High-end Archtops

[rpguitar]

There ARE too many options out there. But for me, it's the Gibson L-5. I don't know why, but it's just the shizzle. The ultimate history-imbued, tonally perfect, classic, prestigious instrument. I couldn't care less if I'm good enough to own one. I am fascinated with many contemporary luthiers and their gorgeous, modern designs. But if I really had to go out with one axe, it's a vintage L-5.

The problem is that I love a blonde non-cutaway (which I have!) but also want a blonde cutaway L-5C. And those are even more expensive. I got my '47 blonde non-cut for $4900, which was a surprise "bargain" that I couldn't pass up. Still looking for the miracle L-5C deal.

[teleman3726]

To the OP, if you want to buy a high-end archtop, I would (life is short) and just exercise caution, as you would with anything you don't want damaged.
I've played dives and my tele works just fine (and, as one poster said: dings constitute character, esp. on a blackguard tele). I've played more straight-ahead jazz gigs to larger audiences and my Campy Deluxe can't cut it because of the feedback potential. So I use a D'A laminate. Plays fine, sounds fine with the higher quality pup. For practicing at home or jamming with a friend or two, Campy comes out and I run it through a Princeton reverb at 3-4.
So go ahead and bust the bank and get that gorgeous archtop that''ll make your buds green with envy!!!

[fumblefingers]

There ARE too many options out there. But for me, it's the Gibson L-5. I don't know why, but it's just the shizzle. The ultimate history-imbued, tonally perfect, classic, prestigious instrument. I couldn't care less if I'm good enough to own one. I am fascinated with many contemporary luthiers and their gorgeous, modern designs. But if I really had to go out with one axe, it's a vintage L-5.

The problem is that I love a blonde non-cutaway (which I have!) but also want a blonde cutaway L-5C. And those are even more expensive. I got my '47 blonde non-cut for $4900, which was a surprise "bargain" that I couldn't pass up. Still looking for the miracle L-5C deal.

i am getting distracted by the 1934 L5 reissue. Gibson's website says its "out of production". just curious, why are you selling yours?

[Patrick2]

There ARE too many options out there. But for me, it's the Gibson L-5. I don't know why, but it's just the shizzle. The ultimate history-imbued, tonally perfect, classic, prestigious instrument. I couldn't care less if I'm good enough to own one. I am fascinated with many contemporary luthiers and their gorgeous, modern designs. But if I really had to go out with one axe, it's a vintage L-5.

The problem is that I love a blonde non-cutaway (which I have!) but also want a blonde cutaway L-5C. And those are even more expensive. I got my '47 blonde non-cut for $4900, which was a surprise "bargain" that I couldn't pass up. Still looking for the miracle L-5C deal.

So . . . there it is! An L5 . . . is an L5!! Nothing else is an L5! They were conceived and developed out of 225 Parsons Street, Kalamazoo Michigan. Let's never forget that!!!!

[rpguitar]

i am getting distracted by the 1934 L5 reissue. Gibson's website says its "out of production". just curious, why are you selling yours?

I'm selling 10-15 guitars to raise cash for home repairs after the hurricane that hit us recently (Irene). So a few "wouldn't sell" guitars are, unfortunately, in that batch.

I think the '34 L-5 is stunning, but I just can't get over the fact that it's brand new. I crave the vintage. It's a mojo thing. Vain, ephemeral, and shallow, yes; but to me, it's quite a real feeling. My '35 and '47 Gibsons have stories to tell. The '34 RI is just a baby. But as a guitar, it lacks nothing - they really nailed it. It's a gem.

So . . . there it is! An L5 . . . is an L5!! Nothing else is an L5! They were conceived and developed out of 225 Parsons Street, Kalamazoo Michigan. Let's never forget that!!!!

Duly noted!

[hot ford coupe]

When you're speaking about who is buying the high end stuff, there are a few groups that buy them and here's what I think they are and some reasons why they get them.

1. George Gruhn said it best about 20 years ago. He said there are two groups: one is the the collectors who generally have much more disposable income to spend. They're usually the doctor, lawyer, business man who can afford some of the really high end toys and buy them for their investment potential, their history and the status to which the guitar will raise them. They are usually hobbyists who don't usually gig and who may or may not even be decent guitarists. Then there's the working musician. He primarily cares about a reliable instrument with a good sound, durability, reliable electrics, good playability at an affordable price. He doesn't really care whether the guitar is a collectible or not. He doesn't really care if he has the same guitar as his hero.

2. The next group are the professionals who endorse certain brands and get them either free or at a greatly reduced price. They're basically doing PR for the builder, getting his name out there and sparking the desire in the group that desperately want their hero's guitar.

3. The third group is the one I just mentioned. Whether or not they're pros, they have to have the same guitar as their heroes.

4. The last group are the historians. I'm in that group. These are the guys who love things and the culture of the past. It helps them identify with the musicians of years gone by and the great music they played. Many of them used the old Gibson, Epiphone, D'Angelico and Stromberg archtops which weren't as expensive as they are now and were the tried and true, reliable and good sounding instruments that the bag band, studio and other guitarists needed for what the did. Those working musicians could afford those necessary tools at the time. They were similar in price point like the $2-3000 dollar guitars we see today. Now, the prices of the same guitars back then and the handmade guitars are way out of reach for the gigging guitarist.

Are any of these groups doing a bad thing? Absolutely not. Each one buys what they do for their own valid reasons within their own income (I hope) and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.

[AlohaJoe]

The last group are the historians. I'm in that group. These are the guys who love things and the culture of the past. It helps them identify with the musicians of years gone by and the great music they played.

Well said! There's great value in tradition and respect for what came before. Every old guitar has a story. Sometimes we know it and sometimes it's a mystery.

[whippersnapper]

I always use a Tele and a ZT amp for the gigs I do (small bars, resturaunts, clubs, small record dates etc). If I was playing a festival, or an important record date I might take an archtop and valve amp, but I am so used to my trusty old tele!

[fumblefingers]

i thought Loar conceived it, but you should know better than i.

[Patrick2]

i thought Loar conceived it, but you should know better than i.

You are correct. Lloyd Loar did in fact conceive the concept of incorporating F holes, in the previously designed oval hole arch top guitars. Prior to that, it was the F5 mando that he changed from a round hole to F holes. But, the round hole mandos and arch top guitars were being made from 1904. Loar's design was incorporated in 1922 with the first F hole guitar being produced sometime between 1923 and 1924. It got it's name designation because it was the 5th varient of the concept of the arch top guitar. Loar later resigned (1924) from Gibson because his idea and concept of an electric bass was scoffed at. Think of that ... Lloyd Loar conceived the concept of an electric bass as early as 1923!!! Many people, at the old 225 Parsons Street location went on to further refine the L5. Some refinements were made to arch tops before the L5 was even developed. For example, Thaddeus McHugh was the one who developed and patented the truss rod as early as 1921 . . well before Loar even touched an L5 guitar.

But, as I said earlier . . . the plant at 225 Parsons Street, Kalamazoo Michigan was opened in 1917. The L5 guitar was developed and introduced in 1922-1924. Yes, Loar had a role in many, probably most aspects of that guitar . . . but so too did people like George Laurian and Lewis Williams. Therefore . . . "conceived and developed at 225 Parsons Street, Kalamazoo Michigan."

Also, please remember, there is still a group of very talented master luthiers building world class guitars at that very same location, albiet under a different name. A name which reflects the very "Heritage" of those formative years of the Gibson company. Some even swear that on certain days . . . towards the very end of a production shift and immediately prior to the closure of the plant . . . if you look hard enough, you can see "The Ghost of Orville" himself giving the plant a one last check over to make sure that everything is being left properly for the next day's work

[hot ford coupe]

That's some great info Patrick. It's things like this that makes playing an L5 the special experience it is. The weird thing is that, considering the L5 was such a milestone in Gibson history, Orville Gibson was dead several years when it was devised. Talk about a big legacy.

[Kuz]

Again, I realize I am showing my bias here, and I don't apologize for it. But I have played many guitars from individual luthiers to mass produced robotic made guitars, and no other manufacture does it better FOR ME than Heritage Guitars. They just sound old, warm, and vintage right out of the case, but play & intonate like the more modern guitars. Many other modern produced guitars just sound & play stiff TO ME. Heritage is often over looked, even with their archtops- which is really where they initially carved their niche.

Anyhow, my 525, 575 Custom, tap-tuned Golden Eagle, and Florentine Cutaway Golden Eagle are FOR ME exactly the perfect mix of vintage tone/mojo & modern playability.

[Patrick2]

Again, I realize I am showing my bias here, and I don't apologize for it. But I have played many guitars from individual luthiers to mass produced robotic made guitars, and no other manufacture does it better FOR ME than Heritage Guitars. They just sound old, warm, and vintage right out of the case, but play & intonate like the more modern guitars. Many other modern produced guitars just sound & play stiff TO ME. Heritage is often over looked, even with their archtops- which is really where they initially carved their niche.

Anyhow, my 525, 575 Custom, tap-tuned Golden Eagle, and Florentine Cutaway Golden Eagle are FOR ME exactly the perfect mix of vintage tone/mojo & modern playability.

Hi John! No one can dispute what you say, at least not with any credibility. I think you know that I have a few Heritage arch tops ... with the newest being a custom spec'd Golden Eagle in SSB, with one mounted pup in the neck position. I've never played a better arch top in my life time than that Golden Eagle. . . and I played MANY. Even as a Heritage rep, with a very strong relationship, both personally and professionally, to the owners of Heritage .. I still say that only a Gibson L5 . . . is a Gibson L5. I'm not saying it's better, or not as good as anything else. I'm not even saying that I prefer an L5 over my Golden Eagles or Artist Awards. But, it's an L5!! It's folk lore. It represents a greater affinity and connection to jazz guitar music that any other arch top. From a working jazz player's aspect, it was and still is more desirable than the more expensive Super 400s and Citations. IT'S WES MONTGOMERY!!!

I currently have 2 Custom Shop Historic L5s. A 1994 L5CES and a 2011 Wes Montgomery. Each of them is every bit as good as any Golden Eagle I have ever played. Don't even ask which sounds better . . . because, I don't believe in the concept of "better" as it relates to the tone of high end arch tops. It's just too damn subjective . . . unless one of the guitars is an absolute dog or has structural issues. But, I will tell you this . . . when I put down one of my L5s and pick up one of my Golden Eagles . . . or Super Eagles . . I feel no disappointment or diminished perception of quality. Similarly when I switch from a Golden Eagle or Super Eagle to an L5.

However, I do know your affection towards Heritage and its guitars. I also share your feelings. I take great comfort....and pride, knowing that the Heritage Golden Eagle is a direct descendent of the L5 . . . and the Golden Eagle was developed and is still being produced in the very same section of the very same building as the L5.

It's kinda like a '63 split window 'vette coupe. There are many many 2 seater sport cars that are far superior to it. But, only a '63 split window 'vette coupe can claim to be just that.

So then . . . to succinctly summerize . . . . . "only an L5 . . . is an L5"

[Kuz]

Patrick, good to hear from you and I agree it is foolish to say which archtop is best or better. I also agree that "only an L5 is an L5". A Golden Eagle is not and L5 and a L5 is not a Golden Eagle. As you know they even have slightly different dimensions.

I also am a little different as a guitar player/collector. I would never buy a vintage guitar, JUST because it is a rare vintage guitar. It needs to be completely playable for me before I would ever consider buying a vintage guitar. Years ago, I had the vintage guitar fever big time and owned a number of fine vintage guitar that were moderate to acceptably playable. But after discovering Heritage guitars, I found the missing playability that my vintage guitars didn't have, and didn't have to sacrifice the vintage tone.

SO on one hand I am saying I don't care about the vintage/historical/collectivity values of vintage guitars..... but on the other hand I deeply appreciate the old school hand-made from the former Gibson factory quality of my Heritage guitars. Sounds like I am being a hypocrite? Not if you understand that the hand-made, same factory, same Gibson tools used to make my Heritages I believe gives my guitars the old school Gibson tone. I appreciate the Gibson-Heritage lineage & history, but I appreciate the tone that is achieved (again I believe this tone is achieved through the Heritage artisans, vintage machines, and hand made techniques).

Now, in just the spirit of conversation..... since I too am not interested in arguing over which archtop sounds better, I would be interested in your comments (and other here) whether they feel if the same exact L5 original blueprint was used by a master luthier (Aaron Cowles comes to mind) vs made via Gibson's more modern production methods..... whether there would be a different tone achieve and then whether it could be concluded if this would result in an L5 that sounded even more like the 40s & 50s Gibson's L5s? OR do you still subscribe to the belief that despite changes to Gibson's manufacturing techniques, new Gibson L5s still sound like the guitars that were new, when made in the 40s & 50s?

Thanks, John

[cjm]

There is guitar collecting and there is guitar playing. Many people do both, and as long as they understand which activity they're engaging in at a given moment, there's no harm.

But unfortunately, many people don't manage to separate the two in their minds and it is to these people I offer the following advice: Don't get caught up in a colossal waste of time and money. "The perfect guitar" won't make you sound better.

Speaking from personal experience, for example, I would agree that only an L5 is an L5 except when the L5 is an L7 costing a lot less money. Neither will help you sound like Wes Montgomery, and the L5 didn't help Wes Montgomery sound like Wes Montgomery either. Wes Montgomery sounded like Wes Montgomery before he started playing L5's.

And "a Johnny Smith" won't help you sound like Johnny Smith. The sound came first, and only then did anyone deign to speak with him about an endorsement deal and signature guitars.

All this is really basic and most everyone feels they clearly understand it. Unfortunately, most guys (and I used to be one of them) particularly when they're young, get caught up at some point and begin to think, "If only I had _________, I could get the sound ________ gets." And potentially productive years are wasted in a quest to buy something that isn't for sale and never will be.

Most of the high end archtop market revolves around carved woods with a large dose of thin and quick to peel/corrode gold plating.

"Tradition," being the reason we continue to do something after the original reason is forgotten, drives this market.

Obviously, 75 or 80 years ago, a "real professional's" archtop was made of carved spruce and was the size of a small house. Otherwise, the brass section couldn't hear the four to the bar rhythm being played on an unamplified guitar.

But then came the magnetic pickup and purpose built combo guitar amp...and without really objectively analyzing the wood's contribution to sound, guitar players continued to regard large, hugely expensive, carved spruce guitars as the mark of a professional, because a mere decade earlier, a carved spruce acoustic archtop had actually always been the professional's choice out of practical necessity.

Never mind that companies like Gibson didn't carve the tops the same on their electrics in an effort to help manage feedback...and never mind that a lot of the surviving "iconic," and "defining" recordings of the late 1940s through the 1960s by past masters associated with certain high end guitars, were actually made with much cheaper plywood guitars.

So, I'm not speaking to the collector in many of us. By all means, if you've got the itch and the discretionary income to scratch that itch without causing your family (if any) to feel the pinch...go for it! Buy two at a time if that makes you happy.

But since this is not primarily a collector's forum, I am speaking to the younger guys and gals out there who are mostly interested in fulfilling their potential as jazz guitarists: Don't fall into a time and money wasting trap. That Ibanez/Samick/Washburn/etc., will do everything you need it to do, and if you wear out the frets on it, by the time you do you'll have a FAR better sound than you'll have if you take time away from wearing it out to chase an illusion in the form of the "ultimate guitar."

[Patrick2]

Patrick, good to hear from you and I agree it is foolish to say which archtop is best or better. I also agree that "only an L5 is an L5". A Golden Eagle is not and L5 and a L5 is not a Golden Eagle. As you know they even have slightly different dimensions.

I also am a little different as a guitar player/collector. I would never buy a vintage guitar, JUST because it is a rare vintage guitar. It needs to be completely playable for me before I would ever consider buying a vintage guitar. Years ago, I had the vintage guitar fever big time and owned a number of fine vintage guitar that were moderate to acceptably playable. But after discovering Heritage guitars, I found the missing playability that my vintage guitars didn't have, and didn't have to sacrifice the vintage tone.

SO on one hand I am saying I don't care about the vintage/historical/collectivity values of vintage guitars..... but on the other hand I deeply appreciate the old school hand-made from the former Gibson factory quality of my Heritage guitars. Sounds like I am being a hypocrite? Not if you understand that the hand-made, same factory, same Gibson tools used to make my Heritages I believe gives my guitars the old school Gibson tone. I appreciate the Gibson-Heritage lineage & history, but I appreciate the tone that is achieved (again I believe this tone is achieved through the Heritage artisans, vintage machines, and hand made techniques).

Now, in just the spirit of conversation..... since I too am not interested in arguing over which archtop sounds better, I would be interested in your comments (and other here) whether they feel if the same exact L5 original blueprint was used by a master luthier (Aaron Cowles comes to mind) vs made via Gibson's more modern production methods..... whether there would be a different tone achieve and then whether it could be concluded if this would result in an L5 that sounded even more like the 40s & 50s Gibson's L5s? OR do you still subscribe to the belief that despite changes to Gibson's manufacturing techniques, new Gibson L5s still sound like the guitars that were new, when made in the 40s & 50s?

Thanks, John

I'll be happy to respond to your questions, as best I can. But, I'm not sure what exactly you perceive to be "changes to Gibson's manufacturing techniques" that might make a new Gibson L5 different from one that came out of Kalamazoo. The Custom Shop in Nashville was headed up by James "Hutch" Hutchins. Hutch was one of the few people at Kalamazoo who truly operated to the level of a true Master Luthier. You mentioned Aaron Cowles as another of those and you are correct. That's one of the main reasons that Hutch was made "an offer he couldn't refuse" to relo his family and his life from his beloved Western Michigan to Nashville TN. When Hutch put together his Custom Shop team, it included already talented people like Jim Triggs, Tom Murphy, Terry Ryan and Gregg Rich. Hutch further refined their collective skills in the art of arch top building. Hutch even went as far as to insist on bringing in one of the original pantographic cutting machines for the rough cutting of the tops and backs of the arch tops at Nashville. Hutch wanted to make sure that the tops and backs had the same contour as the earlier models. Henry didn't want any of it. He wanted all new. Hutch insisted and Henry acquiesced. They shipped a machine from K'zoo to Nashville. The sole surviving pantographic cutting machine is still being employed at the Heritage plant and was used to rough carve both of your beautiful Golden Eagles .. . and each of my Golden Eagles and Super Eagles. When it goes down . . Marv repairs it. He will NOT replace it . . . for the same reasons that Hutch had to have one in Nashville. Similarly with the slack belt sanders, but, that's another story for another day. As for a difference of tone achieved by different building techniques . . . there are very few different building techniques between an L5 and a Golden Eagle. But, the answer is yes. Any deviation in technique will result in nuances from one builder to another. I'll go even further . . . those same slight differences in the technique and the processes will also cause tonal differences in the same model. That's one of the reasons why no two Golden Eagles will ever sound completely the same. Or, L5s for that matter! The wood variances from one guitar to another will also have an affect . . . even if it is wood from the very same tree!! Density, grain, moisture content can and does vary . . from slightly to significantly.

You say that you believe the tone being achieved from Heritage guitars is due to the Heritage artisans, the vintage machines and the techniques. I agree. Also included in that list should be the woods used. But, there is very little variance in those attributes and qualities between Gibson and Heritage. As I see it, the main differences are dimensions and the method used to attach the neck to the body. Heritage uses a tongue in mortise methode and Gibson still uses the original dove tail method. As an aside, I asked Aaron Cowles, whom I believe to be the most skilled, experienced, talented and knowledgable master luthier I have ever met, which he believes to be the better methode. He said, he belives the Heritage method of tongue in mortise is probably stronger. He also said that he doubts there is any tonal difference between the two methods. When I asked him why he doesn't switch to the "perceived" stronger method, his reply was that he never saw a neck joint of either method break . . unintentionally. He also said, that's the way he was taught by people far more experienced than he was when he worked at Gibson. For the record, most ultra high end boutique builders use the dove tail method.

A bit lengthy on the reply . . . but, I hope I've answered some of your questions.

[fumblefingers]

There is guitar collecting and there is guitar playing. Many people do both, and as long as they understand which activity they're engaging in at a given moment, there's no harm.

But unfortunately, many people don't manage to separate the two in their minds and it is to these people I offer the following advice: Don't get caught up in a colossal waste of time and money. "The perfect guitar" won't make you sound better.

Speaking from personal experience, for example, I would agree that only an L5 is an L5 except when the L5 is an L7 costing a lot less money. Neither will help you sound like Wes Montgomery, and the L5 didn't help Wes Montgomery sound like Wes Montgomery either. Wes Montgomery sounded like Wes Montgomery before he started playing L5's.

And "a Johnny Smith" won't help you sound like Johnny Smith. The sound came first, and only then did anyone deign to speak with him about an endorsement deal and signature guitars.

All this is really basic and most everyone feels they clearly understand it. Unfortunately, most guys (and I used to be one of them) particularly when they're young, get caught up at some point and begin to think, "If only I had _________, I could get the sound ________ gets." And potentially productive years are wasted in a quest to buy something that isn't for sale and never will be.

Most of the high end archtop market revolves around carved woods with a large dose of thin and quick to peel/corrode gold plating.

"Tradition," being the reason we continue to do something after the original reason is forgotten, drives this market.

Obviously, 75 or 80 years ago, a "real professional's" archtop was made of carved spruce and was the size of a small house. Otherwise, the brass section couldn't hear the four to the bar rhythm being played on an unamplified guitar.

But then came the magnetic pickup and purpose built combo guitar amp...and without really objectively analyzing the wood's contribution to sound, guitar players continued to regard large, hugely expensive, carved spruce guitars as the mark of a professional, because a mere decade earlier, a carved spruce acoustic archtop had actually always been the professional's choice out of practical necessity.

Never mind that companies like Gibson didn't carve the tops the same on their electrics in an effort to help manage feedback...and never mind that a lot of the surviving "iconic," and "defining" recordings of the late 1940s through the 1960s by past masters associated with certain high end guitars, were actually made with much cheaper plywood guitars.

So, I'm not speaking to the collector in many of us. By all means, if you've got the itch and the discretionary income to scratch that itch without causing your family (if any) to feel the pinch...go for it! Buy two at a time if that makes you happy.

But since this is not primarily a collector's forum, I am speaking to the younger guys and gals out there who are mostly interested in fulfilling their potential as jazz guitarists: Don't fall into a time and money wasting trap. That Ibanez/Samick/Washburn/etc., will do everything you need it to do, and if you wear out the frets on it, by the time you do you'll have a FAR better sound than you'll have if you take time away from wearing it out to chase an illusion in the form of the "ultimate guitar."

cjm, good to hear from you. how are things going?


i see that you are still sweating this issue. the thing is, i dont think you need to worry about it that much. most young people dont have the money for this to be a real problem. and by the time they do have the scratch, they are big enough to make their own choices. same with homes, cars, vacations, etc.

no worries.

[cjm]

cjm, good to hear from you. how are things going?

Mostly boredom, early retirement, SSDI, refusing to play out more than 3 or 4 nights per month because of fatigue. But, it's all good.

i see that you are still sweating this issue.

Maybe not as much as people might think. But I think it's a relevant issue to bring up for the lurkers on what is primarily a guitar players forum.

the thing is, i dont think you need to worry about it that much. most young people dont have the money for this to be a real problem. and by the time they do have the scratch, they are big enough to make their own choices. same with homes, cars, vacations, etc.

Not particularly worried, and mostly engaging in discussion for the hell of it, but I still run into young people who are determined to spend themselves broke for the wrong reasons. You're right...they usually don't have the income, but they still spend themselves into a jam...maybe not for a $20K Benedetto...but "high end" comes in a range of prices.

There is no lack of voices out there extolling the wonders that can be had for a fee, so once in a while I think it's worthwhile to suggest leaving the wallet in the hip pocket and derive one's inspiration from the music rather than the overpriced tools of the trade.

[hot ford coupe]

Wow! Both cjm and kuz said a mouthful. I couldn't have said it any better myself and believe me I was trying really hard to say just that. One of the problems I had when I was chasing "the dream" was I really didn't know what a particular guitar was supposed to sound like. There existed a "mythical sound" that only an L5, a Super 400 or a D'A New Yorker could produce. At least that's what all the magazines and the books said. I saw descriptions of guitars like "in another galaxy", "beyond belief", "the best I've ever heard" and on and on---and I believed it. This is what I needed to validate my playing. Then it happened. I got a hold of one of the mythical beasts and ---- it sounded like crap. It sounded like me. I must have had a busted one. The disappointment was deafening. Then I finally got a hold of a D'Angelico Excel. Oh wow!! This was it! The Holy Grail!! The audience will fall down and melt at my feet when I start playing the sweetest music. I struck the first chord and ---------it sounded like crap, i.e. it sounded like me------again. I've had over 30 collectible archtops over 18 years. They all sounded like me. They all couldn't have been busted. What the hell was going on!?!? The scoop? After all that time and money I spent and wasted, I finally realized there was no mythical sound. After reading all the hype, I made that sound up in my head and that's the only place it existed. In reality, there is balance, playability, clarity, volume, sustain, quality workmanship and decent tone but no magic. Now that I know what the good guitars are supposed to sound like and what to look for in one, I can tell the differences to some degree.

What have I found out? You don't need to spend a lot of money to sound like a million bucks. Know what you want and work to accomplish it. A guitar won't make you play better, you have to do that. It's all about good technique, practice, knowledge and experience. To the younger folks, if you want a high end guitar, that's fine, but get one for the right reasons, not because you think it will make you a better guitarist or have the sound that will beat everything you've ever played. Thanks you guys for pointing this all out.

[Patrick2]

Mostly boredom, early retirement, SSDI, refusing to play out more than 3 or 4 nights per month because of fatigue. But, it's all good.



Maybe not as much as people might think. But I think it's a relevant issue to bring up for the lurkers on what is primarily a guitar players forum.



Not particularly worried, and mostly engaging in discussion for the hell of it, but I still run into young people who are determined to spend themselves broke for the wrong reasons. You're right...they usually don't have the income, but they still spend themselves into a jam...maybe not for a $20K Benedetto...but "high end" comes in a range of prices.

There is no lack of voices out there extolling the wonders that can be had for a fee, so once in a while I think it's worthwhile to suggest leaving the wallet in the hip pocket and derive one's inspiration from the music rather than the overpriced tools of the trade.

My apologies for the dialog between Kuz and myself that might have taken this thread in a different direction than what the OP intended. Not trying to belabor this issue, but I felt as though the "lurkers" comment might have been pointed somewhat in my direction? I believe that your post, the one which began with . . "there is guitar collecting and there is guitar buying" was very relavent, well said and dead nuts on the money. What I did miss though, was eluded to in the following quote where you seem to think that some among us, myself included, seemed to opine that one needs a better guitar to play or sound better. I didn't see or hear that in any of the posts. Also, your reference to this forum as "primarily a guitars players forum" . . I think I also missed where it was ever defined as such. I usually get to this forum by clicking on the tab that is titled "The Jazz Guitar Forum". I would interpret that to mean players, builders, collectors, repair techs . . . anything and everything related to guitar. Not just what some would want it to be or to become. By the way, most . . if not all . . guitar collectors are also guitar players. Many people seem to forget that.

The younger players amongst us will do just fine in their selection of guitars. They just seek input from some of us more "seasoned" citizens. Your advice to them is sage and wise. All a real player needs to do a jazz gig is a guitar that has all of its strings, functioning electronics and stays in tune .. . at least until the end of the song being played. Doesn't really matter whose name is on the head stock or how much money it costs. But, they already know that.

We all have the desire to be self indulgent from time to time. Desiring, owning, collecting, playing and sometimes gigging with high end arch tops allows those of us who can, to do so. Peace man

[cjm]

My apologies for the dialog between Kuz and myself that might have taken this thread in a different direction than what the OP intended.

You certainly owe me no apology...and I can't see why you should owe an apology to anyone else. It's a discussion, and to be interesting, discussion must incorporate differing perspectives and ought to wend it's way through a few side channels.

Not trying to belabor this issue, but I felt as though the "lurkers" comment might have been pointed somewhat in my direction?

Not even slightly, and I apologize if you thought it did. I'm referring to the young guy reading all this who is trying to figure out how to beg, borrow, save, steal enough money to get that perfect ax so that he (or she) can sound just as a good as "__________."

What I did miss though, was eluded to in the following quote where you seem to think that some among us, myself included, seemed to opine that one needs a better guitar to play or sound better. I didn't see or hear that in any of the posts.

That wasn't in any of the posts. But it is implicit throughout the industry building and marketing the tools of the trade -- it has often been explicit in marketing and from the guitar press. And it is something that a huge number of people buy into.

They probably don't buy into it intellectually...but it's an emotional draw almost verging on superstition. And I would say that anyone who doesn't think this is a huge part of the business hasn't met many guitar players, or is in denial.

Also, your reference to this forum as "primarily a guitars players forum" . . I think I also missed where it was ever defined as such.

I don't see where it was formally defined as a player's forum, rather than a collector's forum, either. But then, if you read the vast majority of posts, you'll see that for the most part, people here are looking for a particular sound, or to resolve playability issues, etc., -- mostly from a perspective of a player wanting to sound better -- not mostly from a collector's or investor's perspective with particular emphasis on rarity, capital gain, or provenance. And that's what I'm talking about.

The younger players amongst us will do just fine in their selection of guitars... But, they already know that.

Not so much. That's why I spoke up.

We all have the desire to be self indulgent from time to time.

Quite true.

Desiring, owning, collecting, playing and sometimes gigging with high end arch tops allows those of us who can, to do so.

Also quite true. My comments were directed at those (and there are legions) who don't recognize this as an indulgence (that admittedly can be a hell of a lot of fun even if hellishly expensive) and who mistakenly believe it is necessary to the art.

[Patrick2]

You certainly owe me no apology...and I can't see why you should owe an apology to anyone else. It's a discussion, and to be interesting, discussion must incorporate differing perspectives and ought to wend it's way through a few side channels.



Not even slightly, and I apologize if you thought it did. I'm referring to the young guy reading all this who is trying to figure out how to beg, borrow, save, steal enough money to get that perfect ax so that he (or she) can sound just as a good as "__________."


That wasn't in any of the posts. But it is implicit throughout the industry building and marketing the tools of the trade -- it has often been explicit in marketing and from the guitar press. And it is something that a huge number of people buy into.

They probably don't buy into it intellectually...but it's an emotional draw almost verging on superstition. And I would say that anyone who doesn't think this is a huge part of the business hasn't met many guitar players, or is in denial.

I don't see where it was formally defined as a player's forum, rather than a collector's forum, either. But then, if you read the vast majority of posts, you'll see that for the most part, people here are looking for a particular sound, or to resolve playability issues, etc., -- mostly from a perspective of a player wanting to sound better -- not mostly from a collector's or investor's perspective with particular emphasis on rarity, capital gain, or provenance. And that's what I'm talking about.

Not so much. That's why I spoke up.

Quite true.

Also quite true. My comments were directed at those (and there are legions) who don't recognize this as an indulgence (that admittedly can be a hell of a lot of fun even if hellishly expensive) and who mistakenly believe it is necessary to the art.

Thanks for the clarification. It's all good man. . . we're OK. I guess I'm just so tired of being berated for being more of a collector these day, than a working player . . . that I sometimes take comments too pointedly. I'm sure you've seen the comments such as; "wow . . that's a beautiful guitar! I just hope it goes to a real player and not just some collector who's going to treat it as wall art". While I can somewhat understand those sentiments, it's also important for those who might think like that, to recognize that some collectors are also real players . . . . even if we have evolved into a life after gigging.

I recall one of your posts saying that you "no longer wish to do more than 2 to 3 gigs a week. I really envy you those 2 to 3 nights. Some of the most memorable and enjoyable times in my life were directly related to gigs and rehearsing up in lofts in NYC, in preparation for a gig or a show case. I too often forget that I really didn't care which guitar I had hung around my neck some nights. Now-a-days . . . I look over several wonderful guitars sitting on stands in front of me and I think that's the real world. It's not. It's just what has become my world.

[rpguitar]

I sound like myself on a vintage L-5, a MIK D'Angelico, a 175, a Les Paul, and even a Martin dread. 100 guitars have passed through my hands during the past 20 years. I don't regret those years of exploration, learning, and aural/tactile pleasure one bit. It's brought me a great deal of both academic and personal revelation.

Today I buy guitars with eyes wide open, not with any fantasy about it making me sound like someone else. Truth is, however, you CAN sound better on an instrument that really inspires you. Using another poster's terms, I'm a player who's also a historian, who stumbled into collecting. But the collection exists because over time, it comprises pieces that were each hard-won. There are no duds.

Patrick, you sing the Heritage song with a mellifluous and lilting tone. It makes me want to book a ticket to Kalamazoo. Maybe take the 'A' train or the Chattanooga choo-choo if they would detour. I wish I could! (really)

[Jabberwocky]

Reading the last few messages sorta reminds me of when the Protestants split from the Catholic Church and look at where that got us. I thought that discussion of politics and religion was verboten in this forum?

Loving one's guitars is fine but as my significant other once said to me, "Don't you look at those F-holes that way again! Ever!" Maybe I need help?

Paraphrasing Gertrude Stein: A guitar is a guitar is a guitar is a guitar. *A carved spruce top, carved maple back and sides, ebony fretboard, bone nut, six strings, move up to the name on the headstock and, boy, religion breaks out.

Just sayin'.

* It needn't be carved this and carved that because any player worth his cojones knows, laminated is just fine. I'm just a noodler and not a very good one at that.

[cjm]

I'm sure you've seen the comments such as; "wow . . that's a beautiful guitar! I just hope it goes to a real player and not just some collector who's going to treat it as wall art"

Yep, I've seen them.

I don't begrudge collectors one little bit. The only thing they've driven up the price of is...collectable items. And these aren't necessary to the art, so no harm, no foul.

Besides, where did they buy these collectible guitars? Well, for the most part, from broke guitar players whose bank accounts benefited greatly from a quick infusion of back pocket money. I no longer own, nor do I ever intend to again own, any high end guitars...but it was occasionally handy to be able to dump a guitar in a hurry for some serious cash and if collectors weren't scrambling for them that wouldn't have been possible.


It's all good, and for the record, I too appreciate the art produced by high end luthiers -- but more as objets d'art in their own right -- rather than as practical examples of the tools required in our performance art.