It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
https://www.vintageguitarboutique.com/collections/fender/products/1963-fender-stratocaster-lake-placid-blue
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
A good vintage guitar is properly played in and there's a darker tone to these heavily gigged guitars, possibly due to better woods used at the time or slightly demagnetised and/or microphonic pickups.
I love the Fender CS guitars but wanted to know what the difference was between them and "the real thing" (if there were any) and if I preferred one or the other. I also generally like the relic thing too. However, I thought it might be nice to own something from the era.
I took my favourite CS Strat to A/B and have been doing a few comparisons since.
i) They look a bit different. When something is genuinely old and played for 50 years I don't think you can capture the same look by relic'ing.
ii) I was surprised that there was a noticeable difference in the sound. The '65 was more appealing to my ear. It sounds bigger, more dynamic and has a "woodier" tone.
iii) The CS was just as nice to play in terms of feel of the neck, weight etc. although I haven't had the '65 set-up for me yet.
I decided to go for it because I loved the way it sounded and played. If I'm honest I think the differences are really small but as Eric Johnson says in the clip, taken together they add up to something bigger. Finally, I took a gamble financially (which may go tits up - but I wanted to ensure I had a guitar I would always be happy to play) - the gamble being that I couldn't see CS guitars going up in value/holding their value because more are always being produced whereas maybe the vintage guitar will hold it's value as they can't make any more of them.
In summary, I agree that a good guitar is a good guitar from any era or any production line model. Vintage guitars may (probably do) acquire character over time.
However. I had a Drivemaster and a MkI Guv'nor and wanted rid of one. I held onto the Guv'nor more so out of coolness than anything as I think the Drivemaster sounded 5 - 10% better.
Anything mass produced is made to tolerances. Sometimes something is made that is way better than the others on the production line. Sometimes small differences make a difference to different people. Sometimes peoples tastes match your own and sometimes not.
IMHO a good production or reissue is going to be better and cheaper than a poor real vintage. The good ones are way too much money.
I also have new guitars, because some of the vintage ones got to valuable to take out to a gig. When you are playing live, I defy anyone to be able to tell if it is a vintage guitar or a new one. One of the coolest and best sounding guitars I have to gig with is the WezV double cut with the Mojo Blade P-90. It rings like a bell and sustains forever. The pickup is more like the 55 Alnico than a P-90, which gives it a lot of versatility. I was using my 64 Firebird III in rehearsals a few weeks ago, but that was because I had just fitted an old Gibson Lyre tremolo to it. It did sound awesome, but I was worried about catching the headstock all the time.
The Washburn is one of the best sounding acoustics I have, and still plays great. I think that as the wood ages on an acoustic, it beefs up the tone. I played a 1930's Martin D-28 one time and it was really loud and amazingly dynamic (but was a lot of money too). The other thing to realize is that some newer guitars will be vintage one day. My 1998 Martin 000-28 sounds nicer now than when I got it, and I think that is true of any guitar that uses decent woods.
The guy had a 54 too and that was lovely but it all comes down to if you can afford them, they're nice but you'll get close enough if it's built right imo
(formerly customkits)