Are Old Guitars REALLY Better?

[hedzeppelin]

To me, old is old. I'm not so sure that so-called "vintage" guitars are really
all that much better than the newer ones.

However, I've never played a 1958-60 Les Paul, so I'm not really qualified to
speak on the subject. I did, however, own a '79 Les Paul Custom, and it sounded fine, but not really worth a "vintage" price.

So, I pose the question:

"Are vintage guitars REALLY better?"
Or is it just hype? A myth? A vehicle to sell re-issues?

After all, the vintage craze DID create a whole new market for the guitar
industry. And, even the reissues cost big bucks.

Can someone please elaborate on this....those in the know.

[thefishingline]

I think so

[hedzeppelin]

Ok, but in what way? Tone? Playability?

[idlewild south]

52-60,yes!old wood,hide glue,braz.,no condom,etc.$400,000 better?no way except for a few,IMHO.

[FrankiePRS]

I think that generally, old wood does sound better... especially if it has been played a lot. There have been actual studies done on what happens at a molecular level to wood after years of vibration, and I believe that wood continues to age/cure/dry out even under the finish, further contributing to a tonal change. The starting point was different on many older guitars as well, i.e. Brazzy boards & old-growth mahogany. Pickups age as well, although not as consistently as wood... many get nice and creamy - others just get weak and/or fail. Are there vintage dogs? Oh, hell yes. But I think I'm okay with the general statement that old guitars are better.

[hedzeppelin]

Interesting.
I would think that since we know more about guitars and sound, and that
we have more advanced technology, that guitars would be better these days.

[Nugget]

Something of interest is that nitro finishes draw moisture out of the wood whereas poly finishes draw moisture in. Old wood versus new wood? It's true that old wood sounds better but only on those nitro finishes. A new nitro finish will not have had chance to dry out the wood.
There have always been friday night guitars too. ie the ones that were rushed to completion at the end of the working week.

[hedzeppelin]

I guess the difference in sound is more for the musician's own personal enjoyment. I don't think that the general public would notice the difference.

The wood is important, granted, but can't the difference in tone be compensated via electronics? Pickups and such?

[hedzeppelin]

And, I'm with FrankiePRS on the prices. Really, are they hundreds of thousands dollars better?

[LoKi]

A great guitar is a great guitar, no matter how old it is. I love the woody tone of a well played, well aged guitar, but again, pickups have as much to do with that as the wood itself.

Put EMG's in an old guitar and its going to sound the same as a new one with the same pickups... but a nice low output pickup will express the actual tone of the guitar better, in my opinion.

Personally, I think that there have been some amazing advances in technology and in build quality... and that if you buy a 2007 Les Paul Standard, it is still as beautiful an instrument as a 70's, 60's, 50's ect.

The tone comes from the hands, the sound comes from the guitar and the volume from the amp. The rest is all in your head.

[Mike60]

...yes...

[FrankiePRS]

Originally Posted by hedzeppelin

Interesting.
I would think that since we know more about guitars and sound, and that
we have more advanced technology, that guitars would be better these days.

Except... we don't even have access to old-growth mahogany or nicely-aged Brazilian rosewood any more in large quantity.

And I completely disagree with the notion that electronics can completely compensate for wood. It all starts with the wood, on any stringed instrument. If it didn't, Stradivarius violins wouldn't be the instrument by which all other violins are measured.

I don't think a marginal player can be significantly better because of old wood or a good set of PAFs, but I do think that a great player can soar a bit higher with the right mojo in his hands.

[idlewild south]

I grew up in Nashville and got to play a lot of the old ones at Gruhns and in the studios.The ones that sounded the best to me were light,rang out acoustically;you could tap the headstock and feel the vibes at the end pin for seconds.Serendipity?Perhaps.Remember also that we cant use that carcinogenic nitro anymore.The product today is quite different.I play a 2002 R7 and it does what I want at $2000 rather than $150-400k.FWIW.

[thefishingline]

I'm not talking about $220k axes...I would rather have a 71' GT over any of the new Historic or VOS or any other crap name Gibson wants to put on these copycats guitars...the wood is NOT the same...even my 76 hummingbird can’t be duplicated anymore because the wood in that guitar was aged for 25 years naturally.

The wood today is kiln aged to try to do in a year or so what it used to take 25 years to do. No way can that be the same. You're better off IMHO with a beat up 52 converted to a 56 or 57’ and whether you use the original PUP’s or not is not as important as the wood…. You’re better off this way than with the new guitars as I stated earlier

[hedzeppelin]

Quoting FrankiePRS:
"It all starts with the wood, on any stringed instrument. If it didn't, Stradivarius violins wouldn't be the instrument by which all other violins are measured. "

I'm talking about electrics, specifically, I should've qualified that. For acoustics, I totally agree that the wood is important. But, for electrics,
while the pickups will not totally compensate, I would think that they would
do a pretty good job of compensating.

For those of you that do think that old guitars are better, let me as you this:
What is the maximum amount you'd pay for one? Such as a 1959 LP Standard in good condition?
And, after you acquired it, would you play it, or enshrine it? Would you even take it out of the house?

[FrankiePRS]

I (repectfully) completely reject the idea that wood isn't so important in electric guitars. If it wasn't, we'd all be playing Lucite bodies, or Tokai (aluminum) Talbos. Why is an Ash Tele better than one made of Balsa wood?

I'm not sure I understand why price is entering the conversation so much. Would I pay 100k or more for a guitar? Yes, in a heartbeat. If that was a relatively insignificant portion of my assets, and I found a true grail.

But that's not the question here, is it? The question is, "Are Old Guitars REALLY Better?" I'm sure (*********) Will is better versed on the pre-EPA wire that old pickups are wound with, and the way a 'good' old pickup ages, but those factors do exist, along with vintage oil-filled capacitors and old braided wiring.

Regarding old wood - It can still be had for reasonable prices, and it does sound different... okay, maybe not "sound" so much... but it reacts differently for the player, it sings... it just feels... different. My 1960 Gibson Junior crushes the re-issues. I don't want that to be true, but to me it is.

As to the question of whether I'd play an expensive vintage instrument out, I do it every weekend. My main guitars are 1986 PRS pre-standards, valued at 7-10k each, and rising. I also play my '86 PRS flametop out on a regular basis, and it's worth well over 12-14k and climbing fast. My '60 Junior sees action, as does my '68 Goldtop. I consider all those guitars "old" (old-growth mahogany, Brazzy boards, over 20 years old, etc). MHO, YMMV, etc etc

[Nugget]

A violin maker told me that the criteria for a good violin is the volume of sound it produces not the tone. A violinist standing at the front of a full orchestra needs to be heard over the orchestra. He also said that most of the tone of a violin is produced by the player.

As a pickup maker I can tell you that it's a fact: good pickups can save a shit guitar.

I hear a lot of talk about us not being able to get unpolluted wood anymore. This kills me. When Fender and Gibson were using those alleged good, pure, unpolluted woods we'd had the longest era of World pollution ever. Just think, everyone had a wood or coal fire, factories belched out smoke night and day and that's before you consider the pollutions resulting from a civil war and a first world war etc....

There are guys who can make new guitars sound and feel like old guitars. My colleague Dave Dearnaley is one of them. I have one of his creations.
Saying that, if a sweet old '59 LP came my way, I'd love to have it and I'd take it to gigs.

[ptate]

They definitely feel better..........Placebo effect, more mojo an all........

IMHO.......Tone wise.......Put through an amp, via fuzz, wah, reverb and noise gates etc. they all sound the same.....Pups can make some difference though to clarity.

[hedzeppelin]

Nice to hear different opinions. We all have different ideas of what sounds good and what doesn't, I guess.

[FLICKOFLASH]

You cannot beat Old growth wood that has aged. Also it not just the wood the plastics & inlays are made of a old lost formulas as well & are hard to replicate.

[idlewild south]

Flick,I appreciate your appreciation of original materials,but if you can hear the pickguard you are a better man than me.

[FLICKOFLASH]

Originally Posted by idlewild south

Flick,I appreciate your appreciation of original materials,but if you can hear the pickguard you are a better man than me.

Post is : Are Old Guitars REALLY Better? not sound

[idlewild south]

Originally Posted by FLICKOFLASH

Post is : Are Old Guitars REALLY Better? not sound

?

[58burst]

The fact is they are definitely DIFFERENT; whether that means they're better is up to you. But you've got to play some examples for yourself to see for yourself what's going on.

Gibsons and fenders from the 50's and early 60's across the board have a responsiveness that you will NOT find in guitars made later. It must be the wood, not the aging; I played 50's LP's & 335's in the late 60's when they were only 10 years old, and they played like they do now. On the other hand most 70's LP's are still dogs after 30 years-

It's clearly the wood, and maybe glues and other design techniques.

This difference translates maybe 70% to feel and responsiveness, and 30% to sound that a listener will hear through an amp & effects, etc. So the difference might be a lot more apparent to the player than to an audience.

The money issue is a WHOLE other can of worms...

[hedzeppelin]

Originally Posted by FLICKOFLASH

Post is : Are Old Guitars REALLY Better? not sound

Ok, then I should qualify the post:

Are they better in terms of sound and playability?

The reason that I posted this thread to begin with, is the exhorbitant prices placed on older instruments. I just don't see where they're worth that kind
of money. So my question is, "Are the prices of these vintage instruments really worth the money?"

I figure that there must be something that justifies the price, but I can't
seem to rationalize it.

[58burst]

Supply and demand, pure and simple.
As long as there are people willing to pay that kind of money, then they're "worth it", in a free market.

[ptate]

Originally Posted by 58burst

On the other hand most 70's LP's are still dogs after 30 years-

ARRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH..........

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............... .Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo................ ..Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.............
Not, not, not Norlin haters in this forum, pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssseeeeeeee....!!!!!!!!

[58burst]

Sorry, don't mean to offend-

I started playing in the 60's, back when there were no "vintage" guitars, just used ones, and they generally cost LESS than new ones... I remember how inferior the quality of new gibsons & fenders got as time passed to me & my buddies, especially after around 70 or so, compared to what we were used to in the older ones. The new ones were heavier, deader, less sustain, just less livlieness. They didn't vibrate against your body when you played them like the older ones did, in general.

I expect there might be some nice-playing ones out there, but I never happened to stumble onto one, I guess-

Not a "hater" at all, just my limited experience.

(But I must admit I haven't played a guitar made after about 65 that I thought was any good, by comparison to the 50's/early 60's instruments... )

[58burst]

As far as current prices, I think a lot of people are speculating as investments.

If you bought a 59 burst for 150k three years ago and sold it now for 300k, you'd have been paid 150k for the pleasure of getting to play it for three years-
Not to bad an arrangement, maybe...

[TomGuitar]

Originally Posted by hedzeppelin

Ok, then I should qualify the post:

Are they better in terms of sound and playability?

The reason that I posted this thread to begin with, is the exhorbitant prices placed on older instruments. I just don't see where they're worth that kind
of money. So my question is, "Are the prices of these vintage instruments really worth the money?"

I figure that there must be something that justifies the price, but I can't
seem to rationalize it.

People who own olds ones will always believe they are better. I am one of them (no bursts though) so you have to take what I say through that filter. They sound better, play better, and feel better. End of story for me. YMMV.

Rationalizing the price is totally a function of what you can or are willing to afford and the risk you are willing to take on. If your net worth is $10m why wouldn't you own a burst? It would only represent 5% of your assets. If your net worth is $1m, why wouldn't you own a Junior, or a Special or a 59 dot neck, or all three. Again, maybe 5% of your assets for all three. If your net worth is $100-200k, it gets a little tougher. Unless you are willing to take some risk.

I've been both places in my life. Times when the only hard asset I had was my instruments and times when they represented less than 5% of my total assets. I'm a lot more comfortable in the latter, but the essential question is "How do you want to live and what are the risks you are willing to take?"