Guitar price vs value

[uburoibob]

Fumble, the idea of small houses producing deluxe Archtop guitars to take advantage of the demand and resultant pricing for vintage instruments IS modern and is a direct response to the vintage market driving prices up and creating a notion of romance about these guitars.

While D'Angelico was a small shop, his pricing was commensurate with Gibson, at the time, who was a factory. The Strombergs set out to compete with Gibson, but remained a small shop. Over the next 40 years or so, there were no shops that produced guitars that endeavored to recreate the quality and appointments that vintage guitars had and sell them for near or greater than vintage prices. That didn't really happen until the 80s. There was just no incentive. In the mid 70s, D'Angelico guitars were selling for less than $1000. D'Aquisto's new guitars were just that model, priced to sell at or greater than D'Angelico guitars. Flattop guitars set the model for this, being ahead of the vintage Archtop world by 15 years or so.

Wes, to spend the $450 street price for his guitar (and most likely, less) probably had to sacrifice a HUGE amount. Look at the number of guitarists who sold their vintage instruments, acquired for virtually nothing, comparatively, for large sums once the vintage craze started, just so they could eat. Just because an artist had, at the time, a guitar that has a much higher value now, doesn't indicated that they payed a lot for it.

I have owned my share of Super 400s, L5s, L7s, Epiphones, and more. Some were great guitars, most were average and a few were real dogs in terms of sound and playability. And as late as the mid 70s, if you wanted a new Les Paul, you had to add money to the trade if you had an Archtop - nobody wanted them. Yes, a Super 400 MAY have gone for $39,000 but the majority go for well under $10,000 these days. I sold my 1939 Blonde to David Grisman for $7,500 in 2008.

I have been dealing guitars and vintage guitars in earnest since the mid 1970s. Sometimes, Gibson was right on the bandwagon with their marketing and making sure artists had nice guitars so they could sell more. But that wasn't standard fare. And artists essentially made a living. Not many got rich enough to retire, which is why you still see them out on the road, well into their golden years.

I know that Benedetto had an accommodation program for artists, where some other boutique builders did not. But Benedetto is already an example of the small shop as response to the vintage market demand. That demand isn't so strong anymore. The prices hit a high awhile ago.

So, to rehash - great Archtop guitars went for not a lot of money back in those days, on the used market. When they were primarily unamplified instruments, they were needed for big band. Once the ability to amplify became available, they were in demand primarily because that is the style of guitar that was associated with jazz playing. But you see great jazz players using much less expensive solid body guitars starting in the 50s. The romance with Archtops is a direct result of the vintage market and of scarcity of originals. Same with other genres (witness Les Pauls with boutique builders, Gibson's now Historic series, etc).

My point is that it is the vintage market and the collectors with wads of cash that created the boutique builders market with guitars that routinely sell for prices commensurate with vintage guitars. And THAT is a recent development.

i am not sure how old you are, or if you were buying and selling guitars as long ago as the late 60s, but Archtops for jazz players back 'in the day' were always available for a pittance. Those escalated prices didn't come along until the notion of 'vintage' came along and gave reason for higher prices.

Or or so has been my experience as a player, buyer and seller since 1967 or so. Perhaps yours were different?

Bob

[2bornot2bop]

Wine lovers chase that exceptionally expensive 1/10 of 1% differential between wines.

So, if you're a wine, archtop, AND audio gear lover, man your whole life can be turned UPside down chasing rainbows!

[Greentone]

+1 2bornot2bop

The trifecta of impracticalities in life.

[Patrick2]

So, if you're a wine, archtop, AND audio gear lover, man your whole life can be turned UPside down chasing rainbows!

Yeah . . but, the chase is the fun! Collectors live for the chase. I still stop in virtually every pawn shop, garage sale or small music shop that I might find in an obscure village or town somewhere.

[SierraTango]

After purchasing my Benedetto, I'm drinking wine from a box for a while. However, it tastes just like a 1961 Chateau Margaux!

[Patrick2]

After purchasing my Benedetto, I'm drinking wine from a box for a while. However, it tastes just like a 1961 Chateau Margaux!

Maybe after you've completed the first "box" and started on another it tasted like the '61 Chateau Margaux? At that point, it really doesn't matter. lolol

[matt.guitarteacher]

If cost is indeed an overriding factor, that may well color your taste and predispose you to liking the cheaper thing better. Ultimately, it's all about whatever is right for you at whatever point in your life you are at.

I've found that the subtleties are where the focus ends up after you acquire a great deal of experience with something. Wine lovers chase that exceptionally expensive 1/10 of 1% differential between wines. In fact, THAT tiny sliver becomes the most important part. Same with guitars. It's going to sound snooty, but you won't find your own answer to this question until you can appreciate the difference yourself.

I like the larger point here that the differences at the upper levels of any product, whether guitars or something else, are so subtle that you really have to have a certain level of appreciation or passion about it to value it at that premium. I think this addresses the original post well. It's Ok to get a less expensive instrument. When you're ready for something at another level you won't have to ask the "why".

you were right about one thing - the players didn't necessarily have a lot of money. but they still had great guitars. imagine that!

but that's the canard that's being advanced here. that having a nice guitar is somehow associated with being wealthy. but it's not, because there are possibilities. these possibilities have to do with priorities, with loans, with credit cards, with having a goal and saving for it, and even with sponsorship and endorsements.

I actually really love the story of Wes sacrificing so much to get a fine instrument, but I think it says more about his passion for the music than it does for the argument that you have to have something comparable to that in order to play. I mean these are the greats. Just because they all made that choice doesn't mean that it's for everyone. "All the greats did it" doesn't mean that you will be one if you do the same.

At the time Wes worked at the factory, there wasn't anything like the (relatively) lower-end/mid-range stuff we have now. With the innovations in computerized manufacture, I don't think you can easily speculate what Wes might have "settled for" if he were working as a factory worker in the present day. Guitarists do a lot of incrementally "trading up". I don't know that you can say for sure that he would have put off having an in-between level instrument while saving for an L-5. Don't most of us kind of work our way up?

[fumblefingers]

Maybe after you've completed the first "box" and started on another it tasted like the '61 Chateau Margaux? At that point, it really doesn't matter. lolol

Lafite my man, Lafite!

[fumblefingers]

I like the larger point here that the differences at the upper levels of any product, whether guitars or something else, are so subtle that you really have to have a certain level of appreciation or passion about it to value it at that premium. I think this addresses the original post well. It's Ok to get a less expensive instrument. When you're ready for something at another level you won't have to ask the "why".


I actually really love the story of Wes sacrificing so much to get a fine instrument, but I think it says more about his passion for the music than it does for the argument that you have to have something comparable to that in order to play. I mean these are the greats. Just because they all made that choice doesn't mean that it's for everyone. "All the greats did it" doesn't mean that you will be one if you do the same.

At the time Wes worked at the factory, there wasn't anything like the (relatively) lower-end/mid-range stuff we have now. With the innovations in computerized manufacture, I don't think you can easily speculate what Wes might have "settled for" if he were working as a factory worker in the present day. Guitarists do a lot of incrementally "trading up". I don't know that you can say for sure that he would have put off having an in-between level instrument while saving for an L-5. Don't most of us kind of work our way up?

yes, i don't disagree.

i worked my way up. A Kent 335 clone at 14 yrs old, ES-335TDW at 16, Ibanez GB at 21, Gibson L5CES at 22.

[fumblefingers]

Fumble, the idea of small houses producing deluxe Archtop guitars to take advantage of the demand and resultant pricing for vintage instruments IS modern and is a direct response to the vintage market driving prices up and creating a notion of romance about these guitars.

While D'Angelico was a small shop, his pricing was commensurate with Gibson, at the time, who was a factory. The Strombergs set out to compete with Gibson, but remained a small shop. Over the next 40 years or so, there were no shops that produced guitars that endeavored to recreate the quality and appointments that vintage guitars had and sell them for near or greater than vintage prices. That didn't really happen until the 80s. There was just no incentive. In the mid 70s, D'Angelico guitars were selling for less than $1000. D'Aquisto's new guitars were just that model, priced to sell at or greater than D'Angelico guitars. Flattop guitars set the model for this, being ahead of the vintage Archtop world by 15 years or so.

Wes, to spend the $450 street price for his guitar (and most likely, less) probably had to sacrifice a HUGE amount. Look at the number of guitarists who sold their vintage instruments, acquired for virtually nothing, comparatively, for large sums once the vintage craze started, just so they could eat. Just because an artist had, at the time, a guitar that has a much higher value now, doesn't indicated that they payed a lot for it.

I have owned my share of Super 400s, L5s, L7s, Epiphones, and more. Some were great guitars, most were average and a few were real dogs in terms of sound and playability. And as late as the mid 70s, if you wanted a new Les Paul, you had to add money to the trade if you had an Archtop - nobody wanted them. Yes, a Super 400 MAY have gone for $39,000 but the majority go for well under $10,000 these days. I sold my 1939 Blonde to David Grisman for $7,500 in 2008.

I have been dealing guitars and vintage guitars in earnest since the mid 1970s. Sometimes, Gibson was right on the bandwagon with their marketing and making sure artists had nice guitars so they could sell more. But that wasn't standard fare. And artists essentially made a living. Not many got rich enough to retire, which is why you still see them out on the road, well into their golden years.

I know that Benedetto had an accommodation program for artists, where some other boutique builders did not. But Benedetto is already an example of the small shop as response to the vintage market demand. That demand isn't so strong anymore. The prices hit a high awhile ago.

So, to rehash - great Archtop guitars went for not a lot of money back in those days, on the used market. When they were primarily unamplified instruments, they were needed for big band. Once the ability to amplify became available, they were in demand primarily because that is the style of guitar that was associated with jazz playing. But you see great jazz players using much less expensive solid body guitars starting in the 50s. The romance with Archtops is a direct result of the vintage market and of scarcity of originals. Same with other genres (witness Les Pauls with boutique builders, Gibson's now Historic series, etc).

My point is that it is the vintage market and the collectors with wads of cash that created the boutique builders market with guitars that routinely sell for prices commensurate with vintage guitars. And THAT is a recent development.

i am not sure how old you are, or if you were buying and selling guitars as long ago as the late 60s, but Archtops for jazz players back 'in the day' were always available for a pittance. Those escalated prices didn't come along until the notion of 'vintage' came along and gave reason for higher prices.

Or or so has been my experience as a player, buyer and seller since 1967 or so. Perhaps yours were different?

Bob

well i bought my first L5 in 1979 (the dreaded Norlin era). The Gibson archtops were pretty steep back then. But D'Aquisto's were more. (1.5 to twice as much) i sold it for twice what i paid about 10-12 years later.

it seems to me that things are about the same now. New L5 about $12K, Benedetto Manhattan about 1.5 to twice as much.

[uburoibob]

So, if you're a wine, archtop, AND audio gear lover, man your whole life can be turned UPside down chasing rainbows!

I've spent more than my share of time with blood rushing to my head...

Bob

[iim7V7IM7]

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the 2012 Median Pay for a plumber $49,140 per year ($23.62 per hour using a 2,100 hour work year). There are 386,900 plumbers in the US according to BLS.

It takes on average about 150 hours for a skilled luthier to make an archtop.

$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $25/hour = $4,750 ($52,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $50/hour = $8,500 ($105,000/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $75/hour = $12,250 ($157,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $100/hour = $16,000 ($210,000/year)

Keep in mind that they're paying Federal, State and both sides of FICA taxes. How many archtop luthiers are there with the skill to create a top quality instrument? My guess in the US that it is less than 50 luthiers who can. What should a luthier be paid for his craft?

A Gibson Super 400 sold for $425 in 1940.



What cost $425 in 1940 would cost $6,968 in 2013 based upon inflation alone. This doesn't take into account the change in material prices based upon scarcity (e.g. Ebony).

Yes, the vintage and collector market has influenced the extreme inflation in pricing that we have seen in vintage archtops. But the pricing of individual luthier archtops while expensive, is perfectly understandable based upon the skill level and time involved in my opinion. I am happy that there still is a tradition of artisans who keep this historic craft moving forward at its highest level.

My $.02

[uburoibob]

A great two cents. I wasn't saying luthiers were gouging the system, based on the price of vintage guitars. Rather, that the vintage market has enabled luthiers to actually make enough money to live. And that is a great thing!

Bob

[pluvia]

I can never justify the act of paying $10,000 and above for a single guitar or an amp.

Paying thousands of dollars more for a mediocre instrument just for its brand value and reputation does not make anything sound better. I am confident to say that all the vintage/boutique enthusiasts have ruined the future of instruments, as they only care for what has been done and used by past musicians they idolized, thus making the market keep reverting back to selling reissued or refined outdated gears.

We could have had vast progress in the technology of guitars same as how cellphones and cars have changed drastically in the last few decades, due to the fact that majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements. But we have people paying loads for dirty old strats and "New" archtops that have been constructed with the same mediocre form factor and sound from 60+ years ago.

I call this bullshit.

[Hammertone]

What do you find mediocre about the form factor and sound?

[iim7V7IM7]

Beyond guitars, can you cite a single type of musical instrument where the technological transformation that you seek has taken place? After all, the "majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements" so there must be many outside the luddite conventions of guitar luthiery.

I can never justify the act of paying $10,000 and above for a single guitar or an amp.

Paying thousands of dollars more for a mediocre instrument just for its brand value and reputation does not make anything sound better. I am confident to say that all the vintage/boutique enthusiasts have ruined the future of instruments, as they only care for what has been done and used by past musicians they idolized, thus making the market keep reverting back to selling reissued or refined outdated gears.

We could have had vast progress in the technology of guitars same as how cellphones and cars have changed drastically in the last few decades, due to the fact that majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements. But we have people paying loads for dirty old strats and "New" archtops that have been constructed with the same mediocre form factor and sound from 60+ years ago.

I call this bullshit.

[Spook410]

<snip>
We could have had vast progress in the technology of guitars same as how cellphones and cars have changed drastically in the last few decades, due to the fact that majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements. But we have people paying loads for dirty old strats and "New" archtops that have been constructed with the same mediocre form factor and sound from 60+ years ago.

I know just what you mean. All this time since Lloyd Loar and still.... nothing. Archtops totally suck and they aren't getting any better.

And why are people buying those old Strats and Les Pauls and Tele's even. Probably just a bunch of old guys trying to relive their youth now that they're geezers. They can hardly even play guitar.. they have no right to be buying what they want.

All of this totally messes up the market. Just a few people spending money.. probably the 1%.. driving the whole market when what the people want.. I mean the majority of consumers.. is new technology.

Yea.. like you know, the Gibson Firebird X. They just didn't take it far enough. If they had a Gibson L5 CESX, now that's something consumers could get behind. I vote for carbon fiber and tone controls you can adjust using your phone. And tuning. And it should cost no more than $500. Maybe less.

[Para]

A touch screen guitar, now wouldn't that be fun, no more strings to buy.

[uburoibob]

I can never justify the act of paying $10,000 and above for a single guitar or an amp.

Paying thousands of dollars more for a mediocre instrument just for its brand value and reputation does not make anything sound better. I am confident to say that all the vintage/boutique enthusiasts have ruined the future of instruments, as they only care for what has been done and used by past musicians they idolized, thus making the market keep reverting back to selling reissued or refined outdated gears.

We could have had vast progress in the technology of guitars same as how cellphones and cars have changed drastically in the last few decades, due to the fact that majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements. But we have people paying loads for dirty old strats and "New" archtops that have been constructed with the same mediocre form factor and sound from 60+ years ago.

I call this bullshit.

Well, actually there is this...

Ken Parker Archtops Home

and others who are both pushing the form and the function...

but if you are dead set against paying what a guitar is worth, you will probably never know.

Bob

[KEOKI]

Amen Bob and +1 ^

[fumblefingers]

Well, actually there is this...

Ken Parker Archtops Home

and others who are both pushing the form and the function...

but if you are dead set against paying what a guitar is worth, you will probably never know.

Bob

those are interesting. do the have any advantages? does anybody play one to the point where said advantages are obvious to the listener?

i wonder about hand an arm placement on those things for one. i also see no need for the skinny telecaster headstock. i wonder if string action stiffness is low?

it would be interesting to hear a run down (no i didn't watch the video)

[fumblefingers]

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the 2012 Median Pay for a plumber $49,140 per year ($23.62 per hour using a 2,100 hour work year). There are 386,900 plumbers in the US according to BLS.

It takes on average about 150 hours for a skilled luthier to make an archtop.

$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $25/hour = $4,750 ($52,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $50/hour = $8,500 ($105,000/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $75/hour = $12,250 ($157,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $100/hour = $16,000 ($210,000/year)

Keep in mind that they're paying Federal, State and both sides of FICA taxes. How many archtop luthiers are there with the skill to create a top quality instrument? My guess in the US that it is less than 50 luthiers who can. What should a luthier be paid for his craft?

A Gibson Super 400 sold for $425 in 1940.



What cost $425 in 1940 would cost $6,968 in 2013 based upon inflation alone. This doesn't take into account the change in material prices based upon scarcity (e.g. Ebony).

Yes, the vintage and collector market has influenced the extreme inflation in pricing that we have seen in vintage archtops. But the pricing of individual luthier archtops while expensive, is perfectly understandable based upon the skill level and time involved in my opinion. I am happy that there still is a tradition of artisans who keep this historic craft moving forward at its highest level.

My $.02

1. yeah those expenses also don't take into account significant other expenses like "plant and equipment".

2. and the price also does not take into account "supply and demand".


these are but two reasons that inflation alone does not explain everything, as was stated above.

[iim7V7IM7]

I have had the pleasure of trying one of Ken's guitars last year(unplugged). They are beautifully designed, crafted and are amazingly light. Ken couldn't have been a nicer guy to talk with as well. That being said, I did not care for the acoustic tone of the one that I tried. I would describe it as being a bit very much fundamental dominant, some overtones, strident and dry (poor words, but that's how I remember it). I very much admire Ken's innovations, but I personally prefer the sound of traditional archtops.

those are interesting. do the have any advantages? does anybody play one to the point where said advantages are obvious to the listener?

i wonder about hand an arm placement on those things for one. i also see no need for the skinny telecaster headstock. i wonder if string action stiffness is low?

it would be interesting to hear a run down (no i didn't watch the video)

[339 in june]

Beyond guitars, can you cite a single type of musical instrument where the technological transformation that you seek has taken place? After all, the "majority of consumers favor better and newer technological improvements" so there must be many outside the luddite conventions of guitar luthiery.

Keyboards

[PTChristopher2]

[The iim7 guy]>>> According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the 2012 Median Pay for a plumber $49,140 per year ($23.62 per hour using a 2,100 hour work year). There are 386,900 plumbers in the US according to BLS.

This speaks to my view for sure. Anyone who can make even a passable archtop can make FAR more money doing other things - with lots of free time and money for guitars.

In my area a good plumber makes more like well north of $80,000. Many are above $100,000.

>>> It takes on average about 150 hours for a skilled luthier to make an archtop.

Some certainly can work faster with careful workflow, but some easily put a hard long (22 day X 10 hours) month into a single guitar.

$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $25/hour = $4,750 ($52,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $50/hour = $8,500 ($105,000/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $75/hour = $12,250 ($157,500/year)
$1,000 materials + 150 hours x $100/hour = $16,000 ($210,000/year)

This is very enthusiastic vs. the real take-home bottom line when all is said and lacquered.

One can opine about what a guitar "should" cost. But for the potential luthier, there is also the reality of significantly better $$$ options in life. I admire guys (Sadowsky comes to mind) who managed to put together a career in this business by combining hands-on with a staff and careful management.

I worry some about guys I know in my age range (I'm 56) who have worked for decades on instruments and make an OK-ish living with no savings or practical assets to speak of for a pleasant dotage. What happens in 10 years?

Chris

******************
Waaaaay off topic:

Someone mentioned the famed 1%.

I saw a recent stat using 2011 numbers, that said that to be in the "1%" in income you needed about $350K per year. This sounds about right.

But to be in the 1% for assets you needed about 2.5 Million. That is TOTAL assets. This is an amazingly low number considering the estimated income. In my opinion.