Do Archtops sound better with age?

[skiboyny]

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.

[mtierney]

Well, it depends on the tone you're looking for, in a lot of cases. Acoustic or electric?

I came across a 1937 Gibson L50 over the summer. Since the wood became harder with age, the guitar is now louder and a bit brighter than it would have been, which is great because it has a pretty small body. But I'm no expert, hopefully someone else will give you a better answer...

[rpguitar]

I think that wine offers a good analogy. A well-made, fine wine will be good when young and exquisite with age. A mediocre wine will be undrinkable when young, and maybe passable, but never excellent, with age.

Ya gots to start out with something good in my opinion. Age alone is not magic.

[jlc]

I think the construction, wood and finish will be a determining factor, ie a poly finish probably would inhibit any aging factor, vs a nitro cellulose or french rubbed stain, i think guitars, violins etc. will generally, if taken care of, will benefit from age.

[Patrick2]

This is a tough question to answer without sighting the many variables that cause and also prevent an archtop from sounding better or worse with age. But, a very broad generalized answer to your question is . . . yes. An arch top will change, tonally, as it ages. Whether or not the change in tone that a guitar has achieved, can be perceived as an improvement is a very subjective thing. As for the variables . . I'll try to list some of them, but I'm sure that I'll miss some and others will have to jump in and add to the list;; **the type of wood (species) used on the top, rims and back, **solid carved or laminated, **the quality of that particular species . . spruce varies as does maple, **the technique used by the carver, **the glue type, **the finish type..nitro lacquer, varnish, plastics, **the environment it lives in while aging . . humidity levels and temps, **the amount of playing time it receives . . .

As I said, I'm sure that list can be longer . . others will add to it.

[skiboyny]

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?

This is a tough question to answer without sighting the many variables that cause and also prevent an archtop from sounding better or worse with age. But, a very broad generalized answer to your question is . . . yes. An arch top will change, tonally, as it ages. Whether or not the change in tone that a guitar has achieved, can be perceived as an improvement is a very subjective thing. As for the variables . . I'll try to list some of them, but I'm sure that I'll miss some and others will have to jump in and add to the list;; **the type of wood (species) used on the top, rims and back, **solid carved or laminated, **the quality of that particular species . . spruce varies as does maple, **the technique used by the carver, **the glue type, **the finish type..nitro lacquer, varnish, plastics, **the environment it lives in while aging . . humidity levels and temps, **the amount of playing time it receives . . .

As I said, I'm sure that list can be longer . . others will add to it.

[pauln]

Any guitar that gets played regularly will improve with age because of all the little checks and adjustments that get made after each string change (neck relief, action, intonation, finding the right string set, pickup height etc as well as the long term wear-in the the frets, nut, bridge/saddles, tuners...)

All of these micro adjustments and wear over time have a "focusing" effect on the playability of the guitar and hopefully on the resulting tone.

Even a guitar that is old and little played may have nice sounding old wood - the long term effect is that the resins in the wood tend to slowly crystallize with age, thought to be a very good thing for the sound quality.

[mangotango]

Never really had an "old" guitar so I couldn't answer with any confidence.



One thing I have noticed - my archtop sounds better with practice.

[oldane]

It is debated whether and how much aging plays a role in developing the sound. Based on my experience with those of my own instruments I bought new, I THINK it does, but I can't rule out that there are other other factors in play - such as the player getting used to the instrument and to it's tone. It has been suggested that also statistics may play a role. Those older guitars which have resale potential is those playing and sounding good. Those sounding mediocre may end up falling apart in attic stowe away and may not make it in the long run. Therefore, there may simply be fewer old AND badly playing/sounding instruments out there than new ones. The bad ones gets "filtered away" with the passage of time the good ones are kept carfully, played often and thus survives.

[clem_gael]

One thing I have noticed - my archtop sounds better with practice.

+1

[cjm]

There is a small segment of the economy resting on the premise that old guitars sound better. Whether they actually do sound better or not, the demand and maintained/increasing value of old guitars depends upon an ongoing and increasing acceptance of that premise.

Skeptics will note a profit motive.

I read with some interest a recent report about a blind test where experts attempted to distinguish between Stradivari valued at $1 million + and some examples of contemporary violins costing hundreds of thousands less built by some of the top ranked builders of today.

Exclusivity is seductive. So too is the idea of financing a $10K~$20K purchase from ones day job to avoid years spent in frustration trying to become a become a better guitar player to get better gigs a couple of nights each week.

Does it work?

Do old guitars sound better?

You get what you pay for, right?

Of course, a lot of people hesitate to say what their ears tell them...to do so might brand them as unsophisticated and incapable of discerning real quality.

On the other hand, if old guitars really do sound better, then how can Bob Benedetto justify $30K for a new 18 inch archtop?

Oh! The contradictions!

Just remember than 99.9% of everything is BS.

That includes my opinions.

[kambor]

Spruce develops sound over time if the instrument is played and cared. You notice when a spruce topped instrument comes back from repair that the tone doesn't come back after a few hours of continuous playing (I've witnessed this with my teacher's classical guitar).

As to the poly vs. nitro thing, it depends. If the poly finish is applied as thin as nitro, there's no difference actually. The best finish I know is shellac. But any finish won't prevent the wood from ageing (i.e: cristalyze it's rosin and stabilize it's humidity).

So, the answer to your question is: on solid spruce top guitars (carved, bent, or flat) that are cared and played, yes; they sound better with time. With other solid woods: yes, but much less noticeable. With ply: nope, that's a stable material and doesn't evolve enough with time to notice, and it's response is not that good to begin with.

[Patrick2]

Exclusivity is seductive. So too is the idea of financing a $10K~$20K purchase from ones day job to avoid years spent in frustration trying to become a become a better guitar player to get better gigs a couple of nights each week. Oh no!! Not this again!

Of course, a lot of people hesitate to say what their ears tell them...to do so might brand them as unsophisticated and incapable of discerning real quality. Yep! Sad but true.

On the other hand, if old guitars really do sound better, then how can Bob Benedetto justify $30K for a new 18 inch archtop? It's very easy for Bob Benedetto to justify what ever price people are willing to pay him for his work. If he can get $30K for his work . . . then it's worth it. To sell it for less would be stupid, un-American and demotivating.

Oh! The contradictions!

Just remember than 99.9% of everything is BS.
That includes my opinions.

The red type font above falls into that missing .1% Regards, Patrick

[cjm]

Oh no!! Not this again!

Ah, the harsh gray light of dawn. Refreshin' ain't it?

It's very easy for Bob Benedetto to justify what ever price people are willing to pay him for his work. If he can get $30K for his work . . . then it's worth it. To sell it for less would be stupid, un-American and demotivating.

Okay...

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (H.L. Mencken).

and...

There's a sucker born every minute...(sometimes attributed to P.T. Barnum)

[Patrick2]

Ah, the harsh gray light of dawn. Refreshin' ain't it?

Okay...



and...

Mr. cjm . . . . I think the main problem with your assessmant of the reasons why most people buy high end arch tops, is that you believe most, if not all who do so . . . do so with the expectation that their playing or sound will improve exponentially. It also seems that you believe that all, or most will need to finance such an acquisition. Not so my verbose but articulate friend! Most just . . . write a check . . . without even having to think about it. Also, I believe that Mr. Barnum was referencing his and other's ability to convince the naive to do something or buy something that they otherwise would not have, or could have probably bought for much less.

Not so with those who choose to pay the price necessary to buy a high end arch top . . . with necessary being the functional rational. Those who want a high end arch top, most of them anyway, are not at all overly concerned that they might not recoup all of their money when they decide to sell it. They are also not at all concerned that less than $1,000 of the $30K represents the actual cost of the raw materials . . . and maybe $10K represents a fair compensation for the time/talent/skill/ that a master luthier puts into a build. The balance of the $30K represents . . . what the market will allow. If Bob . . . or any other builder, could charge and realize $100K for a custom built arch top . . . they would. All of them would. And . . . I'm sure that somewhere along the line, someone with more money than they know what to do with would buy one. Now, that disputes your other quote, from Menken. It does not necessarily require an absence of intelligence for someone to pay more than what others believe to be rational, to acquire something that they really want, can not buy for a lesser amount and can very easily afford to pay for.

[cjm]

Patrick, even if you casually write a $30K check from your mad money account, you have financed the purchase.

As to the rest, and as it relates either to "old guitars sounding better," or to the acquisition of new "high end" guitars (which begins, obviously in a price range tens of thousands less than the example of the $30K guitar) -- so long as the pricing is understood to be an example of art valuation rather than something based on intrinsic value, then I have no issue.You ignore the reality that much of the discussion at this and other web sites, as well as a lot of the talk around music stores and on a million bandstands through the decades has centered around the idea of sounding better through spending.

As it happens, I find refreshing honesty at Bob Benedetto's web site that is relevant to this thread as well as to the vast majority of discussions at this site. While there is some discussion of purely acoustic guitars, most of it involves an amplified jazz sound.

And while Bob Benedetto is most highly acclaimed for his solid wood carved archtops, and while he is happy to provide these models with his signature pickups, he never the less points prospective customers toward his far less expensive plywood guitars as offering superior performance as electric guitars. The carved models are all priced in the "5 figures" -- I believe about $6K is his most expensive plywood jazz box -- still not cheap by any means, but a damned sight less than the carved models.

... It does not necessarily require an absence of intelligence for someone to pay more than what others believe to be rational to acquire something that they really want, can not buy for a lesser amount and can very easily afford to pay for...

No, but it is an important clue as to the nature of the problem. Other tests will be required to determine the specific pathology.

[cjm]

Oh, and by the way...have you noticed that Benedetto now offers a payment plan?

Why would that be if most people just shell out the money from petty cash?

[Patrick2]

Patrick, even if you casually write a $30K check from your mad money account, you have financed the purchase.

As to the rest, and as it relates either to "old guitars sounding better," or to the acquisition of new "high end" guitars (which begins, obviously in a price range tens of thousands less than the example of the $30K guitar) -- so long as the pricing is understood to be an example of art valuation rather than something based on intrinsic value, then I have no issue.You ignore the reality that much of the discussion at this and other web sites, as well as a lot of the talk around music stores and on a million bandstands though the decades has centered around the idea of sounding better through spending.

As it happens, I find refreshing honesty at Bob Benedetto's web site that is relevant to this thread as well as to the vast majority of discussions at this site. While there is some discussion of purely acoustic guitars, most of it involves an amplified jazz sound.

And while Bob Benedetto is most highly acclaimed for his solid wood carved archtops, and while he is happy to provide these models with his signature pickups, he never the less points prospective customers toward his far less expensive plywood guitars as offering superior performance as electric guitars. The carved models are all priced in the "5 figures" -- I believe about $6K is his most expensive plywood jazz box -- still not cheap by any means, but a damned sight less than the carved models.

No, but it is an important clue as to the nature of the problem. Other tests will be required to determine the specific pathology.

While I guess you could make an argument that writing a check from a money market account would be financing such a purchase, by nature of foregoing any anticipated interest . . . the same could be said for virtually any purchase or expenditure. Then, one must get into the whole ROI discussion of . . . will the item being purchased, or the joy derived from owning it out weigh the anticipated interest? Let's not go there. We could have TOO MUCH fun with that one.

Also, NO . . . I am not ignoring any realities of any discussions. I'm just puzzled why you choose to point out . . . constantly . . . that one doesn't need to spend money for expensive things, when they can get something suitable for less. I seem to remember you weighing in on a conversation surrounding guitar/amp cables (or something like that) as well. It's apparent that you consider your guitars to be tools of the trade. I admire that and I envy you for it. While I do still play . . occasionally . . . I no longer gig and I doubt that I ever will in the future. So, mine and others like me, motivating factor for acquiring these expensive guitars, is as you say . . an appreciation of the statements of art, craftsmanship, quality that they are. Even more than that . . . it's an indulgence for many of us. (it's also an incurable sickness) But, you'll never convince me . . . and some of my collector buddies, that these high end arch tops have no intrinsic value.

It's obvious that you and I enjoy the civil and friendly banter. So, I fully understand and expect that you'll continue to point out that it is crazy to buy an expensive guitar, as it relates to seeking better performance. I, on the other hand will continue to respond that most of us do realize that.

[Patrick2]

Oh, and by the way...have you noticed that Benedetto now offers a payment plan?

Why would that be if most people just shell out the money from petty cash?

It's obvious that you are a guitarist . . . but not a business man .. . as is the case with MANY guitarists. Take a wild uneducated stab at guessing the answer to the question you ask. In today's economy, his guitars are not selling like the proverbial hot cakes . . . at his exhorbitent price points. Would he be offering a payment plan if his business was thriving with just his affluent cash customers? There is a builder out on the left coast. . . Mark Lacey . . . who makes guitars that are equal to Bob Benedetto's in every way. In years past, better economic conditions, you couldn't even have a conversation with Mark about certain of his guitars for under under $25K. Also his wait times were some 24 months. He will now negotiate price and get a guitar to you in around 8 months.

I expect that when Benedetto's payment plan concept fails . . . and it will fail . . . he'll continue to scale back on his over head (employees) and drop his prices. Like everything else, price points are market driven. To your point in a prior post, his focus is now more so on the less expensive laminate guitars. That's not just because they perform better in a live loud setting. They're far less labor intensive and provide higher margins of profit during times when he can't easily get the $30K for his more crafted instruments.

I will PM you with an invoice for the consultative business acumen imparted in the above post. And, by the way . . . I offer no payment plan!!!

[oldane]

... so long as the pricing is understood to be an example of art valuation rather than something based on intrinsic value

I agree. Actually, I believe that there is very little in the market (any market, not just guitars) that is NOT valuated on the principles of "art valuation". I have yet to see something sold solely on the basis of intrinsic value. People simply charge what they can get away with. In the stock market, there are two ways of trying to predict the future development of the market: Fundamental analysis and technical analysis. The first tries to asess the intrinsic value of stocks, while technical analysis tries asess the future pricing by applying a statistical approach, based on the previous behavior of the market. The fundamental analysts are very often proven wrong in their assesments and when that happens, they claim that the market moves are "not fair", but that's because they completely bypass the concept of market psychology in their analysis. That market psychology is also at play when we deal with guitars and guitar makers (just think about the "Stratmania" a couple of decades ago).

In his book "Making an Archtop Guitar", Bob Bendetto states in the business chapter, that the right price is the price the market will bear. He also states that a new, unknown guitar maker may have to work for a very low hourly wage in the begining. If he insists on a "normal" hourly wage, his career as a guitar maker may end right there. On the other hand, the well established maker can charge a lot and can make a very good hourly wage. A few years ago, Tom Painter charged around $1700 for his hand made instruments. Now he is more well known and charges $3500 - slightly below Sadowsky guitars (maybe his closest competitor in the jazz guitar market?).

Oh, and by the way...have you noticed that Benedetto now offers a payment plan?

I guess his customers - and himself through them - feels the effect of the finansial crisis.

[cjm]

While I guess you could make an argument that writing a check from a money market account would be financing such a purchase, by nature of foregoing any anticipated interest . . . the same could be said for virtually any purchase or expenditure. Then, one must get into the whole ROI discussion of . . . will the item being purchased, or the joy derived from owning it out weigh the anticipated interest? Let's not go there. We could have TOO MUCH fun with that one.

And of course, I did mention that Benedetto offers a payment plan...which doesn't make sense if most of his customers are just pulling a little out of a money market account. It would make more sense, from the standpoint of buyer/seller protection, to simply pay 10% down at the time of order, and place the remaining 90% in escrow payable upon completion and acceptance.

A payment plan suggests that guitarists of considerably lesser means may be attempting to acquire some of these guitars for reasons other than the desire to possess something "unique."

Also, NO . . . I am not ignoring any realities of any discussions. I'm just puzzled why you choose to point out . . . constantly . . . that one doesn't need to spend money for expensive things, when they can get something suitable for less.

Well, it puzzles me why you react -- in a thread posing the question of whether or not archtop guitars sound better with age -- to my observation that there is a for profit business model that relies on reinforcing the notion that old guitars sound better. (And a business model that I compared to another one based on an over-valuation of certain new guitars, if intrinsic value is considered part of the equation.)

But, you'll never convince me . . . and some of my collector buddies, that these high end arch tops have no intrinsic value.

I certainly never said these guitars have no intrinsic value. I do say there is little or no connection between the monetary valuation and the intrinsic value...and this is relevant to either a discussion of older "high end" guitars or contemporary "high end" guitars.

It's obvious that you and I enjoy the civil and friendly banter.

I very much enjoy discussing this (and occasionaly de-railing threads) with you.

So, I fully understand and expect that you'll continue to point out that it is crazy to buy an expensive guitar, as it relates to seeking better performance. I, on the other hand will continue to respond that most of us do realize that.

I actually don't think it is "crazy" for you and your fellow collectors to spend righteous backpocket money on jazz boxes...you can afford it and it's fun.

But I do contend, and will probably continue to point out, for the benefit of a "demographic" that actually DOES represent the bulk of the interest in "vintage," and "high end" guitars -- new or old...and whether or not these players represent most of the buying power -- that what they seek is illusory.

So to return to the OP's question: A 55 year old L5CES is an old archtop, and fairly expensive. A brand new Sadowsky LS-17, also fairly expensive but less than the 55 year old L5CES, probably sounds better in most applications...and a plethora of other imported, and even less expensive, Asian archtops will sound about the same as the Sadowsky after the pickup is upgraded and a better bridge is fitted.

[cjm]

It's obvious that you are a guitarist . . . but not a business man .. . as is the case with MANY guitarists.

The obvious is not always so obvious.

Inoperable cancer caused my early retirement from MY business in the communications industry. Today, I live on SSDI and equity from the business. Until that recent retirement, I hadn't worked for anyone but myself since 1984. Not a representative, not an account executive, etc. It was a small business. Never had more than 13 full time employees, but it was a business, and I therefore qualify as a "businessman."

Maybe a damned poor businessman, but that's something else...

Music has been primarily an avocation and an escape from business. I don't gig as much today as I used to, because I don't have all that much energy.

And while I am a guitarist and bass player, it can certainly be argued that I am a damned poor guitarist and bass player...maybe worse as a musician than as a businessman.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

[Patrick2]

And of course, I did mention that Benedetto offers a payment plan...which doesn't make sense if most of his customers are just pulling a little out of a money market account. It would make more sense, from the standpoint of buyer/seller protection, to simply pay 10% down at the time of order, and place the remaining 90% in escrow payable upon completion and acceptance.

A payment plan suggests that guitarists of considerably lesser means may be attempting to acquire some of these guitars for reasons other than the desire to possess something "unique."

Well, it puzzles me why you react -- in a thread posing the question of whether or not archtop guitars sound better with age -- to my observation that there is a for profit business model that relies on reinforcing the notion that old guitars sound better. (And a business model that I compared to another one based on an over-valuation of certain new guitars, if intrinsic value is considered part of the equation.)

I certainly never said these guitars have no intrinsic value. I do say there is little or no connection between the monetary valuation and the intrinsic value...and this is relevant to either a discussion of older "high end" guitars or contemporary "high end" guitars.
I very much enjoy discussing this (and occasionaly de-railing threads) with you.
I actually don't think it is "crazy" for you and your fellow collectors to spend righteous backpocket money on jazz boxes...you can afford it and it's fun.

But I do contend, and will probably continue to point out, for the benefit of a "demographic" that actually DOES represent the bulk of the interest in "vintage," and "high end" guitars -- new or old...and whether or not these players represent most of the buying power -- that what they seek is illusory.

So to return to the OP's question: A 55 year old L5CES is an old archtop, and fairly expensive. A brand new Sadowsky LS-17, also fairly expensive but less than the 55 year old L5CES, probably sounds better in most applications...and a plethora of other imported, and even less expensive, Asian archtops will sound about the same as the Sadowsky after the pickup is upgraded and a better bridge is fitted.

I really wish I knew how you guys do that multi-quoting thing man. All of my attempts have been crash and burn . . . . that's why I did the red type font earlier.

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.

Now, regarding your health challenges, I wish you the best in your battle with that monster. It's a rude reminder that we're all mere mortals. There are very few things in life more important than good jazz guitars and good jazz guitar music. Health is certainly one of them. If you're a man of religion . . . keep your faith in your God.

[cjm]

Now, regarding your health challenges, I wish you the best in your battle with that monster. It's a rude reminder that we're all mere mortals. There are very few things in life more important than good jazz guitars and good jazz guitar music. Health is certainly one of them. If you're a man of religion . . . keep your faith in your God.

Oh that...no worries. I only mentioned it to illustrate why for the past 18 months I have not been a businessman, per se. Former businessman, yes. Retired businessman, yes.

I mean, I've occasionally expressed a viewpoint interpreted by some as politically liberal (and while I am, that has nothing to do with anything regarding guitars) that has also been assumed to mean that my life has been entirely isolated from the realities of semi-pure Smithsonian economics...and that this means I cannot appreciate the motivations of upper class and upper middle class collectors...and that suggestions of arbitrary pricing policies are "un-American."

Once again, to return to the OP's question: I admit it is at least possible that old guitars sound better. It cannot be disproven because it is not possible to do a side-by-side comparison of a guitar when it is brand new, and the same guitar when it is 70 years old.

Failed memory, expectations and pure imagination CAN account for as much as tone woods "opening up" over decades, however.

But in the general context of jazz guitar, it's mostly goat plop anyway, because most "jazz guitar" is amplified jazz guitar and the wood's primary contribution to amplified sound is in "shaping" the notes through "attack" and sustain/decay rather than "lush" tone.

[skiboyny]

So for sake of argument lets say I'm not interested in the money part. (Lets just say!) Could you find a brand new L5CES that sounds as good as the 55 year old one? How about from a builder?

So to return to the OP's question: A 55 year old L5CES is an old archtop, and fairly expensive. A brand new Sadowsky LS-17, also fairly expensive but less than the 55 year old L5CES, probably sounds better in most applications...and a plethora of other imported, and even less expensive, Asian archtops will sound about the same as the Sadowsky after the pickup is upgraded and a better bridge is fitted.