-
I'd like to get an answer on this too. I've raised this before, and was told that it's been debated thoroughly in the past - but to the best of my knowledge, I don't think I've ever read anyone who's spent extensive time playing both Gibson and Heritage say - 'they're just as good' or 'Gibson's are still slightly better'. Anyone with background on this care to comment?
Originally Posted by fep
-
09-08-2014 07:12 PM
-
You realize I address my comments not strictly to you personally but to all the viewers of the forum who read these pages to amuse themselves and gain insight to the subjects at hand, right? We're not actually talking in private, we're posting to a publicly available message board, so I take it for granted that you won't necessarily reply directly to me. That said, your invective is irrelevant, since I reply to your idea, which has been published openly and is now a springboard for other members' input. In short, I'm not seeking your approval, so your dissociation is superfluous, no offense intended. Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
-
Indeed, my comment was a waste. I deleted.
-
Although this is a common theory, my two Golden Eagles and Super Eagle were nowhere as good as my '90's Citations. Originally Posted by fep
The quality of Gibson's archtops greatly improved in the early '90's compared to the '70's and '80's, so I think that the new guys were much better at it than the guys who stayed behind. That being said, I wouldn't pay list for a new Citation, but they are generally much cheaper than that on the used market.
Danny W.
-
I've played both. As musical instruments, they are very comparable . . . if you build the GE the same way you would build the Citation. The best sounding Heritage Golden Eagle with X bracing, tuned top and floating pup . . will sound every bit as good as the best sounding Citation . . (not withstanding subjectivity). Originally Posted by fep
Here are some pricing clarifications;
*The current list price for GE is as you referenced, $6,600.
*Now, add to that $600 for the tuned top . . . (standard with the Citation).
*Heritage is currently using a very cheap (I usually don't use the word cheap, but instead *inexpensive*. However, in this case, *cheap* is appropriate) . . $15 two footed bridge assembly. So, add approx $140 for a Ultima bridge assembly, ebony, with inlays in the base.
*Now, add $200 for abalone finger board inlays.
*The current tail piece on the GE is an inexpensive version of the finger tail piece.
*Add another $250 for something to rival that of the Citation.
*Add another $250 for an upgraded binding package.
*Add another $200 for the Heritage case, not included in the $6,600 price of the guitar . . (Gibson's case is included in their price).
*Add another $350 for an upgraded *Ultra* wood package . . (Gibson's best wood is used on the Citation and already factored into the price).
*Add another $1,000 for a bound volute and veneer, with binding on the back of the head stock.
*Then, add another $400 for the maple back plate and the binding going all the way up to and around the neck heel. *Add another $100 for the binding going all the way around the cut out in the pick guard for the pickup.
Now you're up to approx $10,500 for an equivalent GE to the Citation, at list pricing. Street price would be somewhere around $9,000 . . with good negotiation skills.
So, one could indeed spec a GE to be everything that a Citation is. (not withstanding the priceless *Citation* vibe . . . . . . a collector's dream).
The initial build of the GE would be started by the very same guy, Jim Deurloo, who built the very first Citation for display at a NAMM show. Those at Heritage who would complete the build are every bit as capable, if not more so, than those who currently build Citations in Nashville. More than likely, Aaron Cowles or his mentor did the top tuning on the Citations. Both are now in the Big Custom Guitar Shop in Heaven . . . RIP. So, Marv would more than likely tune the top of the GE. Marv was also the head of the neck department at Gibson, Kalamazoo, when the Citations were built. So, either he or one of his proteges rolled and profiled the necks on the Citations. Marv or Arnie (his current protege at Heritage) would roll and profile the neck on the GE.
I'll submit this to you with the utmost of confidence in what I say; if you were to take the head stock off of the GE and put it on the Citation, and the Citation's on the GE . . . you'd not know the difference.
Take a look at this amazingly beautiful Citation. View all of the pictures . . . with a focus on the workmanship on the back of the head stock. Also, see how the back plate goes over the heel, and the binding on the back going from the end pin all the way around the guitar to the other side of the end pin. That ain't too easy to do, folks!!
Gibson Citation "The Gibson" Classic Archtop L 5 Super 400 Superb Condition | eBayLast edited by Patrick2; 09-08-2014 at 08:53 PM.
-
Honestly, this is really a discusion about personal preference. There are a number of avenues to get great instruments. For my preference, at the price demanded for a Gibson Citation or even the Heritage that Patrick is outlining, I would prefer an instrument built by an individual master luthier. To others a vintage factory instrument might be what they want. It really depends on what aspects of an instruments value proposition appeals to you.
My $.02
-
I've had good fortune to play both of these, along with most of the other acoustic archtop models ever made by both companies. Generally, I'm not interested in Heritage archtops because of some specific ergonomic and visual issues but I agree with P2 that, given an apples-to-apples comparison, one might be hard-pressed to distinguish between them in a blind test. That kind of comparison rarely happens in the real world, however. There are a few design differences among the various comparable Gibson and Heritage archtops - the Heritage heels tend to be oversized, and their necks tend to be on the smaller side - a custom build request could easily change these features. One of my acoustic archtops is a Heritage, that I purchased because it's a wonderful-sounding instrument. Originally Posted by fep
At this level, the "value" is not about features, performance, cost of the wood or hardware, it's about the consumer's perception of the brand. A few typical consumer thoughts, and there are many more. Right or wrong, none of them are about engineering or performance criteria:
- if/when I resell the Heritage, I will take a bath - less so or not at all with the Gibson;
- Gibson is a world-famous brand and, even within the relatively small group of players and/or collectors, it has a recognized pedigree, unlike Heritage;
- Gibson is the original, the standard-bearer. The Heritage is a copy. if I choose Heritage, I and others will always wonder why I didn't go for the real thing;
- does this guitar make my ass look too big?
…and so many more.Last edited by Hammertone; 09-08-2014 at 09:59 PM.
-
Some replies;
Danny W. I don't doubt for a minute your ability to accurately assess the quality and craftsmanship of fine arch tops. I also don't doubt that you've had a couple of disappointing Heritage arch tops, as you indicated in other threads. Heriage was known, at a specific period in time, for their terrible quality control. Some of the stuff that slipped out of the factory was inexcusable. So, it's quite possible that you experienced a couple of Heritage's worst . . and are comparing them to some of Gibson's finest. I'm curious, have you ever actually seen or played one of the first 17 . . (I think it was 17) . . Citations?? The ones that were finished in varnish?? I never have and I'm very curious as to what they look, feel and sound like.
II V I . . . I do agree with most of what you said. But, keep in mind that guys like Jim and Marv are indeed master luthiers, in their own right. It was JP, Marv and Jim who trained Hutch. Hutch built the first arch top ever in the Gibson Nashville Custom Shop, just to show the bosses that it could be done there. However, to your point . . I too prefer an arch top built totally by an individual master luthier. That's why I have two Unitys built by one of the best master luthiers I've ever known . . Aaron Cowles. However, while not nearly as well appointed as my 18" Unity . . my new Super Golden Eagle is executed every bit as well as either of my two Unitys.
Hammertone . . . Hertitage arch tops are not at all copies. They're a continuation with a "variation on a theme", with a goofy head stock. Your points about brand are spot on. Super Eagles list price at $7,740 with a case. The street price is somewhere around $6,000 if purchased new. The pre owned (used) price currently ranges from $3,000 to $3,500. If compared to a similar Super 400CES . . there is much greater resale value in the Super 4, due to the brand . . and all of the vibe that goes with it.
"If I choose a Heritage, I and others will wonder why I didn't go for the real thing. Well Stephen, you did choose Heritage. I really don't see or hear anyone questioning why you did so . . including yourself. You indicated why you bought it. You said . . . "It's a wonderful sounding instrument".
-
as i said in my first post - "here we go again". Originally Posted by eh6794
-
Perhaps so and it did get derailed after a while (and even then only for a while) but I think there was a lot of valuable input from a lot of people, certainly enough to justify the effort and the redundancy. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 09-08-2014 at 11:44 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Danny W.
quite true. i saw and played a very nice example in natural for $12K at the Dallas Guitar Show about 8 years ago.
-
I love the volute on that Citation above.
-
It's true that I haven't owned one in years, but during the "'oughts" I spent time in their booth at the winter NAMM every year and didn't see anything there that would change my mind. I haven't seen all of them, though--I'll admit there could be better ones I never played. Originally Posted by Patrick2
I hate volutes, especially on archtops, but the Citation's double-bound headstock and bound volute make it into a work of art. Originally Posted by entresz
Danny W.
-
i wonder why it is that fine concert quality classical guitars (many of them double -top these days) go for $10K plus, and well upwards of $25K for established name top makers, and no one says anything?
they're flat top and back, nobody has to carve anything. no abalone, no multi-ply binding, no pickups.
are there any luthiers among us who make both types of guitar who can testify as to which is more difficult, laborious, and requires more skill? (fine carved archtop vs. fine classical).
it might be interesting to take a different angle on this...
-
As II-V-I noted, it's about personal preference. I was just responding to fep's apple-to-apple question. Of course the Heritage guitars are not direct copies, but for anyone looking at practical alternatives to Gibson they are on the short list, along with Campellone and whomever. Originally Posted by Patrick2
The SE was a happy accident - initially I bought it because I was brokering a deal that fell apart and I simply felt sorry for the seller, who didn't have two nickels to rub together. I figured I'd flip it out easily enough, and the price was manageable. Then I made the mistake of playing it for awhile and realized how great it is. So now I'm stuck with it. My criteria for buying archtops are simple - if it feels good, sounds great, doesn't dent my wallet much, and doesn't make my ass look fat, I'm interested.
-
The difficulty or skills in a classical guitar is you are coaxing the guitars timbre with a much lower amount of energy and in general with nylon strings and good trebles are much more difficult to achieve. I suspect that Scott T. Will have something to say here. It is certainly a different set of experiences that these builders bring to the game. I think it takes significantly greater amount of time to make an archtop purely on an hourly basis. Regarding price, here is a list of about 20 US based classical guitar luthier "base" prices. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
- Jeffrey Elliott - $18,700
- Robert Ruck * not published
- Eric Monrad >$11,000
- Greg Byers >$10,500
- Randy Angela >$10,000
- Richard Brune * not published
- Stephan Connor >$10,000
- Eric Sahlin * not published
- Aaron Green >$8,500
- Alan Perlman >$8,500
- Garrett Lee >$8,000
- Peter Oberg >$7,500
- Thomas Rein >$7,000
- Greg Brandt >$6,700
- Anders Sterner >$6,500
- Dake Traphagen >$6,500
- Michael Thames >$6,300
- German Vasquez Rubio >$5,500
- Greg Miller >$5,000
- Jason Wolverton >$4,400
- Randy Reynolds >$3,200
Again, these are "base" prices and in many cases upcharges for premium woods, elevated fingerboards, double-tops can all add to these prices. The same instrument in Brazilian Rosewood can add $1,500-$5,000 to a base price. In archtops made from maple and spruce you don't see this range of wood upcharges (some for European Spruces and Maples but much smaller).
Some of the pricing is of course based upon supply and demand. Some of these builders have >8-year waiting lists (some have stopped taking orders and make them mostly for a limited number of dealers) so people pay a premium. I also think that classical stringed instruments in general are typically far more expensive than guitars. This market is also very name driven meaning that classical luthiers stock really goes up when a famous player plays their instrument (e.g. Segovia with Ramirez, Bream with Romanillos and Williams with Smallman).Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 09-09-2014 at 02:22 AM.
-
First, the market for fine handbuilt classical guitars is not the same as the market for archtops. The serious classical guitarist seeking a fine guitar doesn't compare them to archtops, because he doesn't want an archtop, he compares them to other classical guitars. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Second, the price of something (please note that I don't use the word "commodities"
) is determined by what customers are prepared to pay - what the market can bear. Period. Factors determining that price is material choice, labor intensity, demand/supply AND brand name + the general conditions of the market at a given time. The right price is the price the market will bear, take it or leave it. In the guitar market, psychology plays as big a role as it plays in the stock market and every other market. And the human psychology is far from sensible and logical.
Third, the principle of deminishing returns also applies to guitar pricing. I get less for the last $1000 of the price than I get for the first $1000. But if I really want that little extra costing an additional $1000, I'll pay it.
That said, I dont know how much work and material cost goes into making a fine classical guitar. There may be more than meets the eye.
-
well said above Oldane....... exactly what my thoughts were ..... the market sets the price.... and must pay extra for exclusivity ...cos that keeps it exclusive
-
There are a few brands that stand out to me as being outstanding values considering the high quality of their tone and construction. Among them are:
Heritage
Hofner (current and vintage)
Yamaha Japan (vintage)
Ibanez Japan (vintage - many models have crept up, but there are still diamonds to be had)
Eastman
-
don't preach to me pal. you didn't answer my question at all, you just ranted. Originally Posted by oldane
First, the market for fine handbuilt classical guitars is not the same as the market for archtops. The serious classical guitarist seeking a fine guitar doesn't compare them to archtops, because he doesn't want an archtop, he compares them to other classical guitars.
Second, the price of something (please note that I don't use the word "commodities") is determined by what customers are prepared to pay - what the market can bear. Period. Factors determining that price is material choice, labor intensity, demand/supply AND brand name + the general conditions of the market at a given time. The right price is the price the market will bear, take it or leave it. In the guitar market, psychology plays as big a role as it plays in the stock market and every other market. And the human psychology is far from sensible and logical.
Third, the principle of deminishing returns also applies to guitar pricing. I get less for the last $1000 of the price than I get for the first $1000. But if I really want that little extra costing an additional $1000, I'll pay it.
That said, I dont know how much work and material cost goes into making a fine classical guitar. There may be more than meets the eye.
this is all known, and nothing new. wasted post.
-
Originally Posted by Keira Witherkay
well said above Oldane....... exactly what my thoughts were ..... the market sets the price.... and must pay extra for exclusivity ...cos that keeps it exclusive
you missed it guys. the market based dynamics are similar. duh.Last edited by MarkRhodes; 09-09-2014 at 10:01 AM. Reason: Redundant whining
-
Which is weird, because it's much easier to find a good quality inexpensive jazz guitar than the same in a classical. Cheap classical guitars generally suck. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
I preached and ranted? I don't understand. But never mind. I made my point, and others seemed to get it, so that's OK for me. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Last edited by oldane; 09-09-2014 at 09:01 AM.
-
Klatu,
I would agree with your assessment. However, on your list I believe that the grossly undervalued guitars are the Yamaha archtops. In the 70s and 80s, jazz and studio guys were snapping them up--especially on the West Coast. Now, at least in the US, they are almost forgotten. This provides folks like us--scuffling jazzers--with a big opportunity. IMO there is no difference in quality between some of the Yamaha archtops and semi-acoustic guitars and, say, comparable guitars by Ibanez or Aria from that period. Yamaha just didn't pay US artists to be seen with them. Scofield might just have well as been playing an AES-1500. Tedesco _did_ play a Yamaha full-body archtop for most of his 80s studio output. There are incredible bargains out there.
-
I second that. Back in the 1970s I ran into finacial difficulties and considered selling my Gibson 175 and getting a chaper Yamaha archtop instead. I tried them out a couple of times at the Yamaha dealer in Copenhagen, and they were good guitars. But eventually I kept the 175. I hindsight, I should have bought a Yamaha - and still kept the 175. BTW, Yamaha also makes excellent wind instruments. A very well known Danish jazz trumpet player, who is a long time friend of me and my wife, actually prefers Yamaha trumpets to the more "noble" brands (Bach, Selmer etc.). Buddy DeFranco was endorser for Yamaha clarinets for many years. Originally Posted by Greentone
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions