-
As a pro, I wouldn't buy any musical equipment that wouldn't pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time. As a result, I rarely pay a ton of money for instruments, since so often the extra bread doesn't justify itself. After owning L5s, L7s, 175s, Guilds, Epis, etc., I finally found my ideal archtop, and it was $700 brand new. There is almost nothing important about a brand name, except resale value.
-
07-16-2014 01:25 PM
-
Thank goodness I don't follow that rule, or I'd be playing with rubber bands and an empty cereal box.
Originally Posted by ronjazz
-
Originally Posted by ronjazz
More often than not, the brand name is consistent with the resale value. A couple of examples; there are quite a few D'Angelicos that were made decades ago . . many of which are in deteriorated condition as related to both appearance and playability. Yet, because they're D'As the resale value is in some cases 10X what the original cost was when it was new. Now, the other side of the coin; there are countless superb examples of used/pre-owned Heritage Golden Eagles and Super Eagles that can't even bring 50% of what they cost new.
How much of that $700 you spent on your guitar would you expect to recoup on a resale as a used guitar?
If someone purchased a Gibson L5CES brand new 10 years ago for the approximate $6,000 that it might have cost at that time . . and gigged with it 4 or 5 nights a week, every week, for the duration of that 10 years . . and kept it in reasonably good condition, they could probably get $5,000 for if if they resold it in today's market conditions. That's a residual value of almost 85% . . plus the joy of owning and gigging an L5CES for a decade . . which is difficult to put a price on.
To equaly that, you'd need to sell your $700 guitar used for approximately $600. I'm not quite sure you'd be able to do that if the same guitar could be purchase brand new for only $100 more.
A Gibson L5CES holds is value as well as, or better than almost any other production built arch top guitar in the world.
-
I agree. The finish on the '97 L5 and my '96 LP Custom are gorgeous, as are the photos that you, Patrick2 and Danny W posted. Even my '03 ES175 has beautiful tiger stripes. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
From a purely aesthetically point of view, I like simple, plain, looking guitars the best. RE Brune, Benedetto, Comins, Traphagen, make some of the most beautiful instruments I've seen. I've never been crazy about the burst-colors, although the violin-burst is a sexy look.
I think you have to buy for feel, sound, and inspiration, and if you find all three but still have to take an ugly girl/boy to the prom, so be it.
By way of closing this discussion out, I do appreciate all the discussion and shared photos. I think that I now have the factory, fixed pickup guitars covered, as I cant imagine finding any better than what I have now.
Please standby 2 to 4 years for my "Contemplating a floating p/u archtop" post.
Cheers and happy playing.
-
You're absolutely correct that certain brands have good resale value. I am uncomfortable with the assertions on some forums that because an inexpensive Asian (or Canadian) guitar can be set up to play well for a certain user, then it is somehow equivalent to a very expensive brand name guitar. This exists on a case by case basis. I have a few Korean instruments that, after a set up, some fret work, and a pick-up swap, are useable for professional work, but they in no way approach the sound, feel, and playability of a good Gibson or Guild guitar. If a player feels that the $700 guitar meets all of his criteria, that's great, but it's a subjective judgement of what suites one particular player. Suggesting that a certain criteria is universal, and that a decent $700 guitar is equivalent to a professional-level instrument is unsupported ... it's only as good as the higher quality instrument for the individual making that claim, not for all the other thousands of players who notice the difference and demand it for their own use. Originally Posted by Patrick2
I have a feeling that, collectors aside, most good players pick an instrument largely for it's playability and sound. Gibson, for example, is world famous and respected because nearly all their guitars meet or exceed an established level of quality. It's understandable that there are players who are satisfied with an inexpensive import guitar, but that is a small subset of professional players. I know a few of them, but most have nice handmades or Gibsons at home, and take the Ibanez, Eastman, Epiphone to gigs to preserve the "mint" condition of their prize collector quality guitar at home. Different strokes.
-
2b finds the QC comment mystifying - But while having heard it a few times before, I've never experienced said issues with some 15 or so Heritage archtops. Either I'm lucky...knock on wood...or the occasional QC comments are much overblown. They can't both be true. Originally Posted by GoergeBenson
Used GE prices, on this side of the pond, on average, hover around the $3k mark. There's one on feebay at the moment for $2k...ridiculously low.
Having begun my serious archtop acquisitions with a X-500, I don't put it in the same category of a GE...not even close in my personal experience. But let's face it, the GE's, SE's, are the only quality built archtop that I know of that gets the least respect. And as such, that fact effects their resale value. Which, I'm not complaining, for their the finest reasonably affordable all carved archtop built anywhere...in my experience, of course.
-
IMO, All current small factory quality built archtops with the letters H, E, and R in their names get equally little respect on the resale market. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
-
I've owned five of them and all had significant issues. Haven't had any interest in them since. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
Danny W.
-
Really. I guess I've had clean living. Originally Posted by Danny W.
-
Yeah . . you've been lucky. But, you've also purchased wisely. There have indeed been some goofy mishaps that slipped by the final inspection and were shipped out when they should have been caught and corrected. Some of the screw-ups were actually so bad . . you'd have to scratch your head and wonder how the hell it wasn't caught. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
But, having represented them for a few years . . and having been in the plant many many times . . as well as talking to buyers and players of Heritage guitars from many different areas of the USA . . the vast majority of the arch tops they've been putting out for the past 6 or 7 years have been as good as any other production company's arch top guitar and better than many. I've currently got 12 of them. Not a single issue with any of them. I have owned and resold a few that did have some minor issues. But, all were easily resolved.
I think the current crew at Heritage is probably the best they've ever had. One has only to look at the GE that Frank of Germany recently got . . or my Super Golden Eagle, or Jim Soloway's H575 Custom. I'd have absolutely no problem what so ever with commissioning a new build from them again. But, if I do ever get another guitar custom built for me . . I've committed to Mark Campellone that it's going to be one of his. He's assured me that I can't talk him into building me an 18" arch top. We'll just have to see about that!! ;-)
-
Own or have owned 9 Heritage Archtops and have had zero significant problems with any of them. Hope I never do.
-
Ive seen 5 Heritage in the Uk, all had the binding on the back at the cutaway coming lose with about a half inch gap, the binding in general being cracked all over. 2 Sweet 16's I have seen with really sunken tops and I just remember back about 10 years when they where really coming out and people seemed to be moaning. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
Even Elderly Instruments (or Archtop.com) I think said something about the early ones being prone to fretboard lifting.
Anyway, I haven't seen such comments for a while so I'm guessing things got under control (unless I was given the false impression they weren't ion the first place).
:-)
-
Heritage, the ugly duckling that turned into a...turkey.
And I love turkey but it is what it is.
Heritage takes all the best bits from Gibson and somehow manages to put them all together wrong. I also have strabismus, amblyopia and a jaundiced eye.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 07-17-2014 at 07:05 AM.
-
This may be the most absurd statement I have ever read in this forum. To each his own I guess. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
Well . . . ya just haven't read too many of the posts authored by a couple of these guys. There are indeed some which do go beyond the absurdity of the one you quoted from . . . and that one is so absurd you'd think it was hard to top! Originally Posted by Drifter
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
As much as I would like to add one of the new Gibson L5 Premiers to my collection ... I'm also very interested in a Campellone .... I already have a few Gibson archtops, it would be nice to try something else just for the fun of it
I came really really close to ordering from Campellone ... but I wanted to order an 18" and he tried so hard to talk me into a 17" that I never ordered anything ....
Maybe he just doesn't do 18" guitars any more
And I have an early 90s Sweet 16 that has been excellent ... no serious problems ... other than it has seen a lot of gigs and shows it
-
You and your 'clean living' prey do tell the secret :-)) Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
Really. I guess I've had clean living.
-
I get Heritage isn't everyone's cup of tea. But 5 out of 5 with issues? I mean what years were those guitars, 1985-1990?
My earliest model was a 1994 GE.
A '94 Golden Eagle sold yesterday for $2600 and change. That's not uncommon, but a grand under a used Campellone Standard?
I've owned a Deluxe. If someone offered to trade their Deluxe for my current GE I'd not do that trade. The GE is just that good.
Yeah, I get the bias...and some folks are simply Gibson fanatics. That's kewl. But if you're a new buyer contemplating a GE, reading this thread, I'd recommend not allowing its contents influence you in the least.
I mean c'mon folks....some of you are way over the top.
-
I've played guitars from Gibson, Heritage, and Campellone that did not make an impression on me at all. Put them down in 30 seconds. Yes, Gibson was the first name I mentioned.
I have obviously played many more Gibsons than the other two brands, and as they are the most historically significant brand among the three - which I appreciate on a separate level - I've found numerous of them that I love.
However I would never infer from my experiences that Heritage or Campellone guitars are not as good as Gibsons. First of all, I consider that kind of broad stroke judgment to be a bit unsophisticated, so I wouldn't make it. Second, I simply haven't had the chance to sample a large enough pool of guitars by those other makers. I'd be happy to of course.
In my opinion, if you have to criticize something in order to praise something, it shows you to be less of a connoisseur than you probably think you are. I eat filet mignon AND burgers... drink vinho verde AND Barolo (wit beer AND stout). It's always more fun to have an appreciation for more variety in life rather than less.
-
[QUOTE=rpguitar;443293]I've played guitars from Gibson, Heritage, and Campellone that did not make an impression on me at all. Put them down in 30 seconds. Yes, Gibson was the first name I mentioned.
I have obviously played many more Gibsons than the other two brands, and as they are the most historically significant brand among the three - which I appreciate on a separate level - I've found numerous of them that I love.
However I would never infer from my experiences that Heritage or Campellone guitars are not as good as Gibsons. First of all, I consider that kind of broad stroke judgment to be a bit unsophisticated, so I wouldn't make it. Second, I simply haven't had the chance to sample a large enough pool of guitars by those other makers. I'd be happy to of course.
In my opinion, if you have to criticize something in order to praise something, it shows you to be less of a connoisseur than you probably think you are.
Ahhh . . . Barolo! I love it almost as much as Amarone. In my opinion, the very best Barolo from Piedmont is at least equivalent to the very best Burgundy, from . . well . . Burgundy! If you haven't tried the '08 Vietti Rocche . . you're missing a great one. Not an every day Barolo as it's on the pricey side at approx $90 per bottle. The Pio Cesari Barolo is a great every day Barolo at less than half the cost.I eat filet mignon AND burgers... drink vinho verde AND Barolo
I try to explain that to my wife every time I buy another arch top . . or look at another fine woman. But, she just ain't buyin'.It's always more fun to have an appreciation for more variety in life rather than less.
Check your PM. I want to run something buy you regarding a home made CD I have of Vinny Corrao and Tal in a duo setting . . . and getting it up on either this forum . . or on youtube with a link up on this forum to the youtube video.
-
Just to back up a bit, I believe the OP was asking about the L5's sound(?) I had the impression he was trying to ask if L5's have a unique voice(?)
My thoughts here have nothing to do with monitery value, tradition, aesthetics, pride, etc
Just something to keep in mind: You were originally intending to buy the Sadowsky, which is a maple lam top. The L5 is solid carved spruce, a different kind of instrument.
Now, a two-part question for you to ponder:
What role was the maple lam Sadowsky needed to fill that your other guitars do not?
Would a carved spruce L5 fill that same need?
I have played many L5s and owned two. Never a Sadowsky. I am under the impression the the Sadowsky is built more for practical stage performance. (Lower fb threshold?) Is that something that is a concern of yours?
-
Archtop guitars have evolved over time. The trend has been to (1) originally provide an acoustic instrument that could replace the tenor banjo in jazz orchestras. The 1920s 16" Gibson L-5 admirably did this job, providing MUCH more acoustic drive and volume than was possible from any flat top guitar of the era. Essentially ALL banjo players of the era jumped on the bandwagon and made the switch to the L-5. Quickly, Epiphone and others provided an alternative to the L-5 and competition was provided on bandstands. Gibson responded by bringing out the 17" and 18" acoustic models. The 17" L-5 became the iconic model in jazz guitar. (2) With the addition of pickups, it was no longer necessary to provide such massive acoustic volume as previously. This moved the archtop market towards models with thicker tops, then laminated construction. The great Gibson ES-350, originally supplied with a single pickup, 25.5" scale, gold hardware, and a full-depth body, was essentially a laminated L-5 and sold for about the same price. Top guitarists like Barney Kessel and Tal Farlow adopted it quickly. (The Tal Farlow model is a decorative customization of the 350, per Tal's specifications.) (3) Much of the jazz market, by the 50s, gravitated to the Gibson ES-175 due to the lack of need for a purely acoustic tone and due to the smaller 16" body size. (4) In the 40s, 50s, and 60s many top jazz guitarists (especially in New York) preferred their custom-made variations on the L-5/Super-400 formulas, e.g., the D'Angelico Excel and New Yorker models (used by Johnny Smith, Kenny Burrell, Grant Green, etc.) Fitted with floating pickups, the tone of these guitars was almost as iconic as the sound of the Gibson archtops during the period of small-group jazz. (5) WES: Wes Montgomery strode through the 60s re-popularizing the sound of jazz guitar. Although Tony Mottola, Herb Ellis, Barney Kessel, and Howard Roberts would have disagreed, Wes Montgomery nearly carried jazz guitar music--as an industry--around on his back during the decade of the 1960s. Wes was strongly associated with the L-5C with an added pickup. (6) Fusion and beyond--including the school movement. By the late-60s the jazz guitar became associated with the jazz fusion movement. Fusing jazz and rock brought other than archtops into the mix, although Larry Coryell hit the scene playing his Super 400 masterfully. Withal, Gibson's ES-175 and L-5 remained solid choices with jazz (and other) players.
How, therefore, can any of us NOT be affected when we see or pick up a L-5CES, WES, or other example? They play very well. They sound...well they sound exactly like L-5 guitars. Other guitars sound, to a greater or lesser extent, like them. Finally, they look absolutely like a JAZZ guitar. Immediately, one sees the great, unbroken chain of players from Eddie Lang, to early Herb Ellis (before he was given a 175 to play with OP), to Wes Montgomery, to Grant Geissman and Tuck Andress. There are many, many excellent jazz archtops--which have been mentioned in this thread. However, the fame of the Gibson L-5 is surely assured, at this point, as is the Martin D-28, the Gibson F-5 mandolin, or the Gibson Les Paul and Fender Telecaster.
-
^ good and accurate post.
guys like the aforementiond Kessel and Ellis were deeply entrenched in the studios in the 60s, the bulk of their recorded output cut in the late 50s, so yes, Wes dominated the 60s as far as jazz guitar recordings go, w/Martino, Benson and Roberts bringing up the rear.
one tiny correction, the early 350's were the same scale length as an L-5, 25 1/2"Last edited by wintermoon; 07-17-2014 at 04:41 PM.
-
Well put Greentone.
I may not play my 01' wine red Wes l-5 very often but I can sleep at night knowing I have it.
Rick
-
I don't know what a great guitar is but I will know it when I play it.
When I was a young man I met this older guy who was trying to teach me the "finer aspects of living". The fact that he was gay and was trying to hit on me is rather ancillary to the story. Anyway, he brought out this green bottle with an old crusty label, some Chateau Margaux or whatever, snd with some ceremony popped the cork. He used words that sounded like "grand crew" and "terror" to me. So, he let it sit a bit, poured me a finger's thickness into a goblet, (Zwiesel? Schott? I don't recall.) told me to swish it a bit and take a sip. I dutifully did as I was told.
So, how does it taste?, he beamed at me. Turpentine, burnt rubber like liquorice and something fruity like rotten raspberries, I said. He seemed quite impressed and let on, "That's a $300 bottle." (It was the early 80s.) $300. Why would anybody pay $300 for a taste of hardware store turps, rotten supermarket berries and liquorice scraped off the pavement?
I never got to learn anymore lessons in the finer aspects of living from him. I also told him that I really like women, even hirsute ones who could use some depilation. And that the only kinda fudge I liked I bought from Marks and Spencer.
What I mean to say is this, connoisseurship is really lost on me. But I know what I like when I play it.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 07-17-2014 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos