-
I've approached this topic not too long ago but wanted to ask it in a slightly different way. I should also add it's equally relevant to vintage acoustic guitars. Here's the hypothetical situation; you're considering buying a fairly expensive ( whatever 'expensive' is to you) 1950's vintage archtop, make not important.
The guitar in question unfortunately can't be played prior to purchase, it being in another part of the country. The description and pictures and SELLER rep all lead you to believe the purchase is secure and the description accurate, that being EXC condition and 100% original.
The guitar arrives and sure enough it's in excellent conditon, plays great and appears to be 100% original. Except. The frets, rather than being 50's vintage skinny frets are clearly newish modern Gibson medium jumbo/ Les Paul-size. The re-fret job in this situation is excellent, in fact perfect. If one didn't know what vintage fret wire looked like one might never think twice about it in this example.
You call the SELLER to lightly inquire ( remember, you love the way the guitar feels/ plays) and he/ she confirms that 'yes' the guitar had a pro re-fret, this because the frets needed replacing.
Sorry for the long set-up, here's the central question; is the guitar still 100% original to you ? Would you want/ request/ expect a rebate or partial refund given replaced frets ?
Let me say catgorically that I'm not in the hypothetical situation I've laid out but rather am curious as to how important or not frets are to you as they relate to the condition of a vintage guitar. One way of looking at is the guitar has been restored, or even made better as the result of a pro refret- what do you think ?
-
08-22-2018 06:38 PM
-
the question is not whether the new frets actually benefit or detract from the actual guitar...the point is that the seller failed to inform you of that detail...100% original means down to the tuning peg screws...and therefore you should be compensated
cheers
-
Fair enough, am curious, would you have been equally enthusiastic about the guitar if the re-fret had been disclosed prior ? Another words, is a re-fret a detracting point, no matter how well it was done ?
Originally Posted by neatomic
-
well if you are buying the guitar as a player, then by whatevers needed to make it into a good player ( & btw, some people like small flat vintage frets!!)..but if you are buying it as an art piece/investment or just want a true vintage guitar, than 100% original (inc the frets...everything!) is essential
again the key is if seller said it's 100% original..
it isn't..
the sore point is that you were surprised it not being 100% original...if you had been told before hand you could have weighed your decision to buy more accurately....you can be compensated for that
cheers
ps-- and i know guys that would not buy a vintage guitar with a refret..BUT! not so much about the refret..but the type of refret..if the guitar originally came with skinny flat frets, that's what they want on it!!..imagine a mosrite or gibby black beauty with modern big frets...it's no longer the same guitar!Last edited by neatomic; 08-22-2018 at 07:42 PM.
-
I saw that you asked about '50's acoustic ( only ) archtops, no matter the brand.....I happen to believe that unless you're talking about a Stromberg, a D'A, or an L-5, all the '50's 'others' haven't found the bottom yet.
So yes a re-fret should definitely be disclosed, as the guitar is not 100% original. But that having been said, it used to make a bigger difference that one of these 'others' had a refret, but now that all the prices are pretty much equally low, it probably doesn't matter as much.
MHO
Good luck.
-
Thanks neatomin, helpful info and a perspective I hadn't thought of.
Originally Posted by neatomic
-
How does the issue change if talking about a neck re-set ? If a guitar has had a needed neck re-set, received said neck re-set and is now a better playing guitar having had it does the re-set prohibit the guitar from being 100% original ?
-
I do think the seller should have disclosed the refret . I'm a player not a collector so if I was expecting skinny period sized frets either original or replaced because that is what I like to play then I would be unhappy if it showed up with fat high frets instead.!!
To be honest I don't get the collector notion that the guitar should be untouched/unblemished after 60 odd years . A good guitar is going to be played and quite probably will need some attention somewhere along the line. Owners of other rare prized instruments seem to have a more realistic practical view. Even the most expensive rare and prized violins/cello's etc have seen some maintenance and possibly repair . It does seem that who did the maintenance or repair matters and the history of those events is an important part of the story.
I have a vintage guitar which apparently has some value as a collector item although to me it is just a great sounding and playing guitar. While I have no history/provenance before it came to me I have saved the documentation of the maintenance , repairs and source of replacement parts since I became the custodian.
If it needed a neck reset I would not hesitate to get a neck reset but it would be done by a credible luthier whose work was at the level the instrument deserved.
WillLast edited by WillMbCdn5; 08-22-2018 at 09:09 PM.
-
The collector who is only going to polish his newly acquired 1963 Ferrari with a diaper and not drive it may insist on OEM tires. A guitar collector may insist on vintage albeit useless frets. If you are going to drive or play guitar, there's only one reasonable choice to make. Guitar collectors are a blight to guitar players. People who can't play guitars try to make money collecting and trading them and the world would be a better place if they put their efforts into stamps or antique washing machines. If you bought the guitar to play, be happy that it has fresh playable frets, if you bought it to own something that is 100% original no matter how impractical, get rid of it and buy a 194? Maytag. If you do happen to go crazy, keep you fingers away from the wringer.
Washing Machine Wringer Washer Vintage Mid Century Maytag
-
Send it back, save grief on both sides of the transaction. Frets are a consumable like strings.
-
Interestingly, it’s my understanding is that in this realm of instruments, the only thing that really matters is the body of the instrument is the only part that confers value. Everything else (neck, tuning pegs, fingerboard, tailpiece, chin rest, finish) is expected to have to be replaced in instruments that are played. Of course there are rare, purely collectible instruments that are essentially all original, most are in museums at this point and are not played. Originally Posted by WillMbCdn5
-
While I believe that a neck reset, when known, should be disclosed, I personally don’t think of it as affecting the material originality. I realize that the glue would be replaced and some wood may have been removed.
Replaced frets do affect the material originality, but a guitar with good frets is much more valuable to me than one with original poor playing frets.
-
I think I may find this view closer to my own in the real world. Vintage acoustic guitars will broadly have had a neck re-set in their lifetimes, maybe more than one when it comes to say a 1937 Martin D-18. Frets on the other hand seem to be perceived differently, which I find interesting considering both ( frets and neck angle integrity) are most likely to need attention within any guitars lifetime.
Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
Is an original '57 Corvette still original if it's had an oil change?
Frets are basic maintenance. If it was done well and you're comfortable playing on those frets, I wouldn't give it a moment's thought. Guitars are meant to be played.
-
Amen Originally Posted by Jonathan0996
-
Personally- if it was a vintage correct re-fret it wouldn’t bother me any more than changing the strings. Incorrect fret should definitely be mentioned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If collectors are stepping up and paying real hard money for guitars they want, what makes them a blight to guitar players ? Originally Posted by whiskey02
The only way a guitar player is hurt by a collector these days is he doesn't have anything to sell those 'stupid' collectors and take their money.
And it isn't like any player can't find a guitar to play - -there are more affordable & decent guitars around now than there have ever been.
Of course, the world would be a better place if no vintage guitar could ever be sold for a penny more than it sold for new - -unless of course I discover I've inherited Uncle Virgil's new 50's Strat that's been in the case under his bed since 1952. Let's see -- how should that ad read: " Attention Collectors - - "
MHO
-
Now that would be an amazing "collectors" guitar since Strats weren't produced until 1954! In fact, the first Strat produced in 1954 is (or was) available at Gruhn's for $250,000. You can imagine what a '52 Strat would bring -- with or without a fret job! Originally Posted by Dennis D
-
Frets are like strings. They wear out. The only difference is that replacing them is expensive. Large modern frets is something I would expect to be disclosed because it affects the look and feel of the guitar. But a refret with wire correct to the guitar, done recently or decades ago, is very much like no original strings to me, and would probably add value.
-
The answer is very simple.
100% Original should mean the guitar is 100% Original. Period. And if its a vintage instrument, you probably (or should have) paid top dollar for it because its 100% original.
My opinion is if the frets have been changed, that should be disclosed. And if the seller substituted the frets with frets that were not the same frets that were spec'd for the guitar, that fact should absolutely be disclosed. The seller made a boo-boo. You deserve a discount, or the opportunity to return the guitar. And the seller should bare the expense of shipping, because they messed up. And its matter of integrity.
Changing frets from Medium/Medium to Medium/Jumbo radically changes the dynamics and sound of the guitar. If you were hell bent on a 1953 175, for example, you might want that fast playing super lightweight P90 laden 175 that was prevalent at the time. And because you bought a 100% original 175 you should expect that when you remove it from the case.
Jack Zucker did a tutorial once here on how to buy a used guitar, complete with a list of very detailed questions that the buyer should ask. He didnt have to do that, but he did it on his own valuable time to help protect a buyer from an unscrupulous seller. QAMan goes through a lengthy (and valuable) process before he pulls the trigger on a guitar. Heck, my man Vinny wont even buy a used guitar anymore and pays TOP DOLLAR for brand new instruments so he doesn't have to go through this B.S..
Ask for pictures. Ask for details. If something doesn't seem right, then it usually isn't. I usually buy used guitars from people I know and trust. They are the best people here and they would never screw you.
Joe D
-
Very much appreciate the replies to this topic, again and to re-emphasize the presented scenario isn't real and didn't happen. My point was to explore how you guys see vintage guitars in terms of their originality versus user practicality. A vintage guitar is, to some a doorstop if it isn't playable.
I recently bought a 1953 Gibson ES-175 that is 100% original ( Vintage Gibson ES-175D 1953 ). As a player I briefly toyed with the notion of re-fretting with a more modern ( ie higher) fret wire, this in order to make it feel more like my other ( modern) arch tops.
Important to mention- the vintage frets on my guitar are in excellent condition, with only light wear showing around the cowboy chords of the fretboard.
Ultimately I decided against it. The vintage frets are what they are and how the guitar was designed, absolutely playable in all positions, and that's what confirmed my decision to not mess with them.
Was very interested to see how you guys saw the issue through the prism of your own vintage guitar purchase.
-
In your situation, I’d keep the original frets and when they are finally in need of replacement, I’d do so with new frets in a size I prefer. The only exception is if the original frets, while playable, are of a type I really dislike, such as the wide/flat variety used by Gibson in the late Norlin (pre-Henry) era. I’d get those proactively redone because I frankly hate them.
-
RP, Originally Posted by rpguitar
I've never met anyone who liked them.. It still amazes me that they were popular at one time. Or were they? Was this just Gibson's way of saying, "you get what you get and you wont get upset"..
My Gibson Johnny Smith really became the great guitar it was supposed to be AFTER I had it re-fretted with EVO gold Medium Jumbos. Now its right.
JD
-
Yes, a refret is just maintenance and wouldn't stop me from buying a guitar, like a gassed out pickguard that needs replacing.
Should have been disclosed and it's no longer 100% orig, but not a deal breaker for me.
But a neck reset on an archtop is. In the flattop world it's unusual for a vintage Martin not to have had one or need one. Usually frowned on in an archtop as they have adjustable bridges and are less common. I would devalue an archtop w a neck reset and likely would not buy it unless it was done well and a truly exceptional guitar and priced to reflect the repair. But not a refret or guard replacement. That's like a tire replacement to me. But ymmv.....
-
FWIW, Herb Ellis did not keep original, skinny style frets on his ‘53 ES-175. He went the jumbo route, at least the last time it was refretted. I can’t argue with the choice. Interestingly, I’ve always liked the wide low frets on Les Pauls. They aren’t necessarily my preference, but I’ve found them very playable.
100% original should mean every single part is original, just as mint should mean just as it left the factory on day one.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions