-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
I beg to differ...
-
03-01-2020 04:01 AM
-
Here's my two cents worth.
1/ I suspect most of the younger dudes that buy other DA models really don't know or care who John was or his legacy.
2/ DA sells so many other styles of guitars to so many different types of players I really can't see how the F's are piggy-backing on the DA name/brand all that much anymore. (See comment above)
3/ Personally, I think the F's have done an amazing job in expanding the line of guitars and pulling in so many big names now that from a business perspective they can't be faulted.
4/ Most players can't afford a real DA or one of the Masterbuilt ones so this is as close as they can get.
5/ If the quality and playability is there and guys buy them, that's fine. If they were complete pieces of garbage then I could see the point about exploiting the name.
6/ I've played many DAs and some of them were really fantastic. Others, so so. The prices - even though the virus might really ding the guitar market - are really silly since DAs are super tough to move. Just go to Rudy's and see the ones for sale, still. Maybe he doesn't want to sell them for anything that matches overall demand, who knows?
7/ I think keeping the arch top flame alive, as it were, is great. Gibson isn't doing it, that's clear.
8/ I chatted with Whitfield in NYC in Feb during a break at the Carlye and he was playing his blonde Ibanez lawsuit guitar. It sounded fine. We spoke about the DA line and the custom work Ric was doing for DA out of his shop in Tribeca, and the conclusion was really whatever worked. The jazzers from a by-gone age sure wouldn't be having this typical 'corksniffer' discussion. They'd be practicing their chops!
-
Probably the best way to sum up this entire thread. The OP would appreciate it. Originally Posted by John A.
If you like it and it gives you pleasure, who cares.
-
There was only one reason I bought my first NYL-2 and that was strictly because of the look. I had no idea what it would sound like but I knew there was no way it would sound like a real D'A the way it's built. I put it on a guitar stand after I played it, looked at it and enjoyed all that Art Deco glitter for hours. Plus, I could take it out to play, look like one of the old school players and not worry that someone would mess it up on me. I still play it but it in no way sounds acoustically anything like the real thing.
-
I'm a bit confused on the body width and depth between the 2 models
I saw conflicting information on diverse retailers regarding the lower bout (16 or 17 for the StyleB?)
The Style B is supposed to be a slimmed down version, but looking at the photos they seem to be the same size except for the cutaway
Is one 16 and the other 17, and what about the depth of each?
-
Still just laminated tops, kinda silly. But I guess if you want a reasonably priced alternative to an ES-300/350, it works.
-
I wonder how the Guild Savoy compares.
Access to this page has been denied.
-
The Standard Style B is 17" at the lower bout and 13" at the upper bout and the body is 3" deep. I have one and enjoy it for what it is. I also have an L5. Sometimes I prefer to play the Style B as it has a shorter scale. It has an okay acoustic tone as well as amplified. Originally Posted by Jx30510
-
Anyone able to comment on the D’Angelico Throwback’s acoustic volume? Does it stand up as an acoustic instrument?
Thanks!
-
Y'all know how many violins (claiming to be) built by Stradivarius, Guarneri et al. are out there? Me neither but it's a lot
Not in my neck of the woods when I was looking a couple of months back... but I saw that his entry price is still just under 4k€. To me that makes it very hard to justify current Eastman prices. Originally Posted by jads57
I think I saw the answer to that on the 1st page: "almost". Originally Posted by JCM
-
Very pretty, doesn't leave much room for you in the bed. This will not end well for you Mark.
Originally Posted by deacon Mark
-
Well as a poor musician and a non convert to much of today’s technology wonders. I stand by original comments. Selling a brand name especially that of a well respected luthier, should be kept to the highest standards, not the highest profit margin nor cheapest construction costs.
People mention Orville Gibson, but later Gibson Archtops weren’t his invention, nor were they inexpensive. If the current owners of the D’Angelico trademark produced similar quality instruments I’d have no issue.
But it’s a business model venture and it’s about profits not the original luthiers vision. And as I said I’m not their target market.
-
I have a very mediocre/beginner player friend (very nice kind guy) who bought one of the D'A's to get that feel of a big jazz guitar. He has no idea who John D was. He saw it hanging on the wall in a music store and decided to buy it.
-
Truth be told, even when you do hear a bit about the history around these guitars you can still get the impression that they were factory instruments in the same sense that Martin, Taylor and Gibson are (at least nowadays). The fact you could apparently walk into a shop and have a choice is kind of incompatible with the idea of a single luthier working on individual instruments that almost has to be custom orders... Originally Posted by Woody Sound
And for me there's a breaking point there, as soon as a creator starts having employees who do the brunt of the work. The name on the headstock goes from being the signature of an individual to being a brand.
-
Having thought for quite a while about this subject of new D'Angelico vs the actual originals made by the man himself, I've landed at the following place: I think that in the final analysis, anyone who really has an appreciation for the originals and the work of such a master craftsman, knows the difference between those few guitars and the modern D'Angelicos produced today. The market certainly reflects that. Just look at the prices. Beyond that, we should be glad that anyone is interested in manufacturing hollow body guitars made for jazz these days. Take note of who's not making them any more. Is anyone being "fooled" by the D'Angelico name? I doubt it. If having the name on the headstock gives the guitar a little more vibe, then why not? Henry Ford and Mr. Packard are not around any more either.
I've owned an EXL-1 and thought it was a fine guitar. I sold it to fund an ES-175. If I had to do it again, I'd have kept the EXL-1. The ES-175 is not with me any more. The only thing that was really better in sound and playability on the 175, was the pickup. I could have swapped out the pickup on the DA. I think that the Throwback series are absolutely beautiful looking, especially for the price and I've been looking at picking up and Excel SS semi hollow.
Hey, I love guitars and I have a few really nice ones that cost much more than one of the DAs, but I'd still buy one and love playing it. In the end, all these guitars are merely a tool with which to express ourselves and although I think a quality guitar is a large part of the equation, it's the player who makes the biggest difference. So buy one of these or any other if it speaks to you and makes you want to play it.
-
I come at this as 64 year old pro player who grew up appreciating the older Jazz Musicians as the bar to reach technically and musically. I felt the same way about the luthiers who built the instruments most of them played.
So when kids on YouTube play their copy of some Wes Montgomery solo or even Charlie Parker solo, I’m left feeling un musically moved.
The same with the copies of their instruments that are built on an assembly line by computers.
Are they good playable instruments? Sure and glad they are accessible to many people. But you get what you pay for.
-
I wonder if it's possible to get to know more about the Seymore Duncan JS pickup used for the throback series ..... (sound, resistance, magnets used, volume compared to other floaters etc.)
Reply With Quote
Want to Buy: Ibanez PM20
Today, 04:24 PM in For Sale