Once a vintage guitar becomes a commodity, what's the point?

guitars4you

UnclePsychosis said:

thegummy said:

soma1975 said:

jaymenon said:

To me, this is just more nostalgia and guitar geekery; like the “old violins are much better than new violins”. argument.  Violin aficionados desperately keep looking for reasons to rationalise their belief in this but it never withstands the harsh gaze of scientific scrutiny.’

It’s nothing of the sort. The old instruments I played all sounded different to modern equivalents. Whether you hear or like that difference is up to you. I’d be ecstatic if my modern Les Paul had had he same quality I found in the older one. Likewise the Strat. I’ve no hand in the game. 

Frankly, bringing science into it is pointless when discussing something so completely subjective as tone. On paper a Mesa MKV is ‘scientifically’ a far superior amp to a 57 Deluxe. So is a Boss Katana. But I know which I would rather play. 

Isn't there a well known study where, even though it was generally thought old violins sounded better and players thought they could hear the difference, in a blind test they actually couldn't?

Almost. 

They got a whole bunch of professional violinists to play a whole bunch of professional level violins - some modern, some "vintage classic" ones like strads. 

The violinists were able to play the instruments and were asked their preferences in a series of blind tests. A majority of them preferred a modern violin to any old one. They also failed to reliably identify old vs new. 

The full paper is available online but there's a fairly decent Wikipedia summary:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_preferences_among_new_and_old_violins

To be fair, the 'modern violins were not 'mediocre' of the shelf replicas - But expensive hand built by respected luthiers to be the finest examples possible - Much the same as Neil builds @IvisonGuitars - Study the original with enough knowledge and skill to be able to reproduce a detailed replica

ICBM

barry2tone said:

To imagine a point...

I suggest we start a rumour that vintage guitars, like cars, need playing to keep their tone in tip-top condition.

Bemoan loudly how dreadful old, unplayed guitars sound at their first outing from the vault. Then talk up the delight when finally the "real" sound comes shining through.  It was worth thrice the hefty price tag!   But only after a couple of months of n hours a day being played.

Repeat this frequently enough for collectors to become convinced the instrument will only reach peak price with a hefty dose of recent usage.

And thus it makes financial sense for them to start paying for a player to put some recent mileage on the clock.

Rumour? It's true. It's also well-known with classical instruments, which is one reason almost no Stradivari-era violins are in museums, despite their value - they're all being used. The owners of them are not usually the players - who mostly couldn't afford them anyway - they're investors who lease them to the players both for a return on their investment in the form of a percentage of their royalties, and to keep them in good condition.

My experience is that it's very common for a guitar - vintage or modern - to come into the shop for sale which has been in its case, unplayed for years. It very often sounds dead and un-resonant, even after a change of strings. But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so.

This is also probably why mint-condition vintage guitars are generally found to not sound as good as well-used 'player' examples - some people think that they got put away and not played because they were no good in the first place, but I think it's much more likely to be the other way round, since most old guitars were bought from a choice of one in the shop - players didn't pick the 'good' ones, they just bought the one they could find.

barry2tone

Thanks @ICBM ;;

I'll start on the plans for accreditation to the Institute of Guitar Chauffeurs and Revivifiers right away.

The Institute will act as an agency, matching up collectors with suitably qualified players.   


[Obvious fly in the ointment is that collectible vintage ain't bought on how it sounds.]

peteri

As many know I own the instruments @soma1975 is talking about in this thread, I have no axe to grind, no point to prove and I always want to be polite in these discussions.


So no offence intended

However, I think there is a mix up here between being a (good instrument and the same) versus (a good instrument but different).


I've played a lot of Custom Shops from Fender and owned a couple, I played a lot of CC Les Pauls.


Whilst these are very good modern instruments (especially the Fender, I've found the Gibson Custom Shop more patchy than their regular line to be honest).

That's what they are, they are not the same as vintage - even it they're made to look the same.


The necks just feel different, there's a massive difference between a neck worn by 40 years of playing and one made to feel like it.

And I'm sorry the resonance of the wood is different, whether it was older growth, left to dry out more, whatever I don't care but it is different, I can feel it. Similarly the carve (especially on Les Pauls) is different.


Also, old pots and capacitors have different tapers, and behave differently - yes you can get modern repros, and they're very good - but all I know is I can use all (0-10) tone settings on a Les Paul loom from the 50s, which I just can't in a modern one.


I'll say again, this doesn't mean the modern are worse - they're just different.


Recently I was lucky enough to play two 59 Les Pauls, back to back, same owner - neither were mint, most collectors don't look for the level of mint people expect - partly because it's so rare, ok you get Norm trying to flog a minty, custom colour strat on Youtube - but very few people are in that market.


The same day I played the 59s I played a Terry Morgan, this guitar was made as a travelling replica by Terry for one of the 59s, it had PAFs, a full vintage loom and it played superbly - maybe slightly fatter in sound than the 59, but for half the night I was playing it thinking it was the original, it was that good. But this is a hand-made copy, and Gibson have looked at it (yes they do look at these things) and concluded it's not feasible for them to put the hours in to making this level of replica, in terms of sourcing the wood and all the hand-finishing, it's just from another era.


Similarly, I've played some Bravewood Telecasters which are superb and to my mind are what I wish Fender Custom Shop will do, but that's unrealistic - Bravewood is a one man business in the West Country, Fender produce product in the 1000s.


At the end of the day, you need to play and experience vintage guitars - then you can decide if they're for you or not, it's not a religion, it's not your man (or lady) hood - it's just a preference. At the recent jam I took along a guitar the internet wouldn't rate - a 67 ES-330, the internet will tell you the narrow nut is horrible, the guitar will feedback etc. Neither is true and many people commented both on here and on the day how much they loved it.


And on the mint vs played to death - I think that's a false positive, people didn't have the choice and the finishes were more fragile, I agree played to death guitars are often good ones (but the modd'd ones often aren't so good, people were tinkering for a reason) but at the same point, I've played a 62 Strat which was bought used in the late 60s and the chap died a year or two later, it was only found recently when his widow died and they cleared out the loft - that was not played to death at all, but was wonderful - circumstance has to be thought of.

That said, probably my best vintage (or certainly top 2) is a 56 Esquire, it has literally no lacquer on the neck and maybe 50% on the body. And in many ways is all the guitar you'll ever need - so there might be something in it after all

I am not a dealer, I am an enthusiast - I spent most of my life not being able to spend (literally) more than £500 on a guitar, my life changed and I've now spent much more than that. All will be sold one day, I cannot afford to keep them frankly, but in the meantime when bank accounts are paying such low interest - knowing I can buy something I love and in a year or two sell for either the same, a small loss or a small profit (and I've had all flavours of that) is wonderful. 99% of people I meet with vintage guitars are exactly the same. 

Similarly, my job is just that - a job, it's not fun - so having something as a distraction is good for me, for some people it's transparent overdrive pedals (been there!) for others it's old instruments

And apart from dealer adverts no-one, no-one looks for original frets believe me - dealer ads (and prices) are about the worse indicator of the vintage market (Guitars4you being one of the rare exceptions)

Just my random thoughts on a boring Thursday morning, thanks for indulging me if you've read this far!

soma1975

Yes that 330 was the fave guitar of the day. 

roberty

soma1975 said:

Yes that 330 was the fave guitar of the day. 

A vintage 330 is on my list I think, they're a little bit overlooked.  Maybe next year

Some things are collectable that have literally no functional value, baseball cards or whatever.  At least with guitars you get to play them.  You can't pick up shares and play them either, and lots of people have those

guitars4you

roberty said:

Some things are collectable that have literally no functional value, baseball cards or whatever.  At least with guitars you get to play them.  You can't pick up shares and play them either, and lots of people have those

A totally valid point - I dare say many will collect a variety of different 'items' for many different reasons - But as you say, you can buy a guitar and enjoy the whole hands on experience, for many many years  - The plus point of a nice guitar, be it new, modern or vintage, is that in many cases, we can buy, play and own the exact same guitar as any 'super star guitar hero' - ie You can own the exact same guitar that Clapton or Beck plays, or whichever band member you just about wish to mention  Same applies to a drummer, a keyboard player, a sax player etc

stickyfiddle

A tweet from Jason Isbell seems appropriate to this discussion...

https://twitter.com/JasonIsbell/status/1121125955093897223 

thegummy

Don't think there's any need for anyone to justify their spending. If someone has plenty of money and likes buying vintage guitars then that's enough justification.

I thin where the truth is important is maybe someone like a session player who can just about afford to buy a vintage instrument if it really did allow them to offer a better sound to their clients but who don't have any non-practical desire for a vintage guitar.

I'd love to find out the truth even though it's unlikely I could buy one anyway but could at least stop even desiring one if it was shown they don't really sound different. Incidentally, someone who's already spent a lot of money on one would be the last person I'd trust for an objective opinion. Not a slight on them, we're all subject to the same biases.

peteri

roberty said:

soma1975 said:

Yes that 330 was the fave guitar of the day. 

A vintage 330 is on my list I think, they're a little bit overlooked.  Maybe next year

Some things are collectable that have literally no functional value, baseball cards or whatever.  At least with guitars you get to play them.  You can't pick up shares and play them either, and lots of people have those

Completely agree, I've got two at the moment (although the 67 I took to the Jam has to go, I've just got to make space) - just a joy to play and very different to a solid body (somehow with a 335/345 I end up playing it like a Les Paul)

soma1975

thegummy said:

Don't think there's any need for anyone to justify their spending. If someone has plenty of money and likes buying vintage guitars then that's enough justification.

I thin where the truth is important is maybe someone like a session player who can just about afford to buy a vintage instrument if it really did allow them to offer a better sound to their clients but who don't have any non-practical desire for a vintage guitar.

I'd love to find out the truth even though it's unlikely I could buy one anyway but could at least stop even desiring one if it was shown they don't really sound different. Incidentally, someone who's already spent a lot of money on one would be the last person I'd trust for an objective opinion. Not a slight on them, we're all subject to the same biases.

Exactly where I was. Hoping what I had sounded the same. Nope

Strat54

Functional art, and the possible reason for Mick disappearing down the tone rabbit hole on TPS.

https://youtu.be/um0VAo_FfH0

Kittyfrisk

ICBM said:

barry2tone said:

To imagine a point...

I suggest we start a rumour that vintage guitars, like cars, need playing to keep their tone in tip-top condition.

Bemoan loudly how dreadful old, unplayed guitars sound at their first outing from the vault. Then talk up the delight when finally the "real" sound comes shining through.  It was worth thrice the hefty price tag!   But only after a couple of months of n hours a day being played.

Repeat this frequently enough for collectors to become convinced the instrument will only reach peak price with a hefty dose of recent usage.

And thus it makes financial sense for them to start paying for a player to put some recent mileage on the clock.

Rumour? It's true. It's also well-known with classical instruments, which is one reason almost no Stradivari-era violins are in museums, despite their value - they're all being used. The owners of them are not usually the players - who mostly couldn't afford them anyway - they're investors who lease them to the players both for a return on their investment in the form of a percentage of their royalties, and to keep them in good condition.

My experience is that it's very common for a guitar - vintage or modern - to come into the shop for sale which has been in its case, unplayed for years. It very often sounds dead and un-resonant, even after a change of strings. But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so.

This is also probably why mint-condition vintage guitars are generally found to not sound as good as well-used 'player' examples - some people think that they got put away and not played because they were no good in the first place, but I think it's much more likely to be the other way round, since most old guitars were bought from a choice of one in the shop - players didn't pick the 'good' ones, they just bought the one they could find.

@ICBM, I have much respect for your obvious vast experience & knowledge from your contributions here.

But statements like  ' But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so."

This sounds fairly close to the wisdom of giving guitars reiki massages and Georgian hymn chanting in a particular key, at a certain proximity to the guitars, in order to improve tone.
 Or are you suggesting that guitars are social animals that get lonely when left alone and that they relax in the company of others?

I'm genuinely not sniping, taking the piss, scoring points or any such thing (really), but I'm genuinely gobsmacked by such an assertion.
Some science or proof is required here I think?

JezWynd

But statements like  ' But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so."

I’ve heard that statement from a couple of store owners, elderly guys with many years experience, so I wouldn’t discount it. Guitars, and probably all string instruments, sound better for being played. When I first got my 225 it sounded ‘dead’, it had obviously spent a lot of time in its case (smelt musty) but three months on, after hanging on wall in living room, getting played regularly, it’s sounding much better (raising action helped). There’s something to it, i’m certain. It’s not going to turn a dog into a player but if it’s a decent instrument, playing it can bring it to life.

ICBM

Kittyfrisk said:

@ICBM, I have much respect for your obvious vast experience & knowledge from your contributions here.

But statements like  ' But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so."

This sounds fairly close to the wisdom of giving guitars reiki massages and Georgian hymn chanting in a particular key, at a certain proximity to the guitars, in order to improve tone.
 Or are you suggesting that guitars are social animals that get lonely when left alone and that they relax in the company of others?

I'm genuinely not sniping, taking the piss, scoring points or any such thing (really), but I'm genuinely gobsmacked by such an assertion.
Some science or proof is required here I think?

No, it’s not that they feel some social affinity for other guitars . It’s that the vibrations from the sounds in the room make them resonate, because they’re also strung and tuned, and not damped in way they are in a case. If you’re testing an amp in the shop and you suddenly stop, you can hear them all carry on like a giant reverb unit .

Exposing guitars to vibration as a form of ‘pre-aging’ has been demonstrated to produce a measurable change. Yamaha use it on some of their higher-end acoustics, but it does have an effect on electrics too. If you work around guitars a lot it’s something you will notice fairly clearly.

guitars4you

ICBM said:

Kittyfrisk said:

@ICBM, I have much respect for your obvious vast experience & knowledge from your contributions here.

But statements like  ' But after it's been hanging on the shop wall for a few weeks, picking up vibrations from the amps being played in the room and occasionally getting played, it starts to sound better - sometimes remarkably so."

This sounds fairly close to the wisdom of giving guitars reiki massages and Georgian hymn chanting in a particular key, at a certain proximity to the guitars, in order to improve tone.
 Or are you suggesting that guitars are social animals that get lonely when left alone and that they relax in the company of others?

I'm genuinely not sniping, taking the piss, scoring points or any such thing (really), but I'm genuinely gobsmacked by such an assertion.
Some science or proof is required here I think?

No, it’s not that they feel some social affinity for other guitars . It’s that the vibrations from the sounds in the room make them resonate, because they’re also strung and tuned, and not damped in way they are in a case. If you’re testing an amp in the shop and you suddenly stop, you can hear them all carry on like a giant reverb unit .

Exposing guitars to vibration as a form of ‘pre-aging’ has been demonstrated to produce a measurable change. Yamaha use it on some of their higher-end acoustics, but it does have an effect on electrics too. If you work around guitars a lot it’s something you will notice fairly clearly.

They'll think we are all mad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But totally agree with @ICBM ref above comments

Many acoustic players and violin players talk about a 'stiff top' if the instrument has not been played for a while - In particular an old violin that has been sat doing nothing for years - But then they play them for a while and the tone 'comes' back

Don't need any science behind this - And if there is any, then I'm not an academic so way above my head - But there is something about a 'played in' instrument - Not just an old instrument

Kittyfrisk

Clearly, most people on this forum are on a spectrum 
 It covers a wide, varied wonderful range of personalities, experiences & beliefs. Long may it remain so  

I subjectively 'feel' that I have played some truly wonderful & some awful guitars. Someone else can fundamentally disagree. 
Who is correct... well both of us   I'll happily yield the point to more experienced better players than myself, who are legion.

But...
A 2013 Harris Poll found that 43 percent of Americans believe in ghosts, despite zero scientific, reproducible evidence ever existing to substantiate this.
 Similarly, belief in something makes for a better tone, response feel, etc. is largely just that, belief , if it can't be reproduced under controlled conditions, double blind procedures et al.
Just check out the Cardboard Chaos Strat online and apply all the tonewood wisdom to that   

I'm conflicted in that I support physics, material science etc. but I also know that having played genuine 50's Les Paul's & other 'grail' guitars, that there was an undefinable, certain something about them.

Equally, I have come across instruments that are far more than just the sum of their parts, materials & most of all, headstock shape, logo or makers name.

And if guitars that have not been played for a long time sound 'dead', then why are so many guitarists swooning over the Closet Classic Stratocaster for example, where it is supposed to sound like an instrument that has been unplayed, in a case under a bed for many years ???  Go figure   

Anyway, keep up the conversations, it's all great.

OK, bring on the flaming torches & pitchforks   

soma1975

Just because you (or I) might lack the vocabulary to accurately describe this difference it doesn't mean the difference is in our heads. Nothing to do with science and I get the feeling those invoking it as a way of dismissing what people are saying simply have not done the test for themselves because it is obvious once you have.

 

Kittyfrisk

Lack of vocabulary isn't the point for either of us, I hope.

As I said, 'belief in something makes for a better tone, response feel, etc. is largely just that, belief'

If you read further what I had written, you would have come across this part  ' I'm conflicted in that I support physics, material science etc. but I also know that having played genuine 50's Les Paul's & other 'grail' guitars, that there was an undefinable, certain something about them"

So in what way is that 'dismissing what people are saying' ? If anything, I'm agreeing with you, that's why I'm conflicted,.
Cheers,   

guitars4you

Kittyfrisk said:

And if guitars that have not been played for a long time sound 'dead', then why are so many guitarists swooning over the Closet Classic Stratocaster for example, where it is supposed to sound like an instrument that has been unplayed, in a case under a bed for many years ???  Go figure   

I think the point here is that it is meant to LOOK like an un-played under the bed example - Even so I've sold and played far to many Custom Shop models - I'm not trying to sound like salesman here but a player who loves guitars like you and other FB members do - If you tried 3-4-5 C/Shop guitars you'd find each has a slightly different vibrant acoustic voice - One will probably have something more about it that you like - Doesn't mean the others are dead or poor examples, just that you prefer that one - Tap the bodies of 4-5 different CS Strats and you'll find a slightly different pitch/note on each guitar - Not a golden set in stone test, but often the Strat with a higher acoustic pitch will produce a more crisp voice - The one with a lower pitch will produce a more chilled voice

I find different players will try the same 3-4-5 guitars and pick a different guitar they prefer - I've not done this for a while, but have done it in the past with 3 or 4 customers inc myself and never once have we all picked the same guitar we prefer

soma1975 said:

Just because you (or I) might lack the vocabulary to accurately describe this difference it doesn't mean the difference is in our heads. Nothing to do with science and I get the feeling those invoking it as a way of dismissing what people are saying simply have not done the test for themselves because it is obvious once you have.

 

I tend to agree with this - I've said before that Shelly and Wordsworth would not be able to write about what we hear and like - I'm not an academic by any stretch of the imagination, so not really looking for the scientific approach, to tell me why A or B or C is better - But I do know what my hands and ears prefer and as such I always let them guide me