10 Years on

maltingsaudio

There aren’t many manufacturers who produce the same guitar year after year and don’t rename it or add something extra to the name. In fact I can only think of one , Musicman with the Silhouette. 

My question is, for say a £1000 guitar you would have bought 10 years ago, that exactly the same guitar now , manufactured today ,would probably cost you say £2000. Would in your experience, the quality of that instrument be the same better or worse.

To expand on this , or explain my thinking better, I bought a Fylde acoustic 20 years ago, to buy the same model and spec today would cost me £2500 more than I paid, and they are still making it, but I would expect the guitar I bought today to be just as good as the one I bought 20 years ago, not better

ICBM

Rickenbacker.

Most of their models have remained unchanged other than in fairly minor details since the 1960s.

Quality is the same or possibly better.

Nerine

This will likely get on to Gibson so may as well start now. 

If Gibson didn’t try to futz with their Standard guitars year in and year out, economies of scale would probably mean cheaper guitars overall and a more consistent output. 

This would ironically make them more popular than trying to put stupid takes on the Les Paul that no one wants or asks for. 

swiller

Same or better if made 20+ years ago.
I love late 80s USA fenders, just when they were trying to make an impression with the new factory and takeover. Price wise today, as cheap as jap same era and cheaper than a new mexican. Certainly well under the four figure mark for excellent condition examples.

jellybelly

maltingsaudio said:

There aren’t many manufacturers who produce the same guitar year after year and don’t rename it or add something extra to the name. In fact I can only think of one , Musicman with the Silhouette. 

My question is, for say a £1000 guitar you would have bought 10 years ago, that exactly the same guitar now , manufactured today ,would probably cost you say £2000. Would in your experience, the quality of that instrument be the same better or worse.

To expand on this , or explain my thinking better, I bought a Fylde acoustic 20 years ago, to buy the same model and spec today would cost me £2500 more than I paid, and they are still making it, but I would expect the guitar I bought today to be just as good as the one I bought 20 years ago, not better

Interesting question this... Stuff like the Fender USA Standard should be in this category but they mixed that up a few years back. Gibson have been fairly consistent with Tributes & Studios and up to this year too maybe?

Reason I was drawn to this is that this year my Taylor 210 acoustic went on my insurance as a 'named item'. Should be an £800 guitar right, nice but nothing special. I paid £529 for mine 17 years ago. 

Except mines a USA model with solid sapele back and sides and a fitted Taylor hardcase. The current equivalent is laminate, made in Mexico and comes with a gigbag. Nearest equivalent is a couple of rungs up with a list price over £2k. 

Same model number somehow!!

Funkfingers

maltingsaudio said:

I bought a Fylde acoustic 20 years ago, to buy the same model and spec today would cost me £2500 more than I paid, and they are still making it, but I would expect the guitar I bought today to be just as good as the one I bought 20 years ago, not better

Better is always subjective. 

Some would argue that a twenty year old acoustic guitar has an unfair advantage over an identical brand new version. It should have dried thoroughly and been resonating sympathetically to vibrating strings. By comparison, a brand new version may be a little bit "stiff".

guitarjack66

Funkfingers said:

maltingsaudio said:

I bought a Fylde acoustic 20 years ago, to buy the same model and spec today would cost me £2500 more than I paid, and they are still making it, but I would expect the guitar I bought today to be just as good as the one I bought 20 years ago, not better

Better is always subjective. 

Some would argue that a twenty year old acoustic guitar has an unfair advantage over an identical brand new version. It should have dried thoroughly and been resonating sympathetically to vibrating strings. By comparison, a brand new version may be a little bit "stiff".

That explains why I didn't need Viagra in my youth.

Revolutions

swiller said:

Same or better if made 20+ years ago.
I love late 80s USA fenders, just when they were trying to make an impression with the new factory and takeover. Price wise today, as cheap as jap same era and cheaper than a new mexican. Certainly well under the four figure mark for excellent condition examples.

I picked up an 87 Strat in Pewter a couple of years ago for a bargain price. Great guitar & well-put together. I just can’t get on with Strats so sold it on when I needed some cash. 

guitars4you

ICBM said:

Rickenbacker.

Most of their models have remained unchanged other than in fairly minor details since the 1960s.

Quality is the same or possibly better.

But then they go back to 21 frets fairly recently

barnstorm

Some signature models never get changed, and I wouldn’t expect a new one to be any better than an older example.

Don’t know for a fact that they haven’t made tweaks to hardware and electronics, but Yamaha seems to have been remarkably consistent with the budget S-style Pacificas.

PAL

Companies like Musicman. Anderson. Suhr. PRS and many others like to improve and innovate. Musicman for example
 now use a compensated nut and stainless steel frets. You can buy classic guitar with classic build guitars from say Gibson
 and Fender but they also build guitars that compete with the modern guitar builders. The good thing is it gives a choice.

soma1975

Nerine said:

This will likely get on to Gibson so may as well start now. 

If Gibson didn’t try to futz with their Standard guitars year in and year out, economies of scale would probably mean cheaper guitars overall and a more consistent output. 

This would ironically make them more popular than trying to put stupid takes on the Les Paul that no one wants or asks for. 

Just have a 'standard' and a 'modern' version. Modern range has fancy colours and electronics and improved heel access. Standard has all the old shit we like. 

Then Custom Shop for specific years/relics/signature versions. 

ICBM

guitars4you said:

But then they go back to 21 frets fairly recently

I would call that a minor detail since no-one plays a Rick above about the 9th fret anyway .

It’s only the length of the end of the neck over the body that’s changed, not the neck position relative to the body. I never really understood why they went to 24 frets in the first place.

There have actually been a lot of detail changes over the years, some - like that - later reversed, but they’re still the same model numbers and general specs, which is what I think maltingsaudio was asking about.

timmypix

Nerine said:

This will likely get on to Gibson so may as well start now. 

If Gibson didn’t try to futz with their Standard guitars year in and year out, economies of scale would probably mean cheaper guitars overall and a more consistent output. 

This would ironically make them more popular than trying to put stupid takes on the Les Paul that no one wants or asks for. 

The Standards have been the same for the last 5 years, now.

robgilmo

Fender and Gibson will start making reissues of reissues of reissues soon, I mean, there is only so many different varients of the same guitar that you can make.

ICBM

robgilmo said:

Fender and Gibson will start making reissues of reissues of reissues soon

Fender have already done it with amps - they call the current Blues Deluxe a ‘reissue’ even though it’s a 90s amp that only bears a superficial resemblance to a 50s one. They did stop making it for a few years so technically it *is* a reissue, but that’s maybe stretching a point.

Offset

swiller said:

Same or better if made 20+ years ago.
I love late 80s USA fenders, just when they were trying to make an impression with the new factory and takeover. Price wise today, as cheap as jap same era and cheaper than a new mexican. Certainly well under the four figure mark for excellent condition examples.

A dozen wizzes.  The Plus versions of the Strat and Tele are fantastic guitars.  I think they're a weeny bit more money than you've suggested however.  There was a Strat Plus at the Brizzle show yesterday, same year as mine (89) and not in as good condition.  £1400.  I think that price is about right for trade (perhaps slightly optimistic).   The Teles go for a lot more, possibly  because of the Jonny Greenwood connection.

maltingsaudio

ICBM said:k

guitars4you said:

But then they go back to 21 frets fairly recently

I would call that a minor detail since no-one plays a Rick above about the 9th fret anyway .

It’s only the length of the end of the neck over the body that’s changed, not the neck position relative to the body. I never really understood why they went to 24 frets in the first place.

There have actually been a lot of detail changes over the years, some - like that - later reversed, but they’re still the same model numbers and general specs, which is what I think maltingsaudio was asking about.

Yes I couldn’t think of another electric example until Rickenbacker came up, so the nub is: without being brand specific which I was trying to avoid but is inevitable, would you expect a 330 made today to be of the same quality as one made say 20 years ago, as the cost of said guitar is exponentially more for exactly the same guitar

For example Rickenbacker 330 Maple Glow from Peter Cook in Guitarist 2010 £1099, today from Gear4Music £2699

ICBM

maltingsaudio said:

Yes I couldn’t think of another electric example until Rickenbacker came up, so the nub is: without being brand specific which I was trying to avoid but is inevitable, would you expect a 330 made today to be of the same quality as one made say 20 years ago, as the cost of said guitar is exponentially more for exactly the same guitar

Yes, I would - possibly marginally better. Although I personally like the early-90s ones in particular, I think the current ones are better made objectively.

I’m not sure how much they’ve gone up by in real terms.

guitars4you

Agree with ICBM in that Rickenbacker have barely changed - The Hall family who own Rickenbacker are more business people than guitar aficionado's  - I don't mean that in a bad way - They love the heritage of what Rickenbacker represents - They have been approached many times about building overseas - They protect their IPR and that includes the body shape, which is just about impossible for any other guitar company to do likewise  - They see no need to change - They build history, are proud of it and protect it 

The bottom line is they see no need to change and that is both the product and indeed the factory set-up/build quality 

Bigsby

maltingsaudio said:

There aren’t many manufacturers who produce the same guitar year after year and don’t rename it or add something extra to the name. In fact I can only think of one , Musicman with the Silhouette. 

My question is, for say a £1000 guitar you would have bought 10 years ago, that exactly the same guitar now , manufactured today ,would probably cost you say £2000. Would in your experience, the quality of that instrument be the same better or worse.

Gordon Smith GS1 - pretty much unchanged and likely to be better today than 10 years ago or more, as I believe the quality/consistency has improved since Auden took over the brand and production line.