Are old guitars better...

OilCityPickups · May 15

guitars4you said:

We also now have to consider what is 'old' or what we mean my 'old' - As an old git myself, it tends to instantly mean 50's and up to around 65 ish - When I started full time in 1978, a 59 LP was still a teenager, yet it had already acquired mystical status - As it happens a 59 LP and me are the same age

Today an 80's Westone is now around 40 years old - That is twice as old as the 59 was when I was also 19 - Many see such guitars as old - Few, if any will ever say a Westone Thunder 1A is sprinkled with the same fairy dust as a good 59 LP - But they are now considered old, cool, collectible to many other players

So the market is now diverse as to what is old, cool, vintage, odd ball, weird or wonderful - I'm sure our own @harryseven has no 59 LP's - But his collection is mostly about old, weird, wonderful, cool, odd ball, even broken and fucked

As it happens I too am the same vintage as a 59 Les Paul ... and when I was a teenager they had every bit the mystique you talk about. When I sat up to watch the Moon Landing in 1969 Peter Green's Les Paul was the same age as mine is now ... how mad is that?
I doubt we will ever see modern guitars reach the cult status of say a 1951 Tele or a 1954 Strat or a 59 Les Paul as the guitar as an instrument simply isn't a driver for popular music any more ... only genre music. There are no more 'rock stars' on Top of The Pops, no more bands like Free having chart success. The guitar as a cultural icon will almost certainly die with us boomers.
And maybe that's a good thing ... then a new generation can discover guitars again for themselves.

CloudNine · May 15

I think it depends on the guitar model quite a bit. Taking Strats as one example, having owned and played a fair few vintage/pre CBS guitars, and also many custom shop/boutique etc. recreations, I would say the very best of the latter can get 90% of the way there to good examples of the former, I do think a good set of old pickups is hard to beat though (no idea why, more of that later…) and probably accounts for a lot of that difference.

However with other guitars, say 50’s Gibson hollow-bodies, there does not seem to be any real comparable replica guitars being built, even later Gibson’s are just SO much more heavily built, and I don’t really see many dedicated vintage replicas of those guitars. So in this example I would say that the older guitars are better (for my personal taste). For example, compare a 50’s ES175 to one from the 70’s onwards, and the difference is pretty wild, so in that respect the old ones are definitely better (or at least VERY different), go try a few of each if you dont believe me.

I also went through a good few years of buying ES335’s in all shapes and forms. Fairly decent sample size, conclusion of that was that even the worst of the 60’s 335’s I owned or played, to my ears sounded better than the best of the new historic re-issues. This is with having guitars at home with some fairly extensive A/Bing. They definitely didn’t always play better, that has to be said. I thought it was maybe that I prefer the sound of the trapeze tailpiece, as a lot of the old guitars were ‘65 to ‘69 and had them fitted, but I also played a few converted to stop tail, and they sounded better as well. I think the difference was a small proportion down to them generally being a bit lighter and livelier feeling across all the examples, but I mostly think it had to be down to the pickups in these guitars, varying from the PAT no’s, through the various iterations of T Tops etc. I have a ‘66 currently with PAT no. pickups, and it doesn’t matter what height I put the pickups at, it sounds incredible, right up under the strings, backed way off, all sounds different obviously, but still amazing, neck pickup is beautifully clear. On the re-issues, there tended to be one tiny sweet spot, where they sounded just about tolerable, but too high was incredibly harsh, and backed off just really weak, and actually in most cases I could never get a re-issue neck pickup to sound good, usually too middy/muddy. On a bridge pickup, pedals engaged and you are in rock star mode, some of these differences will not matter so much. I have no idea on the science of this pickup stuff, or who knows maybe it’s not even related to the pickups, and also maybe others would not hear it the way I do, but this is definitely my experience.

ToneControl · May 15

AlbertC said:

Would it be reasonable to say today’s cheap guitars are possibly better than what was available for an adjusted comparable price in 50s/60s?

massively better

I can get a new electric guitar now for £100 (Harley Benton) that plays better than a second hand £100 (Satellite) one in 1982

£100 in 1982 is worth £ 456.47 now,
says-
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

So for £456 now I have bought used Schecters that were £1000 new. I'd prefer them to a Satellite

ToneControl · May 15

As I always say:

we know how to build cars, cameras, robots, planes, TV, hifi, phones, everything better than in 1950-1960.
Accuracy, quality, everything.

Some might argue that hand-crafting of wood has improved less, but most makers use far better control of humidity, wood selection, paints, more accurately made pickups, CNC machines to save time and improve consistency, better wood machinery.
Even one-man luthiers have far better tools and materials available nowadays.

Therefore the starting position for me is - why would I pay extra for a museum piece that is in all probability not as good as a modern version?

Fiftyshadesofjay · May 15

They could be, I've had some older guitars that have been better than modern ones in the early 2000's but I think especially now the newer guitars are just incredible, especially the mid-range.

What really baffles me is the premium 70's Fenders etc command now because of their age. I thought the whole reason the vintage guitar market really existed was because those ones were so crap that everyone wanted the older pre-CBS ones?

swiller · May 15

yes. I think cos wood was not grown for maximum growth, thus denser, more resonant. Less robots / machines used in all processes. Also parts have matured, settled and added some mojo to the sound i think. Like synths, im sure they get better with some ageing /crapper DA converters back then.

CloudNine · May 15

There is also probably a good argument that they are just different in many cases, not necessarily better. Some people will prefer things about a modern guitar and vice versa. I happened to watch on old Rig Rundown the other day with Adam Granduciel, he was talking about his various Jazzmasters, he said that he uses his Fender re-issue a lot for live work, due to the fact that it cuts through, etc. etc., but never uses it for recording, where he only uses the old ones.

Offset · May 15

What's 'old'?

swiller · May 15

Offset said:

What's 'old'?

the vast majority of this forum.

Danielsguitars · May 15

From everything I've picked up from 58 burst 54 goldtop to the old flat tops and loads of old fenders 57, 59, 61, 63 etc I can say I wouldn't buy them unless you've got a romantic notion they're better which they're not imo.

I've got a 60s fender x11 to sort out that's had an s shaped neck and the best one a completely useless 65 non reverse firebird with a decked bridge from factory so needs a neck reset, old guitars are mostly hard work.

I really liked a 56 special I refinished and in particular a 60 dc junior with a bigger 59 neck which I'd have over the 58bburst, I don't really lust after this stuff anymore, people need to play old guitars vs well made ones then get their own opinion.

WezV · May 15

Danielsguitars said:

I've got a 60s fender x11 to sort out that's had an s shaped neck and the best one a completely useless 65 non reverse firebird with a decked bridge from factory so needs a neck reset, old guitars are mostly hard work.

Once you have done the work on them, someone will have an old guitar that plays better than a new one

That is a major rebuild in those examples, but can be just a lot of small adjustments over its life for many old guitars

swiller said:

yes. I think cos wood was not grown for maximum growth, thus denser, more resonant.

Was it denser though? You certainly get stiffer wood from slow natural growth, but density is different and whilst it changes resonance it doesn't make it less or more resonant.

Leo chose cheap shitty ash no one wanted because it grew in wetlands and wasn't dense enough for building, furniture or other things like that. The extra water from it's environment leads to bigger cells, leaving much less dense wood when dried out. True swamp ash is not very dense at all for a hardwood, but can still be very resonant.

The same may apply to old stocks of mahogany simply down to rivers being the main method of transportation out of the forest, so you start with the trees growing closer to the water. I don't think Gibson were specifically going for light wood, and not all vintage examples are super light, but reasonable weight mahogany has become much harder to find.

Kurtis · May 15

Offset said:

What's 'old'?

And how we judging "better"?

Thing is some people might just belive the older one they played was better.

Epsilon · May 15

The quality of guitar manufacturing has never been higher than today.

But old guitars are more fun.

scrumhalf · May 15

If I'm buying, they're no better.

If I'm selling, well, who can put a price on vintage mojo and mystique?

swiller · May 15

WezV said:

swiller said:

yes. I think cos wood was not grown for maximum growth, thus denser, more resonant.

Was it denser though? You certainly get stiffer wood from slow natural growth, but density is different and whilst it changes resonance it doesn't make it less or more resonant.

WezV · May 15

Ah yes, crop out the point I was making.

You are correct about construction grade pine being denser in the good old days, you are wrong about old stocks of mahogany or swamp ash - which were also better, but not for being denser

mo6020 · May 15

I don't have loads to add to this other than my subjective experience, which is this:

I have yet to play a pre-CBS Strat that was better than my Masterbuilt
Every early 60s 335 I've played is better than the modern one I own
My 1977 Tele Custom beats the pants off the current reissue Fender is making

Vintage stuff is cool, but not necessarily better.

OilCityPickups · May 15

mo6020 said:

I don't have loads to add to this other than my subjective experience, which is this:

I have yet to play a pre-CBS Strat that was better than my Masterbuilt
Every early 60s 335 I've played is better than the modern one I own
My 1977 Tele Custom beats the pants off the current reissue Fender is making

Vintage stuff is cool, but not necessarily better.

This ....
Personally I like old stuff ... further to a comment I passed earlier ... my camera of choice is a 1938 Leica IIIB, I have modern digital cameras ... but for pure fun I shoot on the Leica.

If someone offered me a 1959 Gretsch at a price I could afford sure as hell I'd have it but as well as my modern 5420 not instead of.

soma1975 · May 15

OilCityPickups said:

soma1975 said:

'better' is subjective tbf.

A lot of the things we tend to like about older guitars could be classed as faults.

You can definitely get more consistently made 'plays like butter' guitars these days. But a lot of the best guitar music is made with instruments that require a bit more effort and fight put into them and tones wrangled out of them.

We are now spoiled for choice.

We are now spoilt for product to consume ... 'choice', I'm not so sure.

I think you meant to post this in the controversial opinions thread mate.

Strat54 · May 15

Would be interested to hear @jamesoliver1234 's thoughts now he has a genuine 1954 Tele v his newer Telecasters.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Are old guitars better...

Comments