Sounds like most guitar shows I've been to!For me, a 19xx Gibson J-45 that looks like it was dragged behind a pickup truck, is no $5,000 guitar...if it was abused, its less than "used."
Sounds like most guitar shows I've been to!For me, a 19xx Gibson J-45 that looks like it was dragged behind a pickup truck, is no $5,000 guitar...if it was abused, its less than "used."
I think Arlington was even worse, but maybe that's only because it's exponentially bigger. I couldn't believe how many overpriced beat up old Gibsons I saw there over numerous years.I was thinking Florida, but sadly not the only one...
My son works in Corvette restoration, and the marketplace for Corvette resto-mods (non-original condition, that is) has actually overtaken the original condition market. We have some theories on why that's true, but they don't really apply to the guitar market.I think it goes both ways. If you build a Corvette that has nothing to do w/ the original save for the name, I'd say it's no big deal to currently make something to vintage specs and cite the year in the name. Being the proud owner of two 60's Les Pauls built in this century, It bothers me not one iota. That designation mainly refers to the typical slim tapered neck seen on Les Pauls of that era. You can also get a current 50's Les Paul. All that means is it comes w/ a 50's louisville slugger neck. Personally, I love that specific years and models are revisited by current guitar makers.
and if anyone can't tell the difference between true vintage and reissue...just count the zeros! It should be more than obvious.
Unless the signature is Les Paul's!. . . I long had a disdain for "signature" models . . . .
If I'm buying a newer guitar, I'd rather have the one that isn't made of an endangered species.I love all the "reissues" that originally came with ebony and Brazilian rosewood fretboards getting east indian rosewood,or "Blackwood" lol not knocking it , but don't call it a reissue when its woods/electronics are specced nothing like the original.
Interesting, Rocky. I'm definitely with TWA on this.If I'm buying a newer guitar, I'd rather have the one that isn't made of an endangered species.
Also, many of todays labor and environmental regulations simply don’t allow for making many internal components exactly the way they were made in the 50’s. At least not domestically. And if made elsewhere, you’ll likely have a downgrade in quality/craftsmanship control…so what’s the point? Imo, w/ guitars, it has as much to do w/ player feel than an exact replica inside and out. As long as a 57 reissue strat’s neck feels just like an original 57 Strat, and the tone of the pups are very close, I’m good.If I'm buying a newer guitar, I'd rather have the one that isn't made of an endangered species.
I'm with you on acceptable substitutions. On the other hand, while luthiers were not primarily responsible for the over-harvesting of Brazillian Rosewood or ivory, that doesn't make it any less endangered, just like pick manufacturers weren't primarily responsible for overharvesting of tortoises.I'll demur slightly from my expressed opinion earlier... If the materials are unavailable, I'll accept a substitute. E.g., when Martin introduced the D-28 Authentic 1931, they did it with Madagascar rosewood rather than Brazilian. I'll take that.
But, if they're substituting, say, cherry for real mahogany, I've got a problem with that.
In my dotage, I don't give too much of a hoot about the hullabaloo regarding endangered woods with respect to guitar manufacture. The forests weren't torn down to near-extinction by the guitar makers. Blame the folks building furniture and building with the materials for that. If you really care about the environmental effects, stay away from those things!
Anyway, I guess that's a bit of a rant for me today. More coffee!!!!!
Always good to be part of the solution, even when you're not part of the problem. I just have my limits.that doesn't make it any less endangered, just like pick manufacturers weren't primarily responsible for overharvesting of tortoises.