Members sufidancer Posted July 9, 2006 Members Posted July 9, 2006 I have played some high dollar woods in my time, but never anything over 2K. I personally have owned a Guild D25 from the 70's and currently a D-15 Martin. I always wondered at what point does inlays and matched boutique exotic woods stop adding to the tone equation and are just adding to the dollar equation. In other words is there a logarhythmic increase in tone and money. Or is there a saturation point where all the glitz is just that, glitz. Your thoughts?
Members Queequeg Posted July 9, 2006 Members Posted July 9, 2006 hey, its all art. some of it is aural & some of it is visual. I tend to make less of a distinction between those two than most of the folks here. its all a matter of personal taste.and I generally prefer the more understated visual touches a luthier will add. I don't want to see how much inlay a guy can cram into a limited space, but I really appreciate pyramid bridges and volutes and yes, herringbone. none of that makes it sound any better, I know. I still like it.
Members riffmeister Posted July 9, 2006 Members Posted July 9, 2006 I have two Collings guitars, both over $3K. They are both anti-bling guitars. Instead of bling, they use top grade woods, are constructed immaculately, play extremely well, and sound incredible. That made them worth the dough, to me.
Members catdaddy Posted July 9, 2006 Members Posted July 9, 2006 Quality of tone and visual aesthetics are two of the most subjective aspects of any musical instrument. For my $3K I (like riffmeister) prefer what Collings delivers. Others will find their senses best sated by the likes of Santa Cruz, Goodall, Lowden, Bourgeois, Huss and Dalton, etc. In my experience what these guitar makers give you is a consistency of quality in both construction and voicing from one instrument to the next. Is it worth the price? I can only speak for myself when I say yes.
Members DonK Posted July 9, 2006 Members Posted July 9, 2006 I owned a Martin D-28 for a few years before buying my D-41. The D-41 was roughly $800 more than a D-28 at the time I bought it (comparing pricing at the same store where I bought the D-41). Clearly, a portion of the $800 went to cover the extra bling, but IMO a portion also went to better wood, because the D-41 sounds better. Not a ton, but the difference is significant enough to notice pretty easily. My Gallagher cost me exactly the same amount as the D-41, and has virtually no bling. While the two guitars are very different tonally, they both sound stellar. I imagine that some would say they can't hear the difference between these two and a lesser-priced guitar. Personally, with the exception of the high-end Gibsons, which don't impress me, virtually all of the $2,500+ instruments I've played have been exceptional, e.g., Collings D-1 & D-2, various SC's, a couple of Goodalls, etc. That's not to say you can't get reasonably close for a lot less money: there are some incredible deals out there. Whether the extra money is worth it is subjective, and specific to the individual.
Members Andrewrg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Its all in the wood. Acres of crustacean and herringbone dont mean a thing if the basic box sounds crap.A bling loaded guitar costs more because it takes more time to inlay all that stuff.I have a Bourgeois Slope D-completely bling-free and it sounds exquisite. I also once owned a Martin OM42 which was pretty poor, tonally.My blingiest guitar, an SJ200, also sounds great but its the wood and the way the thing was put together which counts.Remember, a Martin D45 is just a D28 in a mink coat, ok, you`ll get a better grade of wood but Martin grade their wood cosmetically, not sonically.
Members Queequeg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Andrewrg Its all in the wood. Martin grade their wood cosmetically, not sonically. is that right?
Members peppy Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Santa Cruz's two least ornate guitars, the OM/PW and the D/PW list for nearly that arbitrary $3000 limit. Maybe that limit isn't that much...with the above examples in mind. Point though is that it's not necessarily the cost of a guitar but everything else with it that determines if it is indeed "all that". More importantly, what each guitarist wants and needs from each individual guitar.
Members recordingtrack1 Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 I have a buddy who owns a Charles Fox. $8000 bucks. I am scared to even touch it. Rt1:eek:
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Andrewrg Its all in the wood. 30% is wood. 70% is what's done with it. Voicing of the instrument is key. Matching the wood, carving the braces to match the wood. I toured Bourgeois a few weeks ago, and it was an eye opener. Inlays don't mean squat.
Members Preacher Will Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Buddy of mine just acquired a Macpherson. Gorgeous guitar, $5k, and all the bling is in the wood. Flawless quilted maple back and sides, sitka top, mahogany neck with ebony cantilevered fingerboard, koa bindings and peghead, awesome tone. Who needs abalone?
Members Queequeg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Kap'n I toured Bourgeois a few weeks ago, and it was an eye opener. Kap'n, can you tell us a bit more about this, please?
Members Cldplytkmn Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 guitars are worth whatever some sucker will lay down for them... so yeah... they're 'worth' what the makers are charging cause people are lining up to buy em...
Members Queequeg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Cldplytkmn guitars are worth whatever some sucker will lay down for them... so yeah... they're 'worth' what the makers are charging cause people are lining up to buy em... these days, I believe it is the makers who are lining up and it seems to be a buyers' market. with tons of competition, I would hate to be in that "business" where your craft is forever being undercut by inexpensive imports.As is generally the case, the market determines the prices.suckers? I guess I don't see it that way....
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg Kap'n, can you tell us a bit more about this, please? It was pretty cool. I gave them a call, and while they're not an "open shop," they were gracious enough to give me about a half hour, showing me around, and seeing the process. Matching the wood is critical. It must be intuition, or years of experience to know which pieces of wood are going to work well with each other. From there, you need to voice the instrument, carving the braces here and there, and knowing how that's going to alter the tone, and bring out the best in those specific pieces of wood. When you're a small shop, like Bourgeois (ten luthiers, plus Dana), each and every instrument goes through this same process. Higher end models may get a better/fancier wood selection, and more gingerbread, but it's not like they dumb down the "inexpensive" ones. Inexpensive for Bourgeois is around $3,000, and the median price is ~$4,500, retail. While I haven't been to Nazareth, I'd guess that there is a production line, and a special 'custom-shop' style production line for -45 instruments and signiture models. If you're buying a D-18, or a D-28, you're essentially buying a factory guitar. They don't voice them with the same individualized care, but more of a general way. If you took 100 D-18's, 1 would sound exceptional, 9 would sound excellent, 80 would sound decent, and 10 would be duds. A factory like Martin, which, I imagine has undergone tremendous growth since 1945 just can't take the time with each and every instrument. A small shop aims for that top ten percent consistently, with maybe 1% of the production ending up being that bottom 80% of a factory guitar. Bourgeois only makes ~400 instruments a year, all models together. I'd guess Martin probably makes that many D-28's in a month. I toured Santa Cruz Guitar Company a while back also. Some different construction techniques, a somewhat different philosophy of what sounds best to their ears, but the same individual attention to each guitar applies.
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg these days, I believe it is the makers who are lining up and it seems to be a buyers' market. with tons of competition, I would hate to be in that "business" where your craft is forever being undercut by inexpensive imports. I don't think that inexpensive imports are cutting into crafted guitars. I doubt anybody looking at a Bourgeois, Collings, SCGC, Goodall, Olson, etc. is going to opt for a Esteban any time soon. However, the choices in small builders is bigger than ever, and someone looking at a Collings may decide that a Santa Cruz is more to their liking. This is not an enterprise that anybody is getting rich at. People do it for the love of it Even somebody like Dudenbostel [sic], a one man shop charging premium prices, and a waiting list as far as the eye can see, doesn't make as much as your average doctor, certainly far less than 99% of his customers. If you start working with the numbers for Bourgeois in my post above, you can see that.
Members Queequeg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Kap'n I don't think that inexpensive imports are cutting into crafted guitars. I doubt anybody looking at a Bourgeois, Collings, SCGC, Goodall, Olson, etc. is going to opt for a Esteban any time soon. I don't either & I wasn't 't implying that kind of comparison. Sorry if you inferred that. (?) Bourgeois > Esteban. no.Allow me to qualify. Consider the Eastman and the inroads they have made into American archtops. Or perhaps for a better example, until a few years ago Guild & Gretsch were building good acoustics here in the states. Martin has dabbled in offshore products. This is what I was referring to. Apologies for the confusion. edit: hey thanks for the insight into the Bourgeois tour. I've never played one but I've drooled on my monitor @ Buffalo Bros website
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg Allow me to qualify. Sure. Factory guitars are always going to be vulnerable to other factory guitars. I fully expect a future where all -35 and lower Martins will be made offshore. If they aren't the prices compared to imports will be astronomical. Currently the -18 is considered the bottom of the pro series, and at the very least everything below that will be made offshore, but I think the competition in the solid wood mahogany and rosewood instruments is going to make US construction too expensive to consider. That future is closer than you think. I'd bet less than 10 years, but probably more like 5.
Members Queequeg Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 thanks, Kap'n, you are probably right about CFMs moving offshore before long. but don't miss my point. Benedetto is not a 'factory' guitar. very boutique. one @ a time.and neither is Eastman. I think they're going head-to-head now.
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg thanks, Kap'n, you are probably right about CFMs moving offshore before long. but don't miss my point. Benedetto is not a 'factory' guitar. very boutique. one @ a time.and neither is Eastman. I think they're going head-to-head now. I'm not sure what's up with Benedetto. Last I knew he had amically severed his relationship with FMIC/Guild, who had been building them on a custom-shop basis, but that was a few years ago. I've heard of the Eastmans, but haven't played one. The only really high-end hand built guitars from outside of North America that have made it over here (other than nylon string), that I can think of offhand are Lowden, and the original Tony Zemaitis (not the current stuff, which I'm guessing is factory). Everything else I've seen is factory instruments of varying quality. My Gretsch, for instance, is a very nice quality factory instrument.
Members Cldplytkmn Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg these days, I believe it is the makers who are lining up and it seems to be a buyers' market. with tons of competition, I would hate to be in that "business" where your craft is forever being undercut by inexpensive imports.As is generally the case, the market determines the prices.suckers? I guess I don't see it that way.... Kap'n made the point for me... no high end maker is being undercut by inexpensive imports... its two totally different markets... All i meant by my statement of 'worth' is that people get horribly hung up on what things are 'worth'... "is $100 worth the upgrade for rosewood" "is that pickup worth the extra cost over this pickup"... and every time i see this i'm reminded what my dad used to tell me when i was little and found a baseball card 'worth' $50 or something... "its worth whatever somebody will pay for it" It could be 'worth' twice that if the right sucker comes along... it could be worth pennies if nobody wants it... just cause a book says its 'worth' $50 doesn't mean jack... this seems to be a discussion about worth... and i'm just saying that by and large, these boutique guitars are 'worth' what the makers are charging, because they are finding the right buyers... value is in the eye of the beholder...
Members JasmineTea Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg is that right? Yes, wood is graded cosmetically. But I've read where Bourgeios and the like would prefer to use a "lesser" grade that would accomplish better tone only to have the customer insist on AAAA grade.
Members Cldplytkmn Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by JasmineTea Yes, wood is graded cosmetically. But I've read where Bourgeios and the like would prefer to use a "lesser" grade that would accomplish better tone only to have the customer insist on AAAA grade. yep... i've read similar comments... seems like it'd be frustrating as a builder...
Members Kap'n Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 Originally posted by JasmineTea Yes, wood is graded cosmetically. But I've read where Bourgeios and the like would prefer to use a "lesser" grade that would accomplish better tone only to have the customer insist on AAAA grade. There was a bit of discussion about that during my tour. I don't think that it's really that better looking wood sounds worse in general, but more a question of finding wood that does both. I think they come across a lot of wood that would sound excellent, but gets rejected because somebody who pays $5K for a guitar wants something aesthetically pleasing on all levels. Of course, the relative scarcity of wood that both looks and sounds excellent accounts for its price. Especially since very few luthiers ever encounter the wood a the source, something that Dana has an advantage in, at least for top and brace wood.
Members Etienne Rambert Posted July 10, 2006 Members Posted July 10, 2006 If you're buying $3k guitars, bling may be irrelevant. If you're buying $300 guitars, it's added value. Either way, it doesn't affect the sound. Fact is, the best inlay artists aren't in North America or Europe anyway. They're in East Asia. They've been doing artistic inlay for thousands of years over here. Guitar-makers in the States have been doing it a few decades at most. I'm not surprised some prestige brands stay away from inlay. They're probably not qualified to do that kind of work. So in the western world, bling may cost you a lot more bucks and it may be inferior to what you can find elwsewhere in the world. So you may be getting a great guitar for $3k. But the bling probably isn't up to the level you can buy on a $300 guitar on luthier street in Saigon.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.