Vintage versus New

[TexMexMike]

I don't know about you guys. But someone paying huge bucks for a 60 plus year old guitar, that has more wear on it than a 90 year old Granny, used to elude me. Until I played one a few years back!

Growing up we had a 1880's Martin in the house. Sure, it was a nice guitar, but gut strung. Plays well to this day, and a great tribute to how well Martin's are made. But never would have inspired me to spend more for it than on terrific custom available today. Then came my first experience playing a 1940's Gibson Jumbo. Can we say "steel string?" :D

Warped neck and all. That guitar had tone that I have never heard from a modern build. Amazing depth and warmth in each note. The sound still haunts me to this day.

I have had the privilage to play a few Vintage pieces since. Something about the aged wood creates a sound, INMYHOP, that is next to impossible to build into a new guitar. If I could instantly age my guitars by 50 plus years, I would in a heart beat!

Still, I believe that a few models of vintage guitars have been priced well beyond their true value, as a player, by collectors. Especially those wonderful pre-war Martins!!! Deals are to be made in the Gibson and off-shoot models. Still some-what affordable.

Have you played any vintage guitars? What are your thoughts? How do they compair to todays modern guitars? Is spending as much, 2x's, 3x's or 10x's worth purchasing a vintage guitar over a modern guitar?

In many cases, I believe so! :bannana_g

[Justpickin]

I do know for a fact, that bourbon that has been well aged always tastes the best, so I can assume the same thing applies to guitars. That is " in my honest opinion"...... :beers:

I haven't played many vintage guitars myself where I could add anything of value. But then, that is probably true of most of my posts... :smoke:

[TexMexMike]

I do know for a fact, that bourbon that has been well aged always tastes the best, so I can assume the same thing applies to guitars. That is " in my honest opinion"...... :beers:

I haven't played many vintage guitars myself where I could add anything of value. But then, that is probably true of most of my posts... :smoke:


I think that your analogy plays well! And, I can only speak for myself. But when Justpickin talks, I listen!!! :beany:

[nothin but the blues]

I've never played a Vintage acoustic :bunny:

[TexMexMike]

I've never played a Vintage acoustic :bunny:


Ok...Just send me your "pristine 30's L-00." I'll be happy to pay you what I can get one for new today!!!! :beany:

[X-Sample]

I haven't gotten the chance to play a vintage acoustic before, but i am always on the look. I actually haven't gotten to play a lot of vintage guitars, but an electric I remember was a 71' strat that played beautifully.

[Jossy]

when Justpickin talks, I listen!!! :beany:


Hear, hear! :lol:

Saludos.

[nothin but the blues]

I think that your analogy plays well! And, I can only speak for myself. But when Justpickin talks, I listen!!! :beany:
and when I talk, the fear is so great you fill your bedpan :nahnah:

[shrinkme]

Were there vintage guitars finished with nitrocellulose? And when is a guitar considered vintage? Is my almost 30 year old Guild "vintage"? What are people talking about when they say that the wood has "opened up"? Can I write a sentence without a question mark?
:coffee:

[Charley Wild]

The only vintage acoustics I've played are Martin D28's. And one D45! I played several back in the 70's when I was collecting and trading acoustic Bluegrass instruments of all types. They were quirky. There was no blanket description to cover all of them. I played at least twenty I'm sure. Some tended to be real middy to the point of being almost subdued. I owned at the time three of my own. A 57,a 58 and a 61. The 57 was worth the most, the 61 sounded the best. As far as "sound" goes I'm not sure I would have traded my 61 for any of the so called "vintage" 28's I played. Even for the D45. Money wise, yes, of course! Two or three of the old ones sounded as good as my 61 but not any better. It had both great tone and great volume. IMHO you need both to call an acoustic great. The tone AND sustain rides on the volume. The same goes for Gibson mandolins. Usually the less volume you had the less tone you had. While all vintage acoustics may have karma they don't all sound great! Enough!

[TexMexMike]

Were there vintage guitars finished with nitrocellulose? And when is a guitar considered vintage? Is my almost 30 year old Guild "vintage"? What are people talking about when they say that the wood has "opened up"? Can I write a sentence without a question mark?
:coffee:

Most older guitars did use Nitro. And typically a guitar is considered vintage when it was made prior to 1970. Now "opening up" is very subjective.

Many people feel that their guitars "open up" after being played a length of time when purchased new. This could involve many factors. The top may begin to vibrate better after the braces loossen a bit, etc. Years later thinning of the Nitro and changing properties of the glue (especially hide glue) may contribute and perhaps the wood "seasons" a bit. (in lack of a better term) People say that they noticed things such as increased volume and more complexity in the tone. I have noticed that my J-45, to my ears, sounds much better now than when I purchased it new last year.

[TexMexMike]

I agree with you Charlie. Not all old guitars sound good. But many do!

[shrinkme]

Thanks TexMexMike!
My D25m was made in 1976, so I missed vintage by some years. It has a hard, shiney finish that is rubbed and cloudy on the place where my forearm rests. I just noticed some small checks along the binding in the same area, and some flaking where the thin end of the neck heel approaches the back edge of the guitar. It is still damn loud and rich in sound. It sounded really good when I bought it 29 years ago at Sam Ash (Its competition was a gorgeous Gibson that was about a hundred more and another guild that was obviously used, with a body that was much thinner than the dreadnaught guild and gibson and much rounder). I'm wondering if they were finishing guitars with polyurethane in the seventies. I opened it up just now and listened to it--glorious! Wish I could play better.:)

[TexMexMike]

I have no idea when many manufacturer's started to use poly. I am sure that by the 70's many did. Taylor has always used poly. Martin and Gibson still use nitro.

The nice thing about poly is that it holds up better over time. Nitro thins over the years and is much more suseptable to checking. But then there are those who feel that the thinning nitro is one of the properties that allow an older guitar to have better sound.

I am sure that some of the boards experts will chime in with their thoughts on the subject.

[Charley Wild]

I totally agree, Mike. In no way was I trying to infer that all vintage acoustics don't sound good. Also I should have mentioned that you can have a lot of volume with just so-so tone. I stand by my opinion that a great guitar should have both. But I have played a couple of acoustics in my time, not necessarily vintage, that had volume to spare but didn't resonate much tone at all. Just sort of loud and dead.
Just as an aside, it interests me that no one who made great acoustic music in the past to my knowledge used "vintage' instruments. There,of course, wouldn't have been any concept of vintage back then as we know it today. I would assume that they played the best instrument they could afford and would have been very proud of owning a new top line guitar. i.e. Gibson, Martin, etc. I wonder if one's craving for a vintage instrument has all that much to do with just tone? I think karma has a lot to do with it. And that's cool. :)