Do you tend to judge a guitar brand by its duds or by its outstanding examplars?

[Jkater]

Most big brands have produced both. The better brands have less duds getting away, of course. For me, it depends if I ended up buying the duds and being stuck with it... or losing money in the resell.

 

This is a thread for bashers to explain themselves. And for non-bashers to make a point.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

 

P.S. spelling mistake in the non editable title (exemplar, it is).

[Alecto]

I usually judge a guitar brand by the ratio of duds to studs it produces. For instance, certain companies produce instruments of such a high quality that the occasional whimpering runt is acceptable - and often, a guitar that I think sucks may be tonal nirvana for someone else.

 

But if a company regularly produces instruments with serious quality control issues - defective truss rods, paint issues, parts that fall off - then I'll take a "once bitten, twice shy" approach. Any company that's described as "you have to try 40 or 50 different instruments in order to find the right one" is automatically a no-go, no matter how good the "right one" might be. I simply don't have that kind of time, and why should I when there are plenty of other companies where I can find the "right one" in the first 3 or 5?

 

While we're at it, quality control on their lower-level lines is also a good indicator of a company's attitude. I've seen $800 instrument?

 

Here endeth the rant.

[Jkater]

^^^ tremendous post. Thanks!

 

So a good one is called a "stud". I didn't know.

[GAS Man]

By their more exemplary products.

 

Kid you not, my first 3 guitars made by Gibson were relative tone duds.

 

 

But since then I've had very good luck with that brand.

 

What slays me with them these days is how good some of their cheapies sound, like the SG (or even LP) Tributes or their dual pickup Melody Makers (the MF/GC exclusive)

 

They take models like that, skimp on the finishes, even put what looks like scraps of wood together, but they still sound and play great. I guess the "plays great" part isn't such a big deal, so many many brands do, but I like a guitar that has a lot of vibe and chime to it and doesn't have to have the gain cranked to deliver, and Gibson has been delivering that for me.

 

Gibson has some dogs in there but so does Fender. Some of Fenders MIJs I thought were definitely highly over rated. I'm having better luck with their new MIMs than I did with the mid-90s MIJs for tone. And some of their MIAs could have better select woods. But I'm feeling safer these days with Gibson. Part of me hates saying that. Like I've drank the Kool-aid.

[shadesofcraig]

I don't think you can knock a company for a bad guitar here and there, it happens. But I also think a lot of the dud talk is greatly exaggerated. I have yet to buy a dud myself and if I did, I would send it back right away. Would never happen in person since you get to check it out first. I have bought like 10 of my guitars sight unseen and have had great luck. Never had to send one back and most of the times the guitar was beyond my expectations. Which is what leads me to believe most of the dud talk is exaggerated. I can't be the only one who hasn't had a bad experience, just can't be that lucky.

[onelife]

 

I usually judge a guitar brand by the ratio of duds to studs it produces. For instance, certain companies produce instruments of such a high quality that the occasional whimpering runt is acceptable - and often, a guitar that I think sucks may be tonal nirvana for someone else. But if a company regularly produces instruments with serious quality control issues - defective truss rods, paint issues, parts that fall off - then I'll take a "once bitten, twice shy" approach. Any company that's described as "you have to try 40 or 50 different instruments in order to find the right one" is automatically a no-go, no matter how good the "right one" might be. I simply don't have that kind of time, and why should I when there are plenty of other companies where I can find the "right one" in the first 3 or 5? While we're at it, quality control on their lower-level lines is also a good indicator of a company's attitude. I've seen $800 instrument? Here endeth the rant.

 

 

I think that is an excellent way to look at it.

 

If everyone looked at it that way then I think Yamaha would be bigger than they are. I find that even the cheapest of Yamahas are good and I have never seen any quality control issues.

 

For some reason, probably good advertising strategy, many people would rather buy a lesser quality guitar with the "Fender" name on it somewhere than a better quality Yamaha for the same price.

 

Or maybe Yamaha is bigger than I thought but just keeping a lower profile.

[BoneNut]

I've never bought a "dud" from any brand, that I have been able to try out before buying and have been able to buy some very nice guitars from many different brands that way. If you close your eyes to the brand when you try them, you'll be surprised by how many great guitars are on the market today at dirt cheap prices.

 

On the other hand, when I have to mail order a guitar, it's a crap shoot at best, even when buying a very recognized brand. The more expensive the brand is, the more I'll be pissed off if a get a mail order dud. I believe that after a certain price point, quality control and workmanship shouldn't be an issue at all, it should be expected.

 

The exception would be Yamaha which I have always found to be very consistent in their high quality, even buying sight unseen.

[Elias Graves]

Neither, I guess. If I find something I like, there it is. I'm not buying a company, just one guitar.

 

EG

[Vibroluxman]

I guess I judge a company by how the first copy of their instrument sounds to me when I play it. If I like it I have a favorable view of them. If I don't, then I probably won't go for another taste.

[Mel Cooley]

I tend to judge guitars on their individual merits regardless of make.

[Spirithawk]

I concider a brand name to just give me a ball park idea of quallity. I've seen expensive duds and outstanding cheap guitars. Of course the oposite is true as well. I see a guitar I like the looks of, or for one reason or another comes into my hands, I'll play it and then decide if I like it or not. If it's a top brand, great, but if not I really don't care as long as it plays well. Said it before, if you think everything is in a name then write that name on a piece of paper and strum away. Then tell us how great it plays and sounds!

[C-4]

For me, it is a matter of how any given guitar feels and sounds. I played the usa stuff for 50+ years, but tired of them feeling basically the same way from one to the next within their type of how they feel. For instance, a strat basically feels like a strat, not an LP, so when you find a great feeling one that has what you want, you keep it.

iI you do not tire of the way a guitar sounds/feels/etc., then you would say that you like that company's product. This is why a company is your favorite, or not.

 

If you do not like the way a guitar feels, or if you tire of what it offers you, you move on. Since all companies do make duds, it is unfair to judge that company based on it's dud turnout.

Your favorite company is therefore based on the guitars you play and enjoy the most.

 

Some companies design a guitar with features you do not care for, so you would not have that company on your favorite list.

 

I feel that a favorite company is (are) the one(s) you are currently playing, assuming that you have the money to buy such a guitar, and that it satisfies your needs on a high level.

While Fender, Gibson and several other companies used to be among my favorite companies, these days, they have been replaced by guitar companies that I currently like better.

[BryanMichael]

For me it's cost:quality ratio. IMO cost:quality = VALUE. Thereby I judge a guitar by it's VALUE.

 

Which is why I take my shots at Gibson. No other brand that I can think of misses the mark on cost:quality as OFTEN or as blatantly than Gibson. One of the reasons is that no Gibson guitars are really priced at a point where there can be a graduated expectation curve - Gibson doesn't do as well in the mid-priced market. What I mean by that is that I expect my $2000 Gibson acoustic to comparable or better than other $2000 acoustics. I also expect an $800 Gibson to be comparable or better than another $800 guitar....and sometimes the $800 Gibson compares less than favorably with the $400 import. That is what is confusing.

[Jkater]

It is indeed hard to understand the prices of some guitars considering the flaws they have. I just can't understand how a guitar costing $2,000-$2,500 can be covered with cosmetic flaws. Heritage is a brand that gets a lot of respect so they must be good, generally. And I ordered mine based on this but I got what can be called a real dud. Bridge not fitting the top, fret ends sharp, neck to body joint not flush, terrible binding, heaviest hollowbody I can remember holding, you name it. I tried to love it when I got it and missed the date for returning it as a result. My own stupidity, I guess. It has some good things, of course, straight neck, low action, decent sound (not really great for that price), well balanced when played sitting down. If the resell proves to be too much a disadvantage, I might as well keep it but I'll never be able to afford a good jazzbox again so that's a little frustrating. Having owned Japanese Yamahas (outwordly flawless) did not prepare me for this.