-
Archtop acoustic guitars have little in common with classical guitars. Other than they are tuned the same nothing of them is made the same for sure. It is like comparing a football to a baseball. They are both sports but the balls are very different. We don't know the actually musical life and an archtop guitar as such but it is way over 100 years even if played daily for 2 hours. My guess in the box of the guitar itself more than 200 years. But this is just a guess it depends on the environment it is in.
Originally Posted by Marinero
-
02-01-2022 11:37 AM
-
Other than things like frets and nuts most irreversible modifications to a vintage guitar will diminish its value. However, those guitars can be a great buys and great players. You'll probably get a much better deal on a guitar with some modifications and you'll probably get your money back when you sell. And some modifications were actually improvements.
There was a time when those guitars weren't "vintage," but just old guitars. I once had a '60s 335 that I modified a lot. Personally, I value the sound and playability over collectability. Unless you want a guitar to put in a glass case, pristine original condition shouldn't really be that big of a deal.
-
Absolutely, just pick up a late '20's L5 for your answer. Originally Posted by deacon Mark
And I have certainly played prewar Martins that are mind blowing. Those of course are more similar to classical guitars too.
I'm not even sure that we can accept the original statement as true (about classicals) without some more explanation. For instance, Segovia traveled all over the world in many different rapidly changing climate conditions for decades. And he played it a lot, I mean really a lot. Possibly it was jut plain worn out?
-
I enjoy the discount, and use the saved funds to repair and restore, to the degree practical, the instrument to its full potential. I've been spending a lot of dough lately having all my amps serviced and ship-shape, for when the inevitable occurs and my heirs will have to sell this stuff. Any low-balling will be in bad faith. Any pro could at this point take any of my stuff out and gig with it without worries. Same with the guitars. Originally Posted by JCat
Because in the world of antiquities, originality trumps restoration. Because, in the parallel universe of guitar collecting, guitars that are actually bought for playing purpose are referred to as "player grade" and of lower value. As players, we could find this mildly provoking...or just enjoy the discount
-
It's a Barnum and Bailey world: collectors want old guitars that look as if they have never been played, while players buy new guitars that look as if they have been thrashed.
Last edited by Litterick; 11-09-2024 at 08:01 PM.
-
I'm a little disturbed by the assertions in threads like this that people that collect guitars don't play them. Plenty of people collect AND play their guitars.
-
Hi, J, Originally Posted by JCat
Because in the world of antiquities, originality trumps restoration. Because, in the parallel universe of guitar collecting, guitars that are actually bought for playing purpose are referred to as "player grade" and of lower value. As players, we could find this mildly provoking...or just enjoy the discount
O.K. I understand that concept with "Jazz" guitars. However, why do you think the distinction is so important with those instruments and not with everything else? For example, 19th Century "Romantic" guitars built by Torres, Parnormo, Lacote, Fabricatore, Stauffer, etc. command many thousands of dollars, if even, in derelict condition due to pedigree. Many are unplayable, some are barely playable, and few, if any, have not undergone restoration at some time in their lives. Is a playable Lacote worth more than one that needs complete restoration? . . . Yes. However, there is no stigma attached to either instrument if their restoration is done by a professional vintage repair luthier. Most Stradivari's were built almost 400 years ago and only about 500 =/- survive. They cost from several hundreds of thousands to millions depending on "the period" in which they were built. They have been played by the greatest violinists in the world and none are cosmetically perfect but they have a sound and seasoning of the wood that an unplayed instrument would never have and, based on facts that "servicing" has no real effect on their value/demand. So, if we as musicians buy an instrument for its pedigree and sound--as all other instruments on the market share . . . what's the big deal with a Jazz guitar? An investment? Ego? "Show and Tell" with your neighbors And, if I get your drift, it's not being purchased by a player in most cases. I don't see the big deal since it has never realized it raison d'etre.
Marinero
-
Yer darn tootin'! Although "accumulate" might sub for "collect" for me. If I buy a guitar, it's because I want to play it. And i I have to pour additional money and time into it to make it look and sound its best, I will do so, gladly or no, depending on my present liquidity, not to be confused with intoxication - I gave that up decades ago - but playing a new and different guitar always gets my creative juices flowing. "Every guitar (or amp) has at least one song in it" is my basic thought. It's finding it and dragging it out of the ether that is both the hard part and the source of a certain exuberant joy upon discovery. It rivals the feeling of a good jam when everything falls into place and the band is just groovin'. Y' know? Originally Posted by customxke
-
Hi Marinero Originally Posted by Marinero
My comprehension of this subject can be summarized as follows:
I can't keep my hands off a curvy top. My humidor is for my cigars only. Man, I don't even own a pair of white cotton gloves. I'm all player grade.
But I do appreciate that there are people that go to great length in keeping historically significant objects in original condition, because this makes it possible to study the craft in detail. Thanks to the collector community I know things about the history of my guitars and amps.
My only concern would be if someone who spends more time trading guitars than playing them, gets the prerogative to assess the qualities of a music instrument. Then people whose only objective is to have a good playing and good sounding instrument would be led astray by magical thinking (superstitious thinking, the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link).
The problem when assessing string instruments like guitars and bowed instruments, is that they cannot perform without a careful setup, a setup that will expire. (The violin has no truss rod, meaning its neck will have to be reset on a regular basis). A well executed neck reset of a guitar may not be a problem (its more or less mandatory for old guitars without a truss rod), but it's an expensive operation.
-
"I can't keep my hands off a curvy top. My humidor is for my cigars only. Man, I don't even own a pair of white cotton gloves. I'm all player grade." Jcat
Hi, J,
I think we grew up in the same neighborhood. And, my current favorites besides guitars and curvy tops: H. Uppmann 1844 Reserve Churchill, Alec Bradley Prensado Churchill, Punch Clasico Toros, Rocky Patel the Edge Habano-Toro, and Montecristo Platinum series.
Marinero
-
It's quite simple, there is a range of conditions with vintage instruments, from "mint" to "trashed". As players, or I should say, speaking for myself as a player, if looking at vintage, I am looking for one in between. For instance, I always look for a guitar that is either refretted or needs a refret. That way I can specify the size and height frets I like to play. If an acoustic, and particularly a Martin, a neck reset is almost inevitable and has usually been done already, not a dealbreaker for me at all. Originally Posted by Marinero
Beyond that I am looking for as original as possible. I look for original finish, but it doesn't have to be pristine. In fact, I have sold guitars because they were too clean and it made me nervous to play them. I look for original electronics, but I don't mind minor mods. I have had a 5 way switch in a vintage strat, and a vintage telecaster wired the modern way so that the in between position (both pickups) is available. Because as a player I needed that.
In short, as my mentor in vintage guitars once told me, I am looking for a "short story", like this maybe: '63 Fender Stratocaster, original electronics except for changed volume pot and 5 way switch, professional refret, original finish with honest playing wear and finish checking, with some finish touch up around the jack.
The reason for this is, in addition to it being a playable instrument, you are making an investment with some of your family's money. And you never know when you will fall out of love with a guitar, or your needs change. I bought some vintage guitars years ago when I was a session player and wanted the best guitars I could get. Now I am older and mostly play jazz on arch tops, so maybe I might want to move that rock guitar on. Earlier I moved on 2 nice L5's, an L4C, and a '60 ES345, because my musical needs had changed. Too bad- those are what I like to play now!
Regarding vintage violins, those instruments are unplayable for modern music without those structural changes. It really isn't an apt comparison to guitars, where even an L5 from 1928 can be super playable by a modern player making modern music. As I said earlier, the older and rarer a guitar is, the more often you see repairs that will be acceptable just because they are so rare, like a prewar Martin. Or a D'A.
Regarding playing versus collecting, as I said I started out getting guitars for professional playing, at a time when production guitars from the major manufacturers were pretty lame. But at the same time, I guess I'm a collector, because I have accumulated a collection, some old and some newer- all because I am a player, and I play all of them. The old stereotype of guitars going into collections of people that don't play- it's an internet myth as far as I can tell. I have known a lot of collectors, and they all play. Maybe not at a pro level, but they play. And they have an appreciation for historical artifacts as well.Last edited by bluejaybill; 02-02-2022 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Spelling
-
" the older and rarer a guitar is, the more often you see repairs that will be acceptable just because they are so rare, like a prewar Martin. Or a D'A." bluejaybill
Yes, B, and this is also the case with ALL quality instruments sold on the open market that have been played by musicians during their life. So, here's one . . . what is the purpose of a pristine, unplayed, artisan- quality instrument? Zero. It's like a 300-year-old Bordeaux that sits in your wine cellar to impress your friends.
Marinero
-
Ok, to wrap things up a bit and return to the original scenario :
I've stumbled upon a 1959 Gibson Super-400CN which belonged to rock musician J. Geils and he had a PAT# Gibson humbucker built into the top at the neck position, complete with a volume and tone pot in the usual spot. The guitar looks like it's it's been played a lot, it's not clean (very yellowed binding, some repaired top cracks, light shadows from taped f-holes) but described as being structurally sound and an easy player. Asking price is $ 8000.00 and it's been up for sale a while already. I'm pretty sure it sounds just fine played through an amp at lower volume (these large boxes feed back FAST). My thinking is this : will someone pay that amount for a modded guitar that will be difficult to sell in case something happens and funds are needed ? Is the vintage aspect, the heritage, the previous ownership etc. worth the investment when you can buy a NICE WesMo L5 for less ?
Here in Germany someone offers the same model (but clean, no other issues) with the same modification (Duh!) for - alas- considerably more money ...
-
Originally Posted by gitman
If provenance can be proven (that J. Geils owned the Super 400) - yes, possibly it could sell for $8000, though in my opinion, you would have to be a J. Geils Band fan to want to spend that kind of money on a Super 400 with a major mod. The J. Geils Band's heyday was over 30 years ago, and as such, they are not as well known nowadays as they were back in the 80s, or early 90s. Also, while J. Geils gained a reputation post J. Geils Band as an accomplished jazz guitarist, the average player probably does not know this. So the size of the buyers market for J Geils' Super 400 selling at $8000 will be relatively small.
If it were me I would pass on the guitar, BUT, I will admit that I have bought vintage guitars with much more extensive mods to them - I never would have been able to afford them if they had been less modded. A case in point is the 1954 Gretsch Country Club I used to have. Its previous owner had serious luthier skills, and took a guitar that was unplayable, and in majorly bad shape (some of the hardware was missing, and the finish and binding were a mess), and restored it into a nice guitar (complete with its original DeArmond Dynasonic pickups). In the process though, the tuners, bridge, and tailpiece were replaced with modern equivalents, and instead of refinishing it in the appropriate Cadillac Green finish that Gretsch 6196 Country Clubs have, he finished it in the reddish brown colors of a Gretsch Country Gent. Still, it sounded and played great, and it was selling at a price I could afford (albeit by trading in 2 guitars and throwing in a few hundred dollars to boot) - around $3000, compared to the $6000-$9000 a '54 Country Club typically goes for. I'm still kicking myself for getting rid of that guitar.
Last edited by EllenGtrGrl; 02-09-2022 at 11:16 AM.
-
Where in the world can you get a Super 400 or L5 in playable condition for $8000 or less? As best I can tell those start at $10K and go up up up from there. Originally Posted by gitman
I say if it floats your boat buy it. They aren’t making any more of these carved top large body guitars any more, at least Gibson isn’t. I personally doubt it would go down in price, but even if it went down 25% over several years, wouldn’t that be worth the price of owning and playing a really nice guitar? (25% was always my reference depreciation price with large ticket items, but these days not much is depreciating!)
I have not heard any J Geils playing jazz, but I always enjoyed their band records, and he was an underappreciated guitarist. (Having a band named after you but not being the lead singer leads to a bit of confusion LOL…I used to think Peter Wolf was J Geils when they were popular, as I guess most people did.) Not that that would contribute much to a guitar’s price. That same guitar owned by Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughn would be astronomically priced I’m sure.
-
Actually it was just J. Geils himself. After the J.Geils Band called it quits for the first time, he got into playing jazz guitar. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
I wonder how many more of his guitars have went for sale, since he died. He never married, so as for as I know he never had any family members that he left his assets to.
-
Geils played in a trio with Gerry Beaudoin and Duke Robillard as the New Guitar Summit, among others. He could play. But I wouldn't pay more for a guitar just because he once owned it. Nor for a guitar most other players once owned. But sellers get what they can, for whatever they have, for whatever reason.
-
He was married btw but divorced in '99. I don't know if he had any children. If not, I'm sure the lawyers on the forum could tell us how his assets would be distributed if he died without a spouse or children. Originally Posted by EllenGtrGrl
Interestingly he got into car restoration and racing big time after he left the JGB. Apparently he sued the band over the use of the JGB label and lost.
-
That’s a fascinating piece you've found! Generally speaking, adding a third pickup can be a bit polarizing in terms of resale, especially for collectors who prioritize originality. From what I’ve seen, any permanent alteration to a vintage piece, even when skillfully done, can bring down its value by 20-30%, depending on the model and current market conditions. The '61 ES-335 is such an iconic guitar, and with those original parts still intact, it’s hard to put a firm number on it. Sometimes, players after that unique three-pickup setup actually find it a huge advantage, and it becomes more appealing to serious players than collectors. I’ve been working for 6 years at Joe’s Vintage Guitars, so I can assure you that.
-
Great question! When it comes to vintage guitars, any modification, like adding a third pickup to a -61 ES-335, tends to lower collector interest since originality is key in that market. Generally, changes like refinishing, headstock repairs, or added pickups can knock off 20-40% of the value, depending on the model and the extent of the alteration. That said, if the guitar's playability and tone are unaffected, it might appeal more to players than pure collectors.
-
Refret is at most 10% off and in some cases may be zero.
-
A specious argument at best. First, a 300-year old bottle of wine is going to more of an antiquity than a viable beverage. Second, regardless of the drinkability of the wine, once that bottle is opened 100% of the value is gone. One and done. Third, you assume anyone you deem a collector is running a de facto museum with instruments locked away and only occasionally handled by a curator. Originally Posted by Marinero
The argument is easily made that there is a responsibility to properly care for and maintain a pristine, artisan-quality instrument. To continue your analogy, the ‘unplayed’ smacks of sour grapes.
-
i know of numerous guitar collections that were owned and not maintained by the owner. This actually happens more than you think. I saw this very situation happen with the Chinery Blue guitars. They simply were not maintained in the best condition and places. Things happened and when you have many guitars it becomes more difficult to maintain them.
Think for a minute if you happen to own 50 premium archtop guitars. They take up space and to play them all it is going to take some time. Devoting only 30 minutes a day to a guitar is going to take you 25 hours to even play them all. Playing guitars is not all bad because then if things need attention, they will get fixed. If they are played, you can keep them up. Put a bunch of vintage 1930's Gibson L5's in a room say 50. Then just let them sit on stands and never get played. I will guarantee that is you come back to the room in 6 months things are going to change. Even if the climate is controlled very good movement will happen.
To the post, at some point a player may decide they want a vintage instrument of high caliber but cannot afford the cash. Then a guitar that fits this bill with things that are not original or neck cracks, sure the price goes way down. Going to sell it in the market it has all the red flags but if you like the sound and playability, it may easy be worth the problem. I believe WIntermoon has wonderful L5 that has had a neck repair of many years ago. He uses this as his gigging and playing guitar. To the ears in the audience and the player, even the eyes all they see and hear is a Gibson L5. Everyone has to draw the line on what they can handle.
Can be who did the work too. If Mark Campellone refinished a D'aquisto guitar that need it due to a serious messy finish and use, that certainly would make it non original, but I would rather have that quitar back in top shape done by Mark C than a mess. Most certainly someone of his caliber could refinish it and duplicate the original color and finish as nitro. That is not a bad thing.
If you bought and L5 20 years ago with and headstock crack that was properly repaired and paid say $3000. It cost you $150 a year to play the guitar. My bike tires cost me at least $225 a year and then I throw them out when wore out. Granted this L5 is not worth what it could be, but it still has some value.
Reply With Quote
Jam Session Journal (October 2024 + Performance...
Today, 12:34 AM in From The Bandstand