination sounds pretty fantastic as they've been played/aged. The solids must have a different timbre though.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

My impression is:
Yamaha FG441s some kind of lumber grade mahogany back and sides: Sounds like you are just hearing the top of the guitar. 
Yamaha FG830 laminate mahogany back and sides. Sounds like you are mostly hearing the top but some back and sides. Like 80% top 20% back and sides.
Martin D-18 sold mahogany back and sides. Sounds like you are hearing the whole guitar.


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

```
<iframe allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="SoundCloud Social Icon" style="width: 32px; height: 32px;"></iframe>
```



Dorian2 said:


> As someone who hasn't owned a solid B/S I find your comment fairly interesting @BEACHBUM . I'm curious how they differ over X amount of time. Anything to add to that?


Back in the early 80's I bought a Japanese made Sigma D10 Anniversary which for many years was touted by "Mudcat" the unofficial authority on Sigma at the time and later Wikipedia quoting the same expert as being a rare exception to the Sigma line of guitars because there were only 100 made and they had solid back and sides. It was and still is an exceptional guitar that to my ears can go toe to toe with any D18 I've ever played and for a very long time myself and others who owned them were convinced that was because of the solid back and sides. Fast forward a couple of decades and oops, Wikipedia changes their review and now they made a lot more than 100 and the back and sides are laminate. That was the day that I decided that going forward my sole criteria when choosing a guitar would be whether or not it pleases my ears, fingers and the folks I'm plying to and that's all I need to know.

As far as the aging thing goes all I can say is that I'm sure that like everything else acoustic guitars change over time but whether that change turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing I couldn't say. Heck at 72 I'm having trouble remembering where I left my picks much less what my guitar sounded like 35 years ago.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

BEACHBUM said:


> * I decided that going forward my sole criteria when choosing a guitar would be whether or not it pleases my ears, fingers and the folks I'm plying to *
> .


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I checked out a couple of Taylors today. Daughter is thinking about a new guitar and asked about the brand. A GS Mini Spruce Sapele that is on sale and the 114CE Walnut Spruce. Both marketed as "Layered", aka laminate and Ebony finger boards. Both sounded and played nice but the GS mini took the game. Louder, more resonant, and more complex overtones. Felt more worked in. Have a feeling that 114CE might overtake it in the end (for me) as the Walnut has a distinct flavour that my ear takes too well. Have to haul my daughter in to try them both. 114 had a thinner nut/neck and the Mini had a slightly wider neck that might lend itself better to finger style than the 114CE. Nonetheless I liked the sound of both. But they are still a bit too pricey IMO.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

I'm on my third Taylor. Discontinued DM3 with K&K pure mini.
I'm really liking this dreadnought.
My first was a 110 that a friend of mine really liked and talked me into a trade.
Second was a US baby that I found for a good deal and sold a year later in Elmira.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

Dorian2 said:


> My understanding is the laminate tends to be a bit louder.


Hmmmm, my experiences have been just the opposite. My two solid top guitars are definitely louder than any laminate top ones I've ever owned.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

GuitarT said:


> Hmmmm, my experiences have been just the opposite. My two solid top guitars are definitely louder than any laminate top ones I've ever owned.


I should have been more specific. I was talking solid top and laminate back and sides. I think it's been mentioned that laminate on the back pushes the sound a bit more than a solid back. That's just hearsay and not from any actual experience on my part with all solid wood though.


----------

