Guitar price vs value

[Patrick2]

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.

I haven't have the pleasure of playing one of these guitars, but based upon what I heard on the video of Tommy Emmanual and Martin Taylor playing them . . . I totally agree with you. I'm not saying that I found the tone of the guitars to be poor. Just, not to my personal taste. Way too thin and lacking of that robust arch top resonance. I didn't detect any bottom end at all. But, the guitars were pretty much brand spanking new. Who knows what they'll sound like if played regularly for the next 5 years or so?

[Vladan]

All I can say, plumbers are overpaid and prices of some handmade archtop guitars are funny. Are there really people giving that kind of money?

There's no way guitars to have price range of 30,000$, in terms of musical instrument. No guitar can be 30,000$ better than any other guitar.

As merchandise, it's worth as much as market will accept, with seller staying in business.
As object of beauty, it's rather personal how valuable one may hold it.

[uburoibob]

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)

Well, the best advice is to play one. Ken will be at the Woodstock show the last weekend in October. It's a great show that I highly recommend.

And read his stuff on the technology involved, his philosophy and everything else at his website. There's a lot to learn.

Having played most of the archtops he's built, I can say from all my experience that it's a definite game changer. The headstock reduces mass and provides straight string pull. All energy goes into making sound. The guitars each weigh about 3.5 lbs. There are no standing waves that cause rejection of frequencies - thus never a dead spot, never a wolf note. They are great guitars and definitely move the genre greatly forward.

But never take the internet's word or clips or videos for anything you'd spend $30,000 on. Play them for yourself. They may not be your cup of tea, but you can't really deny how Ken has made the guitar a better thing - from an operational point of view - with these.

Bob

[uburoibob]

All I can say, plumbers are overpaid and prices of some handmade archtop guitars are funny. Are there really people giving that kind of money?

There's no way guitars to have price range of 30,000$, in terms of musical instrument. No guitar can be 30,000$ better than any other guitar.

As merchandise, it's worth as much as market will accept, with seller staying in business.
As object of beauty, it's rather personal how valuable one may hold it.

Well, as I said - worth is determined by your ability to appreciate and afford something. If you can do neither, then worth the worth is as you suggest. It's really a personal assessment.

Bob

[Patrick2]

All I can say, plumbers are overpaid and prices of some handmade archtop guitars are funny. Are there really people giving that kind of money?

There's no way guitars to have price range of 30,000$, in terms of musical instrument. No guitar can be 30,000$ better than any other guitar.

As merchandise, it's worth as much as market will accept, with seller staying in business.
As object of beauty, it's rather personal how valuable one may hold it.

As you indicate, it's not always about what the guitar is worth in terms of it being a musical instrument. As is usually the case, it's about the worth of an item in terms of its desirability to an individual or many individuals . . as well as the affordability of that item to those who desire it.

I quite sure there are people who believe that certain guitars are indeed worth $30,000 and more . . and would willingly pay that price if they could afford to. It's also clear that there are some who can afford to buy a guitar they deem worthy of a $30k price tag and do choose to buy it. But, there will probably never be a situation where someone who only needs or wants a very good guitar to play music on, would be willing to pay $30k for one . . . when they can get one for 10% of that price or even less.

I totally agree that it's a personal thing. I also totally agree that there is no guitar that is musically $30k better than any other guitar. But, hey . . . If guys like Ken Parker can get $30k . . . or even $100k for one of their guitars, they'd be foolish not to charge that amount for them.

That's pretty much the fundamental principal of auction type selling also. The bidding audience is the market . . . they bid an item up to the point where the bidding stops . . because that particular market doesn't see it's worth in terms of desirability to be higher than the last bid.

[uburoibob]

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.

The cool thing about Ken's guitars is that each is voiced to be exactly as you'd like it. Between the neck density, the tailpiece and the bridge, Ken can voice those guitars in very different ways. The bridge, perhaps, makes the biggest difference. Ken did a demonstration of three different bridges, each designed to bring out a different voice, and the differences were not only noticeable, but profound. With each voice, the guitar still performed flawlessly.

I WILL say for the record here that Ken is a very old friend, and I donate my time having designed and maintain his website. So, there is cause for bias. But it's not paid bias - I do this as a labor of love for what I see as a GREAT advancement in the world of guitars.

Bob

[Bluedawg]

At some point the value of a guitar is influenced by who made it and the cost of the name on the headstock begins to approach and in some cases surpass the value of the guitar as a musical instrument

In the case of Gibson you are also paying for the good reputation of the name on the headstock and the reputation of an American made guitar. This often translates to long term resale value .. and also makes it easier to sell than a lesser known name. Heritage also has an added value for similar reasons.

With Ibanez products, there is an added value for a buying one of their guitars that was made in Japan.

The small build world is a little more complicated ....

There are well respected builders like Campellone that could probably charge as much as Benedetto .. or almost as much ... but they don't

There are other lesser known small builders who do charge almost as much as Benedetto ...

And then there's Artisans like Manzer and Monteleone that charge as much or way more than Benedetto

In the case of Parker I would say that you're also paying for his research and development .. or non recurring engineering as they say in other fields of endeavor ..... I have to wonder how many guitars he built on his dime and never sold or even destroyed before he went public with his archtops

At some point you move beyond paying for the reputation of a good company and start paying for a piece of art by a well known artist .... I'd put Benedetto, Manzer, and Monteleone in this category for new guitars ... real D'Angelico, Strombergs, and D'Aquistos for used .... like investing in a Stradivarious, Amati or Guarneri violin

Whether the extra cost is worth it is an individual decision ... balancing your taste in guitars with your budget and other life priorities

All IMHO of course

[Vladan]

As you indicate, it's not always about what the guitar is worth in terms of it being a musical instrument. As is usually the case, it's about the worth of an item in terms of its desirability to an individual or many individuals . . as well as the affordability of that item to those who desire it.

I quite sure there are people who believe that certain guitars are indeed worth $30,000 and more . . and would willingly pay that price if they could afford to. It's also clear that there are some who can afford to buy a guitar they deem worthy of a $30k price tag and do choose to buy it. But, there will probably never be a situation where someone who only needs or wants a very good guitar to play music on, would be willing to pay $30k for one . . . when they can get one for 10% of that price or even less.

I totally agree that it's a personal thing. I also totally agree that there is no guitar that is musically $30k better than any other guitar. But, hey . . . If guys like Ken Parker can get $30k . . . or even $100k for one of their guitars, they'd be foolish not to charge that amount for them.

That's pretty much the fundamental principal of auction type selling also. The bidding audience is the market . . . they bid an item up to the point where the bidding stops . . because that particular market doesn't see it's worth in terms of desirability to be higher than the last bid.

I do not dissagree, at all, however, when we put things in this perspective, realistic and what it reaally is, we can freely remove word "guitar" from the title of the thread.
If guitars are not valued for what they are, that's musical instruments, but for some other factor of desirability, than they are no guitars any more, but historical monuments of amaateur art combined with professional(?) craftmanship, all in a physical form of more - less functional guitar-like shaped objects.

I know some people dealing art paintings. It's all about the name of the author and size/ format. Those are factors that make them desirable. How fashionable the author is, and if it can fit in existing space (unoccupied on the wall, aswell as larger format made in same technique usually means higher price, but not always). It is definately not important what is painted, what it looks like.

[Patrick2]

I do not dissagree, at all, however, when we put things in this perspective, realistic and what it reaally is, we can freely remove word "guitar" from the title of the thread.
If guitars are not valued for what they are, that's musical instruments, but for some other factor of desirability, than they are no guitars any more, but historical monuments of amaateur art combined with professional(?) craftmanship, all in a physical form of more - less functional guitar-like shaped objects.

I know some people dealing art paintings. It's all about the name of the author and size/ format. Those are factors that make them desirable. How fashionable the author is, and if it can fit in existing space (unoccupied on the wall, aswell as larger format made in same technique usually means higher price, but not always). It is definately not important what is painted, what it looks like.

I really do not think you can remove the word "guitar" from this particular question, as it was posed by the OP. The only way I see that as being plausible, would be if every guitar was made by the same luthier/company and each of them were identical to each other. As mentioned earlier, if you answer the question by only equating a guitar to a musical instrument, then . . yeah . . I see your point. But, to many . . it's far more than just something upon which one can play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

[uburoibob]

A cynical view suggests that pedigree trumps content. But I believe that's an outside view. Once you actually get into the art world or the guitar world or the wine world or automobile world, etc, there is much more going on. When you view anything only from a dollars and cents perspective, there's no appreciation for the art/guitar/wine/etc. Just the investment. Trying to assign a dollar value to each attribute is, again, something that nobody who can appreciate the instruments does - that's an outside view trying to understand why without being able to actually participate for whatever reason. There's simply no way to get to that point without the passion and drive it takes to get there. The side trying to make their case looks as ridiculous as the side trying to explain why to each other. Two worlds somewhat colliding.

Bob

[Vladan]

Following is not my opinion, but kind of analysis of the logic of the process.

There must be something appealing to outsiders, or value won't be real. You and I can keep selling couple of guitars for ridiculous prices to each other, but that's not productive, as we will always have same ammount of money and same number of guitars. We could just as well share them, for free. Only if an outsider comes in with fresh cash, thinking there is some value in our guitars, we can enjoy the benefit of set high prices. If all we have to offer is "pay the price of admition to be able to understand", than it's nothing but a hoax, because once parted from his money, our freshman will understand spreading the tale is the only hope to somehow recoup, on the next outsider to fall for it.

Now opinion.
If plumber is making 4,000 per month, than guitars with 4,000 price tags are not expensive, at all, with 30,000 guitars being like luxury tax, simillar to cocaine. Since over here plumbers make about USD300, I'll stick to that price range, with 3,000 being something to dream about, should I ever fall asleep.

Great thread, I'll keep reading.

[SierraTango]

If someone walked up to me with $30,000.00 in cash for my Cremona I would politely turn him or her down. Certain material items go beyond money. It just fits me in every way a instrument is capable of doing. I use for what it was built for-making music. It is my gigging guitar. It makes people listening to it that don't know what the hell it is happy and enjoy life. It makes me beyond happy every single time I play it.
There is no bull**** involved. Just a slice of life.

[Broyale]

If someone walked up to me with $30,000.00 in cash for my Cremona I would politely turn him or her down.

Just looked up the price of a Cremona....don't blame you.

[Patrick2]

If someone walked up to me with $30,000.00 in cash for my Cremona I would politely turn him or her down. Certain material items go beyond money. It just fits me in every way a instrument is capable of doing. I use for what it was built for-making music. It is my gigging guitar. It makes people listening to it that don't know what the hell it is happy and enjoy life. It makes me beyond happy every single time I play it.
There is no bull**** involved. Just a slice of life.

That's really what it's all about, isn't it? You could easily do your gigs with a less expensive guitar, configered similarly to the Cremona, 17" X 3" . . . similar scale, similar neck profile, similar nut width, similar pup . . . and you could find one for $3,000. Very few in the listening audience would ever be able to notice a difference. But, you would. That's the joy of ownership that is impossible to put a value on. I don't know your financial situation, and I don't care to. But, suffice to say . . if you own a Cremona . . . you ain't hurtin'. So, I'd bet a good swift kick in the ass in Macy's window, that the joy you derive from playing that guitar at a gig . . out-weighs and means more to you than the money you get at the end of the night. So then . . how would anyone ever be able to put a price tag on something like that?

[Patrick2]

Following is not my opinion, but kind of analysis of the logic of the process.

There must be something appealing to outsiders, or value won't be real. You and I can keep selling couple of guitars for ridiculous prices to each other, but that's not productive, as we will always have same ammount of money and same number of guitars. We could just as well share them, for free. Only if an outsider comes in with fresh cash, thinking there is some value in our guitars, we can enjoy the benefit of set high prices. If all we have to offer is "pay the price of admition to be able to understand", than it's nothing but a hoax, because once parted from his money, our freshman will understand spreading the tale is the only hope to somehow recoup, on the next outsider to fall for it.

Now opinion.
If plumber is making 4,000 per month, than guitars with 4,000 price tags are not expensive, at all, with 30,000 guitars being like luxury tax, simillar to cocaine. Since over here plumbers make about USD300, I'll stick to that price range, with 3,000 being something to dream about, should I ever fall asleep.

Great thread, I'll keep reading.

I don't know about that man. To a plumber making only $4,000 per month . . $4,000 for a guitar is a pretty big number.

The only logic of the process in the analogy you sighted regarding the appeal to others, would relate only to a resale value. There are people who are perfectly willing to take a loss when reselling a guitar that they want to own. There are costs associated with buying something that you absolutely must have. Sometimes you get lucky and recoup those costs when divesting. Sometimes you even realize a profit. But, that just the icing on the cake . . if you've had the joy of indulging yourself in a must have item. There's a value to you as an owner . . not to an outsider. If one can be equally as happy owning a Japanese copy of a Gibson L5 CES . . . as they would be owning the genuine article . . then, they'd be foolish to buy the more expensive object.

[Bluedawg]

Following is not my opinion, but kind of analysis of the logic of the process.

There must be something appealing to outsiders, or value won't be real. You and I can keep selling couple of guitars for ridiculous prices to each other, but that's not productive, as we will always have same ammount of money and same number of guitars. We could just as well share them, for free. Only if an outsider comes in with fresh cash, thinking there is some value in our guitars, we can enjoy the benefit of set high prices. If all we have to offer is "pay the price of admition to be able to understand", than it's nothing but a hoax, because once parted from his money, our freshman will understand spreading the tale is the only hope to somehow recoup, on the next outsider to fall for it.

Now opinion.
If plumber is making 4,000 per month, than guitars with 4,000 price tags are not expensive, at all, with 30,000 guitars being like luxury tax, simillar to cocaine. Since over here plumbers make about USD300, I'll stick to that price range, with 3,000 being something to dream about, should I ever fall asleep.

Great thread, I'll keep reading.

The same can apply to baseball cards and comic books

The thing is that there has been a critical mass of guitar aficionados more than capable of maintaining a market for guitars and jacking the prices up .... and there has been a steady inflow of newcomers keeping the numbers up

The recent economy has impacted peoples ability to pay the higher prices ....

And there are questions about the long term popularity of guitars

But for the foreseeable future it's self sustaining

[PTChristopher2]

>>> And there are questions about the long term popularity of guitars


Around 1979 Gary Numan predicted the end of guitars in popular music. We were, according to Gary, all going to be living in cars, playing synths, and apparently spelling our last names funny in the near future.

Chris

[iim7V7IM7]

I understand that, those were just my 3 minute impressions playing one guitar. I very much admire Ken and his work. I just preferred a number of other instruments that I tried that day. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

The cool thing about Ken's guitars is that each is voiced to be exactly as you'd like it. Between the neck density, the tailpiece and the bridge, Ken can voice those guitars in very different ways. The bridge, perhaps, makes the biggest difference. Ken did a demonstration of three different bridges, each designed to bring out a different voice, and the differences were not only noticeable, but profound. With each voice, the guitar still performed flawlessly.

I WILL say for the record here that Ken is a very old friend, and I donate my time having designed and maintain his website. So, there is cause for bias. But it's not paid bias - I do this as a labor of love for what I see as a GREAT advancement in the world of guitars.

Bob

[iim7V7IM7]

Keyboards

Excellent example...thanks!

Perhaps I view an archtop as also being an acoustic instrument which might be more akin to an acoustic piano.

[Klatu]

The cool thing about Ken's guitars is that each is voiced to be exactly as you'd like it. Between the neck density, the tailpiece and the bridge, Ken can voice those guitars in very different ways. The bridge, perhaps, makes the biggest difference. Ken did a demonstration of three different bridges, each designed to bring out a different voice, and the differences were not only noticeable, but profound. With each voice, the guitar still performed flawlessly.

I WILL say for the record here that Ken is a very old friend, and I donate my time having designed and maintain his website. So, there is cause for bias. But it's not paid bias - I do this as a labor of love for what I see as a GREAT advancement in the world of guitars.

Bob

Could you please elaborate on the results of the bridge experiment? How much of a difference did each bridge make, were all bridges the same height, what were the differences in materials and form?

I am interested because I own a couple of Heritage Eagles that couldn't sound more different. The older of the two is a mahogany model with spruce top. It produces a dry midrange tone that is reminiscent of the classic 50's archtop sound. It happens to have a rosewood bridge that has one foot that makes full contact with the body. The newer of the two is a full mahongany instrument that has a brighter and bassier tone with a smile eq curve. It's bridge is also rosewood, but rather than having one foot that makes full contact with the top, it had two feet that leaves a significant space between the feet.

[Greentone]

>>> And there are questions about the long term popularity of guitars


Around 1979 Gary Numan predicted the end of guitars in popular music. We were, according to Gary, all going to be living in cars, playing synths, and apparently spelling our last names funny in the near future.

Chris

We cam clos

[uburoibob]

Could you please elaborate on the results of the bridge experiment? How much of a difference did each bridge make, were all bridges the same height, what were the differences in materials and form?

I am interested because I own a couple of Heritage Eagles that couldn't sound more different. The older of the two is a mahogany model with spruce top. It produces a dry midrange tone that is reminiscent of the classic 50's archtop sound. It happens to have a rosewood bridge that has one foot that makes full contact with the body. The newer of the two is a full mahongany instrument that has a brighter and bassier tone with a smile eq curve. It's bridge is also rosewood, but rather than having one foot that makes full contact with the top, it had two feet that leaves a significant space between the feet.

I wish I could remember the details. This was 7 years ago. I know that, for Ken, the bridge is an integral part of the equation. Could be they were different heights, different levels of hollowness. I know he had a rosewood, ebony and pernambuco bridges and they each made a very dramatic difference in the guitar. Keep in mind that Ken's guitars are SO light and responsive that the equation may be greatly different than a traditional archtop. Have you tried swapping the bridges (if the arch is the same on both guitars)?

Bob

[Klatu]

I haven't tried swapping out the bridges because I've found that when I start messing around with my guitars, I usually end up doing more harm than good. I'm afraid that if the arches didn't match the bridges, I'd be tempted to start sanding, and God help me if that happens!

[SierraTango]

That's really what it's all about, isn't it? You could easily do your gigs with a less expensive guitar, configered similarly to the Cremona, 17" X 3" . . . similar scale, similar neck profile, similar nut width, similar pup . . . and you could find one for $3,000. Very few in the listening audience would ever be able to notice a difference. But, you would. That's the joy of ownership that is impossible to put a value on. I don't know your financial situation, and I don't care to. But, suffice to say . . if you own a Cremona . . . you ain't hurtin'. So, I'd bet a good swift kick in the ass in Macy's window, that the joy you derive from playing that guitar at a gig . . out-weighs and means more to you than the money you get at the end of the night. So then . . how would anyone ever be able to put a price tag on something like that?

All SO true. Like many of us here, I have been through many instruments looking for the voice that connected. I'm not a wealthy guy, but not hurting either. I had to make some financial sacrifices to make it happen. You are correct, P2, how do you place a price tag on total joy and contentment?
It is somewhat ironic that many brothers tote thousands of dollars worth of gear to $100 a night gigs. However that is really beside the point. If that's what it takes to satisfy what YOU hear in YOUR head to express YOUR inner voice, it is worth every penny.
As I mentioned, I still carry my Pisano 880 as a backup, and it's a fine workhorse. I gigged with it four nights a week for 2 years and it kept food on the table. But no way has the magic of the B.

[Patrick2]

I haven't tried swapping out the bridges because I've found that when I start messing around with my guitars, I usually end up doing more harm than good. I'm afraid that if the arches didn't match the bridges, I'd be tempted to start sanding, and God help me if that happens!

Wise idea! "Stay out of the high end of the pool if you can't swim."

PTChris, myself and a few others had some great exchanges on the topic of swapping out bridges on archies in quest of better tone. If I can remember the thread that was in, I'll link you up to it.

There are just so many other things to take into consideration when looking a a bridge swap, besides just the bridge itself. You may switch from one tone wood to another and see (hear) absolutely no difference what so ever, a slight difference or a significant difference. I totally agree with what was quoted by uburoibob from what Ken said . . the bridge is an integral part of the equation. Probably second to only the sound board.

Bridge assemblies are chosen by guitar builders for very specific reasons. Some make great sense as it relates to tonal character and are chosen for that reason. But, some, well . . not so much. For example; very early Gibson arch tops (some of them) sported an ebony finger board but a rose wood bridge. It appears that someone might have felt they needed aesthetic balance and went with ebony bridges. Heritage used to make their own ebony full contact ebony bridge assemblies on their higher end hand carved archies, which included an inlaid MOP bird in flight on the base, to denote an Eagle, as is the model designation. They eventually did away with the inlay . . (cost reduction). Then they eventually stopped making them . . (further cost reduction). Now, they buy a low grade ebony two footed base assembly with a compensated saddle, that's readily available on any luthier supply web site for under $20. Think about it . . a $7'500 Super Eagle now comes with a $20 bridge assembly!!

The best advice you'll ever get from me or anyone else is to take the guitar you love to a very competent luthier, who knows tone wood and its tone transfering characteristics . . let him see and hear your guitar, then tell him what you want it to sound like . . as opposed to what it currently sounds like. More often than not, you'll find that you've already got the correct bridge assy on there . . but, it may be poorly fit, or poorly notched, or the post holes may be too large and do not fit snuggly in the post holes on the saddle.

For me and in my opinion . . William Gagnon arch top bridge assemblies sold on Ultima Guitar web site are at or among the top of the heap for after-market bridge assys. When I had my newest Heritage Super Eagle built, I had one made for it in African Blackwood, which is even harder and more dense than ebony. It's a beautifully built bridge assy and it sounds amazing. Or, better said, it's an integral part of the amazing tone I'm getting from this guitar.