Do Archtops sound better with age?

[skiboyny]

This question is strictly about sound. What your ears tell you. I have an opinion just wanted to see what others say.

I do think you're misreading it, as it relates to why people buy or target the higher end stuff . . . especially vintage. I don't really see it, on a large scale, as a belief that a brand new $6,500 Gibson L5CES will make them a better player than a well made and properly set up guitar costing $1,000 will. I see a huge shift in the working class jazz guitarists . . . (not the more in demand recording artists such as a Jimmy Bruno or a Kenny Burrell) . . . towards the less expensive guitars. I see this mostly due to the cost of the guitar and the functionallity of it, as you correctly point out. Most of the higher end vintage arch tops have been taken out of the typical gigging circuit, even by the famous and affluent jazz players, with some exceptions. For example, Kenny Burrell is an endorsing artist with us (Heritage). He has several Super Kenny Burrell models and he really likes them. But, his vintage Super 400s are his main axes and have been for decades. He's a large but gentle man. He treats his guitars with loving care and his working venues are never the type that would represent an unkind threat to his Super 400s. But, Kenny could make a $500 Ibanez Joe Pass work through a performance and sound very well doing so.

Some players just want what they want and their reasons are their own.

[Patrick2]

This question is strictly about sound. What your ears tell you. I have an opinion just wanted to see what others say.

Your opinion is just that. An opinion. Also, it's totally irrelavent. NO ONE can objectively compare a 55 year old L5 to a new one and have the comparison be worth a shit. WAY WAY WAY too many variables . . . as I said in my original response to your question. As was said earlier . . . if you start with a poorly made L5 from 55 years ago ... and the tree it was made from produced poor tone wood . . . for what ever reason, then the guitar is gonna suck eggs! Especially if you compare it to a perfectly made brand new one with wood from the best tree in the forest.

I don't know what you're looking for man. You're asking questions that just can't be answered. There is no rhyme or reason to it. One can not say that a 25 year old guitar will sound better than a 5 year old guitar and the 5 year old guitar will sound better than a brand new one. It just isn't that easy.

[rpguitar]

This question can be answered by going out and, over the course of years, playing numerous new and old archtop guitars. And possibly owning and tweaking a few of them to their maximum potential.

There are no absolute rules. There are crappy old guitars, even ones with serious pedigrees, and there are brand new ones that are amazing. And everything in between. Now take a really good old guitar, and what it probably has that the new one can't have without earning it is history. Which translates to mojo. Which makes it ever so cool.

If you don't care about that, and some people don't, then the differences between old and new based on that element alone become much less important.

[teleman3726]

[quote=cjm;177681]Oh, and by the way...have you noticed that Benedetto now offers a payment plan?

He sells direct now, too. Broaden the market, cut the total costs.

[Zentar]

You have listed some interesting variables one that can be added to the original post. Does a guitar that is played regularly stand to sound better than one that spends it's life under the bed?

I have a 54 yr old archtop that has been played a great deal. Not a single fret has worn down equally. I will have to refret mine to tell if the sound is ok. Fret wire is soft and wears down with use.

I'd definantly say a guitar stored under a bed would sound better than a well played guitar.

[fumblefingers]

i think that we are missing a couple of important factors here.


Bob is selling direct now. Dealers have payment plans too, ya know. Interest income is another way to make money.

His flagship models are made with "aged and seasoned" woods. In other words, his "new" guitars are "old" guitars - day one. Just like with cognac (and the "angel's share"), there is considerable expense associated with keeping and caring for something for a long time before selling it.

With fine classical guitars, it is said that a guitar takes a while to "play in". it is further said that a spruce top takes longer to play in than a cedar top. of course archtops are made with spruce, so an aged and seasoned top may in fact be more valueable to a discriminating customer.

to make the point, here is an example of a very fine classical guitar, with a 40 year old spruce top. this same luthier makes less expensive models, each with younger tops. again, not unlike cognac - you pay for age.

Classic Guitars International for fine classical and flamenco guitars, Chris Kamen

[skiboyny]

I realize that there is no absolute answer. Just looking for opinions from folks who like myself have more than likely owned a few guitars along the way. And more that likely some have owned vintage pieces. Was the decision to own a vintage guitar based on sound. Sound is subjective so no absolutes are expected.

I don't know what you're looking for man. You're asking questions that just can't be answered. There is no rhyme or reason to it. One can not say that a 25 year old guitar will sound better than a 5 year old guitar and the 5 year old guitar will sound better than a brand new one. It just isn't that easy.

[cjm]

i think that we are missing a couple of important factors here.

Interest income is another way to make money.

As an alleged non businessman myself, I'm not too impressed with the interest rates that have been available for several years and doubt that the interest earned on monies held in the plan offered would offset the cost of overseeing it.

His flagship models are made with "aged and seasoned" woods. In other words, his "new" guitars are "old" guitars - day one. Just like with cognac (and the "angel's share"), there is considerable expense associated with keeping and caring for something for a long time before selling it.

With fine classical guitars, it is said that a guitar takes a while to "play in". it is further said that a spruce top takes longer to play in than a cedar top. of course archtops are made with spruce, so an aged and seasoned top may in fact be more valueable to a discriminating customer.

to make the point, here is an example of a very fine classical guitar, with a 40 year old spruce top. this same luthier makes less expensive models, each with younger tops. again, not unlike cognac - you pay for age.

Of course, "aged and seasoned" is not the same thing as "playing in." One is the wood's response to ambient humidity over time and the effect varies greatly between Albuquerque and New Orleans...and which doesn't stop when the guitar is built and relates to the OP's question of whether or not "old = better." The other is a hypothetical response of wood fibers to vibration. Bob's new guitars are of aged and seasoned woods, but haven't been subjected to decades of regular playing...which cannot begin until after the guitar is built.

[cjm]

I realize that there is no absolute answer. Just looking for opinions from folks who like myself have more than likely owned a few guitars along the way. And more that likely some have owned vintage pieces. Was the decision to own a vintage guitar based on sound. Sound is subjective so no absolutes are expected.

If my answers were unclear, I apologize.

I have owned, played and listened to old and new high end archtop guitars. I have seen no evidence that older archtop guitars sound better that cannot be accounted for by the inherent differences between two guitars of the same model.

That said, my interest is in the amplified sound of an archtop guitar. When various jazz musicians have gotten a wild hair and recorded tracks, or even entire albums, with their unplugged archtops, I found the effect to be offputting.

This lack of interest, and even perhaps distaste, I have for the unamplified sound of an archtop should impeach me as a witness able to answer your question fairly and honestly if your primary concern is the acoustic sound of an archtop.

There, all I can do is point again to the fact that whether or not archtop sound tends to improve with age, there is something of a cottage industry built on the premise that they do. There is a profit motive underlying all of it, and while profit is a good thing, it is also a good thing for buyers to be extremely skeptical of claims made in the pursuit of profit.

To wit: A well known dealership with a prominent web presence that moves many high end vintage archtops has moved some vintage axes for me and mine, and some new guitars for a builder I am well acquainted with, and who I taught how to solder the ground wires onto the back of a pot so they didn't just fall off after a few hours.

The descriptions written and posted of these extraordinary examples of the luthier's art didn't really match the rather ordinary examples of carved spruce shipped off to them for sale, in my opinion.

But the language expressing the buttery, kitten like purring, and effortless action of these exquisite works of art was so compelling I damned near made an offer on my own guitar on one occasion. And that was while knowing there was no "buckle wear" there had been one time I had a problem with a zipper on a pair of trousers... and that the "from under the bed condition" of that particular guitar included my wife's dog marking its territory right on the carved top twice in about...oh, 1983.

Maybe that's why the son of a bitch had an acoustic "bark."

[fumblefingers]

As an alleged non businessman myself, I'm not too impressed with the interest rates that have been available for several years and doubt that the interest earned on monies held in the plan offered would offset the cost of overseeing it.



Of course, "aged and seasoned" is not the same thing as "playing in." One is the wood's response to ambient humidity over time and the effect varies greatly between Albuquerque and New Orleans...and which doesn't stop when the guitar is built and relates to the OP's question of whether or not "old = better." The other is a hypothetical response of wood fibers to vibration. Bob's new guitars are of aged and seasoned woods, but haven't been subjected to decades of regular playing...which cannot begin until after the guitar is built.

the first concern is not yours to worry about though, is it? and you don't really know if they are making any money from it do you? from all appearances, Howard and Bob appear to be fairly successful businessmen, so you probably don't have to worry about this.

good clarification on the last point.

a few counter points however; one still has to pay for age because the wood was kept for a long time. the aged wood should make the guitar more resilient and stable (so that should mitigate to some degree your incessant nanny-nagging about price point, where said price point is higher than your personal tolerance).

i dont know if you are suggesting so, but just to be clear - it doesnt take decades for a guitar to "play in".

i am not claiming so, but neverthrelss wonder aloud - do we think that aged woods play in faster and/or better than young woods?

finally, fine archtop collectors are willing to pay for highly figured woods, whether you like it or not.

you should probably stop comparing a Ferrari to a Honda. Sure, the Honda is just fine, but...

[fumblefingers]

If my answers were unclear, I apologize.

I have owned, played and listened to old and new high end archtop guitars. I have seen no evidence that older archtop guitars sound better that cannot be accounted for by the inherent differences between two guitars of the same model.

That said, my interest is in the amplified sound of an archtop guitar. When various jazz musicians have gotten a wild hair and recorded tracks, or even entire albums, with their unplugged archtops, I found the effect to be offputting.

This lack of interest, and even perhaps distaste, I have for the unamplified sound of an archtop should impeach me as a witness able to answer your question fairly and honestly if your primary concern is the acoustic sound of an archtop.

There, all I can do is point again to the fact that whether or not archtop sound tends to improve with age, there is something of a cottage industry built on the premise that they do. There is a profit motive underlying all of it, and while profit is a good thing, it is also a good thing for buyers to be extremely skeptical of claims made in the pursuit of profit.

To wit: A well known dealership with a prominent web presence that moves many high end vintage archtops has moved some vintage axes for me and mine, and some new guitars for a builder I am well acquainted with, and who I taught how to solder the ground wires onto the back of a pot so they didn't just fall off after a few hours.

The descriptions written and posted of these extraordinary examples of the luthier's art didn't really match the rather ordinary examples of carved spruce shipped off to them for sale, in my opinion.

But the language expressing the buttery, kitten like purring, and effortless action of these exquisite works of art was so compelling I damned near made an offer on my own guitar on one occasion. And that was while knowing there was no "buckle wear" there had been one time I had a problem with a zipper on a pair of trousers... and that the "from under the bed condition" of that particular guitar included my wife's dog marking its territory right on the carved top twice in about...oh, 1983.

Maybe that's why the son of a bitch had an acoustic "bark."

sure but thats just marketing 101. that is done with any kind of expensive or moderately expensive product that you can think of.

you're just screaming at the wall, spitting in the wind, and coming off as angry. you buy your guitars, and we'll buy ours.

[cjm]

the first concern is not yours to worry about though, is it? and you don't really know if they are making any money from it do you? from all appearances, Howard and Bob appear to be fairly successful businessmen, so you probably don't have to worry about this.

Not "worried" at all. This is in the context of Patrick's repeated contention that high end archtop buyers merely peel off a few grand from their roll of walking around money to add another archtop to their collection, and that there are not players of lesser means making considerable sacrifice in an attempt to improve their sound.

And my question remains that if this is so -- why a monthly payment plan? And no plausible explanation has been offered.

a few counter points however; one still has to pay for age because the wood was kept for a long time.

Agreed. My uncle was a violin maker, however, and after observing his work, I don't agree that the cost of storing tone woods (including the cost of money tied up in that wood for several years) can account for anything more than a tiny fraction of the retail price of an instrument priced in the tens of thousands of dollars.

An Eastman however, at a much lower retail price point, would be a different story. There you would have to estimate that holding tone woods for ten or fifteen years might drive the retail price up by 5~10%.

the aged wood should make the guitar more resilient and stable (so that should mitigate to some degree your incessant nanny-nagging about price point, where said price point is higher than your personal tolerance).

If I didn't "nanny-nag" you would not have as much opportunity to contrast your economic circumstances to the average guitar player's and so I am providing you a service.

i dont know if you are suggesting so, but just to be clear - it doesnt take decades for a guitar to "play in".

I don't really buy into it at all, but some people claim that it takes only a few hours, some claim it takes many years, and some violinists claim that "playing in" can take more than a century.

i am not claiming so, but neverthrelss wonder aloud - do we think that aged woods play in faster and/or better than young woods?

I would opine that if there is anything at all to the hypothesis, that "young woods" would need the most improvement, but would tend to improve at a higher rate than aged woods...but that aged woods would reach their maximum potential more quickly.

But it's a hypothesis I don't buy into.

finally, fine archtop collectors are willing to pay for highly figured woods, whether you like it or not.

You mean the fine collectors, or fine archtops?

you should probably stop comparing a Ferrari to a Honda. Sure, the Honda is just fine, but...

True. There can be no comparison between a car costing hundreds of thousands with an engine that requires a top overhaul every few thousand miles and a car costing tens of thousands that runs reliably for more than 200,000 miles with routine maintenance.

Of course, neither one is worth a damn for getting into, or out of, a back country elk hunting camp when the snow comes early.

[rpguitar]

I'm trying to avoid the ongoing debate about Bob B.'s business practices, and stick to the original poster's questions.

For me, owning vintage archtops has not been primarily about sound. Every guitar I acquire and keep must sound good. It's a given. My decision to seek out these vintage guitars is more about pedigree and a sense of history. So I own a blonde non-cutaway post-war L-5. And a sunburst non-cutaway pre-war L-12, which is X-braced. And a reissue of the 1934 16" L-5 which is similar to what Eddie Lang played. I'd find an original one, but they cost too damned much.

Regarding why to own a particular instrument, a luthier put it to me this way once: There is playability, tone, looks, and value in that order. If you think about it -

Playability is often negatively affected by age.
Tone is usually positively affected by age, or at least you get a known quantity.
Looks can go either way; a beat up guitar looks bad but certain types of wear shows "mojo." (witness the Relic syndrome)
Value is positively affected by age.

[Patrick2]

This is absolutely priceless!! Mr. cjm . . . I'm still wiping the tears from laughing at one of your posts, where you said . . "I damn near made an offer on my own guitar". That just might have been the best example of witticism . . . of all your witty posts. That whole post was just priceless!!

Further, I do appreciate the reference of "non-businessman" . . . and it did not slip by me. Touche!

Also, don't be too hard on Mr. Fumblefingers. I sense that he's a pretty nice guy . . just hasn't quite caught on to your wit yet.

I do need to correct one comment you made about not having heard a plausable explanation of why Bob Benedetto might be offering payment plans for his instruments. If you review my original response to that statement, you will see where I, and I think fumblefingers too offered plausable replies. But, here's another stab at it in greater detail. I do not believe that Bob is doing it in reaction to the flood of clients wanting to buy his guitars but can't afford to. I believe that Bob is doing it proactively, trying to attract some of those players/students of a lesser financial position, who may be naive enough to believe that a better guitar will make them a better player.

Bob grew his company (faster than he grew his business, which is always a problem for the "non-businessman" guitar players amongst us) exponentially, by aligning himself with companies like Guild and Fender. He also tried (but failed) to sell in greater scale through dealers. As a result, he ramped up his production capabilities with increased staff and raw materials. His orders didn't grow to the expected and planned for levels. Bob, is now trying to tap into that market of people that you fear will buy his guitars for all the wrong reasons . . . and he knows that most of them can't afford a "Benedetto" . . . because they can't, as you say, merely peel off a few grand from their wad of walking around money".

As I said earlier, I believe that you will see Bob, and others like him, scale back their costs of operations overall, and reduce some of their price points to market.

The viable customer for the high end, or more appropriately the ultra high end boutique guitars, will continue to be the people who can afford to pay $10,000 for the guitar they want . . regardless of the reason they want it . . . and not worry about taking a 50% or so hair cut when they do decide to sell it. The vintage collectable market is, and will always be totally unique from the uber expensive, new, boutique builder arch top market.

[skiboyny]

Thanks so much for that. It's exactly what kind of stuff I had in mind when I posted.

If my answers were unclear, I apologize.

I have owned, played and listened to old and new high end archtop guitars. I have seen no evidence that older archtop guitars sound better that cannot be accounted for by the inherent differences between two guitars of the same model.

That said, my interest is in the amplified sound of an archtop guitar. When various jazz musicians have gotten a wild hair and recorded tracks, or even entire albums, with their unplugged archtops, I found the effect to be offputting.

This lack of interest, and even perhaps distaste, I have for the unamplified sound of an archtop should impeach me as a witness able to answer your question fairly and honestly if your primary concern is the acoustic sound of an archtop.

There, all I can do is point again to the fact that whether or not archtop sound tends to improve with age, there is something of a cottage industry built on the premise that they do. There is a profit motive underlying all of it, and while profit is a good thing, it is also a good thing for buyers to be extremely skeptical of claims made in the pursuit of profit.

To wit: A well known dealership with a prominent web presence that moves many high end vintage archtops has moved some vintage axes for me and mine, and some new guitars for a builder I am well acquainted with, and who I taught how to solder the ground wires onto the back of a pot so they didn't just fall off after a few hours.

The descriptions written and posted of these extraordinary examples of the luthier's art didn't really match the rather ordinary examples of carved spruce shipped off to them for sale, in my opinion.

But the language expressing the buttery, kitten like purring, and effortless action of these exquisite works of art was so compelling I damned near made an offer on my own guitar on one occasion. And that was while knowing there was no "buckle wear" there had been one time I had a problem with a zipper on a pair of trousers... and that the "from under the bed condition" of that particular guitar included my wife's dog marking its territory right on the carved top twice in about...oh, 1983.

Maybe that's why the son of a bitch had an acoustic "bark."

[Allenl]

Wanted to get some opinions on this. Does a 40 year old (insert your favorite maker) sound great cause it's 40 years old or did that guitar sound pretty great to begin with. Is a dog sounding guitar destined to be just that, or in 20 or 30 years might it sound good or even great. Love to hear peoples opinions and real world experiences.

I bought a new '74 Gibson ES175, with hardshell case from a music store going out of business in 1975. It was a natural finish. The sound was very rigid and the tone was extremely bright. I bought it mainly because it ws a great deal. I would pick it up from time to time but after a few minutes would put it away because the sound just didn't inspire me. My reference was a friend's '68 ES175, which had the classic "jazz tone."

In the early 80s I replaced the pickups with a newer set of Gibson humbuckers and replaced the top portion of the rosewood bridge with a Gibson tune-o-matic. There was definitely an improvement in the tone warming up a bit and better sustain to notes, but it still wasn't as good as warm as my friend's '68.

Fast forward to 2005. Another friend offered to buy my 175, since I didn't play it much. I decided to replace the original parts, just in case I was going to let it go. To my amazement, I couldn't believe my ears. The guitar now warmed up considerably with a very respectable sustain to notes. I had my friend bring over his '68 175 for comparison. I was quite pleased that the difference was very subtle. His was still a little warmer. Well...I decided not to sell.

In my case the guitar sounded better through aging with very little play. Of course I play my 175 a lot more now-a-days.

[skiboyny]

Thanks Allenl good stuff.

I bought a new '74 Gibson ES175, with hardshell case from a music store going out of business in 1975. It was a natural finish. The sound was very rigid and the tone was extremely bright. I bought it mainly because it ws a great deal. I would pick it up from time to time but after a few minutes would put it away because the sound just didn't inspire me. My reference was a friend's '68 ES175, which had the classic "jazz tone."

In the early 80s I replaced the pickups with a newer set of Gibson humbuckers and replaced the top portion of the rosewood bridge with a Gibson tune-o-matic. There was definitely an improvement in the tone warming up a bit and better sustain to notes, but it still wasn't as good as warm as my friend's '68.

Fast forward to 2005. Another friend offered to buy my 175, since I didn't play it much. I decided to replace the original parts, just in case I was going to let it go. To my amazement, I couldn't believe my ears. The guitar now warmed up considerably with a very respectable sustain to notes. I had my friend bring over his '68 175 for comparison. I was quite pleased that the difference was very subtle. His was still a little warmer. Well...I decided not to sell.

In my case the guitar sounded better through aging with very little play. Of course I play my 175 a lot more now-a-days.