-
i would question whether you actually get 5-10% increase in quality. Depends on what you mean by quality.
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Yes, you might get fancy pickguards, inlays, tailpieces, pretty wood, truss rod covers, etc. Is that a 10% increase in quality? What increase in tonal quality will you get? If like me, you worship the tones of guys like Wes, Grant Green, George Benson, Pat Martino then i'm wondering how you improve over that? They all played guitars that were fresh off the shelves. Some purchased on limited budgets. After spending $5k-$10k on that archtop will it sound better than those guys? Probably not.
IMO, of course. If you have special needs and want something like a headless archtop made out of carbon fiber, than you're not going to get it from an off the shelf instrument but if all you're doing is picking out woods and specifying neck carve, for me personally - i don't get it.
-
02-16-2014 10:10 AM
-
Build Quality: This relates to the quality of the materials of construction used, skill level of the craftsman and how features have been executed or have been tailored to a client player's needs. The last 5-10% in quality costing a disproportionate amount is not a new subject, nor is it unique to guitars. The asymptote of quality does lie somewhere in better made factory instruments, but the quality goes beyond ornamentation, it goes down to the wood that is used and how it is worked.
As you know well, guitars are more than about "tone". They are about feel and playing comfort. For example, I wanted a smaller 16" instrument for back comfort; I wanted a more active top for a player with a light touch because I play both acoustically and at low amplified volumes; I wanted a shorter 25" scale to facilitate long chord stretches with my average sized hands; I wanted a thicker neck profile to minimize hand cramping. These are not about ornamentation but are core to the construction of the instrument.
Tone: An inherently subjective topic that is always confounded with the talents if the player. All of those players you listed are/were great talents. Would they sound bad playing a custom instrument? I think not. Many of today's great players do choose to play luthier made instruments. Inversely, they would sound great playing a factory guitar as well. Tone chasing is a bit of a fools game.
Originally Posted by jzucker
Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 02-16-2014 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Spelling
-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have no problems with build quality of the gibsons and heritages assuming you weed out the ones with obvious flaws. I know plenty of stories of hand-made, boutique instruments gone bad and I wouldn't be surprised if the hit/miss ratio was in favor of the factory made instruments. And yes, I agree quality is about more than tone but i also believe comfort is a highly exaggerated "need". After all, guys have been playing their gibsons and guilds and gretches for years. Again, I believe there are instruments out there that are already made that can satisfy anyone's comfort but if you're the sort of guy that needs to drive a Porsche, than that will translate to a desire to have a custom made instrument that has all the appointments that will be impressive when put in an array surrounding the couch.
But seriously, other than vintage d'angelico instruments can you point to an example of a boutique guitar that sounds decidedly better than wes, grant green, george benson or pat metheny playing factory instruments? That's the bottom line to me. And I think the answer is clear. YOU CAN'T.
The purchase of an expensive, boutique guitar is a luxury item. The folks that buy them are the same folks that feel the need to buy an $80k car. If you have the bread, I have no problem with it. Everyone has the right to buy and play what motivates them and inspires them.
The only problem I have is when folks attempt to justify it by saying they sound better or are better quality because IMO, there is no proof or justification for that!
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
-
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Sorry, I am confused. The second contradicts the first. Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
-
i don't think they violated a US law, did they? And the exporting country wasn't interested in the law's enforcement either, they were happy to export the wood as is without worrying about the protectionist clauses designed to benefit workers. That's what I've heard. Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian
is that what happeneD?
-
Let me TRY to answer some of your points.
Yes, we will indeed just have to disagree on this one. I think our perceptions and understandings are driven by different experience bases.
Who are you to be the arbiter of a need being "highly exaggerated"? Those are your value judgements. Of course one can play a standard model guitar. I did for decades. But after making the switch, to me it has been worth it.
I think that you are confounding great players of the past with the instruments that they played. I have no idea how they would sound with a luthier made instrument and neither do you. This is the inverse of your unanswerable "YOU CAN'T" argument. How the great players that you cite sounded was a combination of the player, their amp and recording.
You are also discussing the subject of sounding "better" which is a never ending "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow subject. You are the only person talking about "tone" in our conversation. I never mentioned it. I have opinions, likes and dislikes like any player but it is totally subjective. The subject of "tone" is your specialty and I will leave that topic to you to discuss, demo etc.
For the record, I have driven a Honda exclusively for the last 27 years...
Originally Posted by jzucker
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I have no problems with build quality of the gibsons and heritages assuming you weed out the ones with obvious flaws. I know plenty of stories of hand-made, boutique instruments gone bad and I wouldn't be surprised if the hit/miss ratio was in favor of the factory made instruments. And yes, I agree quality is about more than tone but i also believe comfort is a highly exaggerated "need". After all, guys have been playing their gibsons and guilds and gretches for years. Again, I believe there are instruments out there that are already made that can satisfy anyone's comfort but if you're the sort of guy that needs to drive a Porsche, than that will translate to a desire to have a custom made instrument that has all the appointments that will be impressive when put in an array surrounding the couch.
But seriously, other than vintage d'angelico instruments can you point to an example of a boutique guitar that sounds decidedly better than wes, grant green, george benson or pat metheny playing factory instruments? That's the bottom line to me. And I think the answer is clear. YOU CAN'T.
The purchase of an expensive, boutique guitar is a luxury item. The folks that buy them are the same folks that feel the need to buy an $80k car. If you have the bread, I have no problem with it. Everyone has the right to buy and play what motivates them and inspires them.
The only problem I have is when folks attempt to justify it by saying they sound better or are better quality because IMO, there is no proof or justification for that!
-
Not really...
One has to do with satisfying a players very specific tonal goals and the other has to do with a player who has more open goals and is considering guitar options at a particular price point.
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
Uh-huh... Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
-
An interesting (and civil) dialog . . mostly between just two forumites . . so, I'll crash the party. (uh-oh! So much for civility)
I think that both Jack and iiv7 are making equally valid points here. The problem is that they'll never totally agree. Because each is trying to explain [and justify] very individualized (to themselves) positions on a matter that will vary from person to person.
iiv7 stated that "chasing tone is a bit of a fools game". Yeah . . well, it's sometimes about the hunt. When we were teens, were we all not fools for chasing that elusive dance in the sheets with the most beautiful "chick" out there? Some of us got that dance . . most didn't. But, the chase was fantastic. However, I would agree that chasing perfection in tone to one's expectations is indeed a challenge. When does one say . . "this isn't exactly what I had in mind . . but, it's pretty damned close and I'll settle for it".?
Jack seems to be in quite a quandary. It seems to me that Jack has pretty much determined exactly what he wants in a guitar . . and exactly what he doesn't want . . and he has a hard time compromising on either. Certainly can't take issue with that. Such a person would normally be an ideal candidate for a custom build. The problem is (as I see it) that Jack also doesn't have a great deal of confidence in being able to get exactly what he wants out of a custom build either. He is also unwilling to compromise on that exactness as well. Also understandable. So, Jack is left with three choices; A: either continue the search for something that's already out there which meets his stringent requirements . . B: take the leap of faith necessary to trust a luthier/builder to deliver his exact desires . . or C: compromise his very demanding and exact expectations for and from a guitar.
I don't sense that Jack is the "C" type of a personality. I also don't see Jack willing to take that leap of faith necessary to commission a new build. This is unfortunate, because I could pretty much guarantee Jack's satisfaction with a new build from Heritage . . much as I did with Frank from Germany on that beautiful blond Golden Eagle "Wes" styled guitar . . and also as I did with Jim Soloway on his long scale H575. This is not meant as a plug for Heritage. I no longer realize any form of compensation for my involvement with bringing new builds to them.
Jack has a distinct advantage over both Frank and Jim Soloway. Frank is from Germany . . Jim from western Canada. Jack, (I think) is from the mid west, somewhere within driving distance to the Heritage plant. I would be able to help Jack in attaining the same level of personal interaction with Marv and Jim Duerloo . . each masters in their own right . . as I did with Jim. Jim Soloway spoke with Marv, Jim Duerloo and Rendall Wall quite frequently throughout the build. I haven't seen a posting from Jim S. yet, on his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the guitar. But, I'd bet a swift kick in the ass in Macy's window (wow, I haven't used that saying in a long time . . forgot just how stupid it sounds) that Jim will be elated with the results. Jack's advantage of proximity would allow me to arrange for him to be standing right next to Marv Lamb as he rolls and profiles the neck, before attaching it to the box. Jack would also be able to dictate the thickness of the top as well as the bracing. In that Marv Lamb and Jim Duerloo personally built (or had a major hand in building) many of the L5 guitars that came out of the Gibson plant, if he wanted them to replicate the spec's that gave the L5 it's signature tone . . they'd do it for him.
iiv7 seems to be much more like myself. Faith in a builder and in the building process . . then, learn to live with any aspect of the build which might not have meet expectations to the degree of absolute perfection. I've had 6 arch tops and 3 solid bodies custom built for me. There are things on each of the 9 guitars that I could point to, that I would have liked to be slightly different than they are. But, just like when a child is born . . I've learned to love them dearly for what they are.
I'm not sure that any credible luthier/builder can screw up a build enough that the end product would be a total disaster, or even unacceptable to the point that a player . . even one with the advanced skills and talents of Jack Z. couldn't live with . . as long as [and this is very important] there is sufficient/frequent direct interaction between the customer and the builder. I'll give you a perfect example; I mentioned Frank from Germany. Being the gentleman that he is, Frank never mentioned how and why he asked me to get involved in his guitar build. I'll take the liberty of doing that now. . . hopefully Frank will forgive me. Frank ordered a guitar from a dealer in Germany. He ordered a Golden Eagle, single inset pup, antique natural finish and split block inlays in the finger board instead of cloud inlays. Frank was very specific in what he wanted, gave the dealer a significant deposit and trusted that the execution of his order would proceed without a hitch. Well, there was a miscommunication between the dealer, the Heritage rep who is responsible for international sales and the Heritage plant. . . and there was never any follow up communication between Frank, the dealer, the rep and Heritage. The order Heritage got, and the guitar they built and delivered, was a Golden Eagle, finished in almond sunburst, with a floating pup and cloud inlays. The only way that it could have been more wrong, would have been if Heritage built him a mandolin instead of a guitar. After Frank asked me to intervene, I stayed in contact with the Heritage plant throughout the build . . sometimes contacting them as frequently as twice a week. I even personally inspected and played the guitar before it was packaged and sent off to Frank. The end result not only met, but exceeded Frank's expectations.
Apologies for the long ramble. I'm almost reluctant to click on the "Post Quick Reply" button. lololol
-
Hump, what hump?
Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
Patrick2
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Kudos,
Bob
-
but you see Patrick, i have *ZERO* interest in dictating thicknesses of tops or bracings. I just want to play a guitar that's already built. I don't want to be locked into having paid for an instrument that I don't know how it's going to turn out. I don't care how good the build is. Wood is organic and every piece is different and despite all the voodoo and "tonewoods" talk out there, there is no guarantee a guitar is going to be great. And while I love my heritage and have owned 3 other great heritages I can tell you stories from half a dozen people who got heritage guitars with issues and I don't want to have $5k invested in a guitar in that kind of situation.
Frankly, in my situation I already had several great guitars which I sold to fund a photography business. I luckily got 2 of them back. The Eagle thinline and the Ibanez PM-120 and I also recently located an '80s 175 with mahogany back/sides which I will get to hear in a few days. For me, I'd rather go that route than buy a custom guitar and attempt to use my amateur knowledge to dictate the thickness of the top or what kind of inlays it should use. I frankly couldn't care less about that stuff other than in forming some generalized opinions of what I like and don't like.
And the story you tell is exactly the kind of nightmare I want to avoid. That would be a horror story for me and I'm afraid I'd call the "bad kharma" card and just ask for my money back.
I'm perfectly happy evaluating new instruments such as a headless carvin holdsworth or a sadowsky semihollow or a ribbeke halfling. There's no shortage of great instruments already out there. I guess i don't see the reason to bring a new child into the world, lol.
-
Jz - BS!
you are fixated on price and the superficial trappings of economic class.
-
Yeah, this is exactly true. I don't disagree at all with anything in your post above. You are having a whole bunch of fun continuing to audition various guitars. This is also allowing you to further develope your own very specific opinions, tastes, necessities . . etc. There's another guy here on this forum who is having just as much fun as you are . . and he too is further refining his very own specific opinions on what works for him and what doesn't. But, I won't mention his name. (hi 2b). Originally Posted by jzucker
Everyone's different. For me, I do love the hunt . . but I love the process of spec'ing the order of a new build, the follow up interaction and communication with the builder, the heightened anxiety as the guitar continues to get closer to completion, the initial introduction to the newly completed guitar . . I love that even more so than the hunt for what's right for me. I also find it easier to reject, out of hand, an existing guitar for its various and/or very minor "issues" . . than I would, and do with a new build. Having had new arch tops built for me that I've grown to love and find it impossible to ever part with . . I wonder if I came across some of those very same guitar as already existing guitars . . would I have rejected any of them for their very minor "issues"? I really don't know.
-
Originally Posted by jim dandy
Lots of discussion last night
.
Anyway, let's get back to Gibson L5s....
So does anyone know if Gibson will go back to ebony for L5s? Most of the new ones look like ebony, but I guess I need ask to make sure it is not laminated ebony, richlite, or rosewood.
For what it's worth, I've never read anything about laminated ebony fretboards but some time ago Gibson did point out that some of their guitars were to be the last ones with one-piece ebony boards.
http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Elec...-3-Pickup.aspx
While it's pretty obvious what that means I think that Gibson is always prone to unexpected changes, so in the end anything is possible. You would probably have to remove the nut of a guitar to check if the fretboard is laminated or one-piece.
Still I can't escape the impression that Gibson does not communicate laminated ebony boards like they did with laminated rosewood boards, which with hindsight I am sure they consider has been a mistake. Instead they communicated one-piece ebony boards being something very special. The Gibson marketing division is full of ideas.Last edited by Drifter; 02-16-2014 at 03:52 PM.
-
Concerns: I have *ZERO* interest in dictating thicknesses of tops or bracings. For me, I'd rather go that route than buy a custom guitar and attempt to use my amateur knowledge to dictate the thickness of the top or what kind of inlays it should use.
My Experience: A good luthier will not involve you in the decisions around those implementation details. They will watch you play, ask you about past likes and dislikes and talk to you about your goals for the instrument. They then interpret those inputs into those decisions. If you're interested, some may share there approach with the client.
Concern: Wood is organic and every piece is different and despite all the voodoo and "tonewoods" talk out there, there is no guarantee a guitar is going to be great.
My Experience: Wood is indeed organic and variable and factories with their production volumes work to specs on thicknesses based on averages whereas a good luthier can be more selective in choosing wood to use and bringing out of it what is needed to meet a player's goal. I agree with you about the variability but where I differ is how you increase the probability of success vs. the enlightened emperisism approach.
-
So… you're saying that it's… funny-looking? Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Oh yeah, I would imagine it would commonly be played by someone who looks like this:
Attachment 10660
or this, in a suit-and-tie-required event
Attachment 10661
PS Love good auld Marty Feldman. My childhood hero. Serious.
Last edited by Hammertone; 02-16-2014 at 05:32 PM.
-
Yeah Stephen . . that's pretty much what he's saying . . (duh . . . ) Originally Posted by Hammertone
But, "forgive him my father, for he knows not what he says". (I love quoting Jesus Christ. We have so much in common. From what I understand, he too listened to Rush Limbaugh)
I actually think that guitar is pretty damned hot looking!!! Now, on the other hand . . . . that black leather chair?? Well that's another issue.
-
Is this one also … funny-looking?
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
Damned nice looking guitar!! But, the position marker inlay at the first fret is bass-ackwards . . and I'm not a big fan of the natural wood looking head stock. Love the shading and the F holes though. I'd also prefer gold hardware.
-
f hole protruding so far into the soundboard is going to effect the vol, tone and bottom end IMO.
There's a reason most archtops share a similar design. It's hard to veer to far off without losing the attributes that draw you to an archtop in the first place. I like what Ribbecke and mcpherson are doing with the offset sound hole though.
p.s. the salesman at the store I tried out some archtops at this w/e said gold hardware is "gay"... (his terminology, not mine...)
-
No richlite here!
-
[QUOTE=jzucker;399706]f hole protruding so far into the soundboard is going to effect the vol, tone and bottom end IMO.
There's a reason most archtops share a similar design. It's hard to veer to far off without losing the attributes that draw you to an archtop in the first place. I like what Ribbecke and mcpherson are doing with the offset sound hole though.
That's more than likely because he's a total ass hole. Next time you see him . . feel free to quote me on that and give him my contact info . . just in case he wishes to discuss the matter further.p.s. the salesman at the store I tried out some archtops at this w/e said gold hardware is "gay"... (his terminology, not mine...)
-
[QUOTE=Patrick2;399709]
he was a hipster - TRANSLATION - Total fake Originally Posted by jzucker
-
Ha! Glad you noticed the inlay - amazing how many miss that. How about this one? Is it … funny-looking? Originally Posted by Patrick2
Last edited by Hammertone; 02-16-2014 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos