-
Say you find a nice 61 ES-335 with the original parts all intact, no breaks or repairs but at some point in it's lifespan someone decided that it needs a third pickup,
like in an early LesPaul Custom. Duh ..... Without this alteration the guitar would have a market value of anything between $ 25 and 35 grand, right ? So for the collector this is
not interesting at all (only when it's certified celebrity-owned) but how would one go about putting a realistic pricetag on it ?
My '62 Super-400 CES was affordable because the top had been refinished and it had a neck re-set but since I bought it some 10 years ago I can't really compare the cost with the current
prices of such guitars.
Does it all come down to the simple "it's worth what the buyer is willing to pay" or do we have some sort of a guideline in these cases ? How much is a D'Angelico de-valued when it's been re-bound,
when a pre-war Martin D-28 has a hole in the top that has been patched or the '59 LesPaul Standard with the broken headstock repair ? There are hundreds if not thousands of 50's and 60's Fender guitars out there
that have been re-finished, butchered + gutted and repaired and but when they come up for sale the asking prices are not that far below the 100% original ones, the exception being the mint-condition and celebrity items...
Yes, I'm asking because I have a line on a real nice guitar that would check a lot of boxes but it has one major issue - it does not affect playability, tone or the aesthetics but it's irreversible and the major point in the discussion of the price. Your views on this ?
-
01-30-2022 06:01 AM
-
I don't have any trouble deciding if I like a guitar and how much to pay for it. Last thing I'd do is ask someone else what I like or how much I should pay.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to protect your investment. The reality is our needs our fluid so when the change comes, being able to recoup funds seems like an important question.
Originally Posted by icr
-
Originally Posted by icr
This was not my question- I certainly know what I like and how to evaluate a guitar as an instrument- market value etc is something else and quite controversial….
-
So I think this question is multi dimensional. For vintage pieces right off the bat there are collector grades and player grades and a loss in value for the player grade. Than there is the player grade with repair or modification resulting in a further devaluation. I think you have to evaluate it on a piece by piece basis. How it shows in the end is important. A refinished top and neck reset with proper refinishing, would keep it on the higher side of player grade IMO. A extra pickup added requiring changing the instrument would certainly lower the value to the bottom of player grade. I can't offer you any hard numbers as this is market driven. In the end the powerful name will protect the value to some degree.
Originally Posted by gitman
-
I think you'd have to be more specific than this to get a helpful answer. Certain mods that fall in this category probably don't ding the value of some guitars by all that much. Other mods/other guitars might have more of an effect. Originally Posted by gitman
-
Basically true collectors looking at all angles and not being players or at least not the focus of there life, they want an untouched guitar. A guitar that might have at least been played and shows almost no real wear.
Frankly that is to the determent of the reason the guitar was made, the folks who bought them to play and enjoy, and like anything else they have a limited life span of use without needing things done. It is all an individual judgement really and being a player who happens to like really nice guitars I go all over the place with what is ok. I started playing guitar and jazz guitar at an young age. I got hook on archtop guitars and the thrill has never gone. It has really zero to do with collecting or at least very little. I bought my first D'angelico Excel a 1953 from George Gruhn at the tender age of 18 years old. I bought it because Johnny Smith played a D'angelico and I loved the looks and the lore of the instrument. i drove to Nashville with my grand father to get it I was originally set on a style B but got there and went for the Blond Excel. My grandfather advanced me $500 as it was more than the B.
This does not answer your question but I can tell you the antique road show mindset it with us and it is not our friend in the guitar world.
-
I think things like neck resets and refrets do not reduce value very much. Refinishing and/or rebinding does. Non original parts do. Non reversible modifications do. Not having the original case does.
My own experience is that collector grade vintage guitars generally do not sound as good as the players grade vintage guitars, as well played guitars have a more developed sound. So IMO, with a players grade guitar, you get more for less. But you will also get less money upon resale.
-
The other factor at play is that some of the best known and most highly prized guitars just sound and play “better” than others of the same model from the same maker. Many of those “virtually new” vintage boxes were played little if at all because they simply didn’t play so well. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
You definitely have to be very specific. On the extreme end of things, like Peter Green’s former Les Paul which now belongs to Kirk Hammet, is worth far more than the average burst due to its provenance and legend, even though it’s had numerous repairs, including headstock repairs and a heavily tampered with pickup. Those repairs would normally bring down the value.
Depending on the specific model, holes cut in for a pickup can have very different effects on value. In some cases a well done refinish can have minimal impact on value, but in others can devalue the guitar as much as 50% even when done at a professional level. I don’t personally see rebinding as a restoration as having a very significant impact, and can obviously enhance the value of one with crumbling binding.
For a guitar that will be played, and not just owned as a collector/bragging piece, I don’t see a neck reset or refret as any significant devaluation.
Valuation can be very specific is the bottom line.
-
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think most "under the bed" guitars were just that- little Johnnie got a guitar and lost interest in a month. Or he went to Korea and didn't come back. Uncle Al thought he'd become a pro player but then he had a family and realized he needed a real job. There are a multitude of reasons why a guitar remains unplayed or only played a bit, and totally unrelated to whether it's a good guitar or not. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
As to the idea that unplayed guitars don't sound that great, sorry, that's not true in my experience. I have a friend who was way ahead of the curve and managed to acquire just about every desirable American guitar, though sadly not arch tops. He only bought top condition guitars. Seriously, they are all magnificent, not a dog in the group. With original frets, some don't play the way I would like, but tonally they are all top drawer. Now maybe he acquired these in the early days, and all of the good ones are now taken, that's a possibility, but I have a second friend who is in the exact same place with a very similar collection, just not as extensive. And I'm not even sure that age adds the much to the tone of these instruments. Remember, Clapton played a '59 sunburst Les Paul on the Beano record- and at that time the guitar was about 6 years old, and it is still the benchmark for that tone.
I do think it's a different story with acoustics and arch tops, these are often improved by playing, but even these are often played well and well taken care of, so they might be in tip top condition and sound excellent. These are the most valuable ones from my viewpoint, and I actually prefer a guitar that's been played a bit too.
BTW I think that pristine condition high end arch tops are pretty rare, the reason being that these were so expensive at that time that only a serious/pro guitar player would have bought one, and often even had to be ordered. And then it would have been played professionally. Really clean guitars that were cheaper, like Fenders, are more common I think, just because they cost less and more available to the amateur- who then might lose interest.
To the OP, vintage guitars exist on a scale from mint to husk. The prices should slide accordingly. In the pandemic, it seems like many "issues" guitars are priced near to really clean original examples, I call that the Reverb effect- many guitars are listed hopefully at those prices and never sell for that- or they do, to someone with less experience. So buyer beware. Refinished guitars are way too expensive, and ones with a lot of changed parts as well are too high, based on history. Those will be the first guitars that decrease in value in any downturn.
With the ES and an added pickup, that is a tough one. With vintage guitars, it pays to always be aware of your exit strategy. No collector would be interested, so you are limiting the resale possibilities in a serious way, much more than an all original guitar with normal playing wear, for instance. It is an irreversible mod, so take that into consideration. It's impossible to say what it's worth, because someone might turn up who would pay more than that, but I would think it is worth half what an all original one is worth, or less. And at that price, maybe an all original guitar from a later year, like 1963-4, might be a better bet. Good luck!
IMHO, YMMV etc.
-
I've never understood this aversion to refinishing. Which is more desirable: a vintage car with dents, rust, sun-burned matte paint and seats with slits instead of stitches, or a renovated, pristine trophy-winner? And imagine what a 18th century violin would look and sound like if no repairs had been allowed due to pressure from investors.
-
John D'Angelico and Jimmy D'Aquisto refinished many guitars and considered it routine maintenance. IMO, it should be a plus like newer frets or a neck reset. I also think that replacing failing binding, out gassing pickguards and worn out tuners should also be a plus. Originally Posted by Gitterbug
But I am a player, not a collector. Collectors are about future value, guitars as art and bragging rights. Players want a well maintained tool that gets the job done.
-
A mint original auto with original paint is generally worth more than one that’s been repainted. Originally Posted by Gitterbug
in general, the rarer the guitar, the more likely that some routine repairs etc would be tolerable. Like a prewar Martin D45 or 00045, or a D’Angelico, they are so rare and fragile that some repairs, even relatively major, might be more acceptable. Even so the more original the better, at least to a collector.
I own a few vintage guitars, and once you do, you are a collector, like it or not. I feel that means that you are a custodian, responsible for keeping it as original as possible, while keeping it playable (frets etc). And I am a player as well. I used to gig with them all the time and still would.
btw I don’t know any collector that doesn’t play, even if not that well. I know they exist, I just haven’t met them. All of the ones I have met buy into this custodian idea, and have a love for the historical aspect of it.
-
IMO, rebinding has entered the same category as neck resets, refrets, and gassing-off pickguards, given that the plastic binding on so many older instruments has deteriorated and will deteriorate enough to require replacement. Just another required service item, so, properly done, no effect on value. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Last edited by Hammertone; 01-30-2022 at 07:52 PM.
-
Except that it is such an expensive repair, when done properly, that it can put the price of the rebound guitar out of many players’ reach. Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
I think it's a real pivot point for old D'As or other high-end guitars with complex binding/purfling, because re-doing those instruments properly is a specialized and costly task. If the plan is simply to sell the instrument, does one do the work and add or shoulder the cost, or sell the the instrument as is at some discount for condition and allow the next owner to make that choice. What did you do? Originally Posted by pcjazz
-
Oh jeez, I have a 1938 Emperor with 13-ply back binding that my luthier plans on redoing for me, but he keeps telling me that it gives him nightmares. Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
I tried and failed to find someone able and willing to take on the work on my 1950s New Yorker. I had a shoulder injury that made it difficult to play such a big guitar, so decided in the end to sell it "as is." Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
This is a great read with many interesting photos that many here might enjoy :
1946 D'Angelico Restoration | The Gear Page
-
I don't agree and I'm sure most techs wouldn't. Originally Posted by Hammertone
A re-fret and replacing the binding are not in the same league. A guitar with binding rot is valued accordingly. A guitar with new binding done tastefully and un noticeable to the trained eye, would improve the desirability and value of the guitar imo. Especially if the guitar was in otherwise mint condition.
Would the improvement in value be more than or less than the cost of having it done? Don't know.
Is replacing binding nibs worth the money?
-
A well done rebind on a DA does not lower the value one bit, and can raise the value of one more than one in need.. Some guitars have binding issues, 30s Epiphones, late 40s-late 50s DAs, vintage Gretsches, the headstock overlays of some Strombergs. Many of these at some point will need a rebind. Same w celluloid pickguards. Its nice to find an old guitar w the guard w out any offgassing but it's becoming increasingly rare. A rebind on a '59 burst would be unusual and affect the value more than the above mentioned guitars which are to be expected. Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
Binding nibs mean nothing imo.
-
Not all vintage guitars are collectible. Not all vintage guitars got the desirable parts to scavenge. Not all vintage guitars can be set up to reasonable standards. Some vintage guitars have had a neck repair, some are refinished and some are just poor performers etc.
Desirable components are highly valued regardless of the particular guitar being collectible or not. And for somebody looking to obtain a certain (worn) image, a vintage guitar could be the ticket (unless one opts for a contemporary relic).
Just remember that collectability has nothing to do with performance. Nothing. (An all original '58 Gibson ES 335 is collectible, a guitar set on fire by Jimmy Hendrix is collectible, a guitar with an autograph by Taylor Swift is collectible. Regardless of its performance.)
Some vintage guitars are great performers some are not. if you are looking for performance, don't mix that up with "vintage", otherwise you'll pay for things that probably don't contribute to your objectives.
Some problems with old guitars are easily fixed (like worn frets, collapsed bridges and worn out nuts) and therefore usually don't affect value very much (even when the guitar would be unplayable in its current state). But some structural problems are going to lower the value, like for example a neck repair, a poor refin, a stripped truss rod, a crack in the wrong place or a deformed neck joint in need of a neck reset. etc.
-
So, violins, violas, cellos, string basses, with names like Guarneri and Stradivarius have lost significant value after being reworked/rebuilt by a quality luthier? A '72 Selmer Mark VI saxophone with new pads, springs and, resprayed lacquer is diminished in value? Segovia's last Ramierez guitars, at the Met, that have been completely restored have diminished value? Why is it so different with Jazz guitars? I can see the difference between a collector's pristine, un-played instrument and a working, well-worn instrument, but this is more about collecting than finding an appropriate instrument to play. However, all solid wood guitars do have a shelf life unlike classical string instruments of a pedigree. A quality, luthier-built CG has an effective life of +/- 20 years being played 4-6 hours a day. They lose projection, clarity, and exhibit a diminished tone to a professional's ears. Segovia relinquished his prized Ramirez when he was given a Wagner to play. Well, that's another story. So, what's the difference between a Jazz archtop and other quality instruments if it's been properly reconditioned to near original condition by a luthier?
Marinero
-
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 Originally Posted by Marinero
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions