-
All the old guitars I've heard or played were great sounding. Probably from the better lot though, or people wouldn't have kept them (it's relatively easy to sell a vintage mediocre guitar). Also very stable, whatever could happen has happened already, so you know what you get. But often playability is not as good as a modern new instrument, that's one area many new guitars are miles ahead. Also prices. I don't know anyone that has a vintage instrument who payed for it the crazy prices you see on eBay, reverb, etc, me included
-
05-08-2019 08:24 AM
-
That is undoubtedly true. The old woods make a huge difference. Vintage ES guitars like the ES 300, ES 350, ES 150, ES 175 and ES 125 and derivative models such as the BK and TF are constructed of much lighter laminate plates than their contemporary counterparts. They are much lighter in weight and far more vibrant and responsive when played unamped. My 1947 ES 300 is so much lighter than my 1998 Tal Farlow ... But amped these differences are smaller of course. But the feel of vintage laminate Gibson is very different from more modern laminate Gibsons indeed.
Originally Posted by jzucker
I have no experience with carved Gibsons but my guess is that the tops, backs and sides on vintage L5s, L7s and Super 400s etc. are much thinner too, making them louder and more responsive.
I demoed a Wesmo once once and it was one heavy mofo
DB
-
I don't think the laminate plate thickness has much to do with it. My '88 175 and '63 kessel have pretty heavy plates on them. I also owned several tom painter guitars as well as a few eastmans with plywood tops with very light plates (much lighter than my kessel or 175) and they didn't sound anywhere near as good.
I really don't know why the older guitars sound different. I wouldn't think the plywood aging would make any or much difference. I know it's not as simple as thickness of the tops though. And it's not the electronics because modern electronics in my kessel still sound like a 60 year old guitar.
Neither of my older guitars needed a neck reset but they were both planed and refretted which is par for the course on any instrument older than 20 years IMO. The tops had sunken a bit on both but in the 5 years I've had my kessel, it hasn't changed.
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
That is undoubtedly true. The old woods make a huge difference. Vintage ES guitars like the ES 300, ES 350, ES 150, ES 175 and ES 125 and derivative models such as the BK and TF are constructed of much lighter laminate plates than their contemporary counterparts. They are much lighter in weight and far more vibrant and responsive when played unamped. My 1947 ES 300 is so much lighter than my 1998 Tal Farlow ... But amped these differences are smaller of course. But the feel of vintage laminate Gibson is very different from more modern laminate Gibsons indeed.
I have no experience with carved Gibsons but my guess is that the tops, backs and sides on vintage L5s, L7s and Super 400s etc. are much thinner too, making them louder and more responsive.
I demoed a Wesmo once once and it was one heavy mofo
DB
-
It's weird though, something makes a lot of those vintage Gibsons lighter and more resonant acoustically--particularly 175's. They also "carry" their weight differently, if that makes sense?
I think the only real absolute I say say is that the current and vintage guitars do sound and feel different. Better is a dicey word, but I know which one I like...
And unless you're going after real "collectibles," laminated vintage Gibson archtops are still a very good value...
-
i think jeff hit it. Better is too subjective and as jazz evolves, the sounds that were considered great may no longer work in a modern ensemble. The sound that Mike Moreno gets for example sounds great but if you tried to get a '60s howard roberts tone with his setup, you couldn't do it. And likewise, if you tried to get Mike's sound with a '63 Epiphone Howard Roberts guitar, you couldn't get that either.
While I love the sound of my kessel with Thomastik Flats, I find that with a lot of my original and more modern jazz pieces, i prefer my exrubato or my tele.
HOWEVER - AND THIS IS IMPORANT IMO...If i'm going for a '60s jazz guitar tone, my '60s archtop sounds more period-correct than anything else I've ever owned and played.
-
I just had this conversation with a noteable touring player yesterday and his position was that owning vingage gear for home or recording or more local drivable or special gigs is great, but for sustained touring, it's too risky for a few reasons. 1) Theft/Loss/Damage 2) Reliability, yes you can keep your 60 year old guitar maintained, but stuff goes wrong...… and 3) More conceptual than anything, just about all the players we admire from way back when were playing new instruments and they did OK with out some magic vintage mojo.
Now he owns many vintage guitars and I have a few and certainly some are amazing but really I and he think there are plenty of excellent instruments from the 80's to new builds.
-
Working with the artists of the week in my facebook group "modern jazz guitar", I've gotten a different impression. Most of the guys I've featured (pretty much a who's who of jazz guitar) are still using their vintage instruments on tour and prefer them to modern instruments though they are still more frequently photographed with their endorsement guitars!
Originally Posted by Grez
-
Well there you have it, no consensus. And, that's OK!
Originally Posted by jzucker
-
I was lucky on the Gibson blowout (CME Floor models) in late 2017 and got a 59 reissue 175 that is simply a superb guitar. So much so that within a year of owning it, I parted with my vintage 63 175 (which was itself a pretty superb guitar). I used to think that the old wood had special qualities. Either that was because such wood came from old growth trees that were long gone or perhaps aging reduced moisture content in some way to produce a certain tone. The 59 reissue changed my thinking. It is a better sounding guitar than my 63 was.
IMO, every piece of wood is different, therefore no two guitars sound exactly alike. The trick is to find a guitar (or like most of us here "guitars") that inspires your playing. Such inspiration can come from many places, the tone, the feel or even "the vibe". For some, that will require a vintage piece, for others it will not.
Vintage guitars are more rare than their modern counterparts due to the population being smaller and the guitar being less popular back when they were made. This will make the desirable models expensive, and taking a 20K guitar to a noisy public venue to earn 50-100 bucks may not be the smartest move.
With the cost of upkeep and restoration, a vintage piece can be a money pit, much like an old home. But for some the charm of the old home or vintage guitar will be worth the cost.
I have three vintage guitars among the 13 guitars that I own. All three are non cut D'Angelicos. I mostly play them at home, though occasionally I take them to high dollar gigs where I am reasonably certain that no harm will come to the instrument. I have played many acoustic archtops built by today's masters from Bob Benedetto to Steve Andersen. None inspired my playing like the DA's do. So while, I am not a slave to the vintage guitar fetish, I am not ready to rethink the whole vintage thing myself. YMMV
-
for me it's more than charm. I've owned enough old and new guitars to know that - for myself anyway - it's not a random distribution of good and bad. The older guitars actually do sound different. (to me, anyway). Whether that's better or not is subjective but I've owned enough of the same models in vintage and new form that I believe there is something to the whole vintage thing. Whether it's worth it or not is another story.
And as I've said before, there are many examples of recent guitars that sound great. I just think if you are looking for a specific vintage tone like say Joe Pass Joy Spring, i have yet to hear it from a new guitar.
[edit]
Slight correction, whatever trenier is doing works. I haven't heard it from any new gibson 175 I've played though including the reissues. In fact, the '59 reissue is a significantly different guitar than a mid '60s model so unless they specifically reissue a '63 or '64 175, it's hard to compare...
-
All I know is I don't want someone else's mojo on my guitar. That's my job.
-
mojo isn't something that's excreted... Originally Posted by D.G.
-
Can somebody define 'vibe'? To me it's a new age word that's has a different and unfathomable meaning for everyone, I guess, except me - I'm 'old age' and just don't get it. I'd guess it's the psychological feeling of wonder that one gets when holding/playing/looking at a particular instrument that they're fond of. I can't say that, in 60 years of doing this, that I've ever been enamored of any guitar and, as I said elsewhere, I've owned about all of them at one time or another but they were tools and played and traded or sold with no regrets in order to either upgrade or get something more suited to a particular genre that I was currently involved with. Maybe it's sorta like 'mojo' which just strikes me as an instrument that's old, dirty, neglected, and wasn't very good to start with - I think that's what blues players like so they can think their more authentic. Dunno.....maybe I'm just out of touch........
-
I think of a cello carved in 1680 as vintage. Something made in a factory in the last 60 years is used or if you’re into the whole BMW/Lexus thing, previously owned. An old guitar may be great, but it’s not great because it’s old.
Vintage/antique carved string instruments are by their nature more robust and under less tension from gut strings. Perhaps more importantly they existed for a couple centuries when air and motorized travel did not exist nor centralized forced hot air home heating or AC. They tended to be kept in much more natural and naturally consistent climatic conditions than what modern living can throw at an instrument. A guitar made in the 20th century using steel strings and exposed to mixtures of rapid (unnatural) climate changes, should not necessarily be expected to survive unaffected.
Is there a market for vintage guitar cables?
-
I don't. A 1680 cello is an antique.
From websters:
vintage
adjective
Definition of vintage (Entry 2 of 2)
1of wine : of, relating to, or produced in a particular vintage
2: of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : CLASSIC
3a: dating from the past : OLD
b: OUTMODED, OLD-FASHIONED
4: of the best and most characteristic —used with a proper nounvintage Shaw: a wise and winning comedy— Time
Originally Posted by whiskey02
-
You're cherry-picking I think. Can someone define a great solo? To me, "Vibe" refers to the intangible artifacts an instrument that don't show up in the manufacturing specifications but are felt and heard by the player.
You could make the same argument about swing. Nobody can define swing on paper in a way that everyone agrees with but those in the know, recognize it when they hear it.
Originally Posted by Skip Ellis
-
Mojo in the true sense of the word (a pouch used as a magic charm in rituals of African origin in the new world) can contain bodily fluids of the target of the spell. If it spills on a guitar ... Originally Posted by jzucker
John
-
Hey how about this: a list of albums by famous guitar players that were recorded on vintage instruments (that they didn't personally buy new, e.g., Kenny Burrell's Super 400)? It would be a pretty short list.
There are a couple of players out there, coincidentally in roots music, who come to mind. Dave Rawlings for instance--has always played an old Epiphone 1935 Olympia, just started a recording with a '59 D'Angelico.
Excerpt: David Rawlings' Unlikely New Archtop | Fretboard Journal
And of course Willie Nelson's Trigger.
But jazz? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. They have always played the latest and greatest they could get their hands on.
I thought about George Benson. I don't think he ever really recorded with true vintage guitars (his '58 D'A was barely a pup when he got it). He has an interesting take on collecting--has been selling off a lot of his collection for years.
The George Benson Collection – The Intelligent Collector
-
When it comes to acoustic archtops, I just hear something different with the pre-WW2 guitars. I think that pre-war guitars tend to be adirondack spruce, and that stuff got used up making airplanes in WW2, and most guitars made since then have been sitka or red spruce. There might have been a different work ethic in depression days, when just having a job was special, compared to the stoners on 70s-80s assembly lines. Now that CNC is doing most of the work, and adirondack is coming back, maybe it is time to take another look.
For a long time, starting with the beatles craze, the guitar market was teenagers. Before that it was, for the higher end stuff, anyway, jazz musicians. You get a different instrument when it is made to be sold to kids.
For laminates, I like the early postwar ones with P90s.
-
Inoperable,
I think the most significant factor in pre war archtops that your hearing is parallel bracing vs X. This changes the character I suspect much more than a different variety of spruce.
Jack,
Yes, I'm aware of the correct definition of the word, I was just trying to speak in terms of practicality.Last edited by whiskey02; 05-09-2019 at 11:11 PM.
-
FWIW my 1940 L7 is parallel braced.
-
I think "vibe" and "mojo" are variations of "character". They can probably be traced to the early days of vintage guitar dealing. Anything to push an apprehensive buyer over the edge... Originally Posted by Skip Ellis
-
'42? Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Not true. Kriesberg has always played and preferred an older 175. Same with Peter Mazza and his Super 5. Barney Kessel always preferred his vintage 350 despite multiple attempts by Gibson and others to sway him. Adam Rogers plays an older 335. Metheny played his horrible condition 175 until the endorsement deal offers got too good. Not sure how you derived your data but IMO, it's flawed! I was talking to Jesse Van Ruller who just raves about how great his ES-150 is! Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
And there are many more who I can't name because they have told me in confidence and they are signed to endorsement deals. In fact , if you check the older jazz guitar players, they mostly played older guitars until the day when they got their endorsement guitar and check.
The information is out there if you care to look for it.
-
Charles Altura plays a Westville, Lage Lund a Schottmueller, Mike Moreno a Marchione, Kurt Rosenwinkel changes a lot but is seen with Westivelle or Moffa a lot, Gild Hekselman a Victor Baker and a Moffa, Peter Bernstein a Zeidler. Jesse has been seen with a Westville, rcently. Lots of "modern" players use recent instruments.
Reply With Quote
Tone KIng Imperial Preamp
Today, 08:47 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos