Are old guitars actually better than new ones

lustycourtier

Yesterday I payed a 67 Nashville DC Gretsch. It had been refretted recently with bigger frets, but was brilliant condition otherwise. When I picked it up I was assuming the old 'vintage gretches are rubbish, buy new (I have 2 modern ones) but this was brilliant. I may end up with it.

BigMonka

My attempt at wisdom:

One of the reasons old guitars are seen as being better is that there's been 40-50 years of the guitar equivalent of natural selection - the proportion of good old guitars is now higher than bad old guitars as its the good ones which have survived the test of time and been looked after and passed on (not that there aren't any bad ones still).

It's like some people in churches rave about how good the old hymns are, but that's just because only the good ones have survived - there were thousands written at the same time which weren't any good so people ignored or binned them.

timhulio

Possibly not better, but probably more interesting... and therefore better. Consider the diversity of the second and third tier of vintage guitars. Because guitars were also made by medium volume manufacturers in England, Germany, Sweden, DDR, Czechoslovakia, Italy etc, they used weirdo proprietary pickups and hardware, daft switching systems, nonsensical tremolos. Nowadays you can buy a few funny shaped guitars, but they'll just be a strat in disguise or a bog-standard two-humbuckers-and-a-TOM.

I like redburst, so here's a Framus Television:

And a Musima Elgita with a Hagstrom-ite Trem.

And a Hagstrom Impala

Skipped

It seems to me that old Italian violins remain in demand because they are modified and repaired without consideration other than sound and playability.
The vintage guitars that have disappointed me have - in almost every case - had obvious problems that the the owner or the dealer was reluctant to attend to because he thinks a "collector" might buy it. For example: Needs a refret, needs a new bridge, needs re-wiring.
This makes it more difficult to identify old guitars which may be dogs (but more often than not I would take the chance).

XWulfhere

The framus is well cool!

underdog

BigMonka;522800" said:

My attempt at wisdom:One of the reasons old guitars are seen as being better is that there's been 40-50 years of the guitar equivalent of natural selection - the proportion of good old guitars is now higher than bad old guitars as its the good ones which have survived the test of time and been looked after and passed on (not that there aren't any bad ones still).

It's like some people in churches rave about how good the old hymns are, but that's just because only the good ones have survived - there were thousands written at the same time which weren't any good so people ignored or binned them.

its how I see it too, I'm always suspicious of a 40 year old instrument with out much wear, sure it could have been looked after but in reality a good one would have been gigged a lot in those 40 years and picked up knocks.

I think the good guitars from the 60s survived and their faults fixed over the years, so now the vast majority left are very good.

Skipped

impmann said:

I've played a very famous late 1950s Les Paul that recently sold for more money than sense. I can tell you it is not a "great" guitar - its OK, don't get me wrong, but its not as magnificent as the BS in the press and online - but it has been played by great players. Does that give it 'mojo'? Does that make you play differently? Does it sound better than an R8 or R9? .... er that will be a no on all counts. You'll just have to believe me on that...

No BS from me. I have urged people (many times) to buy Historic Gibson models at particular price points. The vintage  example you have picked is one in which most examples cannot be maintained in any normal way because the considerable value is dependant on originality!
A 'Burst with a refret, a new nut, and new pots is a player grade guitar.
You need balls of steel to do that.....or lots of money.

Phil_aka_Pip

The thing about those "also-ran" guitars from the 60s as in @timhulio's post is that to my mind they just look so uncool. I mean, can you imagine Jimi screaming out a solo from one of those, or Eric making one wail in front of his stacks with Cream?

They look as if they don't sustain. They look as if they don't have much tone. The big names must have gotten to be big names for a reason. @BigMonka's point about the best surviving and the rest falling by the wayside applies.

Having said that, some people have different priorities. We don't all want scream and wail. Some of us like jangle with not too much sustain. Maybe those "uncool" looking guitars do that a bit better ....

ICBM

Skipped said:

The vintage  example you have picked is one in which most examples cannot be maintained in any normal way because the considerable value is dependant on originality!

A 'Burst with a refret, a new nut, and new pots is a player grade guitar.
You need balls of steel to do that.....or lots of money.

If I remember rightly there was an American dealer recently selling an all-original, excellent condition old Strat with a fully-disclosed dead pickup - leaving it to the buyer to choose whether or not to have it rewound. From a market point of view, this is actually the sensible thing to do - collectors pay the most, and to a collector the original pickup - even dead - is worth more than a rewound one, so why reduce the value of the guitar? And if a player buys it, they can just fix it - you can always rewind it afterwards, but you can't un-rewind it.

The whole concept still makes me want to stick sharp things in myself though.

Teetonetal

ICBM said:

Skipped said:

The vintage  example you have picked is one in which most examples cannot be maintained in any normal way because the considerable value is dependant on originality!

A 'Burst with a refret, a new nut, and new pots is a player grade guitar.
You need balls of steel to do that.....or lots of money.

If I remember rightly there was an American dealer recently selling an all-original, excellent condition old Strat with a fully-disclosed dead pickup - leaving it to the buyer to choose whether or not to have it rewound. From a market point of view, this is actually the sensible thing to do - collectors pay the most, and to a collector the original pickup - even dead - is worth more than a rewound one, so why reduce the value of the guitar? And if a player buys it, they can just fix it - you can always rewind it afterwards, but you can't un-rewind it.

The whole concept still makes me want to stick sharp things in myself though.

As a player, not a collector - I would always fix a guitar I loved, because I want to play the damn thing. Which is also another reason why I wouldn't buy a 60's model now. Too expensive for what they are, purely because some other idiot wants to collect the damn things. The whole concept of guitar collection purely as an investment fills me with fury.

impmann

Phil_aka_Pip said:

The thing about those "also-ran" guitars from the 60s as in @timhulio's post is that to my mind they just look so uncool. I mean, can you imagine Jimi screaming out a solo from one of those, or Eric making one wail in front of his stacks with Cream?

They look as if they don't sustain. They look as if they don't have much tone. The big names must have gotten to be big names for a reason. @BigMonka's point about the best surviving and the rest falling by the wayside applies.

Having said that, some people have different priorities. We don't all want scream and wail. Some of us like jangle with not too much sustain. Maybe those "uncool" looking guitars do that a bit better ....

/\ This in spades.

Not everyone wants to sound like Jimi or Eric (or Slash... or whoever) and I can see the appeal of oddball guitars. Having worked on lots of them over the years, their construction and whatnot often isn't as good as some of the big brands - and as you say, there is a reason why the big companies became as big as they did. However, if you are searching for something unusual they can provide it - as long as you can live with the "quirks". 

57Deluxe

Is like shoes, they mould to your feet. Also, after a period of years, they have probably absorbed as much moisture and then dispelled it all as much as is going to happen. As the wood continues to season,  all those movements have then made permanent changes to joints and fittings and then it all finally settles. If that settling point 'hits the spot' then is why you have a classic.

BigMonka

57Deluxe said:

Is like shoes, they mould to your feet. Also, after a period of years, they have probably absorbed as much moisture and then dispelled it all as much as is going to happen. As the wood continues to season,  all those movements have then made permanent changes to joints and fittings and then it all finally settles. If that settling point 'hits the spot' then is why you have a classic.

True. They've been aged by blood, sweat, tears, and beer. The pores in the wood have probably absorbed smoke from pub gigs too - I wonder if the smoking ban will stop guitars aging as quickly?!

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

As a player, not a collector - I would always fix a guitar I loved, because I want to play the damn thing. Which is also another reason why I wouldn't buy a 60's model now. Too expensive for what they are, purely because some other idiot wants to collect the damn things. The whole concept of guitar collection purely as an investment fills me with fury.

The ridiculous thing is that there's no reason they can't be both - as already mentioned, antique violins are. Every valuable old violin right up to Stradivari and Guarneri that's still in any way playable has a long history of repair and modification, and it doesn't reduce their value - quite the opposite, the played ones are worth more than the museum pieces.

I would always repair an old guitar that needed it - as conservatively as possible usually, but to me once the original part has broken or worn out the guitar is of lower "originality" anyway, and keeping it like that is pointless.

xmrchi

I'm glad I like unusual guitars as it's usually cheaper, I had all original and brilliant condition 50s es120 which was such a lovely sounding and playing guitar just like the 40s l50 in owned, they had a hell of a lot of character, something I don't thing you can get without 50 years worth of playing, and both were under a grand.
Would I swap my cs strat or hummingbird for them now? No way, but I can definitely see why old guitars are revered.

I really wouldn't want on original 50 strat or les paul, because of all the reason discussed here, I would be a nervous reck even time I got it out if the case.

Fretwired

Pop over to YouTube and see an interview with Clapton. He had to buy over a dozen Strats to get a good one by swapping the parts around. Fender guitars were notorious for being variable in terms of quality - the ones that have survived have been set up and maintained on a regular basis, used and played in .. a nobody who has paid serious money for a 1950s or 1960s Strat is going to say "this is a crap guitar" ..

And when Cliff Richard bought a Strat from the States in 1960 he paid around £150 ... you'd be doing well to earn £1,000 per annum back then so in reality you'd need to compare a top Custom Shop guitar price these days. We're actually lucky that you can buy a MIM Strat which is playable for not a lot of cash these days.

Sassafras

The best guitars I've ever played were a 58 Tele and a 61 Strat but when I played them they weren't vintage. They were only a few years old and coincidentally they were both red. Make of that what you will.

samzadgan

i dont buy into the vintage thing...a well made guitar is a well made guitar regardless of when it was made. I guess some manufactureres have certain periods where they made better guitars due to volume of manufacture, employees expertise and quality control...the rest largely comes from electronics/pickups...

If you compare a 1950's or 60's gibson LP standard to a 2015 gibson LP standard...well made examples off the production line, i dont believe anyone can say the old one is better.

But what people are comparing is an old LP thats been played and modded for over 50years...in that scenario its not a fair comparison.

Phil_aka_Pip

Sassafras said:

The best guitars I've ever played were a 58 Tele and a 61 Strat but when I played them they weren't vintage. They were only a few years old and coincidentally they were both red. Make of that what you will.

One of our members used to have a signature that said "Red ones are better".

lloyd

I'd say a good guitar is a good one no matter when it was made, same goes for a bad one.

I'd prefer a good new guitar over a bad old one, but I'd take the good old one over a good new one every time...But that would be because of the history of it and the look of it.

Guitar are such personal things, I think once you get beyond mediocre/bad guitars then it's all pretty subjective, and subject to very very slight diminishing returns. How it feels in your hands and to your ears is the important thing but I don't think I'd let myself believe that a 1960's Tele was anything but fantastic, and as long as I thought that, and you could make it sound good what else matters?

For all the talk of wood resonance differences is dried old wood or between types of wood, pick up A versus pick up B and different metals in the bridge, I don't think I could honestly tell the difference between it all.......