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
My ‘57 Special also stood shoulder to shoulder with the Burst and I was more than happy to be taking it home ather than the Burst.
(formerly miserneil)
I absolutely believe that 50s and 60s Gibsons have something about them, old wood, great pickups etc. All the ones I have, they have a different (I'm not saying better, but different) tone and compression which some people (me included) really like.
That justifies up to (let's say) £10k
Then you have the rarity factor (supply and demand) and let's say that justifies up to £30k
(bad maths I know).
After that you're into (for me) investments, and I feel there are any number of reasons for this - and this closely mirrors the art world.
1. They are lovely things to own, they look great and iconic
2. They are old and rare - therefore supply and demand emphasises the fact you're investing in something which is hard to source and buy and only a few dealers have
3. There is a perceived (correct or otherwise) benefit/value in investing in something real, physical, tangible - that's even more of the case since 2008 with the credit derivatives driven crash. Investors like the idea that it's physical, you see this with asset managers and real estate too for example.
4. Historically (even now) vintage instruments have performed very well as investments, they have had classic growth and stagnation but always with an upward trend. This against a back-drop of poor interest rates, lack of market depth in equities etc makes them look interesting
There are obviously people willing and able to spend £100,000+ on a guitar, because these keep selling - I just suspect they don't hang out much on here.
Even if we take the lower end stuff as an investment, as a non car owner - if on here I talked about buying a new 3 series BMW, people would be ok with that - yet I'd lose money like a stone on that. I could buy a P90 Les Paul for the same money, and the money is as good as safe based on previous performance.
Works the same at the upper end, if you can spend £250,000 on a guitar you can buy a Ferrari - I know which is the better investment (and easier to insure!)
Some of the stuff Reverb does gives me a bad taste. Their fetishisation of gear, all based around taking a cut of the profits is pretty naff however they want to dress it up as historical interest.
However, it’s price was comparable to a decent Wal or a top-end custom builder, or a limited run custom shop (plus a bit more for a bass!)
And as such there’s the rub. If a 64 Precision was £100k then I’d go no where near it. In relative terms, that is too much for what it actually is. For me, Bursts are the same - too much for what they actually are, what they actually give you over any other guitar, and what their heritage suggests they did.
£10k would be more than reasonable and understandable, and that’s it
I know where you're coming from---I agree with the second part of your sentence but not the first. It has always struck me as bizarre that people are willing to accept that with the best part of 70 years knowledge and experience electric guitar makers haven't got better at it and have in fact somehow got worse.
Old instruments are cool. They have "mojo" and they're collectible. But they're not better instruments than top class modern ones. That's a nonsense, IMO.
In musical instrument terms they are not old ... 60 yeas is nothing compared to many regularly used orchestral instruments worth similar, or a hell of a lot more. It's simply a matter of nostalgia: most of us (except perhaps a few goths) don't get nostalgic about the eighteenth century ... yet us children of the rock and roll and electric blues era can be persuaded that that was both a golden age for instruments ... and in some folks opinion, for many other things too.
Formerly TheGuitarWeasel ... Oil City Pickups ... Oil City Blog 7 String.org profile and message
I don't think that justifies their price (which is down to collectability and speculation and investment and so on).
wood figuring is is caused by erratic grain which directly affects stiffness. If all other variables are equal plain maple with be stiffer than flamed, which will be stiffer than quilted. The stiffness of the guitar will affect the way the string energy is used/filtered , which will affect tone.
the problem is it’s just one of about 5-7 variables with that component (the top) and they all vary so much you can’t say anything definite about a single variable. It’s probably about 150th is the list of things that can make a difference to string vibration on a guitar. So there is a tiny grain of truth in it. Just not one that is in any way usable
however take a violin, where the back is directly coupled to the top as an acoustic system, and that variable moves up to the top 20. Figuring will have a bigger impact on the stiffness of a violin plate than a guitar top because it’s a much thinner bit of wood. that change stiffness will have a more direct impact on the way the string vibrations energy is used/filtered.
i still don’t believe those old violins chose figured wood for tone. They chose it because the flaws made it cheap and because it looked pretty. The choice became part of the tonal recipe once it was an established style.
Instagram
But there's a world of difference between something like "theoretically, flame could have a tiny influence on tone, but to a degree that's imperceptible and not in any way usable" and "tone is in the flame".
And note that the article was saying that prices vary hugely between the attractiveness of the flame. Now, how do we check for a correlation between the attractiveness of the flame, and it's imperceptible impact on tone? I'm not sure we can.
At best you can talk about averages. These can be applied to a factory output as a generalisation. They can be useful in that context, but fall down when talking about an individual guitar.
Just wanted to add some context to your quip because the people who say “tone is in the flame” will argue it down to the ridiculous level. That’s not what I was trying to do (except for violins)
on your second point, most would assume “attractiveness of flame” and “depth of figure” are related in some way, even though many prefer a more subtle flame.
You see all sorts on old Gibson’s, but generally it’s mefium and often inconstant figure from the source of wood and the way it was sawn (another two variables) that gives a 50’s look. I’m not going to say it gives a 50’s tone, it’s too hard a variable to control for too little impact.
Instagram
Here's the quote from the article...
'That's a shame—but unlike my friend Joe Bonamassa'
Joe isn't the only 'friend' you gain too. There are a number of other Burst loving pro guys who if you live in L.A or the like who you can become 'buddies' with. Its currency, its kudos, it is credibility for the ordinary but wealthy guys who quite often aren't so great players. This is reason enough for them to buy.
Kris Blakely owner of Dixie Roofing is a typical example. Super wealthy nice guy who owns Paul Kossoff's Burst, you'll find him on all forums and social media platforms as Fried Okra, where he shares his collection and pics of him at home with his buddies. There's nothing wrong with this of course but I think its a contributing factor to why people keep paying so much for them.
Aspiration; Supply; Demand.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
Wealth, foolishness.
However, super rich? The super rich don't have to divest themselves of an accumulated collection of prized non-vintage guitars to be able to afford a 'Burst.
This is exactly what Kris both publicly and painfully ( for him...) did. There is a well known picture of a huge number of his Historics and Limited runs lined up in boxes waiting for UPS...along with some rather rueful postings from the man himself.
He sweated for his dream guitar, and I for one am as pleased as punch that he got it. I believe both Kris and Arthur were very happy with how it all went when he came over to get it.
Then there is the geezer who owns the Mick Taylor 'Burst, he carts it around in a padded gig bag, props it up on the nearest convenient chair, and walks away while the great unwashed play his guitar, and dine out on the fact for bloody years.
Then there's another Pal of mine in Londinium, not only will you get an invite to play probably the best collection of guitars and amps in the country, the geezer also feeds and waters you in fine dining places. Rarely does any of this hit the public airways....some of these collectors are very discrete, and rather grounded, humble people.
There are similar things going on in the USA, great generosity and grace.
There are of course also the brash and loud, those that just love showing off...I love their guitars, but am frankly bored to death with the same old, same old pictures of false smiles, and new "acquisitions...."