Old Versus New... Does it REALLY Matter?

[rhcole]

My tastes in guitars tend to run towards the more classic designs of the 50's and 60's. So, over the years I have run in circles where good vintage guitars are prized far beyond their new counterparts. The only ultra-vintage guitar I've ever played was a '58 Tele- and it was quite good. I owned and sold a '66 Rickenbacker 12 string which was a really superb guitar, even after decades.

But the guitars I play every day are new, or close enough to not matter. Heck, my 90's Guild X-170 is the oldest guitar in my stable right now. They are all GREAT, every one of them superbly built and a player's dream. I have two Japanese Gretsches which are possibly the most carefully built guitars I've every owned. My Epi Broadway is beyond reproach. I have a Carvin that's built like a tank. And of course, there's my Guild.

I read Vintage Guitar as much to ogle the pictures as get information. Experts like George Gruhn swear by vintage axes as having more mojo, more vibe, more soul, something.

I honestly don't get it. There are more boutique archtop builders now than ever in history. Heck, you can buy a cheap new Ibanez Artcore or Epiphone jazz box that will run circles around some of the quirky dogs that Gretsch built in the 50's and 60's. I was there personally to tell you that many 70's guitars considered "vintage" now were thought quite inferior in their day. That's what sparked the vintage revival in the first place.

And since this is a Guild forum, what about the 90's Guilds? By and large those are superb guitars worthy of being held next to any instrument ever made anywhere, right? My X-170 thinks so. The Artist Award, the Stuart, Bluesbirds, Starfires...

So, I'd really like to hear from the guys who love the vintage boxes- seriously - WHAT AM I MISSING? Hans, you have a mountain of guitars, what do you think?

 

[Guild Beginner]

Well, I don't want to get into a whole thing, but a lot of vintage guitars were made to higher standards by people who actually knew how to make guitars than what gets massively produced today. Also, the materials were often better, such as the finish, hardware, and woods. I love a vintage guitar. The box ages, dries, and sounds terrific. In physical terms, my Gibson LG-2 from the early '50s is better than one from the '60s because the bracing is scalloped and they didn't skimp on the bridge. Stuff like that. The popularity of R&R in the '60s made many manufacturers go cheap.

I think it's a personal preference when all is said and done though. Plenty of new guitars are fantastic and I don't think either side of the argument should get offended. Own both. But when I play my 60 year old Martin, I feel like I'm playing something that can really teach me something, because its been making music much longer than I have. With something like that, you're playing musical history.

 

[Walter Broes]

I honestly don't get it. There are more boutique archtop builders now than ever in history. Heck, you can buy a cheap new Ibanez Artcore or Epiphone jazz box that will run circles around some of the quirky dogs that Gretsch built in the 50's and 60's. I was there personally to tell you that many 70's guitars considered "vintage" now were thought quite inferior in their day. That's what sparked the vintage revival in the first place.

In all fairness, vintage Gretsch guitars don't begin to compare to vintage Epiphones, Gibsons, or Guilds. Vintage Gretsches are often just badly built, shockingly badly built even, and towards the late 50's and even more in the 60's, have strange, and often bad hardware and gadgets built in - Jimmie Webster's love for strange Gizmos has been well documented. The mutes, floating tuning fork bridges, giant holes in the back hidden by backpads, etc... didn't help guitars that weren't built very well to begin with.

I think the current Japanese made Gretsches are pretty great - ever since Fender took over and Mike Lewis redesigned the whole line very intelligently : He took the things that made Gretsches sound the way they do like wafer-thin tops, very specific pickups, and in the case of the Chet Atkins line very specific bracing and body measurements, and took out the bad stuff like horrible neck joints, and extremely inconsistent build. TV Jones spent a lot of time and money on analysing vintage Filtertron pickups, and he came up with a pickup that's almost better than the real thing.
But even then, I've seen quite a few new Gretsches with neck, fret, and fingerboard problems that I'm not enough of a luthier for to explain - necks that warp, twist, develop humps and bumps, etc.... - possibly, that's where wood quality comes in, compared to a lot of quality vintage guitars.... ( BIG :?: )

As for my own taste in vintage Guilds, my beloved early 60's X175's.....

-I got all of them for less than what a comparable level new electric archtop would have cost me.

-I love single coil pickups for the music I play, and very few new archtops come with them - the incessant "where can I find an X500T?!?" questions that pop up on this forum prove I'm not alone in that.

-You could argue that I've put different bridges on my guitars, potted the pickups, had them refretted and worked on, and that a new set of Grover rotomatics are vastly superior to a vintage set of Kolbs, but still, I don't see the level of quality and indestructability in new archtops that I enjoy in my Guilds.

But my biggest argument is that on a lot of guitars, the specs changed. I'm still convinced that if Guild or Gibson were to clone the dimensions of their vintage guitars to where it gets nerdy, I wouldn't be all that attached to my oldies. Example would be the guitar FMIC/Guild built for Dave Gonzalez of the Paladins - I've played it, and it's pretty damn close to a vintage Guild, and I'm as good as convinced that if you put a set of Franz pickups on that thing, and blindfolded me, chances are I'd take it over an old one.
But then, that was a guitar that was offered in the catalog for a year or two with a street price of around $3500, which is more than what I paid for my two favorite X175's put together....... :|

 

[Frosty]

Good thread!

I agree about the Terada factory Gretsch guitars, I had a new G6122-1959 that was a top-notch electric guitar.

I used to be a snob about acoustic guitars and for a while invested good money in some vintage instruments - including prewar Martin and Gibson... and a late 50's J-200 in my Gary Davis phase. Guild - it had to be Hoboken.

What turned me around was picking up a 1990 Bozeman made Gibson J-45, a Tacoma D-55 and... gulp... a bolt-on neck 2003 Collings OM-1. Collings... not even one of the three brands I grew up with! My hands and ears could not deny that these were top-notch musical instruments. And my wallet could not deny that they were of greater value to me as a player than the much more expensive vintage instruments.

I do have a few Hoboken instruments, because the do sound great. And I would love to own a sunburst "TV Special" like ol' Tommy played on TV. But to date, I would say the D-55 I like the most was made in '05 in Tacoma.

 

[fronobulax]

Interesting question. In my case vintage rules but that is because there just isn't that much new product to choose from or compare to. I think the point about construction and materials has to be noted. After all, we know a vintage guitar was built well enough to last for 40 or 50 years and we are hoping and guessing that will be true of a new instrument. Sometimes modern luthiers take what would have been unacceptable shortcuts years ago. Other times, though, they have learned new and better ways to do things. I think the question has to get down to a specific instrument. Any generalization that is presumed to apply across the board is almost certainly wrong.

 

[krysh]

I agree with walter if it comes to archtops, but I don't know anything about vintage acoustics - the oldest one I played is my '81 d-46, which I love and play.

regarding the construction quality and consistence in a guitar line, today the overall quality is much better, but the guitars have changed a bit or a lot over the time, as walter mentioned.

one point is that the wood used in vintage or older guitars usually is better and was dryer than today - a problem you often have with cheap guitars after a few years, shrinking and twisting.

for a collector the vintage guitar is a must, but for a player it is not important. you need a well working instrument, also sometimes modified to your needs. and in the end - the tone comes from your fingers.

 

[fronobulax]

for a collector the vintage guitar is a must, but for a player it is not important. you need a well working instrument, also sometimes modified to your needs. and in the end - the tone comes from your fingers.

In the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we used squirrels running on wheels to power our amplifiers, I did not know anything about Guild acoustic guitars other than they were underappreciated. A guitarist I was working with took his Guild into the shop for some tweaks. He came back with two guitars, the second one being a $250 acoustic with built in electronics. It seems the shop thought his Guild was pretty rare and offered him several thousand dollars. He didn't take it but I never saw him play out again with the Guild, either. All this is to say that vintage or new doesn't matter if you can't or won't feel comfortable playing it.

(And I have no idea what model the guitar was or why it was so rare/valuable and I lost track of the guitarist when he shed friends when his wife became his ex).

 

[kakerlak]

Ooooh boy, Pandora's box is a can of worms inside... :roll:

I like guitars. Really I try to keep it that simple. Some great points have been made above. One of the most valid arguments for vintage guitars is wood quality. Especially the quality of mahogany and rosewood that was once commonplace is now a rarity.

The '50s were such a seminal time for guitar design and a bunch of timeless designs sprang forth from there. The best-remebered of them are often very well made, lovingly made, even. Likewise, there are a bunch of p/u designs that came about then that are great sounding: everything Leo Fender designed, everything out of Gibson, DeArmond, Carvin AP-6, Rickenbacker, on and on. Really, it's hard to think of a bad sounding pickup from a '50s instrument, save for the most budget-est of student axes. (Then again, there are some awesomely raunchy Supros, etc out there in that range, too). That's really pretty remarkable, but it's true.

As those bigger companies changed hands and production demands skyrocketed, quality suffered at Gibson and Fender, designs were inexplicably changed, usually for the worse. Well-meant "improvements" were conjured w/o adequate consideration of the nuances affected (i.e. adjustable flat-top bridges) or apparent notice, care or comparison given to the former designs.

A plethora of small companies sprang forth in the 70s making very high quality instruments, but a lot of the magic of the old pickups had been lost by then and was not yet re-available. Beyond that, the largest common denominator was a brand of sleaze-rock that demanded a Dimarzio sound and a questionable aesthetic. In spite of the high quality of some things like early BC Rich guitars (ironically sporting Guild p/us), Deans, etc., they probably won't attain the same level of covet as the original Strats, Teles, Les Pauls, etc., since the music they made when new will (and has) date just like any other, but won't be remembered as the seminal beginning of Rock and Roll, but rather a stop along the long road.

A great combination of things started to occur in the 80s and snowballed through the 90s. Production innovations by the likes of Hartley Peavey and (surprise) Leo Fender reduced production costs and efficiency while actually increasing quality control. Changes and tinkering was done in a much more careful and scientific manner and a great deal of effort and analysis was spent in recapturing much of the lost greatness of yore. I can see this time as being looked upon in a few decades as a new golden era, but, since I don't imagine the magic attained and re-gained will be lost this time around, there probably won't be the same sort of mad scramble and value appreciation that occurred with the 50s instruments.

Likewise some guitars out of the 70s are very well made, but just sound terrible and can be great instruments with new pickups. My dad once had a very slick '76 Les Paul Custom that, with 3 Seth Lovers installed, was a killer, killer guitar.

One of the reasons I love Guild so much, aside from a general propensity for underdog rooting, is that it's one of the few companies without a "dark age." I don't have to say "Model X from 195x-196x, Model Y from 195X-195X, Model z, but not model Q, none from 196x-198x, etc." when I say I like Guilds. Sure they changed some with the years, and different models, different pickups sound different, but they're actually all good - quite a rarity.

I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't a great deal of appeal in the vintage guitar. It's neat to hold one in your hand, think of all the music it's made in the last 4-5 decades, imagine it coming off the production line, etc. On the other hand, it's a joy to hold any good guitar in hand and, at the end of the day, I love guitars, the better the better. I don't find any usefulness or pleasure to be had in stymieing myself with a snobbish restriction to only vintage instruments.

I like 'em old:

new:

and in between:

Just as long as they're good!

 

[mad dog]

There is something to this vintage fascination IMO. But it's not that definitive thing, that one difference that ultmately separates great from ordinary. More like one more factor to consider in assessing specific instruments.

My vintage exposure doesn't include archtops: My current oldies:

'61 strat
'66 ES-335
'43 Martin 0-18
'39 Gibson EH-185 lap steel

That last one illustrates one unique aspect of vintage - those odd, downright strange and/or amazing designs you won't find anywhere new. The first three show me something else. The considerable impact that time and usage has on quality instruments. The strat and ES-335 are so well-played, worn in and comfortable; they have absorbed as much music and spirit as they gave. You can feel it, physically and in other ways, when you play old warhorses like these.

How much it matters, and how much you're willing to pay for vintage mojo, are a personal thing. Like Walter, my oldies came by long ago, for little money. No way I'd spend enormous sums to have such instruments. And no need to do that. Because there are so many remarkable newer instruments out there now, including many recent guilds. With enough time and appreciation, they'll be no different from the even older vintage instruments.

 

[capnjuan]

.... Experts like George Gruhn swear by vintage axes as having more ... something. I honestly don't get it ... what about the 90's Guilds? By and large those are superb guitars worthy of being held next to any instrument ever made anywhere, right? .. WHAT AM I MISSING?

Hi rh; said another way, why would anybody stick $6,500 into a '59 Fender Bassman when they can buy a RI for a lot less? I don't think it's possible to try to rationally consider something where the pleasures of ownership, use, and appreciation are ultimately subjective. Considering that Mr. Gruhn's business is trading in vintage guitars and since his business is sustained and advanced by continued interest in vintage guitars on the part of buyers and collectors, there's at least the rebuttable presumption of conflict of interest on his part. I recently bought and sold a '00 360-12 Rickenbacker and, because it was so well made, I have no reason to think it was any less of any instrument than a '60s model. It didn't have the 'thingie' (something) but then considering the price differential between a '66 and a '00, I didn't pay for the 'thingie'. I also own a '00 Starfire 3 and, other than intangibles, it isn't materially better or worse than a '60s model.

I think your questions could just as easily be applied to motorcycles, watches, boats, and other products where the earliest classic versions can still hold a mesmerizing effect on enthusiasts. I personally would rather have a good-running '66 VW Beetle than an '04 irrespective of the latter's improvements in power, handling, and cabin heating; with me it would be the intangibles ... not the result of rational comparative evaluation. The same preference I'd have for a '60s VW is no different than other members' preferences for owning guitars that seems to have or represent substantial intangibles, and by definition, they are beyond rationalizing.

 

[Walter Broes]

I also own a '00 Starfire 3 and, other than intangibles, it isn't materially better or worse than a '60s model.

Agreed, it's probably as good an instrument. But it's different, and sounds different.

I hate coming off as a snob, but I've always had more luck recording vintage electrics than new ones - people who are completely neutral and could care less about vintage guitars, like recording engineers, without exception comment "oh yes, that's the one, definitely!" - SO much more character and personality, quirks and all.

 

[krysh]

I also own a '00 Starfire 3 and, other than intangibles, it isn't materially better or worse than a '60s model.

Agreed, it's probably as good an instrument. But it's different, and sounds different.

I hate coming off as a snob, but I've always had more luck recording vintage electrics than new ones - people who are completely neutral and could care less about vintage guitars, like recording engineers, without exception comment "oh yes, that's the one, definitely!" - SO much more character and personality, quirks and all.

you are right walter, it is different and probably sounds different. but does it sound or play worse?
I am not into the vintage sound, so new(er) guitars work great for me and probably for many others, too.
and why should the vintage sound be the holy grail? and what is the vintage sound? the one you heard on records, the one you have with old amps? even you use a new custom amp, don't you? with guilds we have the luck of great affordable vintage instruments as you mentioned before but what is great for one person can be terrible for others and for great playing nobody NEEDS a vintage instrument.....


eeehh, maybe except you!? :mrgreen:

 

[Walter Broes]

Oh, I don't disagree Krysh, and I'll be the first to admit I have very specific tastes, and play very specific music.

About the amp....always have played vintage ones, but can't afford them any more! :lol:

 

[capnjuan]

I also own a '00 Starfire 3 and, other than intangibles, it isn't materially better or worse than a '60s model.

Agreed, it's probably as good an instrument. But it's different, and sounds different.

Hi Walter; I agree, they would sound different because of the pickups, age of the wood, contribution from the fingerboard ... the intangibles. They'd be different but rhcole's questions would be is one 'better' and, by extension, 'worth the price difference?' I know the tone of the '60s SFs is close to your heart and professional bread and butter. I'm only suggesting that at the end of the day, the value differential is in the subjective intangibles - real but nevertheless subjective - making it more difficult to rationalize or understand how much weight should be given to all vintage guitars.

 

[jmac]

This only slightly relates to the topic at hand, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

I'd like to hear someone make a recording, maybe just a simple 12 bar backing track, and then play over the backing track, with a whole bunch of different guitars, one after the other. And then ask the listener to identify the guitars being played.

I can't imagine that I'd do very well with that challenge. I might be able to distinguish between solid bodies and hollow bodies, but then again, there have been times when I've listened to Les Paul play his guitar, and it sounded a lot like a hollow body tone to me.

Can my ears tell the difference between a Gretch and a Gibson and a Guild? Can they hear the difference between a '58 and a '98?

How about you guys? Can your ears tell the difference?

 

[Walter Broes]

Agreed John - a lot of "better" is very subjective.

 

[kakerlak]

This only slightly relates to the topic at hand, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

I'd like to hear someone make a recording, maybe just a simple 12 bar backing track, and then play over the backing track, with a whole bunch of different guitars, one after the other. And then ask the listener to identify the guitars being played.

I can't imagine that I'd do very well with that challenge. I might be able to distinguish between solid bodies and hollow bodies, but then again, there have been times when I've listened to Les Paul play his guitar, and it sounded a lot like a hollow body tone to me.

Can my ears tell the difference between a Gretch and a Gibson and a Guild? Can they hear the difference between a '58 and a '98?

How about you guys? Can your ears tell the difference?

That's a damn good question. You'd probably have a better shot at it with your scenario than you do listening to random records, as the same amp and amp settings would leave guitar as the only changing variable in tone. It'd be hard, especially if it's open-ended and not multiple choice. I would think that the easiest thing to distinguish would be Fenders, but it can be hard to tell a strat form a tele from a jazzmaster at times, too.

 

[capnjuan]

Agreed John - a lot of "better" is very subjective.

Hi Walter, like I said, I'd rather have a good-running '66 VW Beetle than an '04. When it comes to musical instruments ... and watches ... and motorcycles ... and amplifiers, it will always be about the intangibles. :wink: J

 

[adorshki]

How about you guys? Can your ears tell the difference?

I can hear the difference between Jerry Garcia on a Starfire and later on a Strat, on the same song from different periods. I just wish I could hear him on a modern Starfire!

 

[chazmo]

I'm not sure I can add much to this discussion. Particularly since my focus is acoustic flattops. In that realm, I think it's widely expressed that we've been in the golden age of the acoustic guitar for some years now, and older isn't better. There are some who think the sound of a 70-year-old Martin dreadnaught is the be-all-end-all of acoustic tone, but most feel that we're in constant improvement evolution in just about any aspect you want to discuss. There are many innovations out there that affect playability, tone, reliability, and even intonation that support the golden age hypothesis.

It *is* a fact that some soundboard and body tonewood supplies have depleted or simply become unavailable because of international deforestation treaties. No point going down a rathole, but if you believe that straight-grained, old growth Brazilian rosewood is the only tonewood you want in your acoustic then there are probably no new guitars in your future.

Personally, I think the "golden age" idea is applicable at the low-end and the high-end of the acoustic guitar spectrum. Construction techniques and cheap, labor in Asia have resulted in a sub-$1K market that is hugely competitive and offers guitars that put most 30 year old guitars to shame. On the high end are a plethora of ideas (e.g., wedge, vibrating laminates, sound portholes, fanned frets... the list is interminable) that are keeping everyone on their toes. Also, as Bob Taylor will happily tell you, the CNC machine has transformed the repetitive acts (let's call this this the mid-range) needed to build in some volume into a much more repeatable process.

Anyway, I don't think I answered your question, rh.. I just know it's an exciting time to be a guitar lover!