-
Two main themes of this thread: Collings offering bad relic jobs and Collings being overpriced marketing hype.
I agree with the bad relic job. I would not buy that. If I were the retailer, I probably would not stock that. But who knows, they might sell like hotcakes.
As for the overpriced marketing hype, wellll…. No. I’m not a flat top guy, so I won’t comment on those. I have played some of their solidbodies, semis, the JL signature and my own CL Jazz. I found those guitars to be exceptionally musical. Especially the JL and the CL Jazz. These things are so alive, they respond unbelievably well that what I’m trying to do. As for Gibsons, in my experience players that favour Gibson are unlikely to get really excited about anything else. Gibsons have a certain voice and if that’s your thing then nothing else comes close. I adore my 335 and will never part with it, but comparing it to a Collings is senseless. A Collings is not a Gibson. It has its own voice.
-
03-19-2023 03:40 AM
-
If only there was some way to have known that the Borys was a 16" guitar with a matte finish and a distressed tailpiece...
Originally Posted by bluejaybill
-
Originally Posted by Oscar67
A lot of the above is subjective and I can’t disagree with it. As for QA and playability, I don’t think any guitars out there match the quality of Collings fretwork and setup. The relic job is just poor taste.
I think what I’m responding to is the increasingly gimmicky marketing materials coming from Collings. Here’s an example. I still don’t understand what’s special about this guitar compared to the normal i35LC, other than the pixie dust of marketing hype. I actually had a long conversation with a Collings dealer at a reputable shop who opined that the LC vintage line was a scam relative to the existing 35 LC.
As for Collings vs Gibson, I do agree they’re very different sounds. Collings obviously borrows a lot from Gibson designs and then introduces their spins. They sound of Collings instruments is very different. They tend to sound more open and refined than Gibsons, more scooped and airier. That’s a cool sound but it’s not an enhancement over Gibson, just different. For me, I had a Collings i35LC and a Gibson 355 at the same time. While I liked the i35LC a lot, it was a no brainer to keep the Gibson. The Gibson has a recognizable sound. It evokes memories and associations that go beyond pickup selection and construction materials. Again it’s subjective but this is what I mean when I say a guitar is more inspiring to me.
-
Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
A lot of the above is subjective and I can’t disagree with it. As for QA and playability, I don’t think any guitars out there match the quality of Collings fretwork and setup. The relic job is just poor taste.
I think what I’m responding to is the increasingly gimmicky marketing materials coming from Collings. Here’s an example. I still don’t understand what’s special about this guitar compared to the normal i35LC, other than the pixie dust of marketing hype. I actually had a long conversation with a Collings dealer at a reputable shop who opined that the LC vintage line was a scam relative to the existing 35 LC.
As for Collings vs Gibson, I do agree they’re very different sounds. Collings obviously borrows a lot from Gibson designs and then introduces their spins. They sound of Collings instruments is very different. They tend to sound more open and refined than Gibsons, more scooped and airier. That’s a cool sound but it’s not an enhancement over Gibson, just different. For me, I had a Collings i35LC and a Gibson 355 at the same time. While I liked the i35LC a lot, it was a no brainer to keep the Gibson. The Gibson has a recognizable sound. It evokes memories and associations that go beyond pickup selection and construction materials. Again it’s subjective but this is what I mean when I say a guitar is more inspiring to me.
They are not alone with gimmicky marketing. While I"m not a fan of the relicing thing must be someone is. Hell Fender turns out strats (and I'm sure others) out of the custom shop all beat up at a premium and they seem to sell. Whatever people like, not for me to decide. They only do what moves and they have to keep reinventing the wheel. A fad has great potential revenu.
Who hasn't borrowed from Gibsons designs? They really did it first. One thing Collings didn't borrow is their sound. It's totally different. I own 2 Collings (Eastside LC) and quite like them. I must say their craftsmanship is second to none in every department. I'm not at all a fan of the check job (or any checking for that matter) but if I put that guitar in my hands and it spoke to "me" like no other I'd buy it. I've sent many very pretty guitars down the road. The great looks only hold me over for so long. Another person might feel opposite. Whatever inspires you!
-
I really like that brown finish. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
-
I haven’t played them side by side, so I wouldn’t know. If it’s just a relic job, then there might not be a noticeable difference. BTW, kudos to PRS for sticking to their guns and not offering relic jobs. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
-
Martin? Originally Posted by skiboyny
Monteleone said that Gibson could not compete with Martin tonally, even though they copied Martin’s designs. The primary reason is that Gibson couldn’t reach the same standards of construction.
“The Gibson’s were just built looser, which gave them their own sound”.Last edited by Archie; 03-19-2023 at 03:27 PM.
-
I really don't want to turn up the heat on Vin's unfortunate situation, but as a woodworker for over 30 years I'd like to correct a few things in case someone searches here for B-120 like I did before I bought mine. Originally Posted by skiboyny
It's definitely not a matte finish. Matte is like no gloss. Borys are much glossier than 'satin'. Maybe a bit higher gloss than 'semi'.
In the trade we talk about sheen by percentage of light reflected. 5% is matte. 25% is a pretty soft 'satin' sheen. The top-coat we use in the shop is known as 'conversion varnish' and runs from 10 to 90% in mostly 10% increments. It is a combo of urethane and acrylic resins plus a hardener that's mixed in at spray time. It is the premier coating for cabinetry and furniture. We stopped using nitro about 30 years ago because it's not as resistant to solvents, humidity or heat. Nitro is far more easily damaged, as is the wood it's supposed to protect. It is (or was) cheaper than conversion varnish though.
I asked Roger about his finish a bit and I was glad to hear he didn't use nitro. I'm pretty sure he's using a conversion varnish, although I didn't ask that question directly. It is much thinner and bit less shiny than the typical 'gloppy poly'. It's also much better for the health of the sprayer as well as the environment. Much lower VOC. And in my view at least, a much better choice than nitro for finishing wood. Others, including some well known luthiers and players, will disagree.
As for the tail-piece? Google 'raw brass'. You'll find all sorts of plumbing fixtures and brass instruments that have a very similar look. The part that holds the string ends is a casting which is brazed to the 'other part'. I think what I'm seeing is mostly a result of the torch. There's pictures on Roger's site of tailpieces in various stages that show this quite well. I think he just stopped polishing them. Maybe he gives them a dose of salt and vinegar to speed up the tarnish a tad.
Bottom line? I don't see Roger's guitars as being 'relic-ed' in any way, certainly not in the way that's being discussed here. I'm pretty sure he started doing his thing before the current fad began. It's just a different aesthetic than Gibson for EG.
Some will prefer one or the other. I like both. But I most definitely do not like the 'relic-ed' finish examples posted here, and kinda hate the whole idea. So I really don't get it either.
My apologies for hi-jacking the thread further :-)
-
Vinny likes his guitars to look new and shiny. He is spending a few hundred dollars to get his guitar (that cost him 6 grand ) to look the way he wants it too. There is nothing wrong with that. It is his guitar. He should do with it as he pleases, so long as it makes him happy. Originally Posted by ccroft
A Borys guitar is more akin to a Gibson VOS than a "relic-ed" finish.
-
Totally agree with you Marc. Vinny should do whatever he wants. I like the gold plating he did on his tail. I put ebony tuners on mine. I hope my post isn't seen as any kind of comment on him. I was just trying to clarify what Roger's doing for any future searcher.
Sincerely,
chas.
-
Agreed. However, I was struck by the seeming disparaging reference to Bory’s ability to properly finish a guitar. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
AKA
-
i really hope he will share the name of the “real pro” who refinishes guitars for a couple of hundred dollars. I’ll send him all my guitars! Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
He is just getting a light overspray and a buffing. Originally Posted by skiboyny
Do all your guitars need to be refinished? You must be pretty tough on them?
-
I was wrong. My apologies to all concerned, especially the poor man trying to sell this thing. Originally Posted by customxke
-
Interesting, I don't know that much about finishes, so maybe matte is too strong or not specific enough. Basically it is not buffed to a gloss, but does have a bit of a sheen to it. It is not "reliced" in any way that I can see. Originally Posted by ccroft
Roger told me that the finish is "acrylic lacquer", his words, and is still somewhat subject to lacquer checking if you are not careful. So definitely not poly, and definitely not too thick. And it certainly doesn't inhibit the sound at all.
Regarding nitro, the the nitro that we get now is not the same that was used in the '50's, from what I have been told. Some amount of "plasticizer" is usually added, this helps greatly to prevent checking without overly thickening the finish. I have an archtop that is finished that way. There is some feeling that nitro is better for acoustic tone as it hardens and follows the grain. I know that on my old Martins you can actually see the undulations of the grain in the finish. Whether that's better for sound or not is open to question, or I should say argument, especially on these forums!
Regarding the OP, I once sold a very nice '69-'70 L5CES partly because I didn't like the checking, which went in stripes right across the top. It wasn't as bad as what I'm seeing on that Collings. I would never buy a pre-checked finish guitar. I figure I'll do the damage myself!
-
The finish looks like 1970’s corduroy pants or Ruffle potato chips. Originally Posted by AKA
I will never sell a piece of crap. When I get it perfect I will sell it.
Losing money is no concern for me. I can make more of that.
-
Addam Stark is going to lightly sand out the corduroy then overspray with several coats of nitro till it looks like glass. Borys uses Sherwin Williams water based acrylic lacquer. I found it to be soft and sticky.
I am old school and like glossy, glassy nitro.
It is only $400. Worth it to me. To each his own.
I only bought it because of his link to my friend Jimmy D.
I would have preferred a 17’ Trenier but at my age I don’t have the wait time. I had to sell my DAQ to help my daughter buy a house.
-
Great picture! Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
Addam Stark is going to lightly sand out the corduroy then overspray with several coats of nitro till it looks like glass. Borys uses Sherwin Williams water based acrylic lacquer. I found it to be soft and sticky.
I am old school and like glossy, glassy nitro.
It is only $400. Worth it to me. To each his own.
I only bought it because of his link to my friend Jimmy D.
I would have preferred a 17’ Trenier but at my age I don’t have the wait time. I had to sell my DAQ to help my daughter buy a house.
-
It sure is - thanks Vinny. Originally Posted by D'Aquisto Fan
I recall a wonderful D’Aquisto thread from a few years back - since deleted perhaps - with all sorts of pictures, insights and rich remembrances of builds and guitars. Many from Vinny if I remember correctly…
Notwithstanding my great love of threads that seek to critique the finishing styles of builders large and small, I wouldn’t say no to another thread that celebrated and detailed personal experiences of working with or observing builders central to American archtop culture
-
$400 is a great price. Lots of work to strip the guitar sand spray buff put it back together. That guy is working cheap. Hope it comes out great. It's a great guitar for the people that get it. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
-
It won’t be stripped. Just lightly sanded then over sprayed till smooth. Addam said probably 4-5 coats. My 2nd hope is a thicker coat of lacquer will deaden its acoustic tone a bit. I like a more Gibson like electric archtop tone. I am not used to guitars this small but it may be the right size as I get older.
Addam Stark is the best in the business but he is not quick and his communication is somewhat Borys like.
Marco (SS) gave me very sound advice. Don’t sell it till Roger retires.
-
What I meant by stripped is removing tuners, pickup, tailpiece etc. As I understand it Acrylic lacquer can be sanded and rubbed to high gloss. More steps more coats. If you don't care about money what does it matter when you sell? The guitar is as new and that's how he makes them. If the sound is deadened by the refinish, although it might appeal to you, it would probably limit your market further. I would disagree with Marcos advice. Rogers hope is that the "day you get the guitar is the best it will ever look". It's a players guitar. It is what it is. You won't be happy with it. My advice would be Move on. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
-
Understood.
Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
The finish looks like 1970’s corduroy pants or Ruffle potato chips.
I will never sell a piece of crap. When I get it perfect I will sell it.
Losing money is no concern for me. I can make more of that.
-
I never understood the term “It’s a player’s guitar”
ALL guitars are player’s guitars.
Well I guess not if it has a broken headstock.
-
Players guitar is a guitar that gets played a lot with little regard for aesthetics or monetary value. A tool. Broken headstock guitars fit nicely in to that definition. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
I never understood the term “It’s a player’s guitar”
ALL guitars are player’s guitars.
Well I guess not if it has a broken headstock.
Reply With Quote
mid-ranginess?
Today, 05:42 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos