Electric Guitars

[aliensporebomb]

What would you do?

[jpnyc]

A collection of mediums is fine for me. That way when the Les Paul is digging into my shoulder I can use a semihollow, and when I really want to go light I can grab the hollowbody.

[Alecto]

I'm in the "one or two really nice ones" camp.  It's sad to say but my Strat and my P-Bass get a hell of a lot more play than any of my other guitars these days. 

[koiwoi]

If I had no guitars and had $1500 to spend I'd get a $500 electric, a $500 steel string acoustic, and a $500 amp.  Since I already have the basics covered, I'd rather spend $1500 on a single "wow" guitar than to buy a bunch of meh. Any time I get to play is precious, so I want it to be as much fun as possible - including gear.

[billybilly]

I suppose you have to consider what is low to medium cost?  Let's say $500 for the sake of argument.  $500 X 8 is $4000 to spend on two guitars.  I'll take the two guitars in this hypothetical situation.

Excluding acoustics as this is an electric forum I'll take...

1 X PRS Custom 22

1 X EJ Fender Stratocaster

[Funkytone]

That is a loaded question for sure, considering the kind of guitar quality available for not very much money these days.  As I like having several guitars tuned in different open tunings for slide work, and prefer higher action to boot, my decision is made for me.  My Dano, my Squier '51, Mex. Tele, and Dean Resonator, I consider to be distinctive looking, sounding, playing, guitars, and as such, none are low quality from my point of view.  Of course this debate has taken place about a million times or so in some form or another on Harmony Central over the years!

[PrawnHeed]

I want three electrics. A strat like with single coils, an LP like with P90s and a semi-hollow with humbuckers.

I'd buy one of each and then upgrade as I could afford it.

I'd end up with these:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l635/PrawnHeed/ce9cc43d.jpg

[PurpleTrails]

---

PrawnHeed wrote:
I want three electrics. A strat like with single coils, an LP like with P90s and a semi-hollow with humbuckers.

I'd buy one of each and then upgrade as I could afford it.

I'd end up with these:

http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l635/PrawnHeed/ce9cc43d.jpg

---

This is my solution as well...with a slightly different selection of models than PrawnHeed.

[GreatDane]

---

aliensporebomb wrote:

What would you do?

---

i am in the "1 or 2 really nice ones" camp.  

[aliensporebomb]

For me it seems that at a certain price point you're just paying for bling or exotic woods.  

Where does the price/performance go into "you just paid an extra $1000 for a slab of wood that looks nice versus something that was actually plainer but sounded as good as you're likely to experience?"

Did you ever go for a more expensive guitar and regret it and want to go back to one that wouldn't be devalued thousands of dollars if you dinged it once?

[Help!I'maRock!]

if i could sell everything off and not lose any money in the process, i'd be left with only my PRS, Ric, and Taylor. since that's unlikely to happen, i have 7 to 8 additional instruments that serve as beaters and writing instruments. 

also, to address the "after a certain price you're paying for x" debate, i kinda disagree. manufacturers start laying on the bling pretty early. the trick is avoiding features that have no tonal benefit and getting the most for your money no matter how much you spend. 

[GreatDane]

---

aliensporebomb wrote:

For me it seems that at a certain price point you're just paying for bling or exotic woods.  

Where does the price/performance go into "you just paid an extra $1000 for a slab of wood that looks nice versus something that was actually plainer but sounded as good as you're likely to experience?"

Did you ever go for a more expensive guitar and regret it and want to go back to one that wouldn't be devalued thousands of dollars if you dinged it once?

---

what's that "certain price point", in your opinion?

I've been in numerous situations where i've passed on a more expensive guitar and bought one that was less expensive, but sounded and played better.  for me, the instrument has to both inspire me and function perfectly for me.  if it doesn't do both of those things, then i won't buy it.

maybe a topic for another thread, but why is this forum so obsessed with what things cost?

[Pine Apple Slim]

If I had a do over from scratch, Id first spend 75% on amplification, and the rest on as many Teles and I could get. Done.

[Tone Deaf]

---

GreatDane wrote:

maybe a topic for another thread, but why is this forum so obsessed with what things cost?

---

 To some extent, I think it's natural that the less money you have, or more specifically, the smaller the budget you have for (fill in the blank), the more critical the money piece is. If you're wealthy, or if you've prioritized such that you have a larger budget for (fill in the blank), the less you're concerned with cost when you make your purchasing decision.

For those who aren't wealthy, or for whose prioritization forces a smaller budget for (fill in the blank), then sure, you're going to want to minimize your outlay while maximizing the quality you're able to purchase. It's then sometimes that the "sour grapes" factor comes in whereby you have yourself convinced that your cheaper item is of equal quality to what you could not afford. And when you hear others state a different opinion, it creates an inner conflict whereby you're faced with the potential fact that what you were able to afford may indeed be of subpar quality. It's then that you begin trying to convince everyone else who had the means and/or budget to buy what you could not afford, that they are fools who overspent.

[PurpleTrails]

---

Tone Deaf wrote:

---

GreatDane wrote:

maybe a topic for another thread, but why is this forum so obsessed with what things cost?

---

 To some extent, I think it's natural that the less money you have, or more specifically, the smaller the budget you have for (fill in the blank), the more critical the money piece is. If you're wealthy, or if you've prioritized such that you have a larger budget for (fill in the blank), the less you're concerned with cost when you make your purchasing decision.

For those who aren't wealthy, or for whose prioritization forces a smaller budget for (fill in the blank), then sure, you're going to want to minimize your outlay while maximizing the quality you're able to purchase. It's then sometimes that the "sour grapes" factor comes in whereby you have yourself convinced that your cheaper item is of equal quality to what you could not afford. And when you hear others state a different opinion, it creates an inner conflict whereby you're faced with the potential fact that what you were able to afford may indeed be of subpar quality. It's then that you begin trying to convince everyone else who had the means and/or budget to buy what you could not afford, that they are fools who overspent.

---

I'm not ever going to be sponsored, so I pay money for guitars.  I'm not wealthy, so I try to find a place on the price/performance curve where I am happy.  That implies caring about cost. 

I agree to a certain extent with the folks who say that at some point a lot of what you are paying for in an electric guitar is pure esthetics, and that you can find a mid-price guitar that can out-perform a given higher priced model.  However, I also tend to think that lower-priced model is in the 5% echelon of its model's potential quality, while the comparable higher priced model might be in the 85th percentile of its.

[PrawnHeed]

What's a "potential fact"?

[billybilly]

---

aliensporebomb wrote:

For me it seems that at a certain price point you're just paying for bling or exotic woods.  

Where does the price/performance go into "you just paid an extra $1000 for a slab of wood that looks nice versus something that was actually plainer but sounded as good as you're likely to experience?"

Did you ever go for a more expensive guitar and regret it and want to go back to one that wouldn't be devalued thousands of dollars if you dinged it once?

---

I suppose you have to go back to your original argument, which is, nice or high quality vs medium to low quality, regardless of cost.  Not trying to be a dickhead but you are changing your argument.  Sure, a PRS SE doesn't cost a lot but its certainly not a poorly constructed instrument therefore it's nullified as being associated with a medium/low quality product.  

For what it's worth, I feel that $800ish is a nice place to get a really good instrument without breaking the bank.

[Jkater]

One or two really nice for me but, given the opportunity, I don't mind six or eight really nice ones.

[Tone Deaf]

---

PrawnHeed wrote:
What's a "potential fact"?

---

Good question. Poor choice of wording on my part.

In my example, I was referring to the inner conflict someone may have who has already convinced themselves that the cheaper item they puchased because it's what they could afford, is as good as the more expensive item they could not afford. In some cases, maybe they are of equal quality. In other (likely more often) cases, they are not. -- That was the "potential fact" that I had poorly described.

[Saturn]

A hand full of gig worthy guitars for me. Price isn't really the concern for me but I don't like taking a $1000+ guitar to some of the dives around here so I look for mid priced guitars that feel and sound right for me.