In vintage guitars, where do you draw the line on originality?

As I plan a future purchase, and I'm currently targeting vintage guitars, and I'm getting an education on how original condition, modifications, and any old or future repairs impact the price of every guitar. With so many factors to consider, it seems the range of pricing and expectation of value is all over the place!

As a baseline we all want an amazing tone, and that's a given. So besides the tone, what do you look for in a vintage guitar?

I realize this question will solicit a variety of answers, but I really want to understand different perspectives and justifications. My guess is thoughts may differ between those who swap out guitars frequently or hang on to them for the long haul.

Thanks!

Robert

I passed on a 70’s Tele that was a really good deal. The tuners had been switched, but new holes had to be drilled to accommodate them. New tuners, no problem, but having an extra set of holes in the headstock is a deal breaker for me.
That being said, there is almost ALWAYS a price where I can overlook just about anything.
Paul

Playability. I had work done on my '58 ES-225 that makes it no longer totally original, but 200% more playable! I don't want to just look at it, I want toplay it! I have the original parts if I sell it.

walrus

If I were acquiring for a museum or historical collection, I'd want as close to original condition as possible. But for a player, I would think that playability and sound are the primary factors--after all, a guitar is a machine for making music.

As it happens, I own a number of old guitars, and none of them is in completely original condition. A 1920 0-18 has a replacement bridge and (soon) new bar frets. But otherwise, to hand and ears, it's a 100-year-old Martin. A 1925 2-17 has been refinished and given a modern pickguard, but ditto, less five years. My 1965 D-40 has a reproduced bridge with a drop-in saddle and Baggs pickup, but remains to my hands and ears what it has always been (but probably better, thanks to fifty-plus years of playing). My 1946 Epiphone Broadway is, as far as I can tell, all original other than some replaced pieces of binding and a repro pickguard. Sounds like a big-band archtop, as it would even it it had replacement tuners and tailpiece (which it doesn't).

What any of this would mean were I to sell these instruments is a matter of the condition of the market at the moment. Guitars in pristine cosmetic and physical condition do command a premium, but a look at the prices at, say, archtop.com suggest that musical qualities matter most to players.

I think you need to clarify acoustic or electric since IMO the answers are much different.

People don't do a lot of part swapping on acoustics so if a part that was swapped (tuners, for example) it should be for something you consider a good reason or you would be justified in reducing value. Repair and maintenance work is a judgement call. If it was needed, done well, and not required because of abuse then disclosing that should not lower the price much. However don't claim "all original" either.

Electrics get a lot of parts swaps and there are dealers who will buy vintage, strip for original parts, replace with modern parts and sell the vintage parts separately. An honest dealer will disclose that up front but a profit minded dealer will wait until you ask. There are also stories about people who thought they were buying vintage but didn't get it.

So IMO electrics with non-original parts should be valued lower and Buyer Beware applies.

That said, players and collectors have different ideas of value so...

fronobulax said:

....That said, players and collectors have different ideas of value so...

Click to expand...

I'm with Frono on this. My main criterion, for acoustic, is if I'd enjoy playing it. Second, would any of the changes/repairs made cause difficulty if I want to sell it, but then if it was substantially altered, I probably wouldn't have paid a premium, so most likely not an issue. As to electrics, I think it depends. A collector wants all original, but a player might actually want a guitar with certain changes, I.e, different pickups, pots, etc. The only electric I've owned with changes was a Tele that had the neck p/u changed for a humbucker, and that's a change some players like.

I prefer 100% original, down to the nut, saddle, and endpin if possible.

Changes I'm comfortable with are nut, saddle, endpin- these are often changed, so very tough to find original. Changes I tolerate are reversible aftermarket electronics, minor repairs here are there (bracing, patches, etc.), tuners, pickguard. Where things start get dicey for me are irreversible changes like bridge replacement, bridge plate, and beyond. I might still buy a guitar with these kinds of changes, if they were done with respect to the original, but it would factor into how much I would pay. I would prefer a cracked + glued original bridge than a new one, for instance- most don't share my opinion on this.

Any replacement of key parts of the guitar itself, I would pass- regardless of the deal. Like if the top was replaced, it's a new guitar IMO. I would not be interested in a vintage guitar w/ replaced fretboard, etc. either.

Part of what makes a vintage guitar appealing to me is the "time machine" aspect - as in, you are experiencing playing an instrument that existed in another time and place. For every small change that is made, that is impacted in small increments, but these add up.

I am already forced to accept non-vintage strings!

My 79' Guild is all original even the case. I know this because I was with my brother in law when he bought it new in 79'. Recently I was contemplating changing out the tuners, for no reason other then appearance... but I just cant bring myself around to the thought of removing the originals..

RE: Guild acoustics.

I've never bought a guitar with the intention of selling it -- though I've bought many and sold many -- and I don't acquire 'em to keep as museum pieces.

What sort of return I can get on a guitar, if and when I decide to sell it, never enters the equation for me.

My desire is to get as much out of a guitar as it's possible for it to give. If that means upgrading parts or modifying the guitar in some way, I don't hesitate. (If I was absolutely certain that running over a guitar with a lawn mower would improve the sound and playability, that's probably what I'd be doing.)

Hans Moust teased me for replacing the tuners on practically every Guild I picked up. For a couple years I sold Hans the original tuners I was yanking off old Guilds, till he shamed me. Now I keep the original tuners in the case pocket so they're available to potential future buyers, my one concession to "keeping it original."

wileypickett said:

Hans Moust teased me for replacing the tuners on practically every Guild I picked up. For a couple years I sold Hans the original tuners I was yanking off old Guilds, till he shamed me. Now I keep the original tuners in the case pocket so they're available to potential future buyers, my one concession to "keeping it original."

Click to expand...

I think these are interesting points. I don't know the stats, but I would suspect *most* guitars are sold within a few years of acquiring them, on average. Tuners being changed without respect to the originals are what bug me- big, ugly modern tuners with visible holes on old 1960s F212s that are otherwise original ... I had a '65 F212 that was basically a closet classic, almost looked new ... expect for the big, ugly modern tuners. Seems lame, considering you can get drop in replacements for the Waverlys. Irony is the big ugly modern ones didn't even hold tune as well as those Japanese strip tuners you usually find on 1960s F212s.

I bought a 1957 Gibson LG2 3/4 about 40 years ago - it had seen life - finish cracks and dings etc. Suppose it was original - came with a cardboard semi-soft case. Nice guitar - though the tuners wer not wort a €%&/ - no lubrication or anythin could make them good. So I simply reamed the holes a bit larger and installed chrome-plated Gibson-labeled Schallers on it. Naturally back of headstock looks what it looks - but ever since that guitar has been a joy - and got plenty of attention. Later I got a set of gold-plated tuners and swapped - this time no reaming or new holes. Naturally I installed both under-saddle pietzo & soundhole humbucker - and reamed the endpin jack larger to accommodate the stereo jack. Next year I had someone engrave my picture on TRC.

While some folks might concider all this as no respect to vintage instrument - I see it as "Making It To Be Played Again"

Hey Donny!

Man, if you can can cope with those six-on-a-plank tuners that came on most vintage Guild 12-strings, more power to you.

For me, there's just way too much play in them. It's maddening -- you have to tune flat and ease slowly up to pitch, and if you go too far, you have to tune flat and try again.

I spend a lot of time with my 12-strings, and I play in lots of open tunings, so I'm constantly tuning and retuning. Except for the few that came with decent tuners (my JF-30-12 and my F412) every one of my 12-strings (a dozen or more) has upgraded tuners -- most of them 18:1 Grovers. And for me, every one is better for it.

Tuning 12-strings is already like chasing your tail, so anything that makes that less of a chore, I'm all for.

Original finish is important to me. Other than a busted headstock, nothing will rob a vintage guitar of its resale value faster than stripping the original finish or over-spraying large areas.

Having said that, one of my keepers is a 1934 Gibson L-00 that suffered a number of cracks, including a longitudinal headstock crack, running from the nut to the top of the headstock. Since there was a lot of gluing surface to work with, unlike the usual lateral break, the repair is solid as a rock. But it took almost half the value off of the guitar, making it affordable for a tightwad like me.

I try to retain original tuners when at all possible. New bridges are often a fact of life in the vintage market, usually after the original had been shaved down at some point to avert a neck reset and cracked at the saddle slot or along the pin holes. They are generally accepted as a maintenance item, along with new nuts, saddles, pins, neck resets and refrets. Original bridge plates are more important.

The fact is, the older the guitar, the more likely it has passed through the hands of one or more owners who tried to "improve" it. The thing is, 30 years ago, they were just thought of as beat-up old guitars, not collectibles.

Some things I remember seeing that pertain to vintage markets.

There was a very nice early 50s gold top Les Paul. The frets were so bad as to be unplayable. I told the dealer that with a refret it would be awesome. He said sure, if you'd like to make a $20k guitar out of a $40K guitar.

I was playing a superb 1922 Martin 0 18. Bar frets and all. it was glorious. It was, I thought, a deal at $3k. I asked why. It had replacement tuners and some neck overspray, and a solidly repaired back crack. No collectible value at all.

Probably the most heavily repaired instrument I've ever seen, by far. I counted 15 major crackes, three in the neck, foot long on each side, six or seven on the top, and a 5x5" patch on the upper bout. It was far and away the finest sounding guitar I've ever played. 1939 J 35. It was a $7500 I should have spent. Reasonably original condition? $15,000-20,000. Pristine? Who knows.

70s Fenders. The most horrible guitars imaginable. The 72 Strat was the worst guitar I've ever owned. Poly so thick you'd have thought it was dipped. So thick it puddled up against the frets. So heavy it was like a stone around your neck. Pickups so brittle they were only good for funk. Buy one of these and display it in a case, because that would be the best use for one. Don't even mention the three screw on neck. Old does not mean good.

Collectors want only one thing, originality. Anything not original detracts greatly from value, and this includes anything to make an instrument playable. The guitar market is just dumb. Every old valued violin has had necks replaced to modernize or because they were just worn out. Still, they are worth $4M.

Finally, I can't recall the words vintage and Guild used in the same sentence by serious collectors. Buy them and play them and fix them because you like them.

I chuckled when I read your reply, Neal. I agree with much said here, especially where the bridge and original finish are concerned, but when I stumbled on to a '36 L00 that was donated to a nearby upstate NY college for their, now defunct, luthier arts program, sanded to within an inch of it's life, I restored it. I grabbed some orig 30's Klusons, a rosewood copy rectangular bridge, period correct logo stencil, Greven pick guard, and 5 coats of Mohawk flat lacquer. For less than 800 bucks I now own one of the best sounding small bods I've ever heard.

I try to avoid guitars that have been refinished ,or have headstock repairs .
I don’t mind tuner changes or nut/saddle etc.

If the price is right, though, I would buy it

All depends on the price, but then I'm typically only in the market for what's usually referred to as "players". Funny term, when you really think about it.

Original or original with tasteful upgrades.

Walter Broes said:

All depends on the price, but then I'm typically only in the market for what's usually referred io as "players". Funny term really, when you really think about it.

Click to expand...

I like the term. Do you play it or display it?

There was a story of a man who collected gold coins. He would use them for poker chips and redeem them with cash after the games. When he went to sell his collectable coins they were worth little more than the gold value because of all the nicks and scratches. So I am very comfortable with collect or play but not both, at least with the same instrument.

Br1ck said:

Finally, I can't recall the words vintage and Guild used in the same sentence by serious collectors. Buy them and play them and fix them because you like them.

Click to expand...

I suspect if I had $100,000 and a luthier I trusted I imagine I could have an impressive collection of quality Guilds within a year. I contrast that with the action prices for a Clapton Strat, for example.

jedzep said:

I chuckled when I read your reply, Neal. I agree with much said here, especially where the bridge and original finish are concerned, but when I stumbled on to a '36 L00 that was donated to a nearby upstate NY college for their, now defunct, luthier arts program, sanded to within an inch of it's life, I restored it. I grabbed some orig 30's Klusons, a rosewood copy rectangular bridge, period correct logo stencil, Greven pick guard, and 5 coats of Mohawk flat lacquer. For less than 800 bucks I now own one of the best sounding small bods I've ever heard.

Click to expand...

Someone should have been hauled into court over that huge belly bridge. Looks great now!

My L-00 has its original sunburst finish, but lots of cracks. Yours lacks the original finish but is crack-free. Guess who would fetch more on resale?