Rethinking the whole vintage guitar thing

[Cunamara]

With respect, I am not convinced that prior to 1959 there was a golden age of manufacturing where profit was secondary. When has making money NOT been the goal of running a successful business? If it isn’t, then you go under...

A successful business strives to create the best product or service and to make a profit at it. Those things are, of course, not mutually exclusive. What tends to ruin companies is when bean counters get involved and begin looking for ways to cut corners to maximize profit. That eventually degrades the quality of the product, it begins to lose in the competitive marketplace to better products and the company is no longer successful.

Most of the interest in collecting pre-70’s artifacts—cars, clothes, guitars—is pure nostalgia. People long for a time when cool products were made by American companies in the US, when not coincidentally America was at the peak of her power economically, militarily and culturally.

Well, at least that's when people tend to believe America was at the peak of her power economically, militarily and culturally. But it's not especially true. The reason for America's relative perceived (by Americans, mainly) dominance in the 50s was that much of the world was still recovering from World War II. But in that time frame America was weak militarily; read up on the history of the Korean War if you want more information about that- Task Force Smith, the shattering march of the NKPA down the Korean peninsula routing the American forces at will, etc. After that, Viet Nam, and so on. decisive military dominance is probably impossible to achieve, hence the need to have strong alliances with friendly like-minded nations.

And contrary to the opportunistic hype from the naysayers of American progress, the US economy is still the largest and strongest in the world and is still a beacon of liberty despite our current political foolishness. It is why people still continue to come here from other countries: to have a chance at success unavailable to them at home. I work with immigrants from around the world on a daily basis and they're all here for basically the same reasons that my great-great-grandparents came from Ireland and Germany.

All of that is a long way to get around to saying that the vintage trope is to a great extent the results of rose colored glasses looking backwards. When we think about the 1950s and early 1960s, what we really think about is the TV shows of that era and not the reality of it. Poverty and economic insecurity were widespread, structural racism was overt and vituperative, the roles for women were highly limited, etc. Life expectancy was barely 70 years. Sure, Mayberry looks idyllic but America really wasn't quite like that. It wasn't wholly dissimilar, either.

When Tal Farlow was getting such a great tone out of his ES 350, that was a new guitar- the wood was not aged yet. Ditto Barney Kessel. Ditto Johnny Smith. Ditto Joe Pass. Etc. As others have pointed out, there are great vintage guitars and there are poor vintage guitars just as there are great modern guitars and poor modern guitars. Each have their appeal. But emotionally we link vintage instruments, etc., with what we erroneously think of as better times.

Says the guy who lives in a 1908 house because he too tends to think a vintage is better.

[floatingpickup]

I don't think there's an objective definition for what makes a vintage guitar. Some argue 20 years, others say 30 years and many see pre 1970 as vintage. I even think pre 1965 is used by many.

Some say age is the most important variable whereas others claim it's both age and desirability/collectibility.

Of course it depends on the brand. Vintage Ibanez would be 70s whereas Fender and Gibson would be pre 1970 at least.

Personally for Gibson, I'd go for pre 1965. That would make most sense to me. I would not pay top vintage dollar for anything after 1965 but that's just me.

And the 70s as a vintage era for Gibson and Fender? Mmmmm ....

DB

I can’t speak to Fenders, but I think the 1970’s Gibsons get a bad rap. I have a 1975 L5CES that is an excellent guitar. For just a few years around that time, they had returned to 1 11/16” nuts and didn’t have volutes yet. It has a nicer neck than my 1963 L5. I use the 1975 for most of my gigs these days and it is a really great guitar.
Keith

[Soccerpoodle]

I currently play a Sadowsky Bruno through a Quilter Mach 2.

For years I played a 1954 Epiphone Regent through a 1984 Polytone Minibrute IV and had no plans to change my rig as I was very happy with the sound.

I fell into a deal for the Sadowsky that I could not pass up. It took me a couple of months and a couple of bad gigs with the Sadowsky to adjust to the "liveliness" of the guitar. The Epiphone needed the player to dig in and sounded amazing when you did. The Sadowsky is the opposite. I ended up deciding to keep the Sadowsky and sold the Epiphone.

Since both my vintage amps were getting long in the tooth I bought the Quilter. After a couple of months of owning three amps, I made the decision to sell both the Polytone and my vintage Music Man.

I would not say that what i have now is better. It's different. I love the Sadowsky and love how easy it is to get the sound I want out if. It may not be the greatest guitar in the world but it is certainly all i need. I feel the same way about the Quilter.

I had vintage and loved the sound. I traded vintage for more modern and love the sound. Both are great.

For me personally it is whatever floats your boat!

[Skip Ellis]

It still all boils down to personal taste. There's a lot of Gibson lovers on here but I've never found one I liked, including a '59 burst, '47 Super 400, JS, ES-5, and numerous others - I'll take my homemade Tele any day because it works FOR ME. Same for amps - I had a '64 (no logo) DR a couple years back and thought it was the worst amp I ever TRIED to play through - give me a Super Reverb or Vibrolux any day. I guess I don't have an emotional or sentimental bone in my body when it comes to equipment. To me, a guitar that plays well and in tune is a good guitar and an amp that makes my guitar louder is a good amp. I still don't get the 'mojo' and 'vibe' thing, though. All I care about is getting through the gig with no breakdowns and an instrument that stays in tune. After it's over, it's in the past and you deal with the next one down the road. Most audiences don't care or know the difference anyway, and they're only there to talk, drink, dance, and look at their cell phones.

[Doctor Jeff]

A successful business strives to create the best product or service and to make a profit at it. Those things are, of course, not mutually exclusive. What tends to ruin companies is when bean counters get involved and begin looking for ways to cut corners to maximize profit. That eventually degrades the quality of the product, it begins to lose in the competitive marketplace to better products and the company is no longer successful.

Some would argue that’s what happened with Henry J, but I think it had more to do with changing the focus of the company to non-guitar areas, rather than quality per se.

Well, at least that's when people tend to believe America was at the peak of her power economically, militarily and culturally. But it's not especially true. The reason for America's relative perceived (by Americans, mainly) dominance in the 50s was that much of the world was still recovering from World War II. But in that time frame America was weak militarily; read up on the history of the Korean War if you want more information about that- Task Force Smith, the shattering march of the NKPA down the Korean peninsula routing the American forces at will, etc. After that, Viet Nam, and so on. decisive military dominance is probably impossible to achieve, hence the need to have strong alliances with friendly like-minded nations.

Whether America was at her peak during that time period relative to other countries can be argued, but it is certainly our (American) perception. Otherwise, who gives a flip about big hunks of steel that even a Hyundai Elantra will outperform in every way except size? They’re symbols.

Says the guy who lives in a 1908 house because he too tends to think a vintage is better.

My house was built in 1928. Mostly I love it except when rewiring something (old tube and post wiring) or when it’s rains buckets (water seeps through foundation). Always something to do around the house besides play guitar. ;-)

[rio]

I can’t speak to Fenders, but I think the 1970’s Gibsons get a bad rap. I have a 1975 L5CES that is an excellent guitar. For just a few years around that time, they had returned to 1 11/16” nuts and didn’t have volutes yet. It has a nicer neck than my 1963 L5. I use the 1975 for most of my gigs these days and it is a really great guitar.
Keith

I agree. I’ve heard lots of great 70’s Gibsons and honestly I don’t know that I could tell much of a difference from comparable early ones. I have a ‘70 L5 and love it (although I guess it could be argued that is pretty close to before Norlin). I’d choose a 70 something with a volute (although mine doesn’t have one) over an older one with narrow string spacing.

However I am not sure if I’d call them vintage in some regards. I think objectively they are, being that vintage refers to somewhere around 30-40 years old. However it seems like people keep what was vintage in the 90s as what is vintage now and many wouldn’t consider an 80 something vintage, much less a 70 something. Probably partially due to the hardware. T tops vs. patent number or PAF and all that.

Honestly I don’t think that matters either. Vintage is just a word and it has started being taken not literally since some will just say 60 something and earlier and vintage. The word has lost meaning since it has become subjective. But there is old wood and new wood and that’s all it comes down to - the hardware you get plays into it but imo it shouldn’t somehow change the meaning of the word. Maybe we should come up with some new words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[lilakmonoke]

this is an interesting discussion since i just sold most of my vintage collection. judging from the many different opinions there are many different aspect to vintage guitars vs new guitars

- the mojo factor actually has a scientific aspect to it. guitars are definitely affected by playing them, the frequencies that go into it actually change the body materials, they adapt to whatever is played on them and "loosen up" ... which is pretty amazing when you think about it. ie. i had a mint 1965 es-175 that was hardly played and sounded completely dead. even a 500k les paul will sound dead if its been in collectors hands and not played for decades. i had a cheapo epiphone LP that was the main stage guitar of a well known french jazz player and it sounded just as good as "greeny".

- then there is the aging material factor. keith richards once said in an interview that guitars only have a certain amount of vibrations in them, then they lose top end and eventually die. probably true too, keith must be one of the most experienced vintage collector on the planet.

- then the value factor. thankfully the vintage guitar market has deflated in recent years and many "investors" are now buying vintage synths. most vintage gibsons and fenders are still mass produced instruments and the quality is not comparable to luthier made guitars. my hope is that in the future they will go back to being just "old guitars" but lets see :-)

that being said my 1956 L5 CES with alnico staple pickups has incredible quality and mojo and i play one e seven chord on it and its instant "elvis - mystery train" feeling. no other guitar can do that i think. there were only 72 of these guitars made and that one of them ended up with me is a special feeling. then there is days where i think about selling it and replacing it with a contemporary L5 copy from holland. go figure!

[pingu]

. All I care about is getting through the gig with no breakdowns and an instrument that stays in tune. After it's over, it's in the past and you deal with the next one down the road. Most audiences don't care or know the difference anyway, and they're only there to talk, drink, dance, and look at their cell phones.

ha ha , what about the Art ? !

no you're probably right ,
when I found a guitar that I could play vaguely in tune
(Difficult for me , I'm quite ham-fisted)
It sounded ok and stayed in tune too ....
hurrah ....... result

[rpjazzguitar]

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.

Jack Wilkins and Yotam Silberstein each played the Comins GCS-1 when I attended live performances in NYC. It sells for about $1600. I saw Yotam in SF where he played a different guitar, don't know which.

[Greentone]

Vintage _acoustic_ archtops sound better--when they are in good shape--than new acoustic archtop guitars do, IME. Gibson, Epiphone, and D'Angelico archtops from the 20s-40s are just sensational sounding instruments. Not all of them, to be sure, but many of them are wonderful guitars to play.

Now, the occasional newish acoustic archtop instrument can turn your head. Gibson Citation and Kalamazoo Award instruments from the 70s-80s can be simply delightful sounding instruments. I have played a couple that would have compared very favorably against any vintage instrument.

Aaron Cowles, who built many of those Gibsons, made a small run of seven instruments called Unity 100th Anniversary archtops. These instruments are outstanding acoustic guitars--with a floating pickup. They have the dimensions of an L-5, but they sound more like a D'Angelico, IMO.

Some Benedetto archtops and some Guild Artist Award archtops are pretty special sounding acoustic guitars.

On average, however, I would tend to trust the sound of a vintage, pre-War Gibson, Epi, or D'A over just about anything newer.

Now, if you are going to talk electric guitars, things change a lot. Different subject.

[DMgolf66]

Jack Wilkins and Yotam Silberstein each played the Comins GCS-1 when I attended live performances in NYC. It sells for about $1600. I saw Yotam in SF where he played a different guitar, don't know which.

Saw Jack last night. Still playing the Comins and very, very well.

[lilakmonoke]

> Vintage _acoustic_ archtops sound better

in my experience thats not the case. i think any guitar that is made from wood has the potential to sound good if it has been "imprinted" correctly. my favourite archtop now is a 1950s epiphone byron which was almost new when i got it and had a very pingy midrange.

i then made myself a soundfile with an analog synth that plays a complex frequency mix of the main frequency range of a guitar, roughly 0-500 herz + overtones. i hung the guitar in front of a speaker and played that file for about a week and you could almost watch the guitar wake up. now its sounds absolutely splendid. i think you could do something similar with any guitar, even a new solidbody. they just take longer to wake up :-)

[Little Jay]

I’ve always found the idea of ‘imprinting’ a guitar with sound (or ‘braking it in’) fascinating. I don’t know how much scientific truth there is behind it or what explanation is behind this opening up-thing, but I find guitars to start sounding better after they have been played a lot and when they ‘dry up’. Guitars that I use on stage sound better than the ones that stay at home, especially in the highs and when it comes to ‘punch’.

Well, it could be all just in my mind, but I can imagine raisins in the wood that dry and crackle under influence of certain frequencies forms structures that can make the wood resonate differently. My best sounding guitars are my old ones (50ies ES-125, couple of 70ies Framus guitars), my newer ES-333 sounds great but has some ‘immature’ high frequencies that are still rounding off. A recently aquiered new (and cheap) Ibanez AF55 sounds thinner and mire subdued but is already opening up now that it hangs on the wall and the very young wood dries and is exposed to the sounds in my music room (and gets played quite a bit on stage too.....).

In the line of this reasoning: a new guitar being made from older wood that is properly dried should sound good too?

Again: this is all very unscientific of course and it could all just be in my mind......

[lilakmonoke]

> I find guitars to start sounding better after they have been played a lot and when they ‘dry up’.

precisely, but they sound only better in the frequency range that you you play them in. watch this video:

... see how each tone results in a different pattern depending on the tone and the shape of the resonator. thats exactly whats happening in the wood as well, the structure of the wood losens up around these patterns.

so if you take an acoustic guitar and play songs in c major for 10 years it will sound great in c major but not so much in f sharp. i think that is the reason why a lot of well known players prefer the guitars that they have played for decades. because they sound great in exactly the stuff that they are playing.

of course dry old wood will cure differently than fresh wood and plywood but they all improve through vibrations. we even did that process to a cheap 70s japanese hummingbird copy in plywood and thick poly finish and it worked miracuously.

btw all this is a well known fact in brass instruments like trumpets. there is a guy in hungary who will take a brand new brass instrument and cure it so it sounds like one that has been played for decades and a lot of classical musicians use that service.

[lilakmonoke]

for anybody who want to try this here is a description of my "curing" soundfile, which i think i lost in a hard disk crash. if i find it again i will mail it to anybody interested in this:

take two sine tones, sweep no 1 very slowly from 0 to 250 hz and back and no 2 from 500 - 250 hz and back so one tone goes up while the other goes down. overlay those tones and you will get all possible consonant and dissonant two tone harmonics between 0 and 500 hz. i actually used a ring modulator to create these tones. now run this through a distortion device, tube amp etc. for more square waves and overtones. then run it through a delay for even more complex wave stacking.

i think one sweep was about 8 minutes so there is enough time for the guitar to resonante at each frequency. the result should be that if you play this through a speaker into your guitar and put your hand on it you should clearly feel the major resonance frequencies of your guitar as the sweep hits them.

i hope im making sense ...

[yebdox]

Yedbox, very good points. Have you tried swapping pickups on the Sadowsky?

Hi, Jorge, yes, I did swap the stock pup with a burstbucker 2 I had lying around, slightly higher output, not a lot of change. You can definitely hear the difference in tone when played acoustically, bright, thinner, almost like a national, somehow. I like the way it plays, very accurate, but more sustain than the 175. I measured the pickup placement and it’s definitely about 3/8” further away from the 12th fret than the placement of the pup on the 175, so that might be playing a role, as well. Hard to love, but hard to let go of. Might try a Lollar Imperial in it sometime, but the 175 has a wider range of tones, in spite of simply having 57 classics. Hmmmmm....

[yebdox]

L-5 -> Les Paul -> ES-175 -> D'Aquisto laminate electric -> Sadowsky is the sequence as I understand it. There's a D'Aquisto carved acoustic in there too.

IMHO Jim Hall sounded bright and jangly on that guitar compared to his ES-175, and also I thought that his D'Aquisto also sounded thinner and brighter than the ES-175, too. I always put that down to Jim being 50 years along in his career as a musician and having lost a fair amount of top end hearing; might have sounded just the same to him- or maybe he heard fine but was seeking a brighter tone. While I loved a lot of what Jim played on the later guitars, I often didn't love his tone on those recordings (I'm thinking of his later records on ArtistShare, These Rooms with Tom Harrell, the duo recording with Charlie Haden, etc.- brilliant playing, but that warm inviting sound he got with the ES-175 wasn't there). But that's just my ears which my doctor tells me are 43% tin.

I really liked his tone on the 175, particularly with Art Farmer, and the live recordings from ‘75 in Toronto, with the cover showing the D’aquisto. I really liked These Rooms, but don’t know what he was playing at the time. Still, seems like the 175 sounded best, to my ears, and the Sadowsky doesn’t do that. My GB 10 sounds like Benson, my L5 sounds like Wes and my 175 sounds like metheny and Kreisberg, with a good tube amp and small tweaks, change of picks, etc. But the Sadowsky..... still a work in progress for me.

[Cunamara]

I think that finding one's sound on any given instrument is a negotiation between you and the guitar. It somehow develops a response to your touch and approach to it but it also makes you adjust your touch and approach to it. And then I think there's also the factor of psychoacoustics, something Jack Zucker has talked about in terms of guitar amplifier speaker break-in. The same thing probably happens with guitars, as well and that might be even a greater factor than the guitar adapting to the player or the player adapting to the guitar.

As for Jim Hall, my favorite tones of his are on his recordings with Art Farmer and Sonny Rollins. I think in both cases he still had the P90 pick up on his ES-175. He was going through the GA-50 amp. To me that was just a great combination for tone. Of course, that's also applied with Jim Hall's inimitable touch. I could play the exact same equipment and not sound anywhere near as good. I also liked his tone quite a bit on some of the Paul Desmond records, particularly the Bossa Antigua one. I don't know if that was the D'Aquisto or the ES-175, however.

There is a 1955 ES175 for sale on our local Craigslist for $3300 (P90 replaced with a humbucker). I'd be really tempted to check it out if I wasn't in the middle of spending $60K to remodel the kitchen.

[Little Jay]

Dude..... new kitchen... or vintage ES-175???

Tell the mrs the kitchen is still fine!

Priorities man, priorities!

;-)

[Skip Ellis]

It still boils down to players trying to copy a sound/tone played by someone else in a recording studio with unknown equipment (mics/pres, etc), unknown acoustic treatment and etc. during a certain time period 60 or 70 years ago. Even if we knew all that, plus had knowledge of which brand of strings was used, how old they were, what pick was used and if they player had a fight with his wife that morning, we still could not get that exact sound. And I also wonder if the greats (Wes, Herb, Joe, Jim, Barney, etc.) really cared that much about tone in those days - they walked in, plugged into whatever was available, played the session, and left the rest up to the engineer. I've heard great (to me) tone from all of the above players and I've also heard tone that sounded like fingernails on a blackboard. It may come down to knowing how much time each instrument spent at which humidity level in each time zone during it's lifetime and whether it's pickup bobbins are black or white. OK to search for it, I guess - it keeps the manufacturers in business and give players a hobby.

[Klatu]

Dude..... new kitchen... or vintage ES-175???

Tell the mrs the kitchen is still fine!

Priorities man, priorities!

;-)

Ladies don't appreciate a kitchen's vintage mojo.

[rpjazzguitar]

Paint the cabinets. New handles. Or argue that the entire essence of the house means that the perfect kitchen is the original kitchen, just made to look new, and handle that with a deep cleaning. Get the 175 with the P90s.