# Vintage vs New



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I've never been a subscriber to a lot of guitar "facts". Nor have I been a big believer in vintage gear.
Some stuff is tried and true, some not so much.

"Just 'cause it's Old, Doesn't mean it's valuable" 

Music Aficionado | For People Who Are Passionate About Music


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Yeah, I've tried a ton of old shit...and it's usually shit.

including the 1954 Goldtop from the other week...


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Theres hits and misses with any gear that relies on being made from wood, IMO. I played a great vintage tele once, and i wouldnt mind having something old with mojo. I like having new stuff with mojo too.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Old is old and tests have been done on the new reissue stuff from guitars and amps and although they may be similar they are not the same. 

For collectors I can understand they may want some for their collection and I do appreciate history. For playability, you can't beat the newer stuff. Modern manufacturing methods are simply better. We don't drive around in 1920's vehicles, wear 60 year old clothes and very, very few successful music artists gig with vintage instruments.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I remember when I was still up north, I went to a guys place and he pulled out an old Gibson.
He had some E model from the '50s with the matching year Gibson amp. I wouldn't touch it.
Some of that old stuff scares me.

I've never been one to pursue vintage instuments, not worth it to me.


----------



## Brett Pearson (Apr 26, 2016)

adcandour said:


> Yeah, I've tried a ton of old shit...and it's usually shit.


I was born in the 60's so I guess that makes me vintage...and I am in pretty rough shape so I guess the theory holds for most things...lol


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Budda said:


> Theres hits and misses with any gear that relies on being made from wood, IMO. I played a great vintage tele once, and i wouldnt mind having something old with mojo. I like having new stuff with mojo too.


I agree. 

The 59' Melody Maker I sold not too long ago was about as stellar a one as I've ever played.

But, I played a brand new Anderson LP today that blew me away too.

I had @Daniel Gorman over on the weekend and out of all my gear, it was a classic vibe strat and my Moratto amp.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

first of all I would say that most established touring musicians play older (vintage) guitars.
Certainly a lot more of the vintage players then players playing the very latest model on the market today.

As for vintage not being worth it, just because you cant afford it ( yes I'm in that group) doesn't mean its shit.
If you really believe that vintage guitars are basically shit then you will have to explain why some vintage guitars sell for
5K....10K......50K.....100K....200K........
Do you think these buyers actually think they are paying for shit?

G.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm gonna take shit for this....but I laugh at anyone that spends insane money on vintage gear chasing the tone of yesteryear. The irony is that when Jimmy Page, Hendrix, Clapton, ect. Were playing their iconic instruments back in the day, the gear was new  give me something new-ish, reliable and mortgage free any day.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

GTmaker said:


> think they are paying for shit?





Chitmo said:


> I'm gonna take shit for this.





GTmaker said:


> vintage guitars are basically shit



Lotta shit happening here!!


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

GTmaker said:


> first of all I would say that most established touring musicians play older (vintage) guitars.
> Certainly a lot more of the vintage players then players playing the very latest model on the market today.
> 
> As for vintage not being worth it, just because you cant afford it ( yes I'm in that group) doesn't mean its shit.
> ...



I think established touring musicians are like us and like the idea of playing a vintage guitar. They find a good one and hang on. 

I also think that some probably do pay for shit, tbh.

I'm always trying with the intention of buying. If that 54' blew my mind, I'd a bought it. 

I went shopping a year or so ago with the intention of buying an old les paul. I was so disappointed with the 30+ guitars I tried from all over the gta that I stopped looking.

Vintage, schmintage. Honestly.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I didn't say that they weren't worth it, they're just not worth it to me.


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

them 59 lps and 41 d 28s suck !!! ????? old is old vintage is different...


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Did anyone read the link I posted?

It states: The most popular recordings of people like Jimi hendrix/Jimmy Page/Eric Clapton/Carlos Santana/Fleetwood mac/AC.DC.....etc when they were recorded, they were recorded on essentially BRAND NEW gear.

Only chitmo noticed

In other words.....The best _they could afford at the time._ 

And now because the instruments and era has faded into nostalgia; That nostalgia is colouring peoples opinion of guitars/amps etc. 
It's now happening with Japanese guitars that people thought were utter garbage back in the 80's

I love nostalgia............If I'm selling. Nostalgia makes great stuff greater in price and crap stuff greater in price as well.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

It wasn't musicians who started hording and driving up the price of vintage guitars & amps. It was the collectors.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

djmarcelca said:


> Did anyone read the link I posted?
> 
> It states: The most popular recordings of people like Jimi hendrix/Jimmy Page/Eric Clapton/Carlos Santana/Fleetwood mac/AC.DC.....etc when they were recorded, they were recorded on essentially BRAND NEW gear.
> 
> ...


No, I noticed too. I just don't think it's a revelation. Anybody who's sitting there thinking that they were playing vintage gear back in those days needs to spend more time thinking.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I remember it being about 1980 when the older brother of one of my friends started running around buying up all the 60's strats he could lay his hands on. He knew the date codes on the pots and all that crap and everybody just looked at him like he was nuts and said, "whatever dude, knock yourself out". He was a player in a country band but he wasn't buying them to play, he was buying them for some collector. That was the first time I heard of "vintage" or "collectible". The snowball has been rolling since then.


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

djmarcelca said:


> It states: The most popular recordings of people like Jimi hendrix/Jimmy Page/Eric Clapton/Carlos Santana/Fleetwood mac/AC.DC.....etc when they were recorded, they were recorded on essentially BRAND NEW gear.
> 
> Only chitmo noticed
> 
> ...


I don't think they had the option to play 50 yrs old strats back then... 

I have a 80s vantage guitar (vantage being the brand) and being made in 81 makes it vintage in my book. Not antique. The tone is awesome and it feels just great. 
I don't think I'd want to buy an antique guitar, but if I could get my hand on a 60s fender I may like that. 
Or prefer my CV60, who knows. But I doubt it would be shite because it's older : even today with so called "better manufacturing techniques" we suggest anyone to try the instrument before buying...


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

The statement that all the icons played new gear is moot. Those same instruments are now vintage and probably sound better than new stuff coming out today. Depending on what floats your boat of course. I have *heard* an authentic 59 Gibson LP and a new one side by side and there is no comparison. the vintage 59 sounds 10 times better than any of the reissues. But I am not going to run out and pay thousands for a vintage guitar. Can;t afford it and don;t see the point. Now if i was Eric Clapton and had more money than I knew what to do with, i might want to chase down a few vintage guitars.


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

Cant afford vintage and depend on newer instruments to play on a weekly basis. The price of some of those old axes is insane. Good for collectors i guess.


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

There's a Maxsold auction in my area right now with a couple of Les Pauls, one of the goldtops, a '52
tribute lite which doesn't say what actual year it was made, is already at $1950.00. There is no pre auction viewing, just pics online. I'm watching this auction like I would a train wreck, no plan to get involved but can't look away.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

No one has mentioned player grade vintage yet...


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Budda said:


> No one has mentioned player grade vintage yet...


Still paying as much for a beat up fixer-upper as something new and functioning. Don't get me wrong, I have owned a few vintage guitars out of curiosity, but they never stayed.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

New guitars for me. Vintage guitars are too pricey and there is always the risk of being ripped off. Even Capsule got fooled on that vintage Les Paul a few months back.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

For me, there are several reasons to go new over vintage. The risk of paying too much because you don't know your shit inside and out. There are SO MANY variables to consider. The risk/worry of actually using it and in the process lose money by de-valuing it in some way, an original pot finally wearing out or accidental damage. Worse than that is the thought of owning something you CHOSE not to play for worry of de-valuing it. Even playing it and just wearing it out, the repairs to make it playable actually make it worth less. First and foremost...they're just so expensive (most of the time). Why pay that much to "play" when you can play a beautiful (even to the point of Custom Shop) instrument that costs less?

Sure I can see why people with BIG money do it. I'm sure there are lots of common things that they spend ridiculous amounts on that would make us shake our heads...just because they can.

For me, buying a guitar is a lot like buying a car (except I don't really get to a point where I develop an emotional attachment to a car). I like something almost new, with parts that aren't worn out, that the finish is at least decent looking, a scratch or two but no dents or dings, for a lot less than the price of an equivalent model brand new. When I've played/driven the shit out of it, if I'm not completely in love with it, I trade it in and start over.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I'll give an example.

My '84 Artist......
checks all the boxes.

Old
Made in Japan
80% original 
will be playable once I finish the nut and refrett. 

It's technically "Vintage"

Nope. It's just an old guitar. I keep it because it was my First Electric and I played it for almost 20 years and wore the bridge out, wore the switch out, and wore the frets down
After I restore it, It'll get played hopefully for another 20 years


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

adcandour said:


> No, I noticed too. I just don't think it's a revelation. Anybody who's sitting there thinking that they were playing vintage gear back in those days needs to spend more time thinking.


Yes, hardly a revelation.

The old gear myth


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Chitmo said:


> Still paying as much for a beat up fixer-upper as something new and functioning. Don't get me wrong, I have owned a few vintage guitars out of curiosity, but they never stayed.


Player grade just means its not in collector condition, not necessarily that it has been broken.

I have seen vintage guitars go for half of a high end regular model.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

If there is a vintage guitar that is affordable, has a good feel, and looks to me that I can get it to be a player, I will buy it.

I guess that I like 'shit', as you guys call it. Most of these old ones that I bought, have a sound that make me automatically try and play/learn an old song. Any guitar that makes me automatically play music from an era, or music genre, has mojo for me. That is my definition of mojo. So more 'shit' for me. 

I also appreciate the feel of old guitars as much as new ones. I like putting something different in my hands, and just a few jagged strums or notes send me off to a musical journey from yesteryear. Often it is some tune that I have long forgotten about or thought that I would never learn it because it was too difficult to learn. The old mojo guitars prove me wrong in that thought, and I wonder what curse was put on me to make me finally see the truth in just how simple and satisfying the old music of my life could have been.

I have been playing music for nearly 55 years; leave that old 'shit' for those who appreciate it. Almost everyone of you would stop and pick it up if it was out at the curb or available dirt cheap. The most ironic part is that those of you who don't deserve such a 'shit' instrument, would likely try to flip it for a good buck.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Except in a few limited situations, I just haven't heard enough difference in old guitars compared to new ones (like for like) to justify the cost difference. There are good instruments in both categories, to pay a premium just because it's old strikes me as sheer speculation on the buyer's part.

Now there are guitars that you can't get anymore so the only choice is an old one. That makes sense to me. And old acoustic guitars, or acoustic guitars made out of old/torrefied wood? Yea, I think there really is something special to that. But an old strat compared to a new one? Too many other variables in play - I don't think the old wood makes that much difference. Just OMO.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I remember reading an article someplace (maybe here even) about how the top violin players couldn't hear/feel the difference between a real Stradivarius and a well built clone either. Kinda ties into this whole thing, but on a much grander scale.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

(Steps up onto soap-box)



GTmaker said:


> Do you think these buyers actually think they are paying for shit?


What they think they are paying for is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are actually paying for is the issue. And yes, 9 times out of 10 they are paying for shit. Back in the day there was a whole lot more inconstancy from one guitar to the next. It was hundreds of times more important back in the day to try every guitar in the store and pick the best one because the differences were THAT significant. The ones that had the mojo were sold early and played to death because people just couldn't put them down. They are the guitars that got beaten to hell. Many of them were hacked up for humbuckers or P90s or whatever. Many were painted over and then refinished again later. The ones that were shit were the ones that ended up in gramma's closet or uncle Ernie's bed and weren't found until gramma and uncle Ernie passed away. Then they ended up on eBay and people pay more for the ones that are in the newest looking condition. The ones in the best condition are the very same ones that were the shittiest and were the first to find a hiding place in the closet or under the bed because nobody wanted to play them.



Steadfastly said:


> We don't drive around in 1920's vehicles, wear 60 year old clothes


We do something far, far worse. We buy fake vintage instruments; ie: relics. We are idiots. We choose form before function. We pray we get some function with our form and modern manufacturing methods answer some of those prayers but it wouldn't matter if we didn't get it. We want our form and we want it now. Automotive hot rodders are much smarter than guitarists. They take old Camaros and put new technology in them. Better built, more reliable more powerful modern engines and transmissions. Better suspension. Better brakes. Better seats. Better instrumentation. The only car guys who are as stupid as guitarists are the Kar Kulture rat-rod goofs who take old cars and beat them up even worse than they already are, do shitty welding on hack-job mods then and proudly display them next to their silicone and botox injected tattoo bimbos who are dressed as though it's 1956.

(Steps down from soap-box)


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Budda said:


> Player grade just means its not in collector condition, not necessarily that it has been broken.
> 
> I have seen vintage guitars go for half of a high end regular model.


I've never seen a vintage anything sell for less that a used new version unless something is broken, missing or has had a major repair.


----------



## GuitarPix (Jan 11, 2007)

We're all looking for mojo in our guitars. For some that means a guitar that was played a lot - which is, I think, why relicing is so popular; instant 'mojo.' A vintage guitar that was played a lot was probably a great instrument to begin with. I think the buying of vintage just to buy vintage is silly. 

I do have one vintage guitar - a 1968 Framus BL15 - that I got a few months ago for $600. I didn't find out how old it is until I started researching, although I new it was older than my other guitars. But it was just cool and sounds great. 

I wouldn't mind getting a 50's strat that's been played a lot, although I would probably have to take a lot of parts and put them in a bag for posterity and replace them with new parts. However the money for something like that is way beyond what I'm willing to spend. My Jimmy Vaughan Strat is close enough for that.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

Lincoln said:


> I remember reading an article someplace (maybe here even) about how the top violin players couldn't hear/feel the difference between a real Stradivarius and a well built clone either. Kinda ties into this whole thing, but on a much grander scale.


What you failed to mention is that everyone who tried the test was a drummer...
G.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

BMW-KTM said:


> (Steps up onto soap-box)
> 
> What they think they are paying for is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are actually paying for is the issue. And yes, 9 times out of 10 they are paying for shit. Back in the day there was a whole lot more inconstancy from one guitar to the next. It was hundreds of times more important back in the day to try every guitar in the store and pick the best one because the differences were THAT significant. The ones that had the mojo were sold early and played to death because people just couldn't put them down. They are the guitars that got beaten to hell. Many of them were hacked up for humbuckers or P90s or whatever. Many were painted over and then refinished again later. The ones that were shit were the ones that ended up in gramma's closet or uncle Ernie's bed and weren't found until gramma and uncle Ernie passed away. Then they ended up on eBay and people pay more for the ones that are in the newest looking condition. The ones in the best condition are the very same ones that were the shittiest and were the first to find a hiding place in the closet or under the bed because nobody wanted to play them.
> 
> ...


I do love tatooed bimbos...


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> (Steps up onto soap-box)
> 
> What they think they are paying for is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are actually paying for is the issue. And yes, 9 times out of 10 they are paying for shit. Back in the day there was a whole lot more inconstancy from one guitar to the next. It was hundreds of times more important back in the day to try every guitar in the store and pick the best one because the differences were THAT significant. The ones that had the mojo were sold early and played to death because people just couldn't put them down. They are the guitars that got beaten to hell. Many of them were hacked up for humbuckers or P90s or whatever. Many were painted over and then refinished again later. The ones that were shit were the ones that ended up in gramma's closet or uncle Ernie's bed and weren't found until gramma and uncle Ernie passed away. Then they ended up on eBay and people pay more for the ones that are in the newest looking condition. The ones in the best condition are the very same ones that were the shittiest and were the first to find a hiding place in the closet or under the bed because nobody wanted to play them.
> We do something far, far worse. We buy fake vintage instruments; ie: relics. We are idiots. We choose form before function. We pray we get some function with our form and modern manufacturing methods answer some of those prayers but it wouldn't matter if we didn't get it. We want our form and we want it now. Automotive hot rodders are much smarter than guitarists. They take old Camaros and put new technology in them. Better built, more reliable more powerful modern engines and transmissions. Better suspension. Better brakes. Better seats. Better instrumentation. The only car guys who are as stupid as guitarists are the Kar Kulture rat-rod goofs who take old cars and beat them up even worse than they already are, do shitty welding on hack-job mods then and proudly display them next to their silicone and botox injected tattoo bimbos who are dressed as though it's 1956.
> ...


Although I do respect the fact that you are allowed your opinion, I will reserve my opinion to mention that I think your whole statement is full of crap.
I see no indication of anything your have said as being true in my world.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Interesting thread. 

Are crap and shit the same thing?


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

GTmaker said:


> Although I do respect the fact that you are allowed your opinion, I will reserve my opinion to mention that I think your whole statement is full of crap.
> I see no indication of anything your have said as being true in my world.


I lived it.
Bank on it.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

I had vintage fever for many years. It was cured 2 summers ago on a trip to House of Guitars & Rumble Seat Music (may the Ithaca location RIP), where I had the chance to playing a ton of vintage guitars. 

They had 3 wraptail GT LPs (a mix of '54/55). The one that was a worn brown colour & had the most play wear sounded incredible. The other 2 were quite nice, better than an R4 I had at the time, but not proportionately better in line with the price. IME there's something to the "guitars that look beat up sound better b/c ppl couldn't put them down" theory mentioned in a previous post.

Then there was a '59 LPC Black Beauty that was a total dog. 

And a slab board Oly White Strat that I didn't get to hear plugged in since it had a wiring issue - do you fix it so that you can play it & lose 10% of the value b/c the solder joints are no longer original or do you hang it on the wall & hope it appreciates in value? FWIW the best Strat I played that weekend was an early 70s. Lots of crap during the CBS/Norlin era, but a few good ones escaped the factory.

This being said, one of the 2 guitars I'm grabbing if the house burns down is a player's grade (i.e. worn finish & a few changed parts) 1965 SG Jr. that weighs next to nothing & sounds huge.

And I still have my eyes peeled for an old Strat but recently picked up an Underwood that it will have to beat before I open my wallet. Feel free to call me a poser b/c it's lightly reliced, but the damn thing plays like butter & rings like a piano. I was already Strat heavy when I came across the guitar but it just sounded so effin' good! 

P.S. My primary reason for buying relic guitars is that I hate sticky &/or skinny necks (Fender's modern "C" just doesn't cut it for me).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

GTmaker said:


> What you failed to mention is that everyone who tried the test was a drummer...
> G.


Not by the sounds of it.

Blind-tested soloists unable to tell Stradivarius violins from modern instruments - The Strad


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

I think what many people forget while they're talking about vintage guitars is the culture of the times back in the day. People would take a perfectly good car, van, guitar, amp or whatever and paint it (often very poorly) with logos, or popular sayings, or psychedelic artwork. Most often it looked like crap but they left it that way. People would rip up their clothes and crudely sew in patches of other material, frequently but not limited to national or regional flags, and put them back together with a needle and thread. It wasn't an attempt to repair damaged clothing. Damage was usually left as is. Damage was a symbol of being alive. Of living on the edge rather than in a protective bubble. Squares lived in bubbles. It was to make a statement with their clothing, cars, instruments, whatever. People, particularly musicians, could sometimes go a week or more without doing the simplest personal hygiene like a shower or bath. People were dirty and they didn't value possessions. They didn't take care of things. They hacked shit up. They passed possessions around. They painted wild stuff right over top of perfectly good original paint on cars, guitars, drums, etc. When I was young we didn't buy new guitars to try something new. We traded with other people. I give Bob a solid body electric and he gives me something with F holes. We thought nothing of taking a chisel or a drill to a guitar that we just got in a trade to make some modification we thought of last night while stoned smooth out of our skulls. It seemed like a good idea at the time. We had no idea we were going to end up as conservative, over spending, money crazy consumers. We had no idea those guitars would be worth a fortune some day. They were disposable to us, like a Samick or a Mann or a Jay Turser is now days.

That all said, if it was a crappy guitar that didn't sing, we gave it to our little sister who never did learn to play and it ended up in a closet after she left home to strike out on her own.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I like to hear when people pay outrageous prices for vintage gear. It helps keep my neck rotating properly as I just shake my head at the ludicrousness of it.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

"Hey guys! What's goin.... oh nevermind"- me

[backs out of the room slowly]


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

I've never understood people who start threads to basically bash what other people like. I don't start threads saying 80's Japanese guitars are crap. I just happen to like vintage les pauls. Can't afford one either. People who start these threads should play more and yap less.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

djmarcelca said:


> Did anyone read the link I posted?
> 
> It states: The most popular recordings of people like Jimi hendrix/Jimmy Page/Eric Clapton/Carlos Santana/Fleetwood mac/AC.DC.....etc when they were recorded, they were recorded on essentially BRAND NEW gear.
> 
> ...


Hey guys ! Over here! Read my link! No one cares.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> (Steps up onto soap-box)
> 
> What they think they are paying for is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are actually paying for is the issue. And yes, 9 times out of 10 they are paying for shit. Back in the day there was a whole lot more inconstancy from one guitar to the next. It was hundreds of times more important back in the day to try every guitar in the store and pick the best one because the differences were THAT significant. The ones that had the mojo were sold early and played to death because people just couldn't put them down. They are the guitars that got beaten to hell. Many of them were hacked up for humbuckers or P90s or whatever. Many were painted over and then refinished again later. The ones that were shit were the ones that ended up in gramma's closet or uncle Ernie's bed and weren't found until gramma and uncle Ernie passed away. Then they ended up on eBay and people pay more for the ones that are in the newest looking condition. The ones in the best condition are the very same ones that were the shittiest and were the first to find a hiding place in the closet or under the bed because nobody wanted to play them.
> 
> ...


What the hell do you mean we do something far worse? Do you do it too? No? Then WE don't do it. Go do what you want and shut up about what other people do. And another thing. Just because you preface with "getting on my soapbox" doesn't change the fact that people on soapbox are generally dicks.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

vanderkalin said:


> I've never understood people who start threads to basically bash what other people like. I don't start threads saying 80's Japanese guitars are crap. I just happen to like vintage les pauls. Can't afford one either. People who start these threads should play more and yap less.





vanderkalin said:


> What the hell do you mean we do something far worse? Do you do it too? No? Then WE don't do it. Go do what you want and shut up about what other people do. And another thing. Just because you preface with "getting on my soapbox" doesn't change the fact that people on soapbox are generally dicks.


Issues...


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Popcorn emoji


----------



## Daniel Gorman (Sep 21, 2016)

adcandour said:


> I agree.
> 
> The 59' Melody Maker I sold not too long ago was about as stellar a one as I've ever played.
> 
> ...


yup! the Moratto sounded best no matter which guitar it took, and that cheap strat was the best player.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I think you have to define what you mean by Vintage. And how much money you are comfortable spending.

For me, Vintage means pre-CBS Fender, and Gibson's "Golden Years" (1964 and earlier). And I don't care about other brands.

Since I'm a Les Paul/Gibson guy, I do own 3 'vintage' Gibsons. But I also own a '59 LP Reissue (a 2001). I think the reissues are fantastic guitars. With a few mods, I think a good reissue can be very close what you may be chasing in a vintage guitar.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Rule #2.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

With a few mods, most guitars can be great. But if the brand and/or model are not the original, you cant call them as such. Some people get more upset over this than others.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

vanderkalin said:


> doesn't change the fact that people on soapbox are generally dicks.


Everyone who posts on a forum is getting on a soapbox..........


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

I guess the newspapers and news broadcasts should be outlawed.
They need to learn to shut up about what people do.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> What they think they are paying for is irrelevant to this discussion. What they are actually paying for is the issue. And yes, 9 times out of 10 they are paying for shit. Back in the day there was a whole lot more inconstancy from one guitar to the next. It was hundreds of times more important back in the day to try every guitar in the store and pick the best one because the differences were THAT significant. The ones that had the mojo were sold early and played to death because people just couldn't put them down. They are the guitars that got beaten to hell. Many of them were hacked up for humbuckers or P90s or whatever. Many were painted over and then refinished again later. The ones that were shit were the ones that ended up in gramma's closet or uncle Ernie's bed and weren't found until gramma and uncle Ernie passed away. Then they ended up on eBay and people pay more for the ones that are in the newest looking condition. The ones in the best condition are the very same ones that were the shittiest and were the first to find a hiding place in the closet or under the bed because nobody wanted to play them.


While I agree in general, I think you have to admit that's a bit of a generalization. While the majority of the good ones got played and the bad ones got shelved, a few good ones were potentially bought by players who never pursued their dream fully - and just put those good ones under they bed. I believe the numbers support the fact that a few good ones got stored away.

But who gets to decide which is a good one and which is a bad one? Are guitarists requirements all the same? I know neck shape certainly is not. Some people hate the larger necks many ultra-valuable guitars came standard with. But is 'good tone' universal? Or do different muso's look for different things? 

I'm neck deep in acoustic guitar hunting - I've been playing quite a few good guitars. Some of them sound spectacular - but different. I can see how one set of ears would lean towards that H&D while another set of ears would lean towards that Lowden and yet another towards that Ryan. But are are spectacular and I don't believe one is better than the other. 

Maybe electric buyers are all looking for exactly the same tone - or the 'template tone' of that style of guitar? I suppose it's more about the resonance and sustain than just the pure tone - that is easier to define and compare. And again, different than the acoustic guitar world where tone can vary greatly between guitars and there doesn't seem to be a template, except for the larger, broader 'Martin like' or 'Gibson like'.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

High/Deaf said:


> I believe the numbers support the fact that a few good ones got stored away.


Of course. However, I believe the number of those that managed to slip through is much smaller than most people think. I believe the vast majority of vintage guitars currently in circulation are not the magical mojo machines people imagine they are. I use the word imagine purposely. I believe 95% of the ascribed mojo of vintage guitars is all in people's heads. Those Anderton's boys in the UK have done an excellent job on YouTube of proving the major portion of our perceptions of a guitar's tone are directly related to our estimation of the guitar's value and origins and that when blindfolded we begin to rely on the feel of a guitar, rather than the sound to assess the value and usefulness of a guitar for ourselves.

There is another aspect to vintage guitars that a lot of people appear to be confused about. There is a school of thought that says when pickups and wires and pots age there is a certain amount of degradation that occurs which many find to be beneficial to tone. I don't pretend to understand the science of that degradation but it seems to me that whatever it is would very likely have little or nothing to do with the instruments having been made better back then. If they improved with time then it is logical they were not as good when new. It is also logical that modern tech can recreate those improved aspects which I imagine must be related to changed electrical values in the components.


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

I have Gibsons and fenders from 6 different decades. They all play great. I bought them because I could afford them. They were all used/second hand. The '67 and the '07 are on equal footing, quality wise etc. 
I wonder how many actual collectors there are out there. I suspect that mostly people have a guitar, maybe two. They're not spending their time posting on guitar forums. Additionally, baby boomers are dying out and there will be a trickle of old gear coming on the market over the next few years.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Fuzzy dagger said:


> Additionally, baby boomers are dying out and there will be a trickle of (old) gear coming on the market over the next few years.


Careful! ...I resemble that remark.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> Issues...


I'm actually laughing at this. I have issues. Okay.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> I guess the newspapers and news broadcasts should be outlawed.
> They need to learn to shut up about what people do.


Wow that's really reaching.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Lincoln said:


> It wasn't musicians who started hording and driving up the price of vintage guitars & amps. It was the collectors.


same with classic cars - ruined it for the average man


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Scotty said:


> same with classic cars - ruined it for the average man


Could the average man afford a gibson or Fender back then? Right now, I'd say that the prices of gibsons are pretty pricey.

I'm thinking that maybe people just had one guitar and worked it to the bone - nothing like what we do nowadays.

...just thinking out loud a little. I have no idea what was going on back in the day. I suppose I could look up minimum wage in the 50s/60s and compare percentages with today.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

adcandour said:


> Could the average man afford a gibson or Fender back then? Right now, I'd say that the prices of gibsons are pretty pricey.
> 
> I'm thinking that maybe people just had one guitar and worked it to the bone - nothing like what we do nowadays.
> 
> ...just thinking out loud a little. I have no idea what was going on back in the day. I suppose I could look up minimum wage in the 50s/60s and compare percentages with today.


I'm with you there. I don't think most people could afford a good guitar back then, and if they could it was ONE guitar. 

But you have to agree, it was the collectors that drove prices up on cars that cost 3-5K in 1969 to values well over 100k (and in some case millions). If they weren't coveted, they aren't worth much. Look at the cost of 60/70's cars vs restored 50's cars and restored 30's cars. There's a huge sliding scale. The older that are, the less they are worth because that generation has passed on or is unable to drive any longer


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Is there any truth to tonal qualities being better in acoustic guitars where the wood has dried and the molecular levels changed enough with years of vibrations? I read that some people place thier acoustics in front of their speakers


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

adcandour said:


> Could the average man afford a gibson or Fender back then? Right now, I'd say that the prices of gibsons are pretty pricey.
> 
> I'm thinking that maybe people just had one guitar and worked it to the bone - nothing like what we do nowadays.
> 
> ...just thinking out loud a little. I have no idea what was going on back in the day. I suppose I could look up minimum wage in the 50s/60s and compare percentages with today.


the music store I worked at in 1977 had a Les Paul in the window on display. Pretty sure the price tag on it was $800. At the time I was making $3 an hour so that guitar was out of reach for me. A used Strat or Tele in the pawn shops was about $200, and I couldn't even afford one of those! Gibsons were always pricey, as far back as I can remember.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Scotty said:


> Is there any truth to tonal qualities being better in acoustic guitars where the wood has dried and the molecular levels changed enough with years of vibrations? I read that some people place thier acoustics in front of their speakers


An acoustic guitar will change tonally as it ages. Whether or not it's an improvement is entirely in the ear of the beholder.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

vanderkalin said:


> Wow that's really reaching.


So, if I understand this correctly, I'm not allowed to express my opinion but you are allowed to tell me to shut up and if I make a comment about you telling me to shut up then I'm desperately reaching.
Good to know.
Thanks for clarifying that for me.


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

I've been a semi professional musician for 40 years. My first real guitar was a Mansfield 335ish guitar. It cost $100.00 at the downtown music store, used. It was pretty cool. It had painted sound holes. Kind of BB King.
Fenders and Gibsons were in Guitar Player magazine. I'm thinking that Fender and Gibson, (were there only two back then?), were in the $800.00 range. I was making $2.75 an hour washing dishes....math....
The first good guitar I bought was a Gibby S1. Bolt on neck, three Bill Lawrence pick ups. I learned a lot on that axe. It cost me $200.00 and a trade in on a cheap (but effective) bass. Running through a Univox solid state amp. I immediately (in 1979) changed out the lower two pick ups for a Dimarzio super distortion. Natch.
Sidebar,
I kept those BL pups in my sock drawer for thirty years until I dropped them in a Squire Jaguar. That axe was promptly stolen.
For sure I want to like the way a guitar hangs on me. It generally sits in a prominent place when I'm on stage. So mojo is a thing. Playability is a thing. Tone is a thing.
It's a blend.
It seems to me that it's a little bit easier to buy a guitar and amp starter kit now than it was back then, in relative terms, but just a little.
A 1954 les Paul was $400.00 (with gas and time off work). I'm pretty sure my dad made about $150.00 a week.
Math.....


----------



## isoneedacoffee (Oct 31, 2014)

Interesting discussion. When did GC become harmony central?


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

Jim9guitars said:


> There's a Maxsold auction in my area right now with a couple of Les Pauls, one of the goldtops, a '52
> tribute lite which doesn't say what actual year it was made, is already at $1950.00. There is no pre auction viewing, just pics online. I'm watching this auction like I would a train wreck, no plan to get involved but can't look away.


I checked in about an hour before the auction closed and both Les Pauls were up over $2,000.00. They probably went up before it was over, these auctions have "soft close", which means any bids placed during the last 2 minutes before the close cause an added 2 minutes to allow for a counter bid, the auction continues until no bids have been placed for a full 2 minutes. I know for sure there are some vintage Les Pauls in that price range right here in Kingston(one particular shop at least) that you could go and try before you buy etc....


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

isoneedacoffee said:


> Interesting discussion. When did GC become harmony central?


When the topic hits a nerve.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Budda said:


> No one has mentioned player grade vintage yet...





Chitmo said:


> Still paying as much for a beat up fixer-upper as something new and functioning. Don't get me wrong, I have owned a few vintage guitars out of curiosity, but they never stayed.


My experience has been the complete opposite of Chitmo's so it just goes to show you that there are no absolutes. I've owned many a new/near new fully functioning gitbox and, as terrific as some of them were, none has stayed with me. My only "keeper" has been a player grade '62 SG Special...simply because nothing else surpassed it in terms of tone or playability. The only worthy "runner-ups" were Shaw-era (30+ yrs old) player grade instruments, a 335 & Studio Standard respectively, which also remain with me. All were acquired at discount due to their "not for collector" status, which suits me just fine. Regardless of price though, none of them has been seriously challenged to date (and there have been MANY). That's just MY experience however...


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, I'm not allowed to express my opinion but you are allowed to tell me to shut up and if I make a comment about you telling me to shut up then I'm desperately reaching.
> Good to know.
> Thanks for clarifying that for me.


Nope. Wrong again. Work on your comprehension. You are allowed to do whatever you want. I would never presume to tell you what you are allowed to do. The parallel you were trying to draw wasn't really accurate is all. And I reserve the right to my opinion on what you do. Which is low.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

I buy guitars that I like to play, feel comfortable to me, and sound good to me. If it's vintage, new, used, or whatever makes no difference. If it speaks to me and I can afford it at that moment I buy it. Focusing on price, age, etc. doesn't make sense unless the guitar is going to hang on a wall and never be played.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> Of course. However, I believe the number of those that managed to slip through is much smaller than most people think. I believe the vast majority of vintage guitars currently in circulation are not the magical mojo machines people imagine they are. I use the word imagine purposely. I believe 95% of the ascribed mojo of vintage guitars is all in people's heads. Those Anderton's boys in the UK have done an excellent job on YouTube of proving the major portion of our perceptions of a guitar's tone are directly related to our estimation of the guitar's value and origins and that when blindfolded we begin to rely on the feel of a guitar, rather than the sound to assess the value and usefulness of a guitar for ourselves.


You're preaching to the converted.

The old gear myth



> There is another aspect to vintage guitars that a lot of people appear to be confused about. There is a school of thought that says when pickups and wires and pots age there is a certain amount of degradation that occurs which many find to be beneficial to tone. I don't pretend to understand the science of that degradation but it seems to me that whatever it is would very likely have little or nothing to do with the instruments having been made better back then. If they improved with time then it is logical they were not as good when new. It is also logical that modern tech can recreate those improved aspects which I imagine must be related to changed electrical values in the components.


Same with old amps. Do aged transformers, capacitors, inductors or resistors really sound better? Different, sure, but better? Jimi, Jimmy, et al recorded with relatively new amps (Marshall as a company was less than a decade old). Do we need 60 year old amps to sound like them?

I think the significance of aging affecting instruments from most import to least important is:

Acoustic guitars
Electric guitars
Amps and pedals
Modelers


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

laristotle said:


>


Don't flatter yourself.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Lighten up Francis


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Re: old amps. I don't think that aging components sound better, but IME be it vintage or boutique, PTP is more reliable than PCB. Had a tweed Champ that needed a cap job when I had Glenn Morris install a 3-prong cord. 50+ years without needing any service.....much better than the Mesa LSS, Fender CVR & Marshall 1974X HW that crapped out within a year or two.

Perhaps the difference is more the quality of the components vs. their age? In the "golden age" everything was made in the US and there weren't umpteen levels for each model of guitar (i.e. Stratocaster, Les Paul etc.). Even the student models like a Les Paul Jr. used the same woods & electronics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

vanderkalin said:


> Nope. Wrong again. Work on your comprehension. You are allowed to do whatever you want. I would never presume to tell you what you are allowed to do. The parallel you were trying to draw wasn't really accurate is all. And I reserve the right to my opinion on what you do. Which is low.


You reserve the right to voice your opinion on what I do but I have to shut up about what other people do.

But I'm the one who is "wrong again" and I'm also the one who is a dick. 

________________________________

To all:
Do we have a "block" feature here?


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

JBFairthorne said:


> Lighten up Francis


Agreed. Settle down.

Now, I'd be interested in reading some more constructive offerings for the OP...


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

BMW-KTM said:


> But I'm the one who is "wrong again" and I'm also the one who is a dick.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> ...


Yes, yes and yes but don't puss out by blocking him, I'm hoping your skin is thicker than that.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Scotty said:


> I'm with you there. I don't think most people could afford a good guitar back then, and if they could it was ONE guitar.
> 
> But you have to agree, it was the collectors that drove prices up on cars that cost 3-5K in 1969 to values well over 100k (and in some case millions). If they weren't coveted, they aren't worth much. Look at the cost of 60/70's cars vs restored 50's cars and restored 30's cars. There's a huge sliding scale. The older that are, the less they are worth because that generation has passed on or is unable to drive any longer





vadsy said:


> Yes, yes and yes but don't puss out by blocking him, I'm hoping your skin is thicker than that.


I actually put someone on my ignore list for the first time ever, and tap-a-talk actually makes their posts more enticing by replace the comment with a "spoiler button".

...talk about will power.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

vadsy said:


> ... don't puss out by blocking him ...


Actually, I was going to suggest she block me. Clearly, I get under her skin. While I may take a certain amount of twisted pleasure in that fact, it is nonetheless disruptive to the board when her cognitive dissonance kicks in. I tend to have that affect on people whose minds are made up.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

adcandour said:


> I actually put someone on my ignore list for the first time ever, and tap-a-talk actually makes their posts more enticing by replace the comment with a "spoiler button".
> 
> ...talk about will power.


????


----------



## Jamdog (Mar 9, 2016)

High/Deaf said:


> The old gear myth


The comparisons in this thread are flawed. 

There was no 50 year old fenders available in the 50s and 60s.


To the argument that says that whatever they made back then is being reproduced with newer technology now. We'll if you believe that then I sure hope you're not using any 60s technology such as "vacuum tubes" 

I do not believe newer technologies always equates to "better". Sometimes technology is good enough. 
Modern corporations plan with cost reduction, not higher quality. 

Vintage, antique, modern ; there have to be good and bad ones. 

In my book 80s Japanese guitars are "vintage" but I never seen any go for tens of thousands. The people that absolutely want a guitar from the 50s or 60s fight over reducing inventory. Offer and demand makes for increased pricing. 
By definition this means their price is inflated by low quantity, so "overpriced" 

Which is why they become mainly collectors items. 

Does it mean they aren't good? 
I think not. Overpriced, quality antiques. 

I suck at being a collector. But I own a vintage guitar of a model produced only about six months. Payed less than a modern Gibson. I prefer it.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> Actually, I was going to suggest she block me. Clearly, I get under her skin. While I may take a certain amount of twisted pleasure in that fact, it is nonetheless disruptive to the board when her cognitive dissonance kicks in. I tend to have that affect on people whose minds are made up.


Oh snap! Good one buddy! She! Haha! I am actually laughing right now, but not with you. At you. And hey, at least this she doesn't tattle to the mods about something someone said on a thread. Have a good day .


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

The only thing my vintage LP does is mean a shit load to me for the memories it elicits, The worn in nature of it due to getting played to death, the marks, scratches, and bruises it shows inside and out from years of use by myself and no one else (except for 6 years with the original owner), and the Mojo that comes with all of the above. I know how to get what sounds I want through any amp or effect because it's part of me and has been since 1985. Same as my Boss DS-1 MIJ.

I paid a grand total of $730 for the 2 pieces of guitar equipment, and it's basically priceless AFAIC.

That's my take. I'll by an older guitar if it feels and sounds, and s priced right, otherwise I'll buy it new.


----------



## 55 Jr (May 3, 2006)

My clients prefer renting the vintage gear.



therivercityguitar.com


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

It's already been a great day.
Thanks though.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Jamdog said:


> Modern corporations plan with cost reduction, not higher quality.


Exhibit A: After CBS bought Fender they made small changes every year to the Stratocaster to save a few shekels on parts &/or labour (i.e. trem blocks cast from cheap pot metal, saddles, tuners, pickups, 3-bolt neckplates etc.) until the guitars became generally awful. Yes there are a few good ones from the mid-late 70s, but 9 times out of 10 a '65 will beat a '75.

Exhibit B: The relatively large amount of aftermarket parts suppliers that exist because of the cheap components that come on most new guitars. I understand the concept of building entry-level instruments to a price point, but it's kind of sad that you can spend several thousand dollars on a new guitar & still need to drop another $300-500 to improve a bunch of parts to make it sound better.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> Rule #2.


What about it? Go back and read it and then read your rant again. Irony much?


----------



## Steve112 (Apr 17, 2016)

I started playing in 1959 on cheap guitars that generally played and sounded awful and were crap. When I progressed to Fender and Gibson guitars there was a huge difference in workmanship, sound and playability. However I discovered fairly quickly that even these guitars had their lemons. Granted these were fewer in number than the cheapo copies but the bad ones were there.
Those vintage instruments could have finishing deficiencies, warped necks, funky electronics, etc. In the pre-CNC manufacturing days no two guitars were the same, similar yes but not identical.
Given today's outrageous prices and the need to have the expertise to spot the good ones as well as the duds, I'll happily play my modern versions. They sound convincingly good even without 50 - 60 year old wood, are far more consistent from copy to copy.
The most important point of making music on guitars is not how old the thing is, it's HOW WELL YOU'VE LEARNED TO PLAY the damn thing! Make pleasurable sounds and I don't care in the least if your guitar is 5 decades old or if it was made last week.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Scotty said:


> ????


???? +?


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

adcandour said:


> ???? +?


You quoted one of my posts and one from Vadsy with your blocking comment. Multi quote by mistake, or did something in my comment offend?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Scotty said:


> You quoted one of my posts and one from Vadsy with your blocking comment. Multi quote by mistake, or did something in my comment offend?


Oops, I didn't mean to quote you. Sorry...


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

BMW-KTM said:


> You reserve the right to voice your opinion on what I do but I have to shut up about what other people do.
> 
> But I'm the one who is "wrong again" and I'm also the one who is a dick.
> 
> ...



There is an "ignore" feature, but I don't know if it silences their comments in threads. Something worth trying. One thing I've noticed is that there will always be someone who will repeatedly argue with you just for the sake of arguing. I see it in every forum and when I encounter those, I just ignore them. I know the sky is blue and not green


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

adcandour said:


> Oops, I didn't mean to quote you. Sorry...


No harm done, glad I didn't offend


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Scotty said:


> I just ignore them.


 Thanks. That's exactly what I'm going to do.


----------

