Members ST-III Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 I know a lot of people talk about how great the old guitars are. I'm just wondering what people think makes the old guitars better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BG76 Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 It depends on what you consider old. One thing I like about the older guitars is that they were made on older machinery or by hand (usually a combination of both). I also like the woods that were used and I like that they have a human factor to them. As someone who has built a bunch of guitars I like seeing tool marks, how the joints were formed and the little things that a lot of people probably don't notice. I have an old Martin from the 50s and it's great. The headstock is really cool and you can tell someone made it and it wasn't just banged out on a CNC machine. Plus it sounds great. I paid $1100 for mine in maybe 1999 or 2000. Gruhn has the same guitar for $12,000.00 today but I'm not even considering selling it. Also, I really like the look and feel of Brazilian rosewood and the quality of wood that was used. Go buy a reasonably priced piece of furniture from 1960 and go buy something from Ikea (or sadly, even a pricier place like Ethan Allen) and compare the quality of wood. That coupled with the fact that most of the guitarists I really liked growing up played older stuff is why I buy older stuff. I am lucky enough to have been buying older instruments at the tail end (I'm 34) of when you still could get cool stuff cheap. Some of the old guitars I have/had I bought because the companies were not making them at the time so old was the only way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metalrulez Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Because...no really, just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Northstar Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Because they're older, duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ital_Stal Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 isn't it something to do with the wood aging or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metalrulez Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Smoke,mirrors and the alignment of the stars!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ratae Corieltauvorum Posted September 27, 2010 Moderators Share Posted September 27, 2010 If you're talking about the 58s and 59s it was simply that they got everything right, ie pickups, neck and look. The guitars in 57 were brilliant but they didn't have the 59 neck carve and the 60s were superb but the neck was thinned down a touch. Overall the 58/59 spec was the best all round LP. The Historics that represent these two years are every bit as good when all is said and done, they just don't cost the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elias Graves Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 No, they only cost half the earth. EG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sk8centilli Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 "The luthiers were better in the 50s and 60s" ...because they were from Kalamazoo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cobalt Blue Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Well, Les Pauls from the Norlin era (70s) are and remain worse, so I would say older and newer are better than the middle-aged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RaVenCAD Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Frankly, I think it's all in the head of the player. Sure, there are some great old guitars, but there are also some dogs, and I'd bet the dogs have the advantage by about 10:1.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluesnapper Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 I've played a few 1970s LPs which were utterly shocking - my friend has one that plays beautifully and sounds great but weighs literally 12lbs! Completely ungiggable... When compared to a bad or average LP - of which there are plenty, the classic ones must be miles ahead The new reissues are beautiful. Maybe just as nice as an original - although the electronics won't be the same... The modern 'Standards' are not the same quality as the 58-59s. Otherwise why would anyone bother with the re-issue series? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ST-III Posted September 27, 2010 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 If you're talking about the 58s and 59s it was simply that they got everything right, ie pickups, neck and look. But couldn't they do that today. I mean couldn't they just copy how they were made back then? I've never played a '58 or '59 Les Paul so I can't verify how great they were or are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boogieplaya Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 They aren't any better. It is a well known fact that Gibson employees of old used to say that they used the "good" hardwood to burn, to heat the facility than they used in the guitars. There was no such thing as "tonewood" back in the old days, everything was "furniture grade". The prices today are for the rarity of the guitars, not the tone. If anything, it is because the wood in the old guitars has had many years to dry and cure arguably making it more resonant, but thats about it. I would take a modern custom shop Gibson built today over an old one. Money aside of coures i'd like the money an old one would fetch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sk8centilli Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Well, Les Pauls from the Norlin era (70s) are and remain worse, so I would say older and newer are better than the middle-aged. I'm sure most would agree, but some folks love those pancake bodies and three piece maple necks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ratae Corieltauvorum Posted September 27, 2010 Moderators Share Posted September 27, 2010 But couldn't they do that today. I mean couldn't they just copy how they were made back then? I've never played a '58 or '59 Les Paul so I can't verify how great they were or are. As I said above the best Historics as made today are superb guitars, and are a pleasure to own and play, good light mahogany and nice in the left hand also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aenemated Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 I'm sure most would agree, but some folks love those pancake bodies and three piece maple necks... mike's main deluxes (i believe he has 3 now) are '68s - norlin didn't come into the picture till '69. he had a '72 he ebayed for charity a couple years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BoneNut Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Because we think anything vintage, had magic fairy dust mixed into the nitro. Because we think everything gets better with age... except growing old. We all agree growing old pretty much sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metalrulez Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Because we think anything vintage, had magic fairy dust mixed into the nitro. Because we think everything gets better with age... except growing old. We all agree growing old pretty much sucks. You are close. They were made by elves in hollow trees......that is why they smell like cookies or crackers depending on the day they were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sgt mukuzi Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 some of the new ones feel like anyother guitar to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mnhhngbfs Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 the old ones have cocaine hidden under the fretboard, in the truss channel. that's why they're so expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members waxbytes Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 A good LP is a good LP and the year it's made dosen't matter.They made some skunky LPs in every era. There are fewer old skunks than new skunks because they made fewer guitars in total back then and 'Ole Man Time is hard on skunky guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faber Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 because they are scarce and expensive enough to be (literally) out of reach for most of us - so they HAVE to be special, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sk8centilli Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 mike's main deluxes (i believe he has 3 now) are '68s - norlin didn't come into the picture till '69. he had a '72 he ebayed for charity a couple years ago. I thought so too, and maybe his main (non-touring) Goldtop is a '68, but... fast forward to in this interview: [YOUTUBE]uvrPkVgejI0[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bbreaker Posted September 27, 2010 Members Share Posted September 27, 2010 Because 1956 was a good year. 1962 wasn't shabby either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.