salem Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 You're right Dave, we are making two different arguments. All I am saying is that the modern small production Strat will feel better and sound better because of the work, care and attention put into it. Forgetting for a moment investment and resale value, EVEN IF I could get a vintage Strat for 2 grand, I would go with the Suhr or Anderson.
kizanski Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 EVEN IF I could get a vintage Strat for 2 grand, I would go with the Suhr or Anderson.I (and many reading this) find it hard to believe that you are that foolish.NO ONE could be that foolish.
JohnnyB Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 I don't think anyone will argue that the old Fenders were mass production models, produced in a large factory.Wrong. The old Fenders were production models produced in a relatively small factory. There was nothing "mass" about them. Leo figured out how to achieve efficient production while maintaining a high level of hand-fitting and finishing. He did this by creating subassemblies--body, neck, pickguard/electronics that could be created simultaneously for a guitar, cutting its production time by at least 2/3. But each subassembly was done by hand, assisted by machines of Leo's own design to speed up cutting, sanding, spraying, finishing, etc. There may have been a few happy accidents in amp design, but Leo and George sweated out all the details meticulously on all the legendary instruments. They experimented with tone woods, scale lengths, pickup positions and angles. They field tested the instruments with people such as Dick Dale and Bill Carson, who provided valuable feedback on shape, balance, knob positions, ergonomics, etc. The Stratocaster is probably the first ergonomically designed instrument of any type.Pickups were alnico-magneted, hand "scatter" wound, which reduces inductance. There was nothing harsh-sounding about them. Leo did not increase the production scale to meet the withering demand when the rock music market exploded in the '60s. When he sold Fender Musical Instruments to CBS, the company faced a 2-year backlog, which was insurmountable given Leo's production methods and quality standards. When CBS changed the production methods to meet the demand, quality suffered and instantly conferred legendary status on "pre-CBS" gear.Another thing, it's almost impossible to buy the kind of wood these guitars were routinely made of in the '50s. Early Telecasters and Esquires were made of a single plank of ash. The wood was so aged and seasoned that these early Teles seldom weigh more than 7 pounds and often tip the scales at 6.3-6.5 lbs. I've played an early '50s Tele, and that very porous plank body resonated like a hollowbody. Also, any guitar from that era has the added benefit of being played for 50 years, which opens up the sound that much more. No matter how finely crafted, no new instrument can sound played-in.
gerry Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 You're right Dave, we are making two different arguments. All I am saying is that the modern small production Strat will feel better and sound better because of the work, care and attention put into it. Forgetting for a moment investment and resale value, EVEN IF I could get a vintage Strat for 2 grand, I would go with the Suhr or Anderson.on which basis do you make your decision? if i buy a guitar and i have two options, i would never decide for one without trying the other. so did you play a vintage strat, did you ever touch a vintage strat, did you ever see a vintage strat in nature?if yes, i don t understand your statements, if no - man you miss so much. a very well built vintage instrument will be always having something which very well made new instrument will miss for the next 20 years...the life which it lived during those 20 and more years.
phoenix Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Salem, I get your point. Forgetting the whole investment thing, and the value added because working musicians who became gods later, recorded on used pre CBS gear because thats all they could afford. Gibson and Fender changed stuff every year. They were listening to their artists but still had no idea when or how they caught lightning in a bottle. Now we know when. The coveted bursts that are $300k now were such a bust that thay were discontinued after 3 years. Every year the LP neck was different. In retrospect we are able to see that there are certain years when it all came together. also the wood available was old growth and is harder to duplicate today because( for example) the climate in Honduras is different today so pro luthiers like Terry McInturff get their old growth mahogany from places that duplicate the humid swamps of Honduras in the pre 50's. Good wood is a huge part of it, but even that aside, and the aging of the decades (because they were less than a decade old when many of the famous recordings were made), it is a certain synergy of ALL the elements coming together. Read the LP forum and see how much importance is given the sleeveless truss rods, or brazilian vs. indian fretboards. Or look at boutique amp and pedal sites and see how moving a small electrical part a few centimeters to one side changes how the electrical fields interract. Then there were the fortuitous mistakes like the looseness of the JMI AC-30's or the fact that the way Leo attatched his amp cuircuitboards to save money created an additional field that became part of the synergy.As great as the luthiers were, it still took EVERYONE the vantage point of time and comparison to see when these magic synergies took place. Even now they are rediculously hard to duplicate so some people are paying for the perspective and guarantee of time as well. Blah Blah. It can be felt and heard because if a 10-thumbed, melody-free beginner like me can hear it, you can be damn sure people like HHB and other pros can hear it.Until you try the holy grail vintage guitars and amps, it is hard to understand. It seems to me like the difference between a ****ing great guitar and magic.There is a reason Kim Keller, Jol and many other super builders play vintage at home and wont part with them. Same with amps and tubes. just my 2 cents as the HFC's omega player
sw686blue Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 MCChris has said it best:Salem is a MASTER troll.
salem Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 No there is no troll about me. Phoenix, your points are well taken.
Luke Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 The vintage hysteria is based on age and brand name. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, 1950s Strats and Les Pauls were used guitars, there was absolutely nothing desirable about that. As time passed, the mere fact a guitar was 40 years old made it instantly collectible. I have played many vintage instruments, many of them prior to their becoming investments. Some were good, a few were great, some were terrible, and most were average. Just like when people are polled and 98% of them consider themselves above average, we have to ask then where are the dogs? I would not desire to own a vintage piece a this time. First of all, there are many many many fakes out there, fakes that are so good they fool many of the experts. Secondly, a guitar is only part of the signal chain. The signal chain begins with you, the way you finger a note, pluck the string, add vibrato, etc. The signal then passes through the guitar to a cord or wireless, which then goes through potentially several pedals, into an amplifier, which may have effects in its loop and through a series of tubes that may or may not be NOS vintage, etc. In other words, the guitar itself is just a small part of the end tone. It seems illogical to spend $90,000 for one piece of a puzzle where that singular piece only represents 25% of the end result tone. If we were to invest an equal amount into the other 3/4s of the tonal variants, we would all need to have formal musical educations and Dumble amplifiers to round out the scenario.I'd rather have a $2500 Hamer and $96,000 in the stock market where I am diversified and do not have to worry about someone stealing AT&T while I am at work or Microsoft burning to the ground. To me it is far too speculative to be considered a long term investment. One expose of a company pumping out fake 1959 Les Pauls on 60 Minutes would make the market tank in hours.
GusS Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 John MacElroy plays a Jay Turser strat not some bullshit 24k strat or 2.4k JSuhr. fuck expensive guitars
salem Posted February 17, 2007 Author Posted February 17, 2007 John MacElroy plays a Jay Turser strat not some bullshit 24k strat or 2.4k JSuhr. fuck expensive guitarsI'm sorry to say that the local sheriff found a packet of heroin in John's guitar case. He didn't make it.
gerry Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 The vintage hysteria is based on age and brand name. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, 1950s Strats and Les Pauls were used guitars, there was absolutely nothing desirable about that. you are right that in the 70s those guitars were not vintage but old guitars. B U T 50s strats and late 50s les pauls were desirable but not easily available. therefore jol and paul built hamer guitars. of course the current values for such guitars are crazy. i can remember reading guitar magazines in the early eighties with vintage guitar stories about gibson les paul customs with 3 paf, valued at that time for usd 8000,--. as a teenager i dreamed already about such a piece.
kizanski Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 The vintage hysteria is based on age and brand name. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, 1950s Strats and Les Pauls were used guitars, there was absolutely nothing desirable about that.Actually, the fact that the prices of them continue to skyrocket tells us there IS something "desirable" about them. If nothing else, it's called "investment."I would not desire to own a vintage piece a this time. First of all, there are many many many fakes out there, fakes that are so good they fool many of the experts. Secondly, a guitar is only part of the signal chain. The signal chain begins with you, the way you finger a note, pluck the string, add vibrato, etc. The signal then passes through the guitar to a cord or wireless, which then goes through potentially several pedals, into an amplifier, which may have effects in its loop and through a series of tubes that may or may not be NOS vintage, etc.This is all very true. However, it has not stopped the fact that the prices continue to rise. It was why I bought my '59 Strat when I did. I had had several opportunities to buy them when they were half the price, but talked myself out of the idea when I took into account how many fakes there were and how easy they are to duplicate.As I waited, everyone else bought and bought and bought. Finally I got my act together and bought one as well.I could turn it around after owning it almost a year and make some money on it, but believe it or not, it's one of the best guitars I own. Not because it's worth X amount, but because it's truly badass.If I could get that from the Fender Custom Shop, GVCG, Nash (I've played them ALL - LOTS of 'em), I'd sell it, buy a half a dozen replicas, pocket some dough, and call it a day.In other words, the guitar itself is just a small part of the end tone. It seems illogical to spend $90,000 for one piece of a puzzle where that singular piece only represents 25% of the end result tone. If we were to invest an equal amount into the other 3/4s of the tonal variants, we would all need to have formal musical educations and Dumble amplifiers to round out the scenario.This has NOTHING to do with what a guitar is worth in dollars.I'd rather have a $2500 Hamer and $96,000 in the stock market where I am diversified and do not have to worry about someone stealing AT&T while I am at work or Microsoft burning to the ground. To me it is far too speculative to be considered a long term investment. One expose of a company pumping out fake 1959 Les Pauls on 60 Minutes would make the market tank in hours.I agree with you there, but if you spend real money on something that can not be substantiated, you would do just as well to take your money and throw it out into the street.
GusS Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 John MacElroy plays a Jay Turser strat not some bullshit 24k strat or 2.4k JSuhr. fuck expensive guitarsI'm sorry to say that the local sheriff found a packet of heroin in John's guitar case. He didn't make it.I bet the last thing on John McElroy's mind while waiting for the midnight bus to Memphis, TN was temperature changes and their effect on the finish of the roadworthy JT in his gigbag. RIP bro
alpep Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 I own vintage guitars and new guitars. I am at the point where the name on the headstock does not matter, the age of the instrument does not matter what matters is how it feels and how it sounds and if it gets the job done. God bless the vintage market. I have bought and sold more instruments than I can remember.
Stike Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Until you try the holy grail vintage guitars and amps, it is hard to understand. It seems to me like the difference between a ****ing great guitar and magic.Like I said and not taking the investment angle into consideration I'm sure a real burst probablly does sound and feel better than a reissue does a real burst sound three hunnert grand better than reissue?
kizanski Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 Like I said and not taking the investment angle into consideration I'm sure a real burst probablly does sound and feel better than a reissue does a real burst sound three hunnert grand better than reissue?Probably not...even if I had $300K burning a hole in my pocket.However...and this brings us back to the original post...if you could get an original 'burst for $3,000 (what an R9 goes for) wouldn't you buy one? ...or ten?
Stike Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Like I said and not taking the investment angle into consideration I'm sure a real burst probablly does sound and feel better than a reissue does a real burst sound three hunnert grand better than reissue? Probably not...even if I had $300K burning a hole in my pocket. However...and this brings us back to the original post...if you could get an original 'burst for $3,000 (what an R9 goes for) wouldn't you buy one? ...or ten? Why of course and then I'd flip 'em all and buy something useful like Molly Ringwald's panties .
JohnnyB Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 However...and this brings us back to the original post...if you could get an original 'burst for $3,000 (what an R9 goes for) wouldn't you buy one? ...or ten? Why of course and then I'd flip 'em all and buy something useful like Molly Ringwald's panties . Then I'd wear 'em like a surgical mask.
rmahurin Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 So I guess that means the best sounding guitars that the world will ever know have already been built. Too bad NAMM is over; The announcement could have been made there. Think how many trees would have been saved from the boutique builders, hopelessly in search of tonal perfection, when it is, alas, unobtainable now. Someone at least needs to circulate a memo.
Matt Mattson Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Think how many trees would have been saved from the boutique builders, hopelessly in search of tonal perfection, when it is, alas, unobtainable now. Someone at least needs to circulate a memo.Selfish eco-unfriendly guitar nazis chopping down redwoods -- what! Get the wood police!
cloakerz Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I am coming in late here this post, but my dad had a very old gretch or however you spell it and it was unbelievable. The neck was killer, action was lower than my jackson SL1 and no buzz. I would trade all my guitars to have that one, but he traded it for somethng else long gone. My 2 cents is; yes there is something to those old axes and thats the reason for the price.
El Kabong Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 FELCHING IS NOT A CRIME! Should it be? Discuss...
hardheartedbill Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 well, I own a 58 LP Jr , and I would not sell it or trade it for anything, the point is, I am uber lucky to have it and it cannot be replaced in the tone dept, period, it can be gotten close to but not duplicated, sorry, it's the way it is. part of the reason I own it is the guy wanyed a player to play it, I owe him bigtime cause he represents what right about old guitars in many ways. ask Brooks about my guitar
JohnnyB Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 So I guess that means the best sounding guitars that the world will ever know have already been built. That's hardly earth-shattering. The classical string community has known this ever since the last Stradivarius rolled out of the Cremona shop in the early 18th century.Too bad NAMM is over; The announcement could have been made there. Think how many trees would have been saved from the boutique builders, hopelessly in search of tonal perfection, when it is, alas, unobtainable now. Someone at least needs to circulate a memo.Hardly. The existence of Strads, Guarnaris, Amatis, and Montagnanas did not stop the manufacture of violins over the next 300 years. There aren't enough of the great vintage instruments to go around. One could say that violins today are better because Stradivari showed the way, and electric guitars today are better because Gibson and Fender did the same thing in the '50s and early '60s.Like the slogan says, "Often imitated, never duplicated."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.